COON-HARDY CAP AND TRADE AFF AND NEG

1AC………………………………………………………………………………………..2-17
ECON ADV EXT…………………………………………………………………..……..18-21
GLOBAL WARMING ADV EXT……………………………………………………..…22
POLITICS LINK TURNS……………………………………………………………........23-24
SOLVENCY EXT……………………………………………………………………....…25
CASE NEG……………………………………………………………………………...…26-39

1
 INHERENCY

Federal action is key in reducing climate change

Robert B. McKinstry, Jr., John C. Dernbach, and Thomas D. Peterson,
no date.
Project Collaborator at Penn State in the department of energy and environment.

States are at the forefront of climate change efforts in

the United States. These efforts involve more and
more states and are becoming increasingly ambitious
and regional in scope. Most observers, even at the
state level, see state and regional efforts as a next-best strategy
in the absence of serious national leadership. The growing
prospect of comprehensive national climate change legisla-
tion, however, raises many important questions about the role
of state efforts in a national climate change program.
This article identifies the key state/federal issues that
should be addressed in any comprehensive national climate
change legislation and provides recommendations for resolving
these issues. We cannot hope to successfully address climate
change without fully engaging states and their local govern-
ments as partners in the national effort. In the early 1970s,
Congress passed national air-quality, water-quality, surface
mining, solid and hazardous waste, and other legislation based
on models created by prior state action. This federal legisla-
tion created floors and requirements for states that had failed
to do the job but left a significant role for states both in
implementing the federal model and continuing to act. As a
result, state environmental protection and natural resource
agencies have become larger, better funded, more profession-
ally staffed, and more effective than they were in 1970. For
climate change, by contrast, the federal government has
delayed taking action far beyond the time in which it acted
previously. State and regional actions greatly exceed in both
scope and number those seen on other environmental issues
prior to major federal legislation.
The federal government’s failure to take significant action
has not been due to any desire to allow states to pursue inde-
pendent action without federal interference. But the states
have responded to climate change because they believe their
shorelines, water resources, key industries, and people are at
risk. Much of what the states have done, moreover, falls
squarely within their traditional police power roles, including
public health and safety protection and regulation of land
2
use.

3
 INHERENCY

Senate rejection of cap and trade further causes global warming and the greenhouse effect.

Reuters, Environmental News Network, June 6, 2008

U.S. legislation that would have set up a cap-and-trade system to limit climate-warming
carbon emissions died on Friday after a procedural vote in the Senate. The bill, which had
bipartisan support but not enough to overcome opposition, aimed to cut total U.S. global
warming emissions by 66 percent by 2050. Opponents said it would cost jobs and raise fuel
prices in an already pinched American economy. Known as the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, the
bill's chances of passage were always slim. Even if Congress had approved it, President George W. Bush
had vowed a veto. Bush has consistently opposed any economy-wide program to curb the carbon
dioxide emissions that spur climate change, arguing that this would hurt the U.S. economy.U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions would drop by about 2 percent per year between 2012 and 2050, based
on 2005 emission levels, under a summary of the measure by its Senate supporters.Carbon
dioxide, which contributes to the climate-warming greenhouse effect, is emitted by fossil-fueled
vehicles, coal-fired power plants and natural sources, including human breath. Senators John
McCain and Barack Obama, the respective Republican and Democratic presidential
nominees, were not present for Friday's vote, but both support limiting human-generated
emissions that spur climate change.

4
 CONTENTION ONE: THE ECONOMY

Global warming will cause global economy collapse.

The associated press, 10-31-06

Unchecked global warming will devastate the world economy on the scale of the world
wars and the Great Depression, a British government report said yesterday, as the country
launched a bid to convince doubters that environmentalism and economic growth can
coincide.Prime Minister Tony Blair said unabated climate change would eventually cost the
world the equivalent of between 5 percent and 20 percent of global gross domestic product
each year. He called for "bold and decisive action" to cut carbon emissions and stem the worst of
the temperature rise."It is not in doubt that, if the science is right, the consequences for our planet
are literally disastrous," he said. "This disaster is not set to happen in some science fiction
future many years ahead, but in our lifetime."The report emphasized that global warming
can only be fought with the cooperation of major countries such as the United States and
China, and represents a huge contrast to the Bush administration's wait-and-see global
warming policies. Sir Nicholas Stern, the senior government economist who wrote the report, said that acting now to cut
greenhouse gas emissions would cost about 1 percent of global GDP each year. He recommended a "low-carbon global economy"
through measures including taxation, regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and carbon trading. "That is manageable," he said.
"We can grow and be green."President Bush kept America - by far the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed
for global warming - out of the Kyoto international treaty to reduce greenhouse gases, saying the pact would harm the U.S.
economy. The international agreement was reached in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 and expires in
2012.Blair has made it clear that when it comes to the environment Bush's policies on climate
change are unacceptable.The prime minister made that clear when he signed an agreement this
year with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to develop new technologies to combat the
problem. The measure imposed the first emissions cap in the United States on utilities,
refineries and manufacturing plants in a bid to curb the gases that scientists blame for
warming the Earth.

5
 CONTENTION ONE: THE ECONOMY

Economic decline causes extinction.

T.E. Bearden LTC U.S. Army (ret) Director of Association of Distinguished American Scientists and Fellow
Emeritus, Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study, The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to
Solve It Quickly, 6-24-2k, http://www.seaspower.com/EnergyCrisis-Bearden.htm

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

6
 CONTENTION TWO: THE ENVIRONMENT

Global warming leads to global disease and water shortage, and famine and extinction.
New York Times, Published: March 12, 2007
WASHINGTON, March 11

The harmful effects of global warming on daily life are already showing up, and within a
couple of decades hundreds of millions of people will not have enough water, top scientists
are likely to say next month at a meeting in Belgium.At the same time, tens of millions of
others will be flooded out of their homes each year as the earth reels from rising
temperatures and sea levels, according to portions of a draft of an international scientific
report by the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Tropical diseases
like malaria will spread, the draft says. By 2050, polar bears will mostly be found in zoos,
their habitats gone. Pests like fire ants will thrive. For a time, food will be plentiful because of
the longer growing season in northern regions. But by 2080, hundreds of millions of people
could face starvation, according to the report, which is still being revised. The draft
document, the second of a series of four being issued this year, focuses on global warming’s
effects. Written and reviewed by more than 1,000 scientists from dozens of countries, it still
must be edited by government officials.But some scientists said the overall message is not likely to change when it is issued in
early April in Brussels, where European Union leaders agreed Friday to work to cut greenhouse gas emissions substantially by
2020. Their plan will be presented to President Bush and other world leaders at a summit meeting in June. The draft report offers
some hope if nations slow and then reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, but it says what has been happening has not been
encouraging. “Changes in climate are now affecting physical and biological systems on every
continent,” the report says, in marked contrast to a 2001 report by the same international
group that said the effects of global warming were coming. But that report mentioned only
scattered regional effects. “Things are happening and happening faster than we expected,” said
Patricia Romero Lankao of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., one
of the many co-authors of the new report. The draft document says scientists are highly confident
that many current problems — change in species’ habits and habitats, more acidified oceans, loss
of wetlands, bleaching of coral reefs and increases in allergy-inducing pollen — can be attributed
to global warming. For example, the report says North America “has already experienced
substantial ecosystem, social and cultural disruption from recent climate extremes,” like
hurricanes and wildfires. But Ms. Romero Lankao said that global warming soon would “affect
everyone’s life,” and added that “it’s the poor sectors that will be most affected.” Another co-
author, Terry Root of Stanford University, said, “We truly are standing at the edge of mass
extinction” of species. The United Nations-organized network of 2,000 scientists was
established in 1988 to give regular assessments of the earth’s environment. The draft report
says that hundreds of

\millions of Africans and tens of millions of Latin Americans who now have water will be
short of it in less than 20 years. By 2050, more than a billion people in Asia could face water
shortages. By 2080, water shortages could threaten 1.1 billion to 3.2 billion people,
depending on the level of greenhouse gases that cars and industry spew into the air.

It says that death rates for the world’s poor from conditions worsened by the changes
7
global warming brings, like malnutrition and diarrhea, will rise by 2030. By 2080, 200
million to 600 million people could be hungry because of global warming’s effects, it says. It
also says that Europe’s small glaciers will disappear, with many of the continent’s large glaciers
shrinking sharply by 2050. And half of Europe’s plant species could be vulnerable, endangered
or extinct by 2100. The hardest-hit continents are likely to be Africa and Asia, with major harm
also coming to small islands and some aspects of ecosystems near the poles. North America,
Europe and Australia are predicted to suffer the fewest of the harmful effects. “In most parts of
the world and most segments of populations, lifestyles are likely to change as a result of climate
change,” the draft report said. “Net valuations of benefits vs. costs will vary, but they are more
likely to be negative if climate change is substantial and rapid, rather than if it is moderate and
gradual.” Many, though not all, of those effects can be prevented, the report says, if within a generation the world slows down
its emissions of carbon dioxide and if the level of greenhouse gases sticking around in the atmosphere stabilizes. If that is the
case, the report says, “most major impacts on human welfare would be avoided; but some major impacts on ecosystems are likely
to occur.”

8
 CONTENTION TWO: THE ENVIRONMENT

And, Even if we can't SOLVE warming we must slow the rate of change to give humans the
time to adapt.
Smithsonian Institute, March 3, 2008. The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institution
(STRI) in Panama, is a bureau of the Smithsonian Institution based outside of the United
States, is dedicated to understanding biological diversity.
<http://www.stri.org/english/about_stri/headline_news/scientific_advances/article.php?id=7
61>

The following information was released by the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute: Planet
Earth is only a few degrees away from experiencing drastic changes that will affect human
lifestyles. Measures to delay some of the most dangerous but already unavoidable effects of
climate change will allow humans to prepare and maybe adapt to the most foreseeable of
these changes. Soon, we will face great challenges. Increased number of hot days and exposure
to pests and diseases. Melting permafrost followed by sea level rise and increased erosion, in
particular on islands and coastlines. Decreased ice cover (later freeze and earlier breakup) will
allow increased erosion in beaches and coastal cliffs. Increased water temperature and
subsequent decreased dissolved oxygen: disease among fish; reduction in the productivity of
marine ecosystems. Glacial retreat and decreased snow cover will disrupt hibernation patterns
with an increase in predators in urban areas. Droughts and flooding will result from changes in
precipitation regimes. The frequency of extreme climatic events will bring habitat loss and
mortality to all organisms including (hum)man(ity). Sea level rise and salt water intrusion in
coastal wetlands is expected to change species distribution and cause[s] the extinction of
many species vital to the food chain, as we know it. Decreased freshwater availability will
require new land and property ownership policies and new freshwater treatment everywhere.

9
 CONTENTION THREE: OIL DEPENDENCE

America is dependent on the Middle East for oil.

By Tom Z. Collina Executive Director of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs
United States Senate, October 19, 2005

America imports almost 60% of its oil today and, at this rate, we’ll import 70% by
2025. Where will that oil come from? Two-thirds of the world’s oil is in the
Middle East, primarily in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq. The United States has less
than 3% of global oil. The Department of Energy predicts that North American
oil imports from the Persian Gulf will double from 2001 to 2025. Other oil
suppliers, such as Venezuela, Russia, and West Africa, are also politically
unstable and hold no significant long-term oil reserves compared to those in the
Middle East.Bottom line: our economy and security are increasingly dependent on one of
the most unstable regions on earth. Unless we change our ways, we will find
ourselves even more at the mercy of Middle East oil and thus more likely to get
involved in future conflicts. The greater our dependence on oil, the greater the pressure to
protect and control that oil. The growing American dependence on imported oil is the
primary driver of U.S. foreign and military policy today, particularly in the Middle East,
and motivates an aggressive military policy now on display in Iraq. To help avoid similar
wars in the future and to encourage a more cooperative, responsible, and multilateral
foreign policy the United States must significantly reduce its oil use. Before the Iraq war
started, Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said:
“Regardless of whether we say so publicly, we
will go to war, because Saddam sits at the center of a region with more than 60
percent of all the world's oil reserves.” Unfortunately, he was right.
In fact, the use of military power to protect the flow of oil has been a central tenet
of U.S. foreign policy since 1945. That was the year that President Franklin D.
Roosevelt promised King Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia that the United States
would protect the kingdom in return for special access to Saudi oil—a promise
that governs U.S. foreign policy today.

10
 CONTENTION THREE: OIL DEPENDENCE

Oil Dependence causes terrorism

Sandalow 2007, energy and environment scholar at Brookings University.

The second myth is that strong action against terrorist infrastructure (leaders, recruitment,
funding, propaganda, training, weapons, operational command and control) will only increase
terrorism. The argument here is that law-enforcement efforts and military retaliation inevitably
will fuel more brutal acts of violent revenge. Clearly, if this perception continues to prevail,
particularly in democratic societies, there is the danger it will paralyze governments and thereby
encourage further terrorist attacks. In sum, past experience provides useful lessons for a realistic future strategy. The
prudent application of force has been demonstrated to be an effective tool for short- and long-term deterrence of terrorism. For
example, Israel's targeted killing of Mohammed Sider, the Hebron commander of the Islamic Jihad, defused a "ticking bomb."
The assassination of Ismail Abu Shanab -- a top Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip who was directly
responsible for several suicide bombings including the latest bus attack in Jerusalem -- disrupted
potential terrorist operations. Similarly, the U.S. military operation in Iraq eliminated Saddam Hussein's regime as a
state sponsor of terror. Thus, it behooves those countries victimized by terrorism to understand a cardinal message communicated
by Winston Churchill to the House of Commons on May 13, 1940: "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of terror, victory however
long and hard the road may be: For without victory, there is no survival." "This constant dependence on oil is
something that leaves this country vulnerable every day," Bloomberg said on his weekly
WABC radio show."Two reasons. One, what happens if it gets cut off overseas? And we're
never going to have enough capacity domestically," he said. "And, two, where are these
petro dollars going? They are going to buy arms for terrorists who are going to attack
freedom around the world and, as 9/11 showed, they can attack here as well." Earlier in the
show, Bloomberg specifically linked the nation's dependence on foreign oil to the funding of
the Al Qaeda terrorist network.The mayor said the country's "dependency on foreign oil" goes
straight to "funding Al Qaeda. I don't think there's any argument about where these petro dollars
are going," Bloomberg declared."It's unfortunate that a mayor of his stature would make such statements," said Nail
Al-Jubeir, a spokesman for the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Washington. "I urge him to read the 9/11 report, which should
answer his concerns."Saudi Arabia, considered an ally of the United States, is this country's third largest supplier of oil. Al-
Jubeir said he was very disappointed that Bloomberg would make such a "blanket" and "unfounded" allegation."I don't know
what the intent of it was," Al-Jubeir said. "But the mayor - with his background in business - should know better than that."Asked
if he understood how Bloomberg's comments could be deemed offensive, Wayne White, former deputy director of
the State Department's Middle East intelligence office during the Bush administration, said, "Oh,
dear God, yes.""There are good petro dollars and bad petro dollars - lots of good ones and some
bad ones," White explained.White said he and others believe that some of the petro dollars Iran
gets go to fund Hezbollah in Lebanon. But according to government figures, the United States
imports no oil from Iran, and less than 1% from Syria.White described the mayor's remarks as
"unhelpful" because "it diminishes the awareness of the extent to which a lot of petro dollars are
going into many important efforts by the governments that are getting them."According to the
U.S. Energy Information Administration, the United States currently imports less than 17% of its
crude oil from the Persian Gulf. The top suppliers of oil to the U.S. are Canada, Mexico, Saudi
Arabia, Venezuela and Nigeria.In fact, since 1999, Canada has been the largest supplier of oil to
the United States."There's a very strong energy relationship between the two countries, and we're
hoping to get that message out," said Bernard Etzinger, a spokesman for the Canadian Embassy
in Washington.Stu Loeser, Bloomberg's press secretary, conceded yesterday that not everydollar
11
spent on foreign oil is funding a terrorist organization."Nevertheless, there are oil producing
entities that have direct ties to terrorist organizations, and that's what the mayor was
talking about," he said.Asked if the mayor wanted to apologize to the Saudis and others
who may have taken offense by his statement, Loeser declined to comment."He speaks his
mind," Loeser said. "Most people who were listening know what he was talking about."

12
 CONTENTION THREE: OIL DEPENDENCE

Oil dependence promotes violence.

George L. Perry, 2001. Senior Fellow, Economic Studies. Long-time editor of the
Brookings Papers on Economic Activity

Today the future is murkier and the role of Saudi oil less certain. Oil
prices have not been a problem and they do not become a problem
in the likely case scenario just described. But we have to consider
less likely but worse scenarios as well. These will inevitably have an
air of unreality about them, but then so would the September
terrorist attack on the United States had anyone described that in
advance. These worse scenarios can illustrate the magnitude of
problems that could arise and the usefulness of remedies that are
available to oil consuming nations.
Unfortunately, such scenarios are easy to construct. Currently 28 percent of
the world’s crude oil comes from the Organization of Arab Petroleum
Exporting Countries (OAPEC) consisting of Arab Muslim nations, some of
which are not part of the OPEC cartel (table B). If extremists who sponsor
terrorism had their way, they would control all these sources of oil. How far
fetched is that? Bin Laden has said the oil price should be $144 a barrel. The
governing regimes in all the countries are at some risk, so their oil supply
provides a basis for examining hypothetical changes in the control of oil
resources.

13
 CONTENTION THREE: OIL DEPENDENCE

Oil prices are at an all time high now, and at this rate will collapse american economy,
change is needed for there to be an efficent to alternative fuel.

Edmund L. Andrews - The New York Times Media Group, November 29 2007

As oil prices flirt with record highs, hovering around $94 a barrel Wednesday, the
Democratic and Republican U.S. presidential candidates are offering few quick fixes but
profoundly different long-term approaches to energy policy.Over the next decade or two,
the differences could have a major effect on billions of dollars in U.S. government
spending, on the relative prices of gasoline versus renewable fuels and on the efficiency
of American cars and trucks.For Democrats, the goal of energy policy is largely about reducing oil
consumption and has become inseparable from the goal of reducing the risk of climate change.For the Republican
candidates, energy policy is primarily about producing more energy at home - more oil and gas drilling on the Outer
Continental Shelf and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; more use of American coal to produce liquid fuel; and, as
with Democrats, more renewable fuels like ethanol.By contrast, all of the Democratic candidates would
repeal billions of dollars in tax breaks for oil companies, spend billions more each year to
develop alternative fuels and require cars and trucks to be far more fuel-efficient.Indeed, most
of the Democratic rivals are proposing plans that are more aggressive than the bills that Democratic leaders in Congress are
hoping to pass before Christmas. The disparity raises questions about whether the candidates' plans
are politically realistic.The candidates, however, are quietly acknowledging limits to what
they can offer in the way of immediate relief, aside from putting more money into a program
that helps low-income people with heating oil costs.''There are no short-term solutions,'' said
Leo Hindery, the chief economic adviser to John Edwards, a former senator from North
Carolina who has positioned himself to the populist left of his principal Democratic
rivals.The Republican contenders, maintaining the traditional conservative approach of
relying on market forces, are much more reluctant to impose change through restrictions on
oil and coal or mandates for alternative fuels.''The truth is that the answer to high prices is
high prices,'' said R. Glenn Hubbard, a top economic adviser to Mitt Romney, a former
Republican governor of Massachusetts. ''This is one area where the public expects more
from politicians than politicians can deliver.''

14
THUS, THE PLAN: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD
IMPLEMENT A CAP AND TRADE PROGRAM TO REDUCE EMISSIONS BY 80%
BELOW 1990 LEVELS 2050

15
 CONTENTION FOUR: SOLVENCY

Carbon Tax will reduce the missions by 2050 by 80 percent below the
levels in 1990
The New York Times, October 9, 2007

Senator Barack Obama presented a plan on Monday to decrease the nation's

dependence on foreign oil and fight global warming by creating an auction
system requiring power companies and other industries to pay for their
pollution. By the year 2020, he said, emissions would be reduced to levels
from 1990.In a speech in New Hampshire , Mr. Obama, the
Democratic presidential candidate from Illinois, called for imposing
a national cap on carbon emissions, investing $150 billion over 10
years to develop new energy sources and reducing dependence on
foreign oil by 35 percent by 2030.''No business will be allowed to
emit any greenhouse gases for free,'' Mr. Obama said in Portsmouth, N.H.
''Businesses don't own the sky, the public does, and if we want them to stop polluting it, we have to
put a price on all pollution.''The energy speech was the latest effort by Mr. Obama to cast himself as a
critic of how business has been conducted in Washington . Every president since Gerald R.
Ford, Mr. Obama argued, has pledged to curb fossil fuel use, but the United
States ' dependence on foreign oil has climbed. He proposed instituting a
mandatory ''cap and trade'' program across the economy to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions to the level recommended by top
scientists, a figure that he did not specify Monday. Under his plan,
businesses would be required to buy allowances to pollute, which
would create financial incentives to limit energy use or reduce
emissions. Mr. Obama said if he was elected, the government would
set a national cap on carbon emissions, which by 2050 would be
reduced to 80 percent below the levels in 1990. Though he did not mention his
campaign rivals by name, Mr. Obama criticized those who opposed gradual increases in gasoline
mileage standards for cars, which included Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York . ''When they
had the chance to stand up and require automakers to raise their fuel standards, they refused,'' Mr.
Obama said. ''When they had multiple chances to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by investing in
renewable fuels that we can literally grow right here in America , they said no.''Mr. Obama, who
had faced criticism from some environmental groups for supporting the Bush
administration's energy bill in 2005 and for pushing legislation to help Illinois'
coal industry, was praised Monday by the League of Conservation Voters, an
independent group. The group's president, Gene Karpinski, said, ''By
embracing a mandatory cap-and-trade program, the Obama energy plan
would provide incentives to cut production of carbon dioxide and other
pollutants that cause global warming.''In Iowa , meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton
began a ''rebuilding the middle class'' bus tour on Monday that included a
50-minute speech on economic prosperity with new proposals to benefit
unions and homeowners in particular. Speaking in Cedar Rapids , she called
16
for reviewing pacts like the North American Free Trade Agreement every five
years -- not as aggressive a position as John Edwards's call for renegotiating
Nafta or Representative Dennis J. Kucinich's call for canceling it, but an idea
that received applause nonetheless.

17
 CONTENTION FOUR: SOLVENCY

Carbon tax solves lowers global warming

Gerald Karey, March 30, 2007 (Platts Oilgram News, THE AMERICAS
Pg. 10 Vol. 85 No. 64)

EPA backs carbon cap-and-trade program;

House panel told can be effective environmental policy Based on the
US Environmental Protection Agency's 20 years of experience
designing and operating cap-and trade programs, such programs
"can be a cost-effective, flexible and efficient environmental policy
instrument for industry and government, “clearly demonstrate that
market-based cap-and-trade programs are an effective means of achieving
broad improvements in air quality." The subcommittee was specifically
seeking to draw lessons from existing cap-and-trade programs and the
usefulness of such an approach in controlling carbon emissions.Representative
Dennis Hastert, Republican-Illinois, the ranking member of the subcommittee, said the key lessons
learned from the acid rain program is that the "state of the commercial technology is critical. No
commercially available technology exists at this time to remove carbon dioxide. Without the
technology, cap-and-trade is "cap-and-pray," Hastert said.McLean said for a 5% carbon cap,
technological "options are available. If you set the cap at 50%, you would have difficulty." Richard
Sandor, CEO of the Chicago Climate Exchange, whose members have agreed to voluntarily reduce
their greenhouse gas emissions, said a cap-and-trade system "will spur new
technology. Ultimately there will be a green technology revolution." Carbon
price disclosure that results from a cap-and-trade program "\ in a more informed
way," he said. Dallas Burtraw, a senior fellow with Resources for the Future, said the best guarantee to
ensure a cap-and-trade market is fair and efficient is to have a design that is "simple and transparent."
A complex system for allocating emission allowances "can cloak unfair and dramatic transfers of
wealth," he said. "The vast majority of public finance economists would
recommend an auction as the most efficient way to allocate emission
allowances." In the first phase of the European Union's emissions trading
system, from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2007, member states were
required to allocate at least 95% of allowances for free. In the second phase,
which corresponds with the Kyoto Treaty's first commitment period of 2008-
2012, member states may auction or sell up to 10% of allowances. In the
greenhouse gas initiative launched by the US Northeastern States,
states will be required to auction a minimum of 25% of allowances.
Five states have said they would auction 100%. Anne Smith, a vice
president with the consulting group CRA International, said cap-and-
trade programs can be "extremely effective at delivering efficient
emissions reductions." However, they must be "tailored to fit particular
features and complexities of each emission problem," Smith said. The
particular design challenges for a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program
include a multiplicity of sources; potential price volatility, which Smith said is

18
"likely to have much greater generalized economic impact with a carbon
dioxide cap" than caps on sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides; and the
international dimension of greenhouse gases and climate change.

19
 CONTENTION FOUR: SOLVENCY

Cap and trade solves for both environment and economy.

Lauren O’Neil, December 10, 2007 (Natural Gas Week, FEATURE
STORIES)

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved climate

change legislation last Thursday that, if implemented, would restrict fossil
fuel emissions from energy facilities, including natural gas compressor
stations.The bill, co-sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut) and John Warner (R-
Virginia), establishes a cap-and-trade program intended to cut
greenhouse gas emissions by more than 60% through 2050 to "avert
the catastrophic impacts of global climate change."Under the
program, emissions allowances would be set at progressively lower
levels each year between 2012 and 2050, and companies would be
able to exchange emissions allowances with one another (see p4). Sen.
Barbara Boxer (D-California), chairman of the Environment and Public Works
Committee, added a provision this past week that would bring gas
compressor stations under cap-and-trade restrictions. Many
industry leaders fear the bill's tax alterations will sharply elevate
gas prices for consumers because of increased reliance on gas and
steeper production costs. Opponents have said that the bill should
open up gas reserves to meet that demand. "Just about anywhere
this legislation goes, it will drive up the demand for natural gas,"
said Ted Moskitis, American Gas Association Managing Director of
External Affairs. "We can't just disadvantage one type of energy or fuel
over the other, and we really can't pick winners or losers here." Sen. David
Vitter (D-Louisiana) introduced an amendment that would allow offshore
drilling of natural gas, but the measure was defeated by an 8-10 vote along
party lines."Natural gas demand is outstripping supply, and the bill makes it
worse," Vitter said. "Natural gas exploration is one solution to this problem.
There is an abundant supply of deep-sea natural gas on the Outer
Continental Shelf that can be retrieved in a safe and environmentally sound
manner, yet 85 percent of these supplies are off-limits to exploration."
Environmentalists, joined by Democratic majorities in the House and
Senate, have said climate change measures are necessary to halt
the effects of global warming, and say the cap-and-trade system
was designed to mitigate the impact on consumers and business.
"Finally, America is taking bold steps to avert the catastrophe that awaits our
children and grandchildren if we do nothing," said Environment and Public
Works Committee Chairman Sen. Barbara Boxer, following the bill's passage
in committee. "Our bill has two goals: to fight global warming and to do it in
a way that keeps our economy strong. That will be my focus in the coming

20
weeks and months as we move the bill forward to the Senate floor.

21
 CONTENTION FOUR: SOLVENCY

Cap and trade solves

Joe Kamalick, January 29, 2007 (ICIS Chemical Business America,
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS)

DuPont joined nine other major industries and four environmental groups on Monday in calling on
Congress to impose this year a stringent, mandatory greenhouse gas emissions control program in the
US. DuPont president and CEO Charles Holliday, along with representatives of other manufacturing
firms, electric utilities and energy companies said Congress should act quickly to implement a
mandatory control system with a carbon cap-and-trade program as its cornerstone. Other
industry representatives included top executives from Alcoa, BP
America, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, General Electric and PG&E.
"Climate change is a serious issue that has to be addressed through
concrete action," Holliday said. Other than calling for a mandatory
cap-and-trade system, the industry and environmental coalition,
called the US Climate Action Partnership (USCap), did not propose
or endorse any specific legislative measures. Instead, the group called
on Congress to pass a carbon emissions control law that would recognize the
global nature of climate change, the importance of potential technological
responses and the potential for economic opportunity and advantage in a
mandatory emissions control program. The group also said any legislative
response by Congress "must be fair to sectors disproportionately impacted"
by a mandatory limit on carbon emissions. Under a cap-and-trade
system, the federal government would grant individual companies
specific carbon emissions licenses that would limit or cap the
amount of carbon they could release to the environment annually.
Those companies that emitted less carbon than allowed could sell
carbon credits on the open market to those firms that exceed their
carbon allotments. Asked whether a mandatory emissions control
system would perhaps harm the US chemical industry by driving up
electric power costs and increasing demand and costs for natural
gas, Holliday said the plan recognizes that some industrial sectors might be
hit harder than others. "We think there are unique regional and industrial
sectors that must be taken into account by Congress," Holliday said. He
added, however, that a mandatory cap-and-trade system would help
stimulate technological advances - such as carbon capture and storage - that
would help meet needs of industry and the environment. Holliday also said a
mandatory emissions program should be accompanied by greater access to
US domestic energy.

22
 CONTENTION FOUR: SOLVENCY

Cap and Trade solves for the environment

Business Wire, March 22, 2007

Cap-and-trade has been enormously successful in reducing acid rain

and environmental damage from coal-fired utilities that emit sulfur
dioxide (SO2). In fact, a well-designed cap and trade system can be
the base for increased economic productivity and enhanced U.S.
competitiveness.The report also serves as a primer on the capital-market aspects of cap-and-
trade, defining the concepts involved and demonstrating the projected impact on emissions of various
proposed bills.The Milken Institute, Stark Investments and Baker & McKenzie LLP collaborated on the
project to combine the best expertise on cap-and-trade design. The Milken Institute brings
advanced thinking in economic and financial innovation to solve social
challenges, Stark Investments supplies the practical, in-depth expertise in
commodity markets and Baker & McKenzie is a leader in global carbon
finance and climate change law and policy. The report was sponsored by
Stark Investments. Near consensus on the need to slow global warming has
brought incredible momentum at the federal and state-level government
levels. The authors say, as with other groundbreaking policies to address
serious challenges, now is the time to get the solution right, not after it is
launched into the private sector as a partial, if not already failed, market.

23
 A/2: ECONOMY

Cap and trade on emissions is cost efficient.

Global Power Report, April 5, 2007 (NORTH AMERICA: RENEWABLE
ENERGY; Pg. 30)

EPA official, testifying before Congress, says cap and trade of

emissions is cost effective Cap-and trade programs to control
emissions "can be a cost-effective, flexible and efficient
environmental policy instrument for industry and government," an
Environmental Protection Agency official told a House of
Representatives panel last week. In testimony to the House Energy and
Air Quality Subcommittee, Brian McLean, director of the EPA's office of
atmospheric programs, said that efforts to control sulfur dioxide emissions in
the acid rain program, and nitrogen oxides, "clearly demonstrate that
market-based cap and trade programs are an effective means of achieving
broad improvements in air quality." The subcommittee was specifically
seeking to draw lessons from existing cap-and-trade programs, and the
usefulness of such an approach in controlling carbon emissions.Illinois
Representative Dennis Hastert, the senior Republican on the subcommittee,
said the key lessons learned from the acid rain program is that the "state of
the commercial technology is critical." No commercial available technology
exists at this time to remove carbon dioxide. Without the technology, cap-
and-trade is "cap-and-pray," Hastert said. McLean said that currently, for a
5% carbon cap, "[technological] options are available. If you set the cap at
50%, you would have difficulty." Richard Sandor, chairman and CEO of the
Chicago Climate Exchange, whose members have agreed to voluntarily
reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, said a cap-and-trade system "will
spur new technology. Ultimately there will be a green technology revolution."
Carbon price disclosure that results from a cap-and-trade program "allows
individuals to raise capital to do things out-of-the-box," Sandor said. Well-
designed markets "can help put the costs and benefits [of mitigation efforts]
in perspective and assist us in addressing [the risks of climate change] in a
more informed way." Dallas Burtraw, a senior fellow with Resources for the
Future, said the best guarantee to ensure that a cap-and-trade market is fair
and efficient is to have a market design that is "simple and transparent." A
complex system for allocating emission allowances "can cloak unfair and
dramatic transfers of wealth," he said. "The vast majority of public
finance economists would recommend an auction as the most
efficient way to allocate emission allowances," he said. In the first
phase of the European Union's emissions trading system, from
January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2007, member states were
required to allocate at least 95% of allowances for free. In the

24
second phase, which corresponds with the Kyoto Treaty's first
commitment period of 2008-2012, member states may auction or
sell up to 10% of allowances. In the greenhouse gas initiative
launched by Northeast states, states will be required to auction a
minimum of 25% of allowances. Five states have said they would auction
100%. Anne Smith, a vice president with the consulting group CRA
International, said cap-and-trade programs can be "extremely effective at
delivering efficient emissions reductions." However, they must be "tailored to
fit particular features and complexities of each emission problem."
Representative Joe Barton of a Texas, the senior Republican on the full House
Energy and Commerce Committee, said he is skeptical that a carbon cap-
and-trade program "would be of any benefit to the environment and would
be of no benefit to the economy." Barton was critical of the cap-and-trade
carbon market in the European Union, which is the largest in the world. "I
hope that nobody tries to say that what's been tried in Europe is a positive
since its raised wholesale electricity rates in Germany 30 to 40%," he said.

25
 A/2 ECONOMY

Cap and Trade is straight up cheap.

Environmental Protection Agency [no date].
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkt/cap-trade/docs/ctessentials.pdf

Simplicity.Rules should be clear and easily enforced. Markets

function better and transaction costs are lower when rules are
simple and easily understood by all participants. Moreover, the
environment is more likely to be protected when rules are clear and
consistently enforced. To the greatest extent possible, simplicity should
be applied to all elements of the program, including applicability
thresholds (determining which sources are affected), trading rules,
reporting requirements and penalty assessments. Program operation
for both emission sources and regulating authorities is more certain,
more effective, and less costly and time-consuming if the rules are
not overly complex and burdensome.
EPA continues to closely monitor and publish results, and is
pursuing additional analyses of localized impacts under cap and
trade programs in order to help inform ongoing evaluation and
policy making.

26
 SOLVENCY EXTENTIONS

Cap and Trade would effectively lower emissions

Karey, 07 (Gerald, Platt’s Coal Outlook. “Economy would benefit if CO2 program meticulously
planned.”
<http://www.lexisnexis.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/us/lnacademic/returnTo.do?returnToKey=20_T4270956762> )

A carefully designed program to begin lowering carbon dioxide emissions "would produce
greater benefits than costs," according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office
released last week.
"In particular, an incentive-based approach for curbing CO2 is substantially more
economically efficient than alternative command-and-control policies, which might dictate
specific technologies or set standards for particular products," CBO Director Peter R. Orszag told
a hearing of the House Budget Committee.
"An incentive-based approach to lowering CO2 emissions could be implemented by regulating
the price of emissions (by taxing emissions), or by adopting a market-based system to
regulate the quantity of emissions by establishing a cap-and-trade program

27
 A/2 ECONOMY

Cap and Trade is good for the economy

Alan Durning 2008, Author of How much energy is enough: the consumer society and the
future of the earth. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/30/17554/0835

U.S. Congressional Budget Office's rigorous analysis of the different approaches to climate pricing estimates that a carbon charge

steep enough to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 15 percent would take about 3.3 percent of low-income families' after-tax

money. James Boyce and Matthew Riddle of the University of Massachusetts peg the cost to working families (PDF) even
as many energy interests
higher."Grandfathering" carbon-emissions permits -- giving them away to historic polluters,

propose to do -- would write this redistribution of wealth into law. Under this version of
cap-and-trade (Boyce and Riddle call it "cap-and-giveaway"), fossil fuel prices would rise.
(They will rise under any firm cap; in fact, they're likely to rise even without a cap, as they
have done in recent years.) Families would pay more for their energy -- and their food and
other energy-intensive consumer goods. Energy companies, flush from high prices, would
reap huge windfall profits. These windfalls would ultimately accrue to the shareholders of
energy companies, who are mostly rich families. (This scenario already played out in
Europe.)Under cap-and-giveaway, the richest fifth of families would pay more for their
energy, just like everyone else. But their stock portfolios would get so much fatter that the
net effect would be an additional $1,200 a year per person, according to Boyce and
Riddle.Yep, under cap-and-giveaway, the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. This chart
from Boyce and Riddle shows roughly how much. (Unlike the previous chart, this one reflects
the impacts of massive windfalls for energy company stockholders and various other side effects
of cap-and-giveaway, and expresses losses and gains as shares of total household expenditures
rather than income.)I don't know about you, but I can't abide a future like that, where the rank
injustice of climate change sitself is compounded by a system that takes money from working
families and gives it to rich ones. It's Robin Hood in reverse. It's the New Deal's evil twin. Think about it:
cap-and-giveaway means that the orderlies in our hospitals will hand hundreds of dollars a year to the surgeons they clean up

after; that farmworkers in our vineyards will hand piles of cash to the people who drink their most-expensive vintages; that the

janitors in our airports will deliver annual checks to airplane owners; that retired grocery store clerks will pay the moorage fees

for yacht owners

28
 A/2 GLOBAL WARMING GOOD

Global warming is creating an in-balance in the natural world which will causes massive
species extinction.
World Climate Report, 2005.

Whenever we read a story about some plant or animal showing up where they usually
weren’t or disappearing from where they usual are, global warming always shows up in the
list of the usual suspects.And, of course, global warming is up to no good. Usually, “bad”
species are showing up where they are unwanted, while “good” ones are being
endangered.For instance, here is a sample of the plants and animals that have been
reported as expanding their ranges because of planetary warming:In fact, Google “global
warming” and the cute, cuddly animal of your choice is guaranteed to show up as endangered or
disappearing, while yucky jellyfish take over the Gulf of Mexico.With this in mind, we were not
surprised to read the August 5th AP story describing how a green sea turtle (one of the several
sea turtles that are on the Endangered Species list and thus universally loved) that recently
became the “first documented case of the protected turtle laying its eggs in Virginia” failed to
mention global warming as possibly being the cause. After all, green sea turtles typically nest
in the warm climate of southeastern Florida (very occasionally nesting as far north as the
Outer Banks of North Carolina). So, the Virginia egg-laying event marks pretty big
northerly departure from what is typical. Yet not a single mention of the possibility that the
turtle is expanding its nesting grounds northwards due as a response to rising
temperatures. Global warming may do good for good things? Never! Not that we are
suggesting that anthropogenic global warming has anything to do with the event, for it is
impossible to place isolated events such as this one into the context of climate change. We
are merely pointing out that given the opportunity to link global warming to some sort of
species shift, the opportunity is not taken when the species that may be broadening its
habitat (and thus benefiting from a climate shift) is a well-loved symbol of environmental
struggle—such as the endangered green sea turtle.Conservative think tanks are often singled out
for selective use of data to make the issue of climate change seem less certain than others
(presumably less conservative) believe it is. See, for example, the column to this effect in the
August 5th issue of the New York Times by Paul Krugman (or here for another take on the
article).At the same time, the press ignores the environmentalists who do the opposite, making
the issue of disastrous climate change seem much more certain and catastrophic than evidence
and observations suggest. Some argue that it’s OK for the environmentalists to exaggerate,
because, after all, they are trying to save the earth. The green sea turtle might not agree.

29
 A/2 POLITICS: LINK TURN

Senator Obama endorses cap and trade on oil emissions and international agreements.
Sunday Herald Sun, pg 41, February 10, 2008

US presidential hopeful Barack Obama promises to start working on an international pact to reduce
global warming if he becomes his party's nominee. The Democrat said his plan to reduce US emissions was
stronger than that of Republican front-runner John McCain. Global warming has become a key issue in the race
for the White House, with the top candidates in both political parties seeking to put a cap on
greenhouse gases. Senator Obama, battling New York senator Hillary Clinton to be their party's
presidential nominee, said he would start developing the US position on a pact to replace the
Kyoto Protocol before the general election in November. ``I think we need to start reaching
out to other countries ahead of time,'' he said after consultations with former vice president
Al Gore. Almost 200 nations, including the US, agreed at UN-led talks in December to
launch negotiations on a new pact to fight global warming. Senators Obama, Clinton and McCain
support building a so-called ``cap and trade'' system that would issue big polluters such as oil companies and power producers
permits to emit carbon dioxide. Under such a system, companies that exceeded their emission limits
would buy more permits to pollute, while those that came in beneath their limits would sell
permits on a market. Senator Obama said his plan was superior to Senator McCain's
because it required companies to buy all of those permits up front -- a process known as
``auctioning''.

30
 A2:POLITICS LINK TURN

Senator Mc.Cain enduces cap and trade on oil and gas emmissons.
Chemincal News and Intelligence, Monday May 12, 2008

The presumptive Republican candidate for president Mc.Cain, said on Monday that if elected he
would work with Congress to create a cap and trade emissions mandate to combat climate
change. Cap and trade legislation is opposed by many in the US petrochemical industry for fear that it would cause a run on
domestic natural gas stocks and deplete feedstock supplies. McCain, who is expected to get the Republican
Party's formal endorsement as its 2008 presidential candidate in September, told an audience in
Portland, Oregon, that evidence of global warming is sufficient and US policymakers cannot
hesitate to impose an emissions cap He said that as president he would work with Congress
to [2]initiate climate change legislation that would reduce US greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions to 60% below 1990 levels by 2050. "Instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming, or
the precise timeline of global warming, we need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters and all the
endless troubles that global warming will bring," McCain said in a speech at a wind technology company. He cautioned,
however, that a government mandate on global warming should not impose restrictions on the marketplace. "We
must do
this in a way that gives American businesses new incentives and new rewards to seek, instead of
just giving them new taxes to pay and new orders to follow," he said. "The most direct way to
achieve this is through a system that sets clear limits on all greenhouse gases, while also
allowing the sale of rights to excess emissions," he said, adding: "This is the proposal I will
submit to Congress if I am elected president - a cap and trade system to change the
dynamic of our energy economy."
Under a cap and trade system, emissions of greenhouse gases would be capped and the
government would auction permits that would be traded among companies whose pollution
releases exceed allowed limits. Legislation [3]now pending in the US Senate would impose such a cap and trade
system, but that approach has been widely criticized by many in the [4]US chemicals industry and the [5]broader manufacturing
sector as detrimental to the country's production and economy.McCain said his cap and trade plan would require
"sensible reductions in greenhouse gases" but also "allow full flexibility in how industry meets
that requirement." He said he would work with European allies and other nations seeking climate
control measures to impose environmental cost equalization mechanisms to essentially force
climate compliance by developing nations such as [6]China and India if they otherwise fail to
cooperate.

31
 NEG TURN: CAP AND TRADE AFF

Cap and Trade programs breed corruption within private companies

Hansen, 06 (James, a NASA scientist, FACTSHEET- The Cap and Trade Charade for
Climate Change. Lexis)

32
 NEG TURN: CAP AND TRADE AFF

NEG Emissions trading programs emit more toxic pollutants

Hansen, 06 (James, a NASA scientist, FACTSHEET- The Cap and Trade Charade for
Climate Change. Lexis)

33
 NEG TURN: CAP AND TRADE AFF

NEG Cap and trade schemes put constant strains on the economy, Europe proves.
Laffer and Wineguard, September 2007. (Aurthur and Wayne, “The Adverse Economic

Impacts of Cap and Trade Regulations. Lexis)

34
 NEG TURN: CAP AND TRADE

NEG Cap and trade schemes put large economic burdens on the working class
Laffer and Wineguard, September 2007. (Aurthur and Wayne, “The Adverse Economic
Impacts of Cap and Trade Regulations. Lexis)

35
 NEG TURN: CAP AND TRADE AFF

Emperically proven by Europe that cap and trade programs cripple the economy
Laffer and Wineguard, September 2007. (Aurthur and Wayne, “The Adverse Economic
Impacts of Cap and Trade Regulations. Lexis)

36
 NEG: NO SOLVENCY

NEG Emission trading commodifies the public’s health for profit

Hansen, 06 (James, a NASA scientist, FACTSHEET- The Cap and Trade Charade for Climate
Change. Lexis)

37
NEG CP State cap and trade programs can maintain the environment and create a stable
economy
Burtraw et al. 07 (Dallas, The California Climate Change Center at UC Berkeley. “Chapter 5:
Lessons for a cap-and-trade program. Lexis)

38
North Western Debate Institute-Summer 2008 Oil Cap-Trade Affirmative
Mary Gregg’s Lab Brooklyn Camille

NEGATIVE TURN: CAP AND TRADE AFF

Poor Cap and Trade schemes would cripple the nation’s economy
Fordney, 08 (Jason, Global Power Report. “Cap-and-Trade system for carbon dioxide
tantamount to tax: Midamerican chairman.
<http://www.lexisnexis.com.turing.library.northwestern.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=tr
ue&risb=21_T4270819267&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4270819273&
cisb=22_T4270819272&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=8146&docNo=7>)

Implementing a national carbon cap-and-trade system without new technology to

implement it is nothing more than a tax that could cripple the nation's economy if not
done wisely, MidAmerican Holdings Chairman and CEO David Sokol said February 19.
"Early implementation of a cap-and-trade system needs to be called what it is: It's a
tax," Sokol told attendees at the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners meeting in Washington,
adding that cap and trade, "without providing for a technology period, would be a
mistake."
Sokol helped steer the company from an owner/operator of one geothermal plant in 1991 into a company with 17,000
employees and annual revenues of $12.4 billion. It was acquired by a partnership controlled by Berkshire Hathaway in
2000. This week Sokol warned of the effects of the bill proposed by Senator Joseph Lieberman, an Independent
Democrat from Connecticut, and Senator John Warner, a Virginia Republican, saying that without new
technology the bill's goals are unrealistic.
The Lieberman-Warner bill would create a system wherein carbon emitters could receive credits for cutting carbon
emissions they could trade among themselves. The bill sets annual caps on emissions of greenhouse gases or carbon
dioxide equivalents on the power generation sector starting at 2005 levels in 2012, then ratchets the cap down so that
by 2050 these industries must have reduced their emissions to 70% below their 2005 levels.
"The Lieberman-Warner bill would be phenomenally expensive to the American
consumer," Sokol said, adding that Congress is lacking vision on the issue. He also said the amount of time
Congress is spending investigating other issues such as steroid use in baseball is "an embarrassment."
Placing caps on carbon emissions prior to the development of technology to actually
reduce those emissions would simply impose a tax on the American people without
any positive environmental benefits, Sokol said.

39
North Western Debate Institute-Summer 2008 Oil Cap-Trade Affirmative
Mary Gregg’s Lab Brooklyn Camille

NEG C/T systems too expensive to enforce with very little benefits
Myers, 08 (Todd, Director, Center for the Environment.”How Incentives to Cheat
Undermine Cap-and-Trade.” The Washington Policy Center.)

40
North Western Debate Institute-Summer 2008 Oil Cap-Trade Affirmative
Mary Gregg’s Lab Brooklyn Camille

NEG NO SOLVENCY: CAP AND TRADE AFF

Cap and Trades don’t work Brian Costin, 2008. Research & Commentary
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

As the scientific community becomes increasingly skeptical of claims that global

warming is manmade and portends a crisis, government calls for carbon dioxide
(CO2) cap-and-trade systems are premature at best and economically disastrous at
worst.Far from being a dangerous pollutant, carbon is a basic component of all
living cells, and life on Earth actually depends on carbon dioxide. In fact, increased CO2
concentrations make plants grow faster and bigger and provide improved food chain conditions for humans and
animals. It would be criminal to classify such an essential and beneficial resource as a pollutant.Besides being
based on bad science, CO2 cap-and-trade systems threaten the nation's economy and
citizens' financial well-being. A cap on energy production amounts to a tax on all goods
and services. Multiple studies have found that a modest cap-and-trade system to limit
carbon emissions according to Kyoto Protocol measures (7 percent below 1990 levels)
would reduce domestic economic growth by almost 2 percent per year, increase gasoline
prices by 53 percent, and raise other energy prices by 86 percent.If the nation were to
adopt Al Gore's desired 90 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, the resulting
energy scarcity and price inflation would simply destroy the economy.All that sacrifice
would likely be for nothing. When a cap-and-trade system was implemented in the
European Union, emissions actually rose by a greater percentage than in the United
States. Cap-and-trade systems are notoriously difficult to enforce, and many
politically connected companies in Europe have been found to be fudging the
numbers and selling "unused" credits without actually reducing emissions. Europe's
carbon cap-and-trade systems are permeated by fraud.In a cap-and-trade system, government essentially takes
ownership of all CO2 emissions and distributes "carbon credits" to the private sector. Politicizing energy
distribution and usage through cap-and-trade systems is a great way to reward politically
connected energy producers at the expense of the general population, the energy
consumers.The following articles will help you gain an understanding of the
environmental and economic consequences of proposed cap-and-trade systems, and the
global warming alarmism that is behind such proposals.

41
North Western Debate Institute-Summer 2008 Oil Cap-Trade Affirmative
Mary Gregg’s Lab Brooklyn Camille

NEG NO SOLVENCY: CAP AND TRADE AFF

Biodiesel Mandates Bad for Business, Senator Luann Ridgeway,2008

Capitol Report

JEFFERSON CITY — Actions taken by 20 of my colleagues in the

Missouri Senate last week were not a victory for small government
conservatives like me who believe governmental intrusion in the market
should be avoided as much as possible. Legislation that imposes a
biodiesel mandate on Missourians was passed by the Senate and now
moves to the House for debate. I do not support this government mandate.
You are probably already aware of a similar mandate for ethanol that
went into effect Jan. 1, 2008, and requires most Missouri gasoline to contain
a 10 percent ethanol blend. Perhaps you are already driving across the
state lines to Kansas just to avoid the mandate. Senate Bill 759, which
creates the biodiesel mandate, requires most diesel fuel sold in Missouri to
contain a 5 percent biodiesel blend. Biodiesel is an alternative fuel made
from any biodegradable oil, including vegetable oil or animal fat. In Missouri,
the fuel is made primarily from soybeans. When the demand rises for a product, the price
will naturally rise as well. By creating a demand for soybeans, we are inflating their
price. Increased demand for soybeans also means less acres for other crops,
creating an overall rise in the price of food — and hitting Missourians square
in the pocketbook at the worst possible time. Soybeans are used in a wide
variety of the foods we eat. But perhaps more importantly, animals eat many
soy products. Hogs, cows and chickens eat grains largely composed of corn
and soybeans. When the cost of feeding these animals goes up, sooner or
later the cost of meat, eggs, butter and other dairy products will increase.
Animal feed price increases are more likely to be absorbed by the mega-
farms. The greatest crunch is put on the small family farmer that has to pay
high feed prices but may not be able to survive until meat prices increase. If
we as consumers want to see the cost of family food skyrocket, just wait
until the family farmers get run out of business. In 2007, we saw the biggest jump in food prices in 17 years. The
average retail price of a dozen eggs increased 38 percent from November 2006 to
November 2007, with milk prices rising 30 percent. According to
Family Economics and Nutrition Review, low-income households spend
about 48 percent of their income on food, while the middle class spend 13
percent and the wealthiest only 8 percent. In this uncertain economy, we
cannot afford to keep stacking the deck against hard-working Missouri
families.

By their very nature, mandates go against the free market principles

that guide our country’s economic framework. Whether it’s the free market
of ideas or business, as a society, we have always valued the philosophy
that competition is what drives the marketplace, not governmental
interference with the system. As a customer, you are entitled to choose the products and
services that best serve you and your family. If suddenly the government were to tell

42
North Western Debate Institute-Summer 2008 Oil Cap-Trade Affirmative
Mary Gregg’s Lab Brooklyn Camille

you what brand of laundry detergent to use because it has a vested interest
in that particular brand’s success, you would probably say that the
government is interfering with your rights as a customer. A biodiesel
mandate is not much different because it automatically eliminates options
for consumers and strips away the competition in the industry. It is creating
an artificial demand for a product and representing a backwards thought
process by forgetting the consumer’s role in the marketplace. You are a customer, not a
captive, and the government should not treat you like a captive. The biodiesel industry
should have to prove itself by building a relationship with you, the customer, just as any
other fledgling business would do. If the biodiesel mandate takes effect, Missouri would
be the sixth state to enact such a law — and would have the highest biodiesel standard
in the country. I recognize the need to assert our dependence from foreign
oil and look to other sources for our fuel, however, I do not support a
mandate that takes away consumer choice, significantly increases food
prices, and halts the innovation of other possibilities for alternative fuel. It is
also important to note that producing biodiesel is not cheap, resulting in the
fuel typically being priced a couple cents higher per gallon or at the same
price as regular diesel. Cost-effectiveness is not a compelling argument in
this case. As a state, we would not only be providing subsidies to another
industry, but we would be guaranteeing the industry will have a ready-made
market. If that is not the polar opposite of free market philosophy, I am not
sure what is. True fiscal conservatives would not support this legislation or
any other that overreaches the bounds of government. Unfortunately, this
wrong-headed legislation passed the Senate and is now headed to the
House for consideration. I hope you will write your legislators in the House
and ask for them to oppose this mandate.

43