SDI 08 WAVE 1

FEEBATES 1AC __/__

Feebates 1AC (1/9)

Contention I is Inherency –

1. Congress is wed to boosting ineffective CAFÉ standards – they fail to consider options like
feebates
North Star Writers Group 07. (“Kill the Fatted CAFE: Let Feebates Encourage the Purchase of Fuel-
Efficient Cars”, July 30, http://www.northstarwriters.com/eb004.htm)
Today’s call for fuel efficiency isn’t a new thing. There has been a 20-year lull between the last time people were hot
for fuel-efficient cars, and coincidentally it’s been 20 years since the price of gas was high enough to cause personal
discomfort to consumers. That should tell us something as Congress moves to increase Corporate Average Fuel Économy
(CAFÉ) standards. The federal government could require Detroit’s automakers to increase their fleetwide fuel
efficiency averages, only to watch consumers lose interest if the price of fuel were to again drop. This would leave
the Big Three with an unfunded federal mandate to manufacture something no one wants to buy. Although this isn’t
likely (the price of gasoline will probably continue to increase a little faster than the rate of inflation), policy makers should keep it in
mind. It’s one thing, in reaction to our growing awareness of our twin problems of energy dependency and global warming, to
demand action. It’s another thing entirely to demand action that in the long run might not be sustainable in the
marketplace. Rather than tinkering, Congress should simply scrap CAFE and address efficiency through something
that stimulates demand, not dictates supply. An idea worth considering is something called a feebate.

2. Federal CAFÉ explicitly preempts state feebates initiatives, though momentum is building
EPA 08. (“State Action Policies: California”, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
http://yosemite.epa.gov/gw/StatePolicyActions.nsf/uniqueKeyLookup/MSTY5PFKFB?OpenDocument)
Feebates, a system of fees and rebates applied to vehicles to induce certain behavior, have been proposed in various states, including
California (Reference available in the California State Action Plan). Legislation in Maryland that would apply feebates, based on
fuel efficiency, to new vehicles to reduce gasoline use is the only proposal to make it through the legislative process,
but thus far has not been implemented due to court challenges derived from the preeminence of the national
corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) legislation. The popularity of feebates in recent years is due, at least to some degree, to the
potential for revenue neutrality—the system can be structured so that the total rebates paid out equal the total fees paid in. Thus, a feebate may be
more politically viable than a tax.

1
SDI 08 WAVE 1
FEEBATES 1AC __/__

Feebates 1AC (2/9)

Contention II is Auto Competitiveness:

1. Foreign competition will inevitably destroy US auto industry – feebates create strategic potential
for employment growth and innovation
Lovins 06. (Amory B., co-founder and chief executive officer of Rocky Mountain Institute, a nonprofit organization that fosters the
efficient and restorative use of resources, and chairman of the composites-technology firm Fiberforge, eJournal USA, electronic journal
of the US Department of State, Jul 2006 “Clean Energy Solutions” http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ites/0706/ijee/lovins.htm)
The modern car needs to be functional, aesthetic, safe, fuel-frugal, and affordable. Makers of cars and public policy often assume that efficient cars must be small, sluggish, unsafe, ugly, or
costly. But integrative design and new technologies can achieve all desired car attributes, today and tomorrow, simultaneously and without compromise. Wetherefore will not
need high fuel taxes or efficiency standards to induce people to buy unattractive cars; rather, they'll want to buy the super-
efficient cars because they're better, just as most people prefer digital media to vinyl records. For conventionally improved cars that do cost
more up front, car buyers' short view—looking at just the first two to three years' worth of fuel savings—is a big obstacle. High
fuel prices discourage driving but have little effect on car choices because they're diluted by nonfuel costs, then heavily
discounted. The most powerful way to influence car choice is "feebates." Within each size class, new-car owners pay a fee or get a
rebate—which and how big depend on a car's efficiency—and the fees pay for the rebates. The increased price spread encourages a buyer to buy
an efficient model of the size he or she prefers. The buyer saves money; automakers make more profit; national security
improves. Such feebates, now starting to emerge around the world (in Canada, France, and some states in the United States), are more effective and politically attractive than fuel taxes
or standards. The car-efficiency revolution faces many challenges, but each can be overcome. Hybrids, invented by Dr. Ferdinand Porsche in 1900, were reengineered nearly a century later
U.S.
by Japanese automakers with strong leadership and balance sheets. These popular hybrids now offer up to doubled efficiency, many with boosted performance as a free bonus.
automakers are playing catch-up and need help with retooling and retraining (which needn't cost the Treasury). Their choice is
stark: whether America will continue to import efficient cars to displace oil, or make efficient cars and import neither
oil nor cars. A million jobs hang in the balance. But the process Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter called "creative destruction" is sweeping the overbuilt
auto business: The market will change either the managers' minds or the managers, whichever comes first. China's and India's ambitious automakers will
quicken the pace, leapfrogging over Western technology. And countries without an auto industry may choose to start one of a wholly new kind—not based on
steel, but more like making computers with wheels than cars with chips.

2. Strong employment in auto industry props up all other sectors of the economy
Center For Automotive Research 01. (In Conjunction With The University Of Michigan, March,
http://careerrpm.trishield.com/automotive-industry.shtml/)
While the automobile industry continues to be America's largest manufacturing industry, the majority of those jobs are in supplier and related
industries, with total auto industry and related employment numbering 13.3 million, a new Center for Automotive Research study shows. About 6.6 million jobs are connected to
automotive manufacturing and new vehicle sales, generating more than $240 billion in annual private sector compensation.
"When you look under the hood of today's automobile, you'll see goods from America's greatest industries across the country,"
said Alliance President & CEO Josephine S. Cooper. "These include textiles from the Southeast, computer chips from California, aluminum
manufactured in Iowa, and air bags produced in Arizona." "No other single industry is more linked to U.S. manufacturing or
generates more retail business and employment. New vehicle production, sales and other jobs related to the use of automobiles are
responsible for 1 out of every 10 jobs in the U.S. economy," Cooper added. Key findings of the study include: The auto industry is responsible for more than
100,000 jobs in each of several industries, including dealerships, fabricated metals, auto parts, auto repair and maintenance, road construction, tire dealerships, fueling stations, and car washes.
The auto industry is responsible for more than 50,000 jobs in each of several other related industries, including plastics and
rubber, trucking, computers and electronics, petroleum and machinery and equipment. The auto industry is responsible for more than 25,000 jobs in
each of several more related industries, including advertising, textiles, aluminum and recycling. The auto industry also provides thousands more jobs each in the
rail industry, the steel industry, the painting and coating industry, the glass industry, the copper and brass industry and the iron
industry. The automobile industry provides among the highest levels of wages and benefits in the private sector, averaging $69,500 in 2001. The auto industry boasts a value added of
$292,000 per worker, 143 percent higher than the overall value-added ratio for U.S. manufacturing ($120,000). The automobile industry invests more in research and development than any other
The automobile industry directly employs 1.3 million Americans in all 50 states. 2.2 million U.S. workers
industry -- $18.4 billion in 2000.
are employed indirectly by auto industry suppliers and other industry-related companies. Expenditures of auto industry employees
create an additional 3.5 million jobs nationwide. The study, "Contribution Of The Automotive Industry To The U.S. Economy," was prepared by the Center for
Automotive Research. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers sponsored the study. Economic Facts America's automobile industry doesn't just manufacture the passenger cars and light trucks
Auto manufacturers, along with their suppliers and dealers across
that millions of Americans depend on for work, shopping, vacation and other mobility needs.
the country, drive the U.S. economy, and that economic engine has more horsepower than many people realize. No other single
industry is linked to so much of U.S. manufacturing or generates so much retail business and employment, as these facts show:
Employment: America's automobile industry is one of the largest industries in the country. When jobs dependent on the industry are included,
the auto industry is responsible for 6.6 million jobs nationwide, or about 5% of private sector jobs. Compensation: The contribution of automotive
manufacturing to compensation in the private sector is estimated at $243 billion, or 5.6% of U.S. private sector compensation. Job Creation:
For every worker directly employed by an automaker, nearly seven spin-off jobs are created. America's automakers are among the largest
purchasers of aluminum, copper, iron, lead, plastics, rubber, textiles, vinyl, steel and computer chips. GDP: More than 3.7% of America's total gross

2
SDI 08 WAVE 1
FEEBATES 1AC __/__

domestic product is generated by the sale and production of new light vehicles. Output: The U.S. automotive industry produces a higher level of output
than any other single industry. When measured in constant 1996 dollars, automotive economic output increased by 47 percent during 1987-1999. R&D: The auto industry invested $18.4 billion in
research and development in 1997, higher than any other manufacturing industry. Exports: Automotive exports rose from $33.4 billion in 1988 to a record $74 billion in 1997, an increase of
122%.

Feebates 1AC (3/9)

3. Auto innovation is key to economy-wide growth

UCS 04. (Union Of Concerned Scientists, July 28,
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/cars_and_suvs/page.cfm?pageID=1473)
The economic growth of our nation is tied to technology. From the steam engine and the automobile to the microchip and the Internet, a “can do”
attitude of aggressive technology development and implementation has created millions of jobs and enormous wealth.
Investments in technology to make cars and trucks more fuel-efficient provide the country with yet another opportunity to
continue this trend. Many technologies already exist, such as efficient engines and transmissions, high-strength steel and aluminum, better tires, and hybrid-
electric powertrains. The investments required to deliver these more efficient products to consumers will pay off in the form of new
jobs for the US automotive sector and other industries throughout the country. In addition, consumers will save billions of dollars on
gasoline, US dependency on oil will be reduced, and emissions of global warming pollution will be cut significantly. In order to quantify these benefits, the Union of
Concerned Scientists estimated the effect of moving existing technologies into cars and trucks over the next 10 years to reach an average of 40 miles per gallon by
2015. We found that: In 2015, the benefits resulting from investments in fuel economy would lead to 161,000 more jobs throughout the country, with California,
Michigan, New York, Florida, Ohio and Illinois topping the list. In the automotive sector alone, projected jobs would grow by 40,800 in 2015.
For consumers, the cost of the new technology would more than pay for itself, saving them a net of $23 billion dollars in 2015
alone. In 2015, we would cut our national oil use by 2.3 million barrels per day—nearly as much as we currently import from the Persian Gulf —and we would
reduce emissions of global warming pollution from cars and trucks by 106 million metric tons of carbon.

4. Economic contraction would cause collapse, mass starvation, totalitarianism, and nuclear war
Nyquist 05.
(J.R, expert in geopolitics and international relations, WorldNetDaily contributing editor, “The Political Consequences of a Financial Crash,” 2-4-
05, http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2005/0204.html)
Should the United States experience a severe economic
contraction during the second term of President Bush, the American people will likely
support politicians who advocate further restrictions and controls on our market economy – guaranteeing its strangulation and the steady
pauperization of the country. In Congress today, Sen. Edward Kennedy supports nearly all the economic dogmas listed above. It is easy to see, therefore, that the
coming economic contraction, due in part to a policy of massive credit expansion, will have serious political consequences for the Republican Party (to the benefit of
the Democrats). Furthermore, an economic contraction will encourage the formation of anti-capitalist majorities and a turning away
from the free market system. The danger here is not merely economic. The political left openly favors the collapse of America’s strategic position abroad.
The withdrawal of the United States from the Middle East, the Far East and Europe would catastrophically impact an international system that
presently allows 6 billion people to live on the earth’s surface in relative peace. Should anti-capitalist dogmas overwhelm the global market and trading
system that evolved under American leadership, the planet’s economy would contract and untold millions would die of starvation. Nationalistic
totalitarianism, fueled by a politics of blame, would once again bring war to Asia and Europe. But this time the war would be waged with
mass destruction weapons and the United States would be blamed because it is the center of global capitalism. Furthermore, if the anti-capitalist party
gains power in Washington, we can expect to see policies of appeasement and unilateral disarmament enacted. American appeasement and disarmament, in this
context, would be an admission of guilt before the court of world opinion. Russia and China, above all, would exploit this admission to justify aggressive
wars, invasions and mass destruction attacks. A future financial crash, therefore, must be prevented at all costs. But we cannot do this. As
one observer recently lamented, “We drank the poison and now we must die.”

5. Technological innovation and economic competitiveness are key to Heg

Khalilzad 95. (Zalmay, director of the Strategy and Doctrine Program @ RAND & current US Ambassador to Afghanistan]
"Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War," Washington Quarterly, Spring, p. proquest)
The United States is unlikely to preserve its military and technological dominance if the U.S. economy declines seriously. In such an environment, the domestic
economic and political base for global leadership would diminish and the United States would probably incrementally withdraw from the world, become inward-
looking, and abandon more and more of its external interests. As the United States weakened, others would try to fill the vacuum. 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. In the long run the economic future of the United States will also be affected by two other factors. One is the imbalance between government revenues
and government expenditure. As a society the United States has to decide what part of the GNP it wishes the government to control and adjust expenditures and
taxation accordingly. The second, which is even more important to U.S. economic well-being over the long run, may be the overall rate of investment. Although their
government cannot endow Americans with a Japanese-style propensity to save, it can use tax policy to raise the savings rate. Another key factor affecting the global

3
SDI 08 WAVE 1
FEEBATES 1AC __/__
standing of the United States is its current social crisis: the high rate of violence in cities, the unsatisfactory state of race relations, and the breakdown of families.
Although it faces no global ideological rival, and although movements such as Islamic fundamentalism and East Asian neo-Confucian authoritarianism are limited in
their appeal, the social problems of the United States are limiting its attractiveness as a model. If the social crisis worsens, it is likely that, over the long term, a new
organizing principle with greater universal appeal will emerge and be adopted by states with the power and the desire to challenge the erstwhile leader.
Feebates 1AC (4/9)

6. Heg prevents multiple nuclear conflicts

Lieber 05. (Robert J., Professor of Government and International Affairs at Georgetown University, The
American Era: Power and Strategy for the 21st Century, p. 53-54)
Withdrawal from foreign commitments might seem to be a means of evading hostility toward the United States, but the consequences would
almost certainly be harmful both to regional stability and to U.S. national interests. Although Europe would almost certainly not see the
return to competitive balancing among regional powers (i.e., competition and even military rivalry between France and Germany) of the kind that
some realist scholars of international relations have predicted," elsewhere the dangers could increase. In Asia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan
would have strong motivation to acquire nuclear weapons – which they have the technological capacity to do quite quickly.
Instability and regional competition could also escalate, not only between India and Pakistan, but also in Southeast Asia
involving Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, and possibly the Philippines. Risks in the Middle East would be likely to increase, with
regional competition among the major countries of the Gulf region (Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq) as well as Egypt, Syria, and Israel. Major
regional wars, eventually involving the use of weapons of mass destruction plus human suffering on a vast scale, floods of refugees,
economic disruption, and risks to oil supplies are all readily conceivable. Based on past experience, the United States would almost certainly
be drawn back into these areas, whether to defend friendly states, to cope with a humanitarian catastrophe, or to prevent a hostile power
from dominating an entire region. Steven Peter Rosen has thus fit-tingly observed, "If the logic of American empire is unappealing, it is not at all
clear that the alternatives are that much more attractive."2z Similarly, Niall Ferguson has added that those who dislike American predominance
ought to bear in mind that the alternative may not be a world of competing great powers, but one with no hegemon at all. Ferguson's
warning may be hyperbolic, but it hints at the perils that the absence of a dominant power, "apolarity," could bring "an anarchic new
Dark Age of waning empires and religious fanaticism; of endemic plunder and pillage in the world's forgotten regions; of economic stagnation
and civilization's retreat into a few fortified enclaves."2

7. Err Aff on risk assessment—turns are overblown and don’t measure hidden benefits of heg
Wohlforth 07. (William, Prof and Chair of Dept. of Government @ Dartmouth, “Unipolar stability: the
rules of power analysis”, Harvard International Review, Vol. 29, No. 1, Spring)
Defining power as the ability to solve whatever global problem is currently in the headlines virtually guarantees
highly volatile prognostications about polarity. This sort of headline chasing led to talk of "empire" in 2002 and 2003, just as it
feeds today's multipolar mania. Assessing active attempts by the United States to employ its power capabilities may well
be the most misleading way to think about power. This approach inevitably leads to a selection bias against
evidence of the indirect, "structural" effects of US power that are not dependent upon active management. Many effects that
can be attributed to the unipolar distribution of power are developments that never occur: counter-balancing
coalitions, Cold War-scale arms races, hegemonic rivalry for dominance, security dilemmas among Asian powers, and
decisions by Japan and others to nuclearize. Clearly, assessing unipolarity's potential effects involves weighing-such
non-events against the more salient examples in which active attempts to use power resources are stymied. But the selection bias goes
much further. Not only are non-events downplayed in comparison to salient events that appear to demonstrate the powerlessness of the United
States, but patterns of events that do go its way are often missed. Consider, for example, how often Washington's failure to have
its way in the United Nations is cited as compared to its experience in the IMF. And, even in the United Nations, a focus on highly
contested issues, such as the attempt at a second resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq, fails to note how the institution's entire
agenda has shifted to address concerns, such as terrorism, that are particularly important to the United States.

4
SDI 08 WAVE 1
FEEBATES 1AC __/__

Feebates 1AC (5/9)

Contention III is Aerospace:

1. The Aerospace industry’s very existence is threatened now

Walker 02. (Robert, Chair, Commission on the Future of the US Aerospace Industry,
http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/aerospace/aerospacecommission/AeroCommissionFinalReport.pdf)
The contributions of aerospace to our global leadership have been so successful that it is assumed U.S. preeminence in aerospace remains assured. Yet the evidence
would indicate this to be far from the case. The U.S. aerospace industry has consolidated to a handful of players—from what was once over 70
suppliers in 1980 down to 5 prime contractors today. Only one U.S. commercial prime aircraft manufacturer remains. Not all of these surviving companies
are in strong business health. The U.S. airlines that rely upon aerospace products find their very existence is threatened. They
absorbed historical losses of over $7 billion in 2001 and potentially more this year.

2. The implementation of alternative fuels in the auto industry will function as a pilot program to
apply the technology to the aerospace industry
Jolley 99. (Ainsely, Director of the Emerging Technologies and Asian Growth Program at the Centre for
Strategic Economic Studies, Transport Engineering Technologies, CSES Working Paper No. 13, October,
http://www.cfses.com/documents/wp13.pdf)
Technological Synergies The
nature of the technologies employed, and the intensive R&D that lies behind them, makes aerospace close to the most
technology-intensive of all manufacturing industries. Of crucial importance are the spillover effects associated with the
utilisation of these technologies. The synergies between civil and military aerospace are well-known, and are currently
expected to increase (Scott 1999). The technological linkages between aerospace and shipbuilding, less well-known hitherto in Australia (although well-
appreciated in countries like Japan and Russia), are becoming increasingly important with the developing similarities between airframe, hull design and construction,
and the extensive use of electronics. In the longer run, given the increasing importance of new materials technology, aerodynamic styling and on-
board electronics, these linkages could extend across the whole transport equipment sector, including motor vehicles. These
technological interdependencies rest on the delivery of key technologies which are capable of transforming production in a range of industries – advanced materials
(which have significance for aerospace, motor vehicles, shipbuilding, other transport equipment, and building and construction), embedded information and
communications technologies (aerospace, motor vehicles, shipbuilding, other transport equipment and transport system infrastructure), and aerodynamic design.
Innovation in its broader sense also implies spillovers across the whole transport equipment and transport systems with respect to life-cycle
design and manufacturing systems, maintenance and repair systems, and the development of a comprehensive approach to safety. Defence contracts can provide a spur
to technology in civil aerospace as well as other transport and engineering industries with respect to materials, electronics and on-board diagnostics. Civil aerospace,
in turn, provides a lead to the defence sector with respect to computer-aided design and virtual prototyping, life-cycle planning, maintenance and repair, and
developments in air safety. The motor vehicle industry is a leader in lean manufacturing, but the new technological challenges it faces
could eventually put it in the position of influencing industries like aerospace in particular technologies. Finally, primary defence
contractors, civil aerospace suppliers and motor vehicle producers depend on sub-contractors and suppliers of cast and forged metal products, repetition engineers,
heavy engineers, and electronic sub-components. There is a two-way relationship here. The depth of the supply chain underpins the flexibility and capabilities of the
major manufacturers. On the other hand, the major manufacturers often provide an important conduit for technology and productive
efficiency to their sub-contractors. Technologies can also move in the other direction. In civil aerospace manufacturing, the integrators of the finished
aircraft are shifting many aspects of design and R&D towards primary risk-sharing contractors. In the manufacture of aero-engines, new developments are taking
place through the agency of complex international consortia. There are economies of scope across a range of technologically advanced heavy engineering industries.
The key aspect is systems integration, which requires stateof- the-art project management skills. In Japan, heavy engineering conglomerates have exploited these
economies across aerospace, shipbuilding and civil engineering projects. In the United States the economies are exploited across civil and military aerospace and other
defence projects. The motor vehicle industry has traditionally been more self-contained. US automobile producers have tended to shed peripheral
interests over the past decade, although European companies such as DaimlerChrysler, BMW and Fiat still cover a wide range of interests. However, the new
technologies being developed in the industry are leading to new associations between vehicle producers and innovative
engineering companies.

3. Inter-industry testing of alternative fuels key to keep up momentum in aerospace transition away
from fossil fuels
IHT 08. (“Alternative fuel gets close study as airlines seek more efficiency”, International Herald
Tribune, July 14, pg. 12, lexis)
Emissions reports on these tests, which involved feeding biofuel, or a biofuel-kerosene mix, to just one engine of the aircraft, are
eagerly awaited. At this stage, elements of the industry are sharing research. ''The airline industry is very competitive like any

5
SDI 08 WAVE 1
FEEBATES 1AC __/__

other industry,'' said Lott, the industry spokesman. ''But when it comes to something like this, it's important that there's
transparency and sharing of information because that's the only way we can keep momentum.''
Feebates 1AC (6/9)

4. US commercial aviation is a critical enabler of US dominance and air power.

Andrews 00. (Col. William F, USAF “Industry Studies: Aircraft”
http://www.ndu.edu/icaf/industry/2000/aircraft/aircraft.htm
The U.S. aircraft industry has long been a critical enabler of U.S. political and military power and remains one of the most
pervasive industries within the U.S. economy. However, continued U.S. dominance in the global aircraft market is uncertain.
After a decade of mergers and downsizing, the industry’s four main sectors—commercial fixed-wing aircraft, military fixed-wing aircraft,
rotary-wing aircraft, and jet engines—are entering a head-to-head competition with Europe from a strategically weakened position.
To ensure profitability and maintain market dominance, aerospace manufacturing companies are striving to improve profit
margins by streamlining production processes, reducing overhead costs, and entering into strategic partnerships to
stimulate revenue-generating opportunities. Many of these innovations are indeed yielding new profit centers. Nevertheless, U.S. dominance of
the global aircraft market has eroded to the point that vigorous action is required by industry and government to preserve this vital
element of national power.

5. Collapse of air power causes global WMD conflict

Tellis 98. (Ashley, Senior Political Scientist – RAND, Sources of Conflict in the 21st Century,
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR897/MR897.chap3.pdf)
This subsection attempts to synthesize some of the key operational implications distilled from the analyses relating to the rise of Asia and the
potential for conflict in each of its constituent regions. The first key implication derived from the analysis of trends in Asia suggests that
American air and space power will continue to remain critical for conventional and unconventional deterrence in
Asia. This argument is justified by the fact that several subregions of the continent still harbor the potential for full-
scale conventional war. This potential is most conspicuous on the Korean peninsula and, to a lesser degree, in South
Asia, the Persian Gulf, and the South China Sea. In some of these areas, such as Korea and the Persian Gulf, the United
States has clear treaty obligations and, therefore, has preplanned the use of air power should contingencies arise. U.S. Air Force assets could also
be called upon for operations in some of these other areas. In almost all these cases, U.S. air power would be at the
forefront of an American politico-military response because (a) of the vast distances on the Asian continent;
(b) the diverse range of operational platforms available to the U.S. Air Force, a capability unmatched by any other country or service;
(c) the possible unavailability of naval assets in close proximity, particularly in the context of surprise contingencies; and (d) the
heavy payload that can be carried by U.S. Air Force platforms. These platforms can exploit speed, reach, and high operating tempos to sustain
continual operations until the political objectives are secured. The entire range of warfighting capability—fighters, bombers, electronic warfare
(EW), suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD), combat support platforms such as AWACS and J-STARS, and tankers—are relevant in the Asia-
Pacific region, because many of the regional contingencies will involve armed operations against large,
fairly modern, conventional forces, most of which are built around large land armies, as is the case in Korea,
China-Taiwan, India-Pakistan, and the Persian Gulf. In addition to conventional combat, the demands of
unconventional deterrence will increasingly confront the U.S. Air Force in Asia. The Korean peninsula, China, and the Indian
subcontinent are already arenas of WMD proliferation. While emergent nuclear capabilities continue to receive
the most public attention, chemical and biological warfare threats will progressively become future problems. The delivery systems in the region
are increasing in range and diversity. China already targets the continental United States with ballistic missiles. North Korea can threaten
northeast Asia with existing Scud-class theater ballistic missiles. India will acquire the capability to produce ICBM-class delivery vehicles, and
both China and India will acquire long-range cruise missiles during the time frames examined in this report.

6
SDI 08 WAVE 1
FEEBATES 1AC __/__

Feebates 1AC (7/9)

6. Deficits make economic collapse inevitable—only aerospace can export our way out of the crisis
Faux 02. (June, President of the Economic Policy Institute
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_airspace_natlasset)
It is clear that the U.S. current account deficit -- driving by the chronic excess of imports over exports -- is unsustainable. In 2000 the U.S.
current account deficit was $450 billion, 4.5% of GDP. The recession reduced the deficit somewhat last year, but it was still above $400 and 4%
of GDP. As the economy recovers, the deficit will continue its relentless expansion. As last year's report of the US Trade Deficit
Commission showed, for an equal increase in national income in the US and foreign countries, the United States increases its imports
proportionally more than its exports. The Wall Street firm of Morgan Stanley recently warned of a current account deficit reaching 6 percent of
GDP by the end of 2003. As the Economist magazine observed, studies -- including one done at the U S Federal Reserve -- indicate that when the
current account deficit reaches 5 percent, international financiers begin to pull back. In order to finance this deficit the United States has had to
borrow from other countries and sell them more of its assets. Thus, each year its economy must devote more of its income to interest on the debt
and the transfer of profits to investors in other countries. After 1988, these payments began to exceed foreigners' remittances to the United States.
This net foreign "debt" is now 22 percent of GDP. Assuming a recovery, the U.S. economy is on trajectory of a debt of roughly 40
percent of GDP within five years. Nobel prize-winning economists Franco Modigliani and Robert Solow last year characterized the large and
growing deficit in the U.S. international trade balance as "the greatest potential danger facing the economy in the years to come." The dollar is the
world's most important reserve currency and America has better credit and more assets to sell. But it is a matter of simple arithmetic that it cannot
forever borrow in order to buy more from the rest of the world than it sells. The interest burden will eventually be so heavy that foreign
investors will be unwilling or unable to keep financing the rising debt. When that happens, the dollar will drop and
interest rates will spike upward. The United States will then be forced to run a trade surplus with a drastic devaluation of the dollar and/or a
draconian deflation in real incomes in order to reduce demand for imports and make U.S. goods cheap enough to run a surplus in world markets.
An overvalued dollar makes it hard for even the most productive U.S. companies to compete in global markets. As an aerospace industry
executive recently remarked: "We still probably do less off-shore sourcing than most industries, but with the dollar where it
has been the last couple years, there's even more pressure to look offshore." Economists at Goldman-Sachs estimate that cutting the
current account deficit in half by devaluation alone would require a more than 40 percent drop in the dollar's value. Clearly the preferred way
to address this danger is by increasing our exports rather than decreasing our incomes to force Americans to import less. But as the
U.S. industrial base has shrunk, so has our capacity to expand exports in the tradable goods sectors. Moreover, we clearly would prefer to expand
the export of high value goods. This makes the aerospace sector crucial if the U.S. is to weather the inevitable adjustment
in its current account deficit. Today, rather than watch the aerospace export surplus shrink, we ought to be devising ways to expand it, not
for some mercantilist notions of trade, but because we will soon find ourselves rather desperate for industries that can help us
export our way out of the problem rather than adjusting through a lowering of living standards.

7
SDI 08 WAVE 1
FEEBATES 1AC __/__

Feebates 1AC (8/9)

The United States federal government should

ensure the use of alternative fuel vehicles by
providing revenue-neutral feebates

8
SDI 08 WAVE 1
FEEBATES 1AC __/__

Feebates 1AC (9/9)

Contention IV is Solvency:

1. The status quo regulations-only approach makes AFVs too expensive to

buy or produce. Feebates compensate for tech costs, allowing a market
shift
McManus 07. (Walter, PhD and Director of the Automotive Analysis Division, “Economic analysis of
feebates to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from light vehicles for California”, MRPA Paper No. 3461,
University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, May, pg. 8-9, http://mpra.ub.uni-
muenchen.de/3461/1/MPRA_paper_3461.pdf)
This is one advantage of a feebates program. Under a regulation scenario (Pavley Only) in
our model, vehicle manufacturers install technologies on all vehicles, clean and dirty, to
reduce global warming pollution to the required level. The prices consumers pay to
purchase the vehicles rise, because of the cost of the additional technologies (Figure 2).
However, under a feebates scenario in our model, manufacturers install technologies on
all vehicles, clean and dirty, to reduce emissions and to reduce surcharges and increase
rebates. Rebates compensate consumers for some of the costs of the
technologies, making clean vehicles less expensive (Figure 3). Surcharges on high-
polluting vehicles increase the cost of those vehicles even further. This accounts for the
small market shift.

2. Revenue-neutral feebates are self-financing

McManus 07. (Walter, PhD and Director of the Automotive Analysis Division, “Economic analysis of
feebates to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from light vehicles for California”, MRPA Paper No. 3461,
University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, May, http://mpra.ub.uni-
muenchen.de/3461/1/MPRA_paper_3461.pdf)
A feebates program gives incentives to consumers to buy, and to manufacturers to produce
and sell cleaner products by combining a fee on dirtier products with a rebate on cleaner
products. See Greene et al. 2005 and Johnson 2006 for examples of feebates programs
applied to vehicles. Two features of feebates programs have made them attractive to policy
makers. By addressing choices across the full range of alternatives, feebates programs have
the potential to stimulate more significant changes than one-sided approaches. Probably
more important is that a feebates program can be structured so that the fees
collected equal the rebates paid, making the program self-financing. The figure
below can be used to explain the parameters of a feebates program for vehicle emissions.

3. Only feebates can solve for all ends of the market spectrum – consumer
preferences, manufacturing conversion and fleet transformation
McManus 07. (Walter, PhD and Director of the Automotive Analysis Division, “Economic analysis of
feebates to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from light vehicles for California”, MRPA Paper No. 3461,
University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, May, pg. 2, http://mpra.ub.uni-
muenchen.de/3461/1/MPRA_paper_3461.pdf)
A third approach that could be used to enhance or replace existing regulations would be a
feebates program. A feebates program creates a schedule of both fees and rebates that
reflects the amount of global warming pollution that different vehicles emit. Purchasers of
new vehicles that emit larger amounts of heat-trapping emissions pay a one-time surcharge

9
SDI 08 WAVE 1
FEEBATES 1AC __/__

at the point of purchase. These surcharges are then used to provide rebates to buyers of
new vehicles that emit less pollution. A feebates program has several advantages over
other approaches:
Market-oriented: A feebates program recognizes the power of price signals to change
consumer behavior. That is, incentives spur consumers to purchase and
manufactures to produce cleaner vehicles.
Self-financing: A feebates program can be designed so that the surcharges
collected equal the rebates paid.
Affects entire market: A feebates program applies to all new vehicles—clean and dirty—
spurring a transformation of the entire market.
Consumer choice: A feebates program can be designed so that consumers have the option
to buy vehicles that carry no surcharge in each vehicle class, such as cars, trucks, sport
utility vehicles (SUVs), and minivans.

10