rss 2ac blocks- cap and trade aff

8/14/2019 RSS 2AC Blocks- Cap and Trade Aff

1/36

RSS- SDI 20082AC Blocks

Cap and Trade Aff- Wave 3.0

**Topicality** ..................................................................................................................................................................................2AT: Incentive = Positive ...................................................................................................................................................................2**DAs** ..........................................................................................................................................................................................3

AT: Clean Coal DA (KMT Lab) .............................................................................................................................................. ...... ...3AT: Clean Coal DA (KMT Lab) .............................................................................................................................................. ...... ...4Ext. Coal Industry Down ..................................................................................................................................................................5AT: Coal Industry DA (WHAM Lab) ...............................................................................................................................................6AT: Coal Industry DA (WHAM Lab) ...............................................................................................................................................7AT: Coal Industry DA (WHAM Lab) ...............................................................................................................................................8AT: Clean Coal .................................................................................................................................................................................9Ext. Coal = Warming ......................................................................................................................................................................10AT: Econ DA .................................................................................................................................................................................11AT: Econ DA ............................................................................................................................................................................. .....12Ext. US Econ Down ................................................................................................................................................................... ....13Ext. Environmental Regulations Key .............................................................................................................................................14Ext. Warming Not Hurt Economy ..................................................................................................................................................15

AT: Spending DA ................................................................................................................................................................. ...... ....16Ext. Plan Costs Nothing .................................................................................................................................................................17Ext. Plan Saves Money ........................................................................................................................................... .......................18**Oil DAs** ..................................................................................................................................................................................19AT: Renewables Oil DA .................................................................................................................................................................19Ext. Prices Down ............................................................................................................................................................................20Ext. Cap and Trade = Renewables .................................................................................................................................................21Ext. High Prices Not Key ...............................................................................................................................................................22AT: Russian Oil DA (Defense) .......................................................................................................................................................23AT: Russian Oil DA (Defense) .......................................................................................................................................................24AT: Russian Oil DA (Offense) ........................................................................................................................................... ............25AT: Russian Oil DA (Offense) ........................................................................................................................................... ............26Ext. Russia Diverse .................................................................................................................................................................... ....27

Ext. High Prices Bad- Russian Econ ......................................................................................................................................... .....28AT: Saudi Oil DA (Defense) ..........................................................................................................................................................29AT: Saudi Oil DA (Offense) ...........................................................................................................................................................30AT: Saudi Oil DA (Offense) ...........................................................................................................................................................31Ext. Saudi Diversification Now .....................................................................................................................................................32Ext. Terrorism Turn ........................................................................................................................................................................33AT: Backstopping DA ................................................................................................................................................................ ....34Ext. No Threat of Oil weapon ........................................................................................................................................................35AT: Hege Fund DA .........................................................................................................................................................................36

1


2/36


**Topicality**

AT: Incentive = Positive

1. We Meet: We provide an incentive to reduce emissions and develop alternative energy because businesses canthen sell extra permits obtained by cutting emissions for profit.

2. Counter Interpretation- Neg case list plus our aff are the only topical affirmatives on the resolution, solves all ofyour offensive reasons why your interp is good.

3. And here is contextual evidence to support that a tradeable permit system is an incentive mechanism.

Fischer and Newell 2004(Carolyn, Fellow, Resources for the Future, and Richard, Gendell Associate Professor of Energy and Environmental EconomicsEnvironmental Sciences & Policy, Environment and Technology Policies for Climate change and renewable energy, Resources for the Future, April )

With a direct price for emissionsvia either an emissions tax or a tradable emissions permit systemthe fossil fuel sector has anincentive to lower its emissions rate until the marginal cost of reduction equals the emissions price '()tMC =(tPMC=t . Themarket price of electricity reflects the total marginal cost of fossil generation, inclusive of the embodied emissions cost as well as higher marginal production costs:)t + t t (seeequation (3)). Without other subsidies, the renewables sector receives the market price for electricity (RttPP=), and the price increase promotes greater renewable energy generation in

both stages. The prospect of more output in the second stage increases knowledge investment incentives in the renewablessector, for both R&D and learning. The higher market price also means consumers have added incentive to conserve. Thus, theemissions price provides efficient incentives for achieving a given emissions reduction goal as it provides equalizedincentives for emissions reduction along all three marginsemissions intensity, output reduction (via priceincrease), and renewable energy production.

3. Neg interpretation is bad

a) limits out core of the topic affs like tradeable permits- this is the central focus of the literature- robsus of the ability to get topic specific education

b) Forces us to debate bad economy disads every round- the neg has no right to a particular DA or Strat,especially if its terrible.

c) Bi-directionality on this particular issue is not abusive- Gives more links to the off case, provides two sides

to generics and increases neg ground in a predictable manner.

4. Counter Standards

a) Limits- we limit the topic to a fair number of core topic cases that have a strong literature base, fairfor both Aff Flex and Neg ground.

b) Education- Tradeable Permits is at the core of the topic- key to topic specific education, Tradeablepermits is one of the leading debated mechanisms for solving climate change and promotingAlternative Energy.

5. Not A Voter

a) Competing interpretations are bad- force a race to the bottom, its infinitely regressive- the neg could come upwith any number of Interpretations that they could always read against the affirmative.

b) Err aff on reasonability- we are at the core of the topic and reasonably topically.

c) Theres no abuse- literature base is on our side, there is plenty of links to the core generics. Dont vote onpotential abuse.

2


3/36


**DAs**

AT: Clean Coal DA (KMT Lab)

(__) Coal industry collapsing environmental standards, public opinion and lack of financing

Salon.com 5/15/08Celebrate clean coal, come on! http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/05/15/coal_marketing/

These messages and other variations on the coal-is-great theme are flooding the nation courtesy of the coal industry, coal-fueled utilities, railroads and related

industries. The pro-coal marketing campaign -- known by its tag line "Clean Coal" -- has kicked into high gear asprospects for new plants have turned bleak. Wall Street is tightening financing, leading to what one analyst toldthe Christian Science Monitor is a "de facto moratorium on coal power." The expected election of a moreenvironmentally friendly president may lead to the first federal limits on carbon dioxide emissions. Evenred states like Kansas are now battling the construction of coal-fired plants. Last year, 59 new plants wereeither canceled or halted across the nation.When it comes to the threat of global warming, "the coal industry are the last people to get it," says Daniel J. Weiss, senior fellow and director of climate

strategy at the Center for American Progress, a nonprofit, progressive think tank. "That's why they're fighting so hard. They're on a death spiralright now."

(__) 1AC is a link turn to this argument- Even if they win a risk of their link, we have several internallinks into the economy which will offset any economic decline- prefer our evidence on this question itsspecific to our type of cap and trade system, theirs is not.

a) Banking- US entrance into the tradeable permits market is key to investment and profits for banks- keyto the global economy- the impact is extinction, thats our Bailey evidence.

b) Competitiveness- US is being boxed out of the market for carbon and for renewable, both of these are

critical to not only the global economy, but also to US hege. Thats our Derwet Evidence.(__) Non Unique- US economy trashed now

CSM 7-16(Woes Deepen for US Economy, 2008 http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0716/p01s05-usec.html)

Expectations that the current US economic downturn will be shallow are diminishing.A severe recession in the United States still isn't the mainstream forecast, but economists say it's a real possibility, especially as problems atAmerican banks deepen amid a continuing shakeout of the housing crisis.What makes forecasts challenging these days is that the economy's problems involve the linkage of many moving parts. Crucially, a healthy banking system is vitalto the economy, and now an economic slowdown and a plunge in bank stocks have raised the prospect of morebank failures and the need for federal intervention.

3
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/05/15/coal_marketing/http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/05/15/coal_marketing/


4/36


AT: Clean Coal DA (KMT Lab)

(__) Coal Industry Not Transitioning To Clean Coal- Not Key to Industry Strength

WALD, staff writer,2008 [Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal, The New York Times, 5/30/08,http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/business/30coal.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5087&em&en=425f6009b9e65c19&ex=1212292800, Sui

But it has become clear in recent months that the nations effort to develop the technique is lagging badly.In January, the government canceled its support for what was supposed to be a showcase project, a plantat a carefully chosen site in Illinois where there was coal, access to the power grid, and soil underfoot that backers said could holdthe carbon dioxide for eons.

Perhaps worse, in the last few months, utility projects in Florida, West Virginia, Ohio, Minnesota andWashington State that would have made it easier to capture carbon dioxide have all been canceled orthrown into regulatory limbo.Coal is abundant and cheap, assuring that it will continue to be used. But the failure to start building, testing, tweaking andperfecting carbon capture and storage means that developing the technology may come too late to makecoal compatible with limiting global warming.Its a total mess, said Daniel M. Kammen, director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley.Coals had a tough year, said John Lavelle, head of a business at General Electricthat makes equipment for processing coal into a form from which carbon

can be captured. Many of these projects were derailed by the short-term pressure of rising construction costs.But scientists say the result, unless the situation can be turned around, will be a long-term disaster.Plans to combat global warming generally assume that continued use of coal for power plants isunavoidable for at least several decades. Therefore, starting as early as 2020, forecasters assume that carbon dioxide emitted by new power

plants will have to be captured and stored underground, to cut down on the amount of global-warming gases in the atmosphere.Yet, simple as the idea may sound, considerable research is still needed to be certain the technique would be safe, effective and affordable.Scientists need to figure out which kinds of rock and soil formations are best at holding carbon dioxide. They need to be sure the gas will not bubble back tothe surface. They need to find optimal designs for new power plants so as to cut costs. And some complex legal questions need to be resolved, such as whowould be liable if such a project polluted the groundwater or caused other damage far from the power plant.Major corporations sense the possibility of a profitable new business, and G.E. signed a partnership on Wednesday with Schlumberger, the oil field servicescompany, to advance the technology of carbon capture and sequestration.

But only a handful of small projects survive, and the recent cancellations mean that most of this work hascome to a halt, raising doubts that the technique can be ready any time in the next few decades. And without it,were not going to have much of a chance for stabilizing the climate, said John Thompson, who oversees work on the issue for the Clean Air Task Force, anenvironmental group.

The fear is that utilities, lacking proven chemical techniques for capturing carbon dioxide and provenmethods for storing it underground by the billions of tons per year, will build the next generation of coalplants using existing technology. That would ensure that vast amounts of global warming gases would bepumped into the atmosphere for decades.

4
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/general_electric_company/index.html?inline=nyt-orghttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/general_electric_company/index.html?inline=nyt-orghttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/schlumberger_ltd/index.html?inline=nyt-orghttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/schlumberger_ltd/index.html?inline=nyt-orghttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/general_electric_company/index.html?inline=nyt-orghttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/schlumberger_ltd/index.html?inline=nyt-org


5/36


Ext. Coal Industry Down

Coal industry is dying lack of government funding and regulatory confusion

New York Times 5/30/08 Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/business/30coal.htmlPresident Bush is for it, and indeed has spent years talking up the virtues of clean coal. All three candidates to succeed himfavor the approach. So do many other members of Congress. Coal companies are for it. Many environmentalists favor it. Utility executives are practically

begging for the technology.

But it has become clearin recent months that the nations effort to develop the technique is lagging badly.In January, the government canceled its support for what was supposed to be a showcase project, a plant at acarefully chosen site in Illinois where there was coal, access to the power grid, and soil underfoot that backers said could hold the carbon dioxide for eons.

Perhaps worse, in the last few months, utility projects in Florida, West Virginia, Ohio, Minnesota and Washington State that wouldhave made it easier to capture carbon dioxide have all been canceled or thrown into regulatory limbo.

Coal industry is struggling construction costs

New York Times 5/30/08 Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coalhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/business/30coal.htmlCoals had a tough year, said John Lavelle, head of a business at General Electric that makes equipment forprocessing coal into a form from which carbon can be captured. Many of these projects were derailed bythe short-term pressure of rising construction costs. But scientists say the result, unless the situation can be turnedaround, will be a long-term disaster.

5


6/36


AT: Coal Industry DA (WHAM Lab)

The US coal industry is on the decline It will continue to be cut back in the status quo

MarkClayton, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, U.S. coal power boom suddenly wanes, March 4, 2008 edition, jlk,http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0304/p01s07-usec.html

Concerns about global warming and rising building costs are blocking construction of new coal-fired power plants inthe United States and pushing utilities to turn to natural gas and renewable power instead. Utilities canceled or put onhold at least 45 coal plants in development last year, according to a new analysis by the US Department of Energy'sNational Energy Technology Laboratory in Pittsburgh. These moves a sharp reversal from a year ago, when theindustry had more than 150 such plants in development signal the waning of a major US expansion into coal.Natural-gas and renewable power projects have leapt ahead of coal in the development pipeline, according to GlobalEnergy Decisions, a Boulder, Colo., energy information supplier. Gas and renewables each show more than 70,000megawatts under development compared with about 66,000 megawatts in the coal-power pipeline. This year coulddiminish coal's future prospects even more. Wall Street investment banks last month said they will now evaluate the costof carbon emissions before approving power plants, raising the bar much higher for new coal projects, analysts say."What you're seeing is a de facto moratorium on coal power right now," says Robert Linden, a senior oil and gas analystat Pace Global in New York. "You turn off the money spigot, you've turned off those plants." Aside from the 28 or socoal-fired power plants already under construction, prospects remain tenuous for the half-dozen plants "nearconstruction" and another 80 plants not nearly as far along, says Steve Piper, managing director of power forecasting atPlatts, the energy information division of McGraw-Hill. "Expansions [of existing plants] still have a good chance. Butothers will come under increased pressure for deferral or outright cancellation."

No Internal Link- Coal industry is resilient

Richard R. Hall, J.D. University of Chicago Law School, and John S. Kirkham, J.D., University of

Utah College of Law, 6/4/07http://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484Thirty years ago, coal was viewed as the fuel of the past. Nuclear power, natural gas, and renewable energy sourceswere going to take us away from coal and place our reliance on cleaner alternatives. However, despite these predictions,the use of coal for generating electricity has nearly tripled in the last 30 years, and the demand for and consumption of

coal is projected to increase for the foreseeable future. Coal has enabled Americas electric utilities to keep up with everincreasing demand, and coal is now being used in record amounts. Last year, coal-fired plants contributed 50% of theelectricity produced in the United States, and it is anticipated that coal will maintain this percentage through 2025. Butwhile coal-fired plants contribute half of the electricity produced in the United States, they also contribute four-fifths ofthe carbon emissions associated with electrical generation.

New innovation in energy will spur innovation in the market not kill the economy- empirically

proven.

William B. Bonvillian, Director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center in D.C. Issues in Science and

Technology, 2004. Meeting the new challenge to U.S economic competitiveness, Lexis MHA school of economic theory that has developed during the past two decades argues that technological and relatedinnovation accounts for more than half of historical U.S. economic growth, which makes this a far more significant

factor than capital and labor supply, which are the dominant factors in traditional economic analysis. These economicgrowth theorists see a pattern shared by important breakthrough technologies such as railroads, steamships, electricity,telecommunications, aerospace, and computing. The new technology ignites a chain reaction of related innovation thatleads to a surge in productivity improvements throughout the economy and thus to overall economic growth. The mostrecent example is the productivity boom that occurred in the mid-1990s following the IT revolution that spread throughthe manufacturing and service sectors.

6
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0304/p01s07-usec.htmlhttp://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484http://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0304/p01s07-usec.htmlhttp://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484


7/36



Every aspect of the coal industry will destsroy the environment causes warming, land and waterecosystem destruction, and makes habitats inhabitable

Martha Keating, CATF, Clean Air Task Force, June, 2001, Cradle to Grave: TheEnvironmental Impactsfrom Coal, JaretLK,http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:qhMvUAlb3NQJ:www.catf.us/publications/reports/Cradle_to_Grave.pdf+Coal+industry+environmental+impact&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

The electric power industry is the largest toxic polluter in the country, and coal , which is used to generate over half of the electricityproduced in the U.S., is the dirtiest of all fuels.1From mining to coal cleaning, from transportation to electricitygeneration to disposal, coal releases numerous toxic pollut-ants into our air, our waters and onto our lands.2Nation-ally,the cumulative impact of all of these effects is magnified by the enormous quantities of coal burned each year nearly 900million tons. Promoting more coal use without also providing additional environmental safe-guards will only increase this toxic abuse of our healthand ecosystems. The trace elements contained in coal (and others formed during combustion) are a large group of diverse pollutants witha number of health and environmentaleffects.3They are a public health concern because at sufficient exposure levels they adversely affect humanhealth. Some are known to cause cancer, others impair reproduc-tion and the normal development of children, and still others damage the nervous and

immunesystems. Many are also respira-tory irritants that can worsen respiratory conditions such asasthma. They are an environmen-talconcern because they damage ecosystems. Power plants also emit large quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2), thegreenhouse gas largely responsible for climate change. The health and environmental effects caused by power plant emissions mayvary over time and space, from short-term episodes of coal dust blown from a passing train to the long-term global dispersion of mercury, to climate

change. Because of different factors like geology, demographics and climate, impacts will also vary from place to place. For example, effects fromcoalmining may be the biggest concern in the coal-field regions of the country, while inhalation exposure may be the foremost risk in an urban setting

and, in less populated rural America, visibility impair-ment and haze may be of special concern . Coal mining harms land, surface waters,ground water and even our air.4Impacts to the land from mining cause drastic changes in the local area. Damage toplants, animals and humans occurs from the destruction and removal of habitat and environ-mental contamination.Surface mining completely removes land from its normal uses. Property and scenic values are degraded as agricultural crops, forests,rangeland and deserts are replaced by pits, quarries and tailing piles. Restoring or reclaiming a surface mine by replacing vegetation and restoring thelandscape to its original contours helps minimize any permanent disruption. However, hundreds of thousands of acres of surface mines have not been

reclaimed, and reclamation of steep terrain, such as found in Appalachia, is difficult.5Finally, despite reclama-tion efforts, ecosystems may bedestroyed and replaced by a totally different habitat. Mining impacts both surface waters and ground water. In under-ground mining, waste materials are piled at the surface creating runoff that both pollutes and alters the flow of localstreams. As rain percolates through these piles, soluble components are dissolved in the runoff and cause the elevationof total dissolved solids (TDS) in local water bodies. The presence of TDS in a stream usually indicates that sulfates, calcium, carbonates andbicarbon-ates are present. While not a direct threat to human health, these pollutants make water undrinkable by altering its taste and can also degrade water to the point

where it cant be used for industry or agriculture.6Acid mine drainage is a particularly severe by product of mining especially where coal seams have abundant quantities ofpyrite. When pyrite is exposed to water and air, it forms sulfuric acid and iron. The acidity of the run off is problematic by itself, but it alsodissolves metals like manganese, zinc and nickel, which then become part of the runoff. The resulting acidity andpresence of metals in the runoff are directly toxic to aquatic life and render the water unfit for use.8 Some metalsbioaccumulate in the aquatic food chain. Addition-ally, bottom-dwelling organ-isms can be smothered byiron that settlesout of the water.Also of concern is the impact mining has on ground-water, including contaminationand physical dislocation of aquifers.These aretypically localized effects. Acid mine drainage that seeps intogroundwater is a common cause of contamination.9Physical disruption ofaquifers can occur from blastingwhich can cause the groundwater to seep to a lower level or even connect two aquifers(leading to contamination of both). When a mine is located below the water table,water seeps into the mine and has to be pumped out. Thiscan lower thewater table and even dry up nearby wells.The process of mining, followed by reclamation, changes the permeability of overlying soil, alters the rate ofgroundwaterdischarge and increases flooding potential.10Underground mines not only impact groundwaterhydrology, they are prone to subsidence.11Subsidence occurs when theground above the mine sinks becausethe roof of the mine either shifts or collapses. Subsidence can alter ground slopes to such an extent that roads, water and gas lines andbuildings are damaged. Naturaldrainage patterns, river flows and aquifers can also be altered. The extent and severity of the subsidence depends on numerous factorsincluding how thick the overlying soil and rock layers are and the mining method. These problems can be addressed by preventive methods such as leaving enough coal in

place to provide structuralsupport to the mine roof. Deliberately collapsing the mine after the coal is extracted causes subsidence to

occur sooner, but more evenly. For existing mines, one correc-tive measure that has been used is backfilling the minewith either minewastes or combustion wastes. While this approach may seem to solve both subsidence and waste disposal problems, it is actually expensive and

dangerous and releases contaminants to the groundwater.12 Inaddition, these wastes often lack the structural strength tosupport the mine roof. Mine wastes are generated in huge quantities on the order of tens of millions of tons peryear.13Thesewastes include the solid waste from the mine, called gob,refuse from coal washing and coal preparation, and thesludge from treating

acid mine drainage. There are anumber of environmental impacts from this waste generation. First, the land where these wastes are dumpedis no longer useable for other purposes. Second,the piles are flammable and susceptible to spontaneous combustion.Third, they are prone to erosion which is amajor concern because the runoff and seepage from these piles is highlyacidic.

7


8/36



(__) Coal causes pollution and warming- The Impact is our 1AC

Hansen 06 (Brian Hansen, Inside Energy, New York, January 16, 2006, JD, proquest)

[Kiyo Akasaka] lauded progress on a host of fronts, including EPA's efforts to reduce power-plant pollution, noting thatU.S. emissions of nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and other key pollutants declined during the review period despitegrowth in population and the economy. He attributed the accomplishments to several factors, including EPA's use ofemissions-trading programs, cost-benefit analyses and other initiatives that inject more "flexibility" into environmentalregulations. The study also questions whether U.S. plans to reduce mercury and fine-particle pollution from old coalpower plants are adequate, saying emissions from those sources "pose human health risks and contribute to persistentregional pollution problems."The report noted EPA has begun to regulate power-sector mercury emissions, but OECDdoes not offer a ringing endorsement of its rule, which environmental and public health groups say is too weak toadequately protect people from mercury, a potent neurotoxin. The report expounds on those allegations.

(__) Coal Causes Deforestation

JeffBiggers, Lowell Thomas Award for Travel Journalism, a Field Foundation Fellowship and an Illinois Arts Council Creative Non-Fiction Award. He serves as acontributing editor to The Bloomsbury Review, and is a member of the PEN American Center 3/2/08Clean Coal? Dont try to shovel thathttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903390.html

More than 104,000 miners in America have died in coal mines since 1900. Twice as many have died from black lungdisease. Dangerous pollutants, including mercury, filter into our air and water. The injuries and deaths caused byoverburdened coal trucks are innumerable. Yet even on the heels of a recent report revealing that in the last six years theMine Safety and Health Administration decided not to assess fines for more than 4,000 violations, Bush administrationofficials have called for cutting mine-safety funds by 6.5 percent. Have they already forgotten the coal miners who wereentombed underground in Utah last summer? Above ground, millions of acres across 36 states have been dynamited,torn and churned into bits by strip mining in the last 150 years. More than 60 percent of all coal mined in the UnitedStates today, in fact, comes from strip mines. In the "United States of Coal," Appalachia has become the poster child forstrip mining's worst depravations, which come in the form of mountaintop removal. An estimated 750,000 to 1 million

acres of hardwood forests, a thousand miles of waterways and more than 470 mountains and their surroundingcommunities -- an area the size of Delaware -- have been erased from the southeastern mountain range in the last twodecades. Thousands of tons of explosives -- the equivalent of several Hiroshima atomic bombs -- are set off inAppalachian communities every year.

(__) The Impact is Extinction

Butler 2007(Rhett, Not from gone with the Wind, Extinction, Mongabay.com http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0908.htm)

The greatest loss with the longest-lasting effects from the ongoing destruction of wilderness will be the massextinction of species that provide Earth with biodiversity. Although great extinctions have occurred in thepast,none has occurred asrapidly or has been so much the result of the actions of a single species. The extinction rate of today may be 1,000 to 10,000 times the

biological normal, or background, extinction rate of 1-10 species extinctions per year.So far there is no evidence for the massive species extinctions predicted by the species-area curve in the chart below. However, it is possible that speciesextinction, like global warming, has a time lag, and the loss of forest species due to forest clearing in the past maynot be apparent yet today. Ward (1997) uses the term "extinction debt" to describe such extinction of species and populations long after habitat alteration:Decades or centuries after a habitat perturbation, extinction related to the perturbation may still be taking place. Thisis perhaps the least understood and most insidious aspect of habitat destruction. We can clear-cut a forest and then point out that the attendantextinctions are low, when in reality a larger number of extinctions will take place in the future. We will haveproduced an extinction debt that has to be paid. . . We might curtail our hunting practices when some given population falls to very low numbers and thinkthat we have succeeded in "saving" the species in question, when in reality we have produced an extinction debt that ultimately must be paid in full. . . Extinction debts arebad debts, and when they are eventually paid, the world is a poorer place.

8
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903390.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903390.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903390.htmlhttp://rainforests.mongabay.com/09mass_x.htmhttp://rainforests.mongabay.com/09mass_x.htmhttp://rainforests.mongabay.com/09mass_x.htmhttp://rainforests.mongabay.com/09mass_x.htmhttp://rainforests.mongabay.com/0908.htm#estimateshttp://rainforests.mongabay.com/09where.htmhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903390.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903390.htmlhttp://rainforests.mongabay.com/09mass_x.htmhttp://rainforests.mongabay.com/0908.htm#estimateshttp://rainforests.mongabay.com/09where.htm


9/36


10/36


Ext. Coal = Warming

The current global coal boom will lead to global warming advancing the industry is suicideJeffGoodell, January 25, 2007, Big Coals Dirty Move, JaretLK,http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13159559/national_affairs_big_coals_dirty_move

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, a suicidal act is one that is "dangerous to oneself or to one's interests;self-destructive or ruinous." By this standard, the coal boom that is currently sweeping America is the atmosphericequivalent of a swan dive off a very tall building. At precisely the moment that scientists have reached a consensus thatwe need to drastically cut climate-warming pollution, the electric-power industry is racing to build more than 150 newcoal plants across the United States. Coal is by far the dirtiest fossil fuel: If the new plants are built, they will dumphundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year for decades to come virtuallyguaranteeing that the U.S. will join China in leading civilization's plunge into a superheated future.

10


11/36


AT: Econ DA

(__) Non Unique- US economy trashed now



(__) Global warming and oil dependence ensure a future crash- cap and trade avoids both and ensuresshort-term business certainty

National Wildlife Federation 1/20/08 (Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act: Energizing Americas Economy, SustainableDelco,http://sustainabledelco.org/2008/01/20/lieberman-warner-climate-security-act-energizing-america%E2%80%99s-economy/)

Economic Cost of Delay:Doing nothing on climate change is a recipe for economic failure. Consider the

major economic risks from our current dependency on fossil fuels, including the potential

disruptions to foreign supplies of oil. Also, the economic damage from global warming itself will

climb year after year if we fail to act . A recent commission chaired by Sir Nicholas Stern, former

chief economist of the World Bank, found that global warming could reduce world economic output

by as much as 20 percentif we fail to take action Beyond the impacts of global warming, there is also a very real price industry will pay the

longer we wait.Businessesare making billions of dollars in investments in the coming years for power plants and other energy capital, and they need

certainty of the rules and a flexible framework such as that in the Lieberman-Warner bill to

make the most efficient decisions. Also, a slow start on federal action means a crash finish. If we

start cutting pollution by the year 2012, we can cut pollution gradually by about 2% every year. If

we delay even two years, we will need to cut pollution at twice the rate (around 4% a year) just to achieve the samecumulative pollution levels through the year 2020.

(__) Case Out Weighs- Even if they win a risk of their link, we have several internal links into theeconomy which will offset any economic decline- prefer our evidence on this question its specific to ourtype of cap and trade system, theirs is not.

(__) Climate regulations decrease spending on energy, freeing up capital for spending and economicgrowth- key to the economy.

Claussen and Peace 2007(Eileen and Janet, Pew Center for climate Change, Energy Myth Twelve: Climate Policy will Bankrupt the US Economy, Energyand American Society- 13 Myths, http://www.springerlink.com/content/l38431j743106357/fulltext.pdf)

The most recent effort to address this debate looked again at the implications of climate policy in California.1 ArnoldSchwarzenegger, Californias Governor, has committed to taking significant action on climate change and a Berkeley group evaluated eightof the potential policies being considered (Hanemann et al., 2006). Using the Berkeley Energy and Resources (BEAR) model, they found in aggregate, theseeight policies had benefits that exceeded the costs. The authors found that many GHG policies reduce energy use,which in turn lowers spending on energy and allows saving to be spent on goods that increase economicgrowth and employment. Climate action in California, they concluded can yield net gains for the stateeconomy, increasing growth and creating jobs . The authors go on to suggest that near-term effort will give California acompetitive advantage with respect to technology and industries that will be needed to address climatechange.

11
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l38431j743106357/fulltext.pdfhttp://www.springerlink.com/content/l38431j743106357/fulltext.pdf


12/36


AT: Econ DA

(__) Global Warming Policies Do NOT hinder economic growth.

Pew Center on Global Climate Change 2008 (In Brief, Insights from Modeling Analyses of the Lieberman-Warner Climate SecurityAct (S. 2191), May, http://www.pewclimate.org/docUpdloads/L-W-Modeling.pdf)

Climate policies such as S. 2191 will still allow the economy to grow robustly . It is important to note thatprojections of changes in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) across all of the models reflect a reduction in

future expected growthnever an absolute reduction (see Table 1). For 2030, reductions from BAU forecasts ofGDP vary across models from 0.3% to 2.7% but the ACCF/NAM analysis (which is not fully representative of the key policy

elements of S. 2191) is a clear outlier. In all of these cases, including the most pessimistic, the economy is

projected to grow significantly. Similarly, in 2050, estimates of reductions in future expected growth from BAUgenerally vary from 0.75% to 2.7%. The BAU or reference cases in the various models show that overall U.S. GDP doubles by

2030 and more than triples by 2050. Thus, decreases from future GDP are quite small compared to the

overall economic growth over the time period considered. For example, in EIAs analysis, GDP grows

183% from 2005 to 2030 in the S. 2191 core (policy) scenario compared to 184% in the reference case.For context, this means that the economy would be less than 2 months behind BAU levels in 2030 with GHG caps.

12


13/36


Ext. US Econ Down

(__) US Economy Down- California, Banks, and US Dollar.

The Times 7-16(Its worse than we feared and theres more pain to come, but it will pass, 2008http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4340443.ece?openComment=true)

The spectacle of customers queueing outside a small California bankon Monday to withdraw their deposits wasunsettling enough for an American public already traumatised by a year-long financial crisis.But there were two things about the collapse of IndyMac, a lender based in Pasadena, just outside Los Angeles, that were especially troubling.The first was that, as the federal authorities moved in to rescue the failed lender, they revealed that they had for some time been compiling a lengthy list of banks around the countrythat, because of their mounting difficulties, had been placed on a kind of death watch.

The scarier thing was that IndyMac was not even on the list.Thebanks failure which mirrored the crisis in Britain over Northern Rock was only one of a series of dizzying events in the past weekthat suggest that the turmoil that has battered the US economy and threatened the stability of the global financialsystem has entered an ominous new phase.In Washington and New York last weekend the financial authorities clocked up yet more overtime as they cobbledtogether a plan to rescue two of the nations largest financial institutions, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose core

business is the very lifeblood of the vast US housing market.On Monday rumours of imminent failure swirled around a number of small and medium-sized banks across the nation.

One of the countrys largest investment banks, Lehman Brothers, was once again battered by speculation that it could not meet its liabilities. The whole US bankingsector posted their largest one-day decline in share prices since 1989.Yesterday investors around the world joined in the panic, pummelling the US dollar, which dropped to yet anotherrecord low against the euro. The dollars latest losses also pushed the pound back above the $2 mark.The mood among policymakers in Washington is one of growing dismay; some might call it alarm. Despite theirbest efforts to keep the worlds largest economy afloat, despite a succession of unprecedented measures to restorecalm to financial markets, the situation continues to deteriorate.

(__) The Economy is toast- it wont get better any time soon.

USA Today 7-15(Economic Pain: Payback for debt fueled growth? 2008 http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-07-15-how-bad_N.htm)

Already down 23% from its October high, the Dow Jones industrial average touches a two-year low. The Labor Departmentsays wholesale prices are rising at their fastest pace since Ronald Reagan's first year in the White House. Embattledautomakerand American icon General Motors suspends its dividend to stockholders. The last time that happened? 1922.In Washington, somber statements came from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. President Bush, meeting reporters at the White House,acknowledged, "It's been a difficult time for many American families." On Capitol Hill, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke warned lawmakers, "The economy continuesto face numerous difficulties."

If it wasn't clear before Tuesday, it is now: This is no ordinary economic crisis, and it won't be over anytime soon.In fact, problems are multiplying. A year ago, the financial virus seemed confined to subprime mortgages, loans given to those with less-than-perfect credit. Now,much of the banking system appears rickety, and the U.S. economy has slowed to a crawl. But thanks to robustdemand from still-growing countries such as China, theprices of commodities from oil to food have soared hittingAmericans from the gas pump to the grocery checkout."There's no hope of an early recovery at this point," says economist Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard University. "The best-case scenario iswe have a long but mild recession and that's the best-case scenario."

13


14/36


Ext. Environmental Regulations Key

(__) Environmental regulations increases competitiveness- other countries are already developingalternative energy, the US is behind. Key to spurring innovation.

Claussen and Peace 2007(Eileen and Janet, Pew Center for climate Change, Energy Myth Twelve: Climate Policy will Bankrupt the US Economy, Energyand American Society- 13 Myths, http://www.springerlink.com/content/l38431j743106357/fulltext.pdf)

A few notable studies have suggested that environmental regulation improves competitiveness.Michael Porters research on thistopic is often cited in support of this theory. According to Porter, environmental regulations force firms to fundamentally rethink theirproduction processes which can stimulate innovation and lead to lower production costs and improvedinternational competitiveness (Porter and van der Linde 1995a, b). Repetto et al. (1997) in looking at climate policy specifically, argue that GHGcommitments will not harm U.S. competitiveness and could actually stimulate sector investments. Berman and Bui (2001)look at a related issue air quality, from the perspective of a key sector, evaluating the impacts of specific air quality regulations on refineries in California. They found that oilrefineries meeting more stringent environmental standards in the Los Angeles Air basin increased productivity and efficiency because of the redesigned production processesrequired for compliance.

14
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l38431j743106357/fulltext.pdfhttp://www.springerlink.com/content/l38431j743106357/fulltext.pdf


15/36


Ext. Warming Not Hurt Economy

Their arguments are based on economic models that dont assume technological innovation and

resultant decreases in energy costs

National Wildlife Federation 1/20/08 (Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act: Energizing Americas Economy, SustainableDelco,http://sustainabledelco.org/2008/01/20/lieberman-warner-climate-security-act-energizing-america%E2%80%99s-economy/)

Economic Modeling of the Legislation: Because the Lieberman-Warner bill designed to drive technology innovation, economic

models are incapable of guessing at what that innovation may bring, and the economic opportunity it entails. However,many economists analyze bills based on the technology we have now to determine what the likely market-based price

will be for emission allowances, and how that will affect energy prices and GDP . According to a detailed technology analysis by

McKinsey & Company on behalf of Shell, Honeywell, DTE Energy and other sponsors, U.S. emissions can be reduced by 20-30% below

current levels by the year 2030 (reductions comparable to those in the Lieberman-Warner bill) through measures that are cost effective.

The cost savings from many of these measures (such as improving efficiency in buildings) would roughly offset the addedcost of the more expensive options (such as reducing pollution at coal-fired power plants). Analysis ofan earlier version ofthe Lieberman-Warner bill by Duke Universitys Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions and RTIInternational suggests the following: (1) Americas economy will grow strongly under the Lieberman-Warner bill. TotalU.S. GDP will roughly triple in size between 2010 and 2050 with or without enactment of the bill. However, there may be someslight loss in GDP through 2050 roughly equivalent to delaying economic growth by about 6 months over a 40 year timeframe. This analysis does notattempt to assess, however, the positive boost to the U.S. economy that would accompany a renaissance in manufacturing clean energy technologies to sellaround the world. (2) The Lieberman-Warner bill returns significant revenues to consumers. The bill is the first to provide detailed provisions to aid a justtransition to a clean energy future for low- and middle-income families. Based on the Nicholas Institutes forecast for emission allowance prices, NWFcalculates that the consumer-oriented provisions in the bills allocation formula will return $425 billion to low- and middle-income consumers thru the year2030. (3) Energy prices may increase for businesses and residential consumers, although energy bills could go up or down. Compared to a business as usual

pathway, the Nicholas Institute estimates that, by the year 2015: the price of gasoline may increase by 7%; the price of natural gas may increase by about 17%;

and the price of electricity may increase by about 20%. However, increasing energy prices does not automatically translate into higher

energy bills, as consumers will have greater access to energy saving technologies that reduce the amount of gasoline,

natural gas and electricity purchased. A recent analysis by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of a similar climatebill (S. 280) determined that overall cost of generating electricity across the United States would decrease by 2025, as thesavings from energy conservation more than offset the costs of pollution controls to industry . (4) The United Statesenergy mix will diversify and rely less on fossil fuels. The legislation will drive energy conservation and renewable energy sources, with theoverall use of fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) declining 12% by 2015 relative to business-as-usual. United States dependency on oil will be reduced by 15%compared to business-as-usual by 2050. (5) The Cost of emitting greenhouse gas emissions will increase over time as emissions limits tighten. Emission

allowance prices are estimated to start at about $20 per ton (carbon dioxide equivalent) in 2015 and increase as emission caps tighten .

Economic models are inherently uncertain

Pew Center on Global Climate Change 2008 (In Brief, Insights from Modeling Analyses of the Lieberman-Warner Climate SecurityAct (S. 2191), May, http://www.pewclimate.org/docUpdloads/L-W-Modeling.pdf)Consideration of the range of uncertainty in the model is important for putting the potential cost impacts of a policy in perspective. Uncertainty about the typesof technology that will be available in 20, 30, or even 50 years is significant. Who would have predicted back in the 1950s the computing or communications

capabilities we have today? Further, predicting how our economy will grow is also rife with uncertainty. In the six modeling

exercises that we examined, the difference between reference case GDP (that is, future GDP in the absence of climatepolicy) in 2030 was almost 3 trillion dollars, representing a difference of more than 10 percent. Predicted impacts (forexample, the 0.44% reduction in 2030 GDP from BAU suggested by the MIT model) in light of this large uncertainty seemsinsignificant.

15


16/36


AT: Spending DA

(__) Case Out Weighs- Even if they win a risk of their link, we have several internal links into theeconomy which will offset any economic decline- prefer our evidence on this question its specific to ourtype of cap and trade system, theirs is not.

(__) Non Unique- US economy trashed now



(__) No Link- Plan doesnt spend any money to set up the cap and trade system- all incentives come inthe form of perms which are given or auctioned by the government. Any residual spending will comefrom already allocated funds.

(__) Auctioning off Permits increases government Revenue.

Thompson 6/21/08 (Clive, contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine, International Herald Tribune, The mission of Mister Clean,lexis-nexis)

But the Lieberman-Warner bill, like virtually every other cap-and-trade bill in the works, gives away only 75

percent of the allowances; the government auctions off the rest. Year by year, the percentage of allowances

that will be auctioned off steadily rises, until nearly all of them are. This is a huge new source of money for thegovernment: Carbon allowances are projected to be worth $100 billion in the first year alone, rising

to nearly $500 billion by 2050.

(__) And case Out Weights- Global warming ensures a global depression

Environment News Service, October 30, 2006(Accessed May 17, 2008, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2006/2006-10-30-06.asp)

LONDON, UK, October 30, 2006 (ENS) - The most comprehensive review ever carried out on the

economics of climate change warns that global warming could inflict worldwide disruption as great

as that caused by the two World Wars and the Great Depression. Published today and launched at the offices

of the Royal Society in London, the Stern Review estimates that US$9 trillion dollars would be the globaleconomic cost of doing nothing. The review, sent to Prime Minister Tony Blair and Chancellor Gordon Brown, wascommissioned by the chancellor in July last year. It was carried out by Sir Nicholas Stern, head of the Government EconomicService and a former World Bank chief economist. Sir Nicholas said today, "The conclusion of the review is essentially

optimistic. There is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, if we act now and actinternationally. Governments, businesses and individuals all need to work together to respond to the challenge. Strong,deliberate policy choices by governments are essential to motivate change."

16


17/36


Ext. Plan Costs Nothing

(__) The Cost to the government would be zero from a cap and trade system

Salmon 2008(Felix, Staff writer for Economic Magazines, Why Bush Doesnt Like Cap and Trade, Apr 16 http://seekingalpha.com/article/72524-why-bush-doesn-t-like-cap-and-trade)

You want an argument for why a cap-and-trade system makes more sense than a carbon tax if you want to reduce carbon emissions? Take a look at all the noise surrounding the Bush

speech on the subject today. Bush's goal, of stopping growth in US carbon emissions by 2025, is incredibly weak. If that goalwere legislated by means of a cap-and-trade system, the open-market cost of emitting carbon would be very closeto zero. And yet such a system won't be proposed:One person briefed on White House deliberations said a cap-and-trade program for electric utilities was dropped from the package yesterday, after the White House was flooded withcomplaints from industry officials and lobbyists.

17
http://feeds.wsjonline.com/~r/wsj/environmentalcapital/feed/~3/271367290/http://feeds.wsjonline.com/~r/wsj/environmentalcapital/feed/~3/271367290/http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080416/NATION/29153435/1001http://feeds.wsjonline.com/~r/wsj/environmentalcapital/feed/~3/271367290/http://feeds.wsjonline.com/~r/wsj/environmentalcapital/feed/~3/271367290/http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080416/NATION/29153435/1001


18/36


Ext. Plan Saves Money

(__) The Auctioning portion of the plan increases government revenue

Goldstein 2007(Benjamin, Research Associate for the Center for American Progress, Learning from Europe, Designing a Cap and Trade Programs that work, Centerfor American Progress June 1st http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/g8_cap_and_trade.html)

Most economists agree that auctioning is the most efficient allocation mechanism. Auctioning prevents windfall profits,avoids rewarding polluters and penalizing early adopters of clean or efficient technologies, is transparent andimmune to political lobbies, and creates a new source of government revenue that can be used to compensateconsumers for higher energy costs or to invest in clean energy research and development.

18


19/36


**Oil DAs**

AT: Renewables Oil DA

(__) Oil Prices Down

Reuters 7-17(Oil prices down but not out,http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSL17782381200807172008)

The old saying what goes up must come down seemed true of oil markets this week as falling demand helped to wipe more than $10 off theprice, but long-term supply constraints could keep investors keen.

Bullish forecasters say the record rally that took prices to more than $147 a barrel last week has a long way to run and that itwill take years to make up for a chronic lack of investment in bringing on new supplies.Others say prices, which were below $134 a barrel early on Thursday, have hit the kind of levels that have a significant impact on demand.

"We believe the 100 percent rise in the oil price over the last year is not sustainable going forwards," said Richard Batty ofStandard Life Investments.

(__) Our Competitivness advantage is a link turn-

a) Our Hawkins evidence indicates that the ONLY way for companies to be forced to switch is if there is anational cap and trade program.

b) Our Haverkamp evidence indicates that US participation in the global carbon market gives renewablemanufactures an outlet for their products- increasing the incentive to produce.

c) heres more evidence on this question- Cap and trade causes a shift to Renewables

Byron SwiftandJan Mazurek2008(Director of the Center for Energy, Economy and Innovation at the Environmental Law Institute and the Director of the Center forInnovation and the Environment at the Progressive Policy Institute, Progressive Policy Institute Policy Report, October 2001, Accessed May 16, 2008,http://www.ndol.org/documents/clean_energy_part2.pdf)

The adoption by other countries of greenhouse gas caps virtually guarantees that the country (or company) first tomarket with carbon-abatement technologies will reap unprecedented dividends. Although we cant foresee exactly what carbonmitigation technologies will form the ultimate response to global warming, we should be creating incentives to develop them now. We knowfrom experience that new technology, an entrepreneurial spirit, and sound public policies can simultaneously produceenvironmental improvements, growth, and affordable energy. U.S. companies should have incentives to develop carbon

mitigation technologies that will have world markets. It is also up to countries like the United States that have the capital and expertise todevelop these technologies in order for lesser-developed countries to be able to commit to reductions by applying those technologies.

(__) Renewable Development not Dependent on High Prices.

Environment News Service, 6-21-07, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2007/2007-06-21-04.asp

While the report finds that high oil prices have driven investors into the renewable energy market, UNEP ExecutiveDirector Achim Steiner says many investors are choosing renewables regardless of oil prices. "One of the new andfundamental messages of this report is that renewable energies are no longer subject to the vagaries of rising and fallingoil prices - they are becoming generating systems of choice for increasing numbers of power companies, communitiesand countries irrespective of the costs of fossil fuels, said UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner, introducing thereport Wednesday.

19
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSL1778238120080717http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSL1778238120080717http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSL1778238120080717http://www.ndol.org/documents/clean_energy_part2.pdfhttp://www.ndol.org/documents/clean_energy_part2.pdfhttp://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2007/2007-06-21-04.asphttp://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSL1778238120080717http://www.ndol.org/documents/clean_energy_part2.pdfhttp://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2007/2007-06-21-04.asp


20/36


Ext. Prices Down

(__) Prices Down- Economic worries

Schreck 7-16(Adam, AP news wire, Economic Worries Pull Prices Down, http://www.courant.com/business/hc-oilprices0716.artjul16,0,4844089.story 2008)

Oil prices fell harder than they have in 17 years Tuesday, as fears that record fuel prices are spreading broad economicpain exacerbated the third big sell-off in just over a week.Light, sweet crude plunged $6.44, or 4.4 percent, to settle at $138.74 a barrel. Prices at one point plummeted more than $10from the day's high.Mounting concerns about the risks inflation poses to the United States, the world's biggest oil consumer, helpedspark the declines. Analysts also attributed the sell-off to Thursday's expiration of options contracts, which tend to increase volatility, and to computers programmed toautomatically sell once prices reach certain thresholds."There was this big ... selling pressure when prices dipped below $140 a barrel. It got a lot of bu lls very nervous," said Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at the Oil Price InformationService. "If it was a fire, you'd call it an accelerant."

(__) Prices are down- by at least 10 dollars and erratic sell off.

AP 7-17(Oil prices fall again, down $10 in 2-day erratic sell-off, Baltimore Sun, 2008 http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-bz.oil17jul17,0,102280.story)

Oil prices settled sharply lowerfor the second day in a row yesterday, leaving crude more than $10 cheaperin just two days of frenzied tradingand prompting speculation that the hard-charging market may be running out of steam.

Light sweet crude for August delivery fell $4.14 to settle at $134.60 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, after earlier sinking as low as $132.The drop follows a $6.44 sell-off Tuesday, crude's biggest since the Gulf War.The two-day slide of $10.58 a barrel marks a dramatic turnaround in crude prices, which as recently as Friday traded at record highs above $147 a barrel. But even with this week'ssell-off, prices remain about 80 percent above where they were a year ago and up about 40 percent from the start of the year.

Analysts are unsure whether the drop represents a long-term shift in sentiment or simply a brief correction tocrude's monthslong bull run. But the dizzying decline is prompting market veterans to ask how much supportremains for such high prices.

20
http://www.courant.com/business/hc-oilprices0716.artjul16,0,4844089.storyhttp://www.baltimoresun.com/topic/economy-business-finance/finance/new-york-mercantile-exchange-ORCRP001702.topichttp://www.courant.com/business/hc-oilprices0716.artjul16,0,4844089.storyhttp://www.baltimoresun.com/topic/economy-business-finance/finance/new-york-mercantile-exchange-ORCRP001702.topic


21/36


22/36


Ext. High Prices Not Key

(__) Security concerns drive renewable development-prices not key

Gal Luft, executive director of Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, 7-5-07,http://www.iags.org/n050707.htm

To insulate the U.S. further, President Bush seeks to double the size of the American oil reserve in the coming years.The President also seeks to reduceAmerica's oil dependence through increased efficiency and to shift to alternative fuels. Applied in unison, these tactics advance thestrategic goals of reducing global energy prices,protecting the West against supply disruptions, and limiting the flow of petrodollars toTehran. This increased pressure on the Iranian regime could, over time, generate a much desired regime change. If Washington executes this strategy with expediency anddetermination, this outcome could be achieved before Iran becomes a nuclear power

(__) Even without high oil prices, the renewable energy industry will still grow.

Science Letter July 8, 2008 HEADLINE: INTEGRITY INTERNATIONAL; Integrity International Launches Renewable Energy StaffingDivision

"While business ideas in the renewable energy field will work and fail, we project that the job opportunities will growdramatically in the near term," Ahumada said. "Even without the recent spike in oil prices, the pressure to increaserenewable energy is strong and will continue to grow."

(__) Prices will not fuel the transition.

Ian Bremmer. "Prices Transform Oil Into A Weapon." International Herald Tribune. 27 Aug. 2005.http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/26/news/edbremmer.php

Second, petro-states are rethinking their assumptions about the elasticity of global demand for oil. When oil sold for $30 abarrel, they accepted the conventional view that substantial price hikes might lower demand - and hurt their bottom lines - asimporting states actively looked for new sources of oil, energy alternatives and other ways to cut fossile-fuel consumption.

Now that oil sells for well above $60 a barrel, without (so far) a sharp drop in demand, energy-exporting states are changingtheir minds. Some now believe they can push the price still further and increase profits without a drop in demand.

22
http://www.iags.org/n050707.htmhttp://www.iags.org/n050707.htm


23/36


AT: Russian Oil DA (Defense)

(__) Case Out Weighs- Global Warming causes extinction, Russian Collapse is localized. And we solve aquicker link into the global economy- Russia has been on the brink for years, no reason why prices wouldeffect it now.

(__) Oil Prices Down

Reuters 7-17(Oil prices down but not out,http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSL17782381200807172008)

The old saying what goes up must come down seemed true of oil markets this week as falling demand helped to wipe more than $10 off theprice, but long-term supply constraints could keep investors keen.

Bullish forecasters say the record rally that took prices to more than $147 a barrel last week has a long way to run and that itwill take years to make up for a chronic lack of investment in bringing on new supplies.Others say prices, which were below $134 a barrel early on Thursday, have hit the kind of levels that have a significant impact on demand.

"We believe the 100 percent rise in the oil price over the last year is not sustainable going forwards," said Richard Batty ofStandard Life Investments.

(__) Russias oil production has peaked cant sell significantly more to contribute to economy

AlexanderKolyandr, Dow Jones Newswires, July 1 2008 OIL CONGRESS: Russia's Oil Output Has Reached Plateau -Dep Minhttp://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20080701%5cACQDJON200807010803DOWJONESDJONLINE000223.htm&&mypage=newsheadlines&title=OIL%20CONGRESS:%20Russia's%20Oil%20Output%20Has%20Reached%20Plateau%20-Dep%20Min

MADRID -(Dow Jones)- Russia's oil production will grow only marginally this year and in the near term, Russia'sdeputy minister for energy said Tuesday, and has in effect hit a plateau for now."No one should expect that Russia's oil production growth will match the one we've witnessed in the pasteight years," Anatoly Yanovsky said on the sidelines of the World Petroleum Congress.Over that period, Russia's annual oil production grew from 360 million metric tons to just above 490 million tons.

"Nothing like that will happen", the official said, adding, that Russia's oil production has hit a plateau which willremain unchanged until new large fields in Eastern Siberia and offshore come upstream.After several years of stable growth,production of oil and gas condensate in Russia dropped 0.3% in the first four monthsof this year compared with the same period a year previously , to 161 million tons, or 1.18 billion barrels, according to the government.

(__) Oil price drop would have no effect on the Russian economy. Prices could get as low as $55 a barreland the effect would still be insignificant

Russia & CIS Banking & Finance WeeklyJune 20, 2008 headline: russia does not fear drop in oil prices - kudrin

Russia should be prepared for both further growth as well as a rapid drop in oil prices, he said. It is better forRussia when oil prices are high, he said,

but these prices must be utilized soundly and oil windfalls should not be wasted."If oil prices are higher and is spent immediately, the ruble's exchange ratewill strengthen," he said, stressing that the appreciation of the ruble would have a negative effect on Russian industry. A decline in the price of oilwill not have a significant impact on the Russian budget, Kudrin said."Russia is not afraid of a price drop," Kudrin said in an interview with Vesti 24 TV while in Osaka following the meeting of the G8 finance chiefs."Our budget would not have a deficit at a price of $55 per barrel.The tax system for our oil companies is set up so that as the price of oildeclines, taxation declines. Sono substantial changes will take place. It will have some effect on our GDP growth, but aninsignificant one compared with the earlier period. I repeat, the effect will be insignificant," he said.

23
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSL1778238120080717http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSL1778238120080717http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSL1778238120080717http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSL1778238120080717


24/36


AT: Russian Oil DA (Defense)

Russian economy is resilient.

Bruce Stokes. "Don't Ignore the Russian Bear." Council on Foreign Relations. 2008.http://www.cfr.org/publication/3225/dont_ignore_the_russian_bear.html

A little less than a year ago, August 17 to be precise , thepost-Cold WarRussian economic experiment imploded. The ruble collapsed and debtpayments to foreigners were frozen. Wall Street lost billions of dollars. Long Term Capital Management, one of the world's biggest hedge funds, had to betaken over by its bankers. Once burned, international investors yanked their capital out of all emerging markets from Latin America to East Asia

causing world interest rates to spike. The global economy teetered on the edge of depression. But, much to the surprise of mosteconomic pundits, international markets quickly righted themselves. The Russian economy proved far more resilient thananticipated. And, in retrospect, the events of August, 1998 were little more than a very large bump in the road. The lessons of this"crisis that wasn't" are now clear: Russia is not too big to fail (the volume of its debts do not dictate special treatment by its creditors); the financialworld can cope with such failure; and the Russian economy can bounce back without much overt help from the West. But theimpending $4.5 billion loan to Russia by the International Monetary Fund reflecting Washington's gratitude for Moscow's help in Kosovo, continued fear

of Russian nuclear proliferation and concern about Russia's internal political stability demonstrates that Russia still remains too important forthe world to ignore. This contradiction not too big to fail, but still too big to flounder highlights the friction inherent when economic policy isused to further geo-political goals. Up until a year ago, the Clinton Administration argued that aid to Russia was needed, in part, to avoid global economiccollapse. August, 1998 exposed that rationale as a charade. Now American support for assistance to Russia can only be justified for two reasons: to reinforce

Russia's transition to a market economy or as ransom in Moscow's continued strategic blackmail of the West. Evidence to justify the former is dubious. Itstime to own up to the latter. Last summer's fleeting economic fright reflected Russia's staggering economic collapse. The ruble fell by more than 70per cent in a couple of weeks. The economy shrank by 4.3 per cent. Real wages fell 41 per cent. But the crisis was cathartic. "The shockaccomplished what reform was intended to achieve," said Anders Aslund, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peacein Washington. The banking system now functions better. Barter is declining. Most important, there has been no reversion to central

planning, government-directed lending, industrial subsidies or government reliance on simply printing money.

24
http://www.cfr.org/publication/3225/dont_ignore_the_russian_bear.htmlhttp://www.cfr.org/publication/3225/dont_ignore_the_russian_bear.html


25/36


AT: Russian Oil DA (Offense)

(__) High oil-revenue deters economic liberalization.

Christian Science Monitor, Fred Weir, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor, "Has Russian oil output peaked?" May 28, 2008 lexis

Oil profits, on the other hand, are taxed at nearly 90 percent, which has filled the state's coffers as prices for crude oil haverisen from $10 per barrel a decade ago to more than $130 last week. Petrowealth was a key factor enabling Mr. Putinto concentrate political power in the Kremlin, which he used to take over huge slices of the formerly private oil and gas industry. The loomingproduction crunch, therefore, suggests a need for sweeping political reforms as well as economic adjustments, some expertssay. "As long as energy prices keep going up and the easy money keeps rolling in, there is no incentive to liberalize,"says Yevgeny Gavrilenkov, chief economist at Troika Dialog, a Moscow investment bank. "If the golden goose stops laying eggs, then they'll start torecognize the need for change."

(__) Forcing Russian liberalization now key to Russia's economy.

Christian Science Monitor, Fred Weir, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor, "Has Russian oil output peaked?" May 28, 2008lexis

A sharp debate is breaking out among economists, some ofwhom argue that the crisis is an opportunity for Russia todevelop a long-term strategy to husband its remaining energy resources and diversify its economy. They point to figures showingthat gas and oil exports have risen since 2000 from under half to over 60 percent of Russia's gross domestic product and say that to continuetrading nonrenewable resources for rapidly devaluing dollars is a big mistake. "Russia should not be a colonialcountry that provides raw materials to more developed countries," says Nodari Simonia, director of the Center for World Energy Studies, anindependent Moscow think tank. "We don't need to export more crude, we have to invest resources in our manufacturing base."Russian oil profits, taxed by the state, have been accumulating in a special 'stabilization fund' that now totals about $130billion. Earlier this year the government put another $32 billion into a sovereign wealth fund that is expected to begin investing in Russian infrastructure and social welfareschemes. "Russia's economy so far can't absorb the oil cash that's coming in. That, not increasing oil output, is ourbiggest worry," says Sergei Glaziev, head of the National Institute for Development, a Moscow think tank. "We urgently need to diversify oureconomy away from this dependence on natural resources."

(__) Extend the Davis Evidence from the 1NC

25


26/36


AT: Russian Oil DA (Offense)

(__) High oil prices are collapsing democracy and creating increased authoritarianism in Russia

States News Service June 24,2008HEADLINE: AS OIL WEALTH RISES IN EURASIA, DEMOCRACY DECLINES SIGNIFICANTLY

To coincide with today's release of the Freedom House Nations in Transit 2008 report, three of the study's authors gathered at RFE/RL's Washington, DC

headquarters to discuss one of its key findings - that,as oil and natural gas revenues surge in Russia and Central Asia,democratic institutions in these countries are eroding significantly. [Read more about the Nations in Transit 2008 Report]"The resource curse is taking root," Freedom House Director of Studies Christopher Walker told the group. "The growingauthoritarianism in oil and natural gas-richcountries such as Russia,Kazakhstan and Azerbaijanis severely restricting theability of democratic institutions to operate." According to the report, the regression in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Russia hasoccurred systematically and across sectors, including in the areas of electoral process, civil society, independent media and judicial independence.

"Russia's decline in all of the report's categoriesover the past eight years is dramatic," said Robert Orttung, the author of thesection on Russia and a Senior Fellow at the Jefferson Institute. "For years, Vladimir Putin has been

using oil and natural gas revenues to build up his police forces and consolidate power in such a way that there is no space for democracyto grow."

Failure of democracy in Russia will cause global nuclear warMuravchik 2001(Joshua- Resident Scholar at the AEI, Democracy and Nuclear Peace July 14, http://www.npec-web.org/Syllabus/Muravchik.pdf, Date Accessed7/29/2006)

That this momentum has slackened somewhat since its pinnacle in 1989, destined to be remembered as one of the most revolutionary years in all history, wasinevitable. So many peoples were swept up in the democratic tide that there was certain to be some backsliding. Most countries' democratic evolution has

included some fits and starts rather than a smooth progression. So it must be for the world as a whole. Nonetheless , the overall trend remainspowerful and clear. Despite the backsliding, the number and proportion of democracies stands higher today than everbefore. This progress offers a source of hope for enduring nuclear peace. The danger of nuclear war wasradically reduced almost overnight when Russia abandoned Communism and turned to democracy. For

other ominous corners of the world, we may be in a kind of race between the emergence or growth ofnuclear arsenals and the advent of democratization. If this is so, the greatest cause for worry may rest with the Moslem Middle Eastwhere nuclear arsenals do not yet exist but where the prospects for democracy may be still more remote.

26
http://www.npec-web.org/Syllabus/Muravchik.pdfhttp://www.npec-web.org/Syllabus/Muravchik.pdf


27/36


Ext. Russia Diverse

Low oil prices will not affect Russia - they have shielded themselves from price decline and diversifiedtheir economy.

Belfast Telegraph, Mary Dejevsky, "Russia will not cut oil and gas production, Putin says" September17, 2007 lexis

Mr Putin was answering questions from foreign Russia-watchers at his summer residence near the southern resort city of Sochi. What had prompted aresponse that should reassure Russia's Western customers, at least in the short term, was a comment by a senior official two days before to the effect thatRussia's oil and gas bonanza was almost as much trouble as it was worth. He had said that, while Russia had benefited hugely from the high energy prices of

recent years, these had also created problems. Because the Russian economy simply could not absorb so much money productively insuch a short time, the government had to spend much specialist time and energy on how best to use it. A proportion goes tothe "stabilisation fund", now standing at $130bn, seen as an insurance against energy prices falling. Another share goes intoan "investment fund" for infrastructure projects, higher pensions and public service salaries. What is left over is investedabroad, much of it in foreign bonds, to be as safe as possible. Russia's foreign investment policy was, the official said,

deliberately"conservative". The official also said that Russia was looking to invest more in foreign companies, and would already have done so butfor what it saw as unwarranted suspicion of Russia's intentions and closet protectionism on the part of foreign governments. It was in this context that a

participant in the discussion with Mr Putin asked this question: Why, if Russia found administering its new oil and gas wealth so burdensome, did it notconsider cutting production? Keeping the stuff in the ground, he suggested, would have several beneficial effects for Russia. It would raise the world price,

so yielding more money for less effort. It would, assuming no dramatic fall in prices in the near future, guarantee Russia a good income for many moreyears. And it would save ministers the time and effort involved in figuring out how to invest its windfall. The question clearly appealed to Mr Putin. He

smiled and described the proposition as interesting, as he seemed to turn it over in his mind. But his response was categorical . "We will extend andincrease production of both oil and gas, and we will do that because global demand is growing." He said that Russia had nointention of banking on further rises in energy prices. "We remember that there was a time when coal was the main source ofenergy, and then all at once the price fell sharply. What good would come of speculating?" Russia, he said, "wants to behaveresponsibly" not for its own sake, but because "harmonious relations" with the rest of the world was as much in the nationalinterest as high energy prices.Apparently alluding to Western charges that Russia used its position as an energy supplier as a weapon, Mr Putin saidthat Russia had never " blackmailed" the world market. He went on: "We are not a member of Opec though we keep a close eye on what it does and onereason is that we don't have the level of state monopoly over energy production that most Opec countries have."

Russias economy has diversified: no impact

Journal of Commerce 4/26/2004

Although Russia's remoteness from the U.S. - and its proximity to the huge European market - limits its potential as an economic partner, Russiancompanies in such sectors as information technology, telecommunications and aerospace are becoming competitive, Marshallsaid. Even Russia's agriculture sector is becoming viable. Last year, Russia became a net exporter of grain, which is "mind-boggling" toMarshall, who remembers the ineptitude of the Soviet era. "Yes, they are still heavily dependent on energy, but not completely. Sure, theforeign reserves of $85 billion - because of high energy prices - has helped. But it's not just that."

27


28/36


Ext. High Prices Bad- Russian Econ

Sustained high oil prices would turn Russia into a petro-state, rife with poverty, corruption, and an

inevitably collapsing economy

Moises Naim(Editor) Jan/Feb 2004Foreign Policy

Russia's future will be defined as much by the geology of its subsoil as by the ideology of its leaders. Unfortunately, whereaspolicymakers can choose their ideology, they don't have much leeway when it comes to geology. Russia has a lot of oil, and this inescapablegeological fact will determine many of the policy choices available to its leaders. Oil and gas now account for roughly 20percent of Russia's economy, 55 percent of its export earnings, and 40 percent of its total tax revenues. Russia is the world's secondlargest oil exporter after Saudi Arabia, and its subsoil contains 33 percent of the world's gas reserves. It already supplies 30 percent of Europe's

rss 2ac blocks- cap and trade aff

Documents