KLN 2ac Blocks

KLN Page 1
of 72
(Kay, Lietz, Naboulsi)
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
2AC ANSWERS HYDROGEN AFF—INDEX

NOTE: OUR APOLOGIES—WITHOUT AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF THE ORIGINAL AFF
FILE—EVIDENCE FROM THAT FILE IS ONLY REFERENCED IN THESE ARGUMENTS—
YOU WILL NEED TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL AFF FILE TO PULL THE CARDS
AT:TOPICALITY AT:ELECTIONS
SUBSTANTIALLY 2 INDIA DEAL 43-45
INCREASE 3 IRAN 46
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY 4 GAG RULE 47-48
ASPEC 5 LINKS 49
OSPEC 6 AT:KRITIK
AT:INHERENCY ENVIR MANAGEMENT 50-52
HYDRO CARS NOW 7-8 THEORY
AT:HARMS CONDITIONALITY BAD 53
G WARMING D/N EXIST 9 CONDITIONALITY GOOD 54
G W NATURALLY CAUSED 10 DISPOSITIONALITY GOOD 55
NOT AT PEAK OIL 11 DISPOSITIONALITY BAD 56
HEG/SOFT POWER 12 PICs BAD 57
AT:SOLVENCY PICs GOOD 58
HYDROGEN SAFE 13-14 FLOATING PICs GOOD 59
STORAGE 15 FLOATING PICs BAD 60
LEAKS 16 POLICY FRAMEWORK GOOD 61
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY 17-18 POLICY FRAMEWORK BAD 62
TECHNOLOGICAL FEASIBILITY 19-20 INSTRINSIC GOOD 63
FOSSIL FUEL USE 21-22 INSTRINSIC BAD 64
AT:FEDERAL BEST OOPS OUT OF ORDER
FEDERALISM 23-24 AT: MINE US OIL 65
FED TAX INCENTIVES BEST 25-27 AT: PLAN NOT MODELED 66-69
TAX CREDIT CAP 28
TAX CREDITS WON’T WORK 29-30
STATES COUNTERPLAN 31-32
AT:OTHER FORMS OF ENERGY
RENEW W/N WK FOR HYDRO 33
ETHANOL 34
METHANOL 35
NATURAL GAS 36
CLEAN COAL 37
NUCLEAR POWER 38
SOLAR POWER 39
WIND POWER 40
HYDROELECTRIC 41-42
KLN Page 2
of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
TOPICALITY
AT: T Substantial
1. We meet- We meet the interpretation because we not only increase 30%, we increase
incentives 100% because incentives haven’t been implemented before.
2. The negative definition is a quote from the Institute of International Education in

which they are talking about increases in applicants of international students. The neg
claims they use a contextual definition from a real world scenario, but the scenario has
nothing to do with alternative energy. This hurts topic specific education because we are
no longer debating standards for alternative energy definitions we are debating about
definitions about international students admissions policies.
3. Counterdefine- Substantial is a considerable amount, quanity, size, etc.

www.dictionary.reference.com 2008
1. We meet our definition because we increase a considerable amount.
2. Reasons to prefer-
A. Dictionary definitions best
Our definition is from a dictionary which is a reliable source because a team of educated
people choose the definition. Also everyone has access to a dictionary, not everyone has
access to lexisnexis or Blacks Law Dictionary. Our def creates a fair playing field for
everyone.
B. Bright line
our definition gives a clear bright line between what is topical and what isn’t because if
you don’t increase a considerable amount than you aren’t topical.
3. Voters
A. Clash- Since we are able to debate this plan it is topical, therefore you
should not grant your ballot to the neg based on a topicality argument.
B. Lit checks abuse- we wouldn’t have so much information about this plan if
it wasn’t topical.
KLN Page 3
of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
AT: T increase
1. We meet: we increase hydrogen incentives by 100%. They don’t exist prior to plan
and we implement the program thus a 100% increase
2. Counter def. : Increase means to make greater or larger
<<American Heritage Dictionary ‘04>>
3. We meet counter-def. : We implement the incentives where there currently are none.
4. We don’t violate: our plan requires new legislation to be passed
5. Counter standards:
A) Predictability: common sense tells us that increase means greater or larger
B) Limits: the neg over limits the cases the aff can run by not allowing us to
extend current policy. We limit fairly so the aff must make greater the incentive to claim
solvency.
C) Ground: both sides have fair ground. Neg can still run arguments based on
more hydrogen and more hydrogen incentives
6. No Voters:
A) Lit check, Clash check
: the neg. has literature on our case, so therefore we were predictable
B)Don’t vote on potential abuse, it’s like voting on the DA they never ran.
KLN Page 4
of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
AT: T--Alt Energy

1. We meet: Hydrogen carriers are still part of alternative energy
2. Counter interpretation: Hydrogen is an alt. energy.
<<Berne 08 page 14 Hydrogen Aff>>
3. We meet counter definition: we increase incentives for hydrogen which is an alt.
energy. Therefore we meet our counter definition.
4.Couner standards:
A) Limits: our definition limits the affirmative to cases like solar, nuclear
B) Bright-line: we provide a clear definition of what is alternative energy
C) Predictability: our definition is predictable which leads to clash in rounds and
furthers education
5. Non-Voters:
A) Lit check, Clash Check: The neg has literature on our plan so therefore the
plan is predictable
B) No vote on potential abuse: no in round abuse, topicality doesn’t matter
KLN Page 5
of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
AT: ASPEC
Topicality: ASPEC
1. We use normal means which includes all three branches. Legislative passes, Executive
signs, Courts enforce.
2. We give Neg more ground: By using all three branches we allow them to create DA’s
for each branch of government.
3. No in round abuse: We haven’t spiked out of any of their links in fact we give them
more link ground
4. Breadth of Education: We allow the both teams to learn more about all three of the
governmental branches, which is key so that we will be able to make informed decisions
later in life.
5. Real World: all three branches of government are involved in implementing and
enforcing all policies.
6. ASPEC is a No Voter
A. Education: Learning about all three branches of government is more
educational than debating about ASPEC. Vote to preserve in round education.
B. Fairness: Specifying all three branches allows for complete fairness of the
round, they can run links to anything they want..
C. Potential Abuse: Make the Neg team prove real abuse before this is a voting
issue.
KLN Page 6
of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
AT: OSPEC
1. We meet: Plan doesn’t specify Congress. It says USFG meaning OSPEC doesn’t link
2. We don’t over specify. We utilize the federal govenment
3. Counter standards:
A) Ground: Our plan gives the neg. access to links for DAs and Ks specific to
either congress or the entire USFG
B) Real world: In the real world Congress passes legislation into law like our plan
does.
4. Not a voting issue
A) It is fair for both sides – no use voting on it
B) : We should look to the case first instead of OSPEC, because that’s key to real
world education.
C) Lit check, Clash check: the neg has literature on our case so therefore we are
predictable
D) No vote on potential abuse: we haven’t used Congress to spike out of
anything.
KLN Page 7
of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
INHERENCY
AT: We have Hydrogen Cars Now – No Need for Plan
1) The plan will increase incentives for all types of hydrogen use, commercial and
individual. Currently, there are only a limited number of hydrogen cars on the road, and
none were offered incentives.
2) There are not enough hydrogen refueling stations currently for any hydrogen to be
feasible. The incentives the hydrogen technology companies will get will help spur R&D.
By Matt Nauman Mercury News, June 14, 2008 P. LN
But electrical glitches prevented the Tiguan from running at the opening of the new
Capitol Volkswagen in San Jose on Wednesday evening, and at a news media event in
San Francisco on Thursday. (VW execs said those problems were unrelated to the
hydrogen technology but show that the cars are still a work in progress.) A more serious
challenge facing VW and other car manufacturers is the lack of hydrogen stations.
Indeed, company executives said VW could be as much as a decade away from putting a
hydrogen car into production because of infrastructure deficiencies. "The issue that you
come up against," said Mark Barnes, chief operating officer of Volkswagen of America,
"is we can produce it, but where are consumers going to refuel?"
3) The incentives that the plan provides are crucial to hydrogen’s stability in the markets.
As of now any cars that have been bought had no incentives on them, causing less people
to purchase a vehicle.
4) The hydrogen cars of today do not provide clean hydrogen power just from driving.
Scientists envision that when the hydrogen economy comes into place, the cars will
become “Home power plants” that customers can use to power homes or feed back into
the grid. James Provenzano explains:
[Insert Provenzano 07 p. 176]
5) The research that hydrogen development companies will do will spur new innovation
in the near future. Extend Provenzano 2007 from Inherency. Money for the new research
will come from the tax cuts for using hydrogen, which will cause the market to switch
from oil consumption to hydrogen.
6) More people will buy a hydrogen car because of the incentives. It will also drive the
price of the car and fuel down. These incentives and the drop in both fuel cost and vehicle
cost will revitalize the economy.
Joan M. Ogden, Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, January 11th, 2000,
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3F-3Y9MSCX-
3&_user=1111158&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C0000516
KLN Page 8
of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
76&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1111158&md5=845b1be7c1e97ae9e60ee5ced7
761942)
In the spirit of examining what would be required to develop infrastructure for a

significant number of hydrogen vehicles, we assume an aggressive commercialization
scenario, where half the ZEV market is captured by hydrogen fuel cell cars starting in
2005, and 10% of all new buses are fuel cell buses starting in 1999 (the year Ballard has
planned to commercialize PEMFC buses). Under these assumptions, we estimate the
cumulative number of hydrogen fuel cell cars, light trucks and buses in 2010 and 2020.
This totals about 140,000 hydrogen fuel cell cars, 58,000 light trucks and 330 buses by
2010 and 350,000 cars, 150,000 light trucks and 330 buses by 2020.
7) The fuel economy of a hydrogen car now is projected to be three times better than gas,
but we’re still not seeing the full benefits. The plan still needs to be enacted because
without the incentives, we will never see them.
Rajesh K. Ahluwalia, X. Wang , A. Rousseau and R. Kumar, Argonne National

Laboratory, December 15th, 2004
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TH1-4BVRTVS-
G&_user=1111158&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000051
676&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1111158&md5=043575e4da746a5aa5440ea1
9491e293)
On the basis of on-road energy consumption, fuel economy (FE) of hydrogen fuel cell
light-duty vehicles is projected to be 2.5–2.7 times the fuel economy of the conventional
gasoline internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEV) on the same platforms. Even with a
less efficient but higher power density 0.6 V per cell than the base case 0.7 V per cell at
the rated power point, the hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are projected to offer essentially the
same fuel economy multiplier. The key to obtaining high fuel economy as measured on
standardized urban and highway drive schedules lies in maintaining high efficiency of the
fuel cell (FC) system at low loads. To achieve this, besides a high performance fuel cell
stack, low parasitic losses in the air management system (i.e., turndown and part load
efficiencies of the compressor–expander module) are critical.
8) We need hydrogen cars to solve for oil collapse. The hydrogen cars would reduce CO2
emissions, solve the oil peak issue, and free the world from oil dependence. Extend all
three Provenzano card from our first advantage.
9) We need hydrogen cars to solve for terrorism. The hydrogen cars would increase
energy security, and provide a replacement for the foreign oil from countries governed by
terrorists. Extend Sandlow 2008 and Market News Publishing 2008.
10) We need hydrogen cars to solve for energy security. The hydrogen cars would
decrease the risk of a third world war over resources. Extend Kurlantzick 2008
KLN Page 9
of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
11) The hydrogen cars would solve for Global Warming. The hydrogen cars would halt
the emission of 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, stop the oceanic rising due to
global warming, and create a inexhaustible energy source for every person on the earth.
Extend both Provenzano 2007 and Rifkin 2002.
KLN Page
10 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
HARMS
A2 GW doesn’t exist
1) Cross Apply the A card from the 1AC. Fossil fuels are contributing to the CO2 in the
atmosphere, which causes the greenhouse effect. Scientists accept the greenhouse theory
and most have accepted the theory of accelerated greenhouse effect, Global Warming.
2) Also cross apply the B card, which shows the impacts of ignoring Global Warming
and not taking action against it, as the Neg suggests.
3) 100% of Scientific peer reviewed journals agree Warming is real and human induced
<<insert Hendricks and Inslee 07 page 4 of Global Warming Core>>
4) We have a more credible argument than the Neg’s since Scientists around the world
can determine that warming exists, and the neg’s argument is supported by a few
skeptics.
5) Global Warming Exists: the Last 20 years have been the hottest in history
<<insert Provenzano 07 page 47 Hydrogen Aff>>
6) We must pass plan to prevent any risk of Global Warming happening because the
impact of extinction is the worst in the round.
7) SO2 is bad
1)SO2 , which is also emitted when carbon is emitted, contributes to smog and
acid rain, which is damaging to the environment. Therefore enacting plan is still key to
the environmental impacts.
Sub-point 2) The other Advantages to the affirmative outweigh the negative
agreements, even if you grant them that global warming doesn’t exist.
KLN Page
11 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
AT: Global Warming Naturally Caused

1. We can’t take the chance that humans do not impact Global warming
2. Global Warming is real and human induced
a. <<insert monbiot card from page 3 of the global warming core>>
b. <<insert Hendricks and Inslee card page 8 of the global warming core>>
c. <<insert Rahmstof card from page 9 of the global warming core>>
3. We must stop now to reduce the human induced warming, our impacts outweigh
a. pull through the <<insert Rifkin card on page 12 of the 1ac>> of the global
warming advantage
b. <<insert Provenzano card from page 46 of the Hydrogen Aff>>
c. <<insert Rifkin card from page 46 of the Hydrogen Aff>>
d. <<insert Pearce card from page 30 of global warming core>>
4. The Aff Plan solves for global warming by switching off fossil fuels
a. pull through the Provenzano hydrodrogen is the critical inexhaustible energy
without barrier to access for all peoples
b. <<insert Provenzano card hydrogen combustion is as powerful as carbon based
combustibles without negative effects from page 193 of aff file>>
c. <<insert BBC monitoring card from page 193 of the Hydrogen Aff>>
d.<<Insert Provenzano Staionary fuel cells can replace coal card from page 193
of aff file>>
5. By switching off Hydrogen, we reduce CO2 emmisions that cause global warming
a. <<insert Rifkin card from page 202 of aff file>>
KLN Page
12 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
AT: Not at Peak Oil
1. Even if the United States has oil reserves to access, it would not prevent any of
our harms because the demand for oil is going to increase exponentially compared
to the supply of oil. Pull across my Provenzano The bottom line is that this
impact is inevitable without an alternative energy resource
2. Securing fossil fuel as our main energy source will lead to a resource war which
will kill half the world’s population and bring about global depression. Pull across
my Lloyd’s List 2007 card
3. Global Warming will kill half of the human population. Pull across my Rifkin
2002 card
4. Promoting hydrogen technology is the ONLY long term fix. Pull across across my
Schwartz and Randall 2003 card. Even if you buy the negative team’s argument
that the United States has oil reserves significant to mine in, the bottom line is that
their fix is only delaying the inevitable.
5. We are already seeing the beginning effects of these impacts. The Iraq War and
continual depletion of the world’s ecosystems prove this. We are very close to
reaching the brink of global devastation and continual mining will only push us
even faster. An alternative is the only way to save our planet.
6. Alternative oils will only worsen all existing problems associated with oil
consumption.
<< insert Rifkin 2002 card from page 58 of aff file>>
7. : Data about oil reserves is wrong- far less oil likely to exist
9. Finally US oil supplies would cause significant change in energy crisis
“Talk Radio News Service, DC” June 25th 2008
Deputy Assistant Energy Secretary for Petroleum Reserves David Johnson said
in his testimony that the price of home heating oil can be lowered by increasing
domestic production of oil by drilling on continental shelves and in the Arctic
National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR.) Kerry told Johnson that oil from the ANWR
would only lower American gas prices two cents per gallon at full production
and that the United States only has three percent of global oil reserves. Kerry
continued, saying the United States’ oil supply is not large enough to lower
international prices and that the rhetoric employed by Johnson and others has
“worn short.”
KLN Page
13 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
A2 Heg/Soft Power
HEG
1. They say the U.S. is the only hegemon, this is bad because it’s exactly what got us
into Iraq. We thought we were the big bad U.S. that could do what we wanted. If
they attacked us for no reason, think of what they’ll do once we tick them off.
2. They say Anti-Americanism will die down, but as long as we keep starting wars
people are going to hate us.
3. People already hate war enough let alone a war for no reason.
[insert Engdahl 04 card(in impact core) pg. 20]
4. Their Zakaria 08 card is power tagged, there are absolutely no warrants supporting
the argument.
Soft Power
4. To answer their Nye 04 evidence:
a. It doesn’t specify what Soft Power is on the brink of and
b. It doesn’t specify what brink is.
5. On the Nye 08 card. Soft power doesn’t solve. People aren’t going to look at us and
hurry up to copy our policies. If that were true, more people would be in Iraq.
6. As for their Shank and Kabalan 07 card, soft just puts off problems while
hard power confronts them.
KLN Page
14 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
SOLVENCY
Hydrogen is safe BLOCK
1. We still have formidable solvency.

a. Hydrogen is inherently more safer than gasoline given that filling a car
with of fossil fuels means filling a car with a carcinogenic, highly
flammable, toxic substance, while hydrogen is the most abundant
substance in the universe and part of what we eat, drink, and bathe in on a
daily basis.
b. Hydrogen fuel cells involve zero carbon emissions and hydrogen car
crashes end in absolutely no damage whatsoever to the vehicle or
passenger. The same cannot be said of any other energy.
2. Now is the key time to implement the hydrogen economy because it says
hydrogen “offers the only realistic energy pathway” to “a decarbonized, zero-
pollution system”. Extend our solvency evidence off the Oil Collapse advantage
we read in the 1AC
3. Hydrogen is safe, non carbon and inexhaustible resource for fuel
<<insert Provenzano card from page 228 of Aff file>>
4. Empirically, hydrogen is significantly safer than gasoline cars

5. Hydrogen is safer than gasoline

6. Hydrogen significantly safer than other combustible fuels

7. Hydrogen technology is safe

<<insert Rifkin card from page 231 of Aff file>>
8. Hydrogen is safer than all other fuels

9. Hydrogen was not the cause of the Hindenburg explosion

10. Hydrogen fuel cells are incredibly safe – significantly more so than gasoline cars
KLN Page
15 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
<<insert EcoWorld card from page 233 of Aff file>>
11. Hydrogen is safer than gasoline despite false perceptions otherwise

12. Hydrogen safer than natural gas and gasoline

<<insert Lovins card from page 234 of Aff file>>
13. AND hydrogen solves. Hydrogen technology is available now, inexpensive, and
ready to solve for our advantages.
KLN Page
16 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
A2 Solvency Storage Bad

1. hydrogen storage is possible in the status quo
<Insert card Provenzano 2007 pg 159>

2. Transporting hydrogen works with high pressure tanks like those built by Dynatek and
Quantum. Cross apply the, Provenzano cards that I just read.
<Insert card Provenzano 2007 pg.158>
<insert card Schneider 2005, solvency 161,>
3. Now is the key time to invest in and implement the hydrogen economy freeing the
world from oil dependence. Pull across our card from the oil collapse advantage in 1AC
Provenzano 2007.
4. With the production of hydrogen the storage will become more advanced and will get
better but that won’t happen with out the plan being but in action.
5. Hydrogen stores energy efficiently and can store energy more efficiently than batteries
can. The main goal is to shift the U.S.’s dependence on oil, if it is switched there is more
of a reason for engineers to create and produce a more efficient way of storing energy.
6. Government promted hydrogen technology provides the only feasible long term fix to
escape the US reliance on oil consumption. Pull across our Schwartz and Randall 2003
card from the energy security advantage.
7. Empirically, hydrogen transition will be dependent on government support. Pull across
the Provenzano in 2007 card from the solvency. With the tax incentives the new
technologies will start to be made which will solve the hydrogen storage not working
well.
KLN Page
17 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
AT: Solvency: Leakage

1. We still have significant solvency-just because there might be some problems with
leakage in the storage and transportation of hydrogen fuel, it doesn’t mitigate the fact that
we can save the world from destructive fossil fuels
2. Hydrogen is inherently dangerous to the environment
A) Extend CO₂ impacts – we outweigh
B) 1. Hydrogen will not cause greenhouse effect-even with high altitude water
vapor
<<Insert Provenzano card from page 201 of Aff file>>
2. Hydrogen leak risks are overstated and will not cause ozone or other
environmental damage
<< Insert Provenzano card from page 200 of Aff file>>
C) We solve environmental impact
3. Hydrogen inherently prone to leakage
A) Cross apply my card from the previous argument stating that hydrogen leaks
are overstated and will not cause ozone or other environmental damage (Provenzano
2007)
4. Aff maintains solvency. In a world in which the negative presumes that Hydrogen is
inherently false, they make their first mistake. The warrants in all of my offensive cards
state that making assumptions on the study of skeptics on hydrogen authors leads to bad
negative arguments. This is where the Aff can keep their solvency offense because we do
take note of the skeptic authorization into today’s media.
5. Timeframe is now –
6. Extend evidence from 1AC
7. CASE OUTWEIGHS
KLN Page
18 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
AT: Hydrogen is not economically feasible.
1: Hydrogen infrastructure is cheaper then fossil fuel infrastructure:
a. Expanding a hydrogen infrastructure is much cheaper then maintaining current

fossil fuel infrastructure
117, Cost per Kilowatt claims are exaggerated…., Provenzo, 2007

155, Hydrogen infrastructure is feasible and cheaper then gas…, Reuters, 2008
b. moving to hydrogen is actually more ‘economically feasible’ then what we have

now.
153, Hydrogen Fueling stations are within reach and cost of….., Blencoe 2008
c. In all reality, waiting while oil prices continue to climb is a bad idea, especially
when the rest of the world is speeding ahead of us in new technology.
d. We need to advance now, and this evidence just shows that the cheese at the end
of the maze is even easier to get.
2: Hydrogen infrastructure already exists:

a. Centralized hydrogen production, which is the initial step to getting personal
generators for every home exists.
b. Currently the infrastructure is used for industrial use, but conversion to public
use is easy.
109, Industrial infrastructure already exists, Lovins 2005
c. Factories are near or in cities and other population centers, which is where they
get their workforce comes from.
d. If we already have the initial structure around cities, it wouldn’t take long to
have the majority of the United States would be running on hydrogen.
3: Hydrogen could save billions during usually costly blackouts:

When a company would usually be shutdown because the electrical grid is down, a
hydrogen fuel cell could keep them going, possibly saving billions.
113, Fuel cells desirable….., RMI 2008
4: Investments spur development

KLN Page
19 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
a. Investment faster and more profitable transition.

b. The more private corporations buy into hydrogen, the faster it will grow and
advance technology wise, causing a faster energy refit, and eventually a faster
conversion to a completely Co2 free energy system.
Card page:
139, Public and private sector investments key to rapid and profitable…., Lovins
2005
5: Hydrogen doesn’t require an Apollo style $300 billion crash program. (A crash
program basically means oodles and boodles of money slammed into a program with the
aim of achieving it in superhuman time).
This evidence shows that even with current, lesser tax breaks hydrogen still does not
require huge expensive, unattainable crash program to convert the US to hydrogen.
168, Hydrogen does not require $100-$300 billion federal…. Lovins, 2005
• Note, this last answer will prompt the neg to ask ‘Well, then why do we need your
plan to turn us into a hydrogen country? Judge, their plan is unnecessary…’ All
you have to say to that is that obviously current breaks aren’t enough, since we
kind of have a resolution dealing with how to get us off fossil fuels, and that the
plan sweetens the deal, so that we will have hydrogen power, and that we won’t
have terrorism, and that everyone will get a free unicorn…..
KLN Page
20 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
AT: Hydrogen Not Technologically Feasible
1- This argument is the status quo. We need to enact plan in order to make technology
more feasible.
2- We are going through the revolution that will make hydrogen feasible.
Once, technology for oil didn't exist, but then it was developed and is now what we rely
on.
Amory B. Lovins,co-founder and chief executive officer of Rocky Mountain Institute,
May 9 2008 p. ln
A "car-efficiency revolution" that could move the world beyond oil is in the making, as
automakers start shifting to lighter-weight materials, sleeker aerodynamics, hybrid-electric
propulsion, and non- petroleum fuels. Transportation drives global oil trade and is a key
environmental challenge, especially in cities. Most cities are designed around cars, not
people'changing cars "from a convenient accessory of life into its central organizing
principle," according to environmental author Alan Thein Durning. It need not be so.
Moreover, new car technologies already exist, and others are under development, with
potential to transform the paradigms of global development and energy security. These
technologies, if pursued, will be good for business throughout the world, provide safe and
affordable mobility, be environmentally friendly, and create competitive advantage. They are
not the stuff of science fiction, but realities we can expect to see emerge even within this
decade.
3- People will begin to focus more on hydrogen. There are no current incentives for it,
but once plan is established, companies will focus on hydrogen. Extend Provenzano 2007
from solvency.
4- Companies want to use hydrogen, so the technology will be developed for them
[Insert RMI 2008 from pg. 113]
5-Extend Market News Publishing 2008 from Terrorism. Hydrogen is can replace gas
despite claims because it is clean and affordable. Even if they win people are skeptical,
our author assumes this and says that it's still the best option.
KLN Page
21 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
6- Plan solves. The only reason why adequate technology doesn't exist is because of
profits found with oil. By replacing oil, demand will decrease, meaning its price will,
leading to more technology. Extend Provenzano 2007 from inherency.
7- Early incentives would've prevented this problem. We must start now to prevent
further challenges.
8- You can evaluate the plan in three stages:
A. Time Frame- Solvency begins as soon as plan is established. Once there is a
reason for people to use hydrogen, they will. Cross-apply my third argument.
B. Magnitude- Nuclear terrorism, extinction, global depression, the economy,
agriculture and violent floods out weigh any impact that can the neg can possibly scoop
out of this argument.
C. Probability- Our entire 1AC explains how we are going to solve. Cross-apply
my first argument, plan will solve their impacts by creating a reason for companies to
develop technology for hydrogen.
KLN Page
22 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
A2 Fossil Fuels
1. Hydrogen can be produced using renewable energy

NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) June 1, 2007
http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_production_delivery.html
Renewable energy sources such as photovoltaics, wind, biomass, hydro, and geothermal
can provide clean and sustainable electricity for our nation. However, renewable energy
sources are naturally variable, requiring energy storage or a hybrid system to
accommodate daily and seasonal changes. One solution is to produce hydrogen through
the electrolysis—splitting with an electric current—of water and to use that hydrogen in a
fuel cell to produce electricity during times of low power production or peak demand, or
to use the hydrogen in fuel cell vehicles.
2. Hydrogen is much more efficient
Refer to cards in the aff file
3. Hydrogen can be clean even from fossil fuels
Refer to aff file cards

4. Hydrogen’s negative environmental effects are few
BBC JULY 24 2003
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A2683082
Hydrogen is considered a clean fuel that has a minimum impact on the environment
nearly eliminating the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. It is
safe to manufacture, reliable and environmentally friendly. Hydrogen is the new talk of
today’s much environmentally concerned scientific world as a prospective fuel. , by far
the most abundant element in the universe and one of the most abundant on earth can be
found in many different materials including water, natural gas and biomass. In its
molecular form hydrogen can be used directly as a fuel to drive a vehicle, to heat water or
indirectly to produce electricity for industrial, transport and domestic use. The huge
advantage that hydrogen has over other fuels is that as a fuel it is non-polluting, when
you combust hydrogen the only product is water. It has been the fuel used to provide
electricity for the space shuttle for the last two decades via on-board fuel cells that
combine hydrogen and oxygen to generate electricity; the exhaust from the fuel cell –
pure water – is used by the crew as drinking water. Hydrogen has enormous potential to
decrease India’s dependence on foreign oil imports and, if produced using renewable
KLN Page
23 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
energy, to eliminate pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides, particulates and
greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane.
5. Hydrogen lays foundation for renewable energy

Dr Daniel Sperling, Professor of civil engineering and Environmnetal Science and
Policy, and Founding Director of the Institute of transportation Studies at the University
of California, Davis, Nova, Point-Counterpoint 7-29-05
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova//sciencenow/3210/01-point.html
Romm also states that fuel cells running on hydrogen from natural gas have higher
greenhouse gases than the Toyota Prius. This is simply not true. Studies from MIT,
Argonne, UC Davis, and others show a 10-40 percent reduction. Moreover, it is relatively
easy to remove carbon from natural gas (and coal) when they are converted into hydrogen
—something not possible with gasoline-powered hybrids. And by investing heavily in
renewable power for electricity production today, we can lay the foundation for a
renewable hydrogen future with near-zero greenhouse gases.
6. Renewable energy is the purpose of Hydrogen power

The main reason to employ Hydrogen power is to counter the negative effects of
greenhouse emissions. Were the production of hydrogen to release excess greenhouse
gases, it would not be held to be such a sensible alternative to oil.
7. Hydrogen is critical to creating inexhaustible energy. Extend prevenzano 2007-

KLN Page
24 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
FED BEST
A2: Federalism
1. Non-Unique: The Supreme Court is limiting state power, even under federalist
justices.
<<insert Dinan ’08 evidence from page 66 of the States/Fism Core>>
2. Non-Unique: Despite high action and activity, states are still in need of more
power.
<<insert Dinan ’08 evidence from page 66 of the States/Fism Core>>
3. Non-Unique: The Supreme Court ruled against the state in many key cases
<<insert Dinan ’08 evidence from page 66 of the States/Fish Core>>
4. Congress checks a destruction of federalism

<<insert Breyer ’00 evidence from page 68 of the States/Fism Core>>
5. American federalism isn’t modeled – multinational states prove

<<insert Stepan ’99 evidence from page 70 of the States/Fism Core>>
6. Emerging democracies of the past 20 years prove the US federalist model no

longer holds sway – this evidence is the most historically factual and should be
preferred.
<<insert Moravcsik ’05 evidence from page 70 of the States/Fish Core>>
7. Turn: Federalism sparks ethnic conflict

<<insert Mutunga ’01 card from page 71 of the States/Fism Core>>
8. The Risk of conflict outweighs

<<insert World Policy Journal ’99 and LA Times ’93 evidence from page 71 of
States/Fism Core>>
9. Collapse of civilization includes the collapse of federalism

<<extend Rifkin ’02 card page 5 of 1AC>>
10. Federal regulation is great
Michael McRaith Illinois director of insurance, Insurance Journal January 29 07
http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/midwest/2007/01/29/features/76706.htm
KLN Page
25 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
There's not a lot of nuance to my position. If we are concerned with the profitability of
the largest carriers in the country -- federal regulation is a great idea. If we're concerned
about solvency, consumer protections, it's not something we should consider seriously.
The last thing we want is a dual regulatory system where the courts become the "de
facto" regulators. That's exactly what we would have and that's exactly what we don't
want.
KLN Page
26 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
Federal Tax Incentives Best
1. IF ENFORCED AT THE STATE LEVEL THE IMPACT WOULD NOT BE

AS GREAT
If the United States does not enact a hydrogen incentive at the federal level, there
will never be enough progress to make an actual difference. Certain states have
(and will) offer incentives, but that can only change so much. To make an impact
to the emissions the U.S. gives off from oil use, and for the U.S. to stop
contributing to global warming, hydrogen incentives must be utilized at a
NATIONAL level.
2. INCENTIVES NEED TO BE OFFERED AT BOTH STATE AND

FEDERAL LEVEL
For the hydrogen economy be successful, all states need to be unified and offered
the same incentives for the use of hydrogen. If an incentive is offered in some
states, but not in others, a hydrogen economy would not be nearly as successful.
<<insert Provenzano card (Gov’t policy k to ushering in hydrogen trans.) from p.

138 of aff file>>
3. IF INCENTIVES WERE OFFERED AT A FEDERAL LEVEL, IT WOULD

SPUR INNOVATION
If the U.S. offered incentives at a national level, more people would be spurred to
research hydrogen. Better, more efficient, cheaper methods of making and
producing hydrogen would be discovered, because it is proved empirically that
time equals better and more technology. So if the entire country is united toward
finding an answer to cheaper hydrogen, more discoveries would be unveiled.
However, if states continue to simply offer incentives at a state level, and some
don’t, the impacts and discoveries would be greatly lessened.
James Provenzano, President of Clean Air Now and Geoffery Holland, The
hydrogen age: empowering a clean-energy future, 2007 (p. 320)
Hydrogen technologies are sufficiently advanced to begin deployment now. There

are no deal breakers, though many technical breakthroughs will likely take place
as the process evolves.
KLN Page
27 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
4. OTHER COUNTRIES PROVE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

MUST BE INVOLVED
Pull across my Provenzano 2007 solvency card, which states that the success of
Japan and Germany’s alternative energies were due to involvement of the national
government. This will be true in the U.S. as well. Without the federal
government’s help, success in a hydrogen economy can only go so far.
5. SCANDINAVIA PROVIDES AN EMPERICAL EXAMPLE, UNITY IS

NECESSARY
James Provenzano, President of Clean Air Now and Geoffery Holland, The
hydrogen age: empowering a clean-energy future, 2007 (p. 320)
Denmark’s plan for creating a hydrogen-fueling infrastructure is called HyLink.

Together with its partner programs in Norway (HyNor) and Sweden (HyFuture),
Denmark’s HyLink has initiated the Scandinavian Hydrogen Highways
Partnership, with the goal of having the three nations linked together by a shared
hydrogen fueling network. The first phase of this network is to be in place by
2012. For countries seeking an example of how to move forward with a
hydrogen agenda, look no further…
Using Scandinavia as an analogy to the United States, this shows what can happen
when a group of smaller regions (Scandinavia to the States) join together and
achieve goals that would not be possible if the regions worked independently.
This empirical evidence shows that the only way for the United States to achieve
a hydrogen economy is if the federal government offers incentives at the national
level, thus uniting the states of America.
6. CERTAIN STATES WON’T OFFER HYDROGEN INCENTIVES

States bordering the Gulf of Mexico have oil readily available nearby. States such
as Florida and Texas, won’t make the switch to a hydrogen economy or offer
incentives, because they have oil nearby.
7. STATES AREN’T DOING ENOUGH IN THE SQ

The negative team has claimed that the states offering incentives will be enough,
that they are doing that successful and sufficiently in the Status Quo, and that the
federal government does not need to be involved. However, this is simply not
true.
KLN Page
28 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
Scott Miller, chief executive officer of Synovate Motoresearch (which does market
research for automakers and others), The Associated Press, April 16, 2008, LN
Miller said consumers rate manufacturers lower now than they did in 2002 on
how well they're doing at improving fuel economy, despite a rash of new
hybrids and diesels on the market and test fleets of electric and hydrogen fuel-
cell vehicles. Consumers also believe state and federal governments aren't doing
enough. Miller said consumers' frustration is growing as gas prices rise, and
automakers need to cut through the clutter that consumers are hearing about various
technologies. He added that consumers need a lot of education, since most don't
even realize that their vehicles are powered by an internal combustion engine.
If the federal government does not offer hydrogen incentives at a national level, and
states continue to not improve the fuel economy, the public’s confidence will
continue to decrease. This will lead to civil unrest and the public’s confidence in the
economy to decrease.
KLN Page
29 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
AT: Tax credits cap
1. $2000 cap will be lifted (Reference Hydrogen Aff, pg 129, The Kiplinger Letter 08)
2. We are offering incentives not funding. These tax credits are incentive for people to
build stations and devices. Pull across the New York Times ‘08 card from our 1AC,
which was the first card on Inherency that explains why we don’t currently have
incentives.
3. $200,000 is enough money. Two-hundred grand is a sufficient amount of money to aid

the assembly of a hydrogen station. Remember, we are not claiming to fund these
stations, we’re offering incentives. Pull across the Provenzano ’07 from our 1AC, which
was the second card on Inherency. This card explains how critical the incentives are for
the advancement of hydrogen.
4. They don’t have any projections of how much a hydrogen station will cost. (Reference
Provenzano ’07 card under Inherency pg 117 on Hydrogen Aff)
5. It is still a good investment. Oil will eventually run out, and we will need to find
another main energy source. Since hydrogen is the best choice, we are using these
incentives to ensure that Hydrogen will be chosen.
KLN Page
30 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
A2:”Tax Credits Won’t Work
1. Tax Credits Provide Incentives for Oil Companies for Hydrogen Development
Cross Apply 2nd Inherency Provenzano 2007 card on page 2
2. Tax Credits Accelerate the Adoption of Hydrogen Technology
<<Insert Fuel Cell works card from page 135>>
3. Public Wants Alternative Energy
<<Insert Provenzano ’07 card from page 133>>
4. Tax Credits will be taken advantage of
Tax Credits are used by people and businesses all the time because no one wants
to pay more money than they have to. Hydrogen tax credits will be used do to
because of incentive and AFF solvency.
5. Tax Credits Give an Opportunity to Use Hydrogen
Hydrogen as an alternative energy is currently only available to very large

corporations and the upper class. Tax incentives will make Hydrogen more
accessible to different people and businesses because it will help with the upfront
costs associated with Hydrogen
6. If the cost is the greatest barrier to Hydrogen’s use, the tax credit for use and
purchase will work.
The AFF’s tax credit eliminates the cost barrier and it makes it more accessible to
more Americans.
7. There is empirical evidence that energy tax credits result in an increase in use.
a. Tax Incentives have Worked in the Promotion of Hybrid Cars
Portland Press Herald (Maine), July 4, 2008, Pg. A6, LN
A tax incentive program that already suffered from a lack of public profile is
getting even harder to access. Since the program is designed to put more fuel-
KLN Page
31 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
efficient hybrid vehicles on the road during a period of record oil prices and
rising concerns about greenhouse-gas emissions, it's worth questioning why. If
Congress ever gets serious about developing a new national energy policy, the
hybrid tax-credit program deserves a long, hard look. The concept was simple:
Hybrid vehicles use new technology and are more expensive than comparable
gas-powered ones. In order to encourage buyers to consider paying more for an
efficient vehicle, the government offered a tax credit to help speed up the time
it would take for lower fuel costs to make up the price difference. Here's where
it gets complicated. In order to focus funds on emerging technology, the tax
credit is only available for product lines that have sold fewer than 60,000
vehicles. As a result there is no longer a credit for the Toyota Prius, the most
popular hybrid model, but there is for the less popular Nissan Altima. At this
point, the program appears to be designed to help the companies that are
lagging in the marketplace, at the expense of the ones that have earned a better
reputation.
b. People take advantage of tax credits for hybrid vehicles
Los Angeles Times, June 28, 2008, Pg. 1 (Martin Zimmerman), LN
According to the 2005 federal law that established the hybrid credit, the tax
break begins to phase out after a manufacturer sells 60,000 qualifying vehicles.
Mainly because of heavy demand for the Prius, Toyota reached that benchmark
early in the program, and tax breaks for its Toyota and Lexus brand hybrids
were gone by last October.
8. Government Push Legitimizes efforts to use hydrogen fuel
Cross Apply the 3rd Solvency card from Riftkin 2002
9. Cards do not assume a cost reduction from mass production. Hydrogen will go
down in cost. Thus, increasing the effects of the incentives.
a. <<Insert Riftkin ‘08 card on page 162>>
b. <<insert MSNBC ’04 card on page163>>

KLN Page
32 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
A2: STATES CP
1. PERM: Do both
2. The Counterplan and the Plan are not competitive—The States have benefits for
doing the plan on a state-level, and the Federal Government has the wide-scale
implementation ability necessary for the plan to be efficient on a national scale. The perm
captures all the net benefits because acting together with the states is key:
3. Concurrent action by Federal AND State governments is Key.
National Governors Association, NGA, ‘Comprehensive National Energy and
Electricity Policy’, July 24, 2007,
http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.8358ec82f5b198d18a278110501010a0/?vg
nextoid
Within our federal system, the states have responsibilities over areas such as land use
planning, environmental protection, public health and safety, and the conservation and
management of natural resources. Successful development of national energy policies
requires the active participation of state and local governments. This includes utilizing
joint task forces and allowing for early state review and comment. Additionally, the
administration of federal programs must be flexible to allow for regional differences and
diversity among states.
4. Representation of States’ needs is not enough to ensure a successful policy. In fact,
the opposite is very often true.
A. States often give in to what the general public feels (which is how they decide what
these “needs” are). This is incorrectly interpreted as what the states need.
B. These views, though representing what the people want, are generally not the best
policy for the state—just because something is popular and accepted doesn’t mean it’s
good, or even works, for that matter.
C. Thus, state policies become skewed and are not responsive to what the states actually
need.
D. The federal government is much more wide-scale and is almost never subjective to the
general consensus. Therefore, the national government, which isn’t influenced by these
undercurrents, implements plans that work, are efficient, and are best as a national policy.
5. State competition leads to economical instability within states—empirically
proven.
A. If every state has a different policy, it is natural for corporate America to gravitate
towards the best policies—often leaving certain states to migrate towards these policies.
B. This causes MASS unemployment and ultimately causes state economies to crash.
This is happening in Michigan—It has one of the worst economies in the country because
of being filtered out as “uncompetitive” by such a competitive country.
C. This completely exacerbates the rich-poor gap and further asserts the idea of “the rich
getting richer” and the “poor getting poorer”.
6. The Rich-Poor Gap causes unrest and fuels War.
KLN Page
33 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
International Herald Tribune, ‘Asian Development Bank: Asia's rich-poor gap

growing’, New York Times, August 8, 2007,
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/08/business/AS-FIN-Asia-Economy.php
BEIJING: The gap between rich and poor in China and other Asian countries is growing,
hurting anti-poverty efforts and possibly fueling unrest, the Asian Development Bank
said in a report Wednesday. China has had Asia's second-biggest and second-fastest-
growing wealth gap since the 1990s, exceeded only by war-wracked Nepal on both
counts, the bank said in an annual survey. China has seen thousands of protests in recent
years, some of them violent, over land seizures and other economic grievances blamed on
the growing gap. The communist government has made improving incomes for the poor a
priority, warning last year that inequality has reached "alarming and unacceptable"
levels."High inequality, particularly high absolute levels of inequality, leads to a
disruption in social cohesion. You could have street demonstrations which could lead to
violent civil wars," Ifzal Ali, the bank's chief economist, said at a news conference.
Ali said it was inappropriate to speculate when asked whether China should expect worse
unrest. But he cited the experience of Nepal, where he said a recently ended, decade-long
civil war was most intense in areas with highest inequality. Tensions over China's
growing gap between an urban elite, who have profited most from two decades of
economic reform, and the poor majority are a key political issue for communist leaders.
They have promised to spread prosperity by spending more on social programs for the
countryside and the urban poor.
7. Experimentation in the status quo can be disastrous.
A. Our businesses and economy in general cannot handle setbacks in this
“experimentation”.
B. In fact, longevity, with respect to policy, is actually the most reliable policy for
industry and experimentation can actually stifle it.
C. Constant experimentation is simply not an efficient method for improving policies—A
national policy is a much better standpoint. National Laboratories, which are really a
collaboration of many states, are much more adept at finding policies that suit a variety of
states and turning it into a much more successful national policy.
8. It is obvious that the Federal Government has the upper hand when it comes to
policy:
A. Implementing plans on a wider scale (federal scale) offers many more benefits than
doing it on a state level. First of all, it’s much more cost efficient—with mass production,
prices drop.
B. The Federal Government also has a much better idea of what will actually work
because they are attuned to what is necessary as opposed to what is popular.
KLN Page
34 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
Other forms of energy
A2 Renewables won’t work for hydrogen production

1. The Energy Justice 07 card says alternative energies waste energy but it doesn’t
say how, that means they could claim using the energy for something else is
wasting it
2. They say hydrogen waste’s 4x more energy, but the hydrogen that is wasted can
be stored
3. We will use water which is renewable, plus cross apply the c-net news.com 08
card which says we’ll be using alternative energies to produce the hydrogen
4. The authors for the Wise & Hutchinson card aren’t credible sources, they don’t
write for anything but popular mechanics which doesn’t look like anything but a
random magazine
5. Plus the card doesn’t have a website of page number so they could have made it
up
6. [insert Hydrogen infrastructure is feasible]
7. The Provenzano 07 card says that the infrastructure doesn’t have to be built all at
once, this indicates two things
A. Quick infrastructure equals failure because it’s built to fast to correct
B. Slow growth of infrastructure is better because it’s more organized and likely
to succeed
C. Fewer Hydrogen Stations are necessary because hydrogen increases fuel

capacity. [insert card
KLN Page
35 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
AT: Ethanol is Better than Hydrogen

1 Ethanol is a very inefficient source of energy, and has many other problems.
A. It requires massive amounts of fuel pesticides and numerous other dangerous
chemicals to produce even a small amount of ethanol (provanzono 59).
B. Then there is the fact that the use of a food product as a fuel product will cause
huge problems. “Growing both corn and soybeans caused soil and water pollution
from such chemicals as the nitrogen and phosphorous in fertilizer and from
pesticides, with the pesticides used in corn production being especially harmful”
(Morrison, DWW alt energy neg core 56).
C. Even if much of the corn that goes into producing ethanol would otherwise have
gone to feed cattle, the effects are still there. When a state like South Dakota cuts
its feed corn production in half by converting the rest to fuel it means that there is
going to be a large increase in the cost of food (provanzano, 59).
D. This increase in price for feed corn will also incentivize farmers to switch to corn,
and with more farmers switching to corn the higher the price for other foods will
be. This increase in food prices makes buying food hard for people of developing
nations, and the poor here at home.
E. This increase in food prices has lead to revolts and demonstrations that have
already had effects on our world, including the overthrowing of the Haitian
government and the destabilization of 30 other countries around the world.
(LA Times 84)
F. There is not enough crops in the US for biodiesel to make a dent
“When it comes to biodiesel, limitations on the scale of production may
be the greatest weakness. If the entire American corn and soybean crop
were diverted to biodiesel, that fuel would still satisfy only about 6 percent
of diesel demand. In even the most optimistic 2006 production estimates,
biodiesel will replace less than half of one percent of all diesel consumed”
(DWW alt energy neg core 59).
That means that ethanol is ineffective, and there just isn’t enough crops to make a
dent in
the energy need. We would still be in need of oil or some other type of energy to
solve our energy crisis.
KLN Page
36 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
AT: Methanol is Better than Hydrogen

1. Methane will not solve for global warming.
a. When methane is burned, it releases carbons into the atmosphere. This
release causes global warming because methane emits even more potent
GHG’s than fossil fuels.
b. This massive release of carbons will ultimately cause the release of
methane, which is trapped below the surface of the ocean because of ice
and below ground under permafrost. This release of more methane will
cause even more warming which in turn will cause the release of more
methane. This disastrous cycle has a high potential to become the third
time in the Earth’s history that much of earth’s life was wiped out because
of increasing global temperatures. (Provanzano 60).
2. There isn’t any infrastructure.
a. “It will still take twenty to thirty years to build the delivery infrastructure
to get significant quantities of gas from hydrates to market” (provanzano
60)
b. So even if we were willing to risk using methane as a fuel source we
couldn’t even use it for twenty to thirty years. By that time we definitely
will have reached peak oil and will be proceeding on a journey to
economic collapse, and utter chaos. Hydrogen can be implemented now,
and since our timetable solves much quicker and cleaner than methane it is
a better plan.
KLN Page
37 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
AT: Natural Gas is Better than Hydrogen

1. Much of our natural gas is located in regions that are either politically unstable or
hostile.
a. This hostility towards America poses a problem because if we rely on
LNG to power our country we will be buying our resources from areas
that are unstable.
b. This instability is bad for our economy. Our economy should not be tied to
a country that violently changes leaders every few months. Putting our
trust in countries that don’t have the ability to maintain a stable
government, let alone countries that might want to attack the US is not a
good practice because…
2. LNG infrastructure is highly prone to terrorist attacks and horrific accidents.
a. It isn’t realistic to believe that we would put our whole country’s supply
of energy in areas that are prone to accidents and attacks which could be
catastrophic to people located in the area and to the economy in general.
b. Besides the fact that the LNG infrastructure is very unstable, it is also very
costly to bring LNG to market. Hydrogen is still a better alternative to full
use of LNG, it solves better, is safer, and more cost effective (provenzano
61)
KLN Page
38 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
AT: Clean Coal and ZEPP are Better than Hydrogen

1. “Clean” Coal is still not clean.
a. Although the use of Zero emission power plants sounds like a nice idea,
even the cleanest coal still contributes tons of CO2 into the air.
“worldwide CO2 emissions from coal are about 20 billion tons annually.”
Provenzano goes on to say that “Out of the entire electric power industry,
coal-fired power plants generate nearly 90 percent of the CO2 pollution
released into the atmosphere.”
2. Will take a too long to implement
a. The next big problem with this so called “Clean Coal” and ZEPP is that
they wont be implemented for ten years and it will take as long as thirty
years to make widespread use of them. This is too long. “Experts say the
world has a ten-year window at most to avoid the worst that global
warming has to offer” (provenzan0 07 H 1AC p 5)
b. Think how far we have come with technology in thirty years, we went
from computers that filled up gymnasiums to cell phones that respond to
different hand movements, and even sense what direction they are facing.
The fact is, by the time we are ready to implement these power plant the
technology will already be outdated, and we will be in need of a newer
more efficient cleaner energy source than coal.
3. Clean Coal and ZEPP are not viable solutions because that they are so expensive.
a. It is fifty percent more costly to implement a ZEPP over a regular coal-
fired power plant. It is also more costly than a natural gas, turbine-power
technology. (provenzano 62)
KLN Page
39 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
AT: Nuclear Power is Better than Hydrogen

1.) Nuclear reactors are not safe from terrorist attacks or catastrophic accidents.
a. There is empirical evidence that shows how devastating a nuclear melt
down can be to a country. In Russia when Chernobyl had a melt down “it
spread 200 times more radioactive material than the nuclear bombs at
Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined” (provenzano 63).
b. A meltdown could cause the death of hundreds of thousands of people in
the surrounding area, not to mention the fact that the radiation spread by
the breach would ultimately destroy crops and would be devastating to all
who lived in the area.
2.) Nuclear plants produce massive amounts of waste.
a. There is no solution to this problem to date. This radioactive material is
dangerous to humans, the power plants store this waste in temporary
places, when the reality is this waste has to be stored for up to 10,000
years until we can even think about considering it safe.
b. Even then we are not absolutely certain that it will be fine, because we
have been producing this type of abhorrent waste for only the past forty or
so years.
3.) One of the byproducts of nuclear power is a substance named Plutonium.
a. Plutonium is an element that is used in nuclear weapons. What that means
is if a terrorist organization was able to get its hands on some Plutonium,
they could build a nuclear weapon.
b. This nuclear weapon could then be used to attack our very dangerous and
susceptible nuclear facilities. This attack could be devastating; one nuclear
weapon combined with the meltdown of a reactor could potentially kill
millions of people. (Provenzano 63)
KLN Page
40 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
AT: Solar Power is Better than Hydrogen

1.) Solar power is expensive.
a. The Idea that we will someday run completely on Solar panels is not
fesable. Solar panels are one of the most, if not the most costly type of
energy technology there is. “SKM has estimated that rooftop solar power
is eight to 12 times more costly than regular electricity” (Moran 8 DWW
alt energy neg core 12). “A professor at Berkley’s Hass School of business
found that their cost far outweighed their value” (Spencer and Loris 8
DWW alt energy neg core 12).
b. And one more thing to think about, the largest producer of solar panels
recently ran into a problem when their biggest market questioned whether
or not to ban the solar panels because of the toxic cadmium telluride they
contain. A Solar panel with silicon is possible, yet it is four times more
expensive than the already over priced toxic ones we have now.
2.) The solar cells are highly inefficient.
a. The cells as we make them now only capture a small fraction of the
sunlight that hits their surface. A mere 10% of the sunlight that hits these
solar cells is converted into electricity.
b. For their cost, this is definitely not worth the time and the money spent to
install these high tech pieces of model inefficiency. (Lehr 5 DWW alt
energy neg core 13)
3.) There is another problem for solar power, clouds.
a. With an energy supplier that stops working when a cloud drifts overhead,
or in the later months if snow covers the solar cells, we don’t have a
reliable enough energy source to fill our constant energy needs.
b. Also, it doesn’t include all the states, because places like Washington and
Alaska go for weeks without seeing sunlight because it is hidden behind
clouds, or because the sun just isn’t shining. Hydrogen is a much better
reliable alternative to the problem at hand.
KLN Page
41 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
AT: Wind Power is Better than Hydrogen

1.) Wind is too variable to use.
a. The fact that wind patterns can change so rapidly means that wind turbines
are not a reliable enough energy source. Sometimes these windmills can
drop from a high output of energy to just 4% of their output capacity.
b. This sudden drop would mean that other forms of energy would have to be
used to make up for the difference in the demand and the supply. Fossil
Fuel plants would have to be switched on to cope with the demand for
energy. This switching on and off of fossil fuel plants will contribute to
global warming causing all our impacts about global warming to still exist,
besides the fact that we would still be using a diminishing supply of oil
and the fact that we would still be reliant on that fuel, all the impacts still
stand. (EU referendum 8 DDW alt energy neg core 18)
2.) Wind power kills birds.
a. Turbines, when they are spinning at all, can have a real effect on the bird
and bat population in an area. These turbines kill a large number of
keystone predators and prey in an area. This reduction in the number of
one species in a specific location can have disastrous effects on the
ecosystem.
b. A decrease in the number of predators can mean an increase in the number
of prey animals, and this can lead to food shortages and a host of other bad
results. (GAO 5 DWW alt energy neg core 21)
KLN Page
42 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
AT: Hydroelectric Power is Better than Hydrogen

1.) Hydropower doesn’t have adequate safety measures.
a. Hydroelectric stations (dams) are the causes of some of the worst disasters
in our countries history. Dam failure is always a bad thing for those down
stream of the break, and for those who rely on the power from the dam.
b. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers Dams are rarely
taken care of as they should be, are manned by inadequate or unfit staff,
and have a lack of necessary safety equipment.
2.) Drought conditions are effecting hydroelectric production in the US.
a. With the recent rainfall in the Midwest some might say that drought is a
non-issue, but where there is a lot of rain in one place, there is less rain
than usual in another. This is a major issue for those who rely on dams and
hydroelectric power for their energy.
b. With a decrease in energy production from the droughts, some people
might have to do without power. In a world where erratic weather patterns
are produced by global warming, droughts may in fact become the norm in
some states. This intermitentness does not apply to hydrogen (ASCE 5
DWW alt energy neg core 28).
KLN Page
43 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
ELECTIONS
A/T India Nuclear Deal DA
1. . Uniqueness
A. Non-unique: McCain will support anything Bush was about to do, he will
continue with Bush’s policy, so the bill won’t die when Bush leaves office.
B. Non-unique: Obama will support this nuclear agreement with India, so the bill
won’t die when Bush leaves office.
The Australian, July 14, 2008, (LN)
Barack Obama has been drawn centre stage in the battle over India's nuclear
agreement with the US, lending crucial support as the fragile ruling coalition
faces fierce Muslim opposition to the pact ahead of a confidence vote in
parliament.
C. No matter which candidate wins, a US-India relationship will move forward,

and the US/India Nuclear deal will be assured, so it won’t die when Bush leaves office.
Richard Boucher, Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asia Foreign Press Center
Briefing Washington, April 25, 2008, (LN)
QUESTION: Chidanand Rajghatta, Times of India. With the benefit of having

worked for both Republican and Democratic administrations, can you give us a
sense of what happens to the U.S.-India nuclear deal, under a McCain
administration and Obama administration or a Hillary Clinton administration"
Is there going to be continuity or rewrite?
AMBASSADOR BOUCHER: I don't know. There are a lot better political

commentators around here in Washington. I don't think it is so much of a
political issue, though. I think if you look at any of the major candidates and,
really, both parties, there's been very strong support for the U.S.-India
relationship. Look at the votes for the Hyde Act, you know, strong majorities
taken from both Houses and both parties in Congress. So I think all indications
are that there is a very strong support for the U.S.-India relationship and a
desire to see the U.S.-India relationship move forward on a bipartisan basis
with that kind of support, including in the nuclear area.
2. China won’t pick a fight with the United States, they depend on us.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, April 11, 2001, p. 9A

KLN Page
44 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
China's exports to the United States provide nearly a third of the foreign currency
Beijing needs to modernize its country. Losing that cash flow, or a portion of it, would
be devastating to the Chinese. China depends on U.S. cooperation, also, in its mission
to be embraced as a modern power on the global stage and within global institutions,
ranging from the United Nations to the World Bank. And despite its own growing
influence worldwide, China has little interest in picking a fight with the world's last
remaining military superpower.
3. U.S.-Sino relations are high
Hu Jintao, President of the People’s Republic, States News Service, July 9, 2008, (LN)
PRESIDENT HU: (As translated.) Just now, President Bush and I had a sincere and
friendly meeting, and we had an in-depth exchange of views on China -U.S. relations
and issues of mutual interest. We both believe that new progress has been made in
China-U.S. relationship in recent years. Our two countries not only have close
interactions between high -level leaders, but also between people at various other
levels. Not long ago, China and United States successfully held the fourth strategic
economic dialogue, which produced positive results. In addition, our two countries
have also had fruitful cooperation in
economic trade, counterterrorism, energy, the environmental protection, and other
areas. We also have had close communication and coordination on such major regional
and international issues as the Korean nuclear issue and the Iranian nuclear issue.
4. China won’t jeopardize relations with India
<<insert “The Economist ‘06” from p. 78 of India Deal Bad File>>
5. Impact Turn: Relations ensures Asian stability and prevent nuclear war and
extinction.
a. The India deal is key to reinvigorating US/Indian relations

<<Insert “Tellis ‘05” from p. 73 of India Deal Bad File>>
b. Relations are key to preventing nuclear war

<<Insert “NYT ‘02” from p. 73 of India Bad File>>
c. Nuclear cooperation key to democracy promotion and resolving India-Pakistan

conflicts
<<Insert “Indo Asian News Service ‘05” from p. 75 of India Bad File>>
KLN Page
45 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
d. Democratization prevents global nuclear conflict

<<Insert “Muravchik ‘01” from p. 75 of India Bad File>>
e. Deal would provide growth to us and Indian Economies and Indian Economic
growth key to Asian stability
<<Insert “India Abroad ‘06” from p. 76 of India Bad File>>
f. Asian instability cause global nuclear war, risk extinction

<<Insert “Cirincinone ‘00” from p. 76 of India Bad File>>
KLN Page
46 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
AT: Elections Scenario- Iran
1. No Uniqueness- McCain will win

[insert McCain Will Win CBS card from page 2 of the Elections Aff]
2. Obama will lose
[insert Obama Will Lose Telegraph card from page 3 of the Elections Aff]
3. No Uniqueness-Iran will not talk to Obama
The Australian, May 30, 2008 (Amir Taheri) P.LN
The problem that the world, including the US, has today is not with Iran as a nation state
but with the Islamic Republic as a revolutionary cause bent on world conquest under the
guidance of the ``Hidden Imam''. The following statement by the Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei, the ``supreme leader'' of the Islamic Republic -- who Obama proposes: ``You
have nothing to say to us. We object. We do not agree to a relationship with you. We are
not prepared to establish relations with powerful world devourers like you. The Iranian
nation has no need of the US , nor is the Iranian nation afraid of the US . We ... do not
accept your behavior, your oppression and intervention in various parts of the world.''
4. No Link- Americans are showing less support for alternative energy

Insert Public opinion changing Chemical News and Intelligence card from page 8
of the Elections Aff]
5. Warming no longer a key issue-
[insert Warming no longer key issue Chemical News and Intelligence card from page 8 of
the Elections Aff]
6. No Impact- McCain will not strike Iran
7. Congress is mostly democratic and would not authorize another war.
The Economist, March 29, 2008, P.LN
Mr McCain will face a reality test of his own. He is nothing if not stubborn; nobody
survives five-and-a-half years as a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam without a steely will. He
has happily picked fights with all and sundry, including his own party. For example, he
was one of the leading critics of the Bush administration on torture. He also cares deeply
and personally about national security. He risked political suicide by supporting the
"surge" when his party looked as if it was willing to soften on the Iraq war.
But even a man who proudly describes himself as a "son of a bitch" cannot buck public
opinion. The American public has turned sharply against military assertiveness, so Mr
McCain's hawkish instincts on foreign policy are hurting his chances of winning the
White House. And even if he can pull it off, he will have a tough time of it: both houses
of Congress will almost certainly have bigger Democratic majorities.
8. Switching to Hydrogen solves future war with Iran .
Pull through [insert Securing fossil fuels creates a power game placing the world
on the brink of a third world war from page 8 of the 1ac]
KLN Page
47 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
10. by breaking our dependence on foreign oil will eliminate the risk of future wars
with resource rich Iran .
KLN Page
48 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
AT: Elections Disad Gag Rule Impact
1. Non-Unique: Nadar will impact the election as he did in the 2000 election when he
took votes away form Gore. Obama will lose the election because he loses the necessary
votes he needs to overcome McCain.
2. Non-Unique: McCain will win for several reasons

<<insert CBS News card from page 2 of Election Aff. File>>
3. No Link: Energy and environment aren’t key issues in election

<<insert National Journal card from page 9 of Election Aff. File>>
4. No Link: Public Vote Divided

<<insert Global Public Opinion card on page 10 of Election Aff. File>>
5. Link Turn: Bush reputation up now

Goliath, Business knowledge on demand, 22-SEP-02
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2112923/Does-George-W-Bush-s.html
The real question is whether George W. Bush is merely lucky, in the right place at the
right time, or whether he has transcended to some new level in the public's mind, with
powerful long term political significance? Put another way, has the Bush popularity
remained high simply because the American people historically rally around a leader in
times of war, or is the popularity tied to Bush 's handling of the war, specifically to his
Texas-style penchant for wanting to "kick ass" against a feared opponent? Perhaps the
real issue here comes down to the question of what makes an individual "presidential" in
the national psyche? Has Bush achieved a destined level of presidential appropriateness
in the public's mind, or would any President's poll ratings remain high under similar
circumstances of long-term terrorist danger?
6. No Impact: Loopholes cause abortions to continue

<<insert Freddoso 03 card from page 14 of Elections Aff. File>>
7. No Impact: Population going down now

<<insert Brand in 5 card from page 13 of Elections Aff. File>>
8. Impact Analysis: The Neg. claims that when Obama will lose the election so the gag
rule will be repealed which leads to overpopulation, aids, and US soft power decline. Our
impacts magnitude is greater then the Neg. impacts.
KLN Page
49 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
a. Pull through our Rifkin ‘02 card that claims our collapse of civilization will
result from being dependant on oil. When oil runs out all societies that are
dependent on oil will collapse.
b. Pull through our BBC World Wide ’08 card which claims that nuclear
terrorism impacts. This card says that the new age of weapons will fall into
Terrorists hands and they will destroy their enemies.
c. Pull through our Loyd’s List ’07 card that has our world war and global
depression impacts which says if we are still dependent on fossil fuels when
we reach the end of the supply everyone will fight to gain those resources.
d. Pull through our Rifkin ’02 card that claims our global flood impact will result
from increasing carbon emissions. These emissions increase global warming
and melt ice caps. This extra water floods low areas killing millions of people.
e. Our impacts are greater in magnitude than the Neg. because our impacts lead
to massive deaths all over the globe where as the Neg. only have
overpopulation, aids, and US soft power decline. The Neg. impacts won’t
even matter if the people on the globe aren’t alive to experience them. Our
time frame is also better than the Neg. Oil is predicted to run out in 30-50
years and when that time hits our impacts will immediately happen. The Neg.
impacts could take centuries to happen. Overpopulation, this impact takes
centuries to have enough offspring to affect the globe. Aids, this impact takes
centuries of repopulating for everyone to get Aids and die. If won’t matter if
the people that are effected by these impacts are effected if they are all killed
by our impacts. You as a judge must vote for the Aff. Because we prevent
billions of people from dying this clearly outweighs the Neg. impacts.
KLN Page
50 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
Elections Link
Hydrogen Power has mounting support with the public—It’s popular.
The Israel Import and International Cooperation Institute, October 15, 2005
http://www.export.gov.il/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID=2632&CategoryID=640
If there were any doubt about the auto industry's fascination with hydrogen, one need
look no further than the Tokyo Motor Show.
Hydrogen-powered concept vehicles have a starring role as automakers try to divine their
future. Six automakers rolled out new versions, signaling the industry's seriousness about
the zero-emission alternative to gasoline.
To believers such as Larry Burns, General Motors' vice president of research and
development, the frenzy is validation — maybe even vindication — that hydrogen is
quickly gaining acceptance as the eventual replacement for gasoline. "I think we're
beginning to reach a tipping point," he said, standing next to the Sequel hydrogen concept
vehicle introduced in January in Detroit. "Our industry is very serious."
Some automakers are in a hurry. Mazda announced that it will begin production of a
hydrogen version of its sporty RX-8 within three years, starting in Japan. Instead of more
complicated fuel-cell stacks that produce energy through a chemical reaction, Mazda's
solution is to burn hydrogen in the car's rotary engine. Hydrogen combustion results in
some emissions but far fewer than from a gasoline-only engine.
The RX-8 Hydrogen RE is also being called a hybrid because if it runs out of its store of
hydrogen, it can switch to a separate gasoline tank.
Japan has about 15 hydrogen fueling stations, 10 around Tokyo. By the time the car goes
on sale, most likely to government and corporate fleets at first, the number of fueling
stations is likely to be about 30, says Mazda engineer Akihiro Kashiwagi.
Hydrogen's popularity at the show, which continues through Nov. 6, is recognition of the
potent selling power of environmentalism. But the molecule's attraction is also stoked by
soaring gasoline prices and fears related to global warming.
hydrogen Technology is Massively Unpopular
Nature News, The Energy Bulletin, Oct 6 2004, (Mark Peplow),
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041004/full/news041004-13.html
The duo considered the United Kingdom and the United States. Transport accounts for
about one third of each country's energy consumption.
UK transport uses only a tenth as much energy as the United States, but there is less land
available: the hydrogen switch would require 100,000 wind turbines, enough to occupy
an area greater than Wales.
It unlikely that enough turbines could ever be built, says Jim Oswald. On the other hand,
public opposition to nuclear energy deters many politicians. "I suspect we will do
nothing, because all the options are so unpopular."
KLN Page
51 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
"I don't think we'll ever have a true hydrogen economy. The outlook is extremely bleak,"
he adds. The brothers outline their calculation in the current issue of Accountancy
magazine.
"Hydrogen is not a near-term prospect," agrees Paul Ekins, an energy economist at the
Policy Studies Institute, London. "There will have to be a few fundamental breakthroughs
in technology first," he says.
Politicians eager to promote their green credentials, yet unaware of the realities, have
oversold the hydrogen dream, says Ekins. "I'm amazed by the number of politicians who
think you can dig hydrogen out of the ground," he says.
However, he thinks that the Oswalds are too pessimistic about the possibilities of new
technology. "An enormous amount of attention is being paid to generating hydrogen
cleanly," he says.
If we could trap the carbon dioxide produced by fossil fuels underground, we could
convert them to hydrogen, says Ekins. "It's not tried and tested, but it's a possibility." And
it could become a reality by the time we have enough hydrogen-powered cars to make it
necessary, he says.
So do the Oswalds have a more immediate answer to the hydrogen problem? "We could
always use less energy, but that doesn't seem very likely," Jim Oswald says ruefully
KLN Page
52 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
Kritik
Economic Management Kritik Answers
(All cards found in economic management Kritik file)
1. Alternative cannot change the system.
Basically, change won’t happen currently, because the way we treat our politicians is
bombard them with a bunch of imposable needs, which they can weasel out of easily. We
need to ask them strategic and well selected demands, so that they can’t get out of them
without bringing change.
Card page
61, Zizek, 2007, prefer the affirmative strategy…..
2. The general public would not agree with the alternative, only small majority would
accept
More of an analytic; basically anyone in power and controls the current status quo
wouldn’t give up power, and the change would have to be a revolution held by the true
believers, resulting obviously costly war and bloodshed, destroying the peace.
3. Aff plan is ethical-access to clean energy is a fundamental right-government intrusion

in to the economy is justified in this instance.
Basically, the human rights groups go after governments that restrict human rights. A
person who has been denied rights should receive repartition. A basic and fundamental
right to all humans is the availability of energy.
Card page
46, Tully, 2006, the human rights paradigm…
4. Corporate ethics are key to perpetual peace and co-operation - solves every impact.
Basically, the idea of peace can only come when businesses are part of the solution.
Peace means more than just a planet without armed conflict, but the commanding ideas of
the world are cooperation and nonviolence.
KLN Page
53 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
Card page
47, Mayer, 2007, the business community…
5. Evaluation of consequences is the utmost ethical act – their ethic allows infinite
violence
A. Their alternative completely relies on theory, but the fact of life is, that
the world is not just an extension of one’s will.
B. The negative’s Kritik counts on the fact that Zizek’s theories will be
completely accepted and applied completely, with no deviations. To do
this would eliminate free will, going against the aim of the Kritk’s goal.
C. The Kritik claims that free speech is mandatory, and goes against
hierarchy, but if everyone is forced to give up their possessions, anyone
who spoke up against the new system would upset it’s unrealistic
balance.
D. Everyone would have to be essentially programmed to operate in a
reality such as the alternative, which would take away free will, and
thus free speech.
6. Bio power does not lead to genocide or violence
Bio power, which one of the kritik’s targets, does not lead to genocide and war, such as
the Kritik says. Instead, it usually withdraws before killing is demanded.
Card:
55, Ojeakangas 2005, bio power does on lead to genocide and killing…
7. Capitalism decreases poverty – we’ll be the only one with uniqueness because
poverty is rapidly decreasing is the world of globalization
• NOTE Now, if the neg team asks ‘if capitalism solves poverty, them why is it a
problem?’ This will be your answer: The United States is not a pure capitalist
society, and thus poverty is still a problem. But its closer to pure capitalism, and
thus solving poverty, then the neg alternative.
Card page:
52, Norberg, 2003
KLN Page
54 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
8. Withdraw from the state is an acceptance of the ideology of capitalism
A. Withdraw is essentially the same act as accepting capitalism.

B. This means that enacting your Kritik would essentially put you in
a loop of withdrawing and accepting capitalistic ideas,
C. or not enacting the Kritik and staying with the capitalistic society
we have now.
Card page:
60, Zizek, 2007
9. Kritik requires reanalysis
A. When the Kritik alternative is implemented the problem of global

warming will still exist, and thus need to be dealt with.
B. Though, the amount of time it will take to convert the United States to
the alternative, the harms could have become worse, depending on the
amount of time (obviously not going to happen immediately)
C. if the alt is implemented then the human race is doomed from global
warming.
<<Just read your global warming kills us all cards, and link it to the Kritik’s result.>>
10. Kritik causes passivity and destroys political struggle.
The Kritik relies on psychoanalysis, which is essentially the alibi of intellectuals for
passivity and helplessness. The Kritik avoids the problem, and linking it to answer 9,
dooms the human race.
Card:
58, Gordon, 2001, Psychoanalysis is bad (says that psychoanalysis is the alibi of hopeless
intellectuals)
KLN Page
55 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
Conditionality Bad:
1. Time Skew: The neg could run ten conditional counter plans and then
kick all but the one with the least offense in the 2nr and the aff would
lose.
2. Unequal Ground: We as the affirmative can’t kick out of our plan text
and instead have to defend it, so the neg should as well.
3. Moving target: this allows the neg to shift their stance whenever they
want or even to run multiple counter plans and then kick one. Pinning
down the neg is key to fairness.
4. Ground: A conditional counter plan unfairly skews the round towards

the neg because it is the only argument that can be tossed out if
straight turned.
5. Education: forcing the aff to answer an ever-changing neg position

means that we will never discuss the any option in-depth.
KLN Page
56 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
Conditionality Good
1. Real World: Congress has the ability to explore multiple options and
then revert to the status quo. They aren’t stuck with something if they
decide it’s a bad idea. We should have the same options.
2. Key to neg strategy: Kicking a counterplan is not different than kicking

a disad. Kicking arguments is key to fairness and neg choice.
3. Best policy option: if we discover that counter plan isn't a good idea or
doesn't compete, we should be able to kick it. Key to topic specific
education.
4. Education: finding the best policy option and rejecting those that aren’t
good increases in-round education. This makes debate more real world.
5. Not a Time Skew: All constructive speeches are eight minutes long. If
we weren’t running the counterplan, we’d just run something else that
you would have to answer.
KLN Page
57 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
Dispositionality Good:
1. Forces Competition- if they don't want us to kick it, they can straight
turn it. Forces aff engagement on substance of the debate.
2. Best Policy Option- if our counter plan is a bad policy option, we

shouldn't be debating about it. This is key to in round education.
3. They'll argue that the counter plan is a time skew- but all we're trying
to do is find the best policy option. If its not worth debating any more,
then why waste our time?
4. Ground: Running multiple off-case arguments is key to core neg

strategy. It isn’t a time skew, its how debate works. We don’t argue
that running multiple advantages is a time skew.
5. Perm Checks – they have the right to perm, this checks back any abuse
that could result from the counter plan. If its not competitive, then they
shouldn't have to worry about it.
6. Fairness – this is the most fair way to run a counterplan.

Unconditionality unfairly restricts neg ground and conditionality is
much less appealing for the aff than dispositionality.
KLN Page
58 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
Dispositionality Bad:
1. Dispositionality is the same as conditionality: even if we turn the

counterplan, the neg can just advocate the advantages of the
counterplan as an independent disad to case that overcomes the
turn and we can never stick them with the counter plan killing
education and fairness.
2. Not reciprocal: the aff can’t kick out of the plan and has to
defend it, and so should the neg.
3. It’s not the same as running a disad: the counterplan interacts

with the plan in ways disads do not. This effects 2ac decisions,
creating a time and ground skew.
4. Education- only allowing one policy option is best because it

allows us to have a more in-depth debate. Allowing them to kick
out of the CP destroys these educational debates.
KLN Page
59 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
PICs Bad:
1. Unpredictability- Aff can never research trivial aspects of the plan to be

prepared for the PICs. The functional nature of most PICs makes the
research burden impossible.
2. Bad Plan Writing- Aff will try to minimize the amount of things in their
plan that the Neg can PIC out of, which hurts Neg ground. PICs
encourage vague, short plans.
3. Encourages Severence/Intrisic Perms- it forces us to debate against our

own plan text and to add or subtract from it to be competitive. Any
offense as to why our perm is bad is now turned because it’s offense
as to why PICs are bad.
4. PICs nullify the 1ac- by including our plan in the CP, the PIC steals all
affirmative ground from the 1ac and claims effects of our 2ac.
Removing PICs is key to fairness
5. Ground- PICs are abusive and steal core aff ground: our plan text. The
neg should be voted down for using abusive techniques which ruin the
integrity of policy debate
KLN Page
60 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
PICs Good
1. Morality: PICs let us move from callous nuclear war impacts and focus
on racial or abusive rhetoric in plan texts. Changing assumptions opens
debate up as well as creates space for an understanding we wouldn’t
otherwise have.
2. Theory is the real time suck: the aff should have answers to all neg
arguments. After all, they only have to be prepared for their case.
Don’t let them replace evidenced arguments with theory.
3. Drop the argument, not the team: if you buy that PICs could potentially
abuse the aff, there is still not internal link from potential abuse to
voting affirmative.
4. Depth vs. Breadth: PICs force the debate round to go in-depth about
one topic instead of learning a little bit about a bunch of different
topics. This is key to education.
KLN Page
61 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
Floating PICs Good
5. Clash: We can omit the link because we’re here for education. The aff should be
able to successfully argue why the USFG is key against any other actor or
alternative. If not, then their plan is not successful enough to win the round.
6. Education: Cross apply our clash argument – with clash, we are able to argue the
aff in-depth, making sure that everyone involved is educated and are able make a
fair and intelligent choice for the winner of the round.
7. Best policy option: The point of debate is to find the best policy option at the end
of the round. If our criticism manages to solve best, then we should still win.
8. Perm checks abuse: We still preserve their right to perm, this tests
competitiveness- if they win that the PIC and the aff are not competitive, then
they win the round.
9. Potential abuse: Potential for abuse is not a voting issue. Even if we set up for the
abuse, actually following through with these conditions is a completely different
scenario. Make them prove abuse!
KLN Page
62 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
Floating PICs Bad
1. Potential abuse: Potential abuse is a voting issue. Allowing the neg to set up the
right conditions for abuse is unfair towards the aff because we have to prepare for
it and it’s a prep time suck if they don’t go through with it. Don’t allow the neg to
get away with it.
2. Best policy option: The point of debate is to find the best policy option at the end
of the round but the neg has no right to take apart our aff and only use certain
parts – it was built to be used as a whole and will only work as so.
2. Perm doesn’t check abuse: The perm may check competition but PICs are
abusive.
KLN Page
63 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
Policy Framework Good
1. Education: Policy allows for an in depth analysis of the topic and encourages a
real debate against the opposing team.
2. Policy framework – policy framework was made for policy debate. If you don’t
like the framework associated with policy debate, don’t debate policy.
3. Realism – Policy framework keeps things incredibly realistic. While morals and
ethics do count, it’s straight hard facts that gain sympathy and increases success of
a program or presented plan.
KLN Page
64 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
Policy Framework Bad
1. Not Real World- we are not policy makers, we shouldn't have to be restricted
to their paradigm.
2. No bright line as to what is a policy framework and what isn't- if we have

specific solvency for our k, we can always win that it is a better option.
3. Best policy option- if we win that we solve better than the affirmative, then we
can still win that we're the best policy option
4. Predictability checks- yes, sometimes you have to debate a kritik. You should
prepare for it.
5. Ground- resolution is aff ground, everything else is neg ground. We shouldn't

be restricted to a policy framework.
6. Drop the argument not the team- make them prove abuse, don't vote us down
because we want to win.
KLN Page
65 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
Intrinsic Good
1. PICs – PICs promote the need for instrinsic perms because you must add
or subtract from your plan so that our plan remains competitive
2. Neg ground – Intrinsics increase neg ground because they can run disads
linking to the plan
3. Competition – perm proves that a combination of the plan and any

counterplan possible, they can always prove the counterplan is
noncompetitive
4. Supports Plan – Perms plus a plan tests competition, meaning that the plan
is still true no matter what
5. No shift- perm is only a test, it doesn’t actually change our stance in the
round.
KLN Page
66 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
Intrinsics bad
1. Abuses neg ground- by adding something else to the counter plan is

unfair to the neg and ruins the link
2. Kills education – perm takes away from focus on plan, which is the
main point of the debate round
3. Justifies neg abuse – allows for new or multiple CP’s in later speechs,
which is totally unfair
4. No competition – perm is illegit because additions are only additions,

they don’t actually prove any mutual exclusivity
5. Voter – Perm reduces debate to arguments like “infinity/infinity plus

one”, it’s elementary and useless and does not get us anywhere.
KLN Page
67 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
A2: WE JUST NEED TO MINE U.S. OIL
1. World oil production has reached Hubbert’s peak. Pull across my Provenzano 2007
This means that even if the United States has oil reserves to access, it would not
prevent any of our harms in fact, because the demand for oil is going to increase
exponentially compared to the supply of oil it is actually going to make our harms
occur more rapidly.
2. Collapse in oil will lead to a collapse in civilization. Pull across my Rifkin 2002 The
bottom line is that this impact is inevitable without an alternative energy resource
4. Securing fossil fuel as our main energy source will lead to a resource war which will
kill half the world’s population and bring about global depression. Pull across my
Loyd’s List 2007 card
3. Global Warming will kill half of the human population. Pull across my Rifkin 2002
4. Promoting hydrogen technology is the ONLY long term fix. This means that even if
you buy the negative team’s argument that the United States has oil reserves
significant to mine in, the bottom line is that their fix is only delaying the inevitable.
Pull across across my Schwartz and Randall 2003 card
5. We are already seeing the beginning effects of these impacts. The Iraq War and
continual depletion of the world’s ecosystems prove this. We are very close to
reaching the brink of global devastation and continual mining will only push us even
faster. An alternative is the only way to save our planet.
6. Alternative oils will only worsen all existing problems associated with oil
consumption.
7. : Data about oil reserves is wrong- far less oil likely to exist
16. Finally US oil supplies would cause significant change in energy crisis
“Talk Radio News Service, DC” June 25th 2008
Deputy Assistant Energy Secretary for Petroleum Reserves David Johnson said in his testimony that the
price of home heating oil can be lowered by increasing domestic production of oil by drilling on continental
shelves and in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR.) Kerry told Johnson that oil from the ANWR
would only lower American gas prices two cents per gallon at full production and that the United States
only has three percent of global oil reserves. Kerry continued, saying the United States’ oil supply is not
KLN Page
68 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
large enough to lower international prices and that the rhetoric employed by Johnson and others has “worn
short.
KLN Page
69 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
AT: Plan won’t solve – not modeled worldwide – no signif decr in CO2 lvls
1. Though our plan is only in the U.S., other countries will follow because
the U.S. is incredibly influential globally and especially with developing
countries. Our influence in the global market will cause other countries
want to compete competivetly – with hydrogen being highly efficient
and dwindling oil supplies, it will be the only way other countries will
be able to compete.
a. U.S. is not alone in its interest in hydrogen—the competitive market

forces the international world—Brazil, China, India, to follow the U.S.
and support hydrogen infrastructure.
The International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy, IPHE, ‘About the
International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy’, September 28, 2006,
http://www.iphe.net/about.htm
The inaugural IPHE Ministerial meeting was held November 19-21, 2003 in
Washington DC, USA. A Terms of Reference was signed by the 16 IPHE partners
and the initial meetings of the two IPHE Committees (Steering Committee and
Implementation-Liaison Committee) were held. In the months since the
Ministerial meeting, the IPHE Steering Committee has established an active IPHE
Secretariat and met in China and France to address stakeholder involvement,
project development, policy coordination, technology collaboration, and market
development issues. The IPHE Implementation-Liaison Committee (ILC) recently
met in Iceland and developed the ?Reykjavik Action Plan? which focuses on
identifying the current hydrogen technology research, development and
demonstration activities of the IPHE partners and examining approaches for
focusing these activities with collaborative efforts. Moreover, the ILC has assisted
Brazil, China, India, and the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperative with hydrogen
road mapping activities and developed a series of international research and
development workshops, including a hydrogen storage workshop in Italy in 2005.
The IPHE will be successful when the following factors characterize the world?s
transportation sector: Hydrogen-powered vehicles are competitive with
conventional vehicles. The price and availability of hydrogen are competitive with
conventional fuels.
Hydrogen fuel is conveniently available to hydrogen vehicle drivers, based on
improved fueling and storage infrastructure. Hydrogen energy storage
KLN Page
70 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
technologies will allow personal transportation systems to operate at the same

levels of safety, performance and range as today?s gasoline powered vehicles. An
internationally consistent system of safety codes and standards related to
hydrogen utilization is developed and adopted.
b. The U.S will be modeled on its hydrogen policy internationally with

oil-consuming countries—The EU, China, India, Japan, and
developing nations. Concerns of competition in the Global Market,
energy security, and the environment drive interest.
Canadian Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Industry, Industry Canada, ‘Global Market for
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology’, June 4, 2008, http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/hfc-
hpc.nsf/en/mc00063e.html
In the EU, fuel cell and hydrogen R&D is driven by concerns about the environment,
energy security and industrial competitiveness. Automotive and transport applications are
the primary focus for EU fuel cell and hydrogen organizations. However, high electricity
prices are also driving research aimed at integrating stationary fuel cell applications with
renewable energy. Japan, with its substantial population, large industrial base and lack of
natural resources, is looking to hydrogen and fuel cells to reduce its dependence on the
expensive and environmentally damaging fossil-fuel energy systems it now uses. Energy
security and reliability, together with environmental protection and economic
development, are the primary drivers of Japanese interest in the new energy paradigm. In
developing countries, rapid economic growth is driving a phenomenal demand for
energy. China and India in particular will have a major influence on the hydrogen and
fuel cell industry as their expanding technical and manufacturing capacity exerts an ever-
increasing effect on global supply chains. These countries present tremendous market
potential, including the opportunity for new technologies to leapfrog conventional ones.
The near-term sharing of technologies and the development of new partnerships will
encourage successful commercialization in Canada and promote long-term market
penetration abroad. China urgently needs energy and natural resources to support its
growth. The drivers for China's fuel cell and hydrogen R&D are concerns about energy
supply, distribution and security, together with problems of air quality and the desire for
manufacturing leadership. India is the world's second-most populous country, with a huge
and rapidly growing middle class and a booming economy. Reforms and deregulation in
the 1990s have led to an improved investment climate and an increased competitive
KLN Page
71 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
position for Indian industry. Drivers for the transition to the new energy paradigm are air
quality concerns, rural electrification, energy security and reliability, and energy demand.
2. Other countries are currently demonstrating the success of hydrogen,

the U.S. is not the only one. European CO2 levels will be down 40% by
2050, and specifically, Denmark has a public policy that is incredibly
successful.
a. <<insert Platts Oilgram News pg. 136 aff file>>
b. <<insert Provenzano pg. 137 aff file>>
3. Doesn’t matter if the U.S. is the only country  outweighs countries

like China because china has a very low emissions per capita and it’s
not too late to stop global warming impacts from developing countries
who are rapidly contributing to CO2 levels. If we take action right now,
we can stop the very worst of climate change impacts.
a. <<insert Walker & King pg 17 gwarming core file>>
b. <<insert Walker & King pg18 gwarming core file>>
4. Our benefits outweigh completely – negative effects of global warming

can never be solved 100% but doing something about it is better than
doing nothing – hydrogen is the key technology and solves the best
a. <<extend entire 1AC solvency>>
5. Our extinction impact outweighs as well because our transportation

economy is almost completely dependant on carbon (and growing).
This intense depdancy will destroy the entirety of civilization. This
impact will happen within 25 years, outweighing the timeframe of the
negative completely, which is also why hydrogen is key NOW  best
way to stop it
a. <<extend 1AC oil collapse advantage>>

KLN Page
72 of 72
SDI 2008
Hydrogen 2ac
b. <<insert Rifkin pg25 card from gwarming core file (THE TOP
CARD)>>
c. <<insert Rifkin pg 26 gwarming core file>>
6. Cross apply our oil dependency argument. This dependacy also leads
to terrorism that degrades U.S. security and will cause nuclear
terrorism. This impact has a closer timeframe and is more probable.
The longer we use oil, the more profits fund Islamic extremists.
Hydrogen is the ONLY alternative to this depedance.
a. <<extend terror advantage>>
b. <<insert Rifkin pg 30 gwarming core file>>

KLN 2ac Blocks

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

KLN 2ac Blocks

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KLN Page 1

2AC ANSWERS HYDROGEN AFF—INDEX

2. The negative definition is a quote from the Institute of International Education in

3. Counterdefine- Substantial is a considerable amount, quanity, size, etc.

AT: T--Alt Energy

In the spirit of examining what would be required to develop infrastructure for a

Rajesh K. Ahluwalia, X. Wang , A. Rousseau and R. Kumar, Argonne National

AT: Global Warming Naturally Caused

AT: Not at Peak Oil

[insert Engdahl 04 card(in impact core) pg. 20]

a. It doesn’t specify what Soft Power is on the brink of and

b. It doesn’t specify what brink is.

Hydrogen is safe BLOCK

1. We still have formidable solvency.

4. Empirically, hydrogen is significantly safer than gasoline cars

5. Hydrogen is safer than gasoline

6. Hydrogen significantly safer than other combustible fuels

7. Hydrogen technology is safe

8. Hydrogen is safer than all other fuels

9. Hydrogen was not the cause of the Hindenburg explosion

<<insert EcoWorld card from page 233 of Aff file>>

11. Hydrogen is safer than gasoline despite false perceptions otherwise

12. Hydrogen safer than natural gas and gasoline

A2 Solvency Storage Bad

<Insert card Provenzano 2007 pg 159>

AT: Solvency: Leakage

AT: Hydrogen is not economically feasible.

1: Hydrogen infrastructure is cheaper then fossil fuel infrastructure:

a. Expanding a hydrogen infrastructure is much cheaper then maintaining current

117, Cost per Kilowatt claims are exaggerated…., Provenzo, 2007

b. moving to hydrogen is actually more ‘economically feasible’ then what we have

2: Hydrogen infrastructure already exists:

109, Industrial infrastructure already exists, Lovins 2005

3: Hydrogen could save billions during usually costly blackouts:

113, Fuel cells desirable….., RMI 2008

4: Investments spur development

a. Investment faster and more profitable transition.

AT: Hydrogen Not Technologically Feasible

1. Hydrogen can be produced using renewable energy

2. Hydrogen is much more efficient

Refer to cards in the aff file

3. Hydrogen can be clean even from fossil fuels

Refer to aff file cards

5. Hydrogen lays foundation for renewable energy

6. Renewable energy is the purpose of Hydrogen power

7. Hydrogen is critical to creating inexhaustible energy. Extend prevenzano 2007-

<<insert Dinan ’08 evidence from page 66 of the States/Fism Core>>

4. Congress checks a destruction of federalism

5. American federalism isn’t modeled – multinational states prove

6. Emerging democracies of the past 20 years prove the US federalist model no

7. Turn: Federalism sparks ethnic conflict

8. The Risk of conflict outweighs

9. Collapse of civilization includes the collapse of federalism

Federal Tax Incentives Best

1. IF ENFORCED AT THE STATE LEVEL THE IMPACT WOULD NOT BE

2. INCENTIVES NEED TO BE OFFERED AT BOTH STATE AND

<<insert Provenzano card (Gov’t policy k to ushering in hydrogen trans.) from p.

3. IF INCENTIVES WERE OFFERED AT A FEDERAL LEVEL, IT WOULD

Hydrogen technologies are sufficiently advanced to begin deployment now. There

4. OTHER COUNTRIES PROVE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

5. SCANDINAVIA PROVIDES AN EMPERICAL EXAMPLE, UNITY IS

Denmark’s plan for creating a hydrogen-fueling infrastructure is called HyLink.