Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

ToC
ToC.......................................................................................1

ToC..........................................................................................................................................................................1
AT – ASPEC.......................................................................22

AT – ASPEC.........................................................................................................................................................22
AT – Topicality: “USFG”...................................................24

AT – Topicality: “USFG”....................................................................................................................................24
AT – Topicality: “Substantial”............................................25

AT – Topicality: “Substantial”............................................................................................................................25
AT – Topicality: Alternative Energy Incentives.................27

AT – Topicality: Alternative Energy Incentives................................................................................................27
AT – Topicality: Alternative Energy Incentives.................28

AT – Topicality: Alternative Energy Incentives................................................................................................28
AT – Topicality: Alternative Energy Incentives.................29

AT – Topicality: Alternative Energy Incentives................................................................................................29
AT – Topicality: Alternative Energy Incentives.................30

AT – Topicality: Alternative Energy Incentives................................................................................................30
Auctioning Permits Good...................................................31

Auctioning Permits Good....................................................................................................................................31
Auctioning Permits Good...................................................32

Auctioning Permits Good....................................................................................................................................32
AT – Global Warming Slow...............................................33

AT – Global Warming Slow................................................................................................................................33
Global Warming Impacts – Penguins/Krill.........................35

Global Warming Impacts – Penguins/Krill.......................................................................................................35
Solvency – Environmental Leadership...............................36

Solvency – Environmental Leadership..............................................................................................................36
Solvency – Environmental Leadership...............................37

Solvency – Environmental Leadership..............................................................................................................37
Solvency – Environmental Leadership <Modeling>..........38

Solvency – Environmental Leadership <Modeling>.........................................................................................38
Solvency – Environmental Leadership <Modeling>..........39

Solvency – Environmental Leadership <Modeling>.........................................................................................39
Env. Leadership Impact – Whaling Scenario 1/3...............40 1

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will Env. Leadership Impact – Whaling Scenario 1/3..............................................................................................40
Env. Leadership Impact – Whaling Scenario 2/3...............41

Env. Leadership Impact – Whaling Scenario 2/3..............................................................................................41
Whaling Impact Module A 3/3 – Global Warming.............42

Whaling Impact Module A 3/3 – Global Warming...........................................................................................42
Whaling Impact Module B 3/3 – Mercury Poisoning........43

Whaling Impact Module B 3/3 – Mercury Poisoning.......................................................................................43
Whaling High – Japan........................................................45

Whaling High – Japan.........................................................................................................................................45
Whaling High – Japan........................................................46

Whaling High – Japan.........................................................................................................................................46
Whaling High – Norway....................................................47

Whaling High – Norway......................................................................................................................................47
Soft Power Low..................................................................48

Soft Power Low....................................................................................................................................................48
Solvency – Soft Power Cards.............................................49

Solvency – Soft Power Cards..............................................................................................................................49
Solvency – Soft Power Cards.............................................50

Solvency – Soft Power Cards..............................................................................................................................50
Soft Power Good – Econ....................................................51

Soft Power Good – Econ......................................................................................................................................51
Soft Power Good – US-Sino Relations..............................52

Soft Power Good – US-Sino Relations...............................................................................................................52
Soft Power Good – US-Sino Relations <Warming>..........53

Soft Power Good – US-Sino Relations <Warming>..........................................................................................53
Soft Power Good – US-Sino Relations <Proliferation>.....54

Soft Power Good – US-Sino Relations <Proliferation>....................................................................................54
Soft Power Good – US-Sino Relations <Proliferation>.....55

Soft Power Good – US-Sino Relations <Proliferation>....................................................................................55
Soft Power Good – Terrorism.............................................56

Soft Power Good – Terrorism.............................................................................................................................56
Competitiveness Impacts – US Econ.................................57

Competitiveness Impacts – US Econ..................................................................................................................57
Competitiveness Impacts – US Econ.................................58 2

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will Competitiveness Impacts – US Econ..................................................................................................................58
Competitiveness Impacts – US Econ.................................59

Competitiveness Impacts – US Econ..................................................................................................................59
Competitiveness Good – US Econ.....................................60

Competitiveness Good – US Econ......................................................................................................................60
Competitiveness Good – US Econ.....................................61

Competitiveness Good – US Econ......................................................................................................................61
Competitiveness Good – International trade/conflict.........62

Competitiveness Good – International trade/conflict.......................................................................................62
Competitiveness Good – Hege...........................................63

Competitiveness Good – Hege.............................................................................................................................63
Competitiveness Good – Terrorism....................................64

Competitiveness Good – Terrorism....................................................................................................................64
Free Trade Good – NW......................................................65

Free Trade Good – NW........................................................................................................................................65
Innovation Key to Economy...............................................66

Innovation Key to Economy................................................................................................................................66
Cap–and–trade Good – Econ..............................................67

Cap–and–trade Good – Econ..............................................................................................................................67
Cap–and–trade Good – Econ..............................................68

Cap–and–trade Good – Econ..............................................................................................................................68
Cap–and–Trade Bad/Taxes Good.......................................69

Cap–and–Trade Bad/Taxes Good.......................................................................................................................69
Cap–and–Trade Bad/Taxes Good.......................................70

Cap–and–Trade Bad/Taxes Good.......................................................................................................................70
Cap–and–Trade Bad – Econ...............................................70

Cap–and–Trade Bad – Econ...............................................................................................................................70
Cap–and–Trade Bad...........................................................72

Cap–and–Trade Bad............................................................................................................................................72
Cap–and–Trade Key to Nuclear Power..............................73

Cap–and–Trade Key to Nuclear Power.............................................................................................................73
Cap–and–trade better than European model.......................74

Cap–and–trade better than European model....................................................................................................74
...........................................................................................74 3

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will ...............................................................................................................................................................................74
Cap–and–trade – Solvency.................................................75

Cap–and–trade – Solvency..................................................................................................................................75
Cap–and–trade – Solvency.................................................76

Cap–and–trade – Solvency..................................................................................................................................76
Cap–and–trade – Solvency.................................................77

Cap–and–trade – Solvency..................................................................................................................................77
Air Pollution Impact – Food...............................................79

Air Pollution Impact – Food...............................................................................................................................79
Air Pollution Impact – Food...............................................80

Air Pollution Impact – Food...............................................................................................................................80
Air Pollution Impact – Food...............................................81

Air Pollution Impact – Food...............................................................................................................................81
Air Pollution Impact – Food...............................................82

Air Pollution Impact – Food...............................................................................................................................82
Air Pollution Impact – Food...............................................83

Air Pollution Impact – Food...............................................................................................................................83
Air Pollution Impact – Food...............................................84

Air Pollution Impact – Food...............................................................................................................................84
AT – States CP....................................................................85

AT – States CP......................................................................................................................................................85
AT – Command/Control CP...............................................86

AT – Command/Control CP................................................................................................................................86
AT – Politics DA.................................................................87

AT – Politics DA...................................................................................................................................................87
AT – Biz Con DA...............................................................88

AT – Biz Con DA..................................................................................................................................................88
AT – Biz Con DA...............................................................89

AT – Biz Con DA..................................................................................................................................................89
AT – Biz Con DA...............................................................90

AT – Biz Con DA..................................................................................................................................................90
AT – EU Relations DA.......................................................91

AT – EU Relations DA.........................................................................................................................................91
AT – EU Relations DA.......................................................92 4

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will AT – EU Relations DA.........................................................................................................................................92
AT – EU Relations DA.......................................................92

AT – EU Relations DA.........................................................................................................................................92
AT – Spending DA.............................................................94

AT – Spending DA................................................................................................................................................94
AT – Spending DA.............................................................95

AT – Spending DA................................................................................................................................................95
AT – Natural Gas DA (High Prices Good).........................96

AT – Natural Gas DA (High Prices Good).........................................................................................................96
AT – Natural Gas DA (High Prices Good).........................97

AT – Natural Gas DA (High Prices Good).........................................................................................................97
AT – Natural Gas DA (Low Prices Good)..........................98

AT – Natural Gas DA (Low Prices Good)..........................................................................................................98
AT – US Not Biggest Polluter............................................99

AT – US Not Biggest Polluter..............................................................................................................................99
US = Model......................................................................100

US = Model.........................................................................................................................................................100
AT – China won’t follow US regulation...........................101

AT – China won’t follow US regulation...........................................................................................................101
`

5

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will OBSERVATION 1: GLOBAL WARMING NOT ENOUGH IS BEING DONE TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING NOW Bill McKibben; 9/29/2007; Page A19; The Race Against Warming; Washington Post; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801400.html?sub=AR] It's the oldest and most cliched of metaphors, but when it comes to global warming, it's the only one that really works: We're in a desperate race. Politics is chasing reality, and the gap between them isn't closing nearly fast enough. Consider the news from the real world, the one where change is measured with satellites and thermometers, not focus groups: Arctic ice is melting on an unbelievable scale -- an area the size of Britain disappeared each week in late summer as the record for minimum ice cover, set in 2005, was shattered by more than 400,000 square miles, meaning about a 27 percent loss. Forget the Petraeus report -- what historians will note about September 2007 is that the Northwest Passage was free of ice for the first time since humans started keeping track.

GLOBAL WARMING WILL BE SOLVED BY EMISSIONS TRADING – SPECIFIC ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION SOLVES – EMPIRICALLY PROVEN [A. Denny Ellerman; Senior lecturer, Massachusetts institute of Technology, Economics, Finance & Accounting; 2005; US
experience with emissions trading: lessons for CO2 emissions trading; page 81; Cambridge University Press, New York; Edited by Bernd Hansjurgens]

CURRENT TRENDS OF CLIMATE CHANGE RISK EXTINCTION FOR MORE THAN 1 MILLION SPECIES [John Roach for National Geographic News; 7/12/2004; By 2050 Warming to Doom Million Species, Study Says; National
Geographic; http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0107_040107_extinction.html] The predicted range of climate change by 2050 will place 15 to 35 percent of the 1,103 species studied at risk of extinction. The numbers are expected to hold up when extrapolated globally, potentially dooming more than a million species. "These are first-pass estimates, but they put the problem in the right ballpark … I expect more detailed studies to refine these numbers and to add data for additional regions, but not to change the general import of these findings," said Hannah. Writing in an accompanying commentary to the study in Nature, J. Alan Pounds of the Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve in Costa Rica, and Robert Puschendorf, a biologist at the University of Costa Rica, say these estimates "might be optimistic." As global warming interacts with other factors such as habitat-destruction, invasive species, and the build up of carbon dioxide in the landscape, the risk of extinction increases even further, they say.

6

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will BIODIVERSITY IS KEY TO HUMAN SURVIVAL New Scientist; 4/12/2008; New Scientist Magazine; issue 2653; Biodiversity linked to human health;
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/endangered-species/mg19826533.200-biodiversity-linked-to-human-health.html] To protect the health of humans, save other species. That's the message from Eric Chivian and Aaron Bernstein from Harvard Medical School in Boston, who say that human health depends crucially on biodiversity. While plenty of investigations have focused on the sociological and economic impact of species dying out, few have considered the impact on human health. Chivian and Bernstein hope to change this by drawing together the ideas of leading thinkers on the subject in Sustaining Life: How human health depends on biodiversity, to be published by Oxford University Press in May.

OUR IMPACTS OUTWEIGH – SHORT-TERM EFFECTS OF A CAP-AND-TRADE ARE MINISCULE, AND THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING ARE FAR WORSE. Environmental Protection, 4/30/08, “Study: Cap-and-Trade Won't Slow Economy”, http://www.eponline.com/articles/61412/
A new study released by Environmental Defense Fund finds a clear consensus among leading economic models that a capand-trade policy to cut global warming pollution is consistent with long-term economic growth. The anticipated cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions on the U.S. economy is small, even difficult to measure against projected economic growth, the study finds. "We can afford an ambitious climate policy for just pennies on the dollar. It's a small investment that will pay off in cleaner air, new jobs, and a safer world," said Nathaniel Keohane, Ph.D., director of economic policy and analysis at Environmental Defense Fund, and a former associate professor of economics at the Yale School of Management. "Not acting now just means paying a heavier price later as we try to manage the consequences of unchecked climate change." What Will it Cost to Protect Ourselves From Global Warming? is the first comprehensive analysis of the leading economic modeling of capand-trade legislation to combat climate change. Key findings of the analysis include: • The overall cost of capping greenhouse gases for the average American family will amount to less than 1 percent of household budgets over the next two decades. • The total number of jobs affected by climate policy in the manufacturing sector over 20 years is substantially below the number of jobs created and destroyed in the sector every three months. • Household electricity and natural gas bills rise by only a few dollars a month over the next few decades – well within the rise and fall homeowners already experience. The U.S. economy has grown nearly 3 percent per year on average in the post-war period, and that growth is projected to continue. If the U.S. capped its greenhouse gas emissions, the projected median impact of that cap on growth would be three one-hundredths of 1 percent (0.03 percent), the analysis finds. "Put another way, our gross domestic product is projected to reach $26 trillion in January 2030. If we capped greenhouse gases, according to these studies, the economy would hit that same mark by April," Keohane said. The study highlights the fact that none of the models takes into account the high costs of inaction. Each looks only at one side of the ledger: the costs of reducing emissions, rather than the benefits of avoiding the consequences of unchecked climate change. "It's important to keep in mind that these forecasting models compare climate policy to a business-as-usual case that doesn't take the costs of climate change into account," said Keohane. "If we fail to take action on global warming, the future will be anything but 'business as usual.' The most expensive policy by far is to do nothing at all." According to a recent study by the University of Maryland, runaway global warming will impact every economic sector and every region of the country, straining public budgets and impacting jobs and competitiveness. The EDF study focuses on cap-and-trade programs that would cut U.S. emissions by 60 percent or more below current levels by the year 2050 – including the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191) currently before the Senate. The analyses surveyed were performed by five of the most highly respected economic modeling groups in government and academia, at the Energy Information Agency, Research Triangle Institute, Harvard, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratories.

7

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will GLOBAL WARMING CAUSES EXTINCTION Stop global warming; http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_learnmore.asp; 2008; Stop Global Warming
The results are in and the reality of global warming is beyond dispute or debate. It’s not just an environmental issue. It affects our public health and national security. It’s an urgent matter of survival for everyone on the planet — the most urgent threat facing humanity today. It’s going to take action from you and all of us working together.

GLOBAL WARMING DECREASES FOOD AVAILABILITY Dr. Christopher Field, Professor of global ecology at Stanford, researcher at the Carnegie Institute, March 16, 2007;
http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/field-lobell/default.html] Over a span of two decades, warming temperatures have caused annual losses of roughly $5 billion for major food crops, according to a new study by researchers at the Carnegie Institution and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. From 19812002, warming reduced the combined production of wheat, corn, and barley—cereal grains that form the foundation of much of the world’s diet—by 40 million metric tons per year. The study, which was published March 16 in thse online journal Environmental Research Letters, demonstrates that this decline is due to human-caused increases in global temperatures.

A FALL IN FOOD PRODUCTION CAUSES WW3 William H. Calvin, University of Washington, A Brain for All Season, 2002 http://WilliamCalvin.com/BrainForAllSeasons/
NAcoast.htm Caporal) The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting crop yields will cause some powerful countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands – if only because their armies, unpaid and lacking food, will go marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized countries will attempt to use their armies, before they fall apart entirely, to take over countries with significant remaining resources, driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors for the remaining food. This will be a worldwide problem – and could easily lead to a Third World War – but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze.

8

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will OBSERVATION 2: AIR QUALITY CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS ARE ON THE RISE – ELECTRICITY SECTOR IS THE MAIN EMITTER. MongaBay 5-21-08 <http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0521-energy.html>
U.S. carbon dioxide emissions rose 1.6 percent in 2007 to a new record reported the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA). Total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels reached 5,984 million metric tons, up from 5,888 million metric tons in 2006. EIA data showed an increase in emissions from natural gas and coal in 2007, but a drop in emissions from the use of oil. U.S. CO2 emissions are now 19.4 percent above 1990 levels. Electricity generation continues to be the largest source of emissions in terms of primary energy consumption, followed by transportation, and industrial, residential, and commercial use. Transportation emissions have grown at about the same rate as electric power emissions since 1990, while direct-use emissions in the residential, commercial and industrial sectors have remained relatively flat since 1990. In a hopeful sign, energy CO2 intensity (carbon dioxide emissions per unit of economic output) fell by about 0.5 percent as the economy expanded by 2.2 percent but emissions grew only 1.6 percent. Between 1990 and 2006, total greenhouse gas emissions per unit of GDP declined by 27.7 percent. Despite the gains in carbon intensity, power generation became less efficient in 2007 due to a decline in the proportion of energy generated from hydroelectric dams. Drier-than-normal conditions meant that power companies had to make up the shortfall by burning more natural gas and goal. Overall emissions from the power sector rose 3 percent, while electricity generation rose 2.5 percent.

REDUCING EMISSIONS WOULD DECREASE AIR POLLUTION. Tellus Institute and Stockholm Environment Institute – Boston Center, July 2001, “The American Way to the
Kyoto Protocol: An Economic Analysis to Reduce Carbon Pollution ,“ http://assets.panda.org/downloads/usreport.doc A variety of air pollutants, associated with the use of fossil fuels, can cause or exacerbate health problems and damage the environment. Reducing use of fossil fuels would reap important local health benefits by lowering the amount of air pollutants inhaled. Recent scientific findings confirm that pollutants such as fine particulates, carbon monoxide, ozone (formed by a mix of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides in presence of sunlight) can lead to health damages, including premature death. Research shows that small children and the elderly are particularly at risk from these emissions (Dockery et al., 1993; Schwartz and Dockery, 1992). The policies would reduce national, regional and local pollution, owing to reduced fossil fuel use, providing important environmental benefits and health benefits, especially for small children and the elderly. Table 5.3 summarizes the impacts of the policies on criteria air pollutant emissions. Sulfur-dioxide emissions are about 52 percent lower in 2010 than the Base case, and about 68 percent below 1990 levels. Nitrogen oxides are 16 percent lower in 2010,and about 37 percent below 1990 levels. Particulates are about 13 percent lower in 2010, and about 24 percent below 1990 levels. Carbon monoxide emissions are about 9 percent lower in 2010, and about 2 percent below 1990 levels. Finally, volatile organic compounds are about 7 percent lower in 2010, and about 33% below 1990 levels. Figure 5.3 shows the impacts of the Climate Protection policies over time. The large reductions in particulates emissions arise from the substantial decrease in coal generation in the policy cases. Sulfur-dioxide decreases in the baseline projections arising from the cap/trade provisions of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, are augmented by the policies. Similarly, baseline declines in nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds and carbon monoxide, which arise from tailpipe emissions standards as new cars enter the fleet, are augmented by the policies that affect vehicle travel patterns. The reductions in nitrogen, sulfur, and carbon are similar to those introduced in the Four Pollutant Bill currently before the House and the Senate. The Climate Protection scenario achieves the required levels of reduction a few years earlier (for carbon) or later (for nitrogen and sulfur) than the Four Pollutant Bill's 2007 target date, with substantially deeper reductions continuing thereafter.

9

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will ONLY STOPPING EMISSIONS ALLOWS NATURAL SEQUESTRATION CATCH UP TO SOAK UP CARBON EPA, 10/19/2006, Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry, <http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/faq.html>
7. What is the potential for additional sequestration to offset greenhouse gas emissions? At the global level, the IPCC Third Assessment Report estimates about 100 billion metric tons of carbon over the next 50 years could be sequestered through forest preservation, tree planting and improved agricultural management. This would offset 1020% of the world's projected fossil fuel emissions. For the U.S., some analyses (e.g., McCarl and Schneider 2001) suggest that between 50 and 150 million metric tons of additional carbon sequestration per year could be achieved through changes in agricultural soil and forest management, tree planting, and biofuel substitution. These particular results consider the financial incentive to improve land-use practices at prices of, respectively, $10 and $50 per metric ton of additional carbon stored. For more information on analyses of the potential for additional sequestration in the U.S., visit the National Analysis section of this Web site. 8. Do sequestration practices affect greenhouse gases other than CO2? Yes. Methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are potent greenhouse gases that are also important to consider for forests, croplands and grazing lands. Practices that maintain and sequester carbon can have both positive and negative effects on CH4 and N2O emissions. The relationship among practices that affect CO2, CH4, and N2O can be especially complex in cropping and grazing systems. For example, if nitrogen-based fertilizers are applied to crops to increase yields, this would likely enhance soil carbon but the benefit could be partially or completely offset by increased emissions of N2O. The practice of rotational grazing can be beneficial across all three major gases: soil carbon can be maintained and enhanced; livestock CH4 emissions should decline due to improved forage quality; and N2O emissions can be avoided by eliminating the need for fertilizer applications on the pasture. These complex interactions among gases mean that it is important to consider not only carbon but all the greenhouse gas effects for certain sequestration practices. For more information on levels of CH4 and N2O emissions from U.S. agriculture, visit the National Analysis section of this Web site. 9. What are the other environmental effects of sequestration practices? Practices that aim to reduce carbon losses and increase sequestration generally enhance the quality of soil, water, air and wildlife habitat. Tree planting that restores fuller forest cover may not only sequester carbon but could improve habitat suitability for wildlife. Preserving threatened tropical forests may avoid losses in both carbon and biodiversity, absent any leakage effects. And reducing soil erosion through tree planting or soil conservation measures can sequester carbon and improve water quality by reducing nutrient runoff. In certain cases, there may be tradeoffs between carbon objectives and environmental quality. Replacing diverse ecosystems with single-species timber plantations may generate greater carbon accumulation, but could result in less biodiversity, at least at the scale of the plantation. For more information on some of the broader environmental effects of sequestration visit the Co-benefits section of this Web site. 10. How could carbon sequestration be affected by climate change? According to a National Academy of Sciences 2001 report, "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." In addition to temperature, human-induced climate change may also affect growing seasons, precipitation and the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, such as fire. These changes can influence forests, farming and the health of ecosystems, and thus carbon sequestration. Some argue that rising CO2 levels will enhance sequestration above normal rates due to a fertilization effect. However, the concurrent changes in temperature and precipitation, along with local nutrient availability and harmful air pollutants, complicate this view. Furthermore, recent studies of pine forests fumigated with elevated CO2 levels have shown that this fertilization effect may only be short-lived (Schlesinger and Lichter 2001; Oren et al. 2001). Current projections of business-as-usual U.S. sequestration rates under various climate change scenarios show both increases and decreases in carbon storage depending on various assumptions. To date, few analyses of the potential for additional sequestration over time have considered the future effects of climate change.

10

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will EMISSIONS SHORTEN LIFE SPANS AND KILL 60,000 A YEAR. Clean Air Task Force, October 2000, “Death, Disease, and Dirty Power: Mortality and Health Damage Due to Air Pollution
from Power Plants,” In March 1995, a second landmark study was published supporting the conclusions of the Six Cities study. The American Cancer Society (ACS) study tracked over half a million adults in 151 different metropolitan areas for more than seven years. Detailed information was collected from study participants regarding their age, sex, weight, height, demographic characteristics, smoking history, alcohol use, occupational exposures, and other factors. The study found a 17 percent increase in mortality risk in areas with higher concentrations of fine particles. The investigators also found linkages between fine particles and total mortality and with cardiopulmonary disease. The researchers concluded that exposures to current levels of air pollution are shortening the lives of Americans by several years.32 In his book summarizing the body of evidence on fine particle health effects, Dr. John Spengler, Director of the Environmental Science and Engineering Program of the Harvard School of Public Health, concluded that the most obvious and direct interpretation of the data is that approximately four percent of the death rate in the U.S. can be attributed to air pollution. That figure is large (approximately 60,000 deaths per year) and exceeds a hundred-fold the sum total of all deaths caused by the other pollutants that the U.S. EPA regulates.33

POLLUTION CAUSES EXTINCTION The Stanford, 3/30/2004, Pollution Causing Mass Extinction, <
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2004/3/30/pollutionCausingMassExtinction> If you thought our basketball season was intense, get ready for March Madness on a mass extinction scale. Right now, the score is 5-1, nature vs. humans. By the time it takes for you to finish that econ problem set, several species may have become extinct. There’s nothing new about this, over 99 percent of the species that ever walked on Earth no longer exist. As a tribute to Disney’s new DVD, the Lion King, it’s the circle of life playing out before our eyes. Paleontologists have hypothesized that five major extinctions have occurred on Earth, each one responsible for the demise of thousands of species. Two recent studies appearing in the journal Science, published by American Association for the Advancement of Science, even go so far as to suggest that the world could be experiencing another mass extinction. The catch is this one is slightly different. It is not asteroids and colder temperature shifts that are to blame but pollution. Industry developments have depleted nitrogen — an essential nutritious source — from the soil, creating a fissure in species’ food webs. Scientists from the United Kingdom’s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology found that the United Kingdom and Central Europe may have already lost 20 percent of their species to nitrogen deposition. Even more frightening, according to a recent issue of American Scientist magazine, is the fact that species are becoming extinct at historical rates. The author of the article, Dr. Donald A. Levin, a botany professor at the University of Texas, claims that species extinction is occurring about 100-1,000 times more than normal. At this rate, he calculated that on average, species are becoming extinct every twenty minutes! I wonder if any amount of technological progress and global expansion is worth the loss of nearly half of our species in the next hundred years. Although not a direct consequence of the aforementioned events, pollution is an inevitable byproduct of our progress. It seems we plow the globe with our novelties in science, architecture, technology, and too many other areas to list, at a cost, a very high cost. As our population numbers and industrial developments escalate, the living conditions of the Earth’s flora and fauna simultaneously decline. The question is, does our ability to splice DNA, land on the moon and build impressive civilizations justify their destruction? Perhaps it’s no use quantifying the value of a macaque’s habitat with Mendelssohn’s string symphonies. Our achievements surpass the basic instinct of survival into a desire for commodities. For example, even after the establishment of the Endangered Species Act in 1970 to protect threatened or endangered species, animals keep on dying. The Tecopa pupfish, the blue pike and the Santa Barbara song sparrow are examples of species that have gone extinct in the United States since then. Birds in Kakamega Forest, Kenya’s only rainforest, are dying long after logging activities have stopped. It is difficult to come up with feasible alternatives to our planetary woes. Curbing industrial expansion and reducing pollution emissions isn’t going to work unless we all work together. Make an effort to be more conscientious about our environment and look ahead. Our actions now, believe it or not, determine which species will survive or forever disappear. After the past five mass extinctions, scientists have noted remarkable jump backs in species diversity. There is still hope that species can and will flourish. All it takes is assuming responsibility for our advancements and respecting the right to live of all animals, great and small. For our current bout over mass extinctions, I wouldn’t mind if nature takes the crown.

OBSERVATION 3: LEADERSHIP SUBPOINT A: SOFT POWER
11

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will SOFT POWER IS LOW NOW BECAUSE OF US INACTIVITY ON INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY Joseph Nye, dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, 12/28/2002, The Decline of American Soft Power, <
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501facomment83303/joseph-s-nye-jr/the-decline-of-america-s-soft-power.html Anti-Americanism has increased in recent years, and the United States' soft power -- its ability to attract others by the legitimacy of U.S. policies and the values that underlie them -- is in decline as a result. According to Gallup International polls, pluralities in 29 countries say that Washington's policies have had a negative effect on their view of the United States. A Eurobarometer poll found that a majority of Europeans believes that Washington has hindered efforts to fight global poverty, protect the environment, and maintain peace. Such attitudes undercut soft power, reducing the ability of the United States to achieve its goals without resorting to coercion or payment. Skeptics of soft power (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld professes not even to understand the term) claim that popularity is ephemeral and should not guide foreign policy. The United States, they assert, is strong enough to do as it wishes with or without the world's approval and should simply accept that others will envy and resent it. The world's only superpower does not need permanent allies; the issues should determine the coalitions, not vice-versa, according to Rumsfeld. But the recent decline in U.S. attractiveness should not be so lightly dismissed. It is true that the United States has recovered from unpopular policies in the past (such as those regarding the Vietnam War), but that was often during the Cold War, when other countries still feared the Soviet Union as the greater evil. It is also true that the United States' sheer size and association with disruptive modernity make some resentment unavoidable today. But wise policies can reduce the antagonisms that these realities engender. Indeed, that is what Washington achieved after World War II: it used soft-power resources to draw others into a system of alliances and institutions that has lasted for 60 years. The Cold War was won with a strategy of containment that used soft power along with hard power. The United States cannot confront the new threat of terrorism without the cooperation of other countries. Of course, other governments will often cooperate out of self-interest. But the extent of their cooperation often depends on the attractiveness of the United States. Soft power, therefore, is not just a matter of ephemeral popularity; it is a means of obtaining outcomes the United States wants. When Washington discounts the importance of its attractiveness abroad, it pays a steep price. When the United States becomes so unpopular that being pro-American is a kiss of death in other countries' domestic politics, foreign political leaders are unlikely to make helpful concessions (witness the defiance of Chile, Mexico, and Turkey in March 2003). And when U.S. policies lose their legitimacy in the eyes of others, distrust grows, reducing U.S. leverage in international affairs.

12

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will CAP–AND–TRADE KEY TO REVIVE US CREDIBILITY ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Richard E. Benedict, writer for Issues in Science and Technology, 9/22/2001, Striking a Deal
<http://www.cleanenergystates.org/international/Docs%20to%20post%20to%20Int%27l%20Page%20August%202005/Benedick%20 Striking%20a%20New%20Deal%20on%20Climate%202001.pdf> Start reducing emissions. Regardless of whether the Kyoto Protocol enters into force or the United States ratifies it, the United States should start down its own path of reducing emissions. Indeed, Senators Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Ted Stevens (RAlaska) recently introduced bipartisan legislation that would require President Bush to set interim eduction targets and would authorize major new funding for relevant energy research and development. A modest initial domestic cap-and-trade system, similar to the programs that successfully reduced sulfur dioxide and hlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions, would send a message to industry and to other nations that the United States takes the problem seriously. Other policies and measures to stimulate emissions reductions could be coordinated with differing constellations of likeminded nations (depending on the measure) and not necessarily enshrined in a global treaty. It should be possible to break out of the megaconference mold and open parallel negotiations; one need not negotiate on all subjects with all countries.

US ACTION ON ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES WILL MONGER OTHER COUNTRIES TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT Lloyd Doggett, Congressman of Texas, 6/17/2008, Remarks on Introduction of Climate MATTERS Bill, <
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1692549/> We gather today in the hearing room for a committee that considers revenue, trade, and health legislation. The proposal, which we are announcing today addresses all three. Certainly, global warming represents our greatest environmental challenge. With the increased competition for limited resources already underway around the world, with the potential displacement of millions of people from both flooding and desertification, I believe that global warming also represents our greatest long-term national security challenge. But with every challenge comes an opportunity, and I am convinced that this immense challenge can offer a significant economic opportunity for our country to take the global lead in developing renewable energy technology and the more efficient use of all energy. Our country has been the world's biggest greenhouse gas polluter, and my home state of Texas is the biggest greenhouse gas polluter in America. We have a responsibility to find a solution, and today we offer a new bill, the "Climate Matters Act." This is the first climate change bill to have been introduced in Congress, which will receive primary referral here to the House Ways and Means Committee. We have been promised a hearing on it here in this room within a month. While perhaps true that climate change legislation cannot be approved this year, the only way to get it approved next year, is to keep pushing forward now on this urgent national priority. The Climate Market Auction, Trust, and Trade Emissions Reduction System - you can see why we call it the "Climate MATTERS Act," creates a market-based, cap-and-trade system to put strong yet achievable limits on greenhouse gas pollution. It creates a carbon marketplace in which allowances to emit greenhouse gases will be auctioned, bought, sold and traded. The goal is essentially to charge a fair market price for pollution that is currently being dumped into the atmosphere free of charge. We applaud similar efforts by Senators Lieberman, Warner, and Boxer. Countless forces have sought to weaken and undermine their proposal. We believe that the science-based solution that we are all seeking is best advanced by strengthening the cap and trade system that they proposed, not by weakening it. Accordingly, we would both place limitations on more pollution and give away fewer allowances to pollute free-of-charge to existing polluters than was provided in their bill. The first title of our bill concerning trade is also unique. We call for the presidential leadership, which we have lacked for eight years, to engage in immediate international negotiations to encourage all major countries to participate in a comparable cap-and-trade system. We include both "carrots" and "sticks," consistent with World Trade Organization requirements, to encourage this global participation. US manufacturers should not be disadvantaged by foreign competitors, who continue to pollute. Our bill removes the incentive either to buy goods made from "dirty" manufacturing processes abroad or to move manufacturing offshore. The auction we propose will raise substantial new revenue: revenue that the bill reinvests in clean energy technology, assistance to workers and consumers affected by the transition to a low-carbon economy, and some repair of the damage already inflicted by global warming.

13

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will SOFT POWER KEY TO PREVENT NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION Zalmay Khalilzad, Renowned Theorist on Levinas and Foucault, Senior Defense Policy Analyst at RAND, Spring, 1995 (Losing
the Moment? Washington Quarterly. Lexis | Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

SOFT POWER IS KEY TO WIN THE WAR ON TERROR Associated Press, 11/26/2007, Defense Chief: Fight Terrorism with “Soft Power”, <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21980961/>
WASHINGTON - Defeating terrorism will require the use of more “soft power,” with civilians contributing more in communication, economic assistance, political development and other non-military areas, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday. Gates called for the creation of new government organizations, including a permanent group of civilian experts with a wide range of expertise who could be sent abroad on short notice as a supplement to U.S. military efforts. And he urged more involvement by university and other private experts. “We must focus our energies beyond the guns and steel of the military, beyond just our brave soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen,” he said in a speech at Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kan. “We must also focus our energies on the other elements of national power that will be so crucial in the coming years.” He said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as U.S. military involvement in the 1990s in the Balkans and in Somalia, have shown that long-term success requires more than U.S. military power. “Based on my experience serving seven presidents, as a former director of CIA and now as secretary of defense, I am here to make the case for strengthening our capacity to use ‘soft’ power and for better integrating it with ‘hard’ power,” Gates said. Many have argued that the Bush administration missed opportunities early in the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns to head off insurgent resistance by failing to focus on economic development, promotion of internal reconciliation, training of police forces and communication of U.S. goals.

14

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will TERRORISM CAUSES EXTINCTION – IT COLLAPSES THE ECONOMY AND TRIGGERS NUCLEAR WAR WITH RUSSIA, CHINA AND NORTH KOREA Jerome Corsi, PhD from Harvard, 2005, Atomic Iran, 176-178
In the span of less than one hour, the nation's largest city will have been virtually wiped off the map. Removal of debris will take several years, and recovery may never fully happen. The damage to the nation's economy will be measured in the trillions of dollars, and the loss of the country's major financial and business center may reduce America immediately to a second-class status. The resulting psychological impact will bring paralysis throughout the land for an indefinite period of time. The president may not be able to communicate with the nation for days, even weeks, as television and radio systems struggle to come back on line. No natural or man-made disaster in history will compare with the magnitude of damage that has been done to New York City in this one horrible day. The United States retaliates: 'End of the world' scenarios. The combination of horror and outrage that will surge upon the nation will demand that the president retaliate for the incomprehensible damage done by the attack. The problem will be that the president will not immediately know how to respond or against whom. The perpetrators will have been incinerated by the explosion that destroyed New York City. Unlike 9-11, there will have been no interval during the attack when those hijacked could make phone calls to loved ones telling them before they died that the hijackers were radical Islamic extremists. There will be no such phone calls when the attack will not have been anticipated until the instant the terrorists detonate their improvised nuclear device inside the truck parked on a curb at the Empire State Building. Nor will there be any possibility of finding any clues, which either were vaporized instantly or are now lying physically inaccessible under tons of radioactive rubble. Still, the president, members of Congress, the military, and the public at large will suspect another attack by our known enemy – Islamic terrorists. The first impulse will be to launch a nuclear strike on Mecca, to destroy the whole religion of Islam. Medina could possibly be added to the target list just to make the point with crystal clarity. Yet what would we gain? The moment Mecca and Medina were wiped off the map, the Islamic world – more than 1 billion human beings in countless different nations – would feel attacked. Nothing would emerge intact after a war between the United States and Islam. The apocalypse would be upon us. Then, too, we would face an immediate threat from our long-term enemy, the former Soviet Union. Many in the Kremlin would see this as an opportunity to grasp the victory that had been snatched from them by Ronald Reagan when the Berlin Wall came down. A missile strike by the Russians on a score of American cities could possibly be pre-emptive. Would the U.S. strategic defense system be so in shock that immediate retaliation would not be possible? Hardliners in Moscow might argue that there was never a better opportunity to destroy America. In China, our newer Communist enemies might not care if we could retaliate. With a population already over 1.3 billion people and with their population not concentrated in a few major cities, the Chinese might calculate to initiate a nuclear blow on the United States. What if the United States retaliated with a nuclear counterattack upon China? The Chinese might be able to absorb the blow and recover. The North Koreans might calculate even more recklessly. Why not launch upon America the few missiles they have that could reach our soil? More confusion and chaos might only advance their position. If Russia, China, and the United States could be drawn into attacking one another, North Korea might emerge stronger just because it was overlooked while the great nations focus on attacking one another. So, too, our supposed allies in Europe might relish the immediate reduction in power suddenly inflicted upon America. Many of the great egos in Europe have never fully recovered from the disgrace of World War II, when in the last century the Americans a second time in just over two decades had been forced to come to their rescue. If the French did not start launching nuclear weapons themselves, they might be happy to fan the diplomatic fire beginning to burn under the Russians and the Chinese. Or the president might decide simply to launch a limited nuclear strike on Tehran itself. This might be the most rational option in the attempt to retaliate but still communicate restraint. The problem is that a strike on Tehran would add more nuclear devastation to the world calculation. Muslims around the world would still see the retaliation as an attack on Islam, especially when the United States had no positive proof that the destruction of New York City had been triggered by radical Islamic extremists with assistance from Iran. But for the president not to retaliate might be unacceptable to the American people. So weakened by the loss of New York, Americans would feel vulnerable in every city in the nation. "Who is going to be next?" would be the question on everyone's mind. For this there would be no effective answer. That the president might think politically at this instant seems almost petty, yet every president is by nature a politician. The political party in power at the time of the attack would be destroyed unless the president retaliated with a nuclear strike against somebody. The American people would feel a price had to be paid while the country was still capable of exacting revenge.

15

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will SUBPOINT B: ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP US CREDIBILITY IS KEY TO PREVENT THE COLLAPSE OF WHALING REGULATIONS Sarah Suhre, J.D. at Georgetown University Law Center, ’ 99 ,Misguided Morality: The Repercussions of the International Whaling
Commission's Shift from a Policy of Regulation to One of Preservation, 2 Geo. Int'l Envtl. L. Rev. 305 Preservation, 2 Geo. Int'l Envtl. L. Rev. 305) The ramifications for the IWC of losing these pro-whaling members would be enormous. As one author stated, "fears for the organization's future effectiveness are justified," because the Commission is on the verge of losing Japan and Norway, and if it does, it will have "no legal or moral control over [these countries'] activities ." n103 Without the ability to regulate the whaling nations, the IWC "will serve neither the whaling interests, nor the states that seek to control whaling." n104 Thus, whether or not one agrees with the current whaling practices of Japan and Norway, one must recognize that compromise with these nations is mandatory if the IWC is to remain effective. A taste of what could happen if Norway and Japan withdraw from the IWC is about to be delivered by Iceland, a country which withdrew from the Commission in 1992 after becoming frustrated with the IWC's lack of progress toward a solution acceptable to the pro-whaling contingent. n105 Iceland's parliament recently voted to end the country's ten-year ban on whaling, and the country is preparing to resume whaling as early as next year. n106 Iceland's small population will be unable to provide a large domestic market for whale meat, and thus the country plans to export much of what it catches. n107 Iceland feels no obligation to refrain from trading in whale products because it is no longer a member of the IWC and is not a signatory of CITES. n108 Because certain countries such as Japan have virtually bottomless markets for whale meat and blubber, the number of whales that Icelandic hunters would be willing to kill in a year and the amount of profit to be gained from such whaling will likely be very high. With no international regulation and very attractive motives for hunting, the resumption of Icelandic whaling could be potentially devastating for targeted whale stocks. What is to stop Norway and Japan from [*316] following the example of Iceland, throwing off the shackles of the IWC's whale preservation politics and resuming full-fledged commercial whaling and trade in whale products? Iceland's potentially reckless plans make clear the necessity for pro-whaling nations to remain part of the IWC. Regulation, control, and compromise, all of which can be achieved through an international organization that combines the interests of both whalers and conservationists, are needed to protect the world's whale stocks from the over-harvesting which occurred in the past. The only way to insure that whaling countries stay with or rejoin such an organization is to compromise.

16

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will EXTINCTION – WHALING WILL SUFFOCATE US ALL George Small, Ph.D.,College of Staten Island, 'Why Man Needs The Whales', in Project Interspeak, ed. T. Wilkes, San Francisco, 1979
Why do we need whales? Every human being has a biological need that must be constantly met - oxygen. And 70% of the oxygen added to the atmosphere each year comes from plankton in the sea. Serious damage to the world ocean therefore could endanger the entire atmosphere of the earth. During the last two decades (1950's and 60's) man has killed so many of the large whales that four species of whale have been reduced from a total of several million to just a few thousand. Every one of these vanished millions of whales used to consume several hundred tons of a large species of zooplankton a year. That plankton now is undergoing a classic population explosion for want of a predator. What will be the effect on the oxygen-producing smaller plankton of the world ocean? What will be the effect on the colour and reflectivity of the oceans? What will be the effect on the average water temperature of the oceans, on its dissolved oxygen content and subsequently on the earth's atmosphere? No one knows. Climatologists know any significant change in ocean temperature can have profound effects on the earth's climates. By killing off the whales of the world man is playing Russian roulette with the earth's primary support system. Yes, we desperately need the whales to preserve the air we breathe.

OBSERVATION 4: COMPETITION THE US IS SLUGGISH ON LOW-CARBON TECH – INVESTING IN A GREEN ECONOMY IS CRUCIAL TO PREVENT A DEVASTATING LAG OF COMPETITIVENESS. Daniel Kammen, Distinguished Chair in Energy and professor in the Energy and Resources Group, the Goldman School of
PublicPolicy, and the Department of Nuclear Engineering, founding director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, Co-Director of the Institute of the Environment, all at the University of California, Berkeley, served on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, currently serves on the Canadian National Advisory Panel on the Sustainable Energy Science and Technology Strategy, 9/25/2007, “http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:DFTI3CV77SMJ:www.unep.org/civil_society/GCSF9/pdfs/karmensenate.pdf+Professor+Daniel+Kammen+from+U.C.+Berkeley+new+wave+of+job+growth+both+%E2%80%98high+technology%E2 %80%99+and+ones+that+transform+%E2%80%98blue+collar+labor%E2%80%99+into+%E2%80%98green+collar%E2%80%99+o pportunities.+The+combination+of+economic+competitiveness+and+environmental+protection+is+a+clear+result+fr&hl=en&ct=cln k&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a In this testimony I highlight the key finding that while a continuation of business as usual energy choices will result in socially, politically, and environmentally costly and destructive climate change, the motivation to invest in solutions to climate change can be simply that a green economy can also be exceedingly vibrant. In fact, an economy built around a suite of low-carbon technologies can be resistant to price shocks as well as secure against supply disruptions as well as inclusive of diverse socioeconomic groups. A new wave of job growth – both ‘high technology’ and ones that transform ‘blue collar labor’ into ‘green collar’ opportunities. The combination of economic competitiveness and environmental protection is a clear result from a systematic approach to investing in climate solutions. Clean energy systems and energy efficiency investments also contribute directly to energy security and to domestic job growth versus off-shore migration. Renewable energy systems are more often local than imported due to the weight of biomass resources and the need for operations and maintenance. A growing number of state, regional, and national economies are assuming leadership positions for a clean, low carbon, energy economy. These ‘early actors’ are reaping the economic benefits of their actions. Among the global leaders are Brazil, Denmark, Iceland Germany, Japan, Spain, all of which have made significant commitments to a green economy, and all are seeing job growth and rapidly expanding export opportunities. The goal of a Low Carbon Fuel Standard is to reduce the greenhouse impact of fossil fuel emissions, and to begin to move toward a diverse set of economically and environmentally sustainable transportation choices. Job Growth in a Green Economy – Empirical Lessons and Strong Prospects Expanding the use of renewable energy is not only good for our energy self-sufficiency and the environment; it also has a significant positive impact on employment. My students and I have examined the observed job growth in a number of technology sectors (Kammen, Kapadia and Fripp, 2004).

US RENEWABLES DOMINANCE IS CRITICAL TO MAINTAINING ITS TECHNOLOGICAL LEAD IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY.
17

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will Kammen, Professor of Energy and Society Director, Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL) Energy and Resources Group, 7/11/2001, (FDCH, lexis)
In the last decade, the case for renewable energy has become an economic and environmental 'win-win' proposition. For many years renewables were seen as environmentally and socially attractive options that at best occupied niche markets due to barriers of cost and available infrastructure. That situation has dramatically changed. Renewable energy resources and technologies - notably solar, wind, small-scale hydro, and biomass based energy, as well as advanced energy conversion devices such as fuel cells - have undergone a true revolution in technological innovation, cost improvements, and in our understanding and analysis of appropriate applications 2 . There are now a number of energy sources, conversion technologies, and applications, where renewable energy options are either equal, or better, in price and services provided than the prevailing fossil fuel technologies. For example, in a number of settings in industrialized nations, wind energy is now the least cost option across all energy technologies with the added benefit of being modular and quick to install and bring on-line. In fact, some farmers, notably in the Midwest, have found that they can generate more income per hectare from the electricity generated by a wind turbine on their land than from their crop or ranching proceeds. Furthermore, photovoltaic panels and solar hot water heaters placed on buildings across America can: help reduce energy costs; dramatically shave peak-power demands; produce a healthier living environment; and increase our energy supply while managing our energy demand. California's energy crisis has raised fundamental questions about regional and national energy strategies. Rising demand suggests the need for new energy supplies, and certainly some new energy capacity is needed. However, there is a wide range of options for achieving supply and demand balance, and some of these options have not been given adequate attention. In general, the lack of past state and federal leadership has meant that we have seen too few incentives for renewable energy development, energy conservation, and efficiency measures, and too little attention to appropriate power plant siting issues and transmission and distribution bottlenecks. As a nation we are ignoring the importance of maintaining leadership in key technological and industrial areas, many of which are related to the energy sector.3 This includes keeping pace with Japan and Germany in the production of solar photovoltaic systems, catching up with Denmark in wind and cogeneration system deployment, and with Japan, Germany, and Canada in the development of fuel cell systems. The development of these industries within the U.S. is vital to both our international competitiveness and commercial strength, and to our national security in providing for our own energy needs. Renewable and distributed energy systems and energy efficiency are areas experiencing tremendous market growth internationally. These systems combine the latest advances in energy conversion and storage, with improvements in computer and other advanced technologies, and are therefore natural areas for U. S. business interests and for U. S. strategic leadership. The U. S. must improve the financial and political climate for clean energy systems in order to reassert our leadership in this vital area.

COMPETITIVENESS IS KEY TO MAINTAIN LEADERSHIP. Zalmay Khalilzad, professor of international relations at Columbia, Senior Defense Policy Analyst at RAND, Spring, 1995 (Losing
the Moment? Washington Quarterly. Lexis | SWON) To sustain and improve its economic strength, the United States must maintain its technological lead in the economic realm. Its success will depend on the choices it makes. In the past, developments such as the agricultural and industrial revolutions produced fundamental changes positively affecting the relative position of those who were able to take advantage of them and negatively affecting those who did not. Some argue that the world may be at the beginning of another such transformation, which will shift the sources of wealth and the relative position of classes and nations. If the United States fails to recognize the change and adapt its institutions, its relative position will necessarily worsen. To remain the preponderant world power, U.S. economic strength must be enhanced by further improvements in productivity, thus increasing real per capita income; by strengthening education and training; and by generating and using superior science and technology.

18

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will THE TERMINAL IMPACT IS NUCLEAR WAR. Zalmay Khalilzad, Renowned Theorist on Levinas and Foucault, Senior Defense Policy Analyst at RAND, Spring, 1995
(Losing the Moment? Washington Quarterly. Lexis | Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

19

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Hence the plan: The United States federal government should establish an auctioned cap and trade system that reduces carbon emissions from electricity generation to 20% below 1990 levels by 2020.

20

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will OBSERVATION 5: SOLVENCY PLAN IS KEY TO AVOID THE THRESHOLD FOR CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE CHANGE Professor Doctor Hartmut Grafl et al, chair of German Advisory Council on Climate Change and Director of Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (the rest are all various professors and think tank directors), 11/10/2003, “Climate Protection Strategies for the 21st
Century, Special Report by German Advisory Council on Climate Change”, http://www.wbgu.de/wbgu_sn2003_engl.pdf
The threshold from which damage to the global natural heritage is no longer acceptable cannot be determined precisely. However, the WBGU estimates it to be in the range of 2°C global warming relative to pre-industrial values. For worldwide food security, too, the threshold appears to be in this range, as above this global warming level worldwide climate-related

losses in agricultural production must be expected, as well as a steep rise in the number of people threatened by water scarcity.

Concerning health impacts, no tolerance threshold can currently be appraised due to poor data availability and a lack of mature methodologies. However, it can be assumed that for some regions the effects of climate change would already lead to intolerable impacts at 2°C mean global warming. Moreover, climate change has the potential to trigger singular, catastrophic changes in the Earth System, such as a shift in worldwide ocean circulation, the melting of major ice sheets (West Antarctic, Greenland) or the sudden release of huge methane reserves. Quantitative assessments of the threshold values for these effects are beset with great uncertainty. The WBGU’s recommendation: A maximum of 2°C warming is acceptable The WBGU reaffirms its conviction that in order to avert dangerous climatic changes, it is essential to comply with a ‘climate guard rail’ defined by a maximum warming of 2°C relative to pre-industrial values. As the global mean temperature has already risen by 0.6°C since the onset of industrialization, only a further warming by 1.4°C is tolerable. A global mean long-term warming rate of at most 0.2°C per decade should not be exceeded. This climate window should be agreed as a global objective within the context of the UNFCCC process. The European Union should seek to adopt a leading role on this matter. 2Acceptable emissions The WBGU has developed tolerable emission paths for energy- and industry-related greenhouse gases that remain within the WBGU climate window. However, major uncertainty still attaches to the estimate of climate sensitivity, meaning the rise in temperature that follows a doubling of CO2 concentration. Similarly, the role of the biosphere in the carbon cycle cannot yet be appraised with sufficient accuracy. It is also hard to assess to what extent other greenhouse gases can also be reduced. The WBGU’s recommendation: Adopt ambitious emissions reduction targets. In view of the

major uncertainties concerning the climate system, the WBGU recommends a hedging strategy in which initially a CO2 concentration target below 450 ppm is aimed at. This will only be possible if by 2050 global energy-related CO2 emissions can be reduced by about 45–60% from 1990 levels. Furthermore, it will be essential to achieve substantial reductions
of the other greenhouse gases (notably methane and nitrous oxide, but also the fluorinated compounds) and of further indirectly radiatively active substances (e.g. soot).Therefore, industrialized countries must reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% by 2020.

EMISSIONS TRADING IS COST EFFECTIVE, FEASIBLE AND EASY TO MONITOR White House Task force on climate challenge; 10/19/1999; Environmental protection agency; Greenhouse gas emissions
trading: a country and a company-eye view: The U.S. view; Lexis;] The sulfur dioxide allowances can be bought and sold. Companies facing high emission control costs have the flexibility to choose their own compliance strategies. They can reduce their emissions by enough to match their allowance allocation (e.g., by installing pollution controls, switching to cleaner fuels, or improving efficiency). They can also choose to purchase more allowances. Companies with inexpensive opportunities to reduce emissions below their allocations can sell allowances they do not need. A national registry records all allowance holdings and trades, and shows which allowances have been used and which remain available for future use. Electric utilities, brokers, and private individuals have accounts in the registry recording their allowance holdings, purchases, and sales. Some allowances have even been purchased by school children and environmentalists, who have taken them "off the market" to further reduce emissions. The results speak for themselves. Sulfur dioxide emissions are being cut about 30 percent more rapidly than expected, bringing cleaner air to millions of Americans. And the total costs of the acid rain program are now projected to be well under half of original expectations. 21

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will CAP–AND–TRADE PRODUCES REVENUE USED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY RESOURCES Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center of Budget and Planning and Policy Priorities, 1/23/2008, CAP, AUCTION,
AND TRADE: AUCTIONS AND REVENUE RECYCLING UNDER CARBON CAP AND TRADE” SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND GLOBAL WARMING, < http://www.cbpp.org/1-23-08climatetestimony.htm> Although the resources that can be generated by sound climate-change policies are substantial, so too are the budget claims arising from those policies. Besides the need to protect vulnerable populations, those claims include basic research into alternative energy sources, assistance for workers and communities that depend on the coal industry and other industries most affected by the shift to a less carbon-intensive economy, and other needs. In addition, higher energy prices will drive up the cost to federal, state, and local governments of providing many important services and benefits. Unless these costs are offset, government services will have to be reduced or taxes raised, or the federal deficit will rise.

REDUCED CARBON EMISSIONS WILL LEAD TO RESEARCHING ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES. Tellus Institute and Stockholm Environment Institute – Boston Center, July 2001, “The American Way to the
Kyoto Protocol: An Economic Analysis to Reduce Carbon Pollution ,“ http://assets.panda.org/downloads/usreport.doc In addition to this reduced demand for electricity, the mix of fuels used to generate electricity changes dramatically, as shown in Figure 5.2b. The electric sector policies shift the generation mix away from a heavy reliance on coal, and avoid the rapid build-up of natural gas generation, by relying much more on renewable energy and, especially, cogeneration. Cogeneration grows from roughly 300 TWh today to 660 TWh in 2010, and 1260 in 2020, whereas in the Base case cogeneration increases modestly to 380 TWh in 2010 and 440 TWh in 2020. Non-hydro renewable energy consumption increases almost five times by 2010 over the Base case, and remains roughly at this level through 2020.

US ACTIONS WILL BE A MODEL FOR OTHERS IN EMISSIONS [Richard D. Morgenstern; Senior Fellow, Resources for the Future, 2000 – present, Distinguished Professor of Economics
(Visiting), Oberlin College, 2000 – 2001, Member, National Academy of Engineering Committee on "Industrial Environmental Performance Metrics," 1997 – 1999 ; 2005; Design issues of a domestic carbon emissions trading system in the USA; page 115; Cambridge University Press, New York; Edited by Bernd Hansjurgens]

AT – ASPEC
1. We meet – all 3 branches is normal means
22

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will 2. Counter-interpretation - United States federal government: The executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government of the United States – Wordnet 03 3. Resolution basis – it only mandates the specificity of the United States Federal Government 4. Infinitely regressive – if they can mandate more specificity than the USFG, then they can ask for specific congress people – this explodes reasonable ground. They either run ASPEC or OSPEC. This wastes time and kills debate 5. Agent counterplans are bad – they steal the 1AC and allow for infinitely small and artificially competitive net benefits, which moots the 1AC
6.

ASPEC is not a voter i. Cross-ex and pre-round disclosure check abuse. ii. No in-round abuse—they aren’t running any agent counterplans or d/a about the government iii. Don’t vote on potential abuse— you cant decide what we MIGHT do in another round.

23

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

AT – Topicality: “USFG”
1. We meet – The USFG does the plan. 2. Counter Interpretation – Only the US can pass the plan without conflicting laws Richard Stavros, Public Utilities Fortnightly, “Playing Russian roulette?”, No. 11, Vol. 142; Pg. 4, 11-1-2004
It could mark the biggest bungle of the last two administrations-the decision to walk away from the Kyoto Protocol rather than stay and negotiate to U.S. advantage. No one thought Russia would sign and put the treaty in force. But now that Russia's ratification appears imminent, policy wonks in America are scrambling to assess the impact. In our August issue, attorney Peter J. Fontaine laid out in stark detail what Russia's ratification could mean for energy prices, and how the World Trade Organization (WTO) could force the United States to comply (see, "Global Warming: The Gathering Storm," p. 50). And many other analysts now appear to agree, predicting that Kyoto's enactment could prove painful for the United States, owing largely to our discordant state and federal environmental rules.Frustration with the current administration has caused some state regulators to go it alone on environmental policy. Some states in the last few years have cut their own deals with electric utilities on carbon emissions-deals that go out for years. Or they have developed mandatory portfolio standards for renewable energy, or have sponsored emissions trading regimes with neighboring states or countries, such as Canada. However noble these efforts, they could undermine America's economic competitiveness. Utilities, for instance, may find themselves obliged to boost rates to pay for emissions reduction equipment forced upon them under the Kyoto plan. The affect of those increased energy costs, experts worry, could render U.S. businesses less competitive. Evidently, at this point no one really knows how these state environmental programs will mesh with the Kyoto treaty. Only now are experts beginning to ask questions like, "Is New England too restrictive in its reduction of carbon emissions? Does Ohio need to be more restrictive?" Conversely, others say that some state environmental programs may prove adequate for U.S. participation in a Kyoto plan. A greater problem, they say, may be those states that have not enacted any kind of program and are likely to see more of a dramatic shift in their rates. All of this has led some to worry that in the absence of a comprehensive national plan, even more states may feel forced to strike out and cut their own sweetheart Kyoto deals or to protect businesses within their borders. It recently was rumored in the international press that California might be working on a carbon-trading scheme linked with the European or Kyoto programs. Now imagine 50 such deals, each with its own peculiarities. The biggest problem, experts agree, is the lack of any national plan for the environment. Until we have one, America's energy sector could find itself held hostage to world opinion.

3. USFG key – states will sell permits at different minimum levels; causing companies to move to states that sell permits cheaper. Companies will evacuate states crashing multi-state economies 4. Counter–standards a. Limits – our interpretation strictly limits our case to the USFG b. Ground – the NEG can run ASPEC, States CP, Politics DA’s, etc. c. Education – we force the AFF to stick to one actor so that we must defend all sides d. Fairness – we prevent the AFF from shifting actors 5. Not a voters for the reasons above

24

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

AT – Topicality: “Substantial”
1. We meet - Cap-and-trade programs cause a substantial reduction in carbon emissions [John Kinsman reviews the successes of emissions trading
and rebuts fears that trading might lead to localised ‘hot spots’; Emissions trading, the economy and the environment; Market View; October 2002; http://www.emissions.org/publications/member_articles/ef10ema_b.pdf] Second, cap-and-trade programmes set a permanent emissions cap to be much lower (eg, 50–70%) than current emissions, requiring a substantial reduction in emissions over the area of concern, be it a large region or the whole nation.

2. Counter Defintion: Substantially is to a large degree

3. Our definition is best it allows for the greatest number of cases, provided that there is literature, which allows a balance that creates a fair and predictable debate for both aff and neg. 4. Substantially creates and arbitrary brightline that becomes impossible to meet because there will always be cards that mandate a specific amount that is impossible to meet with any case. This limits out the aff and means neg wins every debate. 5. Substantial is relative – different affs and policies require a different amount of incentives in order for it to be a substantial increase. 6. The neg justifies judge intervention which is bad because it leads to arbitrary decisions based on who yells louder. 7. Reasonability becomes the only real standard because it is the only way to make sure that the neg doesn’t run T just because they know they can get away with it. The aff only has to be reasonably topical to give the neg the necessary ground.
25

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will 8. T is not a voter. Don’t vote on potential abuse.

26

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

AT – Topicality: Alternative Energy Incentives
Cap–and–Trade incentivizes companies to research and develop alternative energy resources Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center of Budget and Planning and Policy Priorities, 1/23/2008, CAP, AUCTION,
AND TRADE: AUCTIONS AND REVENUE RECYCLING UNDER CARBON CAP AND TRADE” SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND GLOBAL WARMING, < http://www.cbpp.org/1-23-08climatetestimony.htm> The policies needed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions would, by themselves, result in regressive changes in energy prices. But they also can generate substantial revenue that could be used to offset those regressive impacts. Our analysis, like that of CBO, shows that the potential revenue from auctioning off emission allowances under a cap-and-trade system could yield more than enough revenue to offset the losses likely to be experienced by low- and moderate-income families and by workers in the industries hit hardest by the adjustment to a less carbon-intensive economy. The revenue could be sufficient both to address these issues and to meet various other legitimate purposes arising from the legislation as well (see figure 1). In contrast, giving away a substantial fraction of emission allowances to existing energy producers would do almost nothing to compensate lowand moderate-income families for their losses. A very large percentage of the benefits of such a giveaway would go to shareholders of the energy companies, most of whom have high incomes, while little revenue would be available to mitigate the effects on those least well-off. Addressing regressivity and adjustment costs would not be the only claims on the resources that could be generated by a cap-and-trade system. Governments at all levels would pay more for the energy and energyrelated products that they consume directly. For example, the Defense Department is the single largest consumer of energy in the United States. In addition, there would be impacts on living costs and economic activity, which, while modest in the overall economy, could nevertheless trigger increases in automatic cost-of-living adjustments in Social Security and other benefit programs and some modest reductions in tax revenues. These issues can be addressed — and any increases in deficits and debt avoided — by using a share of the allowances to offset such tax and expenditure changes. (Note: action to reduce the damages from climate change should have positive effects on the budget over the longer run, by reducing government expenditures for such things as natural disasters, crop failures, and disease epidemics. In other words, in the absence of effective climate-change policies, natural events are likely to occur sooner or later that entail large federal costs and throw the budget farther out of whack.) In addition, although higher energy prices would create strong incentives for energy conservation and for investment in clean-energy technologies, there will be claims for additional subsidies to encourage a wide variety of activities in the name of combating climate change. In many cases (including various types of basic alternative energy research), such investments can be a valuable complement to the market incentives provided by a cap-and-trade system. Such spending will be wasteful, however, if it merely subsidizes activity that would take place anyway or that is not well focused on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. If lawmakers capture the necessary revenue and make wise choices among competing claims in designing climate-change policy, they can achieve the economic and environmental benefits from reducing greenhouse-gas emissions while addressing the impact of higher prices on low-income consumers and other legitimate new claims on available resources. (It might even be possible to achieve some modest deficit reduction, which would be valuable at a time when, as this Committee well knows, the pressures on the federal budget will be increasing.) If, however, lawmakers give away too many emissions rights to existing emitters, as a number of the bills currently pending in Congress would do, they will fail to capture sufficient resources to meet these needs, while conferring windfall profits on energy companies and other emitters. This latter course would risk large increases in deficits and debt (already on course to reach unsustainable levels in future decades), significant increases in poverty and hardship, and a further widening of the gap between rich and poor.

27

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

AT – Topicality: Alternative Energy Incentives
Cap–and–trade produces revenue used for development of alternative energy resources Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center of Budget and Planning and Policy Priorities, 1/23/2008, CAP, AUCTION,
AND TRADE: AUCTIONS AND REVENUE RECYCLING UNDER CARBON CAP AND TRADE” SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND GLOBAL WARMING, < http://www.cbpp.org/1-23-08climatetestimony.htm> Although the resources that can be generated by sound climate-change policies are substantial, so too are the budget claims arising from those policies. Besides the need to protect vulnerable populations, those claims include basic research into alternative energy sources, assistance for workers and communities that depend on the coal industry and other industries most affected by the shift to a less carbon-intensive economy, and other needs. In addition, higher energy prices will drive up the cost to federal, state, and local governments of providing many important services and benefits. Unless these costs are offset, government services will have to be reduced or taxes raised, or the federal deficit will rise.

Cap–and–Trade provide powerful incentives for companies to pursue alternative energy Richard B. Steward and Jonathan B. Wiener, Authors of Issues of Science and Technology, 1/1/2004, Practical climate change
policy: a sensible middle–of–the–road alternative exists between defending the Kyoto Protocol and the do–nothing policy, <http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-681282/Practical-climate-change-policy-a.html> Our proposed regime would have the following elements. It would use market based incentives in the form of an international cap-and-trade system for net GHG emissions that would include both developing and industrialized countries. Because GHGs mix globally, their effects on global climate are unrelated to where emission reductions occur. A cap would be placed on net emissions by all participating countries and their sources. Emissions trading would allow those countries and companies that face high emissions reduction costs to finance emissions reductions in other countries, especially developing countries that enjoy lower costs, benefiting all parties financially and environmentally. Further, it would enlist the resources and ingenuity of the private sector, giving companies powerful incentives to develop emissions -reducing technologies and ways of doing business. The new regime would also include a comprehensive regulatory system covering all GHGs, sinks (such as forests), and economic sectors rather than being limited to a subset of the problem, such as fossil fuel CO2 combustion. Finally, we would set sensible emissions lim itations pathways that maximize net benefits to society.

28

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

AT – Topicality: Alternative Energy Incentives
Cap–and–trade causes a price spike by restricting emissions from non–alternative energies sources Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center of Budget and Planning and Policy Priorities, 1/23/2008, CAP, AUCTION,
AND TRADE: AUCTIONS AND REVENUE RECYCLING UNDER CARBON CAP AND TRADE” SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND GLOBAL WARMING, < http://www.cbpp.org/1-23-08climatetestimony.htm> In a cap-and-trade system, making sure there are adequate budget resources requires that most of the emission allowances are auctioned off, not given away for free to energy companies and other emitters due to misconceptions about the financial losses they would incur. One misconception is that those losses would be very large. CBO's review of the evidence, however, concludes that less than 15 percent of the total value of the allowances would be sufficient to offset the net financial losses of companies affected by policies to restrict emissions. More than that would simply create what CBO has called “windfall profits” for companies receiving the free allowances. A related misconception about cap-and-trade may also contribute to the belief that large numbers of emission allowances should be given away to energy companies and other industrial emitters. This is the mistaken belief that energy prices will not rise (or not rise as much) if the allowances are given away. That belief is not correct; it flies in the face of the basic law of supply and demand. A cap on emissions will limit the supply of energy produced from fossil fuels. When supply is restricted, prices rise — just as when there is a banana shortage, the price of bananas goes up. Regardless of whether the government gives away or sells the allowances, energy companies will be able to sell their products at the higher price. If companies receive allowances for free, they will still be able to charge the higher price — they will be able to charge what the market will bear — and will reap what CBO has termed “windfall profits.” Indeed, Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, who served as Chairman of President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, has characterized a cap-and-trade mechanism under which the allowances are given away as “corporate welfare.” (As an analogy, if a distributor has purchased large quantities of a product at one price but some external event then causes the supply of future quantities of that product to fall — and the market price of the product to rise correspondingly — the distributor will not keep his prices low just because he purchased the products before their price climbed. He will charge what the market will bear. In the same way, energy companies will charge what the market will bear whether they obtain the permits for free or purchase them through an auction.)

Increased energy prices from cap–and–trade spur innovation for alternative energy Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center of Budget and Planning and Policy Priorities, 1/23/2008, CAP, AUCTION,
AND TRADE: AUCTIONS AND REVENUE RECYCLING UNDER CARBON CAP AND TRADE” SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND GLOBAL WARMING, < http://www.cbpp.org/1-23-08climatetestimony.htm> Effective climate-change policies work in part by raising the prices of fossil-fuel energy products to encourage energy efficiency and the substitution of clean energy sources. This is essential to prevent extensive environmental and economic damage from climate change. However, it will raise costs to consumers for a wide array of products and services, from gasoline and electricity to food, mass transit, and other products or services with significant energy inputs. Households with limited incomes will be affected the most by those higher prices, since they spend a larger share of their incomes on energyrelated products and services than more affluent households do. They also are less able to afford investments that can reduce their energy consumption, such as buying a more efficient car or a new heating and cooling system. If nothing is done to protect people of limited means, many more of them will slip into poverty, those who are poor will become poorer, and the trend toward widening income inequality will be aggravated.

29

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

AT – Topicality: Alternative Energy Incentives
1. We meet - Reduced carbon emissions will lead to researching alternative energies. Tellus Institute and Stockholm Environment Institute – Boston Center, July 2001, “The American Way to the
Kyoto Protocol: An Economic Analysis to Reduce Carbon Pollution ,“ http://assets.panda.org/downloads/usreport.doc In addition to this reduced demand for electricity, the mix of fuels used to generate electricity changes dramatically, as shown in Figure 5.2b. The electric sector policies shift the generation mix away from a heavy reliance on coal, and avoid the rapid build-up of natural gas generation, by relying much more on renewable energy and, especially, cogeneration. Cogeneration grows from roughly 300 TWh today to 660 TWh in 2010, and 1260 in 2020, whereas in the Base case cogeneration increases modestly to 380 TWh in 2010 and 440 TWh in 2020. Non-hydro renewable energy consumption increases almost five times by 2010 over the Base case, and remains roughly at this level through 2020.

2. Counter-interpretation – incentive means to drive action toward. Merriam-Webster Online 2008
Incentive: something that incites or has a tendency to incite to determination or action

3. We meet our counter-interpretation – lower carbon emissions makes companies shift to alternative energies. 4. We aren’t effects – the move to alternative energy is made immediately after plan is passed. 5. Effects good – a. Ground – effects allows the aff to access more cases to run and gives the neg more ground for disad and kritik links, increasing in-round education by letting us talk about more subjects. b. No brightline – the neg doesn’t say how many steps is not effects, so there’s no way to evaluate effects T. c. Limits – effects allows for broader limits and more varied debates. The neg’s interpretation leads to boring, repetitive debates that kill education. d. Increases clash – the neg has more links to attack if we take more steps, allowing for better debates with more clash. 6. We are reasonably topical since we lead to an increase in the use of alternative energies so you can’t vote us down on T. Prefer reasonability because it allows for more substantive debates instead of trivial debates on interpretations. 7. This case is one of the most predictable since there is so much literature about reducing carbon emissions to increase alternative energy. The neg should have literature and be able to debate this case.

30

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Auctioning Permits Good
Companies will raise energy prices regardless of auction or allowance Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center of Budget and Planning and Policy Priorities, 1/23/2008, CAP, AUCTION,
AND TRADE: AUCTIONS AND REVENUE RECYCLING UNDER CARBON CAP AND TRADE” SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND GLOBAL WARMING, < http://www.cbpp.org/1-23-08climatetestimony.htm> Besides the need to protect vulnerable populations, those claims include basic research into alternative energy sources, assistance for workers and communities that depend on the coal industry and other industries most affected by the shift to a less carbon-intensive economy, and other needs. In addition, higher energy prices will drive up the cost to federal, state, and local governments of providing many important services and benefits. Unless these costs are offset, government services will have to be reduced or taxes raised, or the federal deficit will rise. In a cap-and-trade system, making sure there are adequate budget resources requires that most of the emission allowances are auctioned off, not given away for free to energy companies and other emitters due to misconceptions about the financial losses they would incur. One misconception is that those losses would be very large. CBO's review of the evidence, however, concludes that less than 15 percent of the total value of the allowances would be sufficient to offset the net financial losses of companies affected by policies to restrict emissions. More than that would simply create what CBO has called “windfall profits” for companies receiving the free allowances. A related misconception about cap-and-trade may also contribute to the belief that large numbers of emission allowances should be given away to energy companies and other industrial emitters. This is the mistaken belief that energy prices will not rise (or not rise as much) if the allowances are given away. That belief is not correct; it flies in the face of the basic law of supply and demand. A cap on emissions will limit the supply of energy produced from fossil fuels. When supply is restricted, prices rise — just as when there is a banana shortage, the price of bananas goes up. Regardless of whether the government gives away or sells the allowances, energy companies will be able to sell their products at the higher price. If companies receive allowances for free, they will still be able to charge the higher price — they will be able to charge what the market will bear — and will reap what CBO has termed “windfall profits.” Indeed, Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, who served as Chairman of President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, has characterized a cap-and-trade mechanism under which the allowances are given away as “corporate welfare.” (As an analogy, if a distributor has purchased large quantities of a product at one price but some external event then causes the supply of future quantities of that product to fall — and the market price of the product to rise correspondingly — the distributor will not keep his prices low just because he purchased the products before their price climbed. He will charge what the market will bear. In the same way, energy companies will charge what the market will bear whether they obtain the permits for free or purchase them through an auction.)

Auctioning trading permits is more efficient and economical than allocatiing allowances Tellus Institute and Stockholm Environment Institute – Boston Center, July 2001, “The American Way to the
Kyoto Protocol: An Economic Analysis to Reduce Carbon Pollution ,“ http://assets.panda.org/downloads/usreport.doc Recent analyses suggest that an auction is the most economically efficient way to distribute permits, meeting emissions caps at lower cost than allocations based on grand[parents] allowances or equal per kWh allowances (Burtraw, et al. 2001). Implementing such auctions for the electric sector will also clear the way for an economy-wide approach in future years based on auctioning. In this study, the price of auctioned carbon permits reaches $100 per metric ton carbon. While not specifically targeted by the trading programs, the operators of the 850 old “grand-[parented]” coal plants built before the Clean Air Act of 1970, which emit 3-5 times as much pollution per unit of power generated than newer coal power plants, will likely retire these plants rather than face the cost of purchase the large amount of credits necessary to keep them running. However, utilities are continuing to operate these plants beyond their design life, and have in fact increased their output over the last decade. By subjecting these old plants to the same requirements as newer facilities, as has been done or is being considered in several states including Massachussetts and Texas, operators would be obliged to modernize the old plants or to retire them in favor of cleaner electric generation alternatives. With a cap and trade system in place for CO2, SOx and NOx, this scenario reduces multiple emissions from power plants, in a manner similar to that adopted in the Four Pollutant Bill currently before the House (H.R., 1256) and the Senate (S. 556).

31

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Auctioning Permits Good
Revenue from auctioning permits provides funding for more alternative energy research Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center of Budget and Planning and Policy Priorities, 1/23/2008, CAP, AUCTION,
AND TRADE: AUCTIONS AND REVENUE RECYCLING UNDER CARBON CAP AND TRADE” SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND GLOBAL WARMING, < http://www.cbpp.org/1-23-08climatetestimony.htm> The policies needed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions would, by themselves, result in regressive changes in energy prices. But they also can generate substantial revenue that could be used to offset those regressive impacts. Our analysis, like that of CBO, shows that the potential revenue from auctioning off emission allowances under a cap-and-trade system could yield more than enough revenue to offset the losses likely to be experienced by low- and moderate-income families and by workers in the industries hit hardest by the adjustment to a less carbon-intensive economy. The revenue could be sufficient both to address these issues and to meet various other legitimate purposes arising from the legislation as well (see figure 1). In contrast, giving away a substantial fraction of emission allowances to existing energy producers would do almost nothing to compensate lowand moderate-income families for their losses. A very large percentage of the benefits of such a giveaway would go to shareholders of the energy companies, most of whom have high incomes, while little revenue would be available to mitigate the effects on those least well-off. Addressing regressivity and adjustment costs would not be the only claims on the resources that could be generated by a cap-and-trade system. Governments at all levels would pay more for the energy and energyrelated products that they consume directly. For example, the Defense Department is the single largest consumer of energy in the United States. In addition, there would be impacts on living costs and economic activity, which, while modest in the overall economy, could nevertheless trigger increases in automatic cost-of-living adjustments in Social Security and other benefit programs and some modest reductions in tax revenues.

Revenue from auctioning permits helps protect poor families from rising energy prices Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center of Budget and Planning and Policy Priorities, 1/23/2008, CAP, AUCTION,
AND TRADE: AUCTIONS AND REVENUE RECYCLING UNDER CARBON CAP AND TRADE” SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND GLOBAL WARMING, < http://www.cbpp.org/1-23-08climatetestimony.htm> The amount of revenue the government could raise by auctioning off all of the permits in a cap-and-trade system is far more than what would be needed to protect low-income consumers from higher energy-related prices arising from climate-change legislation. We estimate that a program designed according to the principles laid out later in this testimony, which would fully offset the impact on the poorest 20 percent of people and also provide some relief to many hard-pressed working families in the next 20 percent, could be fully funded with approximately 14 percent of the resources that would be generated by auctioning off all the allowances in a cap-and-trade system. The specific dollar amounts in our first two sets of numbers — $750 to $950 per year of added costs for low-income consumers and $50 to $300 billion per year of potential revenue are tied to specific emissions targets, but the 14 percent figure is not. When the emissions target is looser (and hence the emissions reduction is smaller) — as it would be in the early years of most proposals — the dollar amount of revenue that could be raised would be lower, but so too would be the increase in energy prices and the amount of added costs that households would face. As the cap tightens and larger emissions reductions are called for, the added costs to households increase, but so too does the potential revenue that would be available to offset those costs. But no matter what the point in time, the amount needed to protect lowincome consumers would always be about 14 percent of the revenue that could be generated. In other words, Congress does not need to guess at what the right amount to provide to assist low-income consumers will be; by setting aside 14 percent of the allowance value in a cap-and-trade system in perpetuity, it can be sure to have shielded these consumers from whatever the price impacts on them are in any given year. If Congress wanted to assist middle-income consumers as well, that could be accomplished, if a sufficient share of the allowance value from a cap-and-trade regime were set aside for that purpose.

32

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

AT – Global Warming Slow
1) Global warming is causing species loss now [Dan Stafford; 11/24/2006; Global Warming is Real and Happening Now; environmental action; http://www.environmentalaction.org/blog/archives/2006/11/global_warming_6.html] According to a study from a researcher at the University of Texas, at least 70 species of frogs have gone extinct likely from the effects of global warming. Another 100 to 200 species are in sever danger of being wiped out, such as the emperor penguin and the polar bear. Combined with this is evidence of many species migrating northward to escape the increased heat. Hopefully, we'll be able to generate enough change to stop it.

2) Extend New scientist 08 from the 1AC – biodiversity is key and a growing endangered species list threatens human survival

33

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will Global Warming Impacts – Drought/extinction Global warming now is leading to drought, floods and heat [The Associated Press; 8/7/2007; Global warming will strike developing nations the hardest, UN says;
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/07/asia/AS-GEN-India-UN-Global-Warming.php] Scientists have warned that unchecked greenhouse gas emissions are causing global temperatures to rise, leading to drought, floods and searing heat.

Global warming causes extinction [Stop global warming; http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_learnmore.asp; 2008; Stop Global Warming]
The results are in and the reality of global warming is beyond dispute or debate. It’s not just an environmental issue. It affects our public health and national security. It’s an urgent matter of survival for everyone on the planet — the most urgent threat facing humanity today. It’s going to take action from you and all of us working together.

Not enough is being done to stop global warming now [Bill McKibben; 9/29/2007; Page A19; The Race Against Warming; Washington Post; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801400.html?sub=AR] It's the oldest and most cliched of metaphors, but when it comes to global warming, it's the only one that really works: We're in a desperate race. Politics is chasing reality, and the gap between them isn't closing nearly fast enough. Consider the news from the real world, the one where change is measured with satellites and thermometers, not focus groups: Arctic ice is melting on an unbelievable scale -- an area the size of Britain disappeared each week in late summer as the record for minimum ice cover, set in 2005, was shattered by more than 400,000 square miles, meaning about a 27 percent loss. Forget the Petraeus report -- what historians will note about September 2007 is that the Northwest Passage was free of ice for the first time since humans started keeping track.

Global warming causes pain [Gabriel Gache; Science News Editor; Global Warming Now Synonymous with Kidney Stones - Carbon dioxide emissions directly impact the health of the kidneys; 7/15/2008; http://news.softpedia.com/news/Global-Warming-Now-Synonymous-with-KidneyStones-89979.shtml]
As if global warming weren't bad enough as it is, researchers now say that the extra amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere will strike us in one of the most painful ways possible: kidney stones. And this time it's not selective and it's most certain that some of the leaders of the G8 states will feel head on at least one of the effects of global warming. Luckily, they agreed last week to cut even more of the carbon dioxide emissions in the coming years. According to predictions, in the US alone, more than 2.3 million people will contract kidney stones every year in the next four decades, as a result of climate change.

34

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Global Warming Impacts – Penguins/Krill
Global Warming is killing penguins [Paul Eccleston; Last Updated: 5:01am GMT 11/12/2007; Penguins now threatened by global warming;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/11/eapeng111.xml] Global warming is threatening one of the most endearing symbols of Antarctica - the penguin. Four species of penguin are facing a dual threat from loss of nesting sites and a shortage of food. The environmental conservation group WWF is warning that rising temperatures and the resulting loss of sea ice is robbing the emblematic birds of the nesting grounds they need to breed successfully. At the same time climate change and over-fishing has led to a reduction in the availability of krill - tiny crustaceans - which they rely on for food.

Save the penguins! [Biodiversity activist; Penguins threatened by global warming - Act Now; 12/31/2006;
http://actionnetwork.org/BIODIVERSITY/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=4504560] The Center petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service this week to list 12 species of penguins under the Endangered Species Act. Like the polar bear in the Arctic, these Antarctic and sub-Antarctic birds are threatened primarily by global warming. Global warming threatens everything we care about, and yet we still do not have laws explicitly capping greenhouse gas emissions in this country. Please urge your senator to support the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2006, which would require greenhouse gas reductions of the magnitude that scientists tell us are necessary to avoid true climate disaster.

Krill is a keystone species [Biodiversity activist; Penguins threatened by global warming - Act Now; 12/31/2006;
http://actionnetwork.org/BIODIVERSITY/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=4504560] Penguins in the Antarctic aren't the only animals marching toward extinction caused by global warming; other species, from corals in the Caribbean to polar bears in the Arctic, are also gravely threatened by climate change. The Emperor Penguin colony at Pointe Geologie, featured in the film "March of the Penguins," has declined by 70 percent due to global warming. Krill, the keystone of the Antarctic marine ecosystem, and an essential food source not just for penguins but also for whales and seals, has declined by as much as 80 percent since the 1970s over large areas of the Southern Ocean. Even under the most optimistic greenhouse gas emission scenarios, continued warming over the next several decades will affect, dramatically and adversely, Antarctica, the Sub-Antarctic islands, the Southern Ocean, and the penguins dependent on these and adjoining ecosystems.

35

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Solvency – Environmental Leadership
Implementation of cap–and–trade builds environmental leadership Seth Dunn, senior fellow at Worldwatch Institute, 9/22/2002 , Down to Business on Climate Change: An Overview of Corporate
Strategies <http://www.resourcesaver.org/file/toolmanager/CustomO16C45F42862.pdf> In addition to influencing government policy individually and through trade associations, business responses to climate change include a range of internal and external control measures. Internal controls include greenhouse gas inventory and management systems; internal greenhouse gas reduction targets; internal emissions trading systems; consideration of climate change in outside investments; and research and investment into energy efficiency, fuel switching and new technologies. BP and Shell have, for example, established internal cap-and-trade systems for all their business units. Indeed, involvement in trading or other flexibility mechanisms is becoming a common external control. Over the past five years, governments have increasingly accepted emissions trading as a policy of choice to address climate change. At the same time, progress in the international negotiations and the increasing likelihood of emissions limitations have driven the emergence of a market for greenhouse gas emissions. This trend toward greenhouse gas trading is motivated by both economic theory and empirical evidence, notably the successes of the US sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions trading programme that was incorporated in the acid rain programme of the 1990 US Clean Air Act Amendments. The cap-and-trade programme, which has created a $4 billion market, has helped reduce SO2 emissions much faster, and at lower cost, than expected: emissions in 2010 are projected to be roughly half their 1980 levels. While the cost to industry is estimated at $1 billion per year, the health benefits are projected to reach $50 billion by 2010 (see Murphy 2002). While the sulphur emissions trading market arose from legislation, the early greenhouse gas emissions market has come in advance of finalised government rules. Motivations for firms to trade are similar to those for adopting climate response strategies in general: demonstrating environmental leadership, learning-by-doing, hedging and managing risk, and generating revenue. According to the global energy brokerage firm Natsource, an estimated 200 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) were traded between mid-1997 and mid-2002. (This number includes trades of reductions as well as financial derivatives based on reductions, but excludes internal corporate trades and small trades of less than 1,000 tonnes of CO2e.)

Cap–and–trade key to revive US credibility on environmental issues Richard E. Benedict, writer for Issues in Science and Technology, 9/22/2001, Striking a Deal
<http://www.cleanenergystates.org/international/Docs%20to%20post%20to%20Int%27l%20Page%20August%202005/Benedick%20 Striking%20a%20New%20Deal%20on%20Climate%202001.pdf> Start reducing emissions. Regardless of whether the Kyoto Protocol enters into force or the United States ratifies it, the United States should start down its own path of reducing emissions. Indeed, Senators Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Ted Stevens (RAlaska) recently introduced bipartisan legislation that would require President Bush to set interim eduction targets and would authorize major new funding for relevant energy research and development. A modest nitial domestic cap-and-trade system, similar to the programs that successfully reduced sulfur dioxide and hlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions, would send a message to industry and to other nations that the United States takes the problem seriously. Other policies and measures to stimulate emissions reductions could be coordinated with differing constellations of likeminded nations (depending on the measure) and not necessarily enshrined in a global treaty. It should be possible to break out of the megaconference mold and open parallel negotiations; one need not negotiate on all subjects with all countries. It is worth noting that only 21 nations (11 industrialized, 10 developing) account for 80 percent of global emissions. Recall also that the first international action on the ozone front was not a reduction target or formal treaty, but rather a loosely coordinated agreement in the late 1970s that involved just a few countries, including the United States.

36

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Solvency – Environmental Leadership
International fossil fuel companies representing the US are supporting cap– and–trade systems Seth Dunn, senior fellow at Worldwatch Institute, 9/22/2002 , Down to Business on Climate Change: An Overview of Corporate
Strategies <http://www.resourcesaver.org/file/toolmanager/CustomO16C45F42862.pdf> In addition to influencing government policy individually and through trade associations, business responses to climate change include a range of internal and external control measures. Internal controls include greenhouse gas inventory and management systems; internal greenhouse gas reduction targets; internal emissions trading systems; consideration of climate change in outside investments; and research and investment into energy efficiency, fuel switching and new technologies. BP and Shell have, for example, established internal cap-and-trade systems for all their business units. Indeed, involvement in trading or other flexibility mechanisms is becoming a common external control. Over the past five years, governments have increasingly accepted emissions trading as a policy of choice to address climate change. At the same time, progress in the international negotiations and the increasing likelihood of emissions limitations have driven the emergence of a market for greenhouse gas emissions. This trend toward greenhouse gas trading is motivated by both economic theory and empirical evidence, notably the successes of the US sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions trading programme that was incorporated in the acid rain programme of the 1990 US Clean Air Act Amendments. The cap-and-trade programme, which has created a $4 billion market, has helped reduce SO2 emissions much faster, and at lower cost, than expected: emissions in 2010 are projected to be roughly half their 1980 levels. While the cost to industry is estimated at $1 billion per year, the health benefits are projected to reach $50 billion by 2010 (see Murphy 2002). While the sulphur emissions trading market arose from legislation, the early greenhouse gas emissions market has come in advance of finalised government rules. Motivations for firms to trade are similar to those for adopting climate response strategies in general: demonstrating environmental leadership, learning-by-doing, hedging and managing risk, and generating revenue. According to the global energy brokerage firm Natsource, an estimated 200 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) were traded between mid-1997 and mid-2002. (This number includes trades of reductions as well as financial derivatives based on reductions, but excludes internal corporate trades and small trades of less than 1,000 tonnes of CO2e.)

37

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Solvency – Environmental Leadership <Modeling>
US action on environmental policies will monger other countries, regardless of past problems Lloyd Doggett, Congressman of Texas, 6/17/2008, Remarks on Introduction of Climate MATTERS Bill, <
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1692549/> We gather today in the hearing room for a committee that considers revenue, trade, and health legislation. The proposal, which we are announcing today addresses all three. Certainly, global warming represents our greatest environmental challenge. With the increased competition for limited resources already underway around the world, with the potential displacement of millions of people from both flooding and desertification, I believe that global warming also represents our greatest long-term national security challenge. But with every challenge comes an opportunity, and I am convinced that this immense challenge can offer a significant economic opportunity for our country to take the global lead in developing renewable energy technology and the more efficient use of all energy. Our country has been the world's biggest greenhouse gas polluter, and my home state of Texas is the biggest greenhouse gas polluter in America. We have a responsibility to find a solution, and today we offer a new bill, the "Climate Matters Act." This is the first climate change bill to have been introduced in Congress, which will receive primary referral here to the House Ways and Means Committee. We have been promised a hearing on it here in this room within a month. While perhaps true that climate change legislation cannot be approved this year, the only way to get it approved next year, is to keep pushing forward now on this urgent national priority. The Climate Market Auction, Trust, and Trade Emissions Reduction System - you can see why we call it the "Climate MATTERS Act," creates a market-based, cap-and-trade system to put strong yet achievable limits on greenhouse gas pollution. It creates a carbon marketplace in which allowances to emit greenhouse gases will be auctioned, bought, sold and traded. The goal is essentially to charge a fair market price for pollution that is currently being dumped into the atmosphere free of charge. We applaud similar efforts by Senators Lieberman, Warner, and Boxer. Countless forces have sought to weaken and undermine their proposal. We believe that the science-based solution that we are all seeking is best advanced by strengthening the cap and trade system that they proposed, not by weakening it. Accordingly, we would both place limitations on more pollution and give away fewer allowances to pollute free-of-charge to existing polluters than was provided in their bill. The first title of our bill concerning trade is also unique. We call for the presidential leadership, which we have lacked for eight years, to engage in immediate international negotiations to encourage all major countries to participate in a comparable cap-and-trade system. We include both "carrots" and "sticks," consistent with World Trade Organization requirements, to encourage this global participation. US manufacturers should not be disadvantaged by foreign competitors, who continue to pollute. Our bill removes the incentive either to buy goods made from "dirty" manufacturing processes abroad or to move manufacturing offshore. The auction we propose will raise substantial new revenue: revenue that the bill reinvests in clean energy technology, assistance to workers and consumers affected by the transition to a low-carbon economy, and some repair of the damage already inflicted by global warming.

38

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Solvency – Environmental Leadership <Modeling>
Cap–and–trade in the US acts as a model for other nations – Canada proves Jack Layton, Leader of the NDP, 6/6/2008, Cap and Trade is the Best Way to Go, <
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/features/viewpoints/story.html?id=fa314ac9-a9fc-489c-a763-c965749ddfd1> This week, the House of Commons adopted my private member's bill, the Climate Change Accountability Act (C-377). Canada's elected chamber became the first in the world to adopt science-based targets to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 80 per cent (from 1990 levels) by 2050. This goal must be achieved if we are to avoid the dangerous two-degree increase in average global temperature that scientist warn us about. To get there, we need to have the right mechanisms in place to reduce pollution, and to ensure greener consumer choices become more available and affordable This week McGill professor Christopher Ragan questioned in The Gazette why the NDP is advocating pricing carbon through a cap-and-trade system, rather than a carbon tax. The answer is simple: cap-and-trade is the most effective and efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Pricing carbon through a cap-and-trade system accomplishes three key goals that a carbon tax does not: First, capand-trade ensures the big polluters in Canada begin to pay their share. Second it ensures measurable annual pollution reduction targets. And third, it generates much needed revenue for green solutions that, under the NDP plan, will be dedicated to help individuals do more in their daily lives to make greener choices. Our plan ensures that both industry and individuals play a role. Ragan suggests that some of the new pollution penalties on industry under our cap-and-trade model will be merely passed on to consumers thereby hurting low- and fixed-income Canadians. Any carbon pricing regime will affect the costs of certain goods. But under our plan, the costs for pollution-intensive goods will likely go up at the same time that the costs for more efficient goods will go down. Either way, the change in price will be borne out of the firm's ability to reduce its carbon emissions. Those companies that become greener, faster, will see their costs, and therefore their prices, go down. Instead of taxing families for heating their home at current energy consumption levels, our plan is designed to help Canadians use less energy to heat the homes in the first place. It's not enough to just put a price on carbon; we need to help Canadians use less of it through an ambitious home and building retro-fit and energy efficiency initiatives. The NDP's plan would make it cheaper for all Canadians to buy greener products, like green cars and energy efficient appliances. For low-income Canadians, we need comprehensive tax changes and credits to ensure no Canadian is left behind as we undertake this great national effort. The NDP has proposed to offset the costs associated with tackling climate change by rolling back the overly aggressive corporate tax give-aways announced in recent federal budgets. In the United States, both senators Obama and McCain support cap-andtrade. And while Environment Minister John Baird called the Quebec-Ontario cap-and-trade agreement "a rogue initiative," I called it "filling the leadership vacuum" started by the previous government and perpetuated today under Prime Minster Stephen Harper's failed leadership. This week's announcement by Premiers Charest and McGuinty is another boost to the move for a pan-Canadian cap-and-trade system. It builds on earlier initiatives of other provinces notably in Manitoba with NDP Premier Gary Doer's establishment of a carbon registry. Some suggest that cap-and-trade will take long to set up. I disagree. Nearly two-thirds of the country live in areas where the move to cap-and-trade has begun and last Friday the Montreal Stock Exchange opened its carbon exchange. With federal leadership, a national system could be up and running much faster than additional carbon taxes neutralized by other tax changes would take to truly alter consumer behaviour. As someone who has been working to implement practical pollution cutting solutions throughout my 25 years in public service, I welcome the current debate. Cap-and-trade in our view is the most effective tool to help get Canada on the road to meeting its commitments in Bill C-377 - my generation's obligation to future generations. There is no greater crisis facing planter than climate change. And there is no greater challenge facing Canada than to reduce our greenhouse emissions and invest in green solutions. The NDP's cap-and-trade system will allow us to do just that, while ensuring no Canadian is left behind.

39

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Env. Leadership Impact – Whaling Scenario 1/3
US credibility on environmental issues low – Kyoto Protocol proves Jutta Brunnée, Staffwriter for European Journal of International Law, 1/25/2004, The United States and International
Environmental Law: Living with an Elephant < http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/15/4/617> For many observers, the US decision in 2001 to abandon the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change encapsulates an alarming trend in American attitudes towards international environmental law. This article explores recent trends in US approaches. It begins by canvassing the trajectory of US practice since around the time of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. This review suggests that some shifts in legal avenues for shaping relevant policy agendas have indeed occurred, but that it would be a mistake to treat one event — the US withdrawal from Kyoto — as representative of the nature of these shifts. It then examines a range of possible explanations for the changing US approach to international environmental law. These include factors related to the growth of treaty regimes and institutional structures, factors related to American power, domestic politics and attitudes towards international law, and factors specifically related to the administration of George W. Bush. Both the review of US practice and the assessment of factors that might account for American policy suggest that the international environmental law community must carefully distinguish short-term developments from longer-term trends. Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that,one is affected by every twitch and grunt.

Cap–and–trade key to revive US credibility on environmental issues Richard E. Benedict, writer for Issues in Science and Technology, 9/22/2001, Striking a Deal
<http://www.cleanenergystates.org/international/Docs%20to%20post%20to%20Int%27l%20Page%20August%202005/Benedick%20 Striking%20a%20New%20Deal%20on%20Climate%202001.pdf> Start reducing emissions. Regardless of whether the Kyoto Protocol enters into force or the United States ratifies it, the United States should start down its own path of reducing emissions. Indeed, Senators Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Ted Stevens (RAlaska) recently introduced bipartisan legislation that would require President Bush to set interim eduction targets and would authorize major new funding for relevant energy research and development. A modest nitial domestic cap-and-trade system, similar to the programs that successfully reduced sulfur dioxide and hlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions, would send a message to industry and to other nations that the United States takes the problem seriously. Other policies and measures to stimulate emissions reductions could be coordinated with differing constellations of likeminded nations (depending on the measure) and not necessarily enshrined in a global treaty. It should be possible to break out of the megaconference mold and open parallel negotiations; one need not negotiate on all subjects with all countries.

40

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Env. Leadership Impact – Whaling Scenario 2/3
US credibility is key to prevent the collapse of whaling regulations Sarah Suhre, J.D. at Georgetown University Law Center, ’ 99 ,Misguided Morality: The Repercussions of the International Whaling
Commission's Shift from a Policy of Regulation to One of Preservation, 2 Geo. Int'l Envtl. L. Rev. 305 Preservation, 2 Geo. Int'l Envtl. L. Rev. 305) The ramifications for the IWC of losing these pro-whaling members would be enormous. As one author stated, "fears for the organization's future effectiveness are justified," because the Commission is on the verge of losing Japan and Norway, and if it does, it will have "no legal or moral control over [these countries'] activities ." n103 Without the ability to regulate the whaling nations, the IWC "will serve neither the whaling interests, nor the states that seek to control whaling." n104 Thus, whether or not one agrees with the current whaling practices of Japan and Norway, one must recognize that compromise with these nations is mandatory if the IWC is to remain effective. A taste of what could happen if Norway and Japan withdraw from the IWC is about to be delivered by Iceland, a country which withdrew from the Commission in 1992 after becoming frustrated with the IWC's lack of progress toward a solution acceptable to the pro-whaling contingent. n105 Iceland's parliament recently voted to end the country's ten-year ban on whaling, and the country is preparing to resume whaling as early as next year. n106 Iceland's small population will be unable to provide a large domestic market for whale meat, and thus the country plans to export much of what it catches. n107 Iceland feels no obligation to refrain from trading in whale products because it is no longer a member of the IWC and is not a signatory of CITES. n108 Because certain countries such as Japan have virtually bottomless markets for whale meat and blubber, the number of whales that Icelandic hunters would be willing to kill in a year and the amount of profit to be gained from such whaling will likely be very high. With no international regulation and very attractive motives for hunting, the resumption of Icelandic whaling could be potentially devastating for targeted whale stocks. What is to stop Norway and Japan from [*316] following the example of Iceland, throwing off the shackles of the IWC's whale preservation politics and resuming full-fledged commercial whaling and trade in whale products? Iceland's potentially reckless plans make clear the necessity for pro-whaling nations to remain part of the IWC. Regulation, control, and compromise, all of which can be achieved through an international organization that combines the interests of both whalers and conservationists, are needed to protect the world's whale stocks from the over-harvesting which occurred in the past. The only way to insure that whaling countries stay with or rejoin such an organization is to compromise.

41

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Whaling Impact Module A 3/3 – Global Warming
Every 1% increase in oxygen causes a 70% increase in destructive forest fires that ruin the natural balance and risk extinction M.A. Corey, Author of many books about theology, the environment, spiritual, and psychological, 1993, God and the New
Cosmology page 79 Following the terrestrial compensation for the previously discussed change in solar luminosity, it was essential for the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere to be strictly regulated. For while a relatively high amount of oxygen in the atmosphere is important for virtually all forms of earthly life, too much oxygen is exceedingly destructive. Indeed, if the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere were to be increased even slightly beyond its present 21% concentration, forest fires would become far more prevalent. This is due to the fact that the probability of lightning starting a forest fire is known to increase by a whopping 70% for each 1% rise in the atmospheric oxygen content. Once again we find yet another amazing balance in nature, without which most life forms would be unable to exist. A possible naturalistic explanation for this degree of balance is to say that the atmospheric oxygen content has been fixed by a natural feedback-type mechanism on the Earth which is automatically connected to the amount of vegetation what has been burned by lightninginduced forest fires.

Less trees increases GHG emissions which contribute to global warming Environmental Defense 2004 The Heat is on: a White paper on climate
Action, <http://www.edf.org/documents/3777_TheHeatIsOn.pdf> The reductions envisioned in Kyoto will buy critical time to allow additional approaches to be developed, including bilateral arrangements with developing countries. One principal area of concern is tropical deforestation, which is responsible for approximately 20% of total human caused carbon dioxide emissions. Providing incentives for forest conservation will be essential for any international climate agreement to work, and could also provide a bridge to re-engage the United States in the international climate debate. Amidst the uncertainty surrounding the Kyoto Protocol, one thing is clear: Developing countries are unlikely to substantially restrain their emissions until the United States shows leadership.

Global warming causes extinction Stop global warming; http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_learnmore.asp; 2008; Stop Global Warming
The results are in and the reality of global warming is beyond dispute or debate. It’s not just an environmental issue. It affects our public health and national security. It’s an urgent matter of survival for everyone on the planet — the most urgent threat facing humanity today. It’s going to take action from you and all of us working together.

42

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Whaling Impact Module B 3/3 – Mercury Poisoning
CRACKING DOWN ON WHALING IS CRUCIAL TO PREVENT MERCURY POISONING Science Daily, 5/20/2003, Mercury in Packaged Whale Meat Across Japan May be a Major Health Problem, <
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030520082803.htm> Dangerous levels of mercury appear to be present in whale, dolphin and porpoise meat sold widely as food in Japan, according to a study by Japanese scientists. One U.S. researcher says the findings point to a "major health problem" in Japan. The Japanese scientists bought samples from across the country, and found that every single slice of toothed whale red meat — Japan's most popular whale product — exceeded that country's provisional limit on mercury, with some samples containing almost 200 times the maximum value. The researchers also found that mercury levels were higher in whales caught off the coast of the southern part of the country. The findings are scheduled to appear in the June 15 edition of Environmental Science & Technology, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Chemical Society, the world's largest scientific society. "About 17,000 toothed whales are caught annually off the Japanese coast," says Tetsuya Endo, Ph.D., a professor at the Health Sciences University of Hokkaido, Japan, and lead author of the paper. "Despite extreme contamination with mercury, toothed whale products have been sold for human consumption without any regulation." "These particular meat samples were from packaged food products that someone would have eaten, if they had not been purchased for pollutant analysis," says Frank Cipriano, Ph.D., director of the Conservation Genetics Laboratory at San Francisco State University. "This is a clear signal that Japan has a major health problem that the government has not addressed." The levels of mercury measured by the scientists are similar to or higher than the levels in fish eaten by people in the Minamata Bay area of Japan, Endo says. The region is well known for its previous problems with mercury. In the 1950s and early 1960s, hundreds of children were born with birth defects caused by their mothers' repeated consumption of contaminated fish. The Japanese eat less whale meat today than they have historically, largely in response to a 1982 International Whaling Commission moratorium on commercial whaling. Toothed whales, or odontocetes, are not covered under the moratorium. Demand for these species — a suborder of aquatic mammals that includes dolphins, porpoises, killer whales and pilot whales — has therefore increased in Japan as larger whales have become harder to obtain, Endo says. About 40 percent of all whale products marketed in Japan are from toothed whales, according to the Institute of Cetacean Research. This meat is eaten mostly in coastal fishing villages, but also in metropolitan areas around the country. Whale meat is not sold for human consumption in the United States. Between 2000 and 2002, Endo and his colleagues purchased whale meat in towns across Japan — from tiny fishing villages to Tokyo. They measured total mercury levels in the samples and did a genetic analysis to verify the species of each whale. The researchers analyzed 137 meat samples in all and found that every one exceeded the provisional mercury level set by the Japanese Ministry of Health, which is 0.4 parts per million (ppm). Out of nine different whale species identified, the lowest average mercury level was 1.26 ppm and the highest was 46.9 ppm, with the majority of species ranging from 5-10 ppm. The two highest mercury levels in individual samples were found in a false killer whale (81 ppm) and a striped dolphin (63.4 ppm). Nago, the southernmost of the six regions studied, had the highest average concentration, and levels decreased steadily moving northward. The effect of eating mercury-tainted meat on people in Japan is not well studied, but a 1997 survey in the Faroe Islands revealed neurological problems in children whose mothers ate whale meat frequently. Mercury levels in most of the toothed whale samples from the current study are higher than levels in pilot whales from the Faroe Islands, according to the researchers. In another study published earlier this year, Endo and his colleagues found that rats developed kidney disorders when they ate whale organs contaminated with mercury. They plan to examine the Japanese population in the future to determine the effects of mercury contamination. Mercury enters the environment naturally and through industrial pollution. Nearly all fish contain trace amounts of mercury, but longer-lived predators — like odontocetes, tuna and sharks — are the final repositories for many pollutants because of their position at the top of the food chain. Endo reported the current findings at a meeting of the Food Hygiene Society of Japan in Tokyo last week. The International Fund for Animal Welfare provided support for this study.

43

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will Whaling High Whaling has killed 99% of whales ScienceDaily, 7/25/2003, Whale Populations are Too Low to Resume Commercial Hunting,
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/07/030725080621.htm> Scientists have vastly underestimated the number of humpbacks and other great whales that inhabited the North Atlantic Ocean before the advent of whaling, according to geneticists from Stanford and Harvard Universities. Their findings, published in the journal Science, could represent a major setback for countries that advocate lifting a 17-year moratorium on commercial whaling established by the London-based International Whaling Commission (IWC). The worldwide population of humpback whales, estimated at 20,000 may have been as high as 1.5 million before the advent of 19th-century commercial whaling, according to a new genetics srudy by researchers from Stanford and Harvard Universities. "The IWC is the main organization that regulates whaling, and its policies allow for the resumption of commercial hunting when populations reach a little more than half of their historic numbers," said Stephen R. Palumbi, a professor of biological sciences at Stanford and co-author of the July 25 Science study. The problem, he noted, is that the IWC bases its historic estimates on unconfirmed whaling records dating back to the mid-1800s. "It is well known that hunting dramatically reduced all baleen whale populations, yet reliable estimates of former whale abundances are elusive," wrote Palumbi and Harvard graduate student Joe Roman, lead author of the study. "Whaling logbooks provide clues, but may be incomplete, intentionally underreported or fail to consider hunting loss." Genetics surprise To assess the accuracy of historic whaling records, Roman and Palumbi turned to the science of population genetics. "Our study marks the first attempt to use genetics rather than whaling records to confirm the number of whales that used to exist," said Palumbi, whose lab is based at Stanford's Hopkins Marine Station. "The genetics of populations has within it information about the past. If you can read the amount of genetic variation -- the difference in DNA from one individual whale to another -- and calibrate that, then you can estimate the historic size of the population." In their study, Roman and Palumbi focused on the genetics of humpback, fin and minke whales -- three species decimated in the mid-19th and early-20th centuries by the demand for whale oil (for lamps, candles, soaps and perfumes), baleen (for whips, corsets and other devices) and meat. Although humpbacks, fins and minkes are found in many oceans, the researchers restricted their DNA analysis to the North Atlantic -- with surprising results. "The genetics we've done of whales in the North Atlantic says that, before whaling, there were a total of 800,000 to 900,000 humpback, fin and minke whales -- far greater numbers than anybody ever thought," Palumbi said. Take humpback whales, for example. According to the IWC, the current population of North Atlantic humpbacks is about 10,000, compared to its historic high of 20,000 -- a figure based on old whaling records. But after comparing DNA samples from 188 humpbacks, Roman and Palumbi concluded that the historic population in the North Atlantic may have been 10 times greater than the IWC estimate. "A small population tends to weed out all of its genetic differences through inbreeding," Palumbi observed. "A large population, by contrast, should have a lot more genetic variation. Our study shows that humpback whales today actually have about 10 times more genetic variation than would be expected from the whaling logbook estimates. That tells us that, sometime in the past, the population of humpbacks was pretty big -- and in fact our calculation for the North Atlantic suggests that the historic size of that population was about 240,000 animals." Using these results, Palumbi estimated that the worldwide humpback population could have been as high as 1.5 million -- more than 10 times the IWC's global historical estimate of 100,000. Exactly when the population reached that size will have to be determined in future genetic expeditions, he added: "We know from the genetics that there were many, many humpback whales in the ocean, but when those numbers started to drop is something we haven't been able to pinpoint yet." Palumbi pointed out that, although the humpback population today is small because of whaling, "the genetic signal persists in that population for a long time, so we're really reading the past signal in the current population. And that past signal is far higher than it should be if there were only 20,000 whales in the North Atlantic." An analysis of fin whale DNA yielded similar results. According to historic whaling records, about 40,000 fin whales once inhabited the North Atlantic. Current IWC estimates place today's fin whale population at 56,000, which would be an all-time high. But a genetic comparison of 235 fin whales by Roman and Palumbi revealed that the actual pre-whaling population was probably about 360,000 -- again, roughly 10 times higher than the IWC's historical estimate. "Somehow we have to reconcile those numbers," Palumbi added. "That's going to require going back and looking at the whaling records. Are they complete? Have there ever been large hunts of whales that weren't recorded? These are things that we have to find out."

44

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Whaling High – Japan
Japan continues whaling despite Western pleas JapanProbe, 2/12/2008, The Japanese People on Whaling… We don’t care… What’s for dinner?, <
http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=3769> Recently in the international news media there has been a lot of hype surrounding photos released by the Australian government showing whaling by Japanese scientific research fleets [those interested can read British, American, and Australian ]. As an Australian who often checks newspaper websites from home, I found it was a featured news story getting a lot of attention. The Australian federal environmental minister went on the record and called the images “sickening.” You’d think that the news about protests against Japanese whaling in western countries would make the people of this nation want the problem to go away. If asked most Japanese people seem quite apathetic. However, a recent survey in the Asahi Shimbun and reported in Australian newspapers says that the Japanese public continue to support the Japanese whaling program and by a margin of 21. It also says that 56% of people still want to see whale on the menu in restaurants (as it is in my local izakaya). Why? Toshiko Marks, a professor of multicultural understanding at Shumei University, said: “I don’t know anyone sensible who honestly says they like to eat whale meat. I hate it because I was forced to eat it as a child immediately after the war because there was not much else. But if you ask young people, they’ve never tasted whale and don’t want to. “On the other hand, there is a sense that we’re having this issue rammed down our throats and people do not like being told what to do by primarily Anglo-Saxon countries that have done some pretty cruel things themselves.”

45

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Whaling High – Japan
Japan continues whaling by calling it tradition Kurasawa Nanami, author of The Japanese Observer, Vol.7 No.7, 7/3/2001, Gloomy Debate on Greedy Whaling, <
http://www.whales.org.au/policies/japan.html> Is the debate about whaling really a conflict of interests between Japan and Western countries? Every year when the IWC meeting comes to a close, we are bombarded with news articles about whaling in Japan. Media reports come mainly from the government controlled "industry of information," so in this season we have no choice but to deal with those one-sided or highly biased reports. Generally the controversy on whaling is accepted as a conflict of interests between Japan and Western countries. Advocates of whaling argue that the conflict is between Japanese, who are trying to maintain (what they claim to be) a cultural tradition, and Westerners, who not only lack understanding of other cultures but also impose their cultural values on others. On the other side, there are arguments that the Japanese are "environmental predators," behaving like a "gang of thugs," who continue environmental degradation for the sake of optimal use, and bully domestic environmental and conservation groups into "keeping silent" on the issue. There are also arguments on whether the habit of eating whale meat is really a tradition, and about whether the government should allow or legitimize anything that be called a "tradition." However, it must be understood that the labeling of Japanese as "environmental predators," or other not-so-endearing terms, is certainly making the problem worse. There is a not miniscule percentage of Japanese who say, "the conservation of whales is going too far," or "the Western nations are imposing their cultural values on us" when faced with the high-handed attitudes of the anti-whaling advocates. It is clear that it is the choice of the Japanese people that is crucial in solving the problem of whaling (and dolphin hunting). Due to this we have to shift the focus of discussion from "Conflicts between Japan and antiwhaling Westerners "to "Conflicts between the advocates of industrial development and exploitation, and the advocates of environmental protection." From this perspective, we need to pave the way for a fair discussion within our own country. The whaling industry argues that Japanese have been eating whale meat traditionally since ancient times. In trying to prove this, evidence is produced by exhibiting whale bones found in excavations dating from the Jomon period. However, the reality is that it was not until the postwar period when, due to acute food shortages, and with the permission of the Allied GHQ, Japan resumed large scale whaling activities in the Antarctic Ocean, in 1946. The whale populations were already in decline when Japan began its commercial whaling. In order to make it a viable industry, Japan purchased foreign whaling ships, which had ceased to be used for the commercial harvesting of whales when it no longer became a profitable trade for the countries who had previously indulged in it. During that lean period, whale meat was cheaper than other types of meat, and it became an important source of protein for the Japanese. But as soon as the market for other types of meat reopened and became more viable, the demand for whale meat decreased sharply. By 1950, there was a problem of over-supply. But despite this, the whaling industry never ceased to grow, and so the surplus of whale meat was used as a source of meat for school lunch meals for children. Also the industry pushed forward with processed foods made from whale meat. One of them was fish-meatsausages, which were mostly fish but included whale to add a "meaty" flavor. These sausages were kept from rotting by using AF2, a preservative which is no longer used because of strong suspicions that it has an adverse impact on human health and is a suspected cause of birth defects. The inclusion of this preservative enabled the meat to be transported at normal temperatures. And so these fish-meat-sausages appeared on the markets in suburbs where food circulation wasn't up to par, and where these types of markets were spreading all over Japan. Thus the great fishing industries were able to build, establish and expand bases of legitimacy and viability. Many people from the whaling industry argue that the industry has been in decline simply because of the moratorium on whaling. But as one can see, the whaling industry itself has had to shift toward hunting smaller Minke whales due to shortages of the great-sized whales such as the Blue, Fin, Right, Humpbacks well as the Sperm whales. In truth, the whaling industry has been in crisis because of the overexploitation or rampant decimation of the great whales.

46

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Whaling High – Norway
Norway continues whaling under Japanese cover–up
James Owen, Staffwriter for National Geographic, 6/27/2008, Why is Japan Whaling’s Boogeyman when Norway Hunts Too? < http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080627-japan-whaling.html> For the anti-whaling lobby, Japan appears to be its Moby Dick, a foe to be singled out and endlessly pursued. For example, activists chased Japanese whalers across the Southern Ocean under a full media glare this past winter. But are the attacks fair, when other nations also engage in substantial amounts of whaling—and unlike Japan, in open defiance of international conventions? Hunting opponents seeking to influence the International Whaling Commission (IWC), the world regulatory body, at its annual meeting in Santiago, Chile, this week were unequivocal. Japan is the "head of the zombie and needs to be cut off," said Willie Mackenzie, oceans campaigner for Greenpeace U.K. "It's very, very clear that, internationally, Japan is behind the drive towards commercial whaling." Japan not only kills the most whales, Mackenzie said, but it is also trying to "undermine" the international moratorium on commercial whaling and challenge the endangered status of some species. Yet Norway and Iceland also have substantial whaling programs—and do so not under the auspices of research but commercially, flouting IWC rules that have banned such activities since 1986. "Japanese people feel that, yes, maybe there is a little bit of racism in the way in which we are considered in comparison with the way Norway or other whaling nations are treated," said Noriko Hama, a professor of economics at Doshisha University in Kyoto. "If Japan continues whaling, we're 'barbarians.' But at the same time, I think Japan is giving its critics the excuse to level those accusations, because the government is simply not coming clean on its whaling policy," she said. According to IWC figures, Japanese ships killed 866 whales in the 2006-2007 season, a haul that included minke, fin, sei, and sperm whales—the most of any nation. Norway placed second with a total catch of 545 whales.

47

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Soft Power Low
Soft power is low now because of US inactivity on international environmental policy Joseph Nye, dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, 12/28/2002, The Decline of American Soft Power, <
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501facomment83303/joseph-s-nye-jr/the-decline-of-america-s-soft-power.html Anti-Americanism has increased in recent years, and the United States' soft power -- its ability to attract others by the legitimacy of U.S. policies and the values that underlie them -- is in decline as a result. According to Gallup International polls, pluralities in 29 countries say that Washington's policies have had a negative effect on their view of the United States. A Eurobarometer poll found that a majority of Europeans believes that Washington has hindered efforts to fight global poverty, protect the environment, and maintain peace. Such attitudes undercut soft power, reducing the ability of the United States to achieve its goals without resorting to coercion or payment. Skeptics of soft power (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld professes not even to understand the term) claim that popularity is ephemeral and should not guide foreign policy. The United States, they assert, is strong enough to do as it wishes with or without the world's approval and should simply accept that others will envy and resent it. The world's only superpower does not need permanent allies; the issues should determine the coalitions, not vice-versa, according to Rumsfeld. But the recent decline in U.S. attractiveness should not be so lightly dismissed. It is true that the United States has recovered from unpopular policies in the past (such as those regarding the Vietnam War), but that was often during the Cold War, when other countries still feared the Soviet Union as the greater evil. It is also true that the United States' sheer size and association with disruptive modernity make some resentment unavoidable today. But wise policies can reduce the antagonisms that these realities engender. Indeed, that is what Washington achieved after World War II: it used soft-power resources to draw others into a system of alliances and institutions that has lasted for 60 years. The Cold War was won with a strategy of containment that used soft power along with hard power. The United States cannot confront the new threat of terrorism without the cooperation of other countries. Of course, other governments will often cooperate out of self-interest. But the extent of their cooperation often depends on the attractiveness of the United States. Soft power, therefore, is not just a matter of ephemeral popularity; it is a means of obtaining outcomes the United States wants. When Washington discounts the importance of its attractiveness abroad, it pays a steep price. When the United States becomes so unpopular that being pro-American is a kiss of death in other countries' domestic politics, foreign political leaders are unlikely to make helpful concessions (witness the defiance of Chile, Mexico, and Turkey in March 2003). And when U.S. policies lose their legitimacy in the eyes of others, distrust grows, reducing U.S. leverage in international affairs. Some hard-line skeptics might counter that, whatever its merits, soft power has little importance in the current war against terrorism; after all, Osama bin Laden and his followers are repelled, not attracted, by American culture and values. But this claim ignores the ...

48

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Solvency – Soft Power Cards
Environmental leadership is key for sustainable soft power Eileen Claussen, President of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 7/10/2001, Senate Testimony
<http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_congress/testimony_07102001.cfm> There are other ways we can and should spur companies to act ahead of any mandatory requirements. One is for the government to enter into voluntary enforceable agreements with companies or sectors willing to commit to significant reductions--either in process emissions, or those from the use of products they make (e.g. automobiles or washing machines). In exchange for its commitment to cut emissions, a company or sector should be guaranteed that it would not be bound by subsequent mandates for greenhouse gas controls over the same time period. A similar approach could encourage companies, particularly in the electric utility sector, to cut carbon emissions as they undertake air pollution reductions required by existing law--a more cost-effective way to achieve multiple environmental objectives. While such efforts can help get the United States on track, the long-term emission reductions needed can be achieved only with a far more comprehensive--and binding--strategy. Alternative approaches should be closely studied, and the results publicly debated. But much of the analysis thus far suggests that a "cap-and-trade" system--which sets an overall cap on emissions and establishes a market in carbon credits--can provide the private sector the flexibility and incentive to achieve emission reductions at the least possible cost. As yet, we do not believe that we have economic models that can accurately predict the long-term costs and benefits of a serious climate strategy. However, the best analyses to date suggest that, with the use of rational strategies, the costs are reasonable, particularly when weighed against the serious and significant costs of not acting. Also, as I mentioned earlier, there will be important side benefits to many of these measures. The steps we take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will help U.S. companies compete in the international marketplace. Improving energy efficiency for example, makes good business sense, as well as good economic policy. Efficiency can mean new kinds of light bulbs that provide better light, waste less energy, and save money over their lifetimes. It can mean new industrial process designs that use less energy, produce more valuable products and produce less waste. It can mean superconductors that dramatically cut electricity transmission losses. Efficiency is not just a short-term solution; it is also a long-term solution. Both the electricity system and the automobile waste most of the energy they produce. In fact, we waste so much energy that the potential for longterm savings is huge.

49

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Solvency – Soft Power Cards
Environmental policies boost US influence and presence internationally Jacob Park, Staffwriter for the Washington Quarterly, 2/23/2000, Globalization after Seattle, <
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/washington_quarterly/v023/23.2park.html> The failure of the WTO negotiations cannot be blamed on one single factor. Some of the blame must be laid on the complexity and diversity of the trade issues. The lack of transparency and the secretive manner in which international trade rules are negotiated might have been acceptable in the past, but nonstate actors such as environmental groups and labor unions decided they were no longer satisfied with waiting on the policy sidelines. With 2000 presidential elections less than a year away, U.S. domestic politics no doubt played a key role in energizing the WTO protests. The usual lack of concern for the developing world's trade interests, coupled with new issues such as genetically modified foods and the environmental impact of [End Page 13] liberalizing the international commerce of forest and paper products, provided the ideal platform for anti-WTO rhetoric from all sides of the political spectrum and from all corners of the globe. Whether or not the WTO meeting in Seattle is the harbinger of what global governance may look like in the twenty-first century may depend on how successfully U.S. policymakers cultivate what Joseph Nye, the dean of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, calls America's "soft power." Unlike "hard power" that is exercised through economic sanctions or military force, soft power is the ability of a country to get what it wants through cooperation rather than coercion. The United States has become so successful at using hard power in places such as the Balkans and the Persian Gulf that the public sometimes forgets that hard power is not really an option when trying to forge global consensus on international business, labor, and environmental matters. The United States remains the world's only economic and military superpower, so the tendency just to bully other countries to accept its policy agenda has unfortunately become a normal part of our diplomatic reflex. This is why many people around the world resist the inevitability of globalization since the concept is so often tied to U.S. hegemony. Soft power is often the only diplomatic tool at the disposal of small, less powerful states that do not have the luxury of having a permanent seat on the UN Security Council nor of ranking as the most influential shareholder of the International Monetary Fund. A good example is the way small island nations have organized themselves into the Alliance of Small Island States, an effective lobbying group to promote the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which sets legally binding emissions targets for industrialized countries. Barbados, Marshall Islands, and other island states know that their policy objectives are attainable only by working together in a carefully planned alliance, an idea the United States often preaches but rarely commits to. Both dimensions of power are important expressions of U.S. foreign policy. But the ability to cultivate soft power, particularly within the framework of regional organizations such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum and global policy forums such as the International Standards Organization, is likely to determine the strength of U.S. leadership in world affairs. One way to cultivate soft power is for the U.S. government to develop a strategy to include nonstate actors such as environmental groups and labor unions in future international policy negotiations. In a press conference held a month before the WTO meeting, President Bill Clinton told reporters that he supports bringing labor and environmental interests into the trade deliberations. Yet, it took a lawsuit by a cadre of environmental groups [End Page 14] to force the U.S. Trade Representative's office to appoint environmentalists to its advisory panels on forest and wood products. President Clinton practically issued an invitation to the labor unions and environmental groups to participate in the trade negotiations, but they found riot police and tear gas when they arrived in Seattle. If the Clinton administration was serious about broadening the framework of the trade negotiations, the White House should have been more explicit in how this increased participation was to be achieved. There was an opportunity in the spring of 1999 to do just that, but it never materialized. More than six months before the WTO meeting, the Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation, and other environmental groups distributed a proposal that would give the White House the negotiating authority on trade while ensuring that environmental and health laws were not undermined by its goals. The proposal to establish a special standing committee on international trade, consisting of leaders, committee chairmen, and senior minority members from both parties, did not receive political support from the White House and Congress. The failure to establish such a committee is unfortunate because it might have partly addressed the concerns of labor and environmental groups before the WTO meeting in Seattle.

50

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Soft Power Good – Econ
US Soft Power is key to global economic stability Joseph Nye, dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, 12/28/2002, The Paradox of American Power
<http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2002/nye_ballgame_ft_122802.htm> The problem for Americans in the 21st century is that there are more and more things outside the control of even the most powerful state. Although the United States does well on the traditional measures of power, there is a whole new ball game increasingly more going on in the world that those measures fail to capture. The paradox of American power is that world politics is changing in a way that means the strongest power since Rome cannot achieve some of its most crucial international goals acting alone. The US lacks both the international and domestic prerequisites to resolve conflicts that are internal to other societies, and to monitor and control transnational transactions that threaten Americans at home. On many of the key issues today, such as international financial stability, drug smuggling, the spread of diseases or global climate change, military power simply cannot produce success, and its use can sometimes be counterproductive Instead as the largest country, the United States must mobilize international coalitions to address these shared threats and challenges. The agenda of world politics has become like a three-dimensional chess game in which one can win only by playing vertically as well as horizontally. On the top board of classic interstate military issues, the United States is likely to remain the only superpower for years to come, and it makes sense to speak in traditional terms of unipolarity or hegemony. However, on the middle board of interstate economic issues, the distribution of power is already multipolar The United States cannot obtain the outcomes it wants on trade, antitrust or financial regulation issues without the co-operation of the European Union, Japan and others. It makes little sense to call this American hegemony. And on the bottom board of transnational issues, power is widely distributed and chaotically organized among state and non-state actors. It makes no sense at all to call this a unipolar world or an American empire. And this is the set of issues that is now intruding into the world of grand strategy as illustrated by Bush's new doctrine. Yet the new unilateralist part of his administration still focuses solely on the top board of classic military solutions. Like children with a hammer, all problems look like nails to them.

Economic collapse causes extinction Bearden, Liutenant Colonel, 2000,The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How We Can Solve It)
Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China - whose long range nuclear missiles can reach the United States - attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is his side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all, is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed . The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.

51

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Soft Power Good – US-Sino Relations
Soft power is key to insuring stable US–China relations Yuhzu Wang, an associate professor of Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and a visiting scholar to University of Chicago, 2/6/2007, Power structure and its stability in North- East Asia,
<http://iaps.cass.cn/english/Articles/showcontent.asp?id=831> The world needs a more generous hegemony. The last but very important point to my argument is I believe that the U.S. government will behave rationally at most situations. Realists argue that great powers consider more about relative gains when dealing with international relations, because in a self-help world this is the rational choice. But I argue here, if they make choice rationally, they will not be offensive, instead, they should be defensive and more generous. First, America is the only hegemony in a globalized world, and there is an international regime led by America, through which America can take some relative gains. Second, bilaterally, realists argue the relative gains concerns make cooperation impossible, but in fact, when one side would like to make concession, cooperation is available. And I think the rising china is one case: although china knows that the U.S. dominant world order is far from justice, it still works positively within this system, because Beijing learned that the only way to get justice treatment is accepting the injustice of the world order and cooperate with the leaders. And this is the real relationship between china and America. Some argues that by engaging china, the united states lose the relative gains, because china’s GDP growth rates is higher than those of America, but only simple calculation can prove this argument is misleading. China should keep a 4-time higher GDP growth rate than America to maintain its GDP gap with America from being widened. Third, though offensive is seemed to be a foolproof method to maintain hegemonic status, its cost may be forbiddingly high, especially when you try to put down a big country like china. Yes, America may win a war on china easily, but how about India, which is also experienced rapid growth, and how about Russia? After all, all countries are growth and become more powerful. America can never have enough power to conquer all these “potential” challengers, and if it really tries to do so, it may decline even quicker. So, the best way should be using the soft power, focus more on the international regime and be a generous hegemony. That means the hegemony should try best to solve international conflicts peacefully, and avoiding push too hard for those offenders. For example, after being labeled “evil”, North Korea bombed its nuclear weapons and Iran began to seek nuclear weapons openly. Kissinger recommended recently that the Bush Administration should to try more diplomatic measures to solve the Iran issue and prepared to sit down to talk with enemy, that shows some people had realized be generous maybe helpful. The United States caught the only hegemony position after the end of the Cold War. It need time to get rid of the cold war thought and learn to be the leader of the world. And I believe they can learn quickly, the frustrating experience in Iraq maybe helpful in this aspect. So, I’m optimistic on the future of Northeast Asia. Yes I can be wrong, but that’s too bad, not for myself, but for the world. Thank you.

52

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Soft Power Good – US-Sino Relations <Warming>
US China cooperation is key to solve global warming (William Chandler , Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, March 2008, Breaking the Suicide Pact:
U.S.-China Cooperation on Climate Change) The United States and China must make accommodations to curb greenhouse gas emissions if both countries are to break their “suicide pact” of self-destructive, energy-using behavior. Together they produce 40 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, yet both countries demand that the other take responsibility for climate change, meanwhile the threat of environmental disaster grows. For the first time, China is considering an emissions target while half of U.S. states have set their own targets—the time for a deal is now. In Breaking the Suicide Pact: U.S.-China Cooperation on Climate Change, William Chandler, director of the Carnegie Energy and Climate Program, identifies practical, non treaty-based approaches both countries could take to cut their carbon dioxide emissions across economic sectors—with little financial impact. He argues that China and the United States should work together to set individual, national goals and achieve them through domestically enforceable measures and international agreements that prevent either nation from taking advantage of steps taken by the other. Key Recommendations for U.S.-China Cooperation: Eliminate subsidies that discourage energy efficiency. Provide tax breaks for investment in efficiency and low-carbon energy and impose tax penalties on high-carbon energy. Make climate cooperation integral to trade policy, such as jointly setting production standards to limit the energy used to manufacture exports. Create partnerships between Chinese provincial officials and leaders in U.S. states on the forefront of climate change prevention to improve implementation of innovative energy policies. Promote market penetration of existing carbon emission reduction technologies and encourage development of new technologies by linking American laboratories more closely to Chinese markets to share research and development costs. Encourage banks in China to remove the regulatory cap on interest rates for energy-efficiency investments. “U.S.–China collaboration poses no threat to the climate leadership of any region or nation or to global cooperation. It is a complement, not a challenge, to existing and planned emissions cap and trade systems. This act of mutual self-preservation would help the United States and China to avert climate disaster and the eventual sanctions of other nations if they do not act, and lay the groundwork for successful global action,” concludes Chandler.

Less trees increases GHG emissions which contribute to global warming Environmental Defense 2004 The Heat is on: a White paper on climate
Action, <http://www.edf.org/documents/3777_TheHeatIsOn.pdf> The reductions envisioned in Kyoto will buy critical time to allow additional approaches to be developed, including bilateral arrangements with developing countries. One principal area of concern is tropical deforestation, which is responsible for approximately 20% of total human caused carbon dioxide emissions. Providing incentives for forest conservation will be essential for any international climate agreement to work, and could also provide a bridge to re-engage the United States in the international climate debate. Amidst the uncertainty surrounding the Kyoto Protocol, one thing is clear: Developing countries are unlikely to substantially restrain their emissions until the United States shows leadership.

53

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Soft Power Good – US-Sino Relations <Proliferation>
Relations are key to prevent proliferation (Phillip C. Saunders, Director of East Asian Nonproliferation Program, October 23, 2001, "Can 9-11 Provide a Fresh Start for U.S.SINO Relations?", http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/sino911.htm) China and the United States still share numerous common interests in fighting proliferation. In terms of specific nonproliferation issues, the United States and China both oppose the introduction of nuclear weapons onto the Korean peninsula and seek to restrain India's efforts to build an operational nuclear arsenal. Both also want to avoid arms races in Northeast Asia that might lead Japan, South Korea, and even Taiwan to develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Finally, both the United States and China seek ways to improve the effectiveness of the treaties banning chemical and biological weapons. Obstacles to cooperation: Despite a significant record of successful bilateral cooperation, proliferation remains a contentious issue. China has received little political credit in the United States for its significant accomplishments, which have been overshadowed by a small number of continuing weapons transfers. U.S. concerns now center mainly on Chinese exports of ballistic missile technology to Pakistan and exports of dual-use technology to Iran that can be used for chemical and biological weapons. The current military conflict in Afghanistan and the threat of WMD terrorism have turned these issues from abstract proliferation concerns to concrete threats to American lives. If Pakistani nuclear weapons fall into the hands of Islamic terrorists, China's assistance to Pakistan's nuclear weapons program in the 1980s will be blamed. China argues that U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and proposals to provide theater missile defense systems to Japan and Taiwan should be considered a form of proliferation. Chinese efforts to link its bilateral proliferation commitments with American conventional arms sales to Taiwan have led many to question China's commitment to nonproliferation principles and to conclude that Chinese missile technology exports are used as leverage to force the United States to address Chinese security concerns. While China is a member of the major international arms control treaties, it has significant reservations about export control regimes such as the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). Chinese commitments to abide by MTCR restrictions on exports of ballistic missile technology have been made bilaterally, interpreted as narrowly as possible, and have not been implemented effectively. The United States is still waiting for China to issue export control laws governing missile technology that were promised in November 2000. Ironically, after American efforts to persuade China to join the arms control and nonproliferation regime bore fruit, the United States now appears to be losing interest in arms control. The Senate's rejection of the CTBT is one example; the Bush administration's rejection of international efforts to develop a BWC verification protocol is another. Several Bush administration officials have argued that the United States cannot afford to be constrained by treaties in an uncertain future world. Instead, the administration's emphasis has been on building ballistic missile defenses that can protect the U.S. homeland, which would require withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. Even a limited national missile defense (NMD) system would cause concerns for China, which currently possesses only 18-24 intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the United States. The Bush administration is not prepared to accept any binding limits on U.S. missile defenses, which makes it difficult to engage in a serious strategic dialogue with China. A serious strategic dialogue would also require China to discuss the ultimate size of its future strategic forces. U.S. NMD deployment would accelerate the pace and expand the scope of China's ongoing strategic modernization program. The issues of ballistic missile defense and China's strategic modernization are likely to continue to impede efforts to cooperate on other nonproliferation issues. Chinese concerns about NMD have already produced a deadlock in international arms control efforts, where work on a fissile material cutoff treaty has been linked to a Chinese demand for negotiations on a ban on outer space weapons. The U.S. emphasis on ballistic missile defense and counterproliferation at the expense of arms control could prompt China to withdraw from some of its bilateral nonproliferation commitments and even to resume nuclear weapons testing. Another important obstacle to cooperation is the Chinese buildup of short and medium range missiles opposite Taiwan. This buildup does not violate any international regimes, but China's use of M-9 missile tests to intimidate Taiwan in 1995-96 raised concerns throughout Asia about Chinese behavior and intentions. China regards its missiles as a means of deterring moves toward Taiwan independence. China strongly opposes the U.S. sale of advanced theater missile defense (TMD) systems to Taiwan, but its ongoing missile buildup (currently between 300-350 missiles) is increasing support for providing Taiwan with TMD. The missile buildup is also stimulating Taiwan's interest in developing offensive missile and aircraft strike capabilities that would allow it to hold China at risk. An arms race is already underway across the Taiwan Strait; the question is whether it will accelerate or whether it can be slowed or stopped.

54

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Soft Power Good – US-Sino Relations <Proliferation>
Proliferation leads to extinction. Victor Utgoff, Deputy Director of Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of Institute for Defense Analysis, Summer 02, “Proliferation, Missile Defence and American Ambitions”, Survival, p.87-90.
The war between Iran and Iraq during the 1980s led to the use of chemical weapons on both sides and exchanges of missiles against each other’s cities. And more recently, violence in the Middle East escalated in a few months from rocks and small arms to heavy weapons on one side, and from police actions to air strikes and armoured attacks on the other. Escalation of violence is also basic human nature. Once the violence starts, retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can escalate to levels unimagined by the participants before hand. Intense and blinding anger is a common response to fear or humiliation or abuse. And such anger can lead us to impose on our opponents whatever levels of violence are readily accessible. 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.

55

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Soft Power Good – Terrorism
Soft power is key to win the war on terror Associated Press, 11/26/2007, Defense Chief: Fight Terrorism with “Soft Power”, <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21980961/>
WASHINGTON - Defeating terrorism will require the use of more “soft power,” with civilians contributing more in communication, economic assistance, political development and other non-military areas, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday. Gates called for the creation of new government organizations, including a permanent group of civilian experts with a wide range of expertise who could be sent abroad on short notice as a supplement to U.S. military efforts. And he urged more involvement by university and other private experts. “We must focus our energies beyond the guns and steel of the military, beyond just our brave soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen,” he said in a speech at Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kan. “We must also focus our energies on the other elements of national power that will be so crucial in the coming years.” He said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as U.S. military involvement in the 1990s in the Balkans and in Somalia, have shown that long-term success requires more than U.S. military power. “Based on my experience serving seven presidents, as a former director of CIA and now as secretary of defense, I am here to make the case for strengthening our capacity to use ‘soft’ power and for better integrating it with ‘hard’ power,” Gates said. Many have argued that the Bush administration missed opportunities early in the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns to head off insurgent resistance by failing to focus on economic development, promotion of internal reconciliation, training of police forces and communication of U.S. goals.

US soft power is key to prevent a major terrorist attack on the US David Morey, Chair of the Independent Task Force on Public Diplomacy sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations – Founder & CEO of DMG, Inc., a strategic and communications consultanty – Prof of Int’l Affairs @ Columbia, 2002, The battle for hearts
and minds; U.S. public diplomacy should be more than public relations, Ironically, as this world's only superpower, the United States remains vulnerable as the terrorists' only super target. Terrorist attacks against the homeland make clear that America's national security cannot rest on favorable geography, military strength and economic power alone. It depends on a long-term process to shape an international environment that builds credibility and trust and serves our interests. But a critical point is this: A new public diplomacy paradigm cannot be reduced to the simplistic spin of a public relations campaign. In today's information society, nations, companies and candidates cannot depend simply on such tactics to make their case. Instead, they must use truth as the most powerful form of propaganda. Effective public diplomacy means getting out the truth, understanding and influencing foreign publics and educating them about American interests, policies and values. This is not about selling America. It's about revealing America. This is not about the image of America. It's about the idea of America: Countering aggressively the lies taught children in the more than 30,000 Madrasas operating in Pakistan today. Today, however, we must recognize that U.S. foreign policy has been weakened by a failure to include public diplomacy systematically in the policy making process. Examples of misunderstood policies include rejection of the Kyoto treaty, the treaty to ban anti-personnel land mines, the agreement to create an International Criminal Court and the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty. The point here is not that these are flawed policies or that foreign public opinion should drive policy. Rather, it is that foreign attitudes can affect the success or failure of policies, the willingness of allies and others to join coalitions and broad support for American interests and values. Across different administrations, strong disagreements and misunderstandings have existed among America's closest allies and others on many issues. How we explain and advocate policies matters. In the 21st century, the world is becoming more democratic. People are influencing what governments can do more than at any time in history. And policies and negotiated agreements will succeed only if they have the general support of opinion makers and the masses -- and only if public diplomacy is a central consideration in all policy decisions. In fact, public diplomacy should be a powerful asset in pursuit of America's interests around the world. It is central to national security -- and must be involved, to borrow Edward R. Murrow's famous phrase, in the "take-offs and not only the crash landings." In today's information age, it is simply not enough to explain our national policies only to world leaders.

56

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Competitiveness Impacts – US Econ
The failure to compete in this emerging renewables market will cripple U.S. economic and technological leadership Hendricks – Executive Director of the Apollo Alliance – 2-12-2004 (Bracken, FDCH Congressional Testimony, Subcommittee on
Energy and Mineral Resources Committee on House Resources, “Rising Price of Natural Gas,” Lexis-Nexis Universe) Energy is the lifeblood of a modern economy. And America's future prospects will depend upon the secure supply of affordable and sustainable energy that can fuel our continued growth and prosperity. But growing dependence on foreign oil, unprecedented energy failures, and mounting evidence of environmental crises are clear warning signs that America's current policies cannot be sustained. It is time for a bold initiative - with the vision and the scope of the original Apollo program - to end America's dependence on foreign oil and create millions of good jobs building the sustainable energy system of the next century. While the Apollo project is about changing our future, it is built on an honest assessment of our past and the recognition that public leadership and meaningful public investment have historically been essential for economic development and promoting new technology. In the past, government investment in the railroads, in the national highway system, in the space program, in the research and development of the micro chip and other technologies elevated our economy and quality of life to new levels. We cannot sit on the sidelines now if America is to move forward. The American economy will not grow its way out of problems thirty years in the making without real political leadership. Too often we are told to think small, that we have to choose between good jobs and environmental quality. This is a false choice and we can do better. Working families should not have to decide whether to put food on the table for our children today or protect the health and economic security of our children tomorrow. We must do both. Ensuring a diverse, efficient, and clean energy supply is essential for preserving good jobs, protecting our environment, and sustaining American global economic and technological leadership.

The US is losing out on billions – development of domestic industries is critical to technological competitiveness. Janet Sawin, Research Associate at the Worldwatch Institute, 3/26/02, “Losing the Clean Energy Race”
www.greenbiz.com/news/columns_third.cfm?NewsID=20066 The United States once led - actually, began - the clean energy revolution. As recently as 1990, U.S. industries played the dominant global role in wind and solar PV development and deployment. But, due to a lack of appropriate and consistent government support for clean energy technologies, and government subsidies that continue to favor dirty, conventional fuels and technologies, we are losing our role as technological leaders. We are now falling farther and farther behind as Japan and Europe surpass us with regard to total installed clean energy generating capacity, share of the global market, and ownership of manufacturers. U.S. companies must compete in the global marketplace. If this trend is not reversed, America will lose millions of potential high-wage, high-tech jobs, billions of dollars in potential investment and revenue. The US will also fail to glean multiple benefits not traditionally measured in economic terms that come with clean, safe, domestic and renewable energy technologies - including cleaner environment, reduced risk of global warming, improved human health, better quality of life, and a more secure future. With only 4.5 percent of the United States land area and a fraction of its wind resource potential, Germany has more than double the U.S. installed wind energy capacity. Denmark, a small nation of about five million people, is the world's leading manufacturer of wind turbines, with several turbine companies that consistently rank in the global top ten. The U.S. share of global PV shipments reached a peak in 1996, declining from 44 percent that year to 27 percent in 2001. Total grid-connected PV in the United States is now estimated to be only 15 percent of that in Japan, and 31 percent of that in Germany. The rising demand for Japanese and European made technology is due primarily to the dramatic increases in demand for renewable energy capacity in these countries, sparked by successful government policies aimed to develop markets for renewable energy. Meanwhile, the U.S. government continues to subsidize fossil fuels and nuclear power, at levels many times that for renewable energy technologies. Around the world, leaders in business and government are calling for a transition to a clean energy economy to address global climate change, increase national security and meet rising demand for energy worldwide. Perhaps most importantly, the American public wants clean energy. In poll after poll, Americans have expressed their preference for investment in renewable

57

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Competitiveness Impacts – US Econ
energy technologies over conventional energy. According to a Gallup poll taken November 8, 2001, 91 percent of Americans favor investments in new sources of energy, such as solar and wind. Top level advisors under Clinton, Reagan and Nixon have urged Congress to adopt strong measures now to advance renewable energy in order to advance America's energy security. "They [renewable energy technologies] are now ready to be brought, full force, into service…. Speedy action by the Administration and the Congress is critical to establish the regulatory and tax conditions for these renewable resources to rapidly reach their potential." David Freeman, who has held top positions at the New York Power Authority and Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and now heads the California Power Authority, notes that "our whole system of electric power supply is hard to defend against attack. The worst is nuclear." Sir Mark Moody Stuart, former CEO of Shell Oil company last month called on governments of northern countries "to expand renewable energy targets, removing inappropriate subsidies and switching some to renewable energy to provide a level playing field in the energy sector." Russian Vice Prime Minister Ylia Klebanov recently said that "using traditional energy technologies, it's hard to talk about [a] competitive economy. And for renewable energy technologies we do too little…." Every region and state in this nation has significant renewable energy potential - wind and solar energy, geothermal energy, ocean power, crops for biomass, and environmentally sustainable hydropower. In fact, North America has some of the world's greatest wind energy resources; North Dakota alone has enough to produce 1.2 trillion kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity each year , 37 percent of total U.S. electricity consumption in 1999 (3 trillion kWh ). Every minute, the sun drenches earth's surface with more energy than the world consumes in a year. The United States has the best solar resource of any industrialized country. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, enough electricity could be generated to meet all of U.S. demand with solar energy on a plot of land 100 miles square in Nevada. The benefits of renewable energy are compelling: a cleaner environment for current and future generations, reduced threats of global warming, economic growth, greater diversity of fuel supply, improved energy and national security, rapid and modular deployment, and a global potential for technology transfer and innovation. In addition, renewable energy technologies provide more jobs per unit of energy generated than do conventional energy technologies. According to the Department of Energy, wind energy provides about five times more jobs per dollar invested than coal or nuclear power. A recent study concluded that solar PV provides the most jobs of any renewable technology, on an energy capacity basis, and many of these positions are high-wage, high-tech jobs. The global markets for renewable energy and energy efficient technologies are booming. Wind has been the fastest growing energy source worldwide for most of the past decade, while global shipments of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels and modules have increased at an average annual rate of 33 percent since 1996. During the same period, the use of coal for generating electricity has declined by 9 percent worldwide. Solar PV and wind power technologies have matured considerably since the 1980s, experiencing dramatic increases in productivity and lifetime, while achieving significant declines in cost. In good wind sites, wind power is now the cheapest new energy source, with full life-cycle costs below those of most fossil-fuel powered plants. Today, solar PV provides electricity for several hundred thousand people around the world, creates employment for more than ten thousand people and generates business worth more than $2 billion annually. According to some forecasts, clean-energy markets will grow from less than $7 billion in 2000 to more than $82 billion by 2010 , and the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) predicts that PV technology has "the potential to become one of the world's most important industries." Driven by concerns about global warming, energy security, increasing demand for energy worldwide - particularly in developing countries and advances in renewable energy technologies, nations around the world are setting targets for renewable energy. The European Union aims to generate ten percent of its electricity with renewables by 2010, and the European Wind Energy Association projects that Europe will have 60,000 MW of installed wind capacity by that year. By the year 2020, wind energy could generate 10 percent of the world's electricity and create more than 1.7 million jobs. The European PV Industry Association projects that solar PV will provide 26 percent of total global annual electricity demand by 2040. Even China, India and Brazil have committed to significant increases in the use of renewable energy; India established a ministry for advanced energy technologies, and China has eliminated subsidies for coal. These three nations combined have more than two billion people, with rapidly rising demand for energy and the technologies that produce it, offering nearly unlimited market potential. The current political and commercial commitment to renewable energy around the world implies that the recent surge of activity in this industry is only the beginning of a massive transformation and expansion expected to occur over the coming decades. But without strong and sustained political leadership at home, Americans will lose out in this energy revolution. To compete successfully in the clean energy race, U.S. industries must be strong and resilient, which requires a strong and consistent domestic market for their products.

58

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Competitiveness Impacts – US Econ
Dominance by Europe and Japan in global renewable markets will collapse the U.S. economy – a transition to renewables is critical to prevent this. Jonathon Rynn, Asia Times, 6/20/08, “Guns Blight US Energy Choices”, www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JF20Dj01.html
When New York City wanted to make the biggest purchase of subway cars in US history in the late 1990s, more than US$3 billion worth, the only companies that were able to bid on the contract were foreign. The same problem applies to high-speed rail today: only European or Japanese companies could build any of the proposed rail networks in the United States. The US has also ceded the high ground to Europe and Japan in a broad range of other sustainable technologies. For instance, 11 companies produce 96% of medium to large wind turbines; only one, GE, is based in the United States, with a 16% share of the global market. The differences in market penetration come down to two factors: European and Japanese companies have become more competent producers for these markets, and their governments have helped them to develop both this competence and the markets themselves. Take Germany as an example. Even though the sun is not so shiny in that part of Europe, The average for electricity that is paid for nonrenewable sources is about 0.05 euro per kwh, so Germany is effectively paying double for its renewable electricity in a successful effort to encourage its production. Every year, the guaranteed price is lowered, so that the renewable sector can eventually compete on its own, having gotten over the hump of introducing new technology. Germany's other advantage is that it is a world leader in manufacturing renewable technology equipment - 32% of the solar equipment manufacturers in the world are located in Germany. In addition, almost 30% of global wind turbine manufacturing capacity is German. In Denmark we can see the advantages of good policy plus competence in building machinery. The world's largest wind turbine manufacturer, Vestas, is Danish. According to the Earth Policy Institute, "Denmark's 3,100 megawatts of wind capacity meet 20% of its electricity needs, the largest share in any country." These new solar technologies will probably result in lower-cost electricity for long-distance applications than photovoltaics. Asia is an important producer of renewable energy and train equipment as well. As of 2006, Japan produced about 39% of the solar cells in the world and has encouraged solar energy in Japan with subsidies for purchasing the equipment as well as generous research budgets. Japan's Shinkansen high-speed rail network covers much of the country. China is set to take off as one of the world’s biggest producers of solar and wind equipment owing to its rise as a manufacturing nation. Europe sets the pace But Europe and Japan's dominance in renewable technologies is really based in a broader domain of competitive competence. They dominate the most fundamental sector of the economy, namely the production of machinery for manufacturing industries in general (often referred to as the mechanical engineering sector). The European Union produces almost twice as much industrial equipment overall as the United States, according to data compiled by the EU, Japan produces almost as much as the US, with about half the population. The split among the EU, US, and Japan, which together produce most of the world's machinery, is 52%, 27% and 21%, respectively. A robust industrial sector is the infrastructure we need for building the tools that will help us to avert climate catastrophe. Think of the industrial sector of an economy as an ecosystem. Instead of the grass and leaves that feed the plant-eaters that feed the meat eaters, a modern economic ecosystem contains industrial equipment that makes production technology that creates the goods and services that people consume. The different niches of an economic ecosystem, such as the various machinery and equipment sectors, thrive as a self-reinforcing web of engineers, high-skill production workers, operational managers and factories. As of 2003, Europe's manufacturing sector made up 32% of its nonfinancial economy, while the manufacturing sector of the United States comprised only 13% of its nonfinancial sectors. The decline of American machinery and manufacturing sectors, in conjunction with the on-again/offagain nature of American renewable energy policy, explains why Europe and Japan are so far ahead of the United States in the transition to a more sustainable economy. And America's decline can be traced to one overriding factor: a military budget that comprises nearly half of the world's military spending. For decades, as the late Professor Seymour Melman showed in many books (such as After Capitalism) and in numerous articles, the Pentagon has been draining not just money but also the engineering, scientific and business talent that Europe and Japan have been using for civilian production. As Melman often pointed out, the US military budget is a capital fund, and American citizens can use that fund to help finance the construction of the trains, wind and solar power, and other green technologies that will help us to avoid economic and environmental collapse. That economic collapse, if it comes, will be caused by two major factors: the end of the era of cheap oil, coal and natural gas; and the decline of the manufacturing and machinery base of the economy. Both problems can be addressed simultaneously, as Europe and Japan are showing, by moving the economy from one based on military and fossil fuel production to one based on electric transportation and the generation of renewable electricity.

59

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Competitiveness Good – US Econ
Creating a stable domestic market for renewable will allow U.S. industries to capture large shares of the global market and overtake competitors in Europe and Japan. Jason Walsh, national policy director for Green For All, and Sarah White, senior policy associate with the Center on Wisconsin Strategy, 5/20/2008, www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JE20Dj07.html
The new-energy economy will not solve all of the problems of economic inequality, environmental degradation and energy insecurity. But it can contribute mightily to a resurgence of the American middle class and a sustainable environmental ethos. By expanding existing industries and creating new ones, the emerging green sector can retain and create significant numbers of domestic jobs. What are these green-collar jobs? We define the core of this sector as family-supporting, middle-skill jobs, most of them in the primary sectors of a clean-energy economy - efficiency, renewables and alternative transportation and fuels. There are many ways to count them, none perfect. One respected source, using a broad set of parameters, estimates that the renewable and efficiency sectors may account for as many as one in four jobs by 2030. This projection includes both the full range of jobs in these industries - from accountants to mechanics - and those created indirectly by them. Whatever the relative merits of such approximations, even the most modest modeling indicates that the green economy holds much promise for urban and rural revitalization. A large part of this promise is based on the reality that green-collar jobs are community-based: because they focus on transforming the immediate natural and built environment, they are harder, in some cases impossible, to offshore. No one will ship a building from Chicago to be retrofitted in China. The energy efficiency industry provides perhaps the most exciting opportunity. Substantially reducing energy waste through systematic retrofitting and upgrading of residential and commercial buildings is a key area where environmental and equity agendas can come together to create good jobs in plentiful numbers. The work requires a multi-skilled, local workforce, and it feeds a buildingmaterials industry that is still largely domestic. Make no mistake: we are talking about a lot of jobs here. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority estimates that for every gigawatt hour saved, the agency's programs create or retain 1.5 jobs. A recent report for the American Solar Energy society counts eight million jobs created in the US energy efficiency industry in 2006 alone (3.7 million directly in efficiency). Building-trades jobs are not the only green-collar occupations resistant to offshoring. The manufacturing sector, which has borne the brunt of job losses in this country could receive a marked job creation boost from a substantial shift to renewable energy. The Renewable Energy Policy Project has published a series of reports identifying the potential for states with existing industrial infrastructure and skilled labor to become component manufacturing leaders for the wind industry. If the country can muster the US$62 billion investment required to expand wind capacity by 125,000MW over the next 10 years - the amount needed to stabilize US carbon emissions - the wind energy sector could create nearly 400,00 domestic manufacturing jobs. And the top 20 states that stand to benefit are some of the most populous and hardest hit by recent manufacturing job loss. California and Texas lead the list, followed by the Great Lakes states: New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The United States is playing catch-up to others, especially the Europeans and the Japanese, who have invested heavily in developing the expertise and manufacturing base for this production. But there are good reasons to believe we can and should catch up. Transporting huge turbines overseas is unsound from a carbon perspective; with oil periodically breaching $100 per barrel, it is financially irrational as well. Soaring shipping costs (and a foundering dollar) are already driving greater domestic production. Some of the key wind turbine manufacturers serving the US market, such as Vestas (Denmark), Siemens (Germany), Gamesa (Spain), Mitsubishi (Japan), and Suzlon (India), have already started to produce turbines locally. The siting by foreign companies of manufacturing facilities in the United States, and the potential of US manufacturers to be the links in a supply chain for the wind industry, are signs of progress. They should not obscure the additional promise that US-based green industries hold to be globally competitive sectors. With the right policy supports, US-based renewable energy and energy efficiency industries can capture large shares of these rapidly expanding global markets and export their products, from solar cells to energy efficiency appliances, to consumers around the world. Sound national policy The possible future, then, is compelling, as long as we demonstrate the policy smarts and political will to achieve it. This means crafting sound national policy to create stable domestic markets for renewable energy and using related energy standards as green job creation tools.

60

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Competitiveness Good – US Econ
Loss of competitiveness spills over into every sector of the economy, and causes a collapse Connolly 2002 (Bernard| Chief Global Strategist, AIG| Dark Vision for the World Economy|
http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/Connolly.html| But as capital accumulation proceeds, the rate of return on capital gradually subsides back towards its starting point, even if the process takes several years. As it does, business investment does not just decelerate -- it falls in absolute terms. A similar story can be told about consumer investment -- residential construction and purchases of consumer durables. As domestic demand falls back, net exports need to rise to fill the gap, a gap made bigger by the increase in capacity produced by the preceding years of strong investment. But, by definition, the exchange rate cannot adjust to aid this process. Instead, the lagged effects of past overheating, showing up in inflation, actually worsen international competitiveness. With domestic demand falling and competitiveness worsening simultaneously, the economy goes into a tailspin. Unemployment rises; inflation begins to fall back, even though for some time it remains above levels in competitor countries. Since nominal interest rates are set outside the domestic economy, falling inflation pushes real interest rates up while the rate of return on capital is coming down -- this combination produces falling asset prices, worsening the decline in domestic demand. To re-balance the economy, domestic inflation has to fall below that in other countries under the influence of recession and rising unemployment. But the process of disinflation (perhaps even deflation) constantly pushes real interest rates up. Worse, asset deflation weakens balance sheets, including the government's. Bankruptcy and default, including government default, become real possibilities. Credit spreads widen, exacerbating the problem of excessively high real interest rates. Asset markets weaken further. The circle is vicious indeed. If nothing is done to break into it, the outcome will be not just economic and financial collapse but social and political chaos.

61

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Competitiveness Good – International trade/conflict
Loss of U.S. competitiveness leads to protectionism, regional trade blocs, and international conflict – perception of commitment to trade is key Fred Bergsten, Director of the Institute for International Economics and former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, 2001, Foreign
Affairs, March/April, "America's Two-Front Economic Conflict" THE UNITED STATES and the European Union (EU) are on the brink of a major trade and economic conflict. Washington has already retaliated against European import restrictions on American beef and bananas -- each retaliation accounting for a hundred million dollars or so of annual trade -- and has rejected all European efforts to resolve these disputes. Europe in turn threatens to retaliate against several billion dollars of U.S. export subsidies, as well as new U.S. trade laws that would channel the proceeds of antidumping penalties from the Treasury Department to the complaining industries and would force the president to continually change the products being retaliated against, thus intensifying the impact of U.S. punitive sanctions. Still larger trade clashes loom. The troubled U.S. steel industry will likely file additional antidumping cases against European firms or even an industry-wide safeguard action that would restrict all European imports. In addition, a major dispute over commercial aircraft is brewing as the two sides quarrel over whether direct European governmental subsidies for Airbus or indirect Pentagon subsidies for Boeing are more egregious. Europe's outcry over U.S. sanctions against European firms that deal with American adversaries such as Cuba and Iran has only been swept under the rug. And just over the horizon lies the biggest battle of all: the debates over farm subsidies, genetically modified products, and overall agricultural trade that will explode in 2003, when the U.S.-EU "peace clause" (a moratorium on new complaints in the agricultural sector) expires. The United States and Europe also differ on global trade issues for which they share leadership responsibility. They remain divided, for example, on whether to include competition policy and investment issues in new WTO negotiations. It was their opposing views on issues such as these that scuttled any prospect of launching a new round of trade talks at Seattle. Furthermore, the United States and Europe are divided on energy and environmental issues. As energy prices soared and riots erupted on European roadways last fall, European resentment flared anew over Americans' penchant for cheap fuel and their profligate energy consumption. The recent Hague conference that sought to devise operational plans to check global warming broke up over fundamental disagreements about who bears responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions, how they should be cut back, and who should pay for doing so. Financial relations are another potential land mine. When the European Central Bank intervened to halt the slide of the euro last September, the United States provided only grudging support. But now that the euro has rebounded, the shoe may soon be on the other foot as the dollar risks a sharp decline in the wake of a domestic economic slowdown and an annual trade deficit approaching $ 500 billion. Europe should be willing to help in such a circumstance, since it would not want to see the euro soar to levels that would jeopardize the price competitiveness of its exports. But it might be less enthusiastic to bolster the dollar if the net effect were to finance massive tax cuts a la President George W. Bush that would further reduce U.S. national savings and hence increase America's draw on foreign capital. The accumulation of such potential conflicts poses high risks for both American and European economies. Moreover, the global impact of a commercial clash between these two titans could be severe -- including systemic damage to the WTO, especially its crucial but fragile dispute settlement mechanism. A transatlantic economic conflict may also exacerbate potential security tensions over issues such as a future policy toward the Balkans, American concern over European plans for an autonomous military force, and European anxieties that American proposals for a missile defense system will renew tensions with Russia and trigger another global arms race. All this calls for new basic strategies for managing globalization, especially in light of the developments simultaneously arising on the other side of the world.

62

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Competitiveness Good – Hege
Competitiveness key to hegemony NAFSA, Association of International Educators, October 2007, “An International Education Policy For U.S. Leadership,
Competitiveness, and Security”, http://www.nafsa.org/public_policy.sec/united_states_international/toward_an_international The need is critical. Globalization is obliterating the distinction between foreign and domestic concerns. Today, most domestic problems are also international problems. The global economic and technology revolutions are redefining the nation’s economic security and are reshaping business, work, and life. In a devastating report, the Committee for Economic Development documents the myriad ways in which the U.S. educational system fails to produce graduates with the knowledge and skills required for a global workforce. U.S. competitiveness is a national interest. It underpins national security and leadership, and deliberate policies are required to facilitate it. U.S. dependence on international scientific and technological talent is making educational exchange relationships more complex. The United States now not only has an interest in educating international students in the United States and returning them to contribute to the leadership and development of their home countries, but we also have an interest in educating international students in the United States and hiring them to fill positions in our high-technology industries and research establishments. Return to their home country now often occurs later, after some years of work in the United States. These new realities are rendering obsolete many of the assumptions that have guided the administration of educational exchange. Without a policy, the implementation of exchange risks becoming more and more detached from today’s realities.

63

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Competitiveness Good – Terrorism
Improved technological response is crucial to winning the war on terror. Omar Hussein 9/14/06 “9/11 a wake-up call for U.S. science education” Daily Trojan,
http://media.www.dailytrojan.com/media/storage/paper679/news/2006/09/14/Opinions/911A.WakeUp.Call.For.U.s.Science.Education-2271332-page3.shtml Yet it is just that technological might that is needed to keep the nation secure in the face of global terrorism. It does not take much imagination to see why. Whatever method is used to combat terrorism, from infiltration of terrorist cells on our own soil to monitoring cell phone "chatter" in Pakistan, it will benefit from the improved data processing and communications that inevitably result from technical advancement. Weapons development, reconnaissance, logistics, translation, cryptography, information storage and retrieval, personnel training, combat simulation - all are essential elements of successful warfare in the digital age, and all require a robust scientific society behind them.

Terrorism leads to extinction. That’s Corsi <in the 1AC>.

64

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Free Trade Good – NW
Economic integration through more open trade prevents nuclear war Spicer, Olin Foundation, 96 [Michael, The Challenge from the East and the Rebirth of the West, p. 121]
The choice facing the West today is much the same as that which faced the Soviet bloc after World War II: between meeting head-on the challenge of world trade with the adjustments and the benefits that it will bring, or of attempting to shut out markets that are growing and where a dynamic new pace is being set for innovative production. The problem about the second approach is not simply that it won’t hold: satellite technology alone will ensure that consumers will begin to demand those goods that the East is able to provide most cheaply. More fundamentally, it will guarantee the emergence of a fragmented world in which natural fears will be fanned and inflamed. A world divided into rigid trade blocs will be a deeply troubled and unstable place in which suspicion and ultimately envy will possibly erupt into a major war. I do not say that the converse will necessarily be true, that in a free trading world there will be an absence of all strife. Such a proposition would manifestly be absurd. But to trade is to become interdependent, and that is a good stop in the direction of world stability. With nuclear weapons at two a penny, stability will be at a premium in the years ahead

Trade organizations like the WTO are crucial to stop global nuclear war. Copley News Service December 1, 1999
For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by nuclear war. The specter of nuclear winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. Activists protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle apparently have forgotten that threat. The truth is that nations join together in groups like the WTO not just to further their own prosperity, but also to forestall conflict with other nations. In a way, our planet has traded in the threat of a worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative global economics. Some Seattle protesters clearly fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades past. But they're not. They're special-interest activists, whether the cause is environmental, labor or paranoia about global government. Actually, most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace activists, such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand Russell, the father of the nuclear disarmament movement, both of whom urged people and nations to work together rather than strive against each other. These and other war protesters would probably approve of 135 WTO nations sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the past might have been settled by bullets and bombs. As long as nations are trading peacefully, and their economies are built on exports to other countries, they have a major disincentive to wage war. That's why bringing China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so important. As exports to the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand for the goods we produce, the threat of hostility diminishes

65

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Innovation Key to Economy
Innovation is the core of economic success Bill Gates, chairman of Microsoft Corp. and co-chairman of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. His wife is a director of The Washington Post Co., 2/25/2007, How to Keep America Competitive, < http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022301697.html> For centuries people assumed that economic growth resulted from the interplay between capital and labor. Today we know that these elements are outweighed by a single critical factor: innovation. Innovation is the source of U.S. economic leadership and the foundation for our competitiveness in the global economy. Government investment in research, strong intellectual property laws and efficient capital markets are among the reasons that America has for decades been best at transforming new ideas into successful businesses. The most important factor is our workforce. Scientists and engineers trained in U.S. universities -- the world's best -- have pioneered key technologies such as the microprocessor, creating industries and generating millions of highpaying jobs. But our status as the world's center for new ideas cannot be taken for granted. Other governments are waking up to the vital role innovation plays in competitiveness. This is not to say that the growing economic importance of countries such as China and India is bad. On the contrary, the world benefits as more people acquire the skills needed to foster innovation. But if we are to remain competitive, we need a workforce that consists of the world's brightest minds. Two steps are critical. First, we must demand strong schools so that young Americans enter the workforce with the math, science and problem-solving skills they need to succeed in the knowledge economy. We must also make it easier for foreign-born scientists and engineers to work for U.S. companies. Education has always been the gateway to a better life in this country, and our primary and secondary schools were long considered the world's best. But on an international math test in 2003, U.S. high school students ranked 24th out of 29 industrialized nations surveyed. Our schools can do better. Last year, I visited High Tech High in San Diego; it's an amazing school where educators have augmented traditional teaching methods with a rigorous, project-centered curriculum. Students there know they're expected to go on to college. This combination is working: 100 percent of High Tech High graduates are accepted into college, and 29 percent major in math or science. Contrast that with the national average of 17 percent. To remain competitive in the global economy, we must build on the success of such schools and commit to an ambitious national agenda for education. Government and businesses can both play a role. Companies must advocate for strong education policies and work with schools to foster interest in science and mathematics and to provide an education that is relevant to the needs of business. Government must work with educators to reform schools and improve educational excellence. American competitiveness also requires immigration reforms that reflect the importance of highly skilled foreignborn employees. Demand for specialized technical skills has long exceeded the supply of native-born workers with advanced degrees, and scientists and engineers from other countries fill this gap. This issue has reached a crisis point. Computer science employment is growing by nearly 100,000 jobs annually. But at the same time studies show that there is a dramatic decline in the number of students graduating with computer science degrees. The United States provides 65,000 temporary H-1B visas each year to make up this shortfall -- not nearly enough to fill open technical positions. Permanent residency regulations compound this problem. Temporary employees wait five years or longer for a green card. During that time they can't change jobs, which limits their opportunities to contribute to their employer's success and overall economic growth. Last year, reform on this issue stalled as Congress struggled to address border security and undocumented immigration. As lawmakers grapple with those important issues once again, I urge them to support changes to the H-1B visa program that allow American businesses to hire foreign-born scientists and engineers when they can't find the homegrown talent they need. This program has strong wage protections for U.S. workers: Like other companies, Microsoft pays H-1B and U.S. employees the same high levels -- levels that exceed the government's prevailing wage. Reforming the green card program to make it easier to retain highly skilled professionals is also necessary. These employees are vital to U.S. competitiveness, and we should welcome their contribution to U.S. economic growth. We should also encourage foreign students to stay here after they graduate. Half of this country's doctoral candidates in computer science come from abroad. It's not in our national interest to educate them here but send them home when they've completed their studies. During the past 30 years, U.S. innovation has been the catalyst for the digital information revolution. If the United States is to remain a global economic leader, we must foster an environment that enables a new generation to dream up innovations, regardless of where they were born. Talent in this country is not the problem -- the issue is political will.

66

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Cap–and–trade Good – Econ
Action helps the economy John Podesta, President and Chief Executive Officer of American Progress, Todd Stern, Senior Fellow at American Progress, Kit Batten, Managing Director for Energy and Environmental Policy and is a Ph.D. ecologist 11/27/07, “Capturing the Energy opportunity Creating a Low-Carbon Economy” http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/11/pdf/energy_chapter.pdf
Taking such action is not just good for our environment. Actions like these can provide a powerful charge to the economy. Our vision of a low-carbon economy includes vigorous private and public research pushing the envelope on technologies that will not only stabilize emissions at livable levels during the next 50 years but also create the clean-powered world that our grandchildren and their children will see at the dawn of the next century. Developing, deploying, and building at this scale recalls other great economic transformations in America’s past, like the laying of our railroads and the construction of the interstate highway system. But in many ways our new challenge is even more complex since energy powers every part of the economy. Yet that’s exactly why these advancements will drive economic growth and American leadership in a competitive global economy well into the 21st century

U.S. action increases competition John Podesta, President and Chief Executive Officer of American Progress, Todd Stern, Senior Fellow at American Progress, Kit Batten, Managing Director for Energy and Environmental Policy and is a Ph.D. ecologist 11/27/07, “Capturing the Energy opportunity Creating a Low-Carbon Economy” http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/11/pdf/energy_chapter.pdf
The good news is that the technology we need to begin the transformation to a low-carbon economy exists and the investment dollars are available if the policy ground rules are properly established. A great deal of investment and effort will be needed to make this vision real, but the hard work of ushering it in can become a powerful engine for growth, competitive advantage and jobs. Our competitors are figuring this out, while our national leaders have been asleep at the switch. Over the past 10 years, for example, our market share in producing solar cells has plummeted, while Japan, relying on government R&D and consumer subsidies, has become the world leader. Germany, not known for its sunshine, has also become a solar leader, thanks to some well-placed incentives. European companies have also captured a dominant share, approximately 70 percent, of the world market for wind turbines. And Brazil has vastly reduced its dependence on oil by ramping up its production of ethanol and transforming its auto fleet to run on such fuel. Our nation has always thrived on its creativity, entrepreneurial character, flexible economic structure, resourcefulness, and can-do spirit. Over and over, in the face of large and difficult challenges—cleaning our air and water, repairing the ozone layer, making cars go farther on a gallon of gas (which we did 30 years ago before reversing direction)—the gloomy chorus has complained that we couldn’t succeed, that the economy would fail, that jobs would disappear, that America’s competitive edge would be blunted. Every time the naysayers have been proven wrong, and this will happen again when we rise to meet our new energy challenge.

Businesses/corporate leaders want to invest now and a binding target works better Environmental defense 2004 “ The Heat is on: a White paper on climate action” http://www.edf.org/documents/3777_TheHeatIsOn.pdf
Delaying action now will cause more serious economic disruptions later. The bottom line is that businesses abhor uncertainty. Many corporate leaders are convinced that the United States will eventually have to join in fighting global warming, and would prefer to begin making capital investments now than waiting until the last minute, when the job will be more expensive. Some corporate leaders are also worried that without binding targets, American companies will have less incentive to develop technologies to reduce global warming gases, thereby ceding a lucrative emerging market to their European and Japanese competitors. 67

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Cap–and–trade Good – Econ
Clean energy creates jobs New Apollo Energy Project [no date?] “The Problem: U.S. is falling behind in the clean energy industry, while jobs and investments are going overseas” http://www.apollopac.com/pdf/Jobs.pdf
The United States is letting other countries take the lead in the development and manufacturing of clean energy technologies. Clean energy technologies promise to be the next wave of new industries creating millions of new jobs. In the 1980ʼs, it was the personal computer; in the 1990ʼs, it was the Internet and software development; we are in the midst of a bio-tech revolution, and clean energy is next. The worldwide clean energy market is already experiencing double-digit growth. Wind power has averaged 32% growth per year for the past five years, attracting more than $7 billion in investments in 2002 alone. Europe anticipates generating as much as 20% of its power by wind by 2010. The clean energy revolution will create millions of new jobs in the countries that take the lead in their development. At this time, unfortunately, those countries are Germany, Denmark, and Japan. Meanwhile, the United States has lost more than 2.5 million manufacturing jobs since George Bush took office in 2001. American exports have recorded their largest drop in 50 years, and despite some recent gains, the economic recovery in the manufacturing sector has been the slowest since the Fed began keeping records in 1919.

68

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Cap–and–Trade Bad/Taxes Good
Cap–and–trade systems are impossible to manage – only a tax can solve Kenneth C. Johnson, author of Energy Policy, October 23, 2006, 2007, vol. 35, issue 5, pages 3115-3118
< http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2W-4MG1P632&_user=4257664&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000022698&_vers ion=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4257664&md5=c52050e967a5eb01d0033cd487df20b7> Regulatory climate policy entails a tradeoff between environmental goals and costs. If the highest-priority policy objective is environmental sustainability, an appropriate regulatory instrument would be a cap and trade system that caps emissions at a sustainable level and seeks to achieve the cap at minimum cost. The economic costs of cap and trade can be minimized by employing emission trading and by allocating emission allowances freely, although there is no guarantee of cost acceptability. But if political imperatives favor cost acceptability over environmental goals, then an appropriate instrument might be an emission tax. A tax effectively caps costs by mandating an emission price, although there is no guarantee that the tax incentive would be sufficient to achieve environmental sustainability. Cap and trade has become accepted as the mainstay of greenhouse gas regulatory policy, but considering that caps are never set at sustainable levels it is evident that cost control takes precedence over emission control and that emission caps are determined primarily to hit cost targets, not sustainability targets. This is an ineffective and inappropriate use of cap and trade because it is not possible, in the context of rapidly evolving technologies and volatile markets, to predict in advance an emission cap or a schedule of declining caps that will achieve minimum emissions within limits of cost acceptability. When cost considerations take precedence over environmental interests, cap and trade can perversely reduce the likelihood of achieving environmental sustainability goals because the only way to guarantee compliance with the emission cap, while also ensuring cost acceptability, is to set the cap so far above the sustainable level that cost acceptability is assured under the most costconservative predictive assumptions. Moreover, without any incentive to reduce aggregate emissions below the cap level it is virtually certain that sustainability goals will not be attained. It would seem that emission taxes, which provide cost certainty, would be more compatible with cost-constrained political priorities, but a carbon tax commensurate with environmental goals would be politically and economically unviable because of the high cost that taxes impose on industry. Taxes can be made more politically palatable by “recycling” tax revenue to consumers, e.g., through reduced income taxes. Indeed, a tax of sufficient magnitude to achieve climate sustainability might conceivably displace income taxes altogether. But the revenue transferred from industry to consumers may be spent in ways that are unrelated to the tax's environmental purpose and that might even increase greenhouse-gas-related consumption. Moreover, tax recycling would make the government's tax base and the economy perversely dependent on carbon emissions, creating a situation in which the government would lose much of its tax base if the policy actually succeeded in achieving carbon neutrality. A more direct and efficient way to effectuate tax recycling would be to refund the tax to the regulated industry as a production subsidy. For example, taxes in the utility power sector would be refunded in proportion to power generation, so that firms with worse-thanaverage emission performance (as measured by CO2 emissions per unit power output) incur a positive net cost from the program, while those with better-than-average performance derive net income. The Swedish Acid Rain program uses a refunded tax of this type to regulate stationary-source NOx emissions (Ågren, 2000; Isaksson and Sterner, 2006; Wolff, 2r000). In contrast to conventional tax recycling, refunding has the advantage that the only net aggregate costs that a refunded tax imposes on industry are regulation-induced costs for emission reduction. New low-emission technologies at their nascent commercial stage would be economically dependent on tax-financed net subsidies, but the subsidies would automatically phase out, without further regulatory intervention, as the technologies gain market share and economies of scale. Conventional economic analysis tends to focus on the “Prices vs. Quantities” distinction between caps and taxes (Weitzman, 1974), but revenue distribution is also critically important. The political advantage and success of cap and trade can be attributed to the fact that with free allocation a regulated firm need not pay for emission rights to cover its entire emission output; it only has to buy credits to cover any excess emissions over its allotted quota. If it does not need its full quota, the firm can sell its unneeded allowances at a profit. A conventional emission tax, by contrast, requires that all regulated firms—even the most emissionefficient—pay for their entire emission output. The distributional impact of the tax would be similar to cap and trade with auctioned permits, which would be no more politically palatable than a tax. On the other hand, refunding would eliminate the political handicap of taxes relative to cap and trade, and the price stability afforded by refunded taxes would further enhance their political favor.

69

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Cap–and–Trade Bad/Taxes Good
Cap–and–trade only drives up prices which a carbon tax avoids Tam Hunt, Community Environmental Council, 6/25/2008, Forget Cap and Trade, a Carbon Tax is Better, <
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/recolumnists/story?id=52717> But this isn't really bad news because the whole idea of a national cap and trade isn't very good to begin with, considering the new economic reality surrounding energy. Oil reached US $135 a barrel in late May and has stayed above US $120 since then. Many analysts are predicting US $150-200 oil within two years. Natural gas prices have surged to records not seen since Hurricane Katrina and Rita locked in significant Gulf of Mexico production. Coal prices are at records and have doubled over the last year. Utility bills will soon follow as utility companies are forced to pay far higher prices and pass those prices along to ratepayers. Gasoline keeps rising and has breached US $4/gallon nationally and is over US $4.50/gallon in places like California (and over US $4.70/gallon at some stations in my hometown of Santa Barbara). Diesel prices are even higher, topping US $5/gallon. What does all this spell for our future? In a word: conservation. Lo and behold, gasoline demand is not inelastic, as economists have stated for years. People do in fact respond to higher prices. Prices just had to rise high enough to provoke a significant response. US $4/gallon seems to have been the magic number. In May, auto companies released their sales figures and they were remarkable: SUV and light truck sales have dipped 30-60% (depending on the brand) over the last year. Small car sales are up almost as much. At the same time, total "vehicle miles traveled" dipped for the first time since 1979. Behavior is changing — and rapidly — in light of higher prices. Markets are in fact working. The question is: will prices remain high and will these behavior changes persist even if prices dip again? Looking to history, we can see that after an impressive ten-year period of conservation and declining petroleum demand after the oil shocks of the 1970s, the U.S. consumer returned to her profligate ways. We forgot the lessons of the past. Will the same thing happen this time around? Don't count on it. The difference this time around is that the higher prices are prompted mostly by fundamental supply and demand issues. We may already have reached a global peak in oil production, and even if we haven't, it will likely be here in the 20102015 timeframe at the latest. When global peak oil production is reached, we can count on far higher prices than today's records. At the same time, we have already witnessed declining global oil exports. While global production has been on a plateau the last three years, global oil exports from the top 15 exporters declined 2.7% in 2007 (according to EIA data). In 2008, this trend has accelerated, with imports to the US from Venezuela and Mexico, two of our five largest suppliers, down 32% on an annual basis. This may have been a factor in price increases over the last few months, as US inventories are declining. So high oil prices are very likely to persist, with some possible dips along the way. And the most likely outcome of these dynamics is far higher oil prices between now and 2020. Far higher prices will lead to very significant demand destruction in the US and throughout the world as consumers change their behavior and countries that subsidize oil prices are forced to lift subsidies as their treasuries buckle under the weight. This brings us back to cap and trade. Any legislation that could be passed by this Congress this year and not vetoed by President Bush will have far less impact on consumer behavior than market forces are already achieving. Republicans in Congress have a decent point when they say the last thing consumers need right now is even higher prices due to federal legislation (though higher prices in the short and mid-term would likely lead to longer-term cost savings for consumers as alternatives came online in a big way). A better course of action would be for Congress to adopt a modest carbon tax, such as those proposed by Stark or Dingell, and use the revenue to fund petroleum reduction planning efforts at the state and local level, and to fund alternatives to the status quo. For example, a ten cent per gallon carbon tax (on top of the current 18 cent per gallon federal gas tax) could fund billions in planning efforts and renewable technologies around the country. Ten cents per gallon is small enough that it wouldn't be a huge burden on most consumers. For lower income consumers that may be harmed by an additional tax, Congress could provide for annual or semi-annual rebates, eliminating the regressivity of such a tax. A carbon tax is also easier to administer than a cap and trade system, and is less vulnerable to gaming and extreme price volatility. More information is available at www.carbontax.org. The carbon tax idea has support from countless economists, the American Petroleum Institute, Al Gore, and many other leaders and policymakers. It should be considered superior to cap and trade in many ways. Good government policies can do much in times of normal energy prices. But with energy prices sky high, market forces will do far more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through reduced fossil fuel consumption. So government policies should, in such times, simply try to guide consumers toward better long-term options. A carbon tax that is used to fund state and local planning efforts, and alternative energy technologies, would be the right solution at this time.

Cap–and–Trade Bad – Econ
Cap–and–Trade kills the US economy
70

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will The Heritage Foundation, 5/22/2008, Morning Bell: Cap and Trade Already Killing US Economy,
<http://blog.heritage.org/2008/05/22/morning-bell-cap-and-trade-already-killing-us-economy/> When the Senate returns from its Memorial Day recess on June 2, lawmakers will begin debating the Lieberman-Warner capand-trade global warming bill. Many environmental activists are worried the bill will not pass this time, and they are counting on a future legislative victory since all three remaining presidential candidates support nearly identical cap-and-trade global warming plans. Unfortunately for the American people, past energy policy decisions are already slowing the U.S. economy in fundamentally the same way a fully implemented cap-and-trade plan would. Under a cap-and-trade system, the government sets a “cap” on overall economy-wide carbon emissions and anyone who exceeds their government-allotted allowance is forced to buy credits (”trade”) from the government. These caps drive up energy prices, which in turn incentivizes consumers to consume less carbon-emitting energy. Higher energy prices are absolutely essential for cap-and-trade’s promised success. Without them, there would be little incentive to invest in new technologies that could cut carbon emissions. Liberals have already been successfully “capping” the production of domestic energy sources for years. In 1995 President Clinton blocked drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In 2006 Senate Democrats blocked drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf. By government estimates, these areas may contain 25 billion to 30 billion barrels of oil (against about 30 billion barrels of proven U.S. reserves today) and 80 trillion cubic feet or more of natural gas (compared with about 200 tcf of proven reserves). Estimates of ANWR alone show almost 5% of present U.S. oil use has been “capped” out of existence. And what has been the result of these caps on domestic oil production? Sky high energy prices. Retail gasoline is in its 15th straight day of record highs. American Airlines is mothballing planes, cutting flights and raising prices. For the first time since 1991, the Department of Energy reported that gasoline use was down. Goldman Sachs predicts that oil could top $140 a barrel this summer and average $200 a barrel next year. Such prices are already proving to be a major drag on the economy. Implementation of Lieberman-Warner would only worsen these trends. The Heritage Foundation released a study this month estimating that the impact of Lieberman-Warner on the U.S. economy would be a cumulative loss in gross domestic product of at least $1.7 trillion. And this is on top of what the Congressional Budget Office shows would be a $1.21 trillion increase in taxes between 2009 and 2018. No wonder so many Democrats are already backing away from their support of the bill. Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), and Claire McCaskill (DMo.) have all expressed second thoughts about the bill after considering how badly it would hurt their state economies. Hopefully after a summer on the campaign trail listening to voters’ concerns about gas prices and the economy, America’s presidential candidates will reach a similar conclusion.

71

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Cap–and–Trade Bad
Cap–and–Trade doesn’t solve – Kyoto Protocol proves Rep. Joe Barton, (R-Texas), ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee., April 21, 2008, Cap-and-Trade Doesn't
Work, Hurts Economy, <http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/News/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=6718> Just a year ago, “cap-and-trade” was about to save the planet from being cooked by global warming, if only we in Congress could recognize the threat and embrace the elegant solution. That was then. Now the brave, new economic system that was supposed to cap carbon dioxide emissions and let emitters buy and sell allowances in a government market that mimics capitalism is proving to be less a solution than a problem. Even the Congress-knows-best crowd is admitting that they can’t figure out how to make it work, and cap-and-trade’s most avid proponent in the House — Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — indicates that she may not get around to legislating this year, after all. Her California colleague, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D), pushed a cap-and-trade bill that has turned out to be a window on the difficulties. By some estimates, it would cut America’s gross domestic product by 2.3 percent inside of seven years and raise average energy costs for households by $1,740 per year within 12 years. In the Midwest and Great Plains, the added cost for a household tops $2,000, and in Texas and Oklahoma, it’s more than $3,000. We don’t have to see very far ahead to observe what’s wrong, though. We can look to Europe right now and notice a cap-and-trade system that was created to meet emission reduction goals under the Kyoto accords. Not only won’t the goals be met, both emissions and the cost of electricity are increasing. Germany, for example, has achieved a 30 percent hike in the cost of wholesale electricity, along with a bulge in unemployment to 9.5 percent. Higher emissions, higher prices and higher unemployment are not the results I want to emulate in the United States. I’ve accepted the European lesson that prosperity is at risk under cap-and-trade, and maybe Democrats are starting to recognize it, too.

72

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Cap–and–Trade Key to Nuclear Power
Cap–and–trade helps create a nuclear program Paul L. Joskow, Elizabeth and James Killian Professor of Economics and Management at MIT, 12-06, “The Future of Nuclear
Power in the United States: Economic and Regulatory Challenges”, http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/1192. All things considered, I believe that investment in new nuclear plants is likely to proceed more slowly than may be implied by the recent euphoria in the industry. I believe that projects are most likely to proceed (a) on existing sites, (b) in states that have not adopted competitive market models, and (c) where there is support from local authorities. Among the competitive states, Texas is the most likely candidate for investment in new nuclear plants for both economic and political reasons. A nuclear investment program will be larger and proceed more quickly if the nuclear equipment vendors and the construction firms are willing to take on more of the construction cost and operating performance risk than they did during the 1980s, at least until the first dozen of so plants are completed and credible information about construction costs, construction time, and regulatory costs and delays have been confirmed by actual experience rather than hypothetical spreadsheet calculations. Finally, if the U.S. adopts a cap and trade program for CO2 emissions that yield prices in the range of $25 to $50/tonof CO2, it will make investment in new nuclear power plants much more attractive financially than it is today, especially after the 2005 Act's subsidies are exhausted.

73

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Cap–and–trade better than European model
Cap-and-trade is crucial to establish a low-carbon economy – our plan avoids the problems of the European model. John Podesta, President and Chief Executive Officer of American Progress, former Chief of Staff to Clinton, Visiting Professor of Law on the faculty of the Georgetown University Law Center, 1/23/2008, “Cap, Auction, and Trade: Allowance Auctions and
Revenue Recycling Under Carbon Cap-and-Trade”, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/auction_revenue_report.html Moreover, cap-and-trade makes sense. Markets are essential to creating a low-carbon economy, and a cap-and-trade program should be at the core of a greenhouse gas emission reduction strategy. Once businesses have to factor the cost of emitting CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) into their bottom lines, the power of the marketplace will start to push toward efficiency, low-carbon fuels, renewable energy, and carbon-capture-and-storage technologies for coal-fired power. Market-based pricing is a critical part of the equation but will not work to rapidly transform our economy to a low-carbon model without accompanying public investment in policies to reduce energy costs for low- and middle-income Americans and complementary clean energy and innovation policies. A cap-and-trade system will identify the necessary level of carbon reductions, and then allow the marketplace to price the cost of those emissions. Moreover, the cap-and-trade market model boasts a great track record in reducing acid rain. In fact, the United States actually “wrote the book” on cap-and-trade, creating the oldest and arguably most successful emissions trading system for sulfur dioxide under the acid rain program of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, which has reduced SO2 emissions at a fraction of anticipated costs and engendered health benefits exceeding program costs by more than 40 to 1. In this case SO2 credits were given away and not auctioned off as sources of SO2 were known and the technology to deal with this pollutant was readily available. With CO2, technology to deal with the emissions is still embryonic and therefore we need revenue to spur new technology curb this pollutant. In addition, giving away credits “would exacerbate the regressivity of the price increases,” according to Peter R. Orszag, Director of the Congressional Budget Office. Further, by adopting a market-based model for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the United States can link up with the rapidly growing international marketplace for carbon credits. The United States can learn from the growing pains in the European carbon market in the design of our cap-and-trade system—giving too many credits away for free to carbon-intensive industries rather than requiring those companies to purchase the credits on the open market, led to extreme price volatility in the European marketplace and windfall profits for utilities.

74

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Cap–and–trade – Solvency
Cap and trade programs are effective in reducing emissions – empirically proven. EPA, Clean Air Market Programs, 2008, http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cap-trade/docs/ctessentials.pdf
In EPA’s experience, cap and trade programs have proven highly successful in the context for which they are best suited: reducing emissions on a regional or larger scale from multiple sources that exhibit a range of control costs. While achieving significant reductions on a regional scale, cap and trade programs can deliver substantial air quality improvements. As effective as these programs are, however, they may not be the solution to every problem. For example, eliminating localized concentrations of pollution is not their primary purpose. The cap and trade approach is best used when: • the environmental and/or public health concern occurs over a relatively large area; • a significant number of sources are responsible for the problem; • the cost of controls varies from source to source; and • emissions can be consistently and accurately measured. Under the right circumstances, cap and trade programs have proven extremely effective, providing substantial emission reductions, complete accountability and unprecedented data quality and access. Existing cap and trade programs – the Acid Rain Program and the NOx Budget Program – have the force of federal and state standards behind them, including national health-based air quality standards. This ensures that local public health needs are met in conjunction with achievement of regional or national emission reductions.

Caps, accountability, and simplicity are key to solving environmental problems. EPA, Clean Air Market Programs, 2008, http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cap-trade/docs/ctessentials.pdf
Three features critical to designing and implementing environmentally effective and economically efficient trading programs are 1) the cap on emissions, 2) accountability, and 3) simplicity of design and operation. Cap on Emissions. The cap on emissions is the central element of an effective and efficient cap and trade program. A mandatory cap on emissions is critical to protect public health and the environment and to sustain that protection into the future. The cap also serves to provide stability and predictability to the allowance trading market. Accountability. The accurate measurement and reporting of emissions is essential, along with the rigorous and consistent enforcement of penalties for fraud or noncompliance. Also critical is transparency, such as public access to source-level emissions and allowance data. The coupling of stringent monitoring and reporting requirements and the power of the Internet makes it possible for EPA to provide access to complete, unrestricted data on trading, emissions, and compliance. This promotes public confidence in the environmental integrity of the program and business confidence in the financial integrity of the allowance market. It also provides an additional level of scrutiny to verify enforcement and encourage compliance. Finally, accountability requires ongoing evaluation of the cap and trade program to ensure that it is making progress toward achievement of its environmental goal. Simplicity. Rules should be clear and easily enforced. Markets function better and transaction costs are lower when rules are simple and easily understood by all participants. Moreover, the environment is more likely to be protected when rules are clear and consistently enforced. To the greatest extent possible, simplicity should be applied to all elements of the program, including applicability thresholds (determining which sources are affected), trading rules, reporting requirements and penalty assessments. Program operation for both emission sources and regulating authorities is more certain, more effective, and less costly and time-consuming if the rules are not overly complex and burdensome.

75

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Cap–and–trade – Solvency
EPA experience is critical to having an effective cap and trade program – several reasons. John Schakenbach, Robert Vollaro, and Reynaldo Forte, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Washington, DC, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, Volume 56, November 2006,
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cap-trade/docs/fundamentals.pdf U.S. Cap-and-Trade Experience. EPA experience in implementing the ARP and NBTP has shown that for cap-andtrade programs, centralized program implementation, including data reporting and verification, is efficient and works well. This is particularly true when the designers of the program also implement it. There are several reasons for this: (1) all data go through the same quality checking software, both at the source and at the regulatory agency; software updates are easily provided to everyone via downloads from the regulatory agency’s web site; (2) all sources in the program are subject to the same regulatory requirements; (3) the sources in the program are covered by the same interpretations of the regulatory requirements and resolution of petitions; (4) the same audit procedures are used on all of the sources in the program; (5) all data are publicly available; and (6) sources within the program are subject to common penalties and enforcement procedures.

Incentives are crucial to reducing emissions. John Schakenbach, Robert Vollaro, and Reynaldo Forte, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Washington, DC, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, Volume 56, November 2006,
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cap-trade/docs/fundamentals.pdf U.S. Cap-and-Trade Experience. The ARP and NBTP are based on a monetary system of tradeable allowances (1 t of SO2 or NOx _ 1 allowance) that requires rapid, end-of-year reconciliation of emissions and allowances. Because of this, EPA had to minimize the use of traditional enforcement procedures. (For the NBTP, which is an ozone season [May 1 through September 30] program, reconciliation is done at the end of the ozone season.) If EPA had to process many traditional enforcement cases through the court system, end-of-year reconciliation would be unacceptably delayed, introducing market uncertainty into the program and increasing costs. In the cap-and-trade programs, enforcement activity is minimized by creating incentives for compliance in the regulations and statutes, including: provisions for reduced frequency QA testing when superior test results are achieved, progressively stringent missing data requirements, comprehensive electronic record keeping and reporting requirements, and automatic statutory penalties that are greater than the cost of allowances. These provisions are discussed in the following paragraphs. In both the ARP and NBTP, the QA provisions have built-in incentives for better accuracy and self-enforcement. For example, a source that uses fuel flow metering as one of its monitoring methodologies is required to calibrate the fuel flow meter annually, unless quarterly data analyses comparing the measured fuel flow rates to the corresponding unit loads are performed, demonstrating that the flow meter is still generating accurate data. In that case, the interval between flow meter calibrations can be extended for _5 yr. Similarly, a source using a CEMS that achieves excellent relative accuracy (RA) test audit (RATA) results (_7.5%; results from RATAs under both the ARP and NBTP are averaging 2.5% accuracy or better) need only perform the RATA once per year instead of twice per year. A one-tailed t test (bias test) is required to be calculated from the RATA data. If the bias test fails, a correction factor must be applied to the reported emissions data to prevent underreporting. For many sources, the bias test provides incentive to find and correct any underlying monitoring problems causing underreporting and helps us avoid potential enforcement cases.

76

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Cap–and–trade – Solvency
Cap and trade solves health problems, emission reduction, and air quality. EPA, Clean Air Market Programs, 2003(?),http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cap-trade/docs/ctresults.pdf
The Acid Rain Program has produced remarkable and demonstrable results. It has reduced SO2 emissions faster and at far lower costs than anticipated, yielding wide-ranging health and environmental improvements. In fact, a 2003 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) study found that the Acid Rain Program accounted for the largest quantified human health benefits – over $70 billion annually – of any major federal regulatory program implemented in the last 10 years, with benefits exceeding costs by more than 40:1. Emission Reductions. In 2002, SO2 emissions from power plants were 9% lower than the year 2000 and 41% lower than 1980. NOx emissions from power plants also continue a downward trend, posting a 13% reduction in 2002 from 2000 levels and a 33% decline from 1990 levels. Air Quality. The Acid Rain Program has reduced human exposure to pollutants that are known to cause chronic bronchitis, asthma, hospitalizations for cardiac and respiratory diseases, and premature death. Ambient concentrations of SO2 have decreased by as much as 40% since 1990 in the Northea9st and Mid-Atlantic. Sulfate concentrations, a major component of fine particulate matter and regional haze, are as much as 30% lower than 1990 levels in most areas of the East.

Cap and trade with incentives reduces emissions and increases air quality – ARP proves. EPA, Clean Air Market Programs, 2003(?),http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/cap-trade/docs/ctresults.pdf
Innovations and Incentives. Allowance trading, which places a value on emission reductions, provides an increasing reward for innovation and use of more effective and efficient pollution reducing technologies. Acid Rain Program implementation has been accompanied by reduced costs and improved performance of pollution control technologies, which have led to lower than expected overall program compliance costs. Next Steps Nearly ten years of experience with the Acid Rain Program has clearly demonstrated that market-based cap and trade programs are an effective vehicle for achieving broad improvements in air quality by reducing emissions of a regionally transported air pollutant. The environmental results observed under the Acid Rain Program show that the combination of a stringent emissions cap with trading results in substantial reductions throughout the affected region, with the greatest reductions achieved in the areas of highest pollution.

77

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

78

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Air Pollution Impact – Food
Only stopping emissions allows natural sequestration catch up to excess carbon EPA, 10/19/2006, Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry, <http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/faq.html>
7. What is the potential for additional sequestration to offset greenhouse gas emissions? At the global level, the IPCC Third Assessment Report estimates about 100 billion metric tons of carbon over the next 50 years could be sequestered through forest preservation, tree planting and improved agricultural management. This would offset 1020% of the world's projected fossil fuel emissions. For the U.S., some analyses (e.g., McCarl and Schneider 2001) suggest that between 50 and 150 million metric tons of additional carbon sequestration per year could be achieved through changes in agricultural soil and forest management, tree planting, and biofuel substitution. These particular results consider the financial incentive to improve land-use practices at prices of, respectively, $10 and $50 per metric ton of additional carbon stored. For more information on analyses of the potential for additional sequestration in the U.S., visit the National Analysis section of this Web site. 8. Do sequestration practices affect greenhouse gases other than CO2? Yes. Methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are potent greenhouse gases that are also important to consider for forests, croplands and grazing lands. Practices that maintain and sequester carbon can have both positive and negative effects on CH4 and N2O emissions. The relationship among practices that affect CO2, CH4, and N2O can be especially complex in cropping and grazing systems. For example, if nitrogen-based fertilizers are applied to crops to increase yields, this would likely enhance soil carbon but the benefit could be partially or completely offset by increased emissions of N2O. The practice of rotational grazing can be beneficial across all three major gases: soil carbon can be maintained and enhanced; livestock CH4 emissions should decline due to improved forage quality; and N2O emissions can be avoided by eliminating the need for fertilizer applications on the pasture. These complex interactions among gases mean that it is important to consider not only carbon but all the greenhouse gas effects for certain sequestration practices. For more information on levels of CH4 and N2O emissions from U.S. agriculture, visit the National Analysis section of this Web site. 9. What are the other environmental effects of sequestration practices? Practices that aim to reduce carbon losses and increase sequestration generally enhance the quality of soil, water, air and wildlife habitat. Tree planting that restores fuller forest cover may not only sequester carbon but could improve habitat suitability for wildlife. Preserving threatened tropical forests may avoid losses in both carbon and biodiversity, absent any leakage effects. And reducing soil erosion through tree planting or soil conservation measures can sequester carbon and improve water quality by reducing nutrient runoff. In certain cases, there may be tradeoffs between carbon objectives and environmental quality. Replacing diverse ecosystems with single-species timber plantations may generate greater carbon accumulation, but could result in less biodiversity, at least at the scale of the plantation. For more information on some of the broader environmental effects of sequestration visit the Cobenefits section of this Web site. 10. How could carbon sequestration be affected by climate change? According to a National Academy of Sciences 2001 report, "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." In addition to temperature, humaninduced climate change may also affect growing seasons, precipitation and the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, such as fire. These changes can influence forests, farming and the health of ecosystems, and thus carbon sequestration. Some argue that rising CO2 levels will enhance sequestration above normal rates due to a fertilization effect. However, the concurrent changes in temperature and precipitation, along with local nutrient availability and harmful air pollutants, complicate this view. Furthermore, recent studies of pine forests fumigated with elevated CO2 levels have shown that this fertilization effect may only be short-lived (Schlesinger and Lichter 2001; Oren et al. 2001). Current projections of business-asusual U.S. sequestration rates under various climate change scenarios show both increases and decreases in carbon storage depending on various assumptions. To date, few analyses of the potential for additional sequestration over time have considered the future effects of climate change.

79

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Air Pollution Impact – Food
Air pollution kills the flowers’ aromas which make it harder for bees to find The Daily Green, 4/11/2008, < http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/air-pollution-flowers-fragrance47041103> Flowers just don't say "I love you" like they used to. Nor do they say, "Come pollinate me." Or anything for that matter. Air pollution decreases the potency of the chemical messages flowers emit as fragrance, according to a new University of Virginia computer model and research published in Atmospheric Environment. In short: stopping to smell the flowers used to be a lot easier, because the scent of flowers used to emanate over a wider area. Before air pollution got in the way, scent molecules from flowers could travel as far as 3,900 feet, according to co-author Jose D. Fuentes. Downwind of major cities, that number is reduced to as little as 650 feet. "This makes it increasingly difficult for pollinators to locate the flowers," Fuentes said, noting that this phenomenon also could explain some of the declines in pollinating insects documented around the world. It's a potentially vicious cycle: If the bees can't find the flowers, they won't eat well, and the fewer flowers they find, the fewer are pollinated and reproduce. Here's how the university described the research: Other studies, as well as the actual experience of farmers, have shown that populations of bees, particularly bumblebees, and butterflies have declined greatly in recent years. Fuentes and his team of U.Va. researchers, including Quinn McFrederick and James Kathilankal, believe that air pollution, especially during the peak period of summer, may be a factor. To investigate this, they created a mathematical model of how the scents of flowers travel with the wind. The scent molecules produced by flowers are very volatile and they quickly bond with pollutants such as ozone, hydroxyl and nitrate radicals, which destroy the aromas they produce. This means that instead of traveling intact for long distances with the wind, the scents are chemically altered and the flowers, in a sense, no longer smell like flowers. This forces pollinators to search farther and longer and possibly to rely more on sight and less on smell. The scientists calculated scent levels and distances that scents can travel under different conditions, from relatively unpolluted pre-industrial revolution levels, to the conditions now existing in rural areas downwind from large cities. "It quickly became apparent that air pollution destroys the aroma of flowers, by as much as 90 percent from periods before automobiles and heavy industry," Fuentes said. "And the more air pollution there is in a region, the greater the destruction of the flower scents."

Bees can’t find the plants to germinate – ultimately producing fewer vegetation The Daily Green, 4/11/2008, < http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/air-pollution-flowers-fragrance47041103> Flowers just don't say "I love you" like they used to. Nor do they say, "Come pollinate me." Or anything for that matter. Air pollution decreases the potency of the chemical messages flowers emit as fragrance, according to a new University of Virginia computer model and research published in Atmospheric Environment. In short: stopping to smell the flowers used to be a lot easier, because the scent of flowers used to emanate over a wider area. Before air pollution got in the way, scent molecules from flowers could travel as far as 3,900 feet, according to co-author Jose D. Fuentes. Downwind of major cities, that number is reduced to as little as 650 feet. "This makes it increasingly difficult for pollinators to locate the flowers," Fuentes said, noting that this phenomenon also could explain some of the declines in pollinating insects documented around the world. It's a potentially vicious cycle: If the bees can't find the flowers, they won't eat well, and the fewer flowers they find, the fewer are pollinated and reproduce. Here's how the university described the research: Other studies, as well as the actual experience of farmers, have shown that populations of bees, particularly bumblebees, and butterflies have declined greatly in recent years. Fuentes and his team of U.Va. researchers, including Quinn McFrederick and James Kathilankal, believe that air pollution, especially during the peak period of summer, may be a factor. To investigate this, they created a mathematical model of how the scents of flowers travel with the wind. The scent molecules produced by flowers are very volatile and they quickly bond with pollutants such as ozone, hydroxyl and nitrate radicals, which destroy the aromas they produce. This means that instead of traveling intact for long distances with the wind, the scents are chemically altered and the flowers, in a sense, no longer smell like flowers. This forces pollinators to search farther and longer and possibly to rely more on sight and less on smell. The scientists calculated scent levels and distances that scents can travel under different conditions, from relatively unpolluted pre-industrial revolution levels, to the conditions now existing in rural areas downwind from large cities. 80

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Air Pollution Impact – Food
Germination is key to pollinate and proliferate vegetation Department of Food & Agricultural, 1/25/2008, Honeybees and Pollination, <
http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/RPIO-4ZT843?open#General> Honeybees are the most important pollinators of agricultural and horticultural crops. Most fruit, small seed and many vegetable crops require pollination for the production of economic yields. Pollination means the transfer of pollen from the male part of the flower, the anthers, to the receptive female part, the stigma. Pollination is a pre-requisite to the fertilisation of ovules within flowers which leads to the growth of seeds and fruit. Fertilisation occurs when the pollen grains on the stigma germinate and grow down the stem of the stigma (the style). The sperms of the pollen unite with the ovules in the ovary of the flower and subsequently produce seed. The value of the honeybee as a pollinator is far greater than its value as a honey producer. Not all crops need pollination. Some can produce fruit without fertilisation of the flower. Some flowers are self pollinated, which means that pollen is transferred from the anther to the stigma of the same flower or flowers on the same plant variety. Although this transfer can be achieved by wind or rain, insect pollinators are the most effective. Other flowers are cross pollinated. In these cases, the pollen is transferred from the anther of a flower on one plant variety to the stigma of a flower on a different plant variety. Plants requiring cross pollination usually cannot produce fruit from their own pollen. Again, the most important and efficient carrier of pollen from the anther to the stigma for such plants is the honeybee.

Low quantity on food drives up food prices Keystone Marketing Services, leader in commodity market trading, No date given, <
http://futures.tradingcharts.com/learning/law_of_supply.html> Supply joins demand as one of the components of fundamental commodity market analysis. Supply characteristics relate to the behaviour of firms in producing and selling a product or service. An understanding of the factors affecting supply in the past will help with the development of supply expectations in the future and the impact upon market price. The law of supply can be approached from two different contexts. The first is that it represents the sum total of production plus carryover stocks. The other context for supply describes the behaviour of producers. The market or total supply represents the quantities producers are willing to sell over a range of prices for any given time period. At the individual level, you may be willing to produce a given product as long as the market price is equal to or greater than the cost of producing that product. The total supply is the sum of the individual quantities of product that each farmer brings to the market. Market supply is represented by an upward sloping curve with price on the vertical axis and quantity on the horizontal axis ( figure 2) An increase in price in most instances will result in farmers wanting to increase the quantity of a given product they will bring to the market, therefore the relationship between the price and supply is positive. Market supply will be affected by other variables in addition to the price. Factors that have been identified as important in determining supply behaviour include; the number of firms producing the product, technology, the price of inputs, the price of other commodities which could be produced, and the weather. With higher prices the producers of goods and services will receive greater profits. Greater profits will result in the means to expand production increasing the supply. This increased supply will ultimately satisfy the existing demand such that any additional production must be met with new demand in order for the price increases to be sustained. The firms which handle your grain or livestock products are not free to set prices as they choose. They can raise prices only if consumers are willing and able to pay more. The law of supply, as was the case with demand, illustrates the discipline of the marketplace. The market doesn’t care what it costs you to produce something. Lower prices are the market’s signal to farmers that they have produced too much of something or that it is something consumers do not want. To be a good marketer, you need to accept the “discipline of the marketplace.’

81

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Air Pollution Impact – Food
A fall in food production causes world war three William H. Calvin, University of Washington, A Brain for All Season, 2002 http://WilliamCalvin.com/BrainForAllSeasons/
NAcoast.htm Caporal) The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting crop yields will cause some powerful countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands – if only because their armies, unpaid and lacking food, will go marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized countries will attempt to use their armies, before they fall apart entirely, to take over countries with significant remaining resources, driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors for the remaining food. This will be a worldwide problem – and could easily lead to a Third World War – but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze.

82

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Air Pollution Impact – Food
Food price cause massive inflation Reuters, 7/12/2008, World Bank’s Zoellick: Food prices High Until 2012,
<http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL1247363020080712> AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - World Bank President Robert Zoellick said on Saturday he expected food prices to remain above 2004 levels until at least 2012 and energy prices would also remain high and volatile. He repeated that with food and fuel prices in a "danger zone" there was a need for $10 billion to provide food and cash handouts for the world's poorest. Soaring oil and food prices have fuelled inflation across the globe at the same time as economies slow, posing a sharp dilemma for policymakers. Earlier this week, leaders of the Group of Eight rich nations in Japan agreed on the need to address global inflation, particularly elevated oil and food prices. "I think the statement on food security was a good statement, but the test will be on the delivery of the action," Zoellick said. "During the meeting I tried to emphasize that I feel we are in a danger zone of high food prices and fuel prices and there is a great need for additional resources." He added that several countries had made substantial contributions towards the $10 billion sum, but funds would be needed continuously over the next years.

Increased inflation forces the Fed to raise interest rates which pop the real estate bubble, crush bonds and stocks and create another Great Depression Doug Casey, economist and head of Casey research, 6/2006, What we know now, “The Greater Depression-an Update”<
http://www.howestreet.com/articles/index.php?article_id=2588> Well, one obvious indicator is how the price of gold is running. Gold is the only financial asset left in the world that’s either safe or cheap. It’s also under owned and largely unrecognized, which is why the smart money has been moving into it. Then there’s the CPI itself—although I don’t think it’s very accurate, in that all the adjustments, exclusions, weightings and whatnots the government has insinuated into it over the years makes the CPI as much of a floating abstraction as the dollar itself. It’s funny how the government plays with figures for fear of hurting confidence. They believe the economy rests mainly on confidence, which, ironically, in today’s world, is true. Unfortunately, confidence can blow away like a pile of feathers in a windstorm—and we have a class-5 hurricane coming. If the economy were sound and people for some reason lost confidence, the currency and the banks would be unhurt, and the next day things would go back to normal. But that’s not the world we live in. So, higher CPI numbers are another thing that could destroy confidence and supercharge the gold price. They’re coming. Higher interest rates, which we’re already seeing, will inevitably burst the real estate bubble, which is floating on a sea of mostly adjustable-rate debt, a lot of it interest-only or even with negative amortization. Higher rates will also crush bonds and probably stocks. And they’ll devastate the economy since everybody is deeply in debt. However, I feel the Fed will keep shortterm rates—which are really the only ones they control—as low as possible for as long as possible. For one thing, they don’t want a recession, which this time could snowball into the Greater Depression. For another, my guess is that they want to gradually depreciate the dollar against other currencies, in part to decrease the chronic, massive trade deficit. And because increasing the number of dollars makes people think they’re richer than they really are, it can stimulate some additional spending… but these days that spending is mostly done on credit, so it is only illusionary.

83

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

Air Pollution Impact – Food
High food prices causes massive nation-wide starvation – Africa proves The World Bank, 2008, High Food Prices, a Harsh Reality, <
http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/0,,contentMDK:21665883~pagePK:64165401~piPK:64165026~theSi tePK:469372,00.html> In Mexico City, mass protests about the cost of tortillas. In West Bengal, disputes over food-rationing. In Senegal, Mauritania, and other parts of Africa, riots over grain prices. And in Yemen, children march in public to call attention to child hunger. This chain of events is in stark contrast to the falling food prices that consumers have come to expect over the past several decades. On February 13, the FAO announced that 36 countries are in crisis as a result of higher food prices and will require external assistance. In many of these countries, food insecurity has been worsened by conflict, floods, or extreme weather. Last month, in Davos and in Addis Ababa, Bob Zoellick called for action to tackle hunger and malnutrition in a world of rising food prices. "Hunger and malnutrition are the forgotten Millennium Development Goal. It has gotten less attention, but increased food prices and their threat – not only to people but also to political stability – have made it a matter of urgency to draw the attention it needs,” he said. While headline news about high food prices is a relatively recent phenomenon, the broader upswing in commodity prices began in 2001. Large structural shifts in the global economy—including growing demand in China and India—have been steadily reflected in commodity price increases, especially of metals and energy. Food prices have increased in response to many factors: higher energy and fertilizer prices; increased demand for biofuels, especially in the U.S. and the European Union; and droughts in Australia and other countries. World grain stocks are at record lows and next year’s prices depend on the success of the next harvest in the northern hemisphere. Wheat prices (US$) have increased by 200 percent, and overall food prices (US$) have risen by 75 percent since the turn of the century. Adjusting for exchange rates and domestic inflation reduces the price increases faced by developing countries—but these increases are still severe for millions of poor consumers. “The increases in grain prices are not caused by short-term supply disruptions, as is the normal case, and it will likely take several years for supplies to increase to rebuild stocks and allow prices to fall,” said Don Mitchell, Lead Economist in the Development Prospects Group. Imagine a low-income family, say in Bangladesh, that might pay 20 cents for a kilogram of rice one year and 30 cents the next. For poor people who often spend more than half their incomes on food, unrelenting increases in the price of staples can be devastating Yemen, which imports about 2 million metric tons of wheat a year, illustrates how rising food prices can increase poverty. After a year of record inflation, doubled wheat and wheat product prices might increase national poverty by 6 percentage points. “If no action is taken, this could fully reverse the gains in poverty reduction that we’ve seen in the country between 1998 and 2005,” said Thirumalai Srinivasan, Country Economist, Yemen. While the urban poor are most affected, it is worth remembering that most rural people are buyers rather than sellers of food. There could well be severe effects for landless rural workers whose subsistence wages may not increase apace with food prices.

84

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

AT – States CP
1) Absent federal leadership, states will implement a patchwork of conflicting regulations, crushing competitiveness. Richard Stavros, Public Utilities Fortnightly, “Playing Russian roulette?”, No. 11, Vol. 142; Pg. 4, 11-1-2004
It could mark the biggest bungle of the last two administrations-the decision to walk away from the Kyoto Protocol rather than stay and negotiate to U.S. advantage. No one thought Russia would sign and put the treaty in force. But now that Russia's ratification appears imminent, policy wonks in America are scrambling to assess the impact. In our August issue, attorney Peter J. Fontaine laid out in stark detail what Russia's ratification could mean for energy prices, and how the World Trade Organization (WTO) could force the United States to comply (see, "Global Warming: The Gathering Storm," p. 50). And many other analysts now appear to agree, predicting that Kyoto's enactment could prove painful for the United States, owing largely to our discordant state and federal environmental rules.Frustration with the current administration has caused some state regulators to go it alone on environmental policy. Some states in the last few years have cut their own deals with electric utilities on carbon emissions-deals that go out for years. Or they have developed mandatory portfolio standards for renewable energy, or have sponsored emissions trading regimes with neighboring states or countries, such as Canada. However noble these efforts, they could undermine America's economic competitiveness. Utilities, for instance, may find themselves obliged to boost rates to pay for emissions reduction equipment forced upon them under the Kyoto plan. The affect of those increased energy costs, experts worry, could render U.S. businesses less competitive. Evidently, at this point no one really knows how these state environmental programs will mesh with the Kyoto treaty. Only now are experts beginning to ask questions like, "Is New England too restrictive in its reduction of carbon emissions? Does Ohio need to be more restrictive?" Conversely, others say that some state environmental programs may prove adequate for U.S. participation in a Kyoto plan. A greater problem, they say, may be those states that have not enacted any kind of program and are likely to see more of a dramatic shift in their rates. All of this has led some to worry that in the absence of a comprehensive national plan, even more states may feel forced to strike out and cut their own sweetheart Kyoto deals or to protect businesses within their borders. It recently was rumored in the international press that California might be working on a carbon-trading scheme linked with the European or Kyoto programs. Now imagine 50 such deals, each with its own peculiarities. The biggest problem, experts agree, is the lack of any national plan for the environment. Until we have one, America's energy sector could find itself held hostage to world opinion.

2) Neg can’t solve terminal impact to global warming, they don’t access spillover. Nothing the states can do will be large enough to prevent the impact of global warming or be perceived by others. Modeling key to prevent extinction; case outweighs 3) States can’t access the leadership advantage - states don’t individually play a role globally. The only way to increase soft power is for the Unites States Federal government to act. Extend doggitt 08 from the 1AC – Presidential action key for international perception and soft power increase. Impacts are nuclear annihilation and the war on terror which causes extinction. Neg can’t outweigh – even with net benefit impact 4) States can’t guarantee they reach correct emission levels – the plantext is based on a government study and has levels that work nationally. States can’t split emissions lowering evenly because of size difference and lack of evidence that says each state knows how much it must restrict carbon emissions. New studies require vast effort and extend time frame substantially.

85

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

AT – Command/Control CP
Status Quo strict command-and-control regulations fail to develop alternative energy [Robert N. Stavins; Albert Pratt Professor of Business and Government, Director, Harvard Environmental Economics Program
Chairman, Environment & Natural Resources Faculty Group, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University Director of Graduate Studies for Ph.D. in Public Policy and Ph.D. in Political Economy & Government; 2005; Implications of the US experience with Market-based environment strategies for future climate policy; page 64; Cambridge University Press, New York; Edited by Bernd Hansjurgens]

86

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

AT – Politics DA
No cap-and-trade now – it got shot down in a filibuster John Plestina, Ely Times, 6/19/08, “Warner-Lieberman climate bill cools off for now”,
http://www.elynews.com/articles/2008/06/19/news/news06.txt The intent of the bill introduced by Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and John Warner, R-Va., was to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being emitted nationwide. It would have tightened greenhouse emissions by electric utilities, transportation and manufacturing over a period of more than four decades and introduced a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases for reductions of nearly 70 percent by 2050. Reid has said he intends to reintroduce the legislation in 2009 after a new Congress and president take office. The Lieberman-Warner Act died after Senate Democrats failed to overcome a GOP filibuster and move the bill to final consideration. The vote was 48-36 to end the filibuster, 18 votes short of the required two-thirds majority of the 100 Senate members. The Democrats then withdrew the bill. Reid voted to end the filibuster. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., voted to continue it.

Cap–and–trade is popular NCEE (National Center of Environmental Economics), January 2001, The United States Experience with Economic Incentives for
Protecting the Environment, <http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eermfile.nsf/vwAN/EE-0216B-13.pdf/$File/EE-0216B-13.pdf> . In the cap-and-trade approach, allowances for future emissions are sold or granted to existing sources. Uncapped credit systems, on the other hand, do not establish any fixed ceiling on total emissions. Total emissions can increase if new sources of pollution enter the market and as existing sources increase production.. In some areas, wetland mitigation credits can be created, banked, and sold to offset the adverse effects of development. Trading programs have certain features that have made them increasingly popular in the United States. In a trading program, capital moves between companies involved in trades, and innovative, entrepreneurial companies can profit from low-cost reductions in emissions. In addition, cap-and-trade programs can provide great certainty about the magnitude of environmental improvement that will be achieved. At the same time, trading programs may have several drawbacks, including the potential for high transaction costs and inactive markets, especially in credit or open-market systems. High costs can be attributed to the need to verify each reduction before authorizing the credit. Clearly, trading programs should not be applied to all environmental problems. The long-term effects of trading programs on technical innovation vary from program to program. Some have spurred considerable innovation, such as the acid rain program, while others have not due to high transaction costs.

The public supports cap–and–trade John Schakenbach, Robert Vollaro, and Reynaldo Forte, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Washington, DC, 2006, Fundamental Successful Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification, under a Cap-and-Trade System <
http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:kdkjlh9i0K4J:www.epa.gov/airmarket/cap-trade/docs/fundamentals.pdf++%22capand-trade%22> (1) compliance assurance through incentives and automatic penalties; (2) strong quality assurance (QA); (3) collaborative approach with a petition process; (4) standardized electronic reporting; (5) compliance flexibility for low-emitting sources; (6) complete emissions data record required; (7) centralized administration; (8) level playing field; (9) publicly available data; (10) performance-based approach; and (11) reducing conflicts of interest. Each of these elements is discussed in the context of the authors’ experience under two U.S. cap-and-trade programs and their potential application to other cap-and-trade programs.. The authors believe that the elements described in this paper greatly contributed to this success. EPA has used the ARP fundamental elements as a model for other cap-and-trade programs, including the NBTP, which went into effect in 2003, and the recently published Clean Air Interstate Rule and Clean Air Mercury Rule. The authors believe that using these fundamental elements to develop and implement the MRV portion of their cap-and-trade programs has resulted in public confidence in the programs, highly accurate and complete emissions data, and a high compliance rate ( 99% overall).

87

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

AT – Biz Con DA
1. Competitiveness outweighs bizcon – a few companies freaking out are irrelevant compared to losing major market share to Europe and Japan, which spills over to every other industry – that’s Kammen. 2. States turn competitiveness – they’ll implement multiple conflicting measures which create an uncertain environment for development – uniform implenetation ensures predictability. That’s Stavros. 3. Businesses want to establish carbon caps. That’s Punk. BusinessWeek, 8/16/04, “Global Warming”, http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_33/b3896001_mz001.htm
Remarkably, business is far ahead of Congress and the White House. Some CEOs are already calling for once-unthinkable steps. "We accept that the science on global warming is overwhelming," says John W. Rowe, chairman and CEO of Exelon Corp. (EXC ) "There should be mandatory carbon constraints." Exelon, of course, would likely benefit as the nation's largest operator of commercial nuclear power plants. But many other companies also are planning for that future. American Electric Power Co. (AEP ) once fought the idea of combating climate change. But in the late 1990s, then-CEO E. Linn Draper Jr. pushed for a strategy shift at the No. 1 coal-burning utility -- preparing for limits instead of denying that global warming existed. It was a tough sell to management. Limits on carbon emissions threaten the whole idea of burning coal. But Draper prevailed. Why? "We felt it was inevitable that we were going to live in a carbon-constrained world," says Dale E. Heydlauff, AEP's senior vice-president for environmental affairs. Now, AEP is trying to accumulate credits for cutting CO2. It's investing in renewable energy projects in Chile, retrofitting school buildings in Bulgaria for greater efficiency, and exploring ways to burn coal more cleanly. Scores of other companies are also taking action -- and seeing big benefits. DuPont (DD ) has cut its greenhouse-gas emissions by 65% since 1990, saving hundreds of millions of dollars in the process. Alcoa Inc. (AA ) is aiming at a 25% cut by 2010. General Electric Co. (GE ) is anticipating growing markets for its wind power division and for more energy-efficient appliances. And General Motors Corp. (GM ) is spending millions to develop hydrogen-powered cars that don't emit CO2. A low-carbon economy "could really change our industry," says Fred Sciance, manager of GM's global climate issues team. As Exelon knows, the need for carbon-free power could even mean a boost for advanced nuclear reactors, which produce electricity without any greenhouse-gas emissions. Global warming could change other industries, too. Even if the world manages to make big cuts in emissions soon, the earth will still warm several more degrees in coming decades, most climate scientists believe. That could slash agricultural yields, raise sea levels, and bring more extreme weather. For businesses, this presents threats -- and opportunities. Insurers may face more floods, storms, and other disasters. Farmers must adjust crops to changing climates. Companies that pioneer low-emission cars, clean coal-burning technology, and hardier crop plants -- or find cheap ways to slash emissions -- will take over from those that can't move as fast. "There is no silver bullet," says Chris Mottershead, distinguished adviser at BP PLC (BP ): "There is a suite of technologies that are required, and we need to unleash the talent inside business" to develop them. Are we ready for this carbon-constrained, warming world? In some ways, yes. "There is a case to be made for cautious optimism, that we are making small steps," says BP's Mottershead. Indeed, there is surprising consensus about the policies needed to spur innovation and fight global warming. The basic idea: mandatory reductions or taxes on carbon emissions, combined with a worldwide emissions-trading program. Here's how it could work: Imagine that each company in a particular sector is required to cut emissions by 20%. The company could meet the target on its own by becoming more energy efficient or by switching from fossil fuels to alternatives. But it could also simply buy the needed reductions on the open market from others who have already cut emissions more than required, and who thus have excess emissions to sell. Under a sophisticated worldwide carbon-trading system, governments and companies could also get sellable credits for planting trees to soak up carbon or for investing in, say, energy efficient and low-carbon technologies in the developing world. As a result, there is a powerful incentive for everyone to find the lowest-cost and most effective cuts -- and to move to lower-carbon technologies.A key element is long-term predictability. If the world sets goals for the next 50 years, as Britain has done, and then implements the curbs or taxes needed to reach them, companies will figure out solutions.

88

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

AT – Biz Con DA
4. Failure for the US to comply with Kyoto causes the EU to sanction the US and force protectionism, crushing confidence. Peter Fontaine, Environmental Attorney, August 2004, “The Gathering Storm”, Public Utilities Fortnightly,
http://www.pur.com/pubs/4419.cfm There is little question that CO2 reduction measures will increase the cost of energy in the EU, Japan, and the other industrialized nations that have ratified Kyoto. As a result, Annex I countries that have not undertaken comparable measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including the United States, Canada, and Australia, will enjoy a competitive advantage in the form of lower energy costs and, in turn, lower costs of production. A fundamental impact of Kyoto therefore will be a global imbalance in the costs of production among the United States, Australia, and virtually the rest of the industrialized world. This imbalance will prompt the EU to seriously examine the option of imposing some form of countervailing duty on U.S. imports to compensate for the disadvantage and to fund additional CO2 offset projects under the CDM mechanism. The EU clearly is concerned about the potential for competitive harm associated with the recent greenhouse gas emissions program, noting that EU emissions allowance trading scheme (ETS) "has the potential to lead to even further increases in power prices that could cause significant damage to EU competitiveness, especially for energy intensive industries such as pulp and paper, iron and steel, cement and lime, chemicals and others. ... It is essential that this situation be monitored and actions taken if these industries become disadvantaged."7 Several non-governmental organizations also have advocated for trade sanctions against the United States, arguing that: Until the U.S. ratifies and implements the Kyoto Protocol, there cannot be fair and free trade with the U.S. and the U.S. will be in clear violation of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.8 Recent WTO Successes Against the U.S. Nor is there any reason to question that the EU will use trade sanctions as a hammer when it finds that the U.S. has garnered an unfair competitive advantage by subsidizing exports. Two recent examples, the sales corporation/extraterritorial income (FSC/ETI) and the steel import cases, demonstrate that the EU will use trade sanctions when necessary to force a change in U.S. behavior. In both cases, the EU successfully implemented countervailing duties of several billion dollars that were upheld by the WTO Appellate Body. In both cases, the United States underestimated the EU's resolve to impose trade sanctions, and the sanctions prompted the United States to act quickly to remove the subsidies.9

5. Loss of competitiveness spills over into every sector of the economy, and causes a collapse Connolly 2002 (Bernard| Chief Global Strategist, AIG| Dark Vision for the World Economy|
http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/Connolly.html| But as capital accumulation proceeds, the rate of return on capital gradually subsides back towards its starting point, even if the process takes several years. As it does, business investment does not just decelerate -- it falls in absolute terms. A similar story can be told about consumer investment -- residential construction and purchases of consumer durables. As domestic demand falls back, net exports need to rise to fill the gap, a gap made bigger by the increase in capacity produced by the preceding years of strong investment. But, by definition, the exchange rate cannot adjust to aid this process. Instead, the lagged effects of past overheating, showing up in inflation, actually worsen international competitiveness. With domestic demand falling and competitiveness worsening simultaneously, the economy goes into a tailspin. Unemployment rises; inflation begins to fall back, even though for some time it remains above levels in competitor countries. Since nominal interest rates are set outside the domestic economy, falling inflation pushes real interest rates up while the rate of return on capital is coming down -- this combination produces falling asset prices, worsening the decline in domestic demand. To re-balance the economy, domestic inflation has to fall below that in other countries under the influence of recession and rising unemployment. But the process of disinflation (perhaps even deflation) constantly pushes real interest rates up. Worse, asset deflation weakens balance sheets, including the government's. Bankruptcy and default, including government default, become real possibilities. Credit spreads widen, exacerbating the problem of excessively high real interest rates. Asset markets weaken further. The circle is vicious indeed. If nothing is done to break into it, the outcome will be not just economic and financial collapse but social and political chaos.

89

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

AT – Biz Con DA
6. Our advantage is comparative – short-term effects of a cap-and-trade are miniscule, and the effects of global warming are far worse. That’s Environment Protection. 7. Businesses/corporate leaders want to invest now and a binding target works better Environmental defense 2004 “The Heat is on: a White paper on climate action”
http://www.edf.org/documents/3777_TheHeatIsOn.pdf Delaying action now will cause more serious economic disruptions later. The bottom line is that businesses abhor uncertainty. Many corporate leaders are convinced that the United States will eventually have to join in fighting global warming, and would prefer to begin making capital investments now than waiting until the last minute, when the job will be more expensive. Some corporate leaders are also worried that without binding targets, American companies will have less incentive to develop technologies to reduce global warming gases, thereby ceding a lucrative emerging market to their European and Japanese competitors.

90

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

AT – EU Relations DA
EU angry at US for lack of energy policy Ewen MacAskill, Guardian’s DC bureau chief, diplomatic editor, chief political correspondent, 9/29/07, “Europeans angry after Bush climate speech 'charade'” http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/sep/29/usnews.climatechange
George Bush was castigated by European diplomats and found himself isolated yesterday after a special conference on climate change ended without any progress. European ministers, diplomats and officials attending the Washington conference were scathing, particularly in private, over Mr Bush's failure once again to commit to binding action on climate change. Although the US and Britain have been at odds over the environment since the early days of the Bush administration, the gap has never been as wide as yesterday. Britain and almost all other European countries, including Germany and France, want mandatory targets for reducing greenhouse emissions. Mr Bush, while talking yesterday about a "new approach" and "a historic undertaking", remains totally opposed. The conference, attended by more than 20 countries, including China, India, Britain, France and Germany, broke up with the US isolated, according to non-Americans attending. One of those present said even China and India, two of the biggest polluters, accepted that the voluntary approach proposed by the US was untenable and favoured binding measures, even though they disagreed with the Europeans over how this would be achieved. A senior European diplomat attending the conference, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the meeting confirmed European suspicions that it had been intended by Mr Bush as a spoiler for a major UN conference on climate change in Bali in December. "It was a total charade and has been exposed as a charade," the diplomat said. "I have never heard a more humiliating speech by a major leader. He [Mr Bush] was trying to present himself as a leader while showing no sign of leadership. It was a total failure."

EU Angry at Bush Roger Harrabin, British journalist and environmental analyst, 9/29/07 “Critics angry at Bush climate plan”, http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7019346.stm
US President George W Bush infuriated his critics by professing world leadership on climate change at his meeting of the top 16 world economies - while offering no new substantive policy and implicitly rejecting binding emissions controls. Mr Bush, who has been sceptical of climate change, said at the forum in Washington that our understanding of the science had moved on. He agreed that energy security and climate change were major challenges and pledged to solve both problems - but dismissed notions of despair. The American president said clean technologies like nuclear power and clean coal would protect the economy as well as the environment. He said the US wanted to work with the United Nations towards a long-term goal on greenhouse gases. Delegates upset He also proposed a new global fund from the US, Japan and Europe to channel clean technology to developing countries. But some visiting delegates were outraged by what they said was a stream of spin running through the speech. One (who understandably asked not to be named) said: "This is a total charade. "The president has said he will lead on climate change but he won't agree binding emissions, while other nations will. "He says he will lead on technology but then he asks other countries to contribute funds, without saying how much he'll contribute himself. "It's humiliating for him - a total humiliation."

91

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

AT – EU Relations DA
US refusing to sign Kyoto hurts relations BBC news 2/13/05, “Campaigners Target US over Kyoto”, http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr//2/hi/uk_news/4259569.stm
The protocol, agreed in 1997, sets legally-binding emissions reductions. Nearly 180 nations have signed up, but some have not yet formally ratified it. It binds industrialised nations to reduce worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases by an average of 5.2% below their 1990 levels over the next decade. The treaty nearly stalled after the US, which created 36% of emissions in 1990, pulled out. The protocol needed to be ratified by countries who were responsible for at least 55% of the world's carbon emissions in 1990 to come into force. However, in 2004 Russia agreed to sign up, allowing that requirement to be met. Phil Thornhill, of the Campaign Against Climate Change, which organised the march, said: "We want to express just how aghast we are the US is not joining the rest of the world."Scientists say we have about 10 years to save the environment, we really have to change the rate at which we act."Green MEP Caroline Lucas said it was time to get tough with Washington. "By refusing to sign up to Kyoto, the US is demonstrating - yet again - that it is a rogue state pursuing its perceived national self-interest to the exclusion of the peoples of the rest of the world."This is unacceptable and the world community must now look at ways of holding the US accountable for damage its isolationist policies are inflicting on the rest of the world," she added. Friends of the Earth director Tony Juniper said: "We are here to protest against the Bush administration and celebrate the fact Kyoto will come into force this week, despite the Bush administration trying its hardest to kill it."

The New EU system hurts relations Dan Hamilton, director for the Center for Transatlantic relations, 1/16/08, California and its allies join forces with Europe to break the Bush administration's intransigence on aviation emissions
The new EU system, slated to go into effect in 2012, would cap carbon dioxide emissions for European and foreign airplanes alike, while allowing airlines to buy and sell pollution credits on the EU carbon market. The initiative is yet another signal of EU determination to tackle the climate change issue. EU governments agreed last spring to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 30% by 2020. Not surprisingly, Europe’s airline industry is critical of these demands. While it has resigned itself to the prospect that some EU airline emissions scheme is inevitable, it warns about higher costs to passengers and makes the point that the EU could reduce emissions 12% simply by putting its single market under a single sky of air traffic control. There are some big holes in the plan – big enough for an Airbus to fly through. Cost estimates vary wildly. Other pollutant emissions from airplanes – water vapour, contrails or nitrogen oxides – are not included. The cost implications for travellers are uncertain, but could result in fare increases ranging from 3 to 15 percent. The plan could undermine a groundbreaking US-EU deal to open transatlantic skies that promises roughly $7 billion worth of cost reductions and a boost in transatlantic travel by up to 24%. The pollution credit scheme could mean windfall profits for some companies and major losses for others. It is a unilateral approach to a global problem. Undaunted, EU activists are pressing ahead, and have found American allies – not in Washington, but in California and a host of other states. The states have petitioned the EPA to impose a cap-and-trade system, similar to that of the EU, on domestic and foreign aircraft departing or landing at American airports. This EuropeanCalifornian pincer movement has raised the stakes in the battle both parties have been having with the Bush administration over global environmental regulation. The Bush administration believes the EU scheme will prove unworkable, and has rejected such a system at home. It places its hopes on technology innovation and improved air traffic management and infrastructure. Federal officials have warned the Europeans that they risk breaking international law if they force non-European airlines into their system. The United States engineered an agreement among the majority of countries in the International Civil Aviation Organization, aviation's global rule-making body, against any unilateral actions – but that only energized the EU to press ahead. If the EU proceeds along its current path, the United States will almost certainly charge the EU with unfair trade practices before the World Trade Organization.

AT – EU Relations DA
US fails to reduce carbon emissions-hurts relations
92

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will Kyodo News International 12/27/07, “U.S. eye climate summit before G-8 talks next year” http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0XPQ/is_2007_Dec_29/ai_n27484905
The Bush administration regards the major economies' process, launched in September, as the main vehicle for setting future climate change steps by Washington. The U.S.-led meeting brings together 16 major carbon emitters such as Japan, China, India and European countries to discuss steps that are expected to be nationally determined, and voluntary cutbacks in greenhouse gas emissions, an idea that Europe opposes Some nongovernmental organizations say it is wrong for Japan to tie up with the United States on this issue, saying the Bush administration is trying to undermine the U.N. process aimed at significantly cutting emissions with its voluntary-based climate change strategy, which experts believe will not be effective enough to significantly reduce emissions. ''When the Bush administration launched the major economies' process in September, it drew criticism from Europe and developing countries because it failed to produce substantial measures to reduce carbon emissions,'' said Mika Obayashi, director at the Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies in Tokyo.

93

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

AT – Spending DA
1. Spending is out of control now. New York Times 6-26-08, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27earmarks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
WASHINGTON — Despite a pledge by Congressional leaders to reduce pork-barrel projects, new information shows that both the number and amount of earmarks have increased in several spending bills now making their way through Congress. The amount of the earmarks in the House version of the labor, health and human services appropriations bill for the 2009 fiscal year, for example, has jumped to $618.8 million from $277.9 million compared with the bill in 2008, according to Citizens Against Government Waste, a nonpartisan watchdog group in Washington. In the Interior Department spending bill, earmarks increased to $134.9 million from $111 million from last year. Those amounts might change when the Appropriations Committee approves those bills. A spokeswoman from the committee said the number and amount of earmarks would be kept at 2008 levels. A few years ago, the Department of Homeland Security bill had no earmarks; the new House bill has more than 100. In all, lawmakers requested 3,796 earmarks worth about $2.7 billion in seven spending bills.

2. Plan doesn’t spend money – we only change the amount of pollutants the electricity sector can emit. 3. Auctioning permits would increase government revenue. Tax Policy Center, Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, 2007, http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/quickfacts_capand-trade.cfm#7 Giving permits to firms provides large windfall gains for the recipients, who will be able to pass on higher prices to consumers whether they pay for the permits or not. Auctioning permits generates substantial revenues, which the government can then use to offset some or all of the adverse impact of higher energy prices and employment shifts on firms, workers, and households by cutting taxes or providing transition assistance to workers (such as coal miners) who would be displaced by a shift to a less carbon-intensive economy. Some of the revenue could also be used to fund research to develop alternative energy sources.

4. The economy is in shambles – several reasons. New York Times 7-19-08,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/business/economy/19econ.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1216495401M2RaZC9wx0HFQZytyVf5zQ You have heard that Fannie and Freddie, their gentle names notwithstanding, may cripple the financial system without a large infusion of taxpayer money. You have gleaned that jobs are disappearing, housing prices are plummeting, and paychecks are effectively shrinking as food and energy prices soar. You have noted the disturbing talk of crisis hovering over Wall Street. Something has clearly gone wrong with the economy. But how bad are things, really? And how bad might they get before better days return? Even to many economists who recently thought the gloom was overblown, the situation looks grim. The economy is in the midst of a very rough patch. The worst is probably still ahead. Job losses will probably accelerate through this year and into 2009, and the job market will probably stay weak even longer. Home prices will probably keep falling, shrinking household wealth and eroding spending power.

5. The neg can’t say how much spending pushes us over the brink, meaning they get no risk of the disad.

94

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

AT – Spending DA
6. No impact - The world economy will continue to grow even amid a cooldown of the US economy. The International Herald Tribune 4-12-07
(“Global growth to continue in '07 despite U.S. slowdown, IMF says” http://web.lexisnexis. com/universe/document?_m=dc35e94be0704a649a36d2ab7f67b8b2&_docnum=25&wchp=dGLbVzWzSkVb&_ md5=2019ab8b320cb888295d15e6391e5e6a) The world economy will withstand a worse-than-forecast slowdown in the United States and expand at close to 5 percent for a fourth straight year, the International Monetary Fund said Wednesday. The fund predicted global growth of 4.9 percent this year, the same as six months ago, following a 5.4 percent expansion in 2006, according to its World Economic Outlook. The IMF forecast a 4.9 percent expansion next year. Europe, Japan and China will help carry the global economy as a housing slump cuts growth in the United States, which accounts for a fifth of worldcoutput. While the fallout from a wave of subprime mortgage defaults is likely to be muted, a steeper U.S. downturn is among the risks to global growth, the IMF said. ''So far, the cooling of U.S. activity seems to have had a limited impact beyond its immediate neighbors, Canada and Mexico,'' the report said. ''However, a further cooling of the U.S. economy that increasingly spreads to weakness in consumption and business investment in 2007 would be challenging.'' Other risks include a rebound in oil prices, a resurgence of inflation and rising calls by politicians to increase barriers to commerce to protect domestic industries from overseas competition. ''Overall risks to the outlook seem less threatening than six months ago but remain weighted on the downside, with concerns increasing about financial risks'' that were reflected in recent volatility of global markets, the IMF wrote. Policy makers should take advantage of a period of economic strength to press ahead with more ambitious efforts to tackle ''deep-seated structural challenges,'' the IMF said.

7. We had a recession in 2003 and the neg impacts didn’t happen, meaning the DA has no probability.

95

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

AT – Natural Gas DA (High Prices Good)
1. Gas prices are on the decline now. Bloomberg News 7-18-08, http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/07/18/natural_gas_tumbles_oil_follows/
NEW YORK - Crude oil fell more than $5 a barrel, dropping below $130 for the first time in six weeks, as global economic growth slows. Natural gas dropped more than 7 percent after a government report showed US supplies rose a greaterthan-forecast 104 billion cubic feet last week. Some users can switch between oil-based fuels and gas depending on cost. Oil also fell because of reports showing the US and Chinese economies are slowing. "The rout in natural gas is pulling oil lower," said Addison Armstrong, director of market research at TFS Energy LLS in Stamford, Conn. "The sheer weight of the decline is bound to impact all the energy markets. A consensus was already forming that [energy] prices were too high." Crude oil for August delivery fell $5.31, or 4 percent, to settle at $129.29 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, the lowest close since June 5. Futures are up 75 percent from a year ago. Futures have dropped almost $18 from last week's record $147.27 a barrel on signs that US consumption is falling. Oil is down 11 percent since July 14, the biggest three-day drop since December 2004. Prices closed below the 50-day moving average for the first time since Feb. 8, an indication the bull market may be coming to an end. Traders use moving averages of different periods in conjunction with other statistical patterns for buying and selling decisions. Oil also fell because August options expired at the close of Nymex trading yesterday. August $130 puts, which represent the right to sell at that price, were the most actively traded options contract on the Nymex yesterday. Natural gas for August delivery declined 86.1 cents, or 7.6 percent, to settle at $10.54 per million British thermal units in New York, the lowest close since April 17.US natural gas inventories were forecast to increase 88 billion cubic feet in the week ended July 11, according to the median of responses from 22 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg News.

2. The neg doesn’t say by how much prices need to fall before their impacts happen, meaning they get no risk of their link. 3. Turn – chemicals: a. GAS PRISE RISE DESTROYS CHEMICAL INDUSTRY AND COMPETITIVENESS New York Times, September 28th 2005, As Natural Gas Prices Rise, So Do the Costs of Things Made of Chemicals,
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/28/business/28chemical.html High prices are a double whammy for the chemical industry. Natural gas is both its main fuel and its main raw material, the starting point for the basic chemicals from which the fibers and compounds in shirts, eyeglasses and even the wrappers for single-serve soups are derived. "Chemical companies have been under assault for several years," said Robert Koort, an analyst at Goldman Sachs who has an attractive rating on the chemical sector. Diane H. Gulyas, chief marketing officer of DuPont, said that, if anything, the hurricanes "acted as a wake-up call." "It made us all realize how shocking the underlying fundamentals of our business have become," she said. The industry has passed along costs, and it is likely to continue doing so for now. Since Katrina, almost every chemical company has announced price increases. The trickledown effect to retail shelves is inevitable - soda and water come in plastic bottles, computers use plastic housings, even organic greenmarkets pack fruits and vegetables in plastic bags. "Consumers can expect to pay more for everything, from medicines to auto parts to computers to shampoo," said Kevin Swift, chief economist for the American Chemistry Council, a trade association. But industry specialists worry that if high gas prices curb consumer spending, the days of passing along constant price increases may end. "The uncompetitive natural gas price in the U.S. is a long-term problem," said Gordon E. Slack, business director for Dow energy business, who said that high gas prices had turned the chemical industry from a net exporter to a net importer. Those rising prices have effectively wiped out the American chemical industry's main competitive edge. Whereas most overseas chemical plants derive most of their raw materials from oil, gas has long been the feedstock of choice here. According to Mr. Swift, natural gas accounts for about 60 percent of the value of chemicals made here. Indeed, many chemical companies clustered their plants along the Gulf Coast, where so much gas is produced, to take advantage of what Mr. Slack called "the best natural gas prices in the world."

96

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

AT – Natural Gas DA (High Prices Good)
b. CHEMICALS ARE KEY TO THE ECONOMY National Technical Information Service, May 25th 2001, http://www.technology.gov/Reports/Chemicals/chemical.htm
The Chemical Industry Today The U.S. chemical industry is vital to the U.S. economy. It produces 1.9 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). It is the nation's number one exporter. It supplies more than $1 out of every $10 of U.S. exports and consistently runs large international trade surpluses. It is a high-tech, research and development (R&D) oriented industry that is awarded about one out of every eight U.S. patents. It employs over one million people at wages well above the U.S. manufacturing average, and it produces over 70,000 different products. Most importantly, chemicals is a "keystone" industry -- one critical to the global competitiveness of other U.S. industries. Because so many modern products depend on chemicals, the international competitiveness of other U.S. industries requires a high-tech, globally competitive U.S. chemical industry that can supply new products at prices that give U.S. producers an edge.

c. US ECONOMIC DECLINE CAUSES NUCLEAR WAR Cook 07 (Richard C. Cook, 6/14/07, Writer, Consultant, and Retired Federal Analyst - U.S. Treasury Department, "It's Official: The
Crash of the U.S. Economy has begun," http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5964) Times of economic crisis produce international tension and politicians tend to go to war rather than face the economic music. The classic example is the worldwide depression of the 1930s leading to World War II. Conditions in the coming years could be as bad as they were then. We could have a really big war if the U.S. decides once and for all to haul off and let China, or whomever, have it in the chops. If they don’t want our dollars or our debt any more, how about a few nukes?

4. Extend Khalilzad ’95 – competitiveness is key to leadership also. Extend the second Khalilzad card – leadership is key to preventing nuclear exchange and a nuclear war since the world would listen to the US more. 5. Extend Ellerman ’05 – capping emissions solves global warming by decreasing the amount of pollutants in the air. Since greenhouse gases spend a great amount of time in the troposphere and heat up the earth, we access the best internal link to global warming, meaning there is a net decrease in the amount of global warming.

97

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

AT – Natural Gas DA (Low Prices Good)
1. NATURAL GAS PRICES AT RECORD HIGH Mark Peters, Dow Jones Newswire, June 30, 2008, “US Gas: Futures Hit 29 Month High,” 6/30/08 (Dow Jones Newswire)
Natural gas futures hit a new 29-month high as prices climbed Monday, fueled by record oil prices and continued supply concerns. Natural gas for August delivery on the New York Mercantile Exchange was trading 16.7 cents, or 1.27%, higher at $13.365 a million British thermal units after opening floor trade 19.2 cents higher at $13.39/MMBtu. Futures reached $13.448 in combined floor and electronic trading, the highest price since December 2005. "This week's natural gas trade should generally seek guidance from the petroleum complex unless the temperature forecasts provide some major shifts," wrote Jim Ritterbusch, president of trading advisory firm Ritterbusch & Associates, in a note to clients Monday.

2. The neg doesn’t say by how much prices need to rise before their impacts happen, meaning they get no risk of their link. 3. THE ENTIRE WORLD WOULD DEMAND THE USE OF NEW ALTERNATIVE ENERGY INSTEAD OF NATURAL GAS, DECREASING THE PRICE OF NATURAL GAS. Suad M. Al-Fattah, Writer for Petroleum Online, April 27, 2006, “Time Series Modeling for U.S. Natural Gas Forecasting.”
Nontraditional oil and gas exploration will provide the rest of the energy needed to satisfy the American and global hunger for energy. It is clear that American reserves of oil and natural gas are not sufficient to satisfy the needs of American industry, and foreign oil is becoming increasingly expensive in both monetary and political terms. As conventional oil supplies run out there will be serious problems with energy production, both in America and worldwide. As alternative energy supplies become cost effective, alternative energy will supplement and eventually replace the scarce and environmentally unfriendly traditional fossil fuels. Alternative energy is becoming popular not only in the USA, but around the world, in India, Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Australia, Scotland, England, Ireland, Germany, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, the United Arab Emirates, Uganda, Nigeria, and Brazil, and many other places. The most exciting area in energy today is alternative energy, and there are many opportunities for entrepreneurs, investors and companies that are interested in this field

4. No link – the electricity sector uses coal to produce electricity and uses very little, if any, natural gas. Plan doesn’t lead to a large enough increase in prices to trigger the impacts. 5. Extend Kammen ’01 – renewable energies are key to maintaining US technological superiority in the economy and world. Plan is needed to increase technological breakthroughs, of which the chemical industry is one. There is a net increase in competition.

98

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

AT – US Not Biggest Polluter
1) US is the worlds biggest polluter CNN; ll/20/2000; U.S. singled out as world's largest polluter at Hague conference;
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/11/20/climate.conference.reut/ Chirac opened a crucial second week of U.N.-backed climate change talks with a direct call to the United States, the world's biggest polluter, to take a lead in cutting pollution that scientists warn could have catastrophic consequences on global weather patterns. "Each American emits three times more greenhouse gases than a Frenchman," Chirac told the conference in the Hague.

2) America must take action now – leadership is key Michael Shank, Government relations adviser, Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University - Arlington, Va; 7/14/08;U.S. needs to take lead on reducing emissions
Actually, the converse is true. America's per capita carbon emissions is a whopping 20 tons annually, roughly five times that of China's and 10 times that of India's. Moreover, three-fifths of the world's carbon stock — that is, total carbon emitted into the atmosphere — comes from high-income countries, with the USA leading by a nearly 30% share. American leadership is needed now more than ever. Committing to a goal in 2050 is good; taking action today is better. For President Bush and his administration to effectively lead developed and developing countries in climate change prevention, the following principle must apply.

3) The US maintains the responsibility to act now because of the large amount of carbon emissions and spillover that will cause the rest of the world to act

99

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

US = Model
US Action spurs world action John Podesta, President and Chief Executive Officer of American Progress, Todd Stern, Senior Fellow at American Progress, Kit Batten, Managing Director for Energy and Environmental Policy and is a Ph.D. ecologist 11/27/07, “Capturing the Energy opportunity Creating a Low-Carbon Economy” http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/11/pdf/energy_chapter.pdf
But far-reaching, mandatory U.S. action has to come first. Without that, the United States will have no credibility to argue for broader global participation. American action will spur developing world action in two separate ways. First, the policy changes needed to cut carbon emissions in the United States are job-producing and growth-generating actions. Other countries will emulate them, just as China, Russia, Brazil, and other countries have adopted building energy codes and appliance efficiency standards based on U.S. models. Second, the technologies needed to promote low-carbon economies are increasingly produced and sold in a global market. When America buys compact fluorescent lamps, most of them are made in China, so China automatically develops the manufacturing technology to use them domestically. When America requires that computers and TVs become more efficient, it affects the market in India and Africa. And conversely, when America lags in efficiency or renewable energy technology, either the rest of the world also lags or else other developed countries grab the market and control the export sales to the developing world. Clearly there are many reasons why the United States needs to capture the energy opportunity by creating a low-carbon economy. So, too, do the rest of the nations of the world. American leadership is paramount, both at home and abroad.

100

Cap–and–Trade AFF DDI 2008 <Kernoff/Olney> Alyssa, Daniel, Krishnan, Sarah, Will

AT – China won’t follow US regulation
1) China will follow the US lead in reducing carbon emissions [Timothy Gardner; Reuters; 10/2/2007; Expert says China would follow U.S. lead on climate; Expert says China would follow
U.S. lead on climate] China would soon follow the U.S. lead if Washington agrees to tackle its emissions in the next few years because China's government takes the threat of global warming more seriously than the United States does, a climate expert said on Tuesday. "My impression is that the national government -- top level ministry officials -- in China regard the threats of global warming to their country with a much higher level of seriousness than their counterparts do here in the United States," said David Hawkins of the environmental group National Resources Defense Council. Hawkins, head of the group's climate center, spoke by telephone to the Reuters Environment Summit in New York. If the United States agrees to cut emissions deeply with a baseline that gets tougher over time, it would spur U.S. manufacturers to build low-emissions technologies like alternative energy and coal plants that store carbon dioxide underground. It could then market those technologies to the world, forcing China to act. "The biggest carrot is to have the U.S. to take a leadership role," he said. "Then countries like China are going to say, 'What does the United States know that we don't know?' and agree to their own cuts," said Hawkins.

2) China uses the US as an excuse to maintain high carbon emissions [Tom Pelton; 12/11/2007; Kerry: China will follow America on climate;
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bay_environment/blog/2007/12/kerry_china_will_follow_americ.html] China has committed to follow the U.S. and impose mandatory reductions on global warming gases if America, the world's biggest polluter, acts first, Senator John Kerry said after meeting with Chinese representatives. "We have to do a 'follow us,' not a 'you first,' Kerry said of America's leadership role during a telephone news conference in Washington today (12/11/07). "If we do a 'follow us,' it's not going to happen.... up until now our absense has been an excuse for a lot of countries to not do everything they could do."

3) China is already reducing carbon emissions [The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, non-profit organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental
specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has more than 500,000 members nationwide, served from offices in New York, Washington, Los Angeles and San Francisco; 6/15/2001; China is Cutting Carbon Dioxide Emissions During Economic Boom, NRDC Finds; http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressReleases/010615.asp] Despite Bush administration claims that China will soon become the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, a new report has found that China reduced its carbon dioxide emissions 17 percent since 1997 while its economy grew 36 percent. A report released today by NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) contradicts President Bush's assertion that China is not addressing the global warming problem

101

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful