WHAM Aff Updates

SDI 2008 p.
1 of 124
WHAM! Pre tournament supplement
SDI 2008 p. 2 of 124
*****AFFIRMATIVE UPDATES*****
SDI 2008 p. 3 of 124
AT DA LOST – impact takeouts

LOST won’t improve our forward deployment or power projection.
Gabriel Malor, September 27, 2007, “The Law of the Sea Treaty is a Bad Idea,”
http://malor.wordpress.com/2007/09/27/the-law-of-the-sea-treaty-is-a-bad-idea/
Former Secretaries of State James Baker and George Shultz had an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal yesterday
entitled “Why the ‘Law of the Sea’ Is a Good Deal.” They take the usual strategy for LOST advocates:
touting treaty benefits that we already possess under customary international law and domestic law.
Our participation would increase our ability to wage the war on terror. The convention assures maximum
maritime naval and air mobility, which is essential for our military forces to operate effectively. It provides
the stability and framework for our forces, weapons and materials to be deployed without hindrance —
ensuring our ability to navigate past critical choke points throughout the world. It’s almost insulting that the
secretaries start with the War on Terror, as if the mere invocation of those words will line people up in
support of whatever they are selling. In this case, they ignore the the fact that the passage of ships
through straits within territorial waters, “critical choke points,” has long been protected under
customary international law. For example, in the 1949 Corfu Channel Case, the ICJ held that “there is
no right for coastal States to prohibit [innocent] passage through straits in time of peace.” LOST
incorporates this rule of customary law, but goes further in providing exceptions. For example, LOST
member states can deny innocent passage to ships which engage in “any threat or use of force …in violation
of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.” Given the incorrect-
but-widespread perpetuation of the “Illegal Iraq War” meme, it is not a stretch to imagine states attempting to
apply this provision of the treaty against the U.S. What happens if we join the treaty and another state raises
an objection to our passage? According to the Treaty, we are required to take our dispute to a new
international court, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Somehow, the secretaries pass that off
as a good thing: Some say it’s good enough to protect our navigational interests through customary law. If
that approach fails, then we can employ the threat of force or the use of it. However, because customary law
is vague, it does not provide a strong foundation for critical national security rights. Meanwhile, the use of
force can be risky and costly. Joining the convention would put our vital rights on a firmer legal basis,
gaining legal certainty and legitimacy as we operate in the world’s largest international zone. Only
there is no guarantee that the Tribunal will be impartial. Even worse, by the time the Tribunal can be
convened, it is a certainty that the U.S. will already have moved its ships through the contested area.
Any decision by the Tribunal will be mere post-hoc sniping. In other words it doesn’t make a
confrontation between the U.S. and other countries any less likely.
SDI 2008 p. 4 of 124
AT DA Lost – It’s bad for hegemony

Passing LOST would undermine our ability to use force at sea.
The Boston Herald, October 7, 2007, EDITORIAL, lexis, nna
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4242886638&f
ormat=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4242886641&cisb=22_T4242886640&tree
Max=true&treeWidth=0&csi=145223&docNo=3
The Bush administration wants the Senate to ratify a new incarnation of the Law of the Sea Treaty. No
matter how dressed up, though, the treaty should be rejected. The treaty would effectively abolish the
freedom of the United States to use force at sea on the rare occasions when the national interest
requires it. Instead, there would be compulsory arbitration. Can you imagine President Ford sending to
arbitration the Cambodian seizure of the Mayaguez in 1975? He sent the Marines. Or President Reagan
arbitrating Libya's claim of the Gulf of Sidra as territorial waters? He sent two aircraft carriers in 1986,
which sank or damaged four Libyan patrol boats and knocked out a missile battery that disputed the carriers'
passage. Suppose it had fallen to a U.S. warship, instead of Israeli forces, to intercept the Karine A carrying
50 tons of weapons from Iran to Gaza in 2002. President Bush would have been insane to call for
arbitration. The treaty purports to uphold the long-established right of ``innocent passage'' through
territorial waters. But it says ships on such passage may not commit ``any act aimed at collecting
information to the prejudice of the defense or security of the coastal state'' and ``submarines and other
underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag.'' That would shut
down a major source of intelligence, eavesdropping on telecommunications of potential enemies by
submarines lurking out of sight close to shore. It's a good bet that the Navy's subs have been brushing up
against whatever China and Iran use for lobster pots. One wonders if the Pentagon officials who endorse the
treaty have even read it. The treaty went into effect for 120 nations in 1994. President Clinton sought
ratification then, but the Senate refused to take it up. There is now an International Seabed Authority to
regulate mining on the ocean floor, an unneeded job-creating machine for international bureaucrats. U.S.
companies are not likely to prospect at sea without ratification, but that's a small price to pay for retaining the
Navy's freedom of action.
Passing LOST would put our transit powers at the whim of an International tribunal
PHILLIP E. BAYSTON, June 27, 2007, Chattanooga Times Free Press, “First Things First event a big success,”
lexis, nna
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4242913996
&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4242913999&cisb=22_T4242913998
&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=155832&docNo=5
Law of the Sea Treaty is bad for America In 1982 the United Nations spawned the Law of the Sea Treaty to
create a global bureaucracy allegedly to manage the ocean and its resources. It would give management of
two-thirds of the Earth's surface to another unaccountable international body, all allegedly to ascertain the
third world got a "fair" share, regardless of any contribution. President Reagan refused to sign. Past
experience with U.N. participation has not generally been in the best interest of the United States because of
anti-American agendas. The 202-page treaty signed by 153 countries does not improve the U.S. position.
Our country would have the same vote as Cuba. We surrender our sovereignty, independence of action and
wealth. The law grants power to levy international taxes transferring our wealth to socialist, anti-American
nations. All ocean research, exploration, minerals and transit requires authorization. The International
Tribunal would have sole authority to decide disputes and enforce judgments without appeal or
restrictions. Our sovereignty, national security and economic interests would be controlled by other
nations. Alarmingly, President Bush is soliciting support. Our House and Senate representatives should be
influenced
SDI 2008 p. 5 of 124
Lost will surrender freedom of movement for our ships and submarines.
Chattanooga Times Free Press, November 8, 2007, Surrender us to whom?, lexis, nna
To what international body would you like to surrender some of your freedom and the sovereignty of the
United States of America? Would you like for the United Nations to take over more control? Would you like
to be under the International Court at the Hague, Netherlands? How about subjecting much of our control to
an International Seabed Authority in Hamburg, Germany? Or maybe you wonder why anyone in America
would even consider surrendering any American freedom or American independence to any entanglements
under an international treaty that would make our country just one party to a body of about 155 or more
foreign nations. Most of those countries are backward, far from being democratic, certainly do not share our
personal or national values, and some are openly antagonistic toward the United States. And most would love
to dictate to us and force us to pay them taxes! If those prospects do not appeal to you, you should tell our
United States senators to vote against a very bad and dangerous "Law of the Sea Treaty" that is being
proposed for ratification. Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., summed the situation up succinctly when he said: "If you
want a U.N. on steroids, you want the Law of the Sea Treaty." What's this all about? The treaty seeks to
have us surrender control of more than two-thirds of the earth's surface -- about 70 percent -- to the control of
irresponsible international authorities. The Law of the Sea Treaty was first proposed in 1982 in an effort to
establish an international legal regime for international control of waters outside our 200-mile coastal area.
President Ronald Reagan opposed Senate ratification and it has never been taken up -- till now. So far, 154
nations have ratified it and a push is on for the U.S. Senate to make the grave mistake of giving approval. As
bad as the U.N. is, the United States does have veto power in the U.N. Security Council. The United States
would have no such power under the Law of the Sea Treaty. Why should we limit ourselves to any
international control of such things as mining and the movement of our submarines and other ships in
the oceans -- and have us pay taxes to numerous backward foreign nations if American companies
engage in productive enterprises under sea waters? The treaty, if ratified, would subject us to all sorts
of unpredictable international dictation and controls by nations that certainly do not have any interest
in our freedom or the welfare of the United States. The proposed treaty has 320 articles and nine annexes.
If you asked for a show of hands among the 100 senators, how many of them do you think would claim they
have even read the thing -- much less understood its complex terms and possible ramifications? Do you
understand such things as "Anadromous stocks" and "Catadromous Species"? We do not think most senators
understand, either. But the treaty covers them. Do you want to be under the "Jurisdiction of the Seabed
Disputes Chamber"? Shockingly, alarming, the horrifying Law of the Sea Treaty has been mistakenly
approved by a 17-4 vote of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and seems to be headed for a vote by
the full Senate. Distressingly, it is likely to receive approval by a majority of the senators -- but fortunately,
ratification requires a two-thirds majority. So the votes of 34 senators can prevent a mistake of proportions
that neither proponents nor opponents can accurately predict. Let us pray that 34 or more senators will vote
"No" and kill ratification! A great deal of U.S. freedom and sovereignty is at risk. And we do not believe
many senators and most Americans understand the far-reaching ramifications of this treaty proposal.
SDI 2008 p. 6 of 124
AT CP Regulatory Negotiations
Perm – do the plan and all non mutually exclusive parts of the counterplan
Too late – the regulatory negotiation was already done. The nuclear industry agreed to
certain conditions and regulations including contributing to a fund for nuclear waste
disposal in exchange for the federal government creating a permanent repository. The
industry met their commitments but the federal government hasn’t met theirs. No future
reg neg can work since the industry doesn’t trust the government to meet their obligations.
Watkiss ‘8, staff writer, Electric Light and Publishing, May/June 2008 Edition, Lexis. tk
Temporary or interim storage in dry casks, pending completion of Yucca Mountain or some other permanent
deep geologic storage, remains an economically viable and secure option, but violates the 1982 Act pursuant
to which nuclear utilities agreed to pay the federal government a fee of a tenth of a cent per kilowatt hour and
the government agreed to begin taking control of their nuclear wastes for transport to permanent storage
beginning in 1998. The government's 20-year-plus breach of this agreement has resulted in 60 lawsuits
against the Department of Energy, damage awards of $342 million as of February 2007, and ultimate liability
projected at $7 billion if Yucca Mountain opens for business as currently projected in 2017, or $11 billion if
that date slips to 2021 as is widely expected. Recently, Congress mandated the DOE to study potential
temporary storage for high-level nuclear waste in order to demonstrate that the nation is capable of moving
forward "in the near term with at least some element of nuclear waste policy." But the DOE balked,
contending that interim storage "is clearly not the solution" and argued that the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy
Act bars the DOE from taking title to spent fuel until after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission grants a
license for the permanent repository at Yucca Mountain. A self-imposed June 2008 deadline for submitting
the application to license Yucca Mountain was recently postponed.
SDI 2008 p. 7 of 124
No solvency – agency decisions about membership, details not covered in reg-neg sessions,
and heightened sensitivity.
Cary Coglianese, April 1997, Assistant Professor of Public Policy, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School
of Government, and Affiliated Scholar at Harvard Law School, “TWENTY-EIGHTH ANNUAL ADMINISTATIVE
LAW ISSUE: ARTICLE: ASSESSING CONSENSUS: THE PROMISE AND PERFORMANCE OF
NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING”, RKS, Lexis Nexis Academic.
In seeking consensus over the substance of regulations, negotiated rulemaking has long been considered a means of reducing conflict in the regulatory process. Yet formal
negotiation can actually foster conflict. It adds three new sources of conflict stemming from decisions
about membership on negotiated rulemaking committees; the consistency of final rules with negotiated
agreements; and the potential for an overall heightened sensitivity to adverse aspects of rules. The first
of these new sources of conflict stems from agency decisions about membership on negotiated
rulemaking committees. As discussed above, the criteria for negotiated rulemaking have [*1323] led agencies to
prefer rules that affect a limited range of parties. n297 Even with this tendency, agencies have sometimes still not been able to include all the
organizations who feel they will be affected by a rule. Although the Negotiated Rulemaking Act insulates the agency from judicial review of its decisions about membership on
the exclusion of groups from membership on the committees adds a source of
negotiated rulemaking committees, n298
discontentment not otherwise present in notice-and-comment rulemaking. The decision to use a select
committee whose representatives will develop a draft rule apparently attracts even closer scrutiny by
organizations not represented at the negotiating table. Not surprisingly, the EPA has been criticized by parties who were not invited to
participate on the agency's negotiation committees. In the asbestos rule, for example, the negotiations were temporarily disrupted while additional parties sought to participate in the
negotiations. n299 In the disinfectant byproducts negotiation, the chlorine industry complained that it had been "unfairly excluded" from full participation in the negotiated
rulemaking. n300 As I have already shown, the reformulated gasoline rule elicited a legal challenge from a tank truck trade association which was not represented on the negotiated
rulemaking committee, n301 as well as trade challenges from two countries not included on the committee. n302 The negotiations over the Grand Canyon visibility rule and the wood
One organization alone is capable
furniture coatings rule also prompted litigation by groups not participating on the negotiation committee. n303
of upsetting a consensus built on unanimity or filing a petition for judicial review. Consequently, even a
small number of excluded parties can pose a threat to the effectiveness of negotiated rulemaking. In Kerwin
and Langbein's study, twelve percent of the respondents reported that they had to "press" the EPA to let them participate. n304 [*1324] Thirty-five percent of those same respondents
reported that at least one affected interest was not represented at the negotiating table, a noteworthy finding considering that it is based on responses by those who were represented.
The likelihood that an agency excludes even one organization from a negotiated rulemaking
n305
committee poses an inherent threat to the effectiveness of a procedure that depends on consensus to
foreclose litigation. In addition to conflict over committee membership, negotiated rulemaking adds conflict over the
meaning of any consensus and the extent to which an agency's decision reflects that meaning.
Sometimes conflicts arise simply between participants over what each thinks a negotiated agreement
means. In the disinfectant byproducts rule, for example, a representative from the Natural Resources Defense Council reportedly criticized the American Water Works
Association for subsequently urging EPA to set action levels rather than the more stringent maximum contaminant levels NRDC supported in the negotiation. n306 AWWA thought its
position was consistent with the negotiations because it only agreed to support maximum contaminant levels once the agency could provide adequate microbial data. n307
Conflicts can also arise over what was not agreed to in the negotiated agreement - what might be
termed expressio unius disputes. These disputes center on whether a negotiated agreement's silence on
an issue reflects an agreement that the agency take no action. n308 In the reformulated gasoline case, the American Petroleum Institute
charged that EPA's decision to impose second phase nitrogen oxide standards contravened the agreement because the agreement did not address second phase standards. n309 The
EPA rejected API's administrative petition, concluding that the agreement's silence allowed the agency to proceed without retreating from the consensus. n310 [*1325] More
conflicts arise over the extent to which the agency has adhered to the stated terms of the
notably,
negotiated agreement. For example, in the reformulated gasoline case, the petroleum industry felt betrayed by the EPA's subsequent decision to issue a separate rule
favorable to the ethanol industry. n311 Similarly, in the Department of Education's student loan rulemaking, loan servicers charged that the Department breached commitments it
made during the negotiated rulemaking. n312 More recently, the petroleum industry criticized the Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service when it decided to reopen
Without an attempt at negotiated rulemaking, these conflicts
the comment period over its natural gas royalties rulemaking. n313
over the commitment of the agency to a negotiated agreement could not arise. The third way
negotiated rulemaking can add conflict is by heightening the sensitivity of the parties to adverse
portions of a rule. Negotiated agreements raise expectations. When the agency does not follow the
negotiated agreement, the existence of the agreement itself stirs up dissatisfaction. For example, consider a
conventional rulemaking in which an agency fails to follow the input provided by an affected organization. In that case, the organization has mainly to complain about how adversely
the rule affects its interests and how its comments were not accepted. If the agency were to enact the very same rule in contravention of a negotiated agreement, the organization
would suffer both the adverse effects of the rule as well as the impression that it had been "sandbagged." n314 Such a reaction in this latter case would seem even more likely if the
organization had compromised on other portions of the rule in order to secure gains on the portion subsequently undercut by the agency. Even if the underlying rule were the same in
both cases, we would expect the organization to perceive its interests to be more severely aggrieved in the latter case. n315 Similarly, we might expect representatives of organiza-
[*1326] tions excluded from a negotiation committee to react more acutely to an adverse portion of a rule if they knew the rule was developed in explicit consultation with other
organizations having potentially divergent interests. In a more general sense, we can expect negotiated rulemaking to heighten conflict simply because of the intensity with which
groups scrutinize the rules that are the subject of negotiations. One side benefit often attributed to negotiated rulemaking is that it facilitates learning, both by agency staff and interest
The additional time and resources groups devote to discussing rules developed through
group representatives. n316
negotiation provides greater awareness of the issues underlying the rule. n317 When groups invest
these additional resources in negotiation, their representatives presumably also learn more about how
aspects of the rule may adversely affect their group interests. Groups may also find that the more time
they invest in a rulemaking proceeding, the less willing [*1327] they are to overlook imperfections in
the rule. In these ways, the quest for consensus unintentionally contributes new sources of conflict to
the regulatory process that can limit negotiated rulemaking's ability to reduce rulemaking time and
litigation.
SDI 2008 p. 8 of 124
No Solvency – consensus building.

Cary Coglianese, April 1997, Assistant Professor of Public Policy, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School
of Government, and Affiliated Scholar at Harvard Law School, “TWENTY-EIGHTH ANNUAL ADMINISTATIVE
LAW ISSUE: ARTICLE: ASSESSING CONSENSUS: THE PROMISE AND PERFORMANCE OF
NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING”, RKS, Lexis Nexis Academic.
Even if a search for consensus could avoid creating new kinds of conflicts, negotiated rulemaking still would
have a difficult time succeeding in many cases for another reason altogether. Any procedure that depends
for its success on the maintenance of a consensus is, given the realities of the federal regulatory process,
fighting uphill. n318 A consensus forged at the earliest stages of the rulemaking process is inherently
fragile because the structure of the American administrative state provides numerous opportunities for
that consensus to unravel. Even if all the participants in the negotiated rulemaking reach a consensus,
the agency must still prepare a preamble to a proposed rule and provide an opportunity for public
comment on that proposal. n319 If the public comment period is to be meaningful, the agency must
consider changing the proposed rule in light of any negative comments it receives on a proposal, even if such
a change entails a retreat from a consensus. n320 In addition, during the development of the proposed
and final rule, the agency receives input from the Office of Management and Budget (and sometimes other
executive branch officials) which may lead the agency to modify features of a rule. n321 Members of
Congress [*1328] may step in and attempt to pressure the agency or change the underlying statute in such a
way as to disrupt the consensus. n322 As we have seen, other interest groups may also challenge the rule
in court, which can lead an agency to change the rule further. n323 Finally, even if a consensus reached
during the early stages of rulemaking could remain intact through all the subsequent stages, the
agency can decide at a later time to revise the rule. n324 Theories predicting the success of negotiated
rulemaking are based on the assumption that everyone who could ever conceivably take an interest in
a rule will come to a complete and stable agreement on every particular aspect of that rule. If that could
happen throughout government as well as throughout the interest group community, a rule could theoretically
sail undisturbed through the entire rulemaking process. Yet what is theoretically possible is different than
what is realistically probable. The intervention by a few well-placed agency managers, or by OMB, the
White House, or Congress, can lead to modifications that begin the unravelling of a consensus. It only
takes one interest group excluded from the negotiation, or one included but defecting group, to begin
unravelling the consensus from outside government. n325 Any heightened sensitivities created by the
process of reaching a consensus may serve to accelerate the breakdown of consensus. In practice, the
fact that agencies are embedded within a dynamic political environment makes maintaining consensus a bit
like building a house of cards. n326 [*1329]
No Solvency – Regulatory Negotiations can’t work without involving all the relevant
parties and that’s virtually impossible.
John S. Applegate, Fall 1997, Writer for the Northern Kentucky Law Review, “SPECIAL ESSAY:
COMPARATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITIES PROJECTS: A FORUM, NOT A
FORMULA”, RKS, Lexis Nexis Academic.
Collaborative decision making has been discussed most extensively in connection with proposals for
regulatory negotiation. n108 Regulatory negotiation proponents identify many of the same defects of
adversarial decision making that deliberative democratic theorists do, but the collaborative decision
making advocates see the problem in instrumental terms. That is, the problem with adversarial regulation
is not a democratic deficit, but regulations that are unduly rigid or unnecessarily costly or ineffective because
each side was unwilling to listen to the information provided and points of view of the others. Win-win
solutions are lost to the struggle for victory by one side or the other. While the goal of dialogue is the same,
one of the real weaknesses of regulatory negotiation is its failure to involve a broad cross-section of
affected persons. n109 Such negotiations remain largely the preserve of the environmental cognoscenti
-persons with technical expertise who regularly deal with each other on these issues. This excludes
ordinary citizens who are affected by the decisions or who are simply interested in them. Therefore,
while this version of collaborative decisionmaking fails as a device for democratic decisionmaking, it
reinforces, on technocratic grounds, the case for deliberative processes.
SDI 2008 p. 9 of 124
No solvency – administrative agencies can’t account for the diversity of public interests.
American Bar Association, No Date Cited, American Bar Association, “NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING
AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST”, RKS, http://www.abanet.org/dispute/essay/goldfiend.doc.
Most criticism of reg-neg, however, hinges on the second argument: that administrative agencies are
uniquely able to discern the public interest. Professor Funk, for example, embraces the notion of the
agency as rational expert, seeking the one true answer that best reflects the needs of the nation. He
states that: “Underlying the APA and all other statutes directing or authorizing agencies to adopt regulations
is the notion that the agency will be acting in the public interest.” While this is undoubtedly true, he frankly
admits that “[w]hat is meant by the public interest is not always clear.” Funk then demonstrates
(perhaps unintentionally) the truth of his own observation, in offering his own definition of the public
interest: “I mean it to be the best interests of the nation, the people, the body politic.” Funk’s
definition does little more than substitute one word (best) for another (public). This “troublesome”
word—best—begs the question, however, and Funk’s circular argument seems to comes down the
assertion that the agency must avoid collaboration and make the decision alone, because…well, because
that’s what the theory says. Similarly, Michael McCloskey echoes this concern about moving
towards explicit collaboration in the production of administrative regulations. McCloskey focuses his
concern on the use of consensus as a rule of decision in such negotiations, calling this a “prescription for
frustrating the national will of the majority.” McCloskey argues that: [T]he consensus rule serves to
overthrow the basic suppositions of representative democracy. Instead of the direction of public policy
being set by those garnering the greatest support among the electorate, those directions would be set
by collaborations in which those with little support can thwart the will of the majority. This turns
democracy on its head. Ironically, the consensus rule allows minorities to veto progress along certain
lines. This seems an odd claim coming from the (then) Chairman of the Sierra Club, a group that has
devoted itself—admirably in my opinion —to challenging the correctness of decisions made by these very
administrative agencies.
[*Funk is a Professor and McCloskey is the Chairman of the Sierra Club*]
No Solvency – Reg neg takes time, hundreds of hours of labor and effort, do not do what
they are intended to do, and produce indefensible and ineffective policies
David H. Rosenbloom, 1996, Marcel Dekker – New York, “Public Administration and Law”, RKS,
http://books.google.com/books?id=qjtNMdIFtVAC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=reg+neg&source=web&ots=WeBzT
e_wkL&sig=TvSRy48SQMcyjJzY746ocWD5g3I&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA81,M1
.
Despite the positives of this relatively new approach, regulatory negotiation has been used only sparingly.
The EPA, for example, routinely finalizes an estimated 100 regulations a year, but uses reg-neg an
average of only two to three times a year. The reasons for this are several. Reg-neg is time consuming.
The average reg-neg process at the EPA takes nearly two years (Polkinghorn, 1994). Tied in with this,
reg-negs require a tremendous infusion of labor; parties must be willing to dedicate hundreds of hours
to such an effort. Several authors have expressed not only practical, but theoretical concerns with reg-
neg. The first concern is that reg-neg participants may not be truly representative of the interests of
society at large (Fiorino, 1988:769; Bingham, 1986:77-83; Rushefsky, 1984:142-147; Wald, 1985: 18-22).
The second concern is that the final outcome may be more reflective of the needs of the parties as they
seek consensus, and less reflective of defensible, fact-based standards and principles (Fiorino, 1988;
Reich, 1985; Eisenberg, 1976).
SDI 2008 p. 10 of 124
No Solvency – Reg Neg’s are very time consuming, their benefits are speculative, and won’t
help enforcement.
Susan Rose-Ackerman, April 1994, Duke University School of Law, “Consensus versus Incentives: A Skeptical
Look at Regulatory Negotiation”, RKS, JSTOR.
According to Improving Regulatory Systems, the aims of regulatory negotiation are to reduce the time it
takes to put a rule into effect and to obtain high levels of compliance.18 Because affected parties have signed
on to the negotiated regulation, they may be both less likely to challenge the rule in court and more likely to
comply with it. However, as the authors of the report recognize, regulatory negotiation under current law
introduces an extra step that is time-consuming and difficult. One observer ad- vised participants to
expect a "roller coaster experience."19 Even though regulatory negotiation may shorten the regulatory
process in terms of calendar time,20 the actual hours of participant time may be greater than under
other regulatory procedures.21 Al- though a number of regulatory negotiations have been successful,22
the claims of widespread benefits are mostly speculative. And when it comes to enforcing the
regulation, reg neg may not help significantly; even for rules promulgated by standard methods,
compliance seems high.23
Reg Neg’s are time consuming – Prefer the plan over the CP
Ellen Siegler, April 1997, Duke Law Journal, “REGULATORY NEGOTIATIONS AND OTHER RULEMAKING
PROCESSES: STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES FROM AN INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT”, RKS,
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?46+Duke+L.+J.+1429.
Finally, of course, the reg neg involves intense negotiations at the formal reg neg table, at which
representatives of state and [*pg 1432] federal agencies, public interest environmental groups, and
perhaps others, join industry representatives. Building enough trust among these groups to reach an
agreement is a long and difficult undertaking. The complex and cumbersome nature of the reg neg process
is one reason why API does not greet with enthusiasm invitations to participate in a reg neg.
Reg Neg’s fail – failure to incorporate constituents

Angela Libby Jankousky, April 2000, EME Solutions, Inc., “Winning at Regulatory Negotiation”, RKS, eme-
solutions.com/images/Winning%20at%20Regulatory%20Negotiation.doc.
Before beginning agency negotiations, establish a process to frequently update association members via
meetings, conference calls, updates on your Web site, newsletters, faxes, or e-mails. "It is important to
provide some way for those who are not members of the negotiating team to respond and provide feedback to
the negotiators," says Suzanne Ghais, a program manager with CDR Associates, a mediation, training, and
consulting organization based in Boulder, Colorado. "Many negotiations fail because negotiators work
cooperatively with the other parties but don't bring their constituents along, and ultimately the
constituents (in this case, association members) won't approve the deal."
SDI 2008 p. 11 of 124
AT DA Hedge funds
Non unique -shortage and China/India
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh, Globalization and oil market expert, 7/10/2008, Global research, “Is there an Oil
Shortage”, AB, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9557
The popular perception of the recently skyrocketing oil price is that there is an oil shortage in global
energy markets. The perceived shortage is generally blamed on the Organization of Petroleum
Exporting countries (OPEC) for “insufficient” production, or on countries like China and India for
their increased demand for energy, or on both. This perception is reinforced—indeed, largely
shaped—by the Bush administration and its neoconservative handlers who are eager to deflect
attention away from war and geopolitical turbulence as driving forces behind the skyrocketing energy
prices.
Non unique—Middle East war

The answer, in a nutshell, is: war and geopolitical instability in oil markets. Contrary to
the
claims of the champions of war and militarism, of the Wall Street speculators in energy
markets, and of the proponents of Peak Oil, the current oil price shocks are caused largely by the
destabilizing wars and political turbulences in the Middle East. These include not only the raging wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also the danger of a looming war against Iran that would threaten the
flow of oil out of Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz.
Oil investment is volatile now-Any little single comment by politician or investment banker
Industry Standard [June 9, 2008, http://www.thestandard.com/predictions/oil-prices-spike-150-barrel-july download
date: 7-6-08]
Oil prices have been on a roller-coaster ride this year, sensitive to all kinds of events, ranging from a
weak US dollar to a single comment made by a politician to a prediction by investment bank Morgan
Stanley.
Oil prices depend on the Dollar

MacDonald '08 [Elizabeth, Fox Business Network stocks editor, "Part Two: Oil Speculators vs Supply and Demand," July 1,
http://emac.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2008/07/01/part-three-oil-speculators-vs-supply-and-demand/ download date: 7-7-08]
And a key driver is the strength of the US dollar. Since oil is traded in dollars, the plunging value of the
US dollar likely has traders scrambling, as the amount earned from future oil sales may get slammed
as the dollar loses real value.
SDI 2008 p. 12 of 124
AT DA India Deal bad

Non-unique Congress recently passed a housing bill and Bush will sign it
Julie Hirschfeld Davis, AP writer, 7-26-08, “Despite reservations, Bush ready to sign mortgage relief for 400,000
strapped homeowners”, http://www.newsday.com/business/nationworld/ats-ap-congress-
housingjul26,0,7211787.story
WASHINGTON - Congress approved mortgage relief for 400,000 struggling homeowners Saturday as
part of an election-year housing plan that also aims to calm jittery financial markets and bolster the
sagging economy. President Bush said he would sign it promptly, despite reservations. The measure,
regarded as the most significant housing legislation in decades, lets homeowners who cannot afford
their payments refinance into more affordable government-backed loans rather than losing their
homes. It offers a temporary financial lifeline to troubled mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
— pillars of the home loan market whose losses have sparked investor fears — and tightens controls over the
two government-sponsored businesses. What began as a showdown between the White House and the
Democratic-led Congress over how far the government should go in rescuing homeowners evolved into
a bipartisan effort that could be the last such compromise before Bush leaves office in January. In a
rare Saturday session, the Senate voted 72-13 to send the bill to the president; the House passed it
Wednesday. President's reluctance Bush had withdrawn his veto threat earlier in the week over $3.9 billion
in neighborhood grants. He contended the money would benefit lenders who helped cause the mortgage
meltdown, encouraging them to foreclose rather than work with borrowers. "Because of the Democratic
Congress' delays and the need for action now, President Bush will sign this bill when he receives it, despite
our concerns with some provisions, including nearly $4 billion to help lenders, not the homeowners this
legislation is intended to serve," said Tony Fratto, deputy White House press secretary. Many Republicans,
particularly those from areas hit hardest by housing woes, were eager to get behind a housing rescue as
they looked ahead to tough re-election contests. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson's request for the
emergency power to rescue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac helped push through the measure. So did the
creation of a regulator with stronger reins on the government-sponsored companies, as Republicans long
have sought. Democrats won cherished priorities in the bargain: the aid for homeowners, a permanent
affordable housing fund financed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the neighborhood grants. "This
is far more than sending a bill to the president's desk for his signature. It's sending a message to the
American people that the Congress of the United States — despite an alternative reputation — can
actually get things done, and can work together to achieve a good result," said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd,
chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee.
Turn – our plan is massively unpopular. There nuclear power links aren’t specific to our
plan which is waste disposal.
SDI 2008 p. 13 of 124
*****CELLULOSIC ETHANOL NEG*****

SDI 2008 p. 14 of 124
AT ADV Global Warming
Cellulosic ethanol refineries require fossil fuels offsetting solvency.

IEE (Institute for Energy and the Environment), 2007, “The Rush to Ethanol”, AB,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/uploads/RushToEthanol-rep.pdf
Ethanol refineries are significant sources of greenhouse gases and other polluting emissions. Coal and
natural gas are commonly burned in order to generate the enormous amounts of energy and heat
needed to run biofuel refineries. These facilities discharge many of the same pollutants ethanol is
intended to reduce, including CO2, CO, NOX, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sulfur dioxide, and
particulate matter.218 Emissions from coal-fired ethanol plants are notably higher than those from plants
running on natural gas. In fact, according to the DOE, ethanol produced using coal results in greater overall
greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline.219.While an estimated 85 percent of ethanol plants run on natural
gas, as it is less capital-intensive to construct a plant that uses this highly manageable fuel,220 as natural gas
is becoming more expensive, more refiners are expected to turn to coal as their fuel source.
Turn – cellulosic ethanol increases nitrous oxide which is 300 times worse for greenhouse
effect.
CEC (Commission of the European Communities), 10/1/2007, “COMMUNICATION FROM THE
COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT”, AB,
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/07_biofuels_progress_report_en.pdf
For example, during the 1990s, there was a tendency to evaluate the greenhouse gas impact of
biofuel production purely in terms of carbon dioxide emissions. Nitrous oxide emissions
caused by fertilizer use and by the cultivation of land were not taken into account. The global
warming potential of nitrous oxide, weight for weight, is about 300 times that of carbon
dioxide. The omission of these emissions tended, therefore, to lead to an exaggeration of the
greenhouse gas benefits of biofuels.
SDI 2008 p. 15 of 124
AT ADV Dead Zones

Cellulosic ethanol uses a significant amount of fertilizers—turning their dead-zones
advantage
Fertilizers and pesticides will still be applied to cellulosic feedstocks, though in lesser quantity than for
corn and soy. According to NRDC projections, which account for higher rates of uptake of chemicals
through root mass, switchgrass yields 9.7 kg/hectare/year runoff of applied nitrogen (the chemical of
utmost concern for eutrophication, along with potassium and phosphorus) as compared to 78.8 and
16.25 for corn and soybeans respectively.402 But while the amounts of chemicals applied are lower and
percentage runoff is less, they are by no means negligible. Concerns about chemical runoff from
cellulosic feedstock fields become very significant when one considers the scale of cellulosic ethanol
production that the federal government and environmental organizations are proposing.
SDI 2008 p. 16 of 124
AT ADV Economy
Cellulosic ethanol increases transportation costs which means it isn’t economically
competitive.
Diane Greer, reporter, January 2007, BioCycle, “REALITIES, OPPORTUNITIES FOR CELLULOSIC
ETHANOL”, AB, http://www.jgpress.com/archives/_free/001220.html
Cellulosic ethanol is produced from a great diversity of biomass including waste from urban, agricultural,
and forestry sources. In terms of agricultural residues - which this article focuses on - this includes the
nonfood portion of plants, i.e., the leaves and stem. While chemically identical to ethanol made from food
crops, such as corn and soybeans, the production process is more complicated. Preprocessing steps are
required to liberate the sugars locked in the complex carbohydrates, called cellulose and hemicellulose,
which form the cell walls of plants. During preprocessing, biomass materials are broken into smaller
pieces and then treated with enzymes to accelerate biochemical reactions that break down the complex
carbohydrates into fermentable sugars. As with grain-based ethanol, the remainder of the process
involves the fermentation and distillation of the sugars into alcohol. To date, efforts to improve the
economic viability of cellulosic ethanol have focused on decreasing enzyme costs and improving
efficiency of preprocessing. But economics also depend on the ability of farmers to supply feedstocks
profitably and at prices that enable these operations to produce a competitive product. “You have to
work on conversion and distribution in parallel,” says Kevin Shinners, Professor of Agricultural Engineering
at the University of Wisconsin. “This stuff will not magically appear at the biorefineries.” Logistical
challenges in collecting and transporting agricultural residuals add costs to otherwise inexpensive
feedstocks. “The goal is to develop the machines and processes to harvest, store and transport these materials
in the most economic way for the [farm] producers,” adds Shinners. “If it can't be done economically for
producers, the whole value chain is going to fall apart.”
SDI 2008 p. 17 of 124
AT Solvency
Without removing the subsidies for corn based ethanol the aff solves ZERO of the case.
Farmers won’t give up thos subsidies and even if a few did the best case scenario is a very
small increase in cellulostic ethanol by 2020. Even the sources you think would be biased
recognize that cellulosic ethanol is a fantasy.
Gristmill, Online Environmental Newspaper, March 2008
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/3/125745/7746
Now we get a new study (PDF) from a trio of ag economists at Iowa State University. For the record, the
authors are conventional ag scholars firmly entrenched within the corporate-dominated research
world described so well by Nancy Scola in her recent "Monsanto U." post. Indeed, one of the authors holds
the Pioneer Hi-Bred International Chair in Agribusiness. (Pioneer is the genetically modified seed arm of the
chemical giant Dupont.) The researchers' patrons -- i.e., the agribiz giants -- benefit from the corn-as-
bridge-to-cellulosic myth; it keeps those highly profitable government goodies coming. So it's
surprising to see these mainstream economists deliver such a dismal forecast for cellulosic ethanol. To
come up with their forecasts, the authors do their economists' trick of creating a model and plugging in
various assumptions. They start by calculating that without the latest round of goodies -- i.e., the fat
"Renewable Fuel Standard" of the 2007 Energy Act -- cellulosic ethanol (and biodiesel, too) would have
withered away. In that scenario, corn ethanol would keep ramping up from the current level of about 7 billion
gallons, pushed by high oil prices and the $0.51/gallon tax credit that's existed for years. Here's what they
say would have happened by 2022, if the 2007 Act had never happened (economists lay out their conditional,
speculative scenarios in the simple present tense): The corn ethanol sector expands until total production
exceeds 18 billion gallons per year. Biodiesel and cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass are not viable in this
scenario. Cellulosic ethanol never expands, and the biodiesel sector contracts so that there are no biodiesel
plants operating in the long run. They add a bit that I found particularly devastating: "These results suggest
that [without the 2007 Energy Act], once the opportunity cost of land is taken into account, rational farmers
will not grow switchgrass or soybeans for biofuel production, and rational investors will not build these
plants." Believe me, that thing about "rational" farmers and investors is strong stuff, coming from
conventional economists. Now, what happens when we account for the 2007 Act's hefty mandate?
Current production, almost all from corn, stands at about 7 billion gallons. The act demands 36 billion
gallons of biofuel by 2022, of which 15 billion comes from corn, and the other 21 billion gallons comes
from cellulosic (and to a much less extent biodiesel). The authors seriously doubt the cellulosic target
can even come close to being met. They reckon that the mandate can inspire "rational" farmers and
investors to churn out 4.5 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol by 2022 -- but there's a catch. In order to
reach even that level, the government will have to significantly jack up the tax credit awarded to
mixers -- from the current 51 cents to $1.55. The message is this: Even with the fat 2007 Act mandate,
cellulosic ethanol can only offset a tiny amount of petroleum use -- and then only if it's borne aloft by
titanic amounts of public cash.
2nd Generation Ethanol isn’t ready yet – the plan’s push for widescale use before it’s ready
undermines the solvency of all their advantages.
Investing time, land, energy, and money in short-sighted solutions will not only result in unnecessary
environmental damages, but also impede a meaningful transition to the best possible production
scenario for biofuels. Modern agriculture has demonstrated that we can grow any crop to the
detriment of the land and the people farming it. We must remember that while some plants may hold
certain benefits over others, it is the manner in which they are planted, grown, and harvested that are
the measure of environmental impact. After all, it is not plants themselves that are sustainable, but rather
the practices by which they are managed. While there are environmental benefits inherent in cellulosic
over corn for ethanol production, if these feedstocks are planted and harvested in unsustainable ways
those, benefits could easily become moot.
SDI 2008 p. 18 of 124
Ethanol alone cannot solve environment, global warming, or dependency.

Ethanol should not be seen as the solution to our pressing energy crisis. Any plan to expand the use of
biofuels must be part of a larger strategy to promote an overall transition to a more sustainable
transportation model that focuses on reducing total energy use. Instead of a silver bullet, we need a
toolbox of measures that will reduce the huge amount of oil we use every day to move people and goods
around. Ethanol, either from corn or from cellulosic feedstocks, is not the solution to green house gas
emissions, high oil prices, or dependency on foreign oil. The potential of ethanol to displace gasoline is
limited—there is just not enough land or water to produce ethanol in quantities that would
significantly displace gasoline at projected demand levels without tremendous impacts on the
environment and on food production.
No solvency – lack of suitable refineries stops mass adoption of cellulosic ethanol.

Because no commercial cellulosic ethanol refineries are currently operating, there are no concrete
models by which to conclude what cellulosic’s water intake needs will be. However, there are concerns
that the added “pre-washing” or “pre-processing”401 step necessary for breaking cellulose down into
ethanol will be a serious limiting factor in determining where refineries can be built, possibly excluding
arid western states from production of this fuel. While it is presumed that added water demand for
processing will not be greater than water use for row irrigation, the number and density of refineries slated
for the Midwestern region alone are cause for concern. Furthermore, this additional step will add a
suite of largely untested chemicals that would be treated and discharged.
No solvency—Cellulosic ethanol would require 60 times more land than is available for
ethanol which turns all their environment advantages.
NRDC (National Resource Defense Council), 2007, Growing Energy, “How Bio-fuels can help end America’s
Oil Dependence”, AB, http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/biofuels/biofuels.pdf
How much land would we need to meet that level of light-duty vehicle energy demand with cellulosic
ethanol? With status quo switchgrass yields at 5 dry tons/ acre/year and currently achievable cellulose-to-
ethanol conversion efficiency of about 50 gallons per ton (the equivalent of 33 gallons of gasoline), about
1,750 million acres would be required to meet projected 2050 light-duty gasoline demand. In
comparison, the area of the contiguous 48 states is about 1.9 billion acres, U.S. cropland and rangeland
is about 700 million acres, and U.S. cropland is about 400 million acres, and the only land on which
switchgrass is growing now is part of about 30 million acres of Conservation Resource Program land.
The conclusion based on the status quo can only be that cellulosic biofuels would be bit players.
Cellulosic Ethanol will never be viable – feedstocks.

Gristmill, Online Environmental Newspaper, March 2008
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/3/125745/7746
Cellulosic ethanol represents a beacon on the horizon -- the justification cited by wiseguys like Vinod
Khosla for dropping billions per year in public cash to prop up corn ethanol production. Corn ethanol, you
see, is a bridge to a bright cellulosic future. But the beacon is looking more and more like a mirage, a
ghost, a specter; the bridge we're hurtling down may well lead to a chasm. A quiet consensus seems to be
forming among people you'd think would know the facts on the ground: cellulosic ethanol, touted as five
years away from viability for decades now, may never be viable. Last fall, a researcher from the USDA --
an agency that has lavished ethanol with research cash since the '70s -- declared that while cellulosic has
"some long-term promise" (some?), we shouldn't expect it to contribute significantly to fuel supplies before
2013. Then in January, Colin Peterson -- chair of the House Ag Committee and a long-time friend of
agribiz -- let slip that "I'm not sure cellulosic ethanol will ever get off the ground." He muttered
something about "a lot bigger problem to overcome here than people realize in terms of the
feedstocks."
SDI 2008 p. 19 of 124
AT Solvency – fast implementation fails extensions

Their evidence is best on best case scenarios – pushing for cellulosic ethanol now takes out
solvency because it isn’t ready to be deployed on a mass scale.
The extent of the potential environmental impacts of the two prominent categories of cellulosic fuels is
largely unknown. In fact, the land-use methods associated with agricultural residues and energy crops,
specifically grasses and fast-growing woody varieties, greatly impact the relative environmental
footprint of that fuel source. In general, ecosystem and environmental impacts will chiefly depend on
what kind of land is being used, what is being grown, and in what manner. This may seem an obvious
and overly general characterization, but there is much to consider. The wide diversity of potential
feedstocks and landscape scenarios, taken with the massive scale of future cellulosic deployment, require
significant attention in forming policies and practices that reflect prioritization of environmental
sustainability.
Cellulosic ethanol isn’t ready for incentive policies yet.

The impacts of producing biomass for energy could in some cases degrade and in others improve
environmental integrity, based on type of feedstock, cultivation methods, and land used. For example,
removing agricultural residues beyond what is needed to maintain and replenish soil organic matter
(SOM) will exacerbate erosion vulnerabilities and negative environmental impacts from conventional
row-crop production. On the other hand, transitioning vulnerable or low-yielding agricultural lands to
energy crop production would enhance soil, water, and wildlife health. However, turning protected lands,
such as those enrolled in the USDA Conservation Reserve Program, to energy crops will sacrifice
ecological quality. The potential yields and impacts of widespread cellulosic production are, at this
time, combinations of extrapolation, projections, and hope. Estimations of yield increases for hybridized
corn stalks, grasses, or trees are based on genomics applied to corn yields. The wildlife and carbon
sequestration benefits of perennial grasses and trees are delicate, and depend largely on sustainable
implementation and responsible land stewardship priorities. Therefore, before cellulosic biofuels are
adopted as the alternative fuel, federal, state, and local planners must work in earnest conjunction
with farmers, environmental scientists, conservationists, and other stakeholders to ensure that the
great actual potential of cellulosic ethanol is not forsaken by flawed implementation and
incentivization. In real terms, only programs that prioritize environmental protection, sustainability, and
efficiency will be cost-effective and long lasting, and deployment of a cellulosic biofuel economy should
faithfully represent those imperatives.
Cellulosic Ethanol is not ready for use and unsustainable-this evidence subsumes their
solvency cards because it assumes future R&D
Cellulosic ethanol offers a better alternative than corn based ethanol, but technological breakthroughs
are needed for it to play a significant role. Moreover, cellulosic ethanol production is not inherently
sustainable and there are potential environmental risks in its mass production. Given ethanol’s
shortcomings and limitations, we should be looking into other alternatives for the transportation sector.
Conservation and efficiency measures are waiting to be implemented; an aggressive plan should be
rapidly put in place to curb transportation greenhouse gas emissions and limit the country’s dependency on
foreign oil.
SDI 2008 p. 20 of 124
AT Solvency – increases CO2 extensions

Your studies claiming a positive energy net balance does not take into account other
factors. Cellulose Ethanol cannot supply our current energy consumption, and it will
actually make warming worse. Prefer our evidence- its from Pimentel who is a renowned
specialist in the field.
Grist, Online Environmental Newspaper, 08 Dec 2006
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/12/08/philpott/
Yet Pimentel's provocations continue. Not only is corn-based ethanol a net energy consumer, he says, but
cellulosic ethanol -- simultaneously biofuel's holy grail and sacred cow -- is "worse." Grist recently spoke to
Pimentel about why he thinks biofuels are an environmental dead end. Enthusiasts for crop-based energy would do well to at least examine
his analysis. question You claim corn ethanol's energy balance is negative, and there's a growing consensus that it's positive. Why the
difference? answer Pro-ethanol people make it out to be positive by omitting many of the inputs that go into
corn production. For example, they omit the farm labor -- I'm not talking about the farm family, I'm
talking about the farm labor. They omit the farm machinery. They omit the energy to produce the hybrid
corn. They omit the irrigation. I could go on and on. Anyway, if I did all of those manipulations, I could
achieve also a positive return. However, that's not the way these assessments are made. You can go check the noted agricultural
economists who have looked at corn as well as other crops, and they do include the labor, they include the farm machinery, they include
repair of the farm machinery, and so forth and so on. And so, those are all inputs that the ag economists include. Why are the pro-ethanol
people leaving them out? Story continues below question When you say that the ethanol crowd fails to include the farm machinery, are you
talking about the energy that's needed to manufacture a tractor, for example? answer That's right. Or an automobile used by the farmer.
question From your experience, how do these researchers justify that omission? answer They don't. They
just omit it. question I also see that in your studies, your calculation of how much energy goes into producing synthetic fertilizer is
higher than the USDA's assessment. Why that difference? answer Our data come from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. We're
actually using a lower number than [the FAO's]. We're using 16,000 kilocalories per kilogram [of fertilizer], and I say the FAO is using
18,000. So again, we're using the most accurate data that are available, and not trying to manipulate these numbers. question Another place
where you clash with other researchers is over the byproducts of ethanol: stuff like distillers grains that go into animal feed, etc. For those
researchers, byproducts are what push ethanol's energy balance solidly onto positive ground. answer We do
account for it. Distillers grains, incidentally, are being used as a substitute for soybean meal. So we went back to the soybean meal, and
examined how it's produced, and the energy that is required to produce it. Instead of giving [distillers grains] a 40 to 60 percent credit as the
pro-ethanol people do, we found that the credit should be more like 9 percent. They [pro-ethanol researchers] are manipulating the data
again. question All of that is very controversial, but let's get to the really provocative part of your work. You claim cellulosic
ethanol's energy balance is "worse" than that of conventional ethanol. How can that be? answer It's quite
easy. Number one, if you have a handful of sawdust, and a handful of corn, which one has the most
starches and sugars? That's easy. It takes almost twice as much sawdust to make the same gross energy as
[corn] from cellulose, or wood. Number two, it takes two additional treatments to release the starches and
sugars [from cellulose]. That is, you're going to treat the cellulose. It's held by the lignin, and the lignin is the
stuff that holds the trees up straight. And the cellulose is trapped inside that lignin. And you've got to
release it, and that requires an acid or an enzyme. And so that's one treatment, and then you've got to use an
alkali to stop the acidity at some stage. And now you can introduce the bugs for the fermentation. But No. 1, it
takes more cellulose, and No. 2, you've got two additional treatments. But wouldn't the response to that be
that it's a lot less energy intensive to grow material for cellulosic ethanol because you don't need to focus
on plants that have high sugar concentrations? answer That's right. And we did that [in a recent study
(PDF)]. But we found negative energy balances for both wood and switchgrass. question Don't you figure
that after 35 years the industry will figure out how to make cellulosic ethanol work? We're always hearing about
a big breakthrough that's about to happen. answer Well, we know how to make it work. The question is, can you
do it energetically, with small amounts of energy? That I seriously doubt. question You recently wrote that
"green plants in the United States collect about 53 exajoules of energy per year from sunlight. Americans
consume slightly more than twice that amount, however." How did you arrive at these figures? answer All you do is sit
down with a pencil and paper, total up all the crops being produced, along with any of the additional biomass that goes with it. Like with
corn, you not only total up the corn, but the corn stalks. You total up all the crops, and then with the wood material, you total up all the
annual production in forests, and we use a rather optimistic number, three tons per hectare per year, under a range of conditions. So you can
make this calculation yourself. question So if we converted 100 percent of a year's worth of solar energy stored in plant matter to fuel, we'd
only supply half of our current energy consumption. What's that telling us? answer It's telling us we're using too goddamn much fossil
energy! And another thing it tells us is that you're not going to be self-sufficient, or even produce half of our energy from biomass in the U.S.,
if we want to eat. And that's using an optimistic figure for ethanol production. I don't know why [biofuel proponents] don't sit down with
pencil and paper and make these calculations instead of spouting off on all the wonderful things we can achieve.
SDI 2008 p. 21 of 124
DA Politics – Turns the case

Obama solves better than the aff – he will get substitute cellulose for corn based ethanol
which the aff can’t do.
Wendland 8
John, May 14, Obama Pushes Cellulosic Ethanol, Wind Energy, and Solar Power,
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/6852/1/334/
Slamming John McCain for failing to vote for renewal of the Investment Tax Credit for alternative energy,
presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama at a campaign stop May 13 in Cape Girardeau, Missouri
touted a plan to invest in cellulosic ethanol, wind energy, and solar power as alternatives to fossil
fuels. These industries want to grow, Obama told the crowd. "But the problem is," he added,
"Washington hasn't acted to give them the incentive where its economical for them to expand."
Obama pledged to invest $150 billion in wind, solar, and ethanol over 10 years to help companies
develop new energy products. Significantly, Obama also stressed the need to convert from corn-based
ethanol to "ethanol that is made from non-food stock." Obama linked corn-based ethanol to higher
food prices and as being less efficient than experimental cellulosic ethanol, a situation that has
impacted consumers generally and livestock farmers specifically.
Prefer our evidence- their evidence never says Obama will promote Corn ethanol and our
evidence is from Barack himself
BarackObama.com No date cited
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
Deploy Cellulosic Ethanol: Obama will invest federal resources, including tax incentives, cash prizes and
government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two
billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013.
SDI 2008 p. 22 of 124
*****CHINA NEG*****
SDI 2008 p. 23 of 124
CP States AT: Violates Constitution

1. This argument is talking about formal agreements and treaties. Out counterplan
does not violate this because we just give incentives to our own businesses that are in
China. We don’t have to talk agree formally with the Chinese government
2. There is no impact to this argument. Why does it matter if we violate this part of the
constitution?
3. Empirical proof - State cooperation with international actors is key to solve climate
and has constitutional precedent
Engel, Arizona University Law Professor, 2005
[Kristen, "Colloquium Article: MITIGATING GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE UNITED STATES: A
REGIONAL APPROACH," 14 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 54]
Because greenhouse gases are global pollutants whose emissions are the subject of mitigation
efforts around the world, it is not surprising that policymakers crafting regional solutions to climate
change in the United States have many opportunities to link their proposals to those being pursued
by other nations. Normally such linkage would be pursued by the federal government or under the auspices
of an agreement or treaty. But in the absence of strong federal leadership on climate change, the states
are being left to work out the contours of international cooperation largely by themselves. This state-
foreign nation linkage raises several questions: are states exceeding their authority by entering into
cooperative agreements with foreign nations, and are the states subject to limitations upon linking a U.S.
regional emissions trading program with a foreign government's trading program?
One commentator claims that the joint regional climate change action plan developed by the New England
Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers exceeds the power of states under the [*79] Constitution. n82
According to this commentator, Jon Reisman, the agreement is a "transparent attempt to implement the
Kyoto Protocol, without reference to the complex terms of the Protocol itself." n83 Consequently, according
to Reisman, the plan violates Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, which bars states from entering into a
treaty, alliance, confederation, agreement or compact with another state or nation. n84 The agreement of the
Governors and Premiers does commit both the New England states and several Canadian provinces to
greenhouse gas emission reduction goals, though the goals are actually less stringent than the targets
contained in the Kyoto Protocol for the U.S. and Canada. The Governors and Premiers are, however, doing
little more than expressing their mutual intent to reduce greenhouse gases; nothing they are doing
commits either nation as a whole to reduction targets or to any other requirement of the Kyoto Protocol. No
aspect of the Governors' nonbinding agreement with Canadian states would seem to enhance the
powers of the states vis-a-vis the national government, and it would appear to stay outside of the
Supreme Court's modern definition of an "agreement" or "compact" subject to the Compact Clause.
n85 Nevertheless, in executing the agreement, the states do appear to be standing in the shoes of the
federal government.
SDI 2008 p. 24 of 124
CP States AT States Can’t Be Modeled

1. Uniform state action solves this argument. Even if states individually won’t be
modeled or perceived, all 50 acting together would be perceived as United States
action and be modeled as much as the United States.
2. State action is internationally modeled – here is proof
Michael Northrop and David Sassoon, Program Director for Sustainable Development at the Rockefeller
Brothers Fund and administrator of SolveClimate.com, Yale Environment 360, 6-3-2008,
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2015
Individually, the size of many of these state economies rivals those of most countries. State climate
policy initiatives — though not yet implemented on a national scale — are collectively among the most
advanced anywhere in the world. They provide a profound but largely unrecognized platform for
national action, and for a potential reassertion of global environmental leadership by the United States.
Indeed, state climate initiatives have provided hope to those in the global community who have waited
patiently for the United States to engage meaningfully in international climate efforts
3. And, the plan will result in federal action – we access 100% solvency
Michael Northrop and David Sassoon, Program Director for Sustainable Development at the Rockefeller
Brothers Fund and administrator of SolveClimate.com, Yale Environment 360, 6-3-2008,
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2015
The federal government in the Bush era has done little to tackle our most pressing environmental problem —
climate change. Yet there is one bright side amid Washington’s inaction: Many states have been stepping
into the void and adopting comprehensive climate change policies that can be a model for the coming
federal legislation to slow global warming. The leadership of states such as California, Arizona,
Connecticut, New Jersey, and Florida is crucial not only because it provides a template for federal climate
legislation that will no doubt be adopted under the next presidential administration. State action is also
vital because among the top 75 emitters of greenhouse gases worldwide, half are U.S. states.
SDI 2008 p. 25 of 124
SDI 2008 p. 26 of 124
CP States AT: Federal Action is Key to Business Initiatives

1. The states can do all three things that the plan says is necessary to solve – so
these generic federal action key cards are irrelevant.
State action spurs enough cooperation for long term innovation

2.
CalCEF, California Clean Energy Fund, 6-23-2005, “California Clean Energy Fund to Grant $1 Million
for the Creation of the World’s Leading Center on Energy Efficiency at a Northern California University”,
NM, www.siliconbeat.com/entries/CalCEF_Challenge_Grant_Final_06.22.05.doc
The California Clean Energy Fund (CalCEF), a $30 million public benefit investment fund created as
part of the Pacific Gas and Electric bankruptcy settlement, today announced that it intends to award a
one million dollar grant to establish and maintain the world’s leading university center on energy
efficiency. The grant will be awarded to a Northern California university which aspires to international
leadership in the development of energy efficiency technologies and the removal of barriers to their rapid
commercialization. “Increasing energy efficiency is the single most important step California can take to
minimize the long-term cost of reliable energy services,” said Michael R. Peevey, chairman of CalCEF and
president of the California Public Utilities Commission. “Establishing a university center on energy
efficiency is a natural way to meet the state’s goals by tapping into a wealth of academic expertise in
developing and bringing innovative technologies to market.” By creating a university-based center for
energy efficiency, CalCEF will bring together its diverse Board of Directors, partnerships with leading
venture capital firms, and academic leaders from multiple disciplines to advance innovation and
accelerate the commercialization of energy efficient products, services and practices. The center will
also reinforce California’s standing as a national and international leader in energy efficiency, while seeding
the state’s marketplace with promising new products and services that provide its citizens with a clean
environment and economic benefits.
3. All of their evidence assumes local state movements, not a uniform state
action. Their solvency deficits would be solved by our counterplan because a
uniform state action has all the benefits of a country acting.
SDI 2008 p. 27 of 124
CP States AT Federal Government will Pre-empt

Empirically denied – California has worked with international actors and the federal
government did not pre-empt it.
Rabe ‘7 (Barry G.-- Professor, University of Michigan and Brookings Institution -- Publius 37 no3 413-31 Summer)
Collectively, these state efforts involve all of the climate policy tools that have been employed by the
European Union and other nations that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol. In the area of renewable energy,
twenty-three states representing more than 55 percent of the American population operate renewable
portfolio standards that mandate a steady transition from conventional electricity sources to renewables
(Rabe and Mundo 2007). In carbon emissions trading, ten Northeastern states are part of an interstate body
known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) that is constructing a carbon cap-and-trade
program for that region. California and neighboring western states are exploring the prospects for developing
their own version of such a system or even establishing a partnership across the continent. In the area of vehicular
emissions, California in 2002 became the first Western government to impose carbon emission standards on new vehicles. This legislation is designed to
reduce carbon emissions by approximately 30 percent over the next decade and has been formally embraced by eleven other states. Eleven states have
established statewide targets to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions, including California, New Mexico, and New York. In California, for example, the
2006 Global Warming Solutions Act requires statewide emissions to return to 1990 levels by 2020, with steep reductions in subsequent decades. The
legislation authorizes creation of multiple policy tools to seek emission reductions from every major sector, building on the extensive climate policy
infrastructure that was already in place (Adams 2006).
Many of these programs remain in early stages of implementation, making it difficult to assess their ability to stabilize emissions in a cost-effective manner.
But states have clearly responded to growing concerns about localized impacts of climate change and also frame their policies to achieve multiple benefits,
including economic development from cultivation of renewable energy and related environmental improvements such as reduction of conventional air
contaminants (Rabe 2004). Although much climate policy activity is concentrated among coastal states, an increasingly diverse set of states have become
active, reflected in the passage or expansion in recent years of renewable portfolio standards in such states as Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Montana, Nevada,
Texas, and Wisconsin, among others. In turn,
multiple states are increasingly working collaboratively, establishing
common policies and seeing potentially significant advantages in advancing regional strategies that operate
across state boundaries. Consistent with the Schwarzenegger-Blair entente, states have also begun to see
themselves as players on the international climate policy stage, entering into discussions about possible
collaboration with Canadian provinces as well as members of the European Union. It is increasingly recognized that
many states generate substantial levels of greenhouse gases; if the fifty states were to secede, 13 would rank among the world's top forty nations in
In many respects, this climate policy innovation
emissions, including Texas in seventh place ahead of the United Kingdom and Canada.
builds on existing state powers and experience but is tailored to the particular greenhouse gas emissions mix
and opportunities for blending emissions reduction and economic development in a given jurisdiction.
They have no evidence saying that their plan is uniquely and explicitly under federal
jurisdiction.
Federal government does not have the jurisdiction to pre-empt this action – states have the
authority to regulate businesses
John F. Pritchard, a member of the firm of Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts in New York City, 1988
“THE CASE FOR THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE BUSINESS COMBINATION STATUTES”, NM,
Lexis
The ordinary presumption of constitutionality given to state laws is strongest in the preemption context. To
preserve the states' law-making authority, "[c]onsideration under the Supremacy Clause starts with
the basic assumption that Congress did not intend to displace state law." A state law will not be found
to be preempted "in the absence of persuasive reasons -- either that the nature of the regulated subject
matter permits no other conclusion, or that the Congress has unmistakably so ordained." n50
This is particularly true when a court reviews legislation in an area traditionally governed by state law.
"Where . . . the field which Congress is said to have pre-empted has been traditionally occupied by the States,
. . . 'we start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by
the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.'" n51
Few fields have been so consistently and completely occupied by the states as the regulation of the internal
affairs of their domestic corporations. As the Supreme Court stated in CTS after reviewing numerous state
laws affecting corporate governance matters: "It is thus an accepted part of the business landscape in this
country for states to create corporations, to prescribe their powers, and to define the rights that are
acquired by purchasing their shares."Thus, only an "unambiguous congressional mandate" would
justify a finding of federal preemption of a state statute regulating business combinations between its
domestic corporations and their dominant shareholders.
SDI 2008 p. 28 of 124
CP States AT: Uniform Action Bad

Their Engels 95 evidence assumes regional action, not uniform state action.
Competition between states would not happen because they aren’t competing with one
another over policies, they are merely giving INCENTIVES to businesses that operate out
of the country.
Uniform Actions solves best – it can successfully replace centralization

P. Orman Ray, professor of political science at UC Berkeley, 1934 reviewed by Brooke Graves, The American
Political Science Review, Vol. 28, No. 6, JSTOR
Two brief introductory chapters explain the need for uniformity of state action and how, in a limited way, the
national constitution and government contribute to such uniformity. These chapters are followed by two that
deal with uniformity through state legislation. Here appear brief, and generally fair, appraisals of the work of
the National Con- ference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, the American Legis- lators'
Association, the American Law Institute, and the American Judicature Society. The major part of the book
has to do with a dozen groups of state agencies that are working for uniform action through the
cooperation of state administrative agencies-some on an extended scale, others along less ambitious
lines. A brief chapter on the limited possibilities of uniformity through judicial cooperation is followed by
two chapters in which the author comments discriminatingly upon the tendency toward federal centralization,
and stresses with commendable moderation the possibility-though not asserting the probability- that
centralization can be avoided or checked if the states are sufficiently alert in the discharge of their
duties and responsibilities, and enter whole- heartedly into the development of "a national plan" of
cooperation in all the legislative and administrative fields where uniformity is "definitely recognized as
being essential."
Uniform state action inherently solves their claims because all the aff’s arguments have
to do with inconsistencies with state action.
SDI 2008 p. 29 of 124
Chinese economic growth bad

Increasing Chinese hegemony risks a full-scale conflict with the United States.
Schoeman ‘7, Maxi, 11/1, writer, Strategic Review for South Africa, “China in Africa: the rise of hegemony?”,
Lexis. Tk
Mearsheimer recently analysed China's rise, and its concomitant impact on the international system, on the
basis of hegemony. He defined the country's rise as 'unpeaceful', due to the potential for "intense security
competition" with the US that might result in "considerable potential for war". (7)) Alden also uses the
concept 'hegemony' when dealing with China (in this case China's engagement with Africa), pointing out that
China has an "overriding concern with American hegemony" and presents its own emergence as (at the very
least) a great power as a 'peaceful rise'. (8)) Both scholars use the term 'hegemony', yet the one views China's
rise as 'unpeaceful' (Mearsheimer) and the other (Alden) as peaceful. Apart from Mearsheimer and Alden's
work,though, and despite the bulk of publications over the past decade charting China's rise and more
specifically its role in and policy towards Africa, little effort has been expended in the International Relations
scholarly community to explain China's role in the international system. Although some scholars use the
concept 'hegemon' when referring to China's rise, hegemonic stability theory, as Evans and Newnham point
out, is exclusively concerned with "relations within the advanced industrial countries" and not with the
North-South divide. (9)) Nor does it make provision for the rise of a Global South power to hegemonic
status, despite China's greater power status which it has enjoyed at least since the early 1970s when it became
a permanent memberof the United Nations (UN) Security Council.
China’s growth is contributing to poverty, economic decline, and civil unrest in Africa
Lexis. Tk
The spectacular rise of China as (what is often claimed to be) a superpower in the contemporary international
system is regularly the subject of much debate and attention, especially in the press and popular journals. The
International Relations community, though, seems tofind it rather difficult to characterise the role of China in
international affairs. International Relations theories about the international power structure have traditionally
dealt with Western powers, including Japan as a kind of 'honorary' Western economic power, but with
apparently little provision for the emergence of a superpower from the Global South. (2)) Scholarly
contributions on China's rise as an 'incipient superpower' (3)) tend to focus on its economic 'giantism',its
modernising security establishment, its energy policies and needs and, to some extent, its impact on the
global natural environment in an age of climate change and environmental degradation. (4)) When it comes
to China's relations with Africa, international views, especially in the United States (US), whether scholarly
or journalistic, seem to regard China as a 'bad influence', potentially undermining "years of international
efforts to link aid to better governance" (5)) and as propping up "dangerous regimes, producing a new cycle
of unsustainable debt, and damaging anti-poverty efforts across the region". (6))
SDI 2008 p. 30 of 124
China is significantly expanding its reach within Africa

Lexis. Tk
China's trade with Africa has been booming over the past years, with commercial transactions in 2005
amounting to $40US billion, three times higher than in 2000 and up from $12US million in the late 1980s.
(29) However, the trade balance is increasingly in favour of China,and in many countries, most notably South
Africa and Zambia, organised labour complains of job losses due to cheap Chinese imports. This is especially
true of the textile industries in these countries. Trade between South Africa and China has been growing at 26
per cent per year, with a 480 per cent increase in clothing imports from China between 2003 and 2006, with
62 000 jobs allegedly lost in the textile industry during the same period. (30) At the same time, though, it
would also seem as if China is beginning to realise the dangers in carrying a trade balance that is hugely
skewed to the detriment of Africa and it has recently started attempts at changing this situation. South
Africa's trade to China seems to be growing, indicating that the trade deficit with China is shrinking. During
the first six months of 2007 China exported goods to South Africa to the value of $3US,2 billion while
imports from South Africa rose by 65 per cent to $3US billion. (31) China also recently announced cutting
tariffs for all goods imported from 25 of the 49 African countries with which China does business. (32)) The
oil industry in Africa is another economic sector which has seen a huge increase in Chinese trade and
investment over the past years. Sudan, Chad, Nigeria, Angola, Algeria, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea and the
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) export oil to China, or have Chinese-backed oil exploration activities.
By 2005 China was buying 50-60 per cent of Sudan's oil production (approximately seven per cent of its
consumption needs) and in early 2006 it announced that it had taken a 45 per cent stake ($2US,27 billion) in
an offshore oil and gas field in Nigeria. (33)) What is especially noticeable about China's relations with
African oil-exporting countries, is the extent to which China shores up such relations with investments in
other sectors of these oil exporters. China has extended military support operations in Africa, ranging from
offering military training courses to African military officers to arms sales to a number of countries. (44))
Such arms sales are viewed by some to be a reflection of China's energy needs of which 30 per cent is
provided by African oil producers, or of its needs for other raw materials and natural resources. Yet, there is
no conclusive evidence that China's military support is confined to or proportionate to its need for these
resources. Mozambique does not provide China with any natural resources, yet has received arms from
Beijing; Angola, though China's biggest African provider of crude oil has not bought or received any arms
from China. Zimbabwe, though, a country with the second richest platinum deposits in the world and
subjected to severe international criticism and pressure due to its repressive and destructive domestic politics,
has increasingly turned to China for its military needs, finding an apparent willing supplier in Beijing. (45))
In Sudan, China built three munitions factories and it is also a provider of other military equipment to the
country. Other countries with which China has close military co-operation are Nigeria, Congo, Senegal, the
Central African Republic, Chad and Liberia, with several of them currently experiencing high levels of
internal instability and serious governance deficits.
SDI 2008 p. 31 of 124
AT China will start wars

China seeks to avoid wars – they know it will undermine their economic growth.
Fravel ‘8, Taylor, writer, Washington Quarterly, Summer 2008, “China's Search for Military Power”, Lexis. Tk.
A fifth goal is the need to maintain a stable external environment within which to continue economic
development. One NDU study describes this goal as "providing the necessary peaceful environment for
national development." 17 According to a book from the PLA's Academy of Military Science, because
China's economy relies heavily on trade, "regional stability carries important significance for our
economic development as well as resisting America's posture against us." 18 In practice, this goal is linked
with avoiding or deterring armed conflicts on China's periphery, lest they disrupt or potentially derail
China's economic reforms. Another NDU study noted that "[i]f turmoil or local war occurs in hot spots on
China's periphery, the flames of war will bring disaster to China, compelling China to be drawn into a
local war or be pounded by waves of refugees."
Predictions of Chinese aggression have been empirically denied for over 15 years – East Asia has created
mechanisms balancing powers to avoid tensions escalating into violence.
Goh ‘7, Evelyn, writer, International Security magazine, “Great Powers and Hierarchical Order in Southeast Asia;
Analyzing Regional Security Strategies”, Winter 2007-2008 issue, Lexis, tk
The small and medium-sized states in Southeast Asia have faced significant geostrategic changes with the
end of the Cold War and the rise of China. Over the last decade, scholars have debated how these countries
would cope with growing Chinese power, and how their relations with the other major powers in the region
would change. Some analysts have suggested that the region is shifting toward a more China-centered
order, but this view is premature. Eschewing the simple dichotomy of balancing versus bandwagoning,
Southeast Asian countries do not want to choose between the two major powers, the United States and
China. This avoidance strategy is not merely tactical or time-buying; instead, Southeast Asian states have
actively tried to influence the shape of the new regional order. Key Southeast Asian states are pursuing
two main pathways to order in the region: the "omni-enmeshment" of major powers and complex
balance of influence. They have helped to produce an interim power distribution outcome, which is a
hierarchical regional order that retains the United States' dominant superpower position while
incorporating China in a regional great power position just below that of the United States. When the
Cold War ended in the early 1990s, many leading scholars offered a bleak prognosis for East Asia: with the
decline of the Soviet Union and the rise of China, the region would move toward an unstable multipolar
order, as the United States drew down its forces, Japan remilitarized, China's economic and military power
grew, and other countries in the region began to engage in arms races. 1 More than a decade and a half
later, however, East Asia has not descended into intense security competition with a high risk of violent
conflict as predicted; instead an interim order that incorporates the United States, China, and other
major regional players continues to prevail. Why has East Asia enjoyed relative stability and peace in the
post-Cold War era? The answer can be found partly in great power dynamics. The region has remained
stable since 1990 largely because the United States has maintained its web of alliances and its deep
economic and strategic involvement in the region; and it has avoided major conflicts partly because
China has chosen not to aggressively challenge the status quo. These great power policy decisions,
however, have also been influenced by the actions and persuasion of other regional states. In particular,
the relatively peaceful transition so far may be the result of two complementary strategies on the part
of key East Asian states such as Japan and leading countries of Southeast Asia: (1) the building of
regional multilateral institutions that serve to regulate exchanges, develop norms, and create regional
identity, thereby institutionalizing cooperation among the major powers and socializing China; and (2)
indirect balancing against potential Chinese (or other aggressive) power by facilitating the continued
U.S. security commitment to the region.
SDI 2008 p. 32 of 124
*****DOD NEG*****
SDI 2008 p. 33 of 124
CP Staqi 1NC (1/2)

Text: The United States federal government should withdraw from Iraq before the year 2009. The fifty States of
America and United States territories should provide incentives in the United States for energy conservation with in
the Department of Defense. These incentives will include factoring delivery and infrastructure into the costs of fuel
in its business processes and providing rewards for energy efficiency to individual units.
Solvency – Only by withdrawing from Iraq can we solve our readiness problem – any other
solution to readiness will not work absent withdraw – CP doesn’t link to elections – Iraq
withdraw is not a key issue anymore
Mike Soraghan, March 5, 2008, “Dems shift gears on Iraq The Hill”, JLK, Lexis
Congressional Democrats searching for a message that will resonate on the Iraq war are preparing an
argument that getting troops out of the conflict is the only way to rebuild a spent military. It's a less
ambitious argument than the "Out-of-Iraq now" proposals put forward last year, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other
top Democrats believe it will allow the party to criticize the war without being seen as criticizing those fighting it. It could also help
Democrats to portray themselves as protecting the military and national security. The Pentagon's commanders have
repeatedly testified that the Iraq war is straining the military, and Democrats say they can take that
foundation and add the extra step of saying the strain is the reason to withdraw troops. "This is about
America's security," said Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.). "We have an Army that can't deploy anywhere else in
the world." Or, as a staffer put it, "You can't rebuild an engine while you're driving along at 60 miles per
hour." A Democratic aide noted that numerous generals have complained that the Iraq war is stretching the
military too thin. "Who can argue with that?" the aide said. "You're not blaming the military for anything." The new angle on Iraq
reflects sentiments among Democratic leaders that they became too focused on opposing Bush's "surge" and then saw their push for
withdrawal falter when the surge was viewed as a military success. At the same time, the new strategy is not necessarily in sync with
other efforts on Iraq. The Congressional Progressive Caucus, which overlaps with the Out-of-Iraq caucus, last week introduced
legislation calling for withdrawal of troops within a year. Anti-war groups are trying to link the Iraq war to the economic slowdown in
what they call an "Iraq/recession" campaign. The Senate last week debated a plan to withdraw troops within 120 days, and Republicans
seemed more eager to debate it than did Democrats. President Bush has backed off plans to draw troop levels down
to pre-surge levels, with little public backlash. Leadership aides say the exact legislative strategy for linking readiness to
withdrawal hasn't been developed as Democrats and their allies build their case. But Democrats will use the budget battle that begins this
week to showcase their differences with President Bush on veterans' healthcare and military readiness. Another potential legislative
vehicle is a military readiness resolution sponsored by Reps. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) and Solomon Ortiz (D-Texas), both Armed
Services subcommittee chairmen. The resolution lists a host of shortfalls in the armed services and states, "Congress should restore and
maintain the ground forces." The resolution, which makes little mention of Iraq, has been repeatedly discussed at the ad hoc Iraq strategy
task force run by House Caucus Vice Chairman John Larson (D-Conn.). Abercrombie said that in caucus meetings the resolution has
been discussed as "the central focus of our approach on Iraq." Republicans say that they're equally committed to making sure the
military has what it needs, but that the military doesn't need to withdraw from Iraq to have those needs met. "House Democrats' Iraq
policy is like a broken Magic 8-Ball," said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio). "No matter
what question you ask, the answer is always 'Retreat.' " The issue of "military readiness" is not new. Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.)
complained that "the Army is broken" when he came out against the war in 2005. To House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike
Skelton (D-Mo.), restoring readiness is a somber, pre-eminent duty. The Democratic presidential candidates have also sounded off on the
theme. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) hit the issue hard a year ago in a sit-down session with the Center for American Progress.
Even then, she was commenting on criticism from the 2000 presidential campaign from then-candidate and Texas Gov. George W. Bush,
who charged that her husband, President Bill Clinton, had diminished the readiness of the military. "It wasn't true when he said it, but it
sure is true now. [Bush] has in a very deliberative way created conditions that are straining our military, underfunding it with respect to
what actually gets to troops on the ground and what they get when they get home." Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has touched on the issue
as well. The foreign policy portion of his campaign website states, "As a result of a misguided war in Iraq, our forces
are under pressure as never before," then stresses his commitment to rebuilding the military. With the
economy and other issues burning the legislative oxygen on Capitol Hill, Iraq has been pushed to the
back burner in recent weeks. But aides expect it to re-emerge later this month with the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq,
and in early April, when the top commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, returns to Capitol Hill to testify about the war. As Democrats
prepare for that debate, the readiness issue has garnered renewed interest in the top ranks of Democratic leadership. In the last few
weeks, Pelosi has released three official statements designed to highlight the comments of generals who say the military is reaching a
breaking point. "Americans are rightly concerned about how much longer our nation must continue to sacrifice our security for the sake
of an Iraqi government that is unwilling or unable to secure its own future," Pelosi said late last month, responding to comments by
Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey that six years of war have left the Army "out of balance." House Democratic Caucus Chairman
Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) compiled a list of examples of National Guard shortfalls in 16 states that hampered their ability to react to natural
disasters or terrorist attacks. Still, some Democrats worry that using readiness as an angle of attack on Iraq could inject partisanship into
an issue where Republicans and Democrats, at least recently, have been trying to work together. Aides who've been trying to get
Republicans to sign onto the Ortiz-Abercrombie legislation have reported reluctance among some GOP members. The possibility
worries Skelton. "This is a national problem, and Iraq is a major cause, but readiness is not a political
football," Skelton said.
SDI 2008 p. 34 of 124
CP Staqi 1NC (2/2)

And, State incentives programs solve – they can drive the market towards widespread alternative energy acceptance
Elizabeth Brown, Patrick Quinlan, Harvey M. Sachs, and Daniel Williams, Am. Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy, March 2002, “Tax Credits for Energy Efficiency,”
http://aceee.org/pubs/e021full.pdf?CFID=1059758&CFTOKEN=72603414
States play a fundamental role in addressing energy use and the adoption of energy efficiency measures
at the regional and local level States can provide tax incentives that foster technology options matched to
the needs of their residents. This report describes the current status of energy efficiency and “green
buildings” tax incentives that states offer. Our goal is to assist state policymakers in designing and evaluating
their own programs by providing insights about current programs in other states. A properly designed state
tax incentive has both short-term and long-range benefits. In the short run, the incentive can effectively
increase market share of an advanced technology or practice that otherwise would be harder for the
state’s residents, businesses, and other organizations to find. By itself, the state’s action increases the
visibility of the technology or practice and validates it with the state’s credibility. Greater market share
bunches a “virtuous circle.” As market share increases, more market actors (salespeople. specifiers.
installers, etc.) become vested in the technology or practice because it can be more profitable than the
status quo and can increase customer satisfaction. This vestment induces more firms to enter the market
and the resulting competition can drive down prices and further increase market share. At some point,
market share is large enough that the technology or practice is clearly cost-effective and has broad support
from those who profit from it. By then, a state tax credit is no longer needed and building codes and other
regulatory mechanisms can be revised to make use of the technology or practice mandatory. State-funded
energy efficiency incentive programs increase consumer choices by inducing innovation in the private sector.
The programs thus benefit state energy, economic, and environmental objectives. The private sector needs
encouragement to provide products and services that address broader energy security, system reliability.
environmental, and economic goals. In particular. marker failures limit private investment in cost-effective
efficiency measures: for example. projected returns may be lower than for other, non-energy investments or
technology deployment timeframes may be too long. Tax credits can accelerate customer acceptance and
increase market share for high-efficiency products and services. Benefits accrue to the state and its
residents. the United States and its citizens, and the global climate.
SDI 2008 p. 35 of 124
CP Staqi – Readiness Exts

Iraq is straining the military to the point of no return – only withdrawing from Iraq would solve readiness
Roxana Tiron, 11/25/07, “Members warn of “national crisis” in military readiness”, the Hill.com, JLK,
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/members-warn-of-national-crisis-in-military-readiness-2007-11-25.html
Although Democrats in Congress have not been able to force an Iraq withdrawal, two House Armed Services
Committee leaders are sounding the alarm that readiness shortfalls could prevent the U.S. military from
responding to new threats at home and abroad. Reps. Solomon Ortiz (D-Texas), the chairman of the
Armed Services Readiness subcommittee, and Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), chairman of the Air and Land
Forces subcommittee, this week introduced a resolution detailing the challenges facing the military and the
resulting impact on national security. The two veteran lawmakers are working on getting co-sponsors for the
bill, and the Armed Services panel could have a hearing on the issue at the beginning of next year. “While
the Congress has been unable to agree on policy related to Iraq in veto-proof numbers, we should all be able
to agree on one thing: the U.S. military constitutes our first and last line of protection – and they are in
a world of hurt,” Ortiz said in a joint statement accompanying the resolution. “Our military’s ground
forces are broken by the ongoing operations, particularly in Iraq, and we are watching the making of a
full blown national security crisis,” Ortiz added. The Ortiz-Abercrombie resolution comes at the
conclusion of a year in which they and other committee leaders have tried to raise awareness about the state
of military training as well as equipment. Congress has spent considerable funds to restore military readiness,
as Armed Services Committee chairman Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) made that one of his panel’s priorities.
Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the defense appropriations committee, also sounded alarm about the
state of the military. The 2008 defense appropriation bill that President Bush signed into law earlier this
month contains funding to expand the Army by 7,000 soldiers and the Marine Corps by 5,000 troops, as well
as funding to equip and train the additional personnel. Appropriators also included close to $1 billion over
the budget request to buy essential National Guard and Reserve equipment so that those troops have
equipment to meet overseas deployment demands and respond to natural disasters at home. Despite the
additional congressional funding, however, military experts believe that it would take several years and
billions of dollars to repair the military’s shortfalls. The Ortiz-Abercrombie bill is the first piece of
legislation to address the nature of military readiness, underscoring the concern among policymakers
over the impact of the high tempo of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan on the military. The resolution
calls on Congress to “restore and maintain the ground forces at the highest levels of readiness in the interest
of national security and to ensure the integrity of the entire military force.” “Nearly five years of
continuous combat against an insurgent enemy in an unbelievably hostile climate have taken a terrible
toll on our military,” said Abercrombie in the joint statement. The resolution states that the Army and
Marine Corps are facing recruiting and retention challenges. To keep its existing personnel as well as
attract new recruits, the Army has increased its bonuses and lowered its standards to have a higher number of
eligible personnel. Furthermore, the fast pace of combat operations overseas has decreased the life of
ground and aviation equipment. To address equipment shortages, the Army and Marine Corps have drawn
from pre-positioned war stocks of equipment needed to rapidly deploy military units that are strategically
stationed around the world. The services do not have plans to restock the equipment in the near term, which
hinders their capability to respond rapidly to any emerging crisis.
SDI 2008 p. 36 of 124
CP Staqui AT: No Solvency Advocate

First – this is not a voter and if it is it is only a reason to reject the arg and not the team
Second, this argument does not apply, we have solvency advocates for all parts of our cp…states can do incentives
towards the market and DOD, and we can withdraw from Iraq
Third, they have absolutely no ev that says DOD is key to do the plan – so it is reciprocal.
SDI 2008 p. 37 of 124
CP Staqi AT: CP Not Solve Afghanistan

Withdrawing from Iraq would free up soldiers for Afghanistan – CP is key to solve the
readiness needed for Afghanistan
Steven Myers, 7/13/08, July 13, 2008, New York Times, “U.S. Considers Increasing Pace of Iraq Pullout”, JLK,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/washington/13military.html
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is considering the withdrawal of additional combat forces
from Iraq beginning in September, according to administration and military officials, raising the prospect of a far more ambitious
plan than expected only months ago. Such a withdrawal would be a striking reversal from the nadir of the war in 2006 and 2007. One
factor in the consideration is the pressing need for additional American troops in Afghanistan, where
the Taliban and other fighters have intensified their insurgency and inflicted a growing number of
casualties on Afghans and American-led forces there. More American and allied troops died in Afghanistan than in
Iraq in May and June, a trend that has continued this month. Although no decision has been made, by the time President Bush leaves
office on Jan. 20, at least one and as many as 3 of the 15 combat brigades now in Iraq could be withdrawn or at least scheduled for
withdrawal, the officials said. The desire to move more quickly reflects the view of many in the Pentagon who
want to ease the strain on the military but also to free more troops for Afghanistan and potentially
other missions. The most optimistic course of events would still leave 120,000 to 130,000 American troops in Iraq, down from the
peak of 170,000 late last year after Mr. Bush ordered what became known as the “surge” of additional forces. Any troop reductions
announced in the heat of the presidential election could blur the sharp differences between the candidates, Senators John McCain and
Barack Obama, over how long to stay in Iraq. But the political benefit might go more to Mr. McCain than Mr. Obama. Mr. McCain is an
avid supporter of the current strategy in Iraq. Any reduction would indicate that that strategy has worked and could defuse antiwar
sentiment among voters. Even as the two candidates argue over the wisdom of the war and keeping American troops there, security in
Iraq has improved vastly, as has the confidence of Iraq’s government and military and police, raising the prospect of additional
reductions that were barely conceivable a year ago. While officials caution that the relative calm is fragile, violence and attacks
on American-led forces have dropped to the lowest levels since early 2004. “As the Iraqi security
forces get stronger and get better, then we will be able to continue drawing down our troops in the
future,” Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates said in Fort Lewis, Wash., on Tuesday. “And I think that this
transition of control and of responsibility, primary responsibility for security is a process that’s already
well under way and based on everything that I’m hearing will be able to continue.” Gen. David H. Petraeus,
the American commander in Iraq, has already begun the review of security and troop levels. He and Mr. Bush promised in April that
such a review would take place. General Petraeus is expected to be more cautious than some policy makers in the administration and at
the Pentagon might like. The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were discussing military planning, said he was
more likely to recommend a smaller reduction, but still a withdrawal. One senior administration official cautioned that the president,
who will have the final say, would be reluctant to endorse deep or rapid reductions if they jeopardized his goal of establishing a stable
and democratic government in Baghdad. Still, there is broad consensus in Washington and Baghdad that more American forces
can now leave Iraq and that more are needed in Afghanistan. “There hasn’t really been any discussion of numbers,
and it’s definitely based on conditions on the ground,” a military officer in Baghdad said. And conditions, he went on, “are a lot more
favorable than in December or April or even two months ago.” General Petraeus, who will step down as commander in Iraq in
September, will soon take over as the commander of the United States Central Command. In that position, he will oversee American
forces and operations throughout the Middle East and Central and South Asia, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Senate
confirmed him and his replacement as commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, to their new positions on Thursday. The
Pentagon has previously signaled that commanders wanted additional troops in Afghanistan — as
many as 10,000 more than the roughly 32,000 there now — but with two wars seriously straining the
Army and Marines in particular, officials have struggled to produce the extra forces. A reduction of
combat brigades in Iraq would free additional troops that could instead be sent to Afghanistan, though
officials said that no additional forces would go until next year, when fighting is expected to intensify with the arrival of spring. Mr.
Gates has already extended the deployment of a force of 3,200 marines in southern Afghanistan by one month, essentially until winter
arrives and closes many of the country’s mountain passes and remote villages. The Pentagon also announced the redeployment of the
aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln and its support ships from the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea to provide what one official described as
greater air power and surveillance for the mission in Afghanistan until next spring. “We have clearly seen an increase in
violence in Afghanistan,” Mr. Gates said at Fort Lewis, discussing the carrier’s redeployment. “At the same
time, we’ve seen a reduction in violence and casualties in Iraq. And I think it’s just part of our
commitment to ensure that we have the resources available to be successful in Afghanistan over the
long haul.”
SDI 2008 p. 38 of 124
CP Darpa will implement energy efficiency measures

Congress loves DARPA.
Forsyth 07 (James Forsyth, The Business, April 21, 2007, JD,
&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4242914987&cisb=22_T42429149
86&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=222278&docNo=18)
THE INTERNET, stealth technology, your computers mouse ñ and plans for a mechanical elephant. These
are just a few of the revolutionary, and often downright strange, technological gems that have emerged from
Darpa, a US government body. The Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency, part of the
Department of Defence, is generally hated by conspiracy theorists but otherwise largely unknown by
the wider population. Yet its current focus on green technology, medicine and combat promises to
produce the next set of major breakthroughs. Darpa is unique among Federal agencies in that it has a
license to fail. Founded in the aftermath of the Soviet Unions launch of Sputnik in 1957, the agency is there
to prevent the US being taken by technological surprise. It is free from the usual bureaucratic constraints and
only hires project managers for four to six years to guarantee they are not deterred by the possibility of
failure. This free-wheeling structure leads to Darpa contemplating some seemingly mad ideas; perhaps
the most famous of these was its work on the creation of a mechanical elephant during the Vietnam War.
Darpas secretive nature has also made it a favourite target for conspiracy theorists, who suspect it of
everything from mass mind control to ushering in an era of total surveillance. Its fleet of unmanned
surveillance planes, such as the X-45, arouse particular concern, for example. Far-fetched as it seems,
the mechanical elephant is indicative of Darpas approach. It works by deciding what would be most useful to
military commanders in the field and then trying to find a way to turn these ideas into reality. So the elephant
sprang from the Vietnamese jungle negating the USs advantage of having armoured vehicles and tanks, and
the need for a way to move supplies and troops across the terrain at speed. As Tony Tether, head of Darpa,
put it recently: Darpa will take a bet on an idea to go get the data to see if the idea is worthwhile. Scientists
toiling in the real world have to get the data before they have any hope of securing funding. One of its key
priorities at the moment is making sure humans dont become the weakest link in the US armoury. This
has led to Darpa funding research into allowing troops to function without sleep, survive extreme
blood loss and regrow limbs. Already, Darpa has invented a cooling glove, which keeps the pores on
hands and feet open by exerting negative pressure on them; this allows the body to remain cool and
thus keep going when heat exhaustion would normally have set in. The device is already being used by
sports teams as well as the US military to improve endurance and physical fitness. Another piece of current
research focuses on keeping people alive even when they are suffering from 60% blood loss; the aim being to
cut down on fatalities among special forces teams that must operate without medical support. Scientists
observed that mothers survived child birth despite losing vast amounts of blood. Darpa concluded that it
might be the oestrogen produced during birth that enables women to survive. So far, experiments on rats have
found that 75% survive 60% blood loss for at least six hours after receiving a shot of oestrogen. Other work
by Darpa concentrates on allowing troops to operate without carrying around vast quantities of supplies.
Darpa is currently funding research on a plastic that can be recycled into fuel after it has been used. It is also
working on a project to transform the efficiency of solar power, which, if successful, will turn solar power
into a mass energy producer for the first time. The technology that frees the Western economy from its
dependence on fossil fuels will almost certainly come from Darpa research. Yet, despite Darpas impressive
record, some scientists have concerns about its recent direction. They fret that it is concentrating on
producing applications for immediate use in the war on terror, such as a translator that allows troops
to have basic conversations in eight languages, rather than focusing on the kind of blue-sky thinking
that brought about previous breakthroughs. However, US politicians love Darpa, and there is
overwhelming support from Congress to establish another agency along the same lines, only with this
one dedicated to developing alternative-energy technologies. The conspiracy theorists may not be happy,
but Darpa is going nowhere soon.
SDI 2008 p. 39 of 124
AT Solvency
The plan is too vague to accomplish anything. It’s just one more statement of what the DOD
would like to accomplish but this just adds to the list of a huge list of far-flung initiatives.
Bennett 07 (Drake Bennett, May 27, 2007, The Boston Globe, JD, lexis)
The American military has a storied record as a technological innovator: the computer, the commercial
jetliner, and the Internet originated from military research and transformed modern life. And with billions to
spend it can provide a major proving ground for new energy technologies developed in the private sector. "In
terms of alternative energy, the Department of Defense is big enough, in certain sectors, to be the tipping
point," says Stuart Funk, an energy specialist at LMI who was once the Pentagon official responsible for fuel
operations. The effort has its skeptics. Even supporters are quick to point out that the Department of
Defense is unlikely to accomplish much unless it better organizes its far-flung initiatives. And
environmentalists are dubious of an institution that has more often been an adversary. They point out,
for example, that some of the ideas -- such as increasing the use of coal to make synthetic fuel -- could
actually be more environmentally damaging than the status quo. "It's a little bit early to tell whether
the Pentagon is going to be a force for progress or not on the issue of protecting the climate," said
David Hawkins, director of the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council. Indeed, the
Pentagon's central goal is not to align the military with the environmental movement. It is to reduce
costs -- the Pentagon spent $13.5 billion on energy last year -- and cut the dependence of its fighting forces on foreign energy. A recent
Pentagon-commissioned study by LMI described the American military's reliance on oil as "unsustainable in the long term," the Globe
reported earlier this month. Still, the new energy consciousness coincides with a growing conviction among military and intelligence
analysts that the planet's changing environment, and the country's reliance on oil, are potent national security issues. And some voices
within the military are starting to espouse a worldview -- emphasizing the limits on natural resources and the volatility of ecosystems --
that is decidedly environmentalist in tone. "Clean technologies have become strategic, in part because the military, like the rest of us, is
realizing how fragile the environment is," said Kenan Sahin, CEO and founder of Tiax, a Cambridge-based technology development
firm working on several projects with the Department of Defense. Whether that means the military is becoming
environmentalist, or simply a smarter fighting machine, may be a distinction that makes less and less
of a difference. Early last year, in a paper titled "War Without Oil: A Catalyst for True Transformation," an Air Force lieutenant
colonel named Michael Hornitschek laid out his vision of the super-efficient American military of 2050. Army and Marine vehicles
would run on electric hybrid engines or fuel cells. Warship hulls would be nano-engineered to make them lightweight and more fuel
efficient. Surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft would be solar-powered, and individual soldiers would carry pocket hydrogen fuel
cells. Expeditionary bases would be capable of generating their own energy from wind, sunlight, biofuel, or garbage. Such a fighting
force has an element of "Star Wars fantasy," Hornitschek wrote. But the ideas in the paper are not that far from projects already being
funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), in conjunction with university laboratories and companies like
DuPont, GE, and Hewlett Packard. For one project, DARPA is trying to develop a substitute jet fuel derived from plants such as palm
trees and jatropha shrubs. Currently, the Air Force is the largest consumer of energy in the Department of Defense, and every dollar
increase in the price of a barrel of oil raises its annual costs by $60 million, according to Kevin Billings, the Air Force's deputy assistant
secretary for Environment, Safety and Occupational Health. Another major challenge is the sometimes nightmarish
logistics of supplying energy to soldiers in the field. Fuel convoys in Iraq, for example, are favorite
targets of insurgent attacks. And with troops increasingly equipped with high-tech devices like satellite
phones, GPS locators, and night-vision goggles, energy isn't merely a matter of gasoline -- batteries are
also a vital military commodity. A typical soldier carries 10 to 27 pounds of batteries, according to DARPA. To help reduce
the load on the military's energy supply lines, DARPA is exploring longer-lasting fuel cells to replace current batteries, as well as
technologies, like high-efficiency solar cells and even mobile generators that run on discarded plastic packaging, to allow more power to
be generated in the field. Technologies like these would have uses far beyond the battlefield. Higher efficiency solar panels could make
solar power more cost-competitive with other forms of energy, and better fuel cells could be used for everything from storing energy
generated from solar arrays and wind farms to freeing cellphones from the need to be charged as often. Cheaper, more reliable jet fuel
would no doubt be a boon in the private sector, especially the airline industry, for whom fuel costs are a leading headache. And the same
technologies may have applications for other fuels as well. The first small samples of jet biofuels will be available in six to nine months,
according to Doug Kirkpatrick, the DARPA technologist in charge of the solar cell and jet fuel projects. He also predicted "fairly
dramatic progress" on the solar cells in the coming months. But independent energy analysts say the military's
primary contribution to clean energy is more likely to be as a customer than an inventor. One of the
difficulties for new energy technologies is the volatility of oil prices: an energy alternative that makes
good economic sense when oil is $60 a barrel becomes a financial disaster if oil drops to $30 a barrel,
and this makes companies reluctant to invest in such innovations. But the military remains the
country's single largest energy consumer, and it is willing to pay extra for reliability.
SDI 2008 p. 40 of 124
Weaning the military from fossil fuels would be a herculean task- renewable energy would
challenge the department’s most deeply held assumptions
Bender 07 (Bryan Bender, May 1, 2007, The Boston Globe, JD, lexis)
Weaning the military from fossil fuels quickly, however, would be a herculean task - especially because
the bulk of the US arsenal, the world's most advanced, is dependent on fossil fuels and many of those
military systems have been designed to remain in service for at least several decades. Moving to
alternative energy sources on a large scale would "challenge some of the department's most deeply
held assumptions, interests, and processes," the report acknowledges.
Solvency isn’t dependent on the plan – it’s about the attitude of the military leaders
which the aff can’t fiat over.
Achieving an energy transformation at the Department of Defense "will require the commitment,
personal involvement, and leadership of the secretary of defense and his key subordinates," the report
says.
No solvency - Fuel costs massively outpace conservation and efficiency efforts.

Barnes 7/31 (Julian E. Barnes, 7/31/08, Times, JD,
&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=306910&docNo=1)
The military services have found ways to save millions of dollars through conservation, but the price of
oil has outpaced the cost-cutting efforts. The Navy, for example, estimates that it is saving $300 million
a year through conservation. That sounds impressive until the oil price jump is taken into
consideration. "From July through Sept. 30, we will see a $400-million increase in our fuel bill," said
Navy Capt. Arthur Cotton, head of the Fleet Training and Readiness reporting branch. "So all of those
energy savings we have done are wiped out, and then some, just over the period of 90 days."
We don’t need the plan – the military is already trying to do the plan – it’s just too difficult for
them to really implement.
Over the next three years, the US Air Force plans to add an important new class of vehicles to its fleet.
They can't fly. They have no weaponry. They look like golf carts, and none of them can break 25 miles
per hour. What they can do is save fuel. Although the Air Force hasn't decided exactly which models to
buy, some of the candidates are electric-powered, others run on ethanol, and even those that use traditional
gasoline boast fuel economies between 40 and 50 miles per gallon. By 2010, the Air Force promises, it will
have replaced nearly a third of the cars and trucks currently used on bases to transport airmen and supplies.
These "low-speed vehicles" are just one part of a broad effort by the American military to drastically
reduce its use of traditional fossil fuels at a time when global oil markets are unstable, gas prices are
approaching historic highs, and climate change is increasingly a matter of bipartisan political concern.
In scale and coordination the effort is not the Manhattan Project some critics say is needed. But as a loose
collection of initiatives, it is impressive in its breadth, encompassing the everyday and the exotic: from
energy efficient windows and light bulbs and geothermal plants to research into jet fuel that can be
made from weeds, portable generators that run on plastic waste, and even a fleet of satellites to harvest
solar power from space. It also, some analysts say, could have a dramatic impact on the broader effort to
move society away from fossil fuels.
SDI 2008 p. 41 of 124
Fuel efficiency is already a huge part of the military.

For its part, the Air Force is attempting to reduce planes' taxiing and idling time. It is working to reduce
aircraft weight, lower the amount of excess fuel some planes carry, and make flight paths more
efficient. And on Air Force bases, the service is beginning to replace pickup trucks with souped-up golf
carts. William C. Anderson, an assistant Air Force secretary who oversees energy issues, said commanders
were trying to encourage a culture change, giving fuel efficiency higher priority. "We are getting our
teams to think about saving energy while still doing the mission," he said. The skyrocketing fuel cost
has been particularly difficult for the Air Force. In recent years the Air Force, the largest user of fuel in
the federal government, had intended to pay for new planes by reducing the number of airmen. But the
increase in fuel prices ate up those savings. Soon, other services may face the same squeeze and suffer
the cancellation or delay of significant equipment programs as a result of fuel price increases. Each
military branch must present a draft of its next budget to the secretary of Defense by early August. And the
comptroller's office has warned the services that they must accommodate fuel price increases in their
budgets. Top military officials are mum on what spending programs might be in line for cutbacks. For now,
the officials are predicting that fuel prices will decline 4.8% next year. But the Pentagon has not been
especially accurate with its projections. The Defense Department originally estimated that oil this year
would cost $91 a barrel; military services are currently paying nearly $171 a barrel. Much of the price hike
this year was covered by Congress in the recently enacted emergency war funding measure. Because of its
heavy use of jet fuel, the Air Force has taken perhaps the most aggressive steps toward conservation
and alternatives to petroleum fuel. Air Force officials hope that liquid coal becomes a viable
alternative to petroleum, and they are working to ensure that all their aircraft can use synthetic fuels. Over
the long term, the Air Force is trying to develop more efficient engines and airframe designs. "We are
trying to look all the way down the road," Anderson said. "We are trying to run the gamut in terms of looking
for alternatives and new ideas." For the military, this represents a marked change from years past, when
fuel efficiency was scarcely considered in the development of new weapons systems. "We fully expect
that in the future it will become a bigger part of that decision process," Anderson said.
No solvency DOD’s doesn’t have anyone to organize it’s energy initatives which means they fail.
The Department of Defense, he argues, could afford to spend far more than the $535 million it spent on
energy research programs last year. And it still doesn't have an official whose job it is to head its disparate
energy initiatives. "There's been a change in thinking, but an inadequate change in action," he said.
SDI 2008 p. 42 of 124
DA Environment 1NC
A. Link – the DOD will adopt alternatives that are cheap but crush the environment.
The Department of Defense, he argues, could afford to spend far more than the $535 million it spent on
energy research programs last year. And it still doesn't have an official whose job it is to head its disparate
energy initiatives. "There's been a change in thinking, but an inadequate change in action," he said.
However, he said, even the change in thinking is bound to have a positive impact. The broader question for
the future, many analysts say, is whether the military's various initiatives will turn out to be a true
environmental effort. Because the Pentagon's mission is to win wars, not fight global warming, it will
pursue energy sources that environmentalists abhor.
B. The impact is extinction

David N. Diner (Judge Advocate General’s Corps of US Army) 1994 Military Law Review, Lexis
No species has ever dominated its fellow species as man has. In
most cases, people have assumed the God-like power
of life and death -- extinction or survival -- over the plants and animals of the world. For most of history,
mankind pursued this domination with a single-minded determination to master the world, tame the
wilderness, and exploit nature for the maximum benefit of the human race. n67 In past mass extinction
episodes, as many as ninety percent of the existing species perished, and yet the world moved forward, and new species replaced the old.
So why should the world be concerned now? The prime reason is the world's survival. Like all animal life,
humans live off of other species. At some point, the number of species could decline to the point at
which the ecosystem fails, and then humans also would become extinct. No one knows how many [*171] species
the world needs to support human life, and to find out -- by allowing certain species to become extinct -- would not be
sound policy. In addition to food, species offer many direct and indirect benefits to mankind. n68 2. Ecological Value. -- Ecological
value is the value that species have in maintaining the environment. Pest, n69 erosion, and flood control are prime benefits certain
species provide to man. Plants and animals also provide additional ecological services -- pollution control, n70 oxygen production,
sewage treatment, and biodegradation. n71 3. Scientific and Utilitarian Value. -- Scientific value is the use of species for research into
the physical processes of the world. n72 Without plants and animals, a large portion of basic scientific research would be impossible.
Utilitarian value is the direct utility humans draw from plants and animals. n73 Only a fraction of the [*172] earth's species have been
examined, and mankind may someday desperately need the species that it is exterminating today. To accept that the snail darter, harelip
sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew n74 could save mankind may be difficult for some. Many, if not most, species are useless
to man in a direct utilitarian sense. Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role, because their extirpations could affect a directly
useful species negatively. In a closely interconnected ecosystem, the loss of a species affects other species dependent on it. n75
Moreover, as the number of species decline, the effect of each new extinction on the remaining species increases dramatically. n76 4.
Biological Diversity. -- The main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. n77 As the current mass
extinction has progressed, the world's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the
number of species, and within species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications.
Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow
ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the
more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can
resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." n79 By causing
widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity
increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the
1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new
animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total
ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a
mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, mankind may be edging closer to
the abyss.
SDI 2008 p. 43 of 124
DA Environment link extensions

DOD’s new interest is a coal based synfuel- far dirtier than oil
As David Victor, director of the program on energy and sustainable development at Stanford University,
points out, one of the new fuels the military has shown particular interest in is coal-based synfuel,
which would be far dirtier than oil. The Air Force, which is leading the effort, has pledged that it will not
phase in the use of such fuel until it has developed technology to capture the carbon dioxide released during
the production process. The shapers of the Pentagon's energy policy admit that their primary
consideration isn't environmental impact but security of supply. While environmental concerns play a
role, says Alan Shaffer, director of plans and programs for the Pentagon's office of defense research and
engineering, reliability is paramount. "When America calls 9-1-1 for the military, we don't want to have to
tell America, 'Gee, we'd like to come but we're out of power,"' Shaffer says.
SDI 2008 p. 44 of 124
DA Environment – DA turns the case
DA turns the case – environmental disruptions undermine the military.

In March, the Army War College held a conference on the national security implications of a warming planet.
Separately, in April a group of 11 retired senior generals released a report arguing that climate change, by
playing havoc with water supplies, weather patterns, and agriculture, would be a force for global instability in
coming years. And under a bipartisan proposal expected to easily win congressional approval, both the
Pentagon and the CIA will be required to consider the effects of climate change in evaluating threats to the
country. "Anytime the Pentagon says that a nonmilitary issue has national security implications," says Israel,
"it gets instant credibility."
SDI 2008 p. 45 of 124
DA F-22 bad 1NC Shell

A. F-22’s are in the budget but on the brink
Steve Trimble, writer for Flight International, 7-8-2008, Flight Global, “F-22, set to make Farnborough debut,
faces further funding problems”, RKS, http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/07/08/225109/f-22-set-to-
make-farnborough-debut-faces-further-funding.html.
But the F-22's big moment comes amid yet another crisis over the programme's funding. Even as the
aircraft is celebrated on its most public stage, Lockheed must hope the event will not be followed by the
curtain falling on production as soon as the end of October. In the US Congress, the laborious process of
producing next year's defence budget is already past the halfway point, yet the outlook for the F-22
remains more unclear than at any time since the depths of the development challenges that threatened
its survival repeatedly in the late 1990s. The current stalemate was set in motion by a programme
restructuring in 2005 orchestrated by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. With little warning,
Rumsfeld unveiled a new plan that year to cut off all funding for the F-22 after fiscal year 2008,
reducing the USAF's projected buy from up to 277 aircraft to 183 aircraft - enough to outfit seven
squadrons. The USAF's approved requirement for F-22s is still 381 aircraft, enough for 10 squadrons,
but it has not been funded at that level since 2001.
B. Fuel costs will force the Air Force to cut programs.

For its part, the Air Force is attempting to reduce planes' taxiing and idling time. It is working to reduce
aircraft weight, lower the amount of excess fuel some planes carry, and make flight paths more efficient. And
on Air Force bases, the service is beginning to replace pickup trucks with souped-up golf carts. William C.
Anderson, an assistant Air Force secretary who oversees energy issues, said commanders were trying to
encourage a culture change, giving fuel efficiency higher priority. "We are getting our teams to think about
saving energy while still doing the mission," he said. The skyrocketing fuel cost has been particularly
difficult for the Air Force. In recent years the Air Force, the largest user of fuel in the federal
government, had intended to pay for new planes by reducing the number of airmen. But the increase in
fuel prices ate up those savings. Soon, other services may face the same squeeze and suffer the
cancellation or delay of significant equipment programs as a result of fuel price increases. Each
military branch must present a draft of its next budget to the secretary of Defense by early August.
And the comptroller's office has warned the services that they must accommodate fuel price increases
in their budgets. Top military officials are mum on what spending programs might be in line for cutbacks.
SDI 2008 p. 46 of 124
DA F-22 Uniqueness – it’s on the chopping block

The F-22, however in the budget, future is uncertain
Roxana Tiron, writer for The Hill, 7-22-2008, The Hill, “Air Force nominee offering positive signals for
Lockheed”, RKS, http://thehill.com/business--lobby/air-force-nominee-offering-positive-signals-for-lockheed-
2008-07-22.html
Defense Secretary Robert Gates wants the Pentagon to focus on weapons that serve ground forces, and
does not believe more than 183 F-22s are needed. He argues they were designed to fight more of a
conventional enemy instead of the insurgents the U.S. is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Contractor
Lockheed Martin and its high-profile partners, including Boeing , however, want to keep the production line
open beyond 2011, when the last of 183 F-22s are scheduled for delivery. They and the Georgia and Texas
delegations are pressing the Pentagon to green-light more F-22s, which are manufactured in the two states.
In its 2009 budget submission, the Pentagon did not request funding for more F-22s, but also did not
ask for money to shut down the line. The Pentagon decision on the fate of the F-22 has been punted to
the Congress and the next administration. Moseley and Wynne were the F-22’s strongest champions
within the Pentagon.
SDI 2008 p. 47 of 124
DA Oil – link
The plan would substantially decrease demand for oil.
"The Pentagon's efforts in this area would have a huge impact on the rest of the country," Copulos
said. The Department of Defense is the largest single energy consumer in the country. The Air Force
spends about $5 billion a year on fuel, mostly to support flight operations. The Navy and Army are
close behind. Of all the cargo the military transports, more than half consists of fuel. About 80 percent
of all material transported on the battlefield is fuel. The military's energy consumption has steadily
grown as its arsenal has become more mechanized and as US forces have had to travel farther
distances.
DOD is the biggest singler energy user in the world.

Kaplun 06 (Alex Kaplun, September 27, 2006, Environment and Energy Daily, JD, lexis)
DOD is responsible for roughly 2 percent of all fuel consumed in the United States, making it the
biggest single energy user in the country and likely the world. In fiscal 2005, the agency spent more
than $10 billion on energy, with the overwhelming majority of that going toward "mobility fuels."
SDI 2008 p. 48 of 124
DA Oil link expander

Military can spur civilian change which would reduce oil demand.
Ernest Moniz, a professor of physics at MIT and a former undersecretary of energy, points to so-called
synthetic fuels, made from natural gas, coal, biomass or oil shale, as an example of a field where the
military might nurture a technology that the market has so far rejected. "The market certainly has not
produced any significant amount of those fuels because, frankly, they cost too much," he says. By
providing a market for these alternatives, he said, the military could encourage the technology to develop
and, eventually, help drive down the costs as the effort matures. Already, the Air Force has shown interest in
"synfuels," testing B-52 bombers on a 50-50 blend of natural-gas-based synfuel and traditional jet fuel. By
2010, the Air Force plans for its entire air fleet to be modified to run on such blends. The Department of
Defense, meanwhile, has been trying to procure forklifts powered by fuel cells, according to Funk of LMI.
Thanks to its massive warehousing and distribution network, the military is one of the world's leading
purchasers of such equipment, and Funk argues that this one decision could help spur the adoption of fuel
cell technology. But Representative Steve Israel, a New York Democrat and cofounder of the Congressional
Defense Energy Working Group, said he would like to see the Pentagon be far more aggressive in its pursuit
of new energy technologies.
SDI 2008 p. 49 of 124
T Substantially – DOD specific

A. Substantially must be given meaning – contextual uses are key
Devinsky, 02 (Paul, IP UPDATE, VOLUME 5, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2002, “Is Claim
"Substantially" Definite? Ask Person of Skill in the Art”,
http://www.mwe.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/publications.nldetail/object_id/c2c73bdb-9b1a-
42bf-a2b7-075812dc0e2d.cfm)
In reversing a summary judgment of invalidity, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that
the district court, by failing to look beyond the intrinsic claim construction evidence to consider what a
person of skill in the art would understand in a "technologic context," erroneously concluded the term
"substantially" made a claim fatally indefinite. Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., Case No. 01-1417 (Fed. Cir.
November 14, 2002). The patent in suit related to an improved push rod for an internal combustion engine.
The patent claims a hollow push rod whose overall diameter is larger at the middle than at the ends and has
"substantially constant wall thickness" throughout the rod and rounded seats at the tips. The district court
found that the expression "substantially constant wall thickness" was not supported in the specification and
prosecution history by a sufficiently clear definition of "substantially" and was, therefore, indefinite. The
district court recognized that the use of the term "substantially" may be definite in some cases but ruled that
in this case it was indefinite because it was not further defined. The Federal Circuit reversed, concluding that
the district court erred in requiring that the meaning of the term "substantially" in a particular "technologic
context" be found solely in intrinsic evidence: "While reference to intrinsic evidence is primary in
interpreting claims, the criterion is the meaning of words as they would be understood by persons in the field
of the invention." Thus, the Federal Circuit instructed that "resolution of any ambiguity arising from the
claims and specification may be aided by extrinsic evidence of usage and meaning of a term in the context of
the invention." The Federal Circuit remanded the case to the district court with instruction that "[t]he
question is not whether the word 'substantially' has a fixed meaning as applied to 'constant wall thickness,'
but how the phrase would be understood by persons experienced in this field of mechanics, upon reading
the patent documents."
B. A substantial increase in alternative energy incentives is 60%

Renewable Energy Today, 4
(“SEC Urges Congress to Increase FY 05 Renewables Funding”, Renewable Energy Today, April 12, 2004 )
The Sustainable Energy Coalition (SEC) delivered a letter last week calling upon congressional appropriators
to "substantially increase" federal support for the "cross-section of renewable energy technologies."
Providing technology-by-technology recommendations, SEC specifically proposed increasing the
Department of Energy's (DOE) renewable energy program budget to $598.5 million in FY 05, which is
nearly 60 percent more than the White House's FY 05 budget request and two-thirds more than the actual FY
04 budget.
SDI 2008 p. 50 of 124
C. violation – the plan isn’t a substantial increase in alternative energy incentives. The biggest
users of fuel the Air Force and the Navy starting doing parts of the plan a long time ago and a
large-scale shift will come soon when the DOD completes their long range study of these issues.
ormat=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4242858803&cisb=22_T4242858802&tree
Max=true&treeWidth=0&csi=306910&docNo=1)
Military officials emphasize that the increases have not affected how combat operations are being conducted. The
Defense Department's biggest fuel users are the Air Force, which accounts for 52% of the fuel bill, and the
Navy, which uses 32%. Within those branches, conservation efforts are wide-ranging. A decades-old initiative
to scrub the hulls of Navy ships, reducing drag and making them faster and more efficient, is gaining new
importance. The Navy also is stepping up efforts to replace live exercises with virtual maneuvers that allow
sailors to train while keeping the ships in port. This year the Navy will conduct 124 "synthetic exercises," up
from 84 last year. A study last year showed that the initiative saved $160 million. The Air Force and the Navy
also are considering increases in flight simulator training, although a large-scale shift is likely to wait until
after a Defense Department study is completed by late next year.
D. This is a voting issue –
1. Limits – if they don’t have to be a substantial increase, it massively increases the

number of smaller affirmatives, allowing minor policy adjustments to existing incentives,
or targeting single groups like Native Americans or the post office, or making current tax
breaks permanent, or removing existing barriers to incentives without materially
increasing them.
2. Negative ground – the topic is huge with dozens of categories of incentives, the only
common element for predictable negative disads is based on the size of the plan mechanism
– we can get an oil or coal link to any case but if the aff is tiny then we won’t have a
realistic chance of winning uniqueness for those disadvantages.
3. Inherency – our evidence proves there isn’t any barrier to doing the plan. Don’t reward
them for writing a really vague plan.
SDI 2008 p. 51 of 124
T Substantial contextual definitions

$5 billion a year in alternative energy incentives would be substantial.
States News Service, 4-25-2007, Key Issues at NATO Ministerial, Lexis, CG
MR. VOLKER: Sure. Let me take the general issue there. It may be a little bit broader than the context of the
summit here and leave the summit discussions to the White House. But on the general issue that you've
raised, I think what's important to focus on is that we and Europe share a common objective, which is to
reduce greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, to slow, stop and ultimately reverse the growth in
greenhouse gas emissions globally, and that we, like Europe, are taking substantial steps to do so. And the
U.S. has invested $35 billion since 2001 in climate science, alternative energy research and development,
helping bring things to the marketplace. We've used a combination of mandates and incentives to
encourage the development and deployment of cleaner technology in the marketplace.
$650 million for alternative energy per state is substantial.

PennFuture, 6-30-2008, Business Wire, PennFuture Calls Legislative Deal "Half a Loaf" as Leaders Agree to
Pass Clean Energy Funding but Delay Vital Conservation in Face of Record Energy Costs; New Fund Will Grow
Great Green Jobs, but Action Offers Little Help against Out-of-Control Energy Prices, Lexis, CG
Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (PennFuture) today both praised and criticized the energy deal that is part
of this year's budget agreement. Passing the $650 million energy fund that includes $180 million for solar
and that front loads most of the investment into the next two to five years is an important victory,
according to the organization. Pennsylvania will now have a major solar program and substantial funds to
support other alternative energy projects.
Incentives creating fifty billion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year would be substantial –
but that is still a fair interpretation because it is small compared to worldwide production.
Jonathan Hibshman, J.D. Candidate, May 2008, Drake University Law School; M.S., 2004, Utah State
University; B.A., 2002, Utah State University, Fall 2007, Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, Utilizing Wind Power
to Offset Agribusiness Utility Costs, Lexis, CG
Wind power technology and implementation have increased substantially over the past two decades. n4
Roughly 50,000 turbines are in operation worldwide, generating approximately fifty billion kilowatt-
hours ("kWh") of electricity per year. n5 In proper perspective, current worldwide wind energy production
equals the amount of electricity that could be produced by eight large nuclear power plants. n6 This is just a
drop in the bucket, however, in terms of worldwide energy production capacity. The U.S. Department of
Energy estimates that 5,800 quadrillion British thermal units ("BTU"), or quads, of energy per year could be
produced [*477] using the wind. n7 This is fifteen times the current worldwide energy demand.
$285 million would be a substantial investment in alternative energies.

States News Service, 5-23-2007, Visclosky Supports Legislation to Reduce Gas Prices, Lexis, CG
Visclosky also believes in order to truly address the energy crisis facing our nation, a substantial
investment must be made in the alternative energies that will allow the U.S. to produce affordable, home-
grown energy and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. As the Chairman of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Visclosky has been a leader in Congress for investment in
renewable energies, efficiency programs, new technologies, and biofuels. Through his subcommittee,
Visclosky boosted funding for Vehicle Technologies to $235 million, and funding for biomass research
to $250 million.
SDI 2008 p. 52 of 124
$1 million per state would be substantial

Grand Rapids Press, 7-7-2005, GVSU energy center gets grant; Money will go toward 'bio-digester'
construction, Lexis, CG
MUSKEGON -- The Michigan Public Service Commission has made a second substantial contribution
to alternative energy research at Grand Valley State University's energy center in Muskegon. The PSC's
Low-Income and Energy Efficiency Fund has provided a $1 million grant to the GVSU Michigan
Alternative and Renewable Energy Center for the construction of a "bio-digester" to create electricity
from farm waste.
Incentives creating a 6.4 percent increase in use would be substantial.

Alon Ben-Meir, 4-20-2005, UPI, Outside View: Energy independence is vital, Lexis, CG
Although we have witnessed a substantial increase in the use of alternative energy in recent years, it still
accounts for only 6.4 percent of the U.S. domestic energy consumption. Americans can harness clean and
inexhaustible energy sources such as wind power, solar power, bio-fuels like wood and crop wastes, use of
geothermal and hydroelectric energy, and development of new natural gas plants. Ethanol, for example, can
be produced in abundance. Another powerful energy source is, of course, hydrogen, which is found in water.
SDI 2008 p. 53 of 124
T Efficiency is not Alternative Energy
A. Interpretation
Energy efficiency is not Alternative Energy. They are distinct categories.
Alliance Investors, 3-31-08,
http://www.allianzinvestors.com/documentLibrary/mutualFunds/prospectuses/Allianz RCM Global Eco
Trends Prospectus.pdf.
EcoEnergy Sector. The Sub-Advisor considers the “EcoEnergy” sector to include the following two areas:
Altenative Energies and Energy Efficiency.
“Alternative Energies” include the provision of services and the manufacture, building, distribution,
delivery, transportation, planning, storage, research and other production of products or technologies
directly or indirectly connected to the provision or manufacture of alternative, especially regenerative,
forms of energy, or connected with the preparation, manufacture or distribution of the corresponding
preliminary products. This area also includes the provision and manufacture of alternative, especially
regenerative, forms of energy and the preparation, manufacture or distribution of the corresponding
preliminary products themselves.
The area “Energy Efficiency” includes the provision of services and the manufacture, distribution,
delivery, transportation, planning, storage, research and other production of products or technologies
directly or indirectly connected with the efficient use of energy or increasing energy efficiency.
B. Violation
The Affirmative provides incentives for energy efficiency not Alternative Energy.
C. Standards
1. Limits-They Under limit the Topic-this undermines Ground enabling the Affirmative to spike out
of our Disadvantages or Case arguments and doesn’t give us an opportunity to prepare.
2. Bright line- Our interpretation not only lists Alternative Energies, but moreover excludes the
Affirmative’s action. The Affirmative justifies any Affirmative that results in a net decrease of
Emissions; this skews negative ground.
3. Education- Debating outside of the resolution undermines the educational value of Debate. The
resolution provides a means of discussing unique topics i.e. international climate policy.
4. Predictability-The Negative can never predict an Affirmative that doesn’t constrain itself to the
resolution.
D. T is a Voter for reasons of Fairness, Jurisdiction, Education, and Potential Abuse.

SDI 2008 p. 54 of 124
*****NUCLEAR POWER NEG*****

SDI 2008 p. 55 of 124
AT ADV Nuclear power – choice is either nuclear power, climate

change or poverty
Clean Coal boosts environment and helps developing countries
Blake 07 (Aled Blake, May 15, 2007, The Western Mail, JD,
WALES' mining industry has backed a report out today calling for the Government to promote clean-coal
technology. The Centre for Policy Studies' paper says there should be more Government support for clean-
coal technology as the Westminster Government prepares its Energy White Paper, due to be published next
week. Energy analyst Tony Lodge said new technologies are being developed around the world which
could reduce the environmental impact of coal-fired generation. These are now "proven" to work and
would help coal-fired power stations become environmentally acceptable, he said. "The UK has the
opportunity to be at the forefront of developing clean-coal technology," said Mr Lodge. He urged the
Government to ease planning rules for coal mines and give coal plants the same level of subsidy as is
granted to renewable energy sources such as windpower. Developing clean-coal technology would
boost the environment and help developing countries take advantage of their own coal reserves, Mr
Lodge said. Kenfig energy company Unity Power, which is chaired by South Wales mining veteran Gerwyn
Williams, is in the process of reopening a drift mine in the Vale of Neath near Glynneath - Unity Mine. The
company, which plans to reopen a string of mines across South Wales, is on track for a flotation on London's
Alternative Investment Market later this year. In a major coup for its expansion plans, Unity appointed
Swansea-born diamond magnate Gren Thomas to its board as a non-executive director in February. It will
begin coal extraction from its mine at the end of June. A spokesman for Unity Power said, "By highlighting
two big issues, the looming energy gap and uncertainty regarding energy security, this report endorses what
the coal industry, politicians and environmentalists in Wales have been saying for a long time. "Backing
clean-coal technology can help eliminate supply worries without causing major environmental
damage." Tyrone O'Sullivan, chairman of Tower Colliery in Hirwaun near Aberdare, has long been a
supporter of clean-coal technology. Tower is due to close early next year with its miners transferring over to
nearby Aberpergwm. He argues clean-coal technology will have to be introduced to meet the world's
energy demands while also reducing pollution. Mr O'Sullivan said, "The argument is whether we develop
clean-coal technology burning foreign coal or do we use our own coal we mine here. Over the next 10 years
we could build new technology power stations and develop 10 new coal mines, working on how we
capture carbon before it enters the atmosphere. "You can burn coal cleanly, what we haven't got is the
technology to capture and store the carbon in the UK." Mr O'Sullivan said the burgeoning economies
of China and India would put more pressure on the need to burn coal cleanly because of their reliance
on the fossil fuel. He added, "But to develop a coal industry you will have to use taxpayers' money.
Energy is more important than anything else in life and it's going to be even more important over the
next 20 to 30 years. "We are surrounded by coal and water in Wales and we should be developing
tidal energy and clean coal technology to meet our energy demands."
SDI 2008 p. 56 of 124
AT ADV Coal – Clean coal tech increasing now

Clean coal spreading now.
Giles 07 (Darrell Giles, February 11, 2007, The Sunday Mail, JD,
QUEENSLAND will build the world's first clean coal power station. Premier Peter Beattie said he hoped
construction could start on the estimated $1 billion project in six or seven years. He expected to present a
proposal to Cabinet soon with a possible location in the Bowen Basin in north Queensland. Mr Beattie said
Queensland's clean coal technology would be sold to countries such as China and India with growing
industrial sectors and secure the state's economic future. ''Australia can be a model for the world and I am
determined that Queensland will lead the way,'' he said. Mr Beattie ridiculed a call by Greens federal leader
Bob Brown to end coal exports, which would close Queensland's $24 billion coal industry and cost 20,000
jobs. ''It's just lunacy,'' said the Premier on the Tasmanian senator's proposal. Mr Beattie predicted greater
use of Queensland's 250-year coal supply, aided by greenhouse research. He said $1 billion was needed to get
clean coal technology right before the power station could be built. The State Government had committed
$350 million to research and urged similar contributions from the Commonwealth and coal mining
industry. Mr Beattie said Queensland's clean-coal power station would be built by the private sector.
''This is the only way to go. People now accept the reality of clean coal technology.'' The technology
involved taking dangerous gases such as carbon dioxide out, storing it in rock, and using the remaining safe
gases such as hydrogen as the green energy source. Senator Brown said clean coal technology was at least a
decade away, while the Australian Coal Association put a longer timeframe on a clean-coal power station.
But Mr Beattie said a pilot scheme at the Stanwell power station near Rockhampton could bring clean-
coal technology on line much sooner. ''It could be within five years,'' he said. Mr Beattie had held
talks with officials in China and said they would welcome Queensland's technology in reducing
greenhouse gas emissions from its own massive coal production. ''This will secure Queensland's coal
industry and jobs,'' he said. ''I just say to the Prime Minister (John Howard): let's work together on this.''
Queensland senator Barnaby Joyce also attacked Senator Brown, saying people would be ''living on the
streets'' if the country ended its links with coal. ''When you take away our major income-earning potential,
you're on the way to living on the streets under tarpaulin,'' the Nationals senator said. * City's green plan,
Page 11
Arkansas is building a Clean Coal plant and others look to follow.

Kristie Avery, reporter for air lax, July 18 2008, Congressman Talks Clean Coal In Hope,
Arkansas, http://arklatexhomepage.com/content/fulltext/?cid=2436, ASH
U.S. Congressman Mike Ross made his way to Hope, Arkansas today, speaking at a conference about clean
coal technologies. A clean coal fire power plant is planned to be built in Hempstead
County, Arkansas. Ross says The Natural State will benefit from the plant's production.
Not only will the plant bring jobs to the area, but will help supply energy in the
future. "It's important through this conference that we educate folks that coal doesn't
have bad. It's our most affordable and abundant source of energy. It's much cleaner
today than it was yesterday, and it holds a lot of promise for the future." Several state
and federal leaders attended the conference, some from as far away as Connecticut
and Georgia.
SDI 2008 p. 57 of 124
Clean Coal could be in full scale operation within 10 years.

James Hanson, global warming scientist, Clean Coal Technolgy Only A Decade AWAY, jan 10 08
http://earth2tech.com/2008/01/10/james-hansen-clean-coal-tech-could-be-a-decade-away/, ASH
It is really too bad that the DOE has taken so long to get its demonstration plant going. They said in
2001, they would make this FuturenGen, and its taken them several years just to decide where to do it. It
looks like it will take several more years. So the practical matter is, given where we are right now, it [clean
coal in full-scale operation] could still be a decade away.
SDI 2008 p. 58 of 124
Massive investment in clean coal now

Osborne 06 (Paul Osborne, June 6, 2006, Australian Associated Press, JD,
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=103&did=1049090311&SrchMode=1&sid=3&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&
VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1217027976&clientId=3552)
CANBERRA, June 6 AAP - Clean coal is the "smart place" to invest in the effort to tackle climate
change, a key lobbyist for the US power industry says. The Australian government is planning to set
up an inquiry into nuclear power generation, in a bid to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Eric
Holdsworth, the director of climate programs at the Edison Electric Institute which represents most of the
United States power companies, said today nuclear power would also play an important role in addressing
climate change. But he said it needed strong support from government to be successful. He told a briefing
via video-conference from Washington today that the development of new nuclear power plants in the US
had stalled for the past three decades following a backlash after the 1979 Three Mile Island disaster and the
Chernobyl meltdown in 1986. While the Bush administration was bullish about nuclear power, with 10 to 12
plants proposed over the next decade, technology to allow coal-fired power generation with near-zero
greenhouse emissions was looking a good bet, Mr Holdsworth said. "It's going to take some time, but
the payoffs will be tremendous," he added. "And if you look at the projections from the International
Energy Agency, given the dominance of coal in global energy production it seems like a very smart
place to be putting our money." US State Department senior climate negotiator Dr Harlan Watson told the
briefing he expected the clean coal technology, which basically involves carbon dioxide to be captured and
stored, to be proven by 2015. The US government and industry was investing $1 billion in a project
known as Future Gen, to design, build and operate the world's first near-zero emissions coal-fired
power plant. "Assuming all the funding comes together, within 10 years we would have demonstrated
all of the technologies that would be needed not only to demonstrate fewer emissions but carbon
capture and the storage component of that," Dr Watson said. He said the government of India and a major
Chinese power company had also joined the project, with final design and site selection expected next year.
Mr Holdsworth said nuclear power provided around 20 per cent of American electricity, and would play an
important role in addressing climate change - if it had government support. "It's difficult to build almost any
power plant without some form of assistance given the cost involved, particularly when you've got a
technology like nuclear," Mr Holdsworth said. "When you've got a technology that has been frozen for 30
years and has a lot of emotional issues associated with it you need a bit of a government push or signal to
show that it can and should be built."
SDI 2008 p. 59 of 124
SDI 2008 p. 60 of 124
Clean coal technology will be economically viable soon.

Hammer 5/8 (Chris Hammer, 5/8/08, The Age, JD,
CLIMATE change adviser Ross Garnaut believes "clean coal" technology will be commercially viable by
2020, contradicting claims made this week by environment group Greenpeace International. Professor
Garnaut has used a speech to a clean coal summit in Sydney to outline a bright future for coal. He said
that coal was set to play a big role in Australian prosperity - provided effective emission-control
technology can be developed. He said near-zero emissions from power generation would be required
by the middle fo the century to tackle climate change, and suggested this would be possible using
integrated clean coal technologies being developed in projects like Australia's ZeroGen and America's
FutureGen. "These projects are complex and large and have struggled to make rapid progress. This
complexity is partly responsible for the widely - but I think erroneously - held view that clean coal
technologies will not be commercially viable until post-2020," he told the conference. However, Professor
Garnaut warned that not enough new technology plants would be built in time to meet short-term emissions
targets, and existing plants would need to be retrofitted as a transitional measure. Those existing plants
would be unlikely to capture all the carbon dioxide that they were emitting. Professor Garnaut also
implicitly rejected calls by Greenpeace and the Australian Conservation Foundation that clean coal
technology be entirely funded by industry. "It is already clear that substantial new investment in
infrastructure is likely to be required, particularly for the transmission of electricity, natural gas and
carbon dioxide," Professor Garnaut said. He also said additional funding would be required to ensure clean
coal technology could be adopted in established plants and regions. However, while predicting an important
role for coal in meeting future energy needs, Professor Garnaut suggested the Federal Government's
existing target of reducing greenhouse emissions by 60% by 2050 was not ambitious enough, saying it
was only "an early step". He said Australian coal production was increasing to meet demand from
China, India and Indonesia, and that these countries would be running into serious energy and metal
supply constraints without the ready availability of coal. KEY POINTS · Professor Garnaut says clean
coal will be commercially viable by 2020. · He says coal will continue to play an important role in the
economy in future decades. · Existing power plants will need to be retrofitted for clean coal technology. ·
Coal production will feed into demand from China, India and Indonesia.
SDI 2008 p. 61 of 124
AT ADV Coal – Clean coal will reduce ghg

Clean coal crucial to cuts in co2
Trounson 07 (Andrew Trounson, April 17, 2007, The Australian, JD,
AUSTRALIA'S big power generators say the development of clean coal technologies will be crucial if the
country is to achieve steep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. While renewable energies, such as wind
and solar, are set to become more important power sources, the power generators do not believe they
can become a viable substitute for baseload power in the near term, leaving nuclear power as the only
other alternative. ''If nuclear power is unavailable here, then clean coal is going to be a necessity,'' the
National Generator Forum's executive director, John Boshier, told The Australian. Responding to claims by
US-based billionaire futurist Vinod Khosla Enhanced Coverage LinkingVinod Khosla -Search using:
Biographies Plus News News, Most Recent 60 Days that clean coal technologies will be too expensive and
are too far off, Mr Boshier said: ''I hope he is wrong.'' With the country dependent on coal for about
85per cent of its power needs, he said, the technology was critical to cutting emissions without huge
costs to the economy. ''If clean coal isn't viable then we need to know, and we need to know soon,'' Mr
Boshier said. Billions of dollars worldwide are being invested in developing technologies that strip out
carbon dioxide from emissions at coal and gas power plants. After being compressed into a near liquid, the
heavy gas is then pumped deep underground into geological formations such as empty oil and gas reservoirs.
In Australia, a government-funded demonstration project plans starting from mid-year to start pumping C02
more than 2km underground at Nirranda, near Warrnambool in western Victoria. Australian mining giants
BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto are among several companies investing in the US Government's $US1 billion
FutureGen project, which aims to have the world's first emission-free commercial coal-fired power plant in
operation by 2012. According to Peter Cook, head of the Carbon Dioxide Research Centre behind the
Nirranda project, clean coal technologies could start being widely applied from 2015. ''Serious
companies are spending serious money on clean coal and that would suggest this isn't pie-in-the-sky
stuff,'' Dr Cook told The Australian. But speaking on the ABC's Four Corners program last night, Mr
Khosla, the co-founder of Sun Microsystems, was sceptical of clean coal. ''If you're going to do something
about climate change, we need technologies that can be more cost-effective than clean coal,'' Mr Khosla said.
Stripping out carbon from emissions and storing it is currently prohibitively expensive at about
$80/megawatt hour, or about double current electricity prices. That puts it largely in line with wind power,
which depends on subsidies to be viable. But the International Panel on Climate Change expects the cost will
come down by a third in the next decade. A report commissioned by the Business Round Table On
Climate Change, which brings together Australian companies and environmental groups, assumes a
wide take-up of clean coal technologies if the country is to achieve steep emission cuts.
SDI 2008 p. 62 of 124
Clean coal would substantially reduce co2.

Buckley 3/31 (Christine Buckley, 3/31/08, The London Times, JD,
More must be done to develop clean coal power projects if coal-fired generation is to have a future in Britain,
the TUC will say today. Clean coal could help the UK to meet its energy demands and cut emissions, it
said. However, a report by the union umbrella group says that government reluctance to back clean-coal
technologies has delayed vital investment and has increased risks to the security of Britain's energy supply. A
new coal-fired power station planned for Kent - Kingsnorth - has triggered anger among environmental
groups, but the TUC's clean-coal task force says that such stations are 20 per cent cleaner than their
predecessors and that if carbon capture and storage technology is added then the generators can be
80percent to 90percent cleaner than existing coal power stations. Brendan Barber, the TUC general
secretary, said: "Carbon capture and storage can help to make coal clean and the Government must
throw its weight behind the technology if the UK is to maintain coal-fired power generation amongst
all the other sources of power generation, including renewables and nuclear." The TUC argues that
clean coal can help Britain to reach its carbon emissions target. Its report estimates that if carbon
capture and storage is added to all coal and gas-fired power stations likely to be built in the UK by
2016, then carbon emissions from power stations could be cut by 42 percent by 2025. Clean coal would
help to reduce dependence on gas as Britain's North Sea reserves diminish and as the international
supply of power threatens to be volatile, the TUC argues. It acknowledges that environmentalists see
coal as part of the problem rather than the solution. Mike Farley, chairman of the TUC's clean coal task
group, said: "If we are to avoid nearly 60percent of our electricity coming from gas by 2016, then new clean
coal power plants need to be built now. If these are built capture-ready and if carbon capture storage is
demonstrated in parallel, we will set the right global example to countries which will continue to use
much larger quantities of coal for the next century and longer."
SDI 2008 p. 63 of 124
AT ADV Dependency – Coal can reduce oil dependency

New technology turns coal into clean diesel.
Verma 06 (Sunny Verma, May 1, 2006, Knight Ridder Tribune Business News, JD,
May 1--NEW DELHI -- Call it the coal-to-liquid technology. This could be one of those technological
breakthroughs that energy dependent countries like India could look forward to in their quest for
energy security. Research carried out by two American scientists -Alan Goldman and Maurice
Brookhart -- has now found a procedure to derive diesel from coal, natural gas and organic material.
With global oil prices poised to remain firm in the near future, such inventions will help coal-rich
countries like India to monetise their coal assets to meet their liquid energy needs as well. Rutgers
University chemist Alan Goldman co-developed the process, called Alkane Metathesis, with Maurice
Brookhart, a chemistry professor at the University of North Carolina. By scrambling the makeup of
hydrocarbons (or alkanes) -- organic compounds, such as methane, that contain only carbon and hydrogen --
using two chemical processes, the reaction produced diesel fuel and ethane gas. The technology might one
day generate more diesel fuel and ethane gas than from hydrocarbon by-products produced by oil refineries.
Speaking to ET Professor Goldman, who has been working in the area of hydrocarbon conversion for about
18 years, said: "An important potential application of Alkane Metathesis is the production of diesel fuel from
lighter alkanes, which are saturated hydrocarbons." Prof Goldman and Prof Brookhart have been working
specifically on Alkane Metathesis for about 18 months. Apart from the US, which has the highest coal
reserves, this development can be of special importance for India and China, countries with the fourth
and third- largest coal reserves, respectively. Says Prof Goldman, "I think that China and India, which
(like the US) have large coal reserves and small petroleum reserves will, within a few years, be using
this chemistry to obtain liquid hydrocarbons from coal. In that case, catalysts such as ours, if
developed to the point where they are more efficient, may play an important role in increasing the
overall yield of diesel from such processes and therefore, favour the overall economics." The new
chemistry's greatest potential comes as a follow-up to an 80-year-old technology known as Fischer
Trospch (FT) synthesis. Developed by German scientists Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch in the 1920s,
FT synthesis converts carbon from coal, natural gas, or wood into hydrocarbons. Nazi Germany used
the technique during World War II to manufacture synthetic fuel from coal. Today oil-poor South
Africa uses FT synthesis to distill most of the nation's diesel from its extensive coal deposits. Explains
Prof Goldman, "The exploitation of FT chemistry -- yielding hydrocarbons from coal, shale or other
carbon sources -- may result in abundance of lighter alkanes that are amenable for transformation into
diesel fuel." Though this new research may not be a industrial process tomorrow, but conceptually, it
is extremely important. It may, perhaps, alter economic relations between oil rich and coal rich
nations.
SDI 2008 p. 64 of 124
AT ADV Coal – they say “peak coal”

We aren’t going to experience peak coal – the U.S. has 250 years of reserves remaining.
Kubel 01 (Ed Kubel, Nov 01, Industrial Heating, JD,
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=215&did=89965823&SrchMode=1&sid=3&Fmt=4&VInst=PROD&VT
ype=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1217029023&clientId=3552)
Coal is number one when it comes to the U.S. power generation industry-more than 50% of electricity
produced in the U.S. is generated by coal-fired power plants. The plants are less costly to build than
nuclear power plants and there's less safety risk involved. And with an estimated 250 years of coal
reserves in the U.S., it's likely than new plants will be coal fired.
SDI 2008 p. 65 of 124
CP States – They can do clean coal

States pushing clean coal now.
U.S Fed News Service 06 (U.S Fed News Service, April 17, 2006, JD,
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, in partnership with the Governors of Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming, took
a major step forward today in the effort to secure clean, reliable sources of energy for the West. "All
of our states need clean, abundant sources of energy that can power our economy and protect our
environment," said Governor Schwarzenegger. "The Western Regional Transmission Expansion
Partnership will help us get wind, solar, geothermal and clean coal power delivered to the places where
it's needed most. It will also help us reach our targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions." At the
New Frontier Power Summit in San Diego today, the four Governors issued a joint statement of support for
the Partnership, which includes implementation steps on the Frontier Transmission Line. In 2004, Governor
Schwarzenegger led an effort at the Western Governor's Association (WGA) that resulted in the commitment
of the WGA states to develop 30,000 megawatts of renewable energy over the next decade. The Frontier Line
is one way to deliver that energy from where it is generated to where it is needed, especially in California.
The statement also recognized a new partnership between California and Wyoming for the development of
clean coal technology. "I'm excited also to create this partnership today with my good friend Governor
Freudenthal of Wyoming, to make sure that the latest in clean coal technology is developed here in the
West," said Governor Schwarzenegger, at the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between
California and Wyoming. "These clean coal plants will emit less pollution overall than the cleanest
natural gas plants and will capture and eliminate the harmful greenhouse gases before they can make
our global warming problems worse." The California Energy Commission, the Public Utilities
Commission, and the Governor's Climate Action Team have all recommended that any long term investments
in new power generation have a greenhouse gas emission characteristic that is equal to or better than a state
of the art combined cycle natural gas power plant (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle or "IGCC"). An
IGCC plant with carbon sequestration, as called for by the MOU, would result in no greenhouse gas
emissions, thus exceeding the California standard. The MOU also calls on the federal government to provide
financial support for the development of IGCC plants.
States can solve for clean coal. Indiana proves.

Brian H. Bowen et. al, 2007, International Journal of Energy Sector Management, Clean coal initiatives in
Indiana, nna
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do?contentType=Article&contentId=1601035
Indiana is listed among the top ten coal states in the USA and annually mines about 35 million short tons
(million tons) of coal from the vast reserves of the US Midwest Illinois Coal Basin. The implementation
and commercialization of clean coal technologies is important to the economy of the state and has a
significant role in the state's energy plan for increasing the use of the state's natural resources. Coal is
a substantial Indiana energy resource and also has stable and relatively low costs, compared with the
increasing costs of other major fuels. This indigenous energy source enables the promotion of energy
independence. The purpose of this paper is to outline the significance of clean coal projects for
achieving this objective.
SDI 2008 p. 66 of 124
*****TRADABLE PERMITS NEG*****

SDI 2008 p. 67 of 124
CP Tradable permits auctioning 1NC

Observation One Counterplan Text
The United States federal government should establish a system of tradable allowances, as
well as a cap on carbon dioxide emissions designed with a gradual trajectory for reduction
of emission levels to 50% of 1990 levels by 2050. Regulation will be as far upstream as
practicable. The system will deploy an auctioning scheme for all permits. Resulting revenue
should be dedicated exclusively to financing emissions reductions by uncapped sources,
such as of non-CO2 greenhouse gases, or to buy back allowances in future years.
Observation Two Competition
1. The counterplan is mutually exclusive – they use the mechanism endorsed by Stavins
which is “half of the program’s allowances would be allocated through auctioning and half
through free distribution” our counterplan uses an auctioning scheme for all of the permits.
Any permutation is severance of the hybrid system that they specified in their plan and in
the Stavins evidence. Severance permutations make the aff a moving target and should be
rejected.
2. The counterplan is net beneficial – auctions are better for the economy which is the internal
link to all their biggest impacts i.e. Khalizad, Bailey and Mead. The counterplan produces up to
$35 billion in benefits the plan is a net $10 billion loss to the economy.
Ian W. H. Parry, a fellow at Resources for the Future in Washington, D.C., 2007, “Are All Market-Based
Environmental Regulations Equal?”, http://www.issues.org/19.1/p_parry.htm
The effects of tradable permits are similar to those of emissions taxes. They raise production costs and
reduce economic activity. If a polluting company increases production, it must either buy permits to
cover the extra emissions or forego sales of its own permits to other companies. Either way, it pays a
financial penalty for producing emissions. Permits that are distributed to firms for free have adverse
effects on employment in the same way that emissions taxes do, but without the potential offsetting
benefits of recycling government revenue in other tax reductions. This has two important policy
implications. First, if permits were auctioned off by the government rather than given away for free,
then society would be better off, as long as revenue from permit sales would be recycled into other tax
reductions. Tax economists have estimated that for each dollar of revenue used to reduce income taxes,
there will be a gain in economic efficiency of around 20 to 50 cents. Lower income taxes increase
employment, and they also reduce distortions in the pattern of expenditure between ordinary spending and
"tax-favored" spending such as owner-occupied housing and employer-provided medical insurance. In the
carbon example above, the United States might be better off to the tune of $20 billion to $45 billion per year
if it had a carbon tax or auctioned permits policy rather than grandfathered permits. Second, the economic
cost of grandfathered permits can be substantially higher than previously thought. According to an
estimate by Roberton Williams, Lawrence Goulder, and myself, the cost to the United States of meeting
the initial Kyoto target by a system of grandfathered permits imposed on fossil fuel producers rises
from roughly $25 billion per year (in current dollars) to around $55 billion when their effect on reducing
employment and compounding labor tax distortions is included. In fact, taking account of fiscal
interactions might compromise the ability of grandfathered permits to generate overall net benefits for
society. Suppose that global environmental damage from carbon emissions (for example, economic
damage to world agriculture from climate change and the costs of protecting valuable land against sea
level rises) was $70 per ton. (This is actually on the high side compared with most damage studies, although
the estimates are subject to much dispute.) The initial Kyoto target for the United States would have
reduced carbon emissions by around 630 million tons in 2010, implying annual environmental benefits
of around $45 billion in current dollars. Using our cost figures and ignoring fiscal interactions, the
grandfathered permit scheme would produce an estimated $20 billion in environmental benefits. But
include fiscal interactions, and the policy fails the cost/benefit test, because costs exceed environmental
SDI 2008 p. 68 of 124
benefits by $10 billion. Only the emissions tax/auctioned permit policies pass the cost/benefit test,
producing net benefits of between $10 billion and $35 billion.
SDI 2008 p. 69 of 124

Specifically, we turn their competitiveness advantage auctioning all the permits is best for
competitiveness.
Frank J. Convery, Louise Dunne, Luke Redmond and Lisa B. Ryan, Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development, March 2003, “OECD Global Forum On Sustainable Development: Emissions
Trading Concerted Action On Tradeable Emissions Permits Country Forum”,
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/60/2957631.pdf
Boemare and Quirion (2001) posit the distinction between auctioning – selling emission permits to the
highest bidder – and giving them away for free, either on the basis of share of output, e.g. x permits per kWh
for power plants (after first deciding on the allocation to each sector), or on the basis of an exogenous
criterion such as share of historic emissions (‘grandfathering’). They note that ‘general equilibrium
modelling has shown that the most cost-efficient way to allocate permits is to auction them and to use
the revenue to cut pre-existing distortionary taxes,’ citing Goulder et al. (1999) in this regard. But
Tietenberg (2001) takes a more sanguine view, following in the tradition of Coase (1960). In effect he
discounts the double dividend impact by arguing as follows: ‘Whatever the initial allocation, the
transferability of the permits allows them to ultimately flow to their highest valued uses. Since those
uses do not depend on the initial allocation, all initial allocations result in the same outcome and that
outcome is cost-effective…..It implies that with tradable permits the resource manager can use the
initial allocation to solve other goals such as political feasibility or ethical concerns without sacrificing
cost effectiveness.’ In addition to losing the double dividend, ‘grandfathering’ would provide
incumbents – those in business at the time trading was initiated who qualified for an allocation – with an
advantage over new entrants who would have to buy. While this would probably enhance the ability of the
former to stay in business and indeed expand, it would damage an economy’s overall competitiveness, as
it could inhibit some potentially more efficient companies from entering the market. Where the free
allocation is on the basis of a share of total output, then presumably new entrants get their allocation permit
in effect at the expense of incumbents, as new slices are taken from the existing ‘permit pie.’ In sectors and
economies that are growing rapidly, this could be a source of considerable uncertainty for firms.
Also, the counterplan avoids politics – giving free permits is very popular because it gives
carbon industries huge profits.
Frank J. Convery, Louise Dunn, Luke Redmond, and Lisa B. Ryan, writers for the OECD Global
Forum on Sustainable Development: Emissions Trading, 2003, “OECD GLOBAL FORUM ON
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: EMISSIONS TRADING”, NM,
The principle of acceptability - which is subject to test in the political marketplace - is to compensate
roughly for the net costs of carbon control. In practice, Pezzey (2002) conjectures that acceptability
probably requires a political principle of approximately compensating for the profit that an industry
loses because of carbon control. Grandfathering to fossil fuel industries while reducing total carbon
use would give these industries large monopoly profits which would overcompensate for their losses.
Pezzey recommends a hybrid system, with compensation requiring much less than half of total carbon
permits to be free. He proposes that the remaining auction revenues should be partly recycled as lower rates
of conventional taxation and partly given as lump sums to households. He argues that consumers also deserve
compensation for higher prices of fuel and carbon-intensive products. As regards new entrants, he makes the
case that free permits do not significantly distort competition by creating barriers to entry as long as the
proportion of free permits is chosen to compensate for the costs of carbon control, and if this proportion is
not altered to discriminate against foreign rather than domestic ownership of firms, or in favour of public
rather than private ownership.
SDI 2008 p. 70 of 124

And, all of our EU solvency takeouts are net benefits. Their system failed because it
grandfathered in free permits.
Clark Williams-Derry and Eric de Place, Clark Williams-Derry is a Research Director and Eric de Place is a
Senior Researcher, February 2008, “Why Free Allocation of Carbon Allowances Means Windfall Profits for Energy
Companies at the Expense of Consumers”, http://www.sightline.org/research/energy/res_pubs/windfalls/windfalls
A permit auction system, on the other hand, gets the system off to the right start. Financial incentives
can spark innovation, speed least-cost efficiency measures, and encourage start-ups with smart ideas
for clean energy sources. The revenue can cushion consumers from higher prices and fuel public
efficiency and infrastructure investments. Don’t take our word for it. Take a look at the one real-world
case where cap and trade was used for carbon emissions -- Europe. Under the EU’s Emissions Trading
Scheme (ETS), almost all of the permits were given to polluters for free. 1 And, as it turned out, firms
reaped windfall profits from consumers based on the market value of the permits they were given.
That’s what the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy found in a March 2007 paper: Recent
experience with the Emission Trading System (ETS) now being implemented by the European Union
(EU) suggests that the potential for windfall profits, far from being purely hypothetical, is borne out by
empirical evidence, with utility companies that received free allocations under the EU program having
realized substantial gains. 2 What was the effect for consumers? The Commission’s report continues: …an
allocation approach that gives all allowances for free to directly affected industries will have the overall
effect of transferring some wealth from the broad public (in this case consumers) to those industries.
The International Energy Agency independently studied Europe’s system and came to the same conclusion.
In a February 2007 report the Agency said: If any evidence is needed of the CO2 pass-through into
electricity prices, it was provided by the abrupt fall of the CO2 price in May 2006, as market players
were made aware of the excess quantity of EU allowances for the year 2005. The fall by EUR 10/tCO2
was immediately followed by a drop in wholesale electricity prices of EUR 5-10/MWh. This electricity
price adjustment can be directly attributable to the CO2 [permit] price fall, itself not connected to
other energy market movements that could also affect electricity prices. 3 In other words, permit
prices dictated the rise and fall of consumer prices, even when permits had been free for energy
producers. And when an energy research group at the University of Cambridge looked at the European experience, they also agreed:
…in theory, power producers pass on the opportunity costs of freely allocated emission allowances to the price of electricity. For a
variety of reasons, however, the increase in power prices on the market may be less than the increase in CO2 costs per MWh generated
by the marginal production unit. This is confirmed by empirical and model findings, showing estimates of CO2 cost pass through rates
varying between 60 and 100 percent for wholesale power markets in Germany and the Netherlands. 4 That is, specific market conditions
may influence price outcomes, but the not method of allocation. At first, the European Union gave away permits for
free. Now the EU is rewriting their program to correct the mistake, and to ensure that new permits are
auctioned. The Western Climate Initiative can do it right the first time around, saving enormous headaches
and delays.
SDI 2008 p. 71 of 124
CP Tradable permits grandfathering more popular than auctioning

extensions
Comparative evidence – grandfathering systems are politically more popular than full
auctioning systems
Yu-Bong Lai, works in the Department of Public Finance National at Chengchi University, 10-24-2006,
“Auctions of grandfathering: the political economy of tradable emission permits”, NM,
http://www.springerlink.com/content/955710167642x345/fulltext.pdf
Tradable emission permits have become an important policy instrument in protecting the environment. One
critical issue in designing a tradable emission permit system is how the initial permits are distributed. Although
most studies recognize the advantages of auction permit systems in terms of efficiency (e.g., Goulder et al.
1997; Fullerton andMetcalf 2001), auction systems have been used far less frequently than grandfathering
systems. Many scholars believe that the prevalence of grandfathered permits can be attributed to their
political acceptability (Stavins 1998). Since it is well known that the formation of environmental policy is
frequently subject to the influence of interest groups (e.g., Ackerman and Hassler 1981; Cropper et al. 1992),
in order to explain why the grandfathering system dominates the auction system, incorporating the
political influence of interest groups into the model seems necessary. Despite the prevalence of
grandfathering, a certain fraction of emission permits is distributed through auctions in some cases.1 Within a
framework that takes the influence of interest groups into consideration, the purpose of this paper is to
investigate the conditions under which grandfathering will be the equilibrium policy, and under which permits
will be distributed through auctions.
Hybrid systems are popular – inclusion of grandfathering prove

Yu-Bong Lai, works in the Department of Public Finance National at Chengchi University, 10-24-2006,
“Auctions of grandfathering: the political economy of tradable emission permits”, NM,
http://www.springerlink.com/content/955710167642x345/fulltext.pdf
We also find that a polluting industry may promote an auction permit system, in particular when it is
endowed with a small number of free permits. Although this finding seems a little puzzling, it is consistent
with the empirical evidence provided by Markussen and Svendsen (2005). The survey evidence (Svendsen
1999) also reveals that, at least in the United States, environmental groups prefer a grandfathering
permit system to an emission tax, which is equivalent to a system of auctioning permits. Researchers
attribute this phenomenon to problems such as uncertainty (Stavins 1998) or ethics (Weck-Hannemann and
Frey 1995). This paper provides an alternative explanation. We demonstrate that the effects of a change in
the rule regarding distributing permits on the emission cap are crucial in determining the lobbying
behavior of interest groups. In order to reduce its financial burden, an industry endowed with a small
number of free permits will endorse an auction, because an auction will strengthen its political
influence in stage two, which will help the industry to lobby for a greater share of the emission cap, and
a lower price of the permits. On the other hand, the environmentalists will want to minimize the
number of permits in the second stage, so that they will promote grandfathering in the first stage.
) Auctioned permits are uniquely unpopular – “grandfathered permits” permits are politically manageable.
Spiegel ‘8 (Eric Spiegel is senior vice president at Booze Allen & Hamilton. PUBLIC UTILITIES
FORTNIGHTLY – March – lexis)
In a recent "carbon war game" exercise among seven major U.S. investor owned utilities, GHG restrictions triggered a transition
away from coal-fired generation, driving up real electricity prices by 5 percent a year for a decade in the coal-heavy markets (see
"Carbon Wargames," Fortnightly, December 2007). War game participants broadly agreed that increases of that magnitude would
set off a political firestorm. How likely is such an outcome, and how likely is it to trigger a reversal of GHG policy?
The answer seems to depend heavily on the details of the GHG-restriction program. If it consists of a national economy-
wide cap-and-trade program, and existing power-plant operators receive a continuing allocation of emissions allowances
proportional to their historical emissions, only stepped down gradually in proportion to the national cap, then the burden
will be fairly limited. In effect, the rest of the economy will subsidize the transition to non-coal generation by purchasing
allowances from the departing coal plants. However, if the cap-and-trade is not economy-wide, or if the allocations
largely are auctioned off, then the burden will fall directly on the coal-heavy regions. And the resulting price fly-up likely
will cause a vigorous push-back from both households and businesses in the affected areas. This is not an unlikely
scenario and strengthens the resilience of traditional coal--changing the game.
SDI 2008 p. 72 of 124
CP Tradable permits auctioning better for the economy and

competitiveness extensions
Grandfathered permits cannot generate overall net benefits – only an auction scheme can
Ian W. H. Parry, a fellow at Resources for the Future in Washington, D.C., 2007, “Are All Market-Based
Environmental Regulations Equal?”, http://www.issues.org/19.1/p_parry.htm
The effects of tradable permits are similar to those of emissions taxes. They raise production costs and
reduce economic activity. If a polluting company increases production, it must either buy permits to
cover the extra emissions or forego sales of its own permits to other companies. Either way, it pays a
financial penalty for producing emissions. Permits that are distributed to firms for free have adverse
effects on employment in the same way that emissions taxes do, but without the potential offsetting benefits
of recycling government revenue in other tax reductions. This has two important policy implications. First, if
permits were auctioned off by the government rather than given away for free, then society would be
better off, as long as revenue from permit sales would be recycled into other tax reductions. Tax economists
have estimated that for each dollar of revenue used to reduce income taxes, there will be a gain in
economic efficiency of around 20 to 50 cents. Lower income taxes increase employment, and they also
reduce distortions in the pattern of expenditure between ordinary spending and "tax-favored" spending such
as owner-occupied housing and employer-provided medical insurance. In the carbon example above, the
United States might be better off to the tune of $20 billion to $45 billion per year if it had a carbon tax or
auctioned permits policy rather than grandfathered permits. Second, the economic cost of grandfathered
permits can be substantially higher than previously thought. According to an estimate by Roberton
Williams, Lawrence Goulder, and myself, the cost to the United States of meeting the initial Kyoto target
by a system of grandfathered permits imposed on fossil fuel producers rises from roughly $25 billion
per year (in current dollars) to around $55 billion when their effect on reducing employment and
compounding labor tax distortions is included. In fact, taking account of fiscal interactions might
compromise the ability of grandfathered permits to generate overall net benefits for society. Suppose
that global environmental damage from carbon emissions (for example, economic damage to world
agriculture from climate change and the costs of protecting valuable land against sea level rises) was
$70 per ton. (This is actually on the high side compared with most damage studies, although the estimates
are subject to much dispute.) The initial Kyoto target for the United States would have reduced carbon
emissions by around 630 million tons in 2010, implying annual environmental benefits of around $45
billion in current dollars. Using our cost figures and ignoring fiscal interactions, the grandfathered
permit scheme would produce an estimated $20 billion in environmental benefits. But include fiscal
interactions, and the policy fails the cost/benefit test, because costs exceed environmental benefits by
$10 billion. Only the emissions tax/auctioned permit policies pass the cost/benefit test, producing net
benefits of between $10 billion and $35 billion.
SDI 2008 p. 73 of 124
Grandfathering damages the economy’s competitiveness

Frank J. Convery, Louise Dunne, Luke Redmond and Lisa B. Ryan, Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development, March 2003, “OECD Global Forum On Sustainable Development: Emissions
Trading Concerted Action On Tradeable Emissions Permits Country Forum”,
Boemare and Quirion (2001) posit the distinction between auctioning – selling emission permits to the
highest bidder – and giving them away for free, either on the basis of share of output, e.g. x permits per kWh
for power plants (after first deciding on the allocation to each sector), or on the basis of an exogenous
criterion such as share of historic emissions (‘grandfathering’). They note that ‘general equilibrium
modelling has shown that the most cost-efficient way to allocate permits is to auction them and to use
the revenue to cut pre-existing distortionary taxes,’ citing Goulder et al. (1999) in this regard. But
Tietenberg (2001) takes a more sanguine view, following in the tradition of Coase (1960). In effect he
discounts the double dividend impact by arguing as follows: ‘Whatever the initial allocation, the
transferability of the permits allows them to ultimately flow to their highest valued uses. Since those
uses do not depend on the initial allocation, all initial allocations result in the same outcome and that
outcome is cost-effective…..It implies that with tradable permits the resource manager can use the
initial allocation to solve other goals such as political feasibility or ethical concerns without sacrificing
cost effectiveness.’ In addition to losing the double dividend, ‘grandfathering’ would provide
incumbents – those in business at the time trading was initiated who qualified for an allocation – with an
advantage over new entrants who would have to buy. While this would probably enhance the ability of the
former to stay in business and indeed expand, it would damage an economy’s overall competitiveness, as
it could inhibit some potentially more efficient companies from entering the market. Where the free
allocation is on the basis of a share of total output, then presumably new entrants get their allocation permit
in effect at the expense of incumbents, as new slices are taken from the existing ‘permit pie.’ In sectors and
economies that are growing rapidly, this could be a source of considerable uncertainty for firms.
SDI 2008 p. 74 of 124
Auctioned permits are better than grandfathered permits – comparative evidence

Kit Batten, Benjamin Goldstein, and Bracken Hendricks, Kit Batten is the Managing Director for Energy
and Environmental Policy and is a Ph.D. ecologist, Benjamin Goldstein is a Research Associate with the Domestic
Policy Team and Fellows Department at American Progress, Bracken Hendricks is a Senior Fellow with American
Progress where he works on issues of climate change, 6-2-08, “Investing in a Green Economy Using Cap-and-Trade
Auction Revenue to Help American Families and Spur Clean Energy Innovation”,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/pdf/auction_revenue.pdf
Deliberations on cap-and-trade legislation have so far focused principally on reduction targets, timetables,
and where to implement the emissions cap. Another critical question is still unfolding: whether emissions
permits should be freely allocated or auctioned, and who will benefit from this process. The
Congressional Budget Office estimates that the monetary value of emissions permits created by a cap on
global warming pollution in the United States would range between $50 billion and $300 billion generated
each year (in 2007 dollars) by 2020. Deciding how many of these permits will be sold and how many will
be given away for free is one of the most vital components of a successful cap-and-trade system. The
permits’ valuable dividends will, if given away, provide massive windfall profits for polluters, or, if
auctioned, generate capital for major public investment programs to ensure an effective, equitable, and
expeditious transition to a clean energy economy. In addition, revenue from the program would also
flow to low- and lower-middle income families to help them cope with rising energy costs. In this
context, capping greenhouse gas emissions is as much landmark economic legislation as it is environmental
policy. The Center for American Progress supports auctioning 100 percent of the greenhouse gas
emission permits from day one under a cap-and-trade program, which would require large-scale carbon
emitters to purchase a permit for every ton of greenhouse gases they release. The resulting revenue could
create a dedicated source of public financing to invest in a just and equitable transition to the low-
carbon economy. This would include supporting new investments in green technology and energy
efficiency; sheltering American households from any economic dislocations due to shifting energy
prices; alleviating higher costs for energy-intensive industries; adapting to some of the effects of global
warming that we are already experiencing globally; and creating good, “green jobs” and more vibrant,
healthier communities in this process. A 100 percent auction will ensure that large polluters, and not
the hardworking Americans least able to foot the bill, are financing the investments necessary to carry
out these vital public projects. The Climate Security Act gives away approximately 40 percent of the
emissions permits to polluting industries— carbon-intensive manufacturing, fossil fuel-powered power
plants, petroleum refiners, and natural gas processors—for free. The remainder is auctioned in order to fund
programs such as those listed above. Not until 2032 would polluting industries have to purchase 100 percent
of the permits to account for their greenhouse gas emissions, although 1 percent of the allowances would still
be available as “bonus allowances” for coal-fired power facilities that have installed carbon capture and
sequestration. The good news is that the Climate Security Act now auctions more of the emissions permits
than it did in earlier drafts, but we need to continue to push for an even greater percent auction up front.
Other proposals are also moving in this direction; Congressman Edward Markey (D-MA) unveiled legislation
last week at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, for example, that advocates for a rapid transition
to 100 percent auction under an economy-wide cap-and-trade system. It also supports channeling the auction
revenue back into the economy for public policy purposes similar to the ones laid out here. The choice is
ours: how policymakers design the transition to a low-carbon economy will either benefit the economy
as a whole and provide new jobs and progressive growth for Americans, or it will reward historic
emitters for continuing to pollute. We know that the costs of inaction will be enormous. And if we design
our response to this transition correctly, the opportunities will be tremendous. It is time to focus on the
benefits—not just the costs—to consumers and ratepayers as a result of taking action to avert the climate
crisis and of investing in an economic future built on clean energy.
SDI 2008 p. 75 of 124
Auctioned permit funds will spur clean energy research and development
Kit Batten, Benjamin Goldstein, and Bracken Hendricks, Kit Batten is the Managing Director for Energy
and Environmental Policy and is a Ph.D. ecologist, Benjamin Goldstein is a Research Associate with the Domestic
Policy Team and Fellows Department at American Progress, Bracken Hendricks is a Senior Fellow with American
Progress where he works on issues of climate change, 6-2-08, “Investing in a Green Economy Using Cap-and-Trade
Auction Revenue to Help American Families and Spur Clean Energy Innovation”,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/pdf/auction_revenue.pdf
The transformation of our aging energy infrastructure around the platforms of efficiency and reduced
greenhouse gas emissions represents perhaps the greatest engine for American innovation, productivity
growth, and job creation in the coming decades. Any cap-and-trade proposal that comes before the U.S.
Congress must fully recognize the importance of utilizing auction revenues from emissions permits to drive
public investment in the clean-energy economy and safeguard American consumers from any regressive
impacts (see sidebar on potential uses of auction revenue, page 8). Proposals that are overly generous in
their giveaway of emissions permits will result in a massive transfer of wealth to polluting companies,
instead of investing this revenue back into in the American economy. Thus, they will ultimately fall
short of the objective of creating a prosperous, fair, and low-carbon economy. The scale of the global
warming and energy challenges we face will require proactive federal leadership in both policymaking and
investment, and in public private partnerships, requiring a level of national leadership perhaps not seen since
the New Deal. Promoting capital investment, increasing research and development funding, and reducing
financial risk through smart public policies like loan guarantees, will leverage more rapid technological
breakthroughs and encourage commercialization, helping private industry to achieve economies of scale and
lowering the costs of clean energy and energy-efficient products and services for consumers. The EPA
concurs, arguing that “[S]ubstantial cost savings could be achieved by combining direct emissions
policies (e.g. cap-and trade or carbon tax) with technology push policies (e.g. technology and R&D
incentives) that correct for the market failure associated with the fact that the inventor of a new
technology can not appropriate all of the associated social benefits.” Revenue from a permit auction
could create a large new stream of resources to invest in these “technology push policies,” including:
clean energy research, development, and deployment; advancing lowcarbon transportation choices
including mass transit, vastly more fuel-efficient vehicles, and low-carbon sustainably produced biofuels;
training a new clean energy workforce able to rebuild our communities and the country; and preparing for
and adapting to the effects of global warming. While auction revenue is just one source of funding for
these key national priorities, it represents a major pool of public resources, and should not be allowed
simply to result in windfall profits and wealth transfers to polluting corporations and their
shareholders. Auction funds can also provide the resources required to offset any potential energy
price increases for middle- and low-income families. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates
that it would only require a modest 14 percent of the total value of emissions permits to completely offset any
increased energy costs for the bottom fifth of the income spectrum.10 And, according to the Congressional
Budget Office, “lawmakers could more than offset the price increases experienced by low-income
households or the costs imposed on workers in particular sectors by providing for the sale of some or all of
the allowances and using the revenue to pay compensation. Conversely, giving all or most of the
allowances to energy producers to offset the potential losses of investors in those industries as was done
in the cap-and trade program for sulfur dioxide emissions would exacerbate the regressivity of the
price increases.”
SDI 2008 p. 76 of 124
AT Solvency – tradable permits

Tradeable permit scheme failed when implemented in the E.U., and will meet the same fate if
implemented in the U.S.
Chemical News, August 09, 2006
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5713778/Next-phase-of-EU-emissions.html; LC
Cuts in global warming gas emissions proposed by most European countries, under the next phase of the
European Union's (EU) emissions trading scheme (ETS), are not sufficient for the EU to meet its
emissions-reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, according to a recent report by
Deutsche Bank. The next phase of the scheme runs from 2008 until 2012. The ETS is a "cap-and-trade"
system under which EU governments set maximum emission allowances for their national industries.
Companies participating in the ETS are required to purchase emission credits if they exceed their allowance.
Of the 19 EU countries that have so far published national allocation plans (Naps) for emissions, only
Germany, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, and the U.K. are in line with the EU's emissions-reduction targets
under the Kyoto Protocol. The combined volume of emissions allowed under the 19 published Naps,
1.94 billion m.t. of carbon dioxide equivalent, is already equal to the EU's overall Kyoto target, although
six EU countries have yet to publish their Naps. Deutsche Bank estimates that national allocations will each
have to be cut by 7% if the EU is to stand any chance of meeting its Kyoto target. Environmental group
WWF (Brussels) has condemned the countries' "weak" approach to the ETS, which it says fails to provide
industry with an incentive to cut emissions.
Tradeable permit schemes fail; empirically proven in the E.U.

The International Herald Tribune, July 25, 2006 Tuesday, FINANCE; LC
7358&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=8357&docNo=126
When European Union officials created a market for trading pollution credits, they boasted that it was a '' The
International Herald Tribune, July 25, 2006 Tuesday, FINANCE; Pg. 11, 814 wordscost-conscious way'' to
save the planet from global warming. Five years later, the EU is failing to meet the Kyoto Protocol's
carbon dioxide emission standards. Rather than help protect the environment, the trading system has led
to increases in electricity prices of more than 50 percent and record profits for RWE and other utilities.
The utilities and emissions traders, in contrast, ''have done very well.'' The plan, introduced in October 2001,
was to grant permits to 12,000 power plants, factories, oil rigs and refineries. Each permit represented the
right to produce a ton of carbon dioxide, and could be traded like any commodity. The system was supposed
to motivate companies to reduce carbon dioxide and sell their extra permits for profit. But the $44 billion-a-
year market is ''an environmental and economic failure,'' according to Open Europe, a policy group that
assesses EU laws. At least 12 of the 25 members of the European Union are at risk of missing their
Kyoto pledges, according to EU estimates. That includes Germany, Italy and Spain, three of Europe's
five largest economies. The mistake came when the European Commission allowed the EU's 25
governments to provide too many permits and seek fewer restrictions on pollution. The group fell behind
schedule to meet the Kyoto target of an 8 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2012. As of
2004, the most recent data available, the EU had cut carbon dioxide levels by 0.9 percent from the
benchmark year of 1990. A record rise in natural gas prices encouraged power producers to burn coal, a
dirtier fuel. After that switch, carbon dioxide permit prices quintupled from ¤6.05 in January 2005 to ¤30.70,
or $38.70, in April of this year Sensing opportunity, banks including Morgan Stanley and Barclays started
trading the permits. Speculators like Citadel Investment Group, a $12 billion hedge fund, followed. Rather
than hurt profits at power producers, the program became a justification for higher electricity prices,
as the cost of carbon pollution got passed on to consumers.
SDI 2008 p. 77 of 124
The cap and trade system has empirically failed - it rewards companies for failing to plan
for the future.
The Capital Times. (Madison, Wisconsin). July 5, 2008 RIGHT RESPONSES TO WARMING. LexisNexis
Academic. AP.
Equally unfortunate is the report's endorsement of a federal "cap and trade" program for greenhouse
gas emissions -- a so-called "free-market" initiative under which the right to pollute would be bought
and sold by corporations. Unfortunately, the "cap and trade" approach has been tried in Europe. It
has not been particularly effective in reducing emissions. And the plan, as proposed in the U.S., is
actually less well thought out and less fiscally responsible than the plans tried overseas. "Cap and
trade" is bad idea. Indeed, responsible environmental groups have taken the lead in rejecting "cap and
trade" schemes. It should be rejected. The task force recommends that the PSC provide incentives for
utilities to invest in research and development. Such an approach rewards wealthy corporations that have
failed to take basic steps to plan for the future. It's precisely the wrong approach. Energy companies
should be required to confirm that they are making substantial investments in R&D before any rate increases
are approved.
We don’t need the plan Carbon Markets and renewable energy jobs increasing now.
Lisa Roner, freelance journalist and corporate communications consultant, 7-25-08, “Green Jobs: Help Wanted”,
http://www.climatechangecorp.com/content.asp?contentid=5515, VP
As the need to address climate change and the growing energy crisis become more a question of “how” than
“if”, renewable energy and carbon markets are experiencing a surge in growth. But some experts fear
there aren’t enough skilled workers to meet the demand. Explosive growth in the “clean economy” is
already happening. The American Solar Energy Society estimates that the US already has 8.5 million
jobs in renewable energy and other energy-efficient industries. Meanwhile, specialist jobs in climate
change and carbon markets, including analysts, managers and carbon traders, tripled between April
2006 and April 2007 and are expected to increase 50-fold by 2012, according to environmental recruiting
company Acre Resources.
SDI 2008 p. 78 of 124
The emissions trading scheme established in the E.U. was unsuccessful, and undermined
the original purpose for which it was built. The U.S. should avoid a similar experience.
Keith Orchison, Weekend Australian, REVIEW; Pg. 3; June 30, 2007; LC
The international steel industry has set its face against the kind of economy-wide, cap-and-trade emissions
scheme being proposed for introduction in Australia, saying it produces perverse outcomes. The industry's
global lobby group, the International Iron & Steel Institute, which represents 150 companies in 52 countries
accounting for 70 per cent of world steel production, has called on governments to develop a global system
of sector-specific abatement agreements that will enable all the major global steel-producing countries to
phase out obsolete technologies. The scheme, it says, should be global, voluntary, technology-focused and
based on energy intensity. It argues that this form of abatement management can set moving benchmarks for
greenhouse gas emissions for different industries for an agreed assessment period, taking into account the
type of products produced and the processes used, then reward companies that beat the average for their
sector and punish those that fall behind. The industry says the form of economy-wide emissions trading
scheme embraced in the European Union means that companies that have been less energy-efficient in
their sector receive more credits than the most efficient, while companies setting out to build global
market share by expanding efficient production are penalized by being forced to buy extra credits.
Meanwhile inefficient companies can compensate for their inability to grow their market share by
selling unused allowances. Steelmakers account for up to 6 % of man-made carbon dioxide emissions
globally and are engaged in fierce competition with the aluminum industry for market share. ''The
reality,'' says IISI secretary-general Ian Christmas,'' is that aluminium requires 10 times as much energy to
provide metal as steel. In terms of climate change, it is a disastrous metal.'' He has warned governments in
Europe and Japan that the current vogue for cap-and-trade emissions systems will give a fundamental
advantage to steelmakers in Russia, China and other countries not embracing such schemes. European
operators of steel blast furnaces will be handicapped in such competition to the extent of $US135 a ton,
he says, and will quickly relocate to parts of the world where they are not disadvantaged. A scheme
that merely shifts manufacturing-related greenhouse gas emissions to other parts of the world with less
stringent controls will fail to adequately address the global warming issue, he argues.
SDI 2008 p. 79 of 124
The U.S. should avoid failure in the emissions trading system like that of the E.U.
James Canter, the New York Times Media Group, NEWS, pp. 1; Brussels; June 19, 2008; LC
ormat=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=101&resultsUrlKey=29_T4242854182&cisb=22_T4242854181
As the United States moves toward action on global warming, practical experience with carbon markets in
the European Union raises a critical question: Will such systems ever work? Backers of carbon markets,
including the presumptive U.S. presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain, see them as one of
the cheapest and most effective ways to control greenhouse gases in advanced economies. Yet the
experience in Europe, which established the world's largest greenhouse gas market three years ago, tells
a cautionary tale - one in which politicians and influential industries may be diverting carbon trading
from its original purpose of reducing planet-warming gases. ''We currently are in danger of losing yet
another decade in the fight against global warming,'' said Hugo Robinson of Open Europe, a research group
in London. On Wednesday, the European Environment Agency reported that carbon emissions from
industries participating in the carbon trading plan, known as cap and trade, continue to rise. Emissions
from factories and plants that trade pollution permits rose by 0.4 percent between 2005 and 2006 and
by 0.7 percent between 2006 and 2007, during the first two years of the system's operations. Europeans
took an early lead in efforts to curb global warming, championing the Kyoto agreement and implementing a
market-based system in 2005 to cap emissions from about 12,000 factories producing electricity, glass, steel,
cement, and pulp and paper. Companies buy or sell permits based on whether they overshoot or come in
beneath their pollution targets. Although the system also underpins Europe's claim to be leading global
environmental policy, EU officials acknowledge that establishing such a vast market has been more
complicated than they anticipated, and that its effectiveness so far has been limited. ''Of course it was
ambitious to set up a market for something you can't see and to expect to see immediate changes in
behavior,'' said Jacqueline McGlade, the executive director of the European Environment Agency. ''It's easy,
with hindsight, to say we could have been tougher,'' she said. A major stumbling block arose at the outset,
when some EU governments participating in the effort allocated too many trading permits to polluters
when the market was created. That led to a near-market meltdown after the value of the permits fell
by half, and called into question the validity of the entire system. Since then, EU officials have promised
tough reforms to fight against special interests, and the price of carbon permits has largely recovered. Yet a
ferocious lobbying battle is under way as EU regulators seek to overhaul the dysfunctional parts of the
market by charging polluting companies more and reducing the oversupply of pollution permits
traded within the system. A question that hangs over the European system - and that is likely to be of
major concern to U.S. policy makers - is whether the rules still can be tightened up sufficiently so that
industries eventually emit less and adopt cleaner technologies.
SDI 2008 p. 80 of 124
Cap-and-trade process empirically fails in the European Union, and would ultimately fail if
implemented in the U.S.
Greg Weston, the Toronto Sun, Editorial/Opinion; National Affairs; 6-5-2008
ormat=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4241591415&cisb=22_T4241591414&tr
eeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=256740&docNo=8
While the premiers of Ontario and Quebec are promising a new carbon trading system to help fight global
warming, the same green scheme has all of Europe singing the blues. Since the beginning of 2005, the 27
countries in the European Union have had a so-called "cap-and-trade" program similar to what Dalton
McGuinty and his Quebec counterpart, Jean Charest, have in mind for the two provinces. British Columbia
is putting in place its own carbon trading program, and even the eco-challenged Harper government is toying
with the concept nationally. Most politicians prefer cap-and-trade to other climate change schemes
because it does not include the word "tax." Three years into the European experiment, the general
consensus seems to be it must have seemed like a good idea at the time. In theory, the cap-and-trade process
makes some sense. Government caps the allowable annual greenhouse gas emissions for each industry --
roughly measured in tons of carbon dioxide -- and gives saleable "credits" to companies that pollute less than
their limits. In turn, those firms can sell their credits to polluters that don't meet their emission limits. Dirty
firms get punished; clean ones are rewarded. Greenhouse gas emissions are reduced, and the financial burden
for saving the planet is on industry, not consumers. At least, that's the theory. In practice, the European
experience with the largest multinational emissions trading scheme in the world was recently
summarized in Business Week magazine. "Consumer prices were up, energy company profits were up,
and carbon emissions were up -- an excellent result for the European Union's flagship climate change
policy." How did a good idea go so wrong? Suffice it to say that when it came to politicians saving votes or
the planet, it was no contest. Governments pressured by industry to make the process politically
painless for everyone -- for business, consumers and even for the biggest polluters -- succeeded in
rendering the whole system largely useless. First, national governments were allowed to give their
domestic industries billions of dollars worth of free credits -- so-called emissions permits -- that were
subsequently trading up to more than $50 per tonne of pollution in 2006. Second, industries begging
for a competitive break resulted in governments giving away more emissions permits than there were
emissions, ultimately causing the trading price to drop from above $50 to as low as $3, all but
eliminating any incentive for companies to cut pollution. Third, federal governments in almost every
country except the U.K. set their emissions limits so high that overall greenhouse gas pollution in
Europe actually went up over the past three years. PRICES RISE Big energy companies, among the
worst polluters on the continent, cashed in over $2 billion of emissions credits given to them for free,
while raising consumer prices. Following its spectacular flop, the European Union is now debating a
major overhaul of the cap-and-trade program, eliminating the freebies and slamming industry with
much tougher emission limits. As governments here ponder carbon trading for a cleaner planet, the lesson
from the European experience is the obvious -- no financial pain, no environmental gain. Good luck selling
that one at the locked gate of the local auto plant.
SDI 2008 p. 81 of 124
AT ADV Banking Crisis

Banking Crisis is Over – Consensus of experts agree
Jeremy Warner, 5-10-08, The Independent, “So that's all right, then. The Government is on the case of
beleaguered homeowners; OUTLOOK”, lexis, VP
She's wrong about this, I'm afraid. The housing market is certainly going to get quite a bit worse before it
gets better. That said, the banking crisis definitely does seem to be easing. Lots of people have said it
over the last two weeks, from the Bank of England to Hank Paulson, the US Treasury Secretary, and
Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve. Everyone seems to agree that the worst is
over, with the nadir marked by the near-collapse of Bear Stearns in March. Policy action by central bankers
since then is helping to restore confidence in financial markets.
The Global Bank Crisis is Gone – global banks attracting new business now.
Greg Robb, senior reporter for MarketWatch in Washington, 7-17-08, “Global bank crisis is easing: Deutsche
Bank CEO”, MarketWatch, rks, http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/financial-turmoil-easing-deutsche-
bank/story.aspx?guid=%7B6C31110D-A82A-4754-BEA9-F9E75C0D807F%7D&dist=msr_55.
The global financial-market turmoil that has plagued economies around the world is beginning to
dissipate, Deutsche Bank AG's chief executive said Thursday. "We are seeing the beginning of the end of
the crisis," Josef Ackermann told reporters. He said the U.S. housing-market collapse was "still a
tremendous challenge," but added that this was the nature of housing bubbles that have burst. The health of
the financial sector was beginning to improve, according to Ackermann, as banks deal with "legacy"
issues from the sudden collapse of the market for complex derivatives tied to U.S. home mortgages last
summer. "A lot has been achieved," he commented. Ackermann said that global banks were attracting
promising "new business." The head of Deutsche Bank spoke at the news conference in his role of the
chairman of the Institute for International Finance, a lobbying group for global financial institutions. Global
banks were hit the hardest by the financial-market turmoil. The IIF released a new report that laid out
many steps the banks plan to take to clean up their acts.
SDI 2008 p. 82 of 124
DA Coal – links
Cap and trade will cause the coal industry and the U.S. economy to collapse.
Murray at EFB. May 14, 2007. Carbon cap and trade scheme would be fatal to U.S. coal. LexisNexis Academic.
AP.
A cap-and-trade system for regulation of greenhouse gases would fail, and such a program would
severely damage the U.S. coal industry, according to Murray Energy CEO Bob Murray, whose fire-and-
brimstone type speech captivated attendees at the Eastern Fuel Buyers Conference in Orlando. Calling the
"so-called global warming issue" a human as well as environmental issue, Murray criticized politicians,
primarily Democrats led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for carbon emission constraint measures that have
been introduced into Congress that would ration the use of coal and therefore greatly reduce low-cost
electricity, eliminate numerous co al-related jobs and "inflict great hardship on America's families." "The
unfolding debate over atmospheric warming in the Congress, the news media and by the pundits has been
skewed and totally one-sided in that they have been preoccupied with possible, speculative environmental
disasters of climate change," Murray sa id. "However, few are giving adequate attention to the destruction
that we will definitely see for American working people from all of the climate change proposals that have
been introduced in the House and Senate to date. Indeed, the House and Senate lea derships have hijacked the
Committees with the most expertise and experience in dealing with this subject to control the debate and
railroad draconian anti-coal legislation through the Congress." Murray noted that coal is expected to
account for about 57 percent of power generation in the U.S. over the next 20 years, rising about five
percent from the current 52 percent generation. That growth is not possible with a cap-and-trade
program on CO 2 emissions, Murray said. "A cap-and-trade system will not work," he said. "It would
be disastrous for the coal industry in particular and for our economy in general. Momentum is
undoubtedly building for a cap-and-trade scheme in the United States, and unfortunately, many in t he
industry are helping to build this momentum for their own corporate gains." Murray listed a number of
companies he says are promoting constraints on coal use to achieve greater profits and/or competitive
advantages. They include Excelon, Entergy, British Petroleum, Shell Oil, Conoco-Phillips, Enhanced
Coverage LinkingConoco-Phillips, -Search using: Company Dossier Company Profile News, Most Recent
60 Days Caterpillar, Alcoa, DuPont, General Electric, Merrill Lynch, PepsiCo and General Motors. "These
companies support some sort of cap-and-trade scheme," Murray said. "Some of them hope to make short-
term profits by claiming tens of billions of dollars of credits for actions already taken or that will be taken
regardless. Others calculate that they will be hurt less by an emissions cap than their competitors. Still others
have decided that a cap is inevitable and that they need to get a seat at the table now so that they can
negotiate the best deal possible for themselves." If a cap-and-trade system is implemented on CO2
emissions, new technologies, including integrated gasification combined cycle or carbon capture and storage,
would not improve coal's future plight, Murray said. He said a recent MIT study confirms his conclusion.
"The study shows that IGCC is still a long way from being commercially viable and will raise costs
considerably," Murray said. "Carbon capture and storage would also raise costs significantly, and this
approach also faces huge political and legal obstacles. These include legal liability and monitoring and
property rights issues."
SDI 2008 p. 83 of 124
*****Elections updates*****
SDI 2008 p. 84 of 124
DA Politics McCain winning now – Swing States generic

The trend is that McCain will go ahead of Obama soon. He is already ahead in Colorado
and is gaining in every swing state. Introducing the plan can only disrupt his momentum.
McClatchy Washington Beurau, byline Steven Thomma, 7/25/08, “Obama wins the week but McCain’s
still in the race,” http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/45643.html MH
The Arizona Republican went to the battleground states of Ohio and Pennsylvania, dominating local
news coverage and talking about gas prices, an issue mentioned in local coffee shops much more than
Obama's trip. Polls show Obama with an edge, but the contest still very close. In surveys of
battleground states taken just before Obama's trip and during its first days, Quinnipiac University
found McCain gaining on him in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin and pulling narrowly ahead in
Colorado. "The race is tightening," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Connecticut University's
Polling Institute. "McCain's doing a little better because Obama's post-primary bounce is wearing off."
McCain gaining on Obama in critical swing states.

Fox News, 7/24/08, “Poll McCain Makes Gains in 4 Swing States,”
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/24/mccain-makes-gains-in-4-swing-states/ MH
A new poll shows John McCain made gains on Barack Obama in four key November battleground
states — Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin — giving McCain a slight edge in one state,
and chipping away at Obama’s lead in the others. The Quinnipiac University/Wall Street
Journal/WashingtonPost.com poll showed McCain tentatively ahead of Obama in Colorado by 2
percentage points, with McCain at 46 percentage points, and Obama at 44. One month ago, Obama held 49-
44 percent lead. McCain’s biggest gain in the other three states was in Minnesota. In June, Obama held a
17 percentage-point lead over his rival; this month, the split had dwindled to 46-44 in favor of Obama.
McCain is winning critical swing states.

San Francisco Sentinel, 7/24/08, “New Polls Show Good News for McCain,”
http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=15002 MH
During a week he’s struggling to wrestle media attention away from Barack Obama’s trip abroad, new polls out
Thursday show John McCain has narrowed the gap in four crucial battleground states. New surveys
conducted by Quinnipiac, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal suggest the Arizona senator is in a
more favorable position in Colorado, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin than he was one month ago. In
Colorado, McCain now holds a 2 point lead over Obama, 46 to 44 percent — a significant reversal from a
similar poll conducted last month that put the Illinois senator on top there by 5 points. In equally good news for
McCain, Obama now only holds a two-point lead in Minnesota — the state that’s playing host the Republican
National Convention in early September.
Election is up in the air – toe to toe battle in key states.

Associated Press, byline David Epso, 7/27/08, “Obama says he’s becoming competitive in red states,”
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jBruSwKvrZFVg8hHkdKCkE9hFeQwD926EKVG4 MH
With 100 days remaining in the race for the White House, Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama
says he has succeeded in expanding the electoral map in his race against John McCain, principally in
southern and southwestern states but also in Montana and North Dakota. "It doesn't mean we're
going to win all those states but at least we're making it a contest and giving voters something to choose
from," he said in an interview aboard his campaign jet on the way back from an overseas trip. "Virginia,
North Carolina and Georgia are all states where we are competitive," he said, adding he is going "toe to
toe" with his rival in New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada.
SDI 2008 p. 85 of 124
DA Politics McCain winning now – Colorado

McCain is winning Colorado.
Headline News, byline Kris Alingod, AHN News Writer, 7/24/08,
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7011715762 MH
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has taken the lead in the Centennial State, according to Quinnipiac
University's latest statewide poll. McCain is ahead of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), 46 percent to 44, a
month after being down, 44 percent to 49 percent in the previous survey. Three percent of voters declared
their support for other candidates and 7 percent were undecided. The four-term Arizona senator holds the
support of whites, 51 percent to 41 percent, men, 55 percent to 37 percent, and seniors, 51 percent to 37
percent. He ties with Obama among voters between 35-54 years old at 46 percent. Obama, meanwhile, has
the edge among young voters, 51 percent to 43 percent, women, 50 percent to 39 percent, and Hispanics, 57
percent to 29 percent.
SDI 2008 p. 86 of 124
DA Politics McCain winning now – Missouri

McCain ahead in key swing state of Missouri.
Talking Points Memo, 7/9/08, “Poll: McCain Takes Lead in Key Swing State of Missouri,”
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/poll_mccain_takes_lead_in_key.php MH
The Obama campaign is making a major play for the perennial swing state of Missouri, but a new poll
finds that John McCain has taken the lead there. The latest numbers from Rasmussen: McCain 47%,
Obama 42%. A month ago, it was Obama 43% to McCain 42%. This is in line with a SurveyUSA poll
from two weeks ago, which also had McCain taking the lead after Obama had previously held a
narrow edge.
SDI 2008 p. 87 of 124
DA Politics McCain winning – Nevada

McCain is winning Nevada by a narrow margin now and Nevada is a key battle ground
state vital to the election.
Las Vegas Review Journal, byline Molly Ball, 6/17/08, “New R-J Nevada Poll: McCain 44%, Obama
42%,” http://www.lvrj.com/news/19954494.html MH
As the presidential candidates square off for the general election, Nevadans are closely divided between
Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, according to a statewide poll. If the election
were held today, 44 percent would vote for McCain, 42 percent for Obama, while 14 percent of likely
voters remain undecided, according to the poll of 625 likely voters, conducted Monday through Wednesday
by Washington, D.C.-based Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc. for the Review-Journal and
reviewjournal.com. The presidential contest is well within the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 4
percentage points. It confirms the conventional wisdom that Nevada is a swing state that might throw its
electoral votes to either candidate in November. "It's a statistical tie. It's a toss-up," said pollster Brad
Coker, managing partner of Mason-Dixon. "Nevada is a battleground. It's clearly a state both candidates,
both campaigns, both parties are going to pay a lot of attention to.
SDI 2008 p. 88 of 124
DA Politics McCain winning now - Pennsylvania

McCain leads Obama in Pennsylvania which is a key swing state
Ross 7/14 (Elizabeth Ross, 7/14/08, JD, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-ross/mccain-courts-
pennslyvani_b_112623.html)
John McCain's flippant remark in Pittsburgh about our exporting cigarettes to Iran is "a way of killin' 'em"
may or may not have much shelf life beyond this week. Pittsburgh didn't seem to make much of the
comments. In a CBS affiliate interview the next day, they were brought up briefly, but only in the context of
the press making issues of non-issues. McCain moved beyond his "joke" and attempted to endear himself
with Steeler Nation by pointing out that during his captivity in Vietnam, he told his jailers the names of the
Steeler Defensive linemen when he was being pressured to name his comrades. More interesting was
McCain's plan for Pennsylvania come November. The Pittsburgh region still relies a great deal on the coal
industry, from steel to electric production and beyond. McCain's energy plan includes the use of clean coal
technology currently being developed in the region and at nearby West Virginia University in
Morgantown. In the Democratic primary, Barack Obama did not fare well in the Western
Pennsylvania, although that may be attributed to issues other than coal. In the fall, a candidate with a
platform based on promoting industries that are perceived as the life's blood of the region would be
difficult to defeat. Pennsylvania remains a must-win state, and Pittsburgh would be a must win city for
Obama given the conservative majority that lives i the state outside the urban centers.
SDI 2008 p. 89 of 124
DA Politics McCain winning now – Evangelicals

McCain’s base is solid which means he can ignore them and focus on other messages.
American Spectator, byline Joseph M. Knippenberg, 7/22/08, “Republicans and Religious Voters,”
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13561 MH
There you have it: currently John McCain enjoys a 36 point lead among white evangelicals, a 14 point
lead among white mainline Protestants, and a 6 point lead among Catholics. He has these leads in a bad
Republican year, facing a charismatic and extraordinarily well-funded opponent. And he has them without
having to go out of his way to stress religious themes in his campaign, even as Senator Obama assiduously
reaches out to various faith communities. Perhaps the aforementioned GOP analysts are right after all:
Republicans won't have to pay too high a political price if they deemphasize their ties to religious
conservatives, and focus their message on national security and economic issues.
SDI 2008 p. 90 of 124
DA Politics Obama winning now generic

Obama’s ahead in the Electoral count – but it’s close.
Birmingham Weekly, 7/27/08 “Electoral College Scoreboard,”
http://www.bhamweekly.com/article.php?article_id=00895 MH
Overall, Obama has “strong” leads in seven states and the District of Columbia, accounting for 119
electoral votes. He is the “probable” winner in eight states with a total of 76 votes; and has six states
“leaning” his way, for an additional 69 votes. All told, that’s 264 of the 270 electoral votes needed to
win, meaning Obama would need to carry at most two of the 10 “tossup” states to win the election.
Meanwhile, McCain has seven states in the strong category (50 electoral votes), six states classified as
probable (60 votes), and six leaning toward him (47 votes), for a total of 157 electoral votes. Compared to
two weeks ago, Obama’s electoral vote total from strong and probable states has slipped from 207 to 195,
while McCain’s total from those categories also dropped, from 125 to 110. This may suggest that many
voters are only now beginning to compare the candidates side-by-side, with the intensity of support for both
undergoing a cooling-off that could last until the campaign enters the home stretch in September.
Obama will win – His recent trip to Europe proved to voters, his ability to be
commander in chief.
The Xinhua News Agency, byline Zhang Bihong, 7/26/08, “Obama’s visit to Europe aims to boost
campaign,” http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-07/27/content_8783525.htm MH
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama wrapped up his three-day European tour
Saturday after meeting leaders of major U.S. allies and harvesting enormous popularity among the
public of the three countries he has traveled to. His high-profile visit to Germany, France and Britain
was viewed by observers here as an attempt to sharpen his diplomatic edge and boost election
campaign against rival Republican presidential candidate John McCain. It was imperative for Obama to
travel abroad to convince swing voters at home that he has the ability to lead his country and its
European allies.
Obama ahead in electoral votes – but McCain could still catch him.
The Statesman, byline Scott Shepard, 7/24/08, “Zogby Poll says Obama holds Large Lead in the Latest
Electoral College Count,” http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-
blogs/washington/washington/entries/2008/07/24/zogy_poll_says.html#postcomment MH
Pollster John Zogby says Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has a substantial lead over
Republican John McCain in the Electoral College. Zogby’s latest Electoral College map of the United
States has Obama with 273 electoral votes to 146 for McCain. In Zogby’s previous assessment of the
Electoral College map, Obama also had 273 but McCain had 160. A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to
win the presidency. According to Zogby, 119 electoral votes are still too close to call. Said Zogby: “For the
time being, Obama maintains the edge and has the strength of a majority of electoral votes. His
triumphant foreign trip allows him to continue to define this race. But too many of these states are
close and a sizeable number are undecided or choosing a third party candidate. So there is a lot of
fluidity.”
SDI 2008 p. 91 of 124
Obama in the lead – Hispanics.

The Bradenton Herald, byline Maura Possley, 7/25/08, “Study: Obama Holds Lead among Hispanics,”
http://www.bradenton.com/local/story/761871.html MH
Presidential candidate Barack Obama has the overwhelming support of Hispanic voters - a 3 to 1 lead
over his Republican rival, John McCain, a national think tank announced Thursday. Yet those
numbers don't necessarily mean Florida is in the bag for Obama in November, local party heads and political
gurus say. The survey of 2,000 people conducted in June and July by the Washington, D.C.-based Pew
Hispanic Center analyzed the views of almost 900 people who said they were registered to vote. They
supported Obama over McCain, 66 to 23 percent. The margin of error was 4.4 percentage points. Study
authors said the results draw into question predictions that Obama's poor showing among Hispanic voters
during primary battles with Hillary Clinton meant they would not vote for an African-American. Of those
Clinton supporters, 8 percent said they would vote for McCain, compared to 75 percent for Obama. "McCain
is not doing that well," said Susan MacManus, a University of South Florida political scientist, referring to
the Hispanic electorate. "His campaign knows he needs to do better among that demographic." While he has
more support among Florida's Cuban American community than Obama, McCain is not on pace to rival the
40 percent of the Hispanic vote President Bush captured in 2004, MacManus said. Manuel Gonzalez, a local
resident who helped rake in that support for Bush, blamed the Republican Party's reaction to the illegal
immigration debate. "The consequence is they have alienated the Hispanic population," he said.
"Somehow, the feeling was the Republican Party was not only against illegal immigration but also
against Hispanics. It's going to take a lot of work to change that perception." Immigration was ranked
lower by those surveyed than issues like education, the cost of living, jobs and health care. The study, too,
echoed what many have said: Hispanic voters are leaning more toward the Democratic Party nationwide
this election season.
Obama winning now.

Canada Now, 7/24/08, “Obama has a Comfy Lead over McCain According to New Poll,”
http://www.ecanadanow.com/news/us/obama-has-comfy-lead-over-mccain-according-to-new-poll-20080724.html
MH
Washington (ECN) - According to a recently released poll, Democratic presidential candidate Barack
Obama has a comfortable lead over his Republican rival John McCain. According to the new poll
released by NBC News / Wall Street Journal, Obama has a 6-point lead over McCain in the presidential
race. This comes as many Americans feel that they can trust Obama as the commander-in-chief.
Obama leads McCain by 47% to 41% according to the poll, as the November 4 election nears. 55% also
feel though that the 46-year old Obama would be the riskier choice for president. The biggest saving grace
for Obama is that as of right now, under a Republican (Bush), only 13% feel the country is heading in the
right direction.
Obama winning now – Economy.

Politico, byline David Kuhn, 7/25/08, “McCain struggles to overcome economy gap,”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12038.html MH
Uncertain economic times have returned Americans to a pre-Sept. 11mind-set, according to recent
polling, placing John McCain at a disadvantage on pocketbook issues reminiscent of the failed reelection
campaigns of Presidents George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter. At a time when American financial insecurity
is at record levels and national security issues have taken a back seat to economic worries, McCain’s
Washington experience has failed to convince voters that he is more qualified to handle the economy.
Only 31 percent of Americans say McCain is the candidate "better able to improve economic
conditions," according to a recent CBS/New York Times Poll, compared with 51 percent for Obama.
That lead has held stable for months. Obama is even seen as being better "able to deal with taxes" —
traditionally a winning issue for Republicans — by a 47 percent to 36 percent margin. One month earlier,
voters preferred McCain on the tax issue, 44 percent to 39 percent. “They are in trouble,” Democratic
pollster Mark Mellman said of the McCain campaign.
SDI 2008 p. 92 of 124
Obama ahead now in all sectors– Nationwide polls prove.

Gallup Polls, 7/23/08, “Obama gains over McCain in Swing States since June,”
Since Barack Obama clinched the Democratic nomination and moved into a front-running position for the
general presidential election in early June, he has seen his standing versus John McCain improve among
voters in red states, blue states, and competitive (or purple) states. Obama has gained at least 3 points
in the Obama-McCain gap in all three state groupings compared with voter sentiments in March through
May. Prior to Obama's securing the Democratic nomination in early June, he and McCain were running even
nationally, with each averaging 45% of the total vote in Gallup Poll Daily tracking from March through May.
Since then, Obama has gained a slight upper hand, averaging a 3 percentage-point national advantage
over McCain (46% to 43%) in June and July interviewing. These results are based on data from tens of
thousands of interviews with registered voters in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia, so the changes --
despite their relatively small size -- are statistically meaningful. Obama's gains have come across the
political and geographic spectrum, as he has improved his relative positioning versus McCain in "red
states" (defined as those Republican George W. Bush won by 6 percentage points or more in 2004), "blue
states" (those Democrat John Kerry won by 6 percentage points or more in 2004), and "purple states" (those
in which the margin of victory for the winning candidate was less than 6 points).
SDI 2008 p. 93 of 124
DA Politics Obama winning now – Independents

Obama winning now – Independents.
Politicker AZ, byline Evan Brown, 7/24/08, “Good News and Bad News for McCain,”
http://www.politickeraz.com/evanbrown/1756/good-news-and-bad-news-mccain MH
U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Phoenix) received some welcome news Thursday in the form of a new Fox News
poll that shows him trailing his Democratic rival, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) by one point. However,
the day brought unwelcome coverage as well - both in the form of a New York Times article highlighting
McCain's vulnerabilities in his home state, and a report that Obama raised more money in Arizona
during June than did the state's senior senator. Fox News released a poll showing the gap between
Obama and McCain at one percentage point, with Obama leading 41-40. With independent candidates
included, Obama's lead increases marginally, giving him the edge 40 to 37. Thursday's Gallup daily
presidential tracking poll also showed Obama with a slimmer-than-average lead, besting McCain 45 to 43.
However, the new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows Obama leading the race 47 to 41.
Obama ahead – Independents.

Atlantic Free Press, 7/25/08, “Who are independents and what do they want?”
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/who_are_independents_and_what.php MH
Among the key findings: Democrats have a built-in structural advantage among independents to the
score of between five and ten points. But McCain remains competitive because a lot of those independents
are ideological conservatives who have weak partisan attachments to the Republican Party. Without being
pushed, 45% of the sample, including 59% of the self-described moderates in the sample, said they would
vote for Obama and 39% said they would vote for McCain. With leaners, McCain makes up two points of
the margin.
SDI 2008 p. 94 of 124
DA Politics Obama winning now – Michigan

Obama leading in Michigan.
Talking Points Memo, 7/14/08, “Obama Secures Lead in Crucial Swing State of Michigan,”
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/obama_secures_lead_in_crucial.php MH
Barack Obama has secured a decent-sized lead in Michigan, a must-win swing state where he'd
previously been a lot weaker, a new Rasmussen poll suggests. The numbers: Obama 47%, McCain
39%, with a ±4.5% margin of error. A month ago, Obama had taken a small lead of 45%-42%, just as he'd
sewn up the Democratic nomination. Obama had stayed away from the state until very late in the game, due
to the controversies surrounding their rogue primaries, but he appears to have overcome any lingering
bitterness surrounding the matter that might have been out there.
SDI 2008 p. 95 of 124
DA Politics Obama winning now – Pennsylvania

Obama’s ahead in Pennsylvania, a vital swing state.
Politicker, byline Dan Hirshhorn, 7/25/08, “Obama up 5 points in new PA. poll,”
http://www.politickerpa.com/danh/1006/obama-5-points-new-pa-poll MH
U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is narrowly leading the race Pennsylvania's 21 electoral college
votes, holding a 5-point lead over U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), according to a new Rasmussen poll.
The poll found Obama ahead 47 percent to 42 percent, a lead he has gradually been building since
losing the state's April Democratic primary. McCain held a statistically insignificant lead at the time, but by
last month, Obama led by four points. Obama led among male voters, but had an even larger lead
among women, assuaging some fears that supporters of his defeated primary opponent, U.S. Sen.
Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) would flock to McCain. McCain led among Independents, but only by two points.
A Quinnipiac poll in June showed Obama leading in Pennsylvania by 12 points, having surged since
Clinton's exit from the race.
SDI 2008 p. 96 of 124
DA Politics Obama winning now – Virginia

Obama leading in Virginia.
ABC News, 7/24, “Obama Maintains Virginia Lead,” http://www.wset.com/news/stories/0708/538461.html
MH
A new poll shows Barack Obama with a slight edge over John McCain in Virginia. Public Policy
Polling's latest survey of Virginia voters shows Obama leading McCain 46-percent to 44-percent. It's
much like last month when Obama had 47 to McCain's 45. The group's president says Virginia's polls are
remarkably stable from month to month, unlike states like Ohio and Florida. Dean Debnam says it seems safe
to say that Virginia will be one of the most closely contested states in the country this fall.
SDI 2008 p. 97 of 124
DA Politics Obama winning – Wisconsin

Obama has a solid lead in Wisconsin.
USA Today, 7/24/08, “Obama leads McCain in Wi., Poll indicates,”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-07-24-Obama-Wis_N.htm MH
Democrat Barack Obama continues to have a double-digit lead over Republican John McCain in
Wisconsin, an independent poll released Thursday showed. Obama has an 11-point lead over McCain
in the Quinnipiac University poll, down from 13-points in a June poll. The two-point drop this month was
within the poll's three-point margin of error and statistically insignificant. McCain made clear advances in
three other states polled — Minnesota, Michigan and Colorado — so they are now too close to declare a
leader. In Minnesota, McCain narrowed a 17-point Obama lead to just 2 points. But Obama's lead
remained solid in Wisconsin, with 50% of likely voters saying they would vote for the Illinois senator
while just 39% said they back McCain, a senator from Arizona.
SDI 2008 p. 98 of 124
DA Politics AT: Uniqueness overwhelms the Link

Extend our Young 08 card from the 1NC-independents are Key to the election and
Reducing emissions is a crucial issue for swing voters
Christian Science Monitor, 11/27/07
Environmental issues are typically low on the list of public concerns when choosing candidates and
presidents. But independent voters - a key to winning the open primaries and general election - view
energy independence and climate change as very important, according to a survey cited in The New York
Times."After immigration, reducing oil dependence and global warming is the second-most-important
issue among independent voters, said Daniel J. Weiss, the director of climate strategy for the Center for
American Progress Action Fund.... Mr. Weiss cited a Democracy Corps poll released last month, which also
found that among Democrats, it is the fourth-most-important issue."
Our link evidence proves that the plan will increase independents supporting McCain,
because it’s so popular
This is a defensive argument- still a risk of the D/A
4. Obama is in a dead heat with McCain—Plan pushes McCain’s popularity

The Western Mail July 18, 2008 (lexis)
NERVOUSNESS has replaced euphoria among supporters of Democrat presidential candidate Barack
Obama as a new poll shows him in a dead-heat with his Republican rival. Each contender is on 46%,
according to Rasmussen Reports. Gallup gives Mr Obama a lead of just three points. He will use a whirlwind tour of Europe, the
Middle East, Iraq and Afghanistan to persuade wavering voters he is a credible commander in chief. Republican candidate John McCain
trails Mr Obama in most polls but his campaign has not been sunk by the unpopularity of President Bush. Mr Obama 's supporters are
intensely aware that a successful smear campaign or a serious gaffe could bounce Mr McCain into pole position. Mr Obama 's
campaign is fighting a two-pronged attack against attempts to portray him as a militant left-winger and as a Ivy League elitist. Mr
Obama is desperate to win the trust of the floating voters in the political centre at a time of rising inflation and fear of unemployment.
Such men and women will not respond positively if they believe he is either an ideological extremist or a privileged politician who
cannot comprehend their anxieties. Mr Obama 's strategists area ware that Republican supporters in the
2004electionrepeatedlyquestioned Democrat John Kerry's war record to devastating effect. Despite winning some of the highest military
honours for his service in Vietnam, Mr Kerry was portrayed as untrustworthy and indecisive. Mr Obama is determined to convince
voters that he can provide strong leadership in a time of crisis, which has led him to construct a foreign policy agenda which could
involve even bolder military intervention than that of the Bush administration. He believes that militants responsible for attacks in Iraq
and Afghanistan should not be allowed safe shelter in the lawless border regions of Pakistan - even though a US attack on its territory
could fatally destabilise the pro-western government. Sixty-eight percent of white voters say they have an unfavourable or undecided
opinion of Mr Obama, compared with 63% who hold such views of Mr McCain. Akey risk for Mr Obama is that as he woos undecided
voters he risks alienating the young, predominantly liberal voters who have funded his campaign and secured his nomination. Already,
he has outlined social positions that put him to the right of many UK Conservatives. He supports limited use of the death penalty, has
backed controversial surveillance legislation supported by the Bush administration, and his commitment to pulling troops out of Iraq has
become more nuanced. Abonus for the campaign is that Mr McCain is still striving to ignite enthusiasm in his own party for his
candidacy. For years he has been distrusted by Bush supporters for his independent views, especially on issues such as taxation,
immigration, campaign finance reform and opposition to torture. Traditionally, aspiring presidents win the loyalty of their base to grasp
the nomination and then swerve to the centre. Mr McCain, however, is still working to convince Republicans he is a candidate worth
pushing to the White House. This has led him to back President Bush's tax cuts for the richest Americans, which will do little to secure
the support of blue-collar workers fretting about the bills on the kitchen table. The true duel for the presidency is just beginning and the
sabres are being sharpened. The veteran Republican and the youthful Democrat know there is still everything to play for, and at least
three key moments in the contest await. These are: The selection of a running mate - Mr McCain needs someone who brings a youthful
hue to the ticket, and also an understanding of a diverse America. Mr Obama requires a steady partner who will campaign hard among
groups not infected by internet "buzz" and wary of radical change; The convention speeches - this is Mr Obama 's chance to shine. He
is the most skilful rhetorician in a generation and one reason why his campaign has lacked traction in recent weeks is that since winning
the nomination he has had less reason to be televised behind a podium; The debates - this is Mr McCain's opportunity to land a lethal
blow on his rival. The Republican has charmingwit and a compelling personal story; his team will aim to present Mr Obama as aloof
and inexperienced when the two engage before an audience of millions. Mr Obama will try to exploit Mr McCain's notoriously feisty
temper - a televised eruption of anger will do more to damage his campaign than a multi-million-dollar advertisement. In the meantime,
each side will monitor every video-clip and recorded utterance for an incriminating sound bite that could sink their opponent's campaign.
This is high-wire politics - victory is within the grasp of either candidate, but there is a terrifyingly long
way to fall.
SDI 2008 p. 99 of 124
Bush Political Capital Low Now

Bush is a lame duck – human rights issues.
Senan Hogan, Staff Writer, 5-27-2008, The Mirror, “Bush is a lame duck president,” SS, Lexis.
George is a "lame duck" leader on human rights issues, a conference heard yesterday. Nobel Peace
Prize winner Jody Williams also said she hoped Mr Bush's successor in the White House would back
agreements banning indiscriminate munitions. More than 100 countries attending the Dublin Diplomatic
Conference aim to sign a treaty outlawing cluster bombs on Friday, after two weeks of negotiations. Ms
Williams, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 for campaigning against mines, said it was
disappointing the US was not at the summit. She added: "We should not be thinking about the
Administration on its way out. We should be thinking about the Administration that will be coming in.
"Mr Bush is a lame duck." US Senator Patrick Leahy also criticised Mr Bush for diminishing the
country's leadership in the eyes of the world.
Bush couldn’t enact any agenda with his present political capital.
Paul Harris, Staff Writer, 5-11-08, The Observer, “Lame-duck Bush back in the limelight,” SS, Lexis.
For Bush, who is fast becoming the forgotten man of America's political landscape, it has been a rare moment
back in the spotlight. The fact is that for months Bush has been largely irrelevant in American politics.
'He is an extremely lame duck. Nothing he does is really worthy of any attention at this moment,' said
Professor Shaun Bowler, a political scientist at the University of California at Riverside. 'It seems like he is
just counting down the clock.' The term 'lame duck' is always given to two-term American Presidents in their
final year of office. As the political scene shifts to their inevitable successor, it becomes difficult for any
President to have a meaningful impact. Simply put: everyone waits for the new man (or woman) to take
power. But for Bush the problem has become particularly acute. He began his second term with a radical
domestic agenda to change social security and reform taxes. That was defeated, and then the Democrats won
control of Congress, meaning they could stymie any fresh legislation Bush puts forward. At the same time,
Bush's main legacy is the disastrous war in Iraq. That has seen his popularity ratings plunge to historic
lows, further reducing his waning political influence. 'He is one of the least popular Presidents we have
ever had. Even if he had an agenda now, he would not be able to enact it,' said Professor Seth Masket of
Denver University.
Bush is extremely unpopular – Hurricane Katrina response.

The result has been a surreal situation for much of the past year. Though he remains the most powerful man
on Earth and will continue to occupy the Oval Office until January 2009, Bush has been reduced to a
marginal figure. In recent weeks his most high-profile appearance was on the TV game show Deal or No
Deal . Yet ratings for the episode slumped. That prompted the New York Post tabloid to crow in a headline:
'Bush cameo sinks game show'. Bush's toxic popularity ratings mean that he has played almost no role
in the Republican election campaign so far. Though the Democrats continually link Bush with the
Republican nominee John McCain, McCain has tried to distance himself from his own President. Indeed
McCain recently launched a blistering attack on Bush's 'disgraceful' handling of the Hurricane
Katrina disaster.
Bush is a lame duck – Middle East proves.

Bush will visit the region this week on a lengthy trip for him - from Tuesday until Sunday. During that
time he will meet Israeli, Palestinian and Egyptian leaders. However, few experts hold out real prospects of
something concrete emerging from the trip. Apart from the usual problems of solving a decades-old
intractable dispute, Bush is a lame duck in the Middle East, too. 'The problem is that in the Middle East no
one sees him as an honest broker after Iraq. So they, too, are waiting for the next President to take
office,' said Masket.
SDI 2008 p. 100 of 124
Bush’s political capital is diminished; high goals and failed attempts.

Ken Herman, Washington Bureau, 7-28-07, “Bush threatening to use veto power more often,” SS, Lexis.
To Tenpas, Bush's veto threats add up to a final two years that are "sadder than most" for a two-term
president, all of whom suffer decreasing influence as their administrations move toward an end. "His
political capital is diminished to the point where I'm not even sure he has any," she said. Tenpas thinks that
Bush, who won two close elections and faced a divisive war, hurt himself by focusing on a high-goal
second-term agenda. "When you come out of a very narrow election and come with an ambitious
agenda, in some ways you set yourself up for failure. You promised this and that and didn't deliver on any
of it," Tenpas said. Bush has failed on several major initiatives, most notably overhauling Social Security
and changing immigration laws.
Bush’s political capital is low and he is losing the support of his party.
Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Staff Writer, 6-30-07, New York Times, “For President Bush, a Reversal of Fortune on His
Political Capital,” SS. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/30/washington/30bush.html
WASHINGTON, June 29 — After a string of Republican defections this week — on Iraq, immigration and
domestic eavesdropping — President Bush enters the final 18 months of his presidency in danger of
losing control over a party that once marched in lockstep with him. First, two prominent Republican
senators broke with the president on Iraq. Then, Mr. Bush’s party abandoned him in droves on the
immigration bill, sending the measure to its death in the Senate, despite the president’s fervent lobbying
for it. And when Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to issue subpoenas to the White House
for documents related to its domestic eavesdropping program, three Republicans, including a longtime
loyalist, Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, joined them, and another three did not take a position. For a
president who once boasted that he had political capital and intended to use it, the back-to-back
desertions demonstrated starkly just how little of that capital is left. With the nation turning its attention
to who will succeed Mr. Bush — and Republican presidential candidates increasingly distancing
themselves from him — even allies say it could become increasingly difficult for the president to assert
himself over his party, much less force the Democratic majority in Congress to bend to his will. “When you
are first elected, you have some momentum and you have more ability to persuade,” Senator Jeff Sessions,
Republican of Alabama, said in an interview. “In the last months of any administration, getting people to do
something simply because the president asks for it is less. That’s certainly true here.”
Bush Political Capital Low Now

Bush’s political capital is down now; several reasons.
SDI 2008 p. 101 of 124
John W. Dean, former Council to the President, 11-19-04, FindLaw.com, “Does Bush Now Have Political Capital
to Spend? A Look at the Historical Record Suggests the Answer Is No,” SS.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20041119.html
When one turns from Bush's few political assets to his liabilities, the precarious state of his political balance
sheet becomes apparent. He has major liabilities. Most are of his own making. None are under his control.
First, there is the continuing cost of anti-terrorism measures. In Osama bin Laden's November 1 taped
message he explained that Al Qaeda's policy is to "bleed[] America to the point of bankruptcy." That tactic,
he noted, was drawn from the 1980s Afghan Mujahedeen, with whom he fought - and who "bled Russia for
10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat." Bush has offered no rational
explanation of how his endless war on terrorism can be won, and has all but admitted it can't be. As
long as Bush continues to take this position, continuing anti-terrorism expenses, and companion deficits, will
be inevitable.
Second, there is the Iraq war: It's killing Americans and further draining our resources, while at the
same time, proving to be a recruiting dream for terrorism organizers. The New Republic had it right
when it wrote that "[h]onest conservatives, even those who admire President Bush, know he didn't earn a
second term. They know he staked his presidency on a catastrophe, and that, by all rights, Iraq should be his
political epitaph." Put another way, Bush has yet to pay the piper for his Iraqi war, but sooner or later that
debt must be paid. Third, there are the humongous deficits Bush has created. True conservatives believe
Bush's out-of-control deficit spending must be stopped - and some felt so strongly that they even said,
pre-election, that he should not be given a second term. Those who held their tongue will speak now, and
Bush will pay the cost. Many are determined to halt Bush's programs (further spending and additional tax
cuts) if they will further grow the deficits. Fourth, there is the current, deep foreign policy schism within
the ranks of the GOP. Traditional conservatives oppose the Administration's neoconservative foreign
policy. The title of Pat Buchanan's latest book says it all: Where the Right Went Wrong: How
Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency.
Fifth, and finally, while Bush may have won the election battle, his war with Senator Kerry is anything but
over. As The Washington Post reported, Kerry "plans to use his Senate seat and long lists of supporters to
remain a major voice in American politics despite losing the presidential race last Tuesday, and he is
assessing the feasibility of trying again in 2008.” Vice President Al Gore faded from public life after Bush
defeated him in 2004. Kerry, however, seems to be planning a very different path. Having defeated the
President in three presidential debates, garnered the support of almost half of the nation's voters, and made
himself nationally known to all, Kerry will be an opponent to contend with, for Bush in the Senate, and for
the GOP in 2008, if he chooses to run. In light of all these realities - all of them liabilities for Bush -- Bush's
claim to new political capital is likely to prove to be fool's gold. Indeed, if the GOP should lose control of
the Senate in 2006, Bush and Cheney will be in dire straits. They have accumulated a reservoir of ill will
that could sink them. This presidency does not -- all claims to the contrary -- have a strong political balance
sheet. Bush had best spend cautiously the little capital he possesses.
Bush has no Political Capital left.

Andrew Taylor, Staff Writer, 5-23-08, The Associated Press, “Senate deals Bush a defeat on Iraq war spending,”
SS, Lexis.
Bush has promised to veto the Iraq spending if it exceeds his request. He has enough GOP support in
the House to sustain a veto. But the spectacle of 25 Senate Republicans abandoning the White House and
voting to extend jobless benefits by 13 weeks and boost the GI Bill to provide veterans enough money to pay
for a four-year education at a public institution made it plain that Bush's influence is waning. "He has no
political capital left," said Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah. "What influence?" said a triumphant Sen. Harry.
Reid had been skeptical of adding dozens of items favored by the free-spending Appropriations
Committee to Bush's war request. But the committee's plan contained so many smaller items favored by
senators in both parties including money for Gulf Coast hurricane recovery, NASA, and additional food and
drug safety inspectors that even GOP conservatives such as Sens. Larry Craig and Mike Crapo of Idaho
rebuffed the White House. The duo were strong supporters of $400 million to subsidize schools in rural
counties hit hard by declines in timber revenues.
SDI 2008 p. 102 of 124
SDI 2008 p. 103 of 124
Bush Political Capital High Now

Bush has enough political capital now, he cooperated with Congress on passing legislation
Aaron Blake, Staff Writer, 7-26-08, The Hill, “Bush Praises Cooperation on AIDS Bill,” SS.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/bush-praises-cooperation-on-aids-bill-2008-07-26.html
President Bush said Saturday that he will sign Congress’s bill to expand a program to fight AIDS in the
developing world, praising Republicans and Democrats for working with him to pass the legislation.
Bush said in his weekly radio address that he would sign the bill, which would build on the Emergency Plan
for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, next week. In a highly partisan time for foreign policy in Washington,
Bush’s work on the AIDS epidemic has won praise from even some of his detractors. He said the
program has expanded the number of people receiving antiretroviral treatment in sub-Saharan Africa from
50,000 to 1.7 million over the past five and half years. “We will expand access to lifesaving antiretroviral
drugs. We will help prevent millions of new HIV infections from occurring. And we will also bolster our
efforts to help developing nations combat other devastating diseases like malaria and tuberculosis,” Bush
said.
Bush is popular – Republicans and many Americans prove.

David Jackson, Staff Writer, 7-2-2008, USA TODAY, “Bush still a popular fundraiser,” SS, Lexis.
Despite lower approval ratings in his waning months in the White House, President Bush continues to be a
popular draw for Republican candidates. On Tuesday, he made his 30th and 31st fundraising appearances
of the year, though his total take has dipped for this election. Bush has raised at least $134 million in the
2007-08 election cycle, according to figures from the Republican National Committee (RNC). He'll need to
raise about $60 million more to match his take for the 2006 congressional elections, and he's far off the
record he set in 2004 for his re-election bid. Republicans say they're grateful for Bush's efforts. "President
Bush has been very generous with his time," RNC spokesman Alex Conant said. "He remains a strong
fundraiser and popular with a lot of Americans."
Bush still has enough political capital.

Even weakened presidents retain tremendous influence; if nothing else, the conservative tenor of many
of the Supreme Court’s decisions in the last week is a reminder of the ways in which Mr. Bush’s legacy will
continue to shape politics and policy for a long time. As the president demonstrated in clashes with
Congress over war spending and stem cell research, he still has enough Republican support to sustain a
veto. And administration officials said Mr. Bush had no intention of writing off the next year and a half.
The defeat of the immigration bill boosted Bush’s political capital.

In a sense, the defeat of the immigration bill could give Mr. Bush a lift by taking off the agenda an issue
that has sapped his strength within his base. It is an axiom of politics that a loss is never a victory. But
conservatives were so up in arms about the immigration bill, which they regarded as amnesty, that some
say it is better for Mr. Bush that it failed. “The president’s intentions were good, the heart was in the
right place, the legislation was bad,” said Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina. “If this had
passed, America would have lost all confidence in the Congress and the president. I think this is going to
give us a fresh start.”
SDI 2008 p. 104 of 124
AT: Bush is a lame duck – bills have failed

Bush has had many accomplishments that have gained him political capital and he has
many goals that he plans to use it for.
Bowling Green Daily News, 1-30-2008, “State of the Union Address was on Target,” SS, Lexis.
Overall, we believe Bush delivered a well-defined speech that laid out his list of accomplishments over
the past seven years of his presidency and laid out a list of forward-looking goals as well. Before a packed
chamber of Congress, Bush talked about issues ranging from the economy, to earmarks, troop strength in
Iraq, trade and a host of other issues. Two of the most important issues we thought mentioned were earmarks
and the condition of the economy. Earmarks are spending items that members of Congress add on to
legislation that benefits their districts or state. These are usually done without any public hearing or vote.
The White House says that Congress inserted 11,700 earmarks totaling nearly $17 billion in its 2008
spending bills. Bush said he would veto many of the earmarks that members stuff into spending bills
for home-district projects. Bush also issued an executive order Tuesday directing federal agencies to
"ignore" hidden earmarks. We believe openness is good public policy and although earmarks will no
doubt continue, if members want them they should be subject to the normal legislative process, including
hearings and an affirmative vote. Bush should also be praised for doing his part to get an economic
stimulus package passed. A large potion of this package would give $600 to $1,200 rebates to individuals.
The House overwhelmingly passed the $146 billion aid package Tuesday and it now moves to the Senate,
which has an obligation to provide its own input, which we hope will be done in an expeditious manner since
it will take any package time to make an impact. Bush also trumpeted the success of No Child Left
Behind. It was implemented nearly seven years ago and he urged its renewal. We agree that this program has
had some success, especially among black and Hispanic children, and should be renewed. As part of this
process, Congress should seek to make this legislation more effective.
All their claims about social security and immigration bills and the war on terror are false;
Bush did the right thing and his political capital didn’t suffer.
Bowling Green Daily News, 1-30-2008, “State of the Union Address was on Target,” SS, Lexis.
Also mentioned during the address were failed efforts by Bush and Congress to do something about Social
Security and immigration reform. To his credit, Bush expanded considerable political capital in
attempting to push Congress to address these critical issues, but they essentially went nowhere. Bush did
his part and now it's up to a future Congress and president to address them. The longer they fester the
more painful they will be to solve. Bush correctly described the war on terror as the defining event of this
century and said our generation must prevail. He noted the success of the surge while acknowledging that
the enemy is still dangerous. Bush made it clear that the soldiers in the field would have whatever they
needed to complete their mission. We hope that members of Congress who are against the war will
realize the importance of defeating the terrorists and ensure our troops are given what they need to
achieve victory. Bush's final State of the Union struck the right balance between a realistic, limited
agenda appropriate for an election year and a challenge to Congress to help steer the nation through a
period of uncertainty.
SDI 2008 p. 105 of 124
AT: Bush is lame duck in Middle East

Bush is indeed very popular in the Middle East – Israel proves.
Voice of America News, 5-13-2008, “Israelis, Palestinians, largely skeptical that President Bush can prod
peace process,” SS, Lexis.
Mr. Bush is coming to Israel to celebrate the country's 60th anniversary. He does not plan to travel to the
Palestinian territories or even meet with Mr. Abbas until Saturday, when he convenes a summit in the
Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh. Palestinians have criticized the President's travel plans, but Reuvan
Hazan of Hebrew University says Israelis view Mr. Bush as a leader they can trust, and that gives him
political capital that no Israeli leader has. "Most Israelis still support President Bush," said Hazan.
"They see the world somewhat differently than people in the United States at least when it comes to the
threats in the Middle East; be they Iraq in the past and Iran currently; the events that are taking place in
Lebanon; the fact that Hamas is endangering the Palestinian Authority. Therefore when we see a president
that is willing to use the United States' power as the policeman of the world, as the leader of democracy,
then Israelis understand that this leadership is very necessary in this part of the world." And because of that
Mr. Bush will receive an extremely warm welcome from Israelis. A welcome that just might translate into a
willingness to heed Mr. Bush's call to make tough decisions in the coming months, before his term ends, that
could move both sides closer to a peace agreement.
SDI 2008 p. 106 of 124
DA Politics links – Clean Coal

Both candidates support clean coal technology
Echernann 7/13 (Jerry Echernann, 7/13/08, JD,
http://www.wtrf.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=41199)
Weirton -- Both Senators Barack Obama and John McCain are supporters of clean coal technology.
Governor Manchin said one candidate is late to the game. Manchin said he is glad John McCain is
finally talking about it. McCain focused on energy issues this week, touting clean coal technology.
"Maybe he's understanding that coal keeps the lights on in 51 percent of the households in America,"
said Governor Manchin. Coal is the dirtiest of all fossil fuels. Scrubbers including those being used in the
Ohio Valley by A.E.P help clean up the process. "We can do it, with the technology research."
SDI 2008 p. 107 of 124
DA Politics links – hybrid tradable permits

Hybrid systems are uniquely popular because of grandfathering and compensation.
Frank J. Convery, Louise Dunn, Luke Redmond, and Lisa B. Ryan, writers for the OECD Global
Forum on Sustainable Development: Emissions Trading, 2003, “OECD GLOBAL FORUM ON
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: EMISSIONS TRADING”, NM,
The principle of acceptability - which is subject to test in the political marketplace - is to compensate roughly
for the net costs of carbon control. In practice, Pezzey (2002) conjectures that acceptability probably
requires a political principle of approximately compensating for the profit that an industry loses
because of carbon control. Grandfathering to fossil fuel industries while reducing total carbon use
would give these industries large monopoly profits which would overcompensate for their losses.
Pezzey recommends a hybrid system, with compensation requiring much less than half of total carbon
permits to be free. He proposes that the remaining auction revenues should be partly recycled as lower rates
of conventional taxation and partly given as lump sums to households. He argues that consumers also
deserve compensation for higher prices of fuel and carbon-intensive products. As regards new
entrants, he makes the case that free permits do not significantly distort competition by creating
barriers to entry as long as the proportion of free permits is chosen to compensate for the costs of
carbon control, and if this proportion is not altered to discriminate against foreign rather than domestic
ownership of firms, or in favour of public rather than private ownership.
SDI 2008 p. 108 of 124
DA LOST – New impact cards
Time is running out - Now is the Key Time.

The Daily News Miner, byline R.A. Dillon, Washington DC Correspondent, 7/27/08“Sen. Murkowski
pushes for ratification of Arctic treaty,” http://newsminer.com/news/2008/jul/27/sen-murkowski-pushes-
ratification-arctic-treaty/ MH
Clock running out. The United States is at a bit of a disadvantage when it comes to disputes in the
Arctic because of its failure to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty, which the other four circumpolar
nations have agreed to use as the basis for governing the region, Murkowski said. “We are not able to
make a claim in the Arctic until we ratify the treaty,” she said. Ratifying the treaty would allow the
United States to lay claim to an area in the Arctic roughly the size of California, Murkowski said. “If we
do not become a party to the treaty, our opportunity to make this claim, and have the international
community respect it, diminishes considerably,” she said.
Ratifying Lost is critical to the power projection, the economy, national security,
environmental protection, and resource development.
The Daily News Miner, byline R.A. Dillon, Washington DC Correspondent, 7/27/08“Sen. Murkowski
pushes for ratification of Arctic treaty,” http://newsminer.com/news/2008/jul/27/sen-murkowski-pushes-
ratification-arctic-treaty/ MH
Sen. Lisa Murkowski last week called on her congressional colleagues to strengthen economic and
national security by ratifying the Law of the Sea convention. Murkowski’s comments come as warming
temperatures in the Arctic are shrinking the polar ice cap, opening up new shipping routes and raising
new resource development opportunities. Murkowski said the United States needs to establish a
comprehensive plan to address security, marine navigation, environmental protection and resource
development in the Arctic before other countries move into the region. “The Arctic is truly the last
frontier,” Murkowski said. “It is one of the few places on Earth where all the borders aren’t drawn on the
map yet, and some of those that are, are disputed.” Murkowski, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations
and Energy and Natural Resources committees, said the best way for the United States to protect its
interests in the Arctic is for Congress to ratify the United Nations treaty, which provides a legal
framework for governance in the Arctic. “I believe it is very important for the United States to be a party
to this treaty and be a player in the process, rather than an outsider hoping our interests are not
damaged,” Murkowski said Wednesday at a forum on Arctic policy sponsored by the Washington-based
think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies.
SDI 2008 p. 109 of 124
SDI 2008 p. 110 of 124
*****DA Oil Updates*****

SDI 2008 p. 111 of 124
DA Oil AT Saudi economy diversified

The Saudi economy is overwhelmingly dependent on the oil industry.
Global Investment House ‘8, Arab Times,
http://www.arabtimesonline.com/kuwaitnews/pagesdetails.asp?nid=13285&ccid=12, tk
Saudi Arabia's external economic performance is highly dependent on oil exports, which account for around
85-90 percent of total exports. The strengthening oil price has helped to markedly improve the trading
surplus. Exports since 1998 has grown from $39bn to $210bn in 2006 and are further more anticipated to
touch $240bn by the end of 2007. On the other hand imports has also picked up during the period from $28bn
to $137bn. As a result of such an extraordinary performance, the country has remained in a surplus situation
which increased to $143bn in 2006. Increasing petrodollars has raised the liquidity levels, ignited inflationary
pressure and has spurred a new wave of Saudi investment in foreign countries. Total value of the
Kingdom's merchandise exports stood at $211bn in 2006 compared to $180bn in 2005, denoting a rise of 17
percent. Oil exports constituted 90.2 percent of the total. The Kingdom's oil exports (including bunker oil)
were estimated at $189bn in 2006 as compared to $161bn in the preceding year, registering a rise of 17
percent. The rise was attributable to an increase in the average price of Arabian Light crude oil by 21.7
percent from $50.15 a barrel in 2005 to $61.10 a barrel in 2006, but the Kingdom's production of crude oil
declined by 1.6 percent during the same period. Preliminary data on oil exports by type indicate that crude oil
exports increased by 17 percent from $137bn in 2005 to $160bn in 2006. After oil, chemical products
remained the second largest contributor to the exports, however in dollar terms the amount was $11.01bn.
Exports of base metal and products increased by 23 percent in 2006 to $1.64bn as against $1.33bn in the
previous year. Saudi Arabia launched Saudi Export Program of the Saudi Fund for Development in 1999 to
provide finance and insurance necessary for the development of national non-oil exports to diversify the
sources of national income. In June 2003, the Saudi Exports Program started to execute insurance of credit
for non-oil exports. It aims at helping exporters to overcome difficulties of receiving export proceeds due to
commercial reasons stemming from an importer's failure to pay his due amounts or because of political
reasons related to the importer's country hindering him from payment. Under the program, a range of various
export finance and credit insurance operations amounting to SR3.3bn were executed during 2006, rising by
161.5 percent over the preceding year. Kingdom's imports of goods (CIF) in 2006 increased by 11 percent to
$66bn against $59.4bn in the preceding year, recording the highest level ever in the Kingdom's imports which
indicates the high economic activity in the country. According to detailed data on the value of the Kingdom's
imports in 2006, imports of machinery, electric appliances and equipment occupied the first position with a
relative share of 26 percent and a rise of 19 percent over the preceding year. Imports of transport equipment
ranked second, constituting 19 percent of total imports, rising by 2.4 percent over the preceding year. The
improvements in these two categories indicate increased investment activity as those imports include capital
goods. Imports of ordinary metals and their products occupied the third position with a relative share of 15
percent and a rise of 58.3 percent. Imports of chemical and metal products came in the fourth position, with a
relative share of 13 percent and a rise of 6.7 percent. Kingdom's imports by origin show that imports from the
largest sixteen exporting countries to the Kingdom increased by 11.5 percent to $48bn during 2006.
Moreover, their relative share in the Kingdom's total imports went up to 72 percent from 71 percent in the
preceding year. Imports from the USA amounted to $9.76bn came first with a relative share of 14.7 percent
of the Kingdom's total imports, increasing by 11.2 percent over the preceding year. Imports from China came
second ($5.8bn) with a relative share of 8.7 percent, increasing by 31.4 percent. Imports from Germany
ranked third at $5.4bn. Saudi Arabia, being one of the major oil exporters, continues to enjoy positive trade
balance. But being dependent on energy exports make it dependent on oil prices and production levels, which
have been a boon for the economy, in recent past. Since 2003, the trade balance has recorded strong growth
as the oil price went up and the country was operating at near-100 percent capacity. Oil exports as proportion
of total export of the country has remained in the range of 89 percent-90 percent in the last five years.
Although the country is looking to diversify its economy, it also has plans to increase the oil production
capacity from its current 11mb/d to 12.5mb/d in 2009 to meet demand. Government projects that its trade
balance for the year 2007 will remain at $104bn Ñ imports at $137bn and exports at $240bn.
SDI 2008 p. 112 of 124
Saudi diversification efforts inevitably fail—poor governance, cronyism, mismanagement,

and oil ties
Stanton ‘8, Chris, staff writer, The National,
http://www.thenational.ae/article/20080727/BUSINESS/159075900/-1/SPORT, tk.
Even as the Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti economies glow amid high oil prices, a one-two punch of failing
diversification programmes and a growing need for energy at home is threatening to dim their futures, a
British thinktank warns. “The long-term challenge of depletion is masked by current high oil prices,” a
Chatham House report said. “The surge in revenues is increasing the dependence of the economies on the
hydrocarbon sector, but at the same time it removes the sense of urgency over reform that is desperately
needed to promote diversification.” Perhaps most significantly for the world economy, the report also
suggests exports from Saudi Arabia may begin to decline as soon as 2014. Without discoveries of new
reserves, or significantly more efficient use of energy resources at home, the world’s largest oil producer
could cease oil exports altogether by 2040. The study provided ammunition to pessimistic economists, who
argue that oil producers are continuing to suffer from a “resource curse” that ties producer economies to the
rise and fall of the oil price, despite efforts to build up infrastructure and industries independent of
hydrocarbons. The study compared the economies of 12 gas and oil producers, ranging from Saudi Arabia
and Kuwait to countries with smaller reserves like Angola and East Timor. It found that in Kuwait and Saudi
Arabia, official policies to promote economic diversification were being slowed by poor governance,
cronyism and inadequate education systems. The two countries have both had trouble overcoming
bureaucratic hurdles to implement reforms, especially in Kuwait, where the government has been largely
divided, said Tarik Yousef, an economist and the dean of the Dubai School of Government. “The debate in
Kuwait, it doesn’t really have to do with opening to the outside world,” he said. “It’s about ineptitude and a
contentious relationship between the legislative and executive branches.” Although the authors did not
examine the UAE, there is ample research to suggest that the report’s conclusions about the continued
challenge of a “resource curse” can be applied here. Last month, the Gulf Investment Corporation released a
report on productivity in the region, which found that high GDP growth rates were mostly the result of
growth in the labour force, and not of growth in the economy’s productivity. But Dr Yousef emphasised that
the UAE’s well known ideological commitment to diversification would continue, in spite of high oil prices
that could enervate the reform movement. “The fact that you have people in Abu Dhabi who have ambitions,
that’s a driver not to be underestimated,” he said.
SDI 2008 p. 113 of 124
Saudi economic diversification will be close to impossible—too many obstacles

Looney ‘4, Robert, Professor of Natural Security Affairs at Naval Academy, Strategic Insights, January 2004
edition, “Can Saudi Arabia Reform its Economy in Time to Head Off Disaster?”,
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/jan/looneyJan04.asp, tk
For an increasing number of its citizens, the Saudi Arabia of the heady years following the 1973-1974 oil
price revolution is a land of fable and memory. Yet to many outside the Kingdom, the country's economic
statistics may come as a shock. Population growth (about 3.3 percent per year) has exceeded Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) growth for several decades. The result has been a decline in per capita GDP from more than
U.S. $15,000 in 1980 to about U.S. $9,000 in 2003 (adjusted for inflation). There is high unemployment (20
to 30 percent by some measures), while up to 20-30 percent of the population falls below the poverty line.
Translating these figures into more tangible signs of trouble for the Saudi Government, Kim Murphy has
observed: The dozen years since the Persian Gulf War have seen slums grow up on the outskirts of Jeddah
and Riyadh, the capital. Beggars hawk bottles of water at intersections. Penniless women huddle in strips of
shade outside their crumbling mud-brick houses, begging for money. Many families in the capital are so poor
they can't afford electricity. Raw sewage runs through parts of Jeddah… The increasingly perilous economic
situation that all in Saudi Arabia but the royalty face today may be a big factor in recruiting young Saudis to
terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda. Chronic joblessness, diminished incomes and difficulty in collecting
enough money to marry and start families are all issues that can evoke anger.[1] The deteriorating economic
situation is manifesting itself in new and troubling ways. Virtually free of crime since its founding, the
country's deeply conservative Islamic society is grappling with a rapid increase in crime. Crime among
young jobless Saudis rose by 320 percent between 1990 and 1996, and was expected to go up by another 136
percent by 2005.[2] To counter these trends, Crown Prince Abdullah, the kingdom's de-facto leader, has
announced plans for sweeping reforms including privatization, liberalization and diversification of the
economy.[3] However, implementing them will not be easy. Conservative opposition within the ruling family
is strong and limits the pace of reform.[4] Barring major reforms, the financial cost of state-lead economic
diversification may reach upwards of U.S. $100 billion over the next twenty years. And the country's national
debt is already over 100 percent of GDP. Even with an improved oil picture, the Saudi government may
simply not be able to finance the diversification of the economy without extensive private sector
participation. On the other hand, the international scene provides no quick fixes either; and bringing in
private foreign investors is not without its own problems. The increased presence of foreign businessmen will
further strain relations between the government and the kingdom's more traditional groups. The Saudi
government also has to convince the foreign investment community that the kingdom is a secure place to do
business, and not a battleground between the royal family-dominated government and international terrorists.
Saudi Arabia's problems have been decades in the making and certainly will not be solved quickly. This essay
identifies the main factors responsible for Saudi Arabia's economic deterioration. Have fundamental changes
taken place in the economy, perhaps since 1980, to cause the decline in non-oil economic growth? If so, what
are they? And what are their implications for the future? The inability of the Saudi non-oil economy to
sustain high rates of growth is evident in the historical record (Table 1). The overall rate of real non-oil
GDP growth has averaged 7.4 percent from 1960-2002 (7.1 from 1970 to 2002). However, expansion since
1980 (2.3 percent) has not even kept up with the growing population. While one might argue the -0.9 percent
average annual decline in oil GDP (1980-2002) is responsible for this sub-par performance, government
expenditure, the means through which oil revenues are actually spread through the economy, grew at the
higher rate of 3.0 percent per annum. Several important patterns, mainly evolving since the early 1980s, help
to explain this deterioration in Saudi non-oil economic growth.
SDI 2008 p. 114 of 124
DA Hedge Funds 1NC

A. Predictions of high oil prices are driving up massive hedge fund investments
Fusaro and Vasey 2004
PETER FUSARO, chairman of energy and environmental financial advisory Global Change Associates and DR. GARY VASEY is Vice President
for Utilipoint, a leading energy and utility industry analysis firm. December 2004 “Energy Hedge Funds: Why Have They Appeared Now?”
<http://www.global-change.com/articles/energy_hedge_funds.pdf>
this is the sustained lack of investment in
Continued High Energy Prices in Prospect? Next year’s energy markets promise to actually be more volatile than ever before. One reason for
the upstream productive

capacity by OPEC over the past 20 years as well as a hesitancy by the oil majors to invest because they
have been hurt by prior oil price collapses. This time they are reluctant to step up with new drilling programmes and instead have collected their rent cheques as prices continue to
appreciate. They make money by maintaining a business-as-usual approach. Rather than using profits to expand exploration and production budgets, many have been returning money to shareholders through increased dividends
and stock buy-backs. Expect more great quarters for the majors and a rise in their stock prices. Many securities analysts have been slow to grasp this fundamental change i.e. the lack of new investment except for some independent
drillers who’s activities are unlikely to do much to quench the increased demand . Led by the US and China once again, oil demand promises more of the
same in 2005. Due to these market driven factors, the funds are scaling up their oil trading operations; particularly in Europe and Asia as
well in North America. In the US, the latest play by the investment banks and hedge funds is to buy physical oil and gas reserves in the
ground. This action has not only pushed out the forward curve and created greater open interest in the back months on the NYMEX WTI contract, but also
suggests that higher prices through 2010 are to be the order of the day. What our research has also demonstrated is that the hedge funds
are now investing in the energy complex in growing numbers and with a longerterm viewpoint. They are, and always
have been, involved in distressed asset securities – both debt and equity – but now increasingly seem to be taking a longer-term view with respect to these investments. This
has been evidenced by the funds flexing their shareholder muscle at British Energy and in other situations. Buying oil and gas reserves in the ground is just part of a picture in which hedge funds are
acquiring assets across the energy value chain in the upstream, midstream and downstream energy sectors.
The global oil markets have now reached a new plateau in oil prices. The majors have been slow to react to this phenomenon, but are now studying the
longe -term price affects. Another factor that has brought hesitancy to stepping up oil and gas drilling by the majors is that other commodity prices have also increased this year which has ballooned their exploration and production
budgets this year and next. What is different this time in the energy complex is that the entire sector is benefiting by higher prices. We see higher prices in the upstream,
That has never happened before. Usually, when the upstream is
downstream oil and gas markets but also a bull market in tankers, storage and every conceivable part of the energy supply chain.
making money, downstream refining is losing money. It wasn’t so long ago (only two years) that refining margins were depressed. Today they are robust.
B. Alternative energy decreases oil prices and puts hedge funds at risk
Patricia A. Cole, writer for the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, 3-25-2008, “Don’t tax parcels”, NM, Lexis
Rampant speculation in the commodities futures market is driving up prices out of proportion to
marketplace demand. The problem is speculators are increasingly buying and selling commodities such as
oil even though they have no intention of using the product. The unregulated speculators are pocketing
billions of dollars at our expense. The cost of food has gone up, the price at the pump has gone way up,
and I'm already concerned about how much more it will cost to heat my home this winter. I work in the
transportation services industry and I can see how the high cost of fuel is adding tremendous costs to our
customers who are passing those costs on to the buying public. The only winners are the speculators who are
extracting billions of dollars in profit. In the process, they are destroying our airline industry, weakening our
economy and hurting the loyal citizens of this country. To lower oil prices for all Americans we need to
increase domestic supply, exploration, alternative energy sources and conservation. We also must protect
bona fide speculation and hedging.
SDI 2008 p. 115 of 124
C. Even a small hedge fund collapse would ripple through the financial world and cause a
massive credit collapse
Henry C.K. Liu, chairman of a New York-based private investment group and writes for The Asia Times, 19 Sept 2006, “The Coming Showdown” <http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/a-
list/2006w38/msg00010.htm>
A major showdown is shaping up between hedge funds, investment banks and commercial banks. Unlike LTCM, whose
trouble was one fund being too big to exit without massive loss, the current Achilles heel is the proliferation of funds all imitating each other,
with aggregate sums that defies orderly liquidation. Instead of one big fat man on a small row boat, no matter which side he moves, the boat overturns, we now have three thousand guys all
moving together from side to side on a ferry boat in a storm, each move rocking the boat harder until its
capsizes. The investment bank power houses are looking to make a killing from the demise of the hedge funds
on the theory that someone's loss is someone elses' gain in any market. The do this by having more capital than any one single hedge fund. The commercial banks are looking to high
profits from trading credit derivatives derived from the debts. The game is a three-legged stool that needs a cooperative symbosis among the three components
to stay afloat. When anyone of the three starts to seek gains at the expense of the other two, the game implodes and
quickly transforms into a game of survival of the earlier exit, which in financial terms is a systemic rout.
When the hedge fund industry loses $100 billion, that money goes to the parties betting against them, which
are the investment banks. The flow of funds is intermediated by commercial bank loans. The hedge fund investors as a group loses
$100 billion and the investment bank share holders get $100 billion less investment bankers' take. No big deal in the macro picture. The trouble is leverage. Most hedge fund
strategies rely on leverage to reap high profit and a loss of over 10% can be fatal, leaving the other two
components in the game with uncollectable collectables. And the meltdown begins with margin calls that distorts the flow
of funds. The housing bubble burst, while a heavy load, is not going to be the straw that will break the
camel's back. The straw will be the hedge funds.
D. Credit liquidation means extinction

Norman Bailey 1990 (Senior director of International Economic Affairs) The World and I,
The thirties, after all, began three months after the inception of the Great Depression arid ended four months after
the start of World War II. This was not a coincidence. Tens of millions were killed and maimed in the Second
World War. If another historical credit liquidation cycle is allowed to take place in the usual chaotic
fashion the chances of another global armed conflict will be greatly increased-this time not only would
hundreds of millions (rather than tens of millions) be killed or wounded, but the very hopes and the
future of [hu]mankind*.
*we do not endorse the original gendered language of this card
SDI 2008 p. 116 of 124
DA Hedge Funds Uniqueness—hedge funds strong
Hedge funds have upwards of 145 billion invested in crude oil

Wall Street Journal, January 3 2008
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119930154139162791.html?mod=googlenews_wsj>
While finding oil in the ground has been getting harder, it became a lot easier to buy oil on paper. The New York Mercantile
Exchange started round-the-clock electronic trading of its main crude benchmark in September 2006, and improved access to previously
restricted energy-trading markets. Financial institutions created new vehicles for making bets on the price of oil
without having to manage futures holdings. It was the Nymex where the historic $100-a-barrel price was recorded yesterday at
12:09 p.m. EST. That was the price in a single floor trade of the benchmark February crude-oil futures contract. A Nymex spokeswoman said
the trade was legitimate. The benchmark price settled at $99.62, up $3.64. The ease of trading has helped attract a flood of new
money. Oil markets were once dominated by physical traders -- firms that needed to take delivery of the crude oil to run through refineries or
trade with partners. Most of the new market entrants have no interest in ever taking delivery of a barrel of oil. The new money comes
from hedge funds seeking profits in sharp oil-price moves, pension funds seeking diversification and a hedge against
inflation, and Wall Street commodity desks risking their own capital. The number of oil-futures bets outstanding on Nymex has
quintupled since 2001. Because oil has been rising at the same time, the dollars at stake in the main oil-futures
benchmark, not including options, rose from roughly $7 billion in 2001 to more than $145 billion, calculates Ben Dell, energy
analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co.
SDI 2008 p. 117 of 124
DA Hedge Funds Link-AE decrease oil prices extensions
Increase in alternative energy decreases oil prices

Steven Mufson, Washington Post Staff Writer, 10-17-2007, “Blame and Anxiety Rise Along With Price of
Oil”, NM, Lexis
The record oil prices have arrived just as Congress is considering what to put in a package of energy
legislation. On Monday night, Allan B. Hubbard, the National Economic Council's director, sent House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi a letter spelling out what it would take to avoid a veto by President Bush. The letter
ruled out a renewable portfolio standard and tax increases on the oil industry, while pushing for expanded
U.S. production, new fuel economy standards and a big mandate for ethanol and other alternative fuels. Rep.
Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) seized on the crude oil price increase to accuse the Bush administration of
"coddling Big Oil instead of developing alternative energy resources that will lower oil prices and save
our planet from the worst impacts of global warming." White House press secretary Dana Perino said:
"Look, there's no doubt that energy prices are too high. They disproportionately hurt low-income families
that have to spend so much of their money on energy, and when those prices go up, it eats into the family
budget on the other things that they want to be able to buy." She said that was why Congress needed to
pass a "more ambitious bill so that we can get out of this vicious cycle of the problem of supply and
demand and get some alternative energies, clean-burning alternative energies that can help fuel our
economy."
SDI 2008 p. 118 of 124
DA Hedge fund Impact extension-economy
Hedge market stumble causes global econ collapse as investors rush capital away from the US
Rex Nutting, writer for MarketWatch, July 26, 2007 “Subprime could create global crisis, economist says”
<http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/economist-world-one-hedge-fund-
collapse/story.aspx?guid=%7BC9E3B6A4-A22E-43D2-BA2A-EC4A8F61D2E4%7D>
"Unlike the financial crisis of a decade ago, however, global capital would likely flow away from U.S. markets,
not to them, as the genesis for the crisis lies within the U.S. financial system." After Bear Stearns was forced to write off the value of two
large hedge funds that had invested heavily in securities backed by subprime debt, it could take just one more "Bear-like event" for the
financial system to freeze up, "If there's another major hedge fund that does stumble, that could elicit a crisis of
confidence and a global shock," Zandi said. The potential "is quite high," he said. He gave it a one-in-five chance.
Zandi said global financial conditions have been supported by strong growth and substantial liquidity,
supercharged by "unprecedented risk tolerance." But that's changing. Global liquidity is drying up, with central banks
tightening. And risk is being re-priced.
SDI 2008 p. 119 of 124
DA Hedge Fund Uniqueness-Perception key to oil prices (1/2)

Perception and Psychology determine oil prices – shifts can be quick and large
Schoen ’08 [John W., Senior Producer at MSNBC, "Oil price spike has wide economic impact," http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24778287/
download date: 7-2-08]
So far, there seems to be enough oil and gasoline to go around: Refineries are still adequately supplied with crude, and
gas stations aren’t running out of fuel. Prices are surging as traders see an increased risk of that
happening. But that so-called panic buying could quickly reverse, sending oil prices sharply lower.
“This is all about psychology, and we are not very good at oil companies about forecasting the
psychology of prices," Jeroen van der Veer, CEO of global giant Royal Dutch/Shell, said on CNBC Thursday.
“So we'd better prepare ourselves for more volatility because if this is psychology, it can change very
quickly.”
Rampant speculation exacerbates the higher oil prices

Impressions of an oil shortage are further bolstered by Wall Street and its financial giants that are
taking advantage of the insecurity created by war and geopolitical turmoil in oil markets and are
making fortunes through manipulative speculation in commodity futures markets.
Oil Speculation drives up oil prices

Stronger than the impact of dollar depreciation on the price of oil has been the impact of manipulative
speculation: war and political instability have served as breeding grounds for hoarding and speculation
in energy futures markets. According to F. William Engdahl, a top expert on energy and financial markets,
“As much as 60% of today’s crude oil price is pure speculation driven by large trader banks and hedge
funds. It has nothing to do with the convenient myths of Peak Oil. It has to do with control of oil and its
price. . . . Since the advent of oil futures trading and the two major London and New York oil futures
contracts, control of oil prices has left OPEC and gone to Wall Street. It is a classic case of the tail that
wags the dog.”[6]
Speculators control the oil market

U.S. Representative Bart T. Stupak, Democrat – Michigan, chairman of the subcommittee investigating
commodity market speculation, attributes even a higher percentage of the oil price hike to market
manipulation: “Speculations now account for about 70% of all benchmark crude trading on the New
York Mercantile Exchange, up from 37% in 200.”
Speculation has driven up the price of oil

Wall Street financial giants that created the Third World debt crisis in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the
tech bubble in the 1990s, and the housing bubble in the 2000s are now hard at work creating the oil
bubble. By purchasing large numbers of futures contracts, and thereby pushing up futures prices to
even higher levels than current prices, speculators have provided a financial incentive for giant futures
traders to buy even more oil and place it in storage. The fact that the skyrocketing oil prices of late
have been accompanied by a surplus in global oil markets was also brought to the attention of President
George W. Bush by Saudi officials when he asked them during a recent trip to the kingdom to increase
production in order to stem the rising prices. Saudi officials reminded the President that “there is plenty of
oil on the market. Iran has put some 30 million barrels of oil that it can't sell into floating storage. ‘If
we produced more oil, it wouldn't find buyers,’ says the Saudi source. It wouldn't affect the price at
all."[8]
SDI 2008 p. 120 of 124
DA Hedge Fund Uniqueness-Perception key to oil prices (2/2)

Speculation drives up oil prices
A June 2006 US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report on “The Role of Market
Speculation in rising oil and gas prices,” noted, “…there is substantial evidence supporting the conclusion
that the large amount of speculation in the current market has significantly increased prices.”
Speculation is the only factor affects oil prices

And why producing more oil “wouldn’t affect the price at all”? Well, because what is driving the
soaring oil prices is not shortage but speculation: “with so much investment money sloshing around in
the commodities markets, the Saudis calculate they have no hope of controlling short-term price
fluctuations. They blame the recent price run-ups on speculation and fear of shortages [not real
shortages], factors they say are beyond their control.”
SDI 2008 p. 121 of 124
DA Hedge Fund Impact-Volatility outweighs war/terror

Perception of Oil Price volatility outweighs war and terrorism
Paul Roberts, energy expert and writer for Harpers,2004, The End of Oil, pg. 93-4
So embedded has oil become in today’s political and economic spheres that the big industrial governments
now watch the oil markets as closely as they once watched the spread of communism — and with good
reason: six of the last seven global recessions have been preceded by spikes in the price of oil, and fear is
growing among economists and policymakers that, in today’s growth-dependent, energy-intensive global
economy, oil price volatility itself may eventually pose more risk to prosperity and stability and simple
survival than terrorism or even war. In this bleak context, it becomes easier to understand why nations as
powerful and technologically advanced as Japan, Britain, and the United States have such abysmal records
when it comes to long-term energy planning or alternative energy. Indeed, when the major nations speak of
energy policy today, about energy for the future, or about the much-touted energy security,” they are not
talking about depletion curves, or fuel cells, or a hydrogen economy. They are not talking about fuel
efficiency, or solar power, or any of the potentially significant but speculative sources of energy. Rather,
when nations discuss energy security today, what they are really talking about is the geopolitics of energy
— and specifically, the actions, money, and alliances necessary to keep oil flowing steadily and cheaply
through the next fiscal quarter.
SDI 2008 p. 122 of 124
DA Hedge fund Impact Calculus

DA outweighs case
A. Magnitude-extinction is more important than anything else
(if Roberts 04 was read) and volatility itself is a greater issue itself than war or terrorism
B. Probability-predictive scenarios are the most likely and it is empirically proven
C. Time frame-they take years to solve while the passage of their plan triggers our impact
immediately
D. Turns case-Global Warming-the affirmative can't solve for global warming when we are dying
from war and a credit collapse and global warming will be least of our concerns when we are
DEAD
Relations-the affirmative can't solve for relations when we are dying from war
and a credit collapse and relations will be the least of our concerns when we are DEAD
SDI 2008 p. 123 of 124
DA Hedge Fund Overview

Right now hedge funds are heavily invested in oil and make up a large amount of the economy.
The plan causes a perception of oil price decreases and thus liquidation of hedge funds. This
would ripple through the credit market causing widespread panic and war. The war would
eventually result in extinction.
SDI 2008 p. 124 of 124

WHAM Aff Updates

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WHAM Aff Updates

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SDI 2008 p.

AT DA LOST – impact takeouts

AT DA Lost – It’s bad for hegemony

No Solvency – consensus building.

[*Funk is a Professor and McCloskey is the Chairman of the Sierra Club*]

Reg Neg’s fail – failure to incorporate constituents

Non unique—Middle East war

Oil prices depend on the Dollar

AT DA India Deal bad

*****CELLULOSIC ETHANOL NEG*****

AT ADV Global Warming

Cellulosic ethanol refineries require fossil fuels offsetting solvency.

AT ADV Dead Zones

Ethanol alone cannot solve environment, global warming, or dependency.

No solvency – lack of suitable refineries stops mass adoption of cellulosic ethanol.

Cellulosic Ethanol will never be viable – feedstocks.

AT Solvency – fast implementation fails extensions

Cellulosic ethanol isn’t ready for incentive policies yet.

AT Solvency – increases CO2 extensions

DA Politics – Turns the case

CP States AT: Violates Constitution

CP States AT States Can’t Be Modeled

2. State action is internationally modeled – here is proof

CP States AT: Federal Action is Key to Business Initiatives

State action spurs enough cooperation for long term innovation

CP States AT Federal Government will Pre-empt

CP States AT: Uniform Action Bad

Uniform Actions solves best – it can successfully replace centralization

Chinese economic growth bad

China is significantly expanding its reach within Africa

AT China will start wars

CP Staqi 1NC (1/2)

CP Staqi 1NC (2/2)

CP Staqi – Readiness Exts

CP Staqui AT: No Solvency Advocate

CP Staqi AT: CP Not Solve Afghanistan

CP Darpa will implement energy efficiency measures

No solvency - Fuel costs massively outpace conservation and efficiency efforts.

Fuel efficiency is already a huge part of the military.

B. The impact is extinction

DA Environment link extensions

DA Environment – DA turns the case

DA turns the case – environmental disruptions undermine the military.

DA F-22 bad 1NC Shell

B. Fuel costs will force the Air Force to cut programs.

DA F-22 Uniqueness – it’s on the chopping block

DOD is the biggest singler energy user in the world.

DA Oil link expander

T Substantially – DOD specific

B. A substantial increase in alternative energy incentives is 60%

D. This is a voting issue –

1. Limits – if they don’t have to be a substantial increase, it massively increases the

T Substantial contextual definitions

$650 million for alternative energy per state is substantial.

$285 million would be a substantial investment in alternative energies.

$1 million per state would be substantial

Incentives creating a 6.4 percent increase in use would be substantial.

T Efficiency is not Alternative Energy

D. T is a Voter for reasons of Fairness, Jurisdiction, Education, and Potential Abuse.

*****NUCLEAR POWER NEG*****

AT ADV Nuclear power – choice is either nuclear power, climate

AT ADV Coal – Clean coal tech increasing now

Arkansas is building a Clean Coal plant and others look to follow.

[Funk is a Professor and McCloskey is the Chairman of the Sierra Club]

CELLULOSIC ETHANOL NEG

NUCLEAR POWER NEG

TRADABLE PERMITS NEG

DA Oil Updates