Advantage CP File Amalgam

Advantage CP’s

Whenever the aff runs their plan with one or multiple advantages you should run an advantage counterplan to solve that advantage better than the aff does. Not very useful in itself, but if you run DA’s that link to the plan, but not to the CP (otherwise known as Net Benefits), they pretty much mitigate the utility of the aff. Advantage CP’s can be very powerful tools when used correctly and you should strive to learn them throughout the year.

If you have any case specific DA’s I suggest running those, otherwise you can run these DA’s (or any Trans Infrastructure specific DA’s):

Auto & Freight DA (econ, oil dependence)

Buy American DA (Canada-US relations, economy, US-Canada trade war, NAFTA, Protectionism trade wars,)

Environment DA (environment/warming stuff, disease, nuclear war)

Food Prices DA (Russia stuff, Ukraine stuff, North Korea stuff, war/geno, afghan stuff, Mexico stuff, Brazil Shell, Biotech w bioterror, high prices good w poverty/resources, Obesity/heg)

LUST Tradeoff DA (Warming, Econ, fire/environment, bio-d)

Oil DA (Warming, Environments)

Oil Drilling DA (Saudia Arabia stuff, Environment)

Steel DA (China growth/NW, Econ)

Warming CP’sSome oil CP’s (below) also solve warming

Ocean Fertilization

1NC Ocean Fertilization CP

The United States federal government should substantially increase investment in ocean fertilization to reduce global warming.

Ocean fertilization solves warmingEco Global Fuels (EGF), 2011, “Iron Fertilization- the worlds #1 method of CO2 sequestering,” http://ecoglobalfuels.com/news/iron-

fertilization-worlds-1-method-co2-sequestering

Recent research just completed by our team, has revealed that the Eco Global Fuels (EGF) renewable energy technology- not only creates carbon neutral ethanol, but with our free by product from our unique IP hydroxyl process - iron oxide - and

using the validated results from our test trials at Macquarie university, we have proven that our EGF process makes enough iron oxide to be able to be used in sequestering CO2 by promoting algae growth Iron oxide is a by-product of the hydroxy electrolysis process, and with our calculations below, we have proven that sequestering all CO2 from a 60 MW turbine is achievable (which means we can apply this to any scale, using any power supply for example photovoltaic, gas /coal turbines, off peak

electricity etc.). Because it is a byproduct- it is free to be utilized into various methodologies (making them economical) Technologies and industries which benefit from Increasing the growth of algae: Ocean fertilization Algae based bio fuels Algae based fertilizers Algae products (supplements, cosmetics) Sewage treatment Produces freshwater Food production Pharmaceuticals EGF will implement an on-going program with the incentive of carbon neutral Solanol fuel production to fund the iron fertilization program, utilizing the free by-product of iron oxide produced by the hydroxy gas for the

manufacture of carbon neutral Solanol. No other methodology can provide these two factors: free iron oxide and the economic incentive to implement. We believe we have the answer of sequestration of all the carbon dioxide produced by the combustion of fossil fuels and at the same time the ability to produce carbon neutral Solanol transport fuel Please note, in the "Virgin Earth

Challenge" competition, the majority of finalists have based their findings on the utilization of biomass for carbon dioxide sequestration. Iron fertilization (we can produce iron oxide at no cost) and the production of algae is the most cost-efficient and reliable production of biomass for the absorption of carbon dioxide and in addition it is top of the food chain and represents 80% of this food chain. Due to the vast quantities of carbon dioxide generated in the production of electrical power, we have formulated into our methodology, a process known as ocean fertilization, which can efficiently sequester vast amounts of CO2. Ocean Fertilization is used in our calcul5ations (you will find in the documents section on our website "What is ocean fertilization") , as it has the most potential on a larger scale to deal with massive amounts of CO2 sequestering. However, there are many other processes such as bio fuels that increased algae grow can be utilized. We have also used off peak electricity produced by a coal power station- with precise information of inputs/outputs provide by a Czech based power company whom have become interested in our

technology Ocean Fertilization Definition This is the process of distributing iron oxide into the ocean, which encourages the growth of algae, which sequesters CO2 from the atmosphere. Coal turbine -Co2 sequestering by EGF Recent information supplied to us by a potential licensee in Prague that operates a 178MW coal fired power station. The intent is to utilize their off-peak waste electricity to produce carbon neutral Solanol fuel to replace their dependence on importing all their

transport fuels. What is Ocean Fertilization? This is the process of distributing iron oxide into the ocean, which encourages the growth of algae, which sequesters CO2 from the atmosphere. The good news is we have free iron oxide from our hydroxyl electrolysis process, equivalent to the level necessary to sequester all the CO2 produced by a 60 MW turbine. We produce the necessary iron oxide as a by-produce of the hydroxy electrolysis process, required for iron fertilization of the ocean, to sequester all carbon dioxide emissions.

Ocean Fertilization CP – Solvency

Ocean fertilization useful and effective.Nigel Moore, Governance Project Manager at the Oxford Geoengineering Programme, 06 Feb 2012, “Much to learn about ocean fertilization,” Oxford Martin School, http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/blog/view/138

The oceans store a huge amount of carbon compared with the Earth’s atmosphere. This fact has led some

scientists and institutions to ask the question of whether human intervention might be used to cause an increase in oceanic uptake of atmospheric carbon whereby a small relative increase in carbon stored in the oceans would have a significant impact on CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Following the recent Ocean

Fertilization seminar, Nigel Moore from the Oxford Geoengineering Programme explains. One ocean fertilization method is known as the ‘biological pump’—essentially adding nutrients (such as iron) in areas of the ocean where they are limited, in order to cause more plankton blooms. When plankton grow they require carbon, which they get from the atmosphere, and thus it is posited that increasing the amount of oceanic plankton blooms would cause more carbon to be pulled out of the atmosphere and—potentially—be sequestered for a long period of time in the ocean once the plankton die.

Ocean fertilization definition and benefits.Alex Wall, Environmental Science at the University of York, 5th January 2012, “Ocean Fertilization: A case study from the Southern Ocean

assessing the feasibility of this Geo-engineering option,” UK Energies, http://ukenergies.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/ocean-fertilisation-a-case-study-from-the-southern-ocean-assessing-the-feasibility-of-this-geo-engineering-option/

It is likely that global warming will exceed 2°C this century unless greenhouse emissions are cut by at least 50% of 1990 levels by 2050 and by even more thereafter. The 2°C level is widely regarded has being a threshold and no current emissions scenario has been able to produce a viable strategy to achieve this, to stabilize the concentration of Carbon dioxide at 450ppm (~380ppm ambient) by 2100. Geo-engineering technologies may form part of a solution to attain this outcome, or to make up for lost time in the future whilst political consensus has

not been found at the present (highlighted by current inability of the Kyoto Protocol to reduce Carbon emissions). Geo-engineering technologies deliberately manipulate the planetary environment to counter-act the enhanced global greenhouse effect caused by anthropogenic emissions (either through carbon dioxide removal or solar radiation

management). These technologies may serve to avoid currently unidentified tipping points (positive feedbacks) in the climate system such as the release of methane from gas hydrates in Arctic and the increase in global soil respiration rates both induced by higher global temperatures. As of yet, no Geo-engineering technologies have been demonstrated to be effective at an affordable

cost, with acceptable side effects. Nevertheless, this report will focus on analyzing the potential of the theory of “Ocean Fertilization” geo-engineering technologies which aim to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and therefore

directly cool the planet. Scientific Background The cycling of Carbon in the earth’s oceans is driven in part by a biological pump, which utilizes carbon from the atmosphere to produce organic matter (this growth is either limited by light or by a nutrient). Due to biological degradation the majority of this organic carbon is re-mineralized to its organic form in the upper “euphotic zone” of the ocean, however a small fraction escapes and sinks due to gravity to the deep ocean where it can be regarded as “sequestered” by the IPCC as it will be unable to re-enter the atmosphere for at least a century. The Southern Ocean is regarded as being

an HNLC region (High Nutrient Low Chlorophyll) and the primary productivity appears to be limited by the

deficiency of Iron, the crux of the Ocean Fertilization theory in this region is that the addition of Iron, will lead to a greater primary productivity and subsequently lead to a greater sequestration of Carbon from the atmosphere. Due to the characteristic Redfield ratios of the nutrient elements to carbon in algal tissues 106:16:1:0.001, (C:N:P:Fe)

the addition of one atom of Fe could theoretically stimulate the production of 100,000 organic carbon atoms. It is also true that if the biological pump were to stop operating the concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide would increase by more than 100ppm in a few decades. However it is incorrect to assume that this stimulation of phyto-plankton equates to a correlationally greater sequestration of Carbon, as the majority of organic matter is remineralized, and phyto-plankton growth is still limited by light and grazing of zooplankton, with only a small fraction being finally transported and sequestered in the deep ocean (un-quantifiable at present). There may also be a “nutrient robbing” effect, where the addition of Fe in one area, causes the withdrawal of macronutrients in another, removing the net benefit of the addition of Iron. Recent high resolution modeling of iron fertilization efficiency indicates that this technology could reduce the atmospheric C, by a modest 10ppm (whilst anthropogenic activity releases Carbon at the rate of 8.5 Gt/yr) which is far removed from claims in the 1980’s that the addition of Iron could produce a global cooling effect sufficient to bring forward an ice age. Due to the speciation of Iron in the environment it is difficult to model its biogeochemical processes in the marine environment (effecting the bioavailability, photochemical processes and colloidal interactions), indicating a high unpredictability with this technology.

Ocean Fertilization CP – Politics NB

Legislators prefer alternatives to cap-and-trade solutions.JENNIFER A. DLOUHY, Thursday, December 3, 2009 “Legislators seek alternatives as cap-and-trade wanes,” Houston Chronicle,

http://www.chron.com/business/article/Legislators-seek-alternatives-as-cap-and-trade-1735417.php

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers on Wednesday began examining an array of ways to combat global warming, amid signs that the carbon dioxide emissions trading plan known as cap-and-trade may be faltering in the Senate. “We need to dispense with this somewhat blind loyalty to economy-wide cap-and-trade,” said Sen. Lisa

Murkowski of Alaska, one of a handful of Republicans who has signaled she might support a climate change bill. “We need to be encouraged to look to all of the alternatives, and, unfortunately, so many of them have just been kicked to the side with the discussion about cap-and-trade. We've kind of boxed ourselves in.” Murkowski's comments at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing came just days before President Obama heads to international climate negotiations in Copenhagen, where he is set to pledge that by 2020, the U.S. will cut greenhouse gas emissions about 17 percent below 2005 levels. Although the House passed cap-and-trade legislation in June that meets that target, the Senate

is not expected to take up a similar measure until spring. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., is huddling with a group of senators to rewrite the leading climate change bill he co-sponsored with Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., in a bid to get support from Republicans.

Ocean Fertilization CP – Politics NB – CEOs

CEOs want federal investment in green R & D. NBC4 Washington, Elizabeth Wynn Johnson, Jun 13, 2010, transcribed from YouTube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xagrs-CSC-o

This is power breakfast. Good morning, I’m Elizabeth Wynn Johnson.

Energy independence won't come cheap. A coalition of top American CEOs says Washington needs to triple its spending on energy related projects. “This group combined with others of like minds will do whatever they can to try and get the R&D portion, the investment in R&D and innovation in any one of these bills." (Tim Solso, Chairman & CEO, Cummins) How to pay for it? One idea is to end tax subsidies for oil and gas companies. "It’s past time that congress takes a run at this." (Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore.) Sometimes timing is everything. "Certainly when we see the spectacle of what's happened in the gulf, should we be giving these people more tax incentives?" (Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore.) Taking from big oil to support green energy - the robin hood of bills could be ready for the house as early as this week. And that's power breakfast.

Business support key to congressional approval of any plan.Eric P. Grimsrud, Copyright 2012, “Thoughts of a Scientist, Citizen, and Grandpa on Climate Change: Bridging the Gap between Scientific and Public Opinion,” http://books.google.com/books?id=4mO_OUJknFQC&printsec=copyright&source=gbs_pub_info_r#v=onepage&q&f=false

Note also that our government has been clearly and repeatedly informed of this plan even though our elected officials have not generally shared it with the public. For example, a formal presentation of this plan1 called Carbon Fee with 100% Dividend, was provided on February 25, 2009, before the House Ways and Means Committee 1w Dr. lames Hansen, a leading climate change scientist. The full text of his presentation can be seen on the Web at; www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090226_WaysAndMeans.pdf. So why is this plan not embraced by more of our Congressmen? It you put that question to any of them, the answer you are likely to receive is simply this: “this plan has no chance of being politically acceptable in the U.S. Congress”, period. That’s it. The logic behind this anemic response is that big changes in existing business-as-usual practices are not likely to see the light of day in Washington because firmly entrenched existing businesses control Congress. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy that is not being sufficiently challenged today.

Ocean Fertilization CP – Spending NB

Ocean fertilization is the cheapest effective method.Eco Global Fuels (EGF), 2011, “Iron Fertilization- the worlds #1 method of CO2 sequestering,” http://ecoglobalfuels.com/news/iron-

fertilization-worlds-1-method-co2-sequestering

Recent research just completed by our team, has revealed that the Eco Global Fuels (EGF) renewable energy

technology - not only creates carbon neutral ethanol, but with our free by product from our unique IP hydroxyl process - iron oxide - and

using the validated results from our test trials at Macquarie university, we have proven that our EGF process makes enough iron

oxide to be able to be used in sequestering CO2 by promoting algae growth Iron oxide is a by-product

of the hydroxy electrolysis process, and with our calculations below, we have proven that sequestering all CO2 from a 60 MW turbine is achievable (which means we can apply this to any scale, using any power supply for example photovoltaic, gas /coal turbines, off peak

electricity etc.). Because it is a byproduct- it is free to be utilized into various methodologies (making them economical) Technologies and industries which benefit from Increasing the growth of algae: Ocean fertilization Algae based bio fuels Algae based fertilizers Algae products (supplements, cosmetics) Sewage treatment Produces freshwater Food production Pharmaceuticals EGF will implement an on-going program with the incentive of carbon neutral Solanol fuel production to fund the iron fertilization program, utilizing the free by-product of iron oxide produced by the hydroxy gas for the

manufacture of carbon neutral Solanol. No other methodology can provide these two factors: free iron oxide and the economic incentive to implement. We believe we have the answer of sequestration of all the carbon dioxide produced by the combustion of fossil fuels and at the same time the ability to produce carbon neutral Solanol transport fuel Please note, in the "Virgin Earth

Challenge" competition, the majority of finalists have based their findings on the utilization of biomass for carbon dioxide sequestration. Iron

fertilization ( we can produce iron oxide at no cost ) and the production of algae is the most cost-

efficient and reliable production of biomass for the absorption of carbon dioxide and in addition it is

top of the food chain and represents 80% of this food chain. Due to the vast quantities of carbon dioxide generated in the production of electrical power, we have formulated into our methodology, a process known as ocean fertilization, which can efficiently sequester vast amounts of CO2. Ocean Fertilization is used in our calcul5ations (you will find in the documents section on our website "What is ocean fertilization") , as it has the most potential on a larger scale to deal with massive amounts of CO2 sequestering. However, there are many other processes such as bio fuels that increased algae grow can be utilized. We have also used off peak electricity produced by a coal power station- with precise information of inputs/outputs provide by a Czech based power company whom have become interested in our

technology Ocean Fertilization Definition This is the process of distributing iron oxide into the ocean, which encourages the growth of algae, which sequesters CO2 from the atmosphere. Coal turbine -Co2 sequestering by EGF Recent information supplied to us by a potential licensee in Prague that operates a 178MW coal fired power station. The intent is to utilize their off-peak waste electricity to produce carbon neutral Solanol fuel to replace their dependence on importing all their

transport fuels. What is Ocean Fertilization? This is the process of distributing iron oxide into the ocean, which encourages the growth of algae, which sequesters CO2 from the atmosphere. The good news is we have free iron oxide from our hydroxyl electrolysis process, equivalent to the level necessary to

sequester all the CO2 produced by a 60 MW turbine . We produce the necessary iron oxide as a by-

produce of the hydroxy electrolysis process, required for iron fertilization of the ocean, to sequester

all carbon dioxide emissions.

Most cost effective, solves for econ.Arnold Nadler, mechanical engineer, urban/regional planner, taught at universities, consulted/written

on energy, environment, economics and technologies, June 2004, “Carbon Sequestration: Can It Help Beat Back Global Climate Change?” Public Power, magazine of the American Public Power Association http://www.publicpower.org/Media/magazine/ArticleDetail.cfm?ItemNumber=2104

Much research will be needed before ocean fertilization moves beyond the concept stage. There could be removal of atmospheric CO2 at costs as low as $2/ton of CO2 removed, plus enhancement of fish life. However, another study suggests that although fish catches in the Southern Hemisphere might increase, there could be significant decreases in tropical waters. A University of Rhode Island study concluded that shallow living organisms, such as shelled mollusks and corals, are already being damaged by increasing CO2 concentrations in upper layers of the oceans. If a growing tree removes CO2 from the atmosphere (and it does), should that count as carbon sequestration? If owned by a power plant, should it count as an emissions credit offsetting CO2 discharged in stack gases? Scale that up to millions of trees and a coal-burning utility, and you have an important economic, environmental and public policy question. Trees and other vegetation convert CO2 to oxygen, and store carbon in their living matter, in wood products and in the soil. Through these processes, almost a quarter of CO2 emissions globally from fossil fuel and cement production are removed from the atmosphere. In the United States, it is estimated that urban trees alone sequester about 23 million tons of carbon annually. This is about 1.5 percent of U.S. carbon emissions. Analyzing NASA satellite data, researchers estimate that during the 1980s and 1990s, forests in the United States, Europe and Russia were storing nearly 0.7 gigatons/year of carbon. This was equivalent to about a quarter of energy-generated carbon emissions from these three regions. The United States has argued that the increasing size of our eastern forests and our use of no-till farming raises the nation’s carbon absorption rates and therefore is part of our carbon sequestration portfolio. According to one State Department estimate, our terrestrial biological sequestration should count for 0.3 gigatons/year of carbon absorbed. If accepted, this number would account for roughly half of our emissions reductions that would have been required by the Kyoto protocols. American Electric Power Co. emits more CO2 than any other utility in the United States. According to a Wall Street Journal article (Dec. 10, 2003), AEP emits about 167 million tons of CO2 annually, about 3

percent of the U.S. total. The power industry estimates that building cleaner power plants would cost $50 to $75 per ton of CO2 avoided. AEP estimates that growing trees costs about $1 to $2/ton of CO2 sequestered. Assuming that eventually the United States would adopt a carbon emissions reduction program, in the mid 1990s several U.S. power companies began planting forests to capture CO2. AEP did the bulk of its planting abroad, in countries such as Brazil, where the growing season is long and land is cheap. It was assumed that carbon credits would apply globally. According to recent research in Arkansas, Mississippi and Louisiana, nested plot test beds were storing about 4.3 tons of CO2 per acre per year. A typical coal power plant pumps out about one ton of CO2 for each 1,200 kWh. For a typical 1,000-MW plant, this works out to 6 million tons of CO2 per year. Doing the arithmetic means it takes about 1.4 million acres of relatively fast-growing trees to absorb the amount of CO2 emitted by a 1,000-MW conventional coal plant. This is equivalent to 2,400 square miles, or somewhat greater than the land area of Delaware. Continuing with this exercise, if land costs $1,000/acre, the cost of 1.4 million acres is $1.4 billion dollars — or roughly the cost of building a new 1,000-MW IGCC plant from scratch. Of course, a large part of this can be amortized by eventually selling the timber for construction and other uses. This also makes clear why utilities would look for cheap land in tropical countries. In August 2002, as a carbon-reducing offset for its 25 fossil-fueled power plants, Entergy Corp. agreed to donate 600 acres of land, along Louisiana’ s Red River, to become part of the Red River National Wildlife Refuge. The land will be used to grow trees that will store an estimated 275,000 tons of CO2. The utility will receive credits if and when the United States decides to use an emissions trading program and count biomass absorption as an offset to stack emissions. Research on terrestrial biological carbon sequestration is proceeding on a number of fronts. For example, a U.S. Department of Agriculture project has looked at the use of forest slash to restore degraded soil in North Carolina, thereby accelerating forest growth. At Ohio State University, researchers have looked at the potential of flue gas desulfurization products to increase the carbon absorption capacity of worn out mining lands. The Rodale Institute claims that organic farming retains 15 to 28 percent more soil carbon than conventionally farmed soil. The Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology is researching genetically modified “super trees” to absorb more CO2. Some scientists argue that as second growth forests mature, the rate of carbon uptake will plateau. While growing vegetation removes CO2, decaying vegetation does the opposite. Forest fires, which were extensive in the United States in 2002, release large amounts of CO2 quickly. Researchers from the United Kingdom and Germany estimate that the 1997 Indonesian forest fires released CO2 equivalent to 13 to 40 percent of the total annual worldwide carbon emissions from all fossil fuels Both inside and outside the United States, objections have been raised to counting trees and other terrestrial vegetation as offsets to carbon emissions. Carbon

sequestration is a work in progress. However, we’re good at R&D and subsequent deployment of new technologies. With continued research and development, we can play a major role in creating cost-effective solutions to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels. In addition, these technologies might become

significant export items, thereby helping our economy, and also demonstrating to the world that we really are engaged in global efforts to address global warming.

Ocean Fertilization CP – AT: U.N. Regulations

Germany and India already violated it with no consequences. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/fertilizethis/

A major Indian-German geoengineering expedition set sail this week for the Scotia Sea, flouting a U.N. ban on ocean iron fertilization experiments in hopes of garnering data about whether the process actually does take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and sequester it in the deep ocean, a technique that may help reverse global warming. The LOHAFEX experiment will spread 20-tons of iron sulphate particles over a 115-square-mile

section of open ocean north of Antarctica — that’s about 1.7 times the size of Washington, D.C. The initiative has drawn fire from environmental groups who point out that 200 countries agreed to the moratorium until more evidence was available about its efficacy. But that hasn’t stopped the LOHAFEX team, composed of Alfred

Wegener Institute and Indian National Institute of Oceanography scientists, who say they need to conduct experiments to get such data. “If the LOHAFEX iron dump goes ahead, it will be a clear defiance of the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity,” Jim Thomas of ETC Group, said in a press release. It’s becoming clear that when it comes to global warming reversal schemes, deciding who will control the global thermostat is as complex an issue as how such schemes could actually be accomplished. Ocean iron fertilization is considered one of the more promising options for global-scale geoengineering, which aims to slow or reverse the effects of climate change caused by man’s burning of fossil fuels. While Thomas expressed outrage, Jamais Cascio, a futurist who has written about the geopolitical repercussions of geoengineering for the journal Foreign Policy, took a more measured tone. "ETC is right that we need international standards and safeguards for these experiments, and hopefully this attempt will spur action in that regard," Cascio said. "I think they’re wrong, however, to suggest that any look at geoengineering is inherently problematic." Importantly, iron fertilization would deal directly with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, as opposed to, say, blocking out some of the sun’s rays with a global molecular parasol. By providing plankton with iron in water where iron is lacking, the marine creatures grow in tremendous numbers, incorporating carbon into their bodies. When the plankton die and sink, the carbon goes with down with their skeletons. It is unknown, however, how much of that carbon actually makes it deep into the ocean, where it would be sequestered for decades, not days. At a panel at meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science last year, marine geochemist Ken Buesseler of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute said that somewhere between 2 and 50 percent of the carbon the plankton eat could actually make it to the depths of the ocean, which is basically like saying that we don’t know if the process works. "The efficacy of iron-induced sequestration of atmospheric CO2 to the deep sea, however, remains poorly constrained," he summarized. "We

do not yet understand the full range of intended and potential unintended biogeochemical and ecological impacts." The voluntary U.N. ban included language to allow countries to do tests near their shores. But it’s the open seas, particularly in the southern hemisphere, that would allow in-situ testing of the LOHAFEX scientists’ hypotheses. "The fate of carbon from the bloom could not be adequately determined in earlier experiments," the LOHAFEX website reads. "LOHAFEX will now study the entire range of processes determining the partitioning of carbon between atmosphere and deep ocean in the experimental bloom." Cascio said that it’s likely that further geoengineering experiments or actual efforts will be made. "This comes as absolutely no surprise to me," he said. "The confluence of desperation as we see climate disruption hit faster than anticipated, inaction on the carbon emission front, and the ease with which geoengineering can be undertaken means that this won’t be the last time that a sub-national group tries something like this." Already, two ocean-iron-fertilization companies, Climos and Planktos, have been founded. They’ve met different fates, though. Last year, Planktos went belly up, while Climos pulled in $4

million in venture capital. UPDATE 11:10 am PST: Climos CEO, Dan Whaley, notes in our comments section that there was a clause included in an October resolution of a separate U.N. organization, parties to the London Convention, in which 88 countries voted to allow "legitimate scientific research" on ocean iron fertilization, without

restrictions to coastal waters. It was under this ruling that the researchers proceeded.The full text of that resolution is available at Climos’ website.

It’s controversial and destroys the environment

Parry, 7/18/12 – LiveScience senior staff writer (Wynne, July 18, 2012, “Could Fertilizing the Oceans Reduce Global Warming?,” http://www.livescience.com/21684-geoengineering-iron-fertilization-climate.html, Hensel)

A potential solution? This general approach, modifying the planet to address climate change, is known as geoengineering, and,

geoengineering proposals like iron fertilization tend to raise many uncertainties and risks. Other geoengineering ideas have included pumping aerosols into the atmosphere to block out solar radiation or tucking away excess carbon in underground

reservoirs. [Top 10 Craziest Environmental Ideas] Ocean fertilization is a controversial idea, prompting protest from those who fear the unintended environmental impacts it may have. "Most scientists would agree that we are nowhere near the point of recommending [iron fertilization of the oceans] as a geoengineering tool. But many think that larger and longer [iron fertilization] experiments should be performed to help us to decide which, if any, of the many geoengineering options at hand should be deployed," Buesseler wrote.

Geo-Engineering fails

Moriarty and Honnery ’10 – Both PhDs

Patrick Moriarty, Ph.D. Department of Design, Monash University, and Damon Honnery, Ph.D. Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Monash University. “Why Technical Fixes Won’t Mitigate Climate Change”. Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 8, 1921-1927. http://journalofcosmology.com/ClimateChange107.html

As discussed here, geoengineering is action intended to manipulate climate on a global, or at least regional, scale. Corner and Pidgeon (2010) have pointed out that our emissions of CO2 (which have raised atmospheric CO2 levels from the pre-industrial 280 ppm to the present 387 ppm) could also be considered geoengineering. If so, we are merely arguing about different forms of the practice. The potential use of geoengineering for climate mitigation received a boost with a paper by Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen (2006). Like the present authors, he argued that conventional methods of mitigation were not working—the CO2 atmospheric concentration continues to climb at about 2 ppm each year. His inspiration was the significant drop in global temperatures recorded in the year following the Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption in the Philippines in June 1991. The cooling resulted from the emission of some 10 Mt of sulphate aerosols into the lower stratosphere in the tropics. Continuous deliberate placement of fine sulphate aerosols in the lower stratosphere would reflect some of the incoming short-wave solar radiation, increasing the Earth’s albedo, and counteracting the positive forcing from

increased levels of GHGs. The options available for geoengineering can be either local in extent (such as

altering the albedo of deserts, crops or urban areas) or global (such as the use of giant space-based mirrors). Only aerosol placement in the tropical stratosphere, albedo enhancement of marine stratiform clouds and reflective mirrors in space would have the potential to counteract a doubling or more of atmospheric CO2 ppm (Lenton and Vaughan 2009). Of these global approaches, the cheapest is likely to be aerosol placement. Except for space-based mirrors, the approaches appear both far cheaper and far faster to implement than more

conventional mitigation methods. Because of the lack of progress in slowing emissions and the low cost and rapid cooling resulting from global measures, geoengineering is gaining acceptance. The U.K.

Royal Society (2009) has endorsed it as a technique to be used alongside other mitigation methods. But implementing measures to reduce the planetary albedo run enormous risks. Global precipitation would on average be reduced—it is not possible to bring both global temperatures and precipitation to their previous levels (Bala 2009). Acidification of the oceans would continue, potentially destabilising ocean ecosystems (Doney et al. 2009). Also, because elevated levels of CO2 will persist for centuries, so too must geoengineering—the continuous placement of aerosols, for example. Any abrupt cessation

because of dangerous side effects discovered would rapidly raise the forcing to levels corresponding to the GHG concentrations at that time, resulting in very rapid warming, with possibly catastrophic effects on ecosystems (Matthews and Caldeira 2007). Thus although the costs of aerosol

placement may well be modest, the overall cost of countering the unwanted consequences could be very high. Recently, perhaps because of these serious drawbacks, some researchers have modelled the effects of more modest aerosol placement schemes. Rather than global year-round aerosol coverage, they have looked at techniques that might prevent melting of the Greenhouse ice cap or Arctic summer sea ice, or summer warming of the north Atlantic during the hurricane season (Caldeira and Wood 2008, MacCracken 2009). The aerosols might be locally applied, for part of the year, to address a very specific problem resulting from climate change. But to be effective, their effects would necessarily be felt globally (Caldeira and Wood 2008), and if several of these projects were to be implemented simultaneously, the combined gobal effects might be extremely uncertain.

Aff Answers

Geo-Engineering fails – large technical and scientific uncertainties and doesn’t eliminate the need to reduce GHGs.

Johnson et al. 10 – PhD in Atmospheric Science

Andrew Simms, policy director of New Economics Foundation, UK think tank, and head of NEF's Climate Change Programme, Dr. Victoria Johnson, researcher for the climate change and energy programme at NEF, MSc with distinction in Climate Change from the University of East Anglia and PhD in Atmospheric Physics at Imperial College, London and Peter Chowla, Policy and Advocacy Officer at the Bretton Woods Project. “Growth isn’t possible”. New Economics Foundation, January 25,2010. http://www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/Growth_Isnt_Possible.pdf

In most cases, geoengineering schemes are viewed as a stopgap between now and some point in the future where mitigation technology is cheaper and more widespread. There are, however, large technical and scientific uncertainties. For example Professor David Victor, Director of the Laboratory on International Law and

Regulation at Stanford University argues: ‘…real-world geoengineering will be a lot more complex and expensive than currently thought because simple interventions—such as putting reflective particles in the

stratosphere—will be combined with many other costlier interventions to offset nasty side effects.’327

The large majority of academics working in the field of geoengineering research have been clear that their research and technical

propositions are not intended to distract from the efforts of reducing greenhouse gas emissions as the first priority for controlling climate change. However, many now argue that a technological intervention may be required parallel to current mitigation efforts.328

Geoengineering replicates the failures of the Manhattan Project – leads to long-term environmental damage

Levene 10 – Reader @ Southhampton

Mark Levene, Reader in Comparative History at Southampton University and a member of the Parkes Institute for Jewish/ non-Jewish relations. He writes extensively on genocide and related themes. He is also a long-term peace and environmental activist, co-founder of Crisis Forum, Future Ethics, pg. 65-66

It is surely significant how closely the urge for geo-engineering follows these same ultra-rational, yet, paradoxically,

salvationist contours. The latter’s proponents have already for some time been speaking openly of geo-engineering as a second MP, justified on the grounds that it would cut out ‘the institutional inefficiency inherent in international policymaking bodies . . .

reducing the number of decisions, and focusing costs on a small number of parties’ (Michaelson, 1998: 23). Urgency, once again, is the driver. If we want ‘victory’, the time is now, which in turn means either affirming or acquiescing to the state or states with the technological advantage to invent and implement the strategy. By dint of the fact that only the United States has the overriding material resource plus military and technologically integrated capacity as well as technical expertise to undertake it, a geo-engineering MP will

also primarily be a US MP. But the fact that the future environmental consequences of any such programme are completely in the realms of the unknown (nobody has any real idea what locally or globally, immediately or cumulatively, dumping iron oxide will do to the oceans or what masses of sulphur particles sprayed into the atmosphere

will do to the ozone layer) (Webb, 2008b) means that as with the nuclear experiment, what we are being offered is a very peculiar form of salvation. Geo-engineering proposals do not seek to engage with the environmental consequences for the longer term. Like the atom bombs in 1945, they operate on combating a perceived threat as it presents itself now. As a consequence, our children, or children’s children, will still have to cope with the burden of our ghg emissions (presumably

requiring them to develop some even more extraordinary technical fixes for the purpose) just as they will with our radioactive waste.

***MP = Manhattan Project

G-E fails – no sustainable international cooperation, and conflict prevents solvency

Schneider 10 – Professor of Climatology @ Stanford

Stephen Schneider, Professor of Climatology @ Stanford, “Geo-engineering: could we or should we make it work?,” pg. 21

Institutions currently do not exist with the firm authority to assess or enforce responsible use of the global commons (Nanda & Moore 1983; Choucri 1994). There are some partially successful examples (e.g. the Montreal Protocol and its extensions to control ozone-depleting substances, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty or the atmospheric nuclear test ban treaty) of nation states willing to cede some national sovereignty to international authorities for the global good. However, it would require a significant increase in 'global-mindedness' on the part of all nations to set up institutions to attempt to control climate and to compensate any potential losers should the interventions possibly backfire - or even be perceived to have gone awry. Moreover, such

an institution would need the resources, skills and authority to inject continuously, and monitor over a century or two, measured amounts of dust in the stratosphere, iron in the oceans or sea-salt aerosols into clouds in order to counteract the inadvertent enhanced heat-trapping effects of long-lived constituents such as CO2. I, for one, am highly dubious about the likelihood of a sufficient and sustainable degree of global-scale international cooperation needed to assure a high probability that world climate control and compensation authorities

(e.g. see Schneider & Mesirow 1976) could be maintained without interruption by wars or

ideological disputes for the next two centuries . Just imagine if we needed to do all this in 1900 and then the rest of twentieth-century history unfolded as it actually did! Would climate control have been rationally maintained, or would gaps and rapid transient reactions have been the experience? -

Emissions mitigation is comparatively betterSchneider 10 – Professor of Climatology @ Stanford


In Schneider (1996), I proposed the following health metaphor as apt: it is better to cure heroin addiction by paced

medical care that weans the victim slowly and surely from drug addiction than by massive substitution of methadone or some other 'more benign' or lower-cost narcotic. For me, a more rapid implementation of energy-

efficient technologies, alternative, less polluting agricultural or energy production systems (e.g. Johansson et al. 1993), better population planning, wildlife habitat protection (particularly for threatened ecosystems) and commodity pricing that reflects not simply the traditional costs of labour, production, marketing and distribution but also the potential 'external' costs from a modified

environment (e.g. NAS 1992 ; IPCC 2007c) are the kinds of lasting measures that can cure 'addiction' to polluting

practices without risking the potential side effects of geo-engineering -planetary methadone in my metaphor.

Rather than pin our hopes on the gamble that geo-engineering will prove to be inexpensive, benign and administratively sustainable over centuries - none of which can remotely be assured now - in my value system, I - and most of the authors of this volume as well - would prefer to start to lower the human impact on the Earth through more conventional means.

Cuts are comparatively more effective and predictable – any GE strategy risks global climate disruption

Rasch 10 – Professor of Climate Sciences

Philip Rasch, Chief Scientist for Climate Science at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, “Geo-eningeering Climate Change: Environmental Necessity or Pandora’s Box,” pg. 280

Substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions must take place soon to avoid large and undesirable climate impacts. This study has reviewed one technique that might be used in a planetary emergency to mitigate some of the effects of a projected global warming. We emphasize that, while the studies highlighted here are a step along the

way, we believe no proposal (including the ideas explored here) has yet completed the series of steps required for a comprehensive and thoroughly studied geo-engineering mitigation strategy occurring in the peer reviewed literature (Cicerone 2006). Our review of studies of geo-engineering by sulphate aerosols suggests it will ameliorate some consequences of global warming. The study highlights some positive aspects of the strategy. However, many uncertainties remain in understanding the influence of geo-engineering on the climate system (particularly on aspects related to likely impacts on the biosphere). More work is required to understand the costs, benefits and risks involved, and to reconcile the legal, political and ethical issues of geo-engineering.

Geoengineering will be perceived as a clandestine weapon – leads to war



We went on to argue that some people could even consider use of climate modification as an overt or clandestine weapon against economic or political rivals , and that that prospect might require the need for an

international treaty. We noted that the potential for disputes would be very high since any natural weather disaster occurring during the time that some group was conducting deliberate climate modification experiments could lead those affected by that disaster to make accusations that the climate modifiers were responsible for that event. Courts could be clogged with expert witnesses testifying on the one hand how the deliberate intervention could not possibly have caused some unusual hurricane or '300-year flood', followed by other witnesses (perhaps the same ones collecting double fees?) turning around and testifying for the other side that current knowledge is insufficient to rule out the possibility that a geo-engineering scheme in one part of the world might very well have affected some extreme event on the other side of the world. We concluded, only partially tongue in cheek, that: We have raised many more questions than we are even remotely capable of answering, but we do wish to offer one 'modest' proposal for 'no-fault climate disaster insurance.' If a large segment of the world thinks the benefits of a proposed climate modification scheme outweigh the risks, they should be willing to compensate those (possibly even a few of themselves) who lose their favored climate (as defined by past statistics), without much debate as to whether the losers were negatively affected by the scheme or by the natural course of the climate. After all, experts could argue both sides of cause and effect questions and would probably leave reasonable doubts in the public's mind...(Keilogg & Schneider 1974)

Leads to conflict-creates perception that it causes climate disruptions like hurricanes or floods – encourages backlash and war against the country that implements it



Indeed, as noted by all responsible authors who have addressed this problem, much is technically uncertain and geo-engineering could be a 'cure worse than the disease' (Schneider &

Mesirow 1976), given our current level of ignorance of both advertent and inadvertent climate modifications. But, there is also the potential for human conflict associated with the fact that

deliberate intervention in the climate system could, as noted more than 30 years ago, coincide with seriously damaging climatic events that may or may not have been connected to the modification scheme and likely could not conclusively be shown to be connected to or disconnected from that modification. This potential for conflicts poses serious social and political

obstacles to would-be climate controllers, regardless of how technically or cost effective the engineering schemes may eventually turn out to be. Of course, this has to be traded off against the potential for conflicts from the uneven distribution of climate impacts from unabated emissions that will drive global warming.

Destroys the EnvironmentCP causes a litany of environmental problems

Parry, 7/18/12 – LiveScience senior staff writer (Wynne, July 18, 2012, “Could Fertilizing the Oceans Reduce Global Warming?,” http://www.livescience.com/21684-geoengineering-iron-fertilization-climate.html, Hensel)

Far from proven In spite of the experiment's success, Smetacek is cautious about the implications for cleaning up human's greenhouse gas emissions. "It's a very thorny subject," he said. "What we can say here at this stage is

that we need to have more experiments (before) we can make any firms statements on that." Many

questions about the feasibility and safety of this approach remain. Buesseler points out that iron fertilization has the potential to stimulate toxic algae blooms ; cause the production of nitrous oxide , a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide; or to suck oxygen out of water as the algae decompose , a phenomenon

that is responsible for creating dead zones , like the one found in the Gulf of Mexico. The approach also has limited potential, since even used on a large scale, it could only remove a fraction of the excess carbon dioxide humans are emitting.

UnpopularGeoengineering is unpopular

Bullis, 09 (Kevin, senior editor, Technology Review, November 6, 2009, “U.S. Congress Considers Geoengineering,” MIT Technology Review, http://www.technologyreview.com/view/416187/us-congress-considers-geoengineering/, Hensel)

These last two reasons seem to have been in the back of Gordon's head during his opening remarks. "Geoengineering carries with it a tremendous range of uncertainties , ethical and political concerns , and the potential for catastrophic environmental side-effects . But we are faced with the stark reality that the climate is changing, and the onset of impacts may

outpace the world's political and economic ability to avoid them," he said. "This issue is too important for us to keep our heads in the sand.

We must get ahead of geoengineering before it gets ahead of us." Not everyone is taking things seriously though. Just before the committee got underway, the ranking Republican on the committee, Ralph Hall (Texas), turned to Gordon

and asked, "You can stand a little fun about that outrageous thing we're going to talk about today?" Then,

during the hearing he compared geoengineering to "flying elephants."

Peridotite

1NC Peridotite CP

The United States federal government should substantially increase the use of peridotite global warming sequestration.

Peridotite solves for warmingCandice Gaukel Andrews, author, writer, and editor specializing in nature and travel, Apr 19th, 2010, “Rocking the Cure” for Climate Change,” http://goodnature.nathab.com/rocking-the-cure-for-climate-change/

Peridotite is the most common rock found in the Earth’s mantle, the layer just below the crust. Every continent, except perhaps Antarctica, contains substantial amounts of it. And in some places on our planet, such as in the nation of Oman, it lies right on the surface. What makes peridotite so special is that it could “cure” global warming. Sucking Up CO2. During fieldwork in Oman’s desert, two scientists from Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York (geologist Professor Peter Kelemen and geochemist Dr. Juerg Matter) found that exposed peridotite reacts with the global-warming carbon dioxide in the air, absorbing up to 100,000 tons of the greenhouse gas each year and transforming it into a solid mineral (like limestone or marble). They estimate that the exposed peridotite in Oman alone could “sequester” four billion tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide a year — or one-seventh of the 30 billion tons the world emits annually. Furthermore, Kelemen and Matter say that simple and relatively inexpensive drilling into the peridotite deposits and then injecting them with heated water enriched with pressurized CO2 captured from power plants could speed up the process of locking the carbon dioxide in the rocks by 100,000 times or more. Once set in motion, the carbon-capturing process would start building upon itself. The reaction would naturally generate heat, in turn that heat would hasten the reaction, fracturing large volumes of rock. The newly fractured rocks would then be exposed to reactions with still more CO2-rich solution. Since the farther down you drill, the higher the temperature gets, heat generated by the Earth itself also would help. Kelemen and Matter propose that such a chain of events would need little energy input to sustain itself after it was first jump-started.

Peridotite CP – Spending NB

Peridotite is cheap.Candice Gaukel Andrews, author, writer, and editor specializing in nature and travel, Apr 19th, 2010, “Rocking the Cure” for Climate Change,” http://goodnature.nathab.com/rocking-the-cure-for-climate-change/

Peridotite is the most common rock found in the Earth’s mantle, the layer just below the crust. Every

continent, except perhaps Antarctica, contains substantial amounts of it. And in some places on our planet, such as in the nation of Oman, it lies right on the surface. What makes peridotite so special is that it could “cure” global warming. Sucking Up CO2. During fieldwork in Oman’s desert, two scientists from Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York (geologist Professor Peter Kelemen and geochemist Dr. Juerg Matter) found that exposed peridotite reacts with the global-warming carbon dioxide in the air, absorbing up to 100,000 tons of the greenhouse gas each year and transforming it into a solid mineral (like limestone or marble). They estimate that the exposed peridotite in Oman alone could “sequester” four billion tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide a year — or one-seventh of the 30 billion tons the world emits annually. Furthermore, Kelemen and Matter say

that simple and relatively inexpensive drilling into the peridotite deposits and then injecting them

with heated water enriched with pressurized CO2 captured from power plants could speed up the

process of locking the carbon dioxide in the rocks by 100,000 times or more. Once set in motion, the

carbon-capturing process would start building upon itself. The reaction would naturally generate

heat, in turn that heat would hasten the reaction, fracturing large volumes of rock. The newly fractured rocks would then be exposed to reactions with still more CO2-rich solution. Since the farther down you drill, the higher the temperature gets, heat generated by the Earth itself also would help.

Kelemen and Matter propose that such a chain of events would need little energy input to sustain

itself after it was first jump-started.

Peridotite is cost-effective.Mike Millikin, editor and analyst in the IT industry, founder and editor of the online publication Green

Car Congress (GCC), 7 November 2008, “In-Situ Carbonation of Peridotite Offers Large Scale Capacity for Permanent Storage of CO2,” http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/11/in-situ-carbona.html

Researchers at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory have concluded that the in situ carbonation of peridotite, a type of rock found at or near the surface in Oman and other areas around the world, could consume more than 1 billion tons of CO2 per year in Oman alone, affording a low-cost, safe, and permanent method to capture and store atmospheric CO2. Their studies show that the rock reacts naturally at surprisingly high rates with CO2 to form solid minerals, and that the process could be speeded by multiple orders of magnitude with simple drilling and injection methods. The study

appears in this week’s early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Peridotite comprises most or all of the rock in the mantle, which undergirds earth’s crust. It starts some 20 kilometers or more down, but occasionally pieces are exhumed when tectonic plates collide and push the mantle rock to the surface, as in Oman. Geologists already knew that once exposed to air, the rock can react quickly with CO2, forming a solid carbonate like limestone or marble. However, schemes to transport it to power plants, grind it and combine it with smokestack gases have been seen as too costly and energy intensive. The researchers say that the discovery of previously unknown high rates of reaction underground means CO2 could be sent there artificially, at far less expense.

Solar Radiation Management

1NC Solar Radiation Management CP

The United States federal government should substantially increase investment in Solar Radiation Management technology

SRM is a quick, effective solution to warmingM. Granger Morgan and Katharine Ricke, Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie

Mellon University, 2010, “Cooling the Earth Through Solar Radiation Management: The need for research and an approach to its governance,” The International Risk Governance Council (IRGC), http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/SRM_Opinion_Piece_web.pdf

There is a way to cool the planet quickly. A few times every century, nature provides a practical demonstration of this fact when an explosive volcanic eruption lofts millions of tons of SO2 gas and ash high into the stratosphere. Once there, the SO2 is converted into fine sulphate particles. These particles reflect sunlight before it has a chance to penetrate deeper into the atmosphere and get absorbed. For

example, the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines (Figure 1) in 1991 produced global scale cooling of about 0.5°C. The fraction of sunlight that is reflected back into space is called the “planetary albedo”. There is nothing new about the idea of modifying the climate by increasing albedo. Scientists have known for many years that this could be done9. However, until very recently, there has been almost no serious research on how to do SRM, on what it might cost, on how well it might work, or what its undesirable side effects and risks might be. We believe that there are two reasons the climate research community has not devoted serious research attention to these issues: • Scientists have been reluctant to divert scarce research funds away from the urgent task of studying the climate system, climate change, and its impacts. • Scientists have been legitimately concerned that studying this topic might increase the likelihood that someone might actually do it. Humans have a dismaying track record of changing their intentions as their

capabilities change. In our view, today the world has passed a tipping point and there are two reasons why it is too dangerous not to study and understand SRM: 1. There is a growing chance that some part of the world will find itself pushed past a critical point where, for example, patterns of rainfall have shifted so much that agriculture in the region can no longer feed the people. Believing this shift is the result of rising global temperatures, such a region might be tempted to unilaterally start doing SRM to solve its problem. If this situation arises, and no research has been done on SRM, the rest of the world could not respond in an informed way. (9) In addition to adding small reflective particles to the stratosphere, other methods such as increasing marine cloud brightness or placing mirrors in space, have been proposed. Here we concentrate

on reflective particles in the stratosphere, though many of the climatic effects would be similar with other SRM methods. 2. With luck, the major effects of climate change will continue to occur slowly, over periods of decades. However, if the world is unlucky and a serious change occurs very rapidly, the countries of the world might need to consider collectively doing SRM. If this situation arises, and no research has been done, SRM would involve a hopeful assumption

that the uncertain benefits would outweigh the uncertain and perhaps unknown costs. While there is great uncertainty about SRM, we are confident that it has “three essential characteristics: it is cheap, fast and imperfect”10. CHEAP: The classification of SRM activities as “cheap” doesn’t just refer to the low economic costs associated with cooling the planet with these mechanisms, but also to the fact that only a little bit of material is necessary to implement these planetary-scale changes, which can offset the influence of tons of CO2. For example, under the current understanding of SRM technologies, the mass of fine particles needed to counteract the radiative effects of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is approximately 2.6 million tons per day of aerosol if injected into marine stratus clouds or 13,000 tons per day of sulphate aerosol if injected into the stratosphere. By comparison, to achieve the same radiative effect (whether by artificial or natural means), we would need to remove 225 million tons per day of CO2 from the atmosphere for 25 years straight11. While few realistic engineering analyses have been done on the economic costs of SRM, a 1992 report of the U.S. National Research Council12 estimated the potential costs of a programme of stratospheric albedo modification based on the use of a standard naval gun system dispensing commercial aluminium oxide dust to counteract the warming effect of a CO2 doubling. Undiscounted annual costs for a 40-year project were estimated to be USD100 billion. More recent analyses13,14, have suggested that well designed systems might reduce this cost to less than USD10 billion per year – clearly well within the budget of most countries, and much less costly than any programme to dramatically reduce the emissions of CO2.

For additional details on costs see Box 3. FAST: While cutting emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases would

slow or halt their rising concentrations in the atmosphere, much of the CO2 released through past emissions will reside in the atmosphere for 100 years or more. In addition, inertia in the climate system means that global temperatures will continue to rise. Reducing planetary temperatures through emissions reductions will take many decades to centuries. In contrast, increasing planetary albedo by doing SRM can reduce planetary temperature in days or months. This fast response cuts two ways. On

the one hand, it means that SRM could be used to rapidly cool the planet in the event of a “climate emergency”, such as the rapid deterioration of the Greenland ice sheet15 or the sudden release of large amounts of methane from arctic tundra or the deep edges of the coastal oceans. On the other hand, if SRM were started and then stopped before greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere were drastically reduced, then global temperatures could shoot up dramatically16. This would be devastating for many ecosystems.

SRM CP – Spending NB

SRM is cheap.M. Granger Morgan and Katharine Ricke, Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie


CHEAP: The classification of SRM activities as “cheap” doesn’t just refer to the low economic costs associated with cooling the planet with these mechanisms, but also to the fact that only a little bit of material is necessary to implement these planetary-scale changes, which can offset the influence of tons of CO2. For example, under the current understanding of SRM technologies, the mass of fine particles needed to counteract the radiative effects of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is approximately 2.6 million tons per day of aerosol if injected into marine stratus clouds or 13,000 tons per day of sulphate aerosol if injected into the stratosphere. By comparison, to achieve the same radiative effect (whether by artificial or natural means), we would need to remove 225 million tons per day of CO2 from the atmosphere for 25 years straight11. While few realistic engineering analyses have been done on the economic costs of SRM, a 1992 report of the U.S. National Research Council12 estimated the potential costs of a programme of stratospheric albedo modification based on the use of a standard naval gun system dispensing commercial aluminium oxide dust to counteract the warming effect of a CO2 doubling. Undiscounted annual costs for a 40-year project were estimated to be USD100 billion. More recent analyses13,14, have suggested that well designed systems might reduce this cost to less than USD10 billion per year – clearly well within the budget of most countries, and much less costly than any programme to dramatically reduce the emissions of CO2. For additional details on costs see Box 3.

SRM is the most cost-effective.M. Granger Morgan and Katharine Ricke, Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie


BOX 3: How much might SRM cost? Nobody knows exactly what the cost of a full-scale implementation of SRM would be. We can, however, make a crude estimate. A 1992 National Research Council report1 estimated the undiscounted annual costs for a 40-year project to be USD100 billion. A report from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory2 suggested that well designed systems might reduce this cost to as little as a few hundred million dollars per year. We can use those two reports to estimate cost to be between USD100 million and USD100 billion per year. The size of the global economy is roughly USD60x1012 per year. So: (0.1-100 x109 USD/year)/60x1012 USD/year is roughly 0.0002% to 0.2% of world GDP/year. How does this compare with the cost of reducing emissions of CO2 and other

greenhouse gases? Today, the world is emitting about 50x109 tons per year CO2 equivalent of greenhouse gases (of which about 30x109 is CO2). The IPCC 4th assessment3 reports that: “Modeling studies show that global carbon prices rising to USD20-80/tCO2equivalent by 2030 are consistent with stabilization at around 550ppm CO2-equivalent by 2100. For the same stabilization level, induced technological change may lower these price ranges to USD5-65/tCO2-equivalent in 2030.” So: (50x109 tCO2-eq)(5 to 65USD/tCO2-eq) = 250 to 3300x109 USD/year. (0.25 to 3.3x1012 USD/year)/60x1012

USD/year is roughly 0.4% to 5.5% of world GDP/year In short, it is probably safe to assume that the direct monetary cost of doing SRM would be at least 100 times less than the cost of a full programme of greenhouse gas abatement…and perhaps even cheaper than that!

Trees

1NC Trees CP

The United States federal government should substantially increase tree planting.

Planting trees solves warmingArnold Nadler, mechanical engineer, urban/regional planner, taught at universities, consulted/written


Much research will be needed before ocean fertilization moves beyond the concept stage. There could be removal of atmospheric CO2 at costs as low as $2/ton of CO2 removed, plus enhancement of fish life. However, another study suggests that although fish catches in the Southern Hemisphere might increase, there could be significant decreases in tropical waters. A University of Rhode Island study concluded that shallow living organisms, such as shelled mollusks and corals, are already being damaged by increasing CO2 concentrations in upper layers of the

oceans. If a growing tree removes CO2 from the atmosphere (and it does), should that count as carbon sequestration? If owned by a power plant, should it count as an emissions credit offsetting CO2 discharged in stack gases? Scale that up to millions of trees and a

coal-burning utility, and you have an important economic, environmental and public policy question. Trees and other vegetation convert CO2 to oxygen, and store carbon in their living matter, in wood products and in the soil. Through these processes, almost a quarter of CO2 emissions globally from fossil fuel and cement production are removed from the atmosphere. In the United States, it is estimated that urban trees alone sequester about 23 million tons of carbon annually. This is about 1.5 percent of U.S. carbon emissions.

Analyzing NASA satellite data, researchers estimate that during the 1980s and 1990s, forests in the United States, Europe and Russia were storing nearly 0.7 gigatons/year of carbon. This was equivalent to about a quarter of energy-generated carbon emissions from these three regions. The United States has argued that the increasing size of our eastern forests and our use of no-till farming raises the nation’s carbon absorption rates and therefore is part of our carbon sequestration portfolio. According to one State Department estimate, our terrestrial biological sequestration should count for 0.3 gigatons/year of carbon absorbed. If accepted, this number would account for roughly half of our emissions reductions that would have been required by the Kyoto protocols. American Electric Power Co. emits more CO2 than any other utility in the United States. According to a Wall Street Journal article (Dec. 10, 2003), AEP emits about 167 million tons of CO2 annually, about 3 percent of the U.S. total. The power industry

estimates that building cleaner power plants would cost $50 to $75 per ton of CO2 avoided. AEP estimates that

growing trees costs about $1 to $2/ton of CO2 sequestered. Assuming that eventually the United States would adopt a

carbon emissions reduction program, in the mid-1990s several U.S. power companies began planting forests to capture CO2. AEP did the bulk of its planting abroad, in countries such as Brazil, where the growing season is long and land is cheap. It was

assumed that carbon credits would apply globally.

Trees CP – Solvency

Tree planting effective in the SQ.RAZAQ AYINLA, Thursday, 19 April 2012, “Global Warming: Ogun to plant 1.5m trees,” Business Day News, http://www.businessdayonline.com/NG/index.php/city-file/city-file/36122-global-warming-ogun-to-plant-15m-trees

Ogun State government says it is set to combat the destructive effects of global warming, desert encroachment and deforestation with the planting of 1.5 million trees across the state under an afforestation programme, tagged ‘’Green Revolution’’. Falilu Sabitu, the state commissioner for Forestry, disclosed in Abeokuta that state government planned to plant 1.5 million trees in order to stem the tide of the global climate change as climatic condition continues to reverberate in the forms of rising temperatures and sea levels, leaving behind its trail disasters in the form of floods, desertification and other environmental degradation. Falilu stated that the state government would achieve its set target on afforestation through the massive utilisation of 1.5 million tree seedlings allotted to Ogun State by the Federal Government under the National Afforestation Programme. The forestry boss, who was represented at a stakeholders’ forum held in Abeokuta by the Director of Horticulture in the ministry, Oladipo Odeyemi, confirmed that about 1.5 million tree seedlings that were allotted to the state, would be distributed freely to schools, churches, and mosques in addition to other stakeholders in the forestry business. He stated that the step was necessary to combat serious desertification and deforestation coupled with the green house effect resulting from gas emission, domestic and industrial pollution, adding that indiscriminate human action had contributed in no small measure to complicating the present climate change that characterised the global weather. The commissioner, however, declared that tree planting was a panacea to the present condition, stating that “trees on their own have the ability to absorb green house effects”.

Trees CP – Spending NB

Planting trees is very cheap.Arnold Nadler, mechanical engineer, urban/regional planner, taught at universities, consulted/written


Much research will be needed before ocean fertilization moves beyond the concept stage. There could be removal of atmospheric CO2 at costs as low as $2/ton of CO2 removed, plus enhancement of fish life. However, another study suggests that although fish catches in the Southern Hemisphere might increase, there could be significant decreases in tropical waters. A University of Rhode Island study concluded that shallow living organisms, such as shelled mollusks and corals, are already being damaged by increasing CO2 concentrations in upper layers of the

oceans. If a growing tree removes CO2 from the atmosphere (and it does), should that count as carbon sequestration? If owned by a power plant, should it count as an emissions credit offsetting CO2 discharged in stack gases? Scale that up to millions of trees and a

coal-burning utility, and you have an important economic, environmental and public policy question. Trees and other vegetation convert CO2 to oxygen, and store carbon in their living matter, in wood products and in the soil. Through these processes, almost a quarter of CO2 emissions globally from fossil fuel and cement production are removed from the atmosphere. In the United States, it is estimated that urban trees alone sequester about 23 million tons of carbon annually. This is about 1.5 percent of U.S. carbon emissions.

Analyzing NASA satellite data, researchers estimate that during the 1980s and 1990s, forests in the United States, Europe and Russia were storing nearly 0.7 gigatons/year of carbon. This was equivalent to about a quarter of energy-generated carbon emissions from these three regions. The United States has argued that the increasing size of our eastern forests and our use of no-till farming raises the nation’s carbon absorption rates and therefore is part of our carbon sequestration portfolio. According to one State Department estimate, our terrestrial biological sequestration should count for 0.3 gigatons/year of carbon absorbed. If accepted, this number would account for roughly half of our emissions reductions that would have been required by the Kyoto protocols. American Electric Power Co. emits more CO2 than any other utility in the United States. According to a Wall Street Journal article (Dec. 10, 2003), AEP emits about 167 million tons of CO2 annually, about 3 percent of the U.S. total. The power industry

estimates that building cleaner power plants would cost $50 to $75 per ton of CO2 avoided . AEP estimates that

growing trees costs about $1 to $2/ton of CO2 sequestered . Assuming that eventually the United States would adopt a

carbon emissions reduction program, in the mid-1990s several U.S. power companies began planting forests to capture CO2. AEP did the bulk of its planting abroad, in countries such as Brazil, where the growing season is long and land is cheap. It was

assumed that carbon credits would apply globally.

Artificial Trees CP

1NC

Text: The United States Federal Government should implement a strategy to use artificial trees.

Artificial Trees take in CO2 which Solves WarmingBland 9 (Eric, April 16, Eric Bland writes about science and technology for Discovery News, ARTIFICIAL TREES COULD COOL CLIMATE,

http://news.discovery.com/tech/artificial-trees-cool-climate.html

A new kind of tree could cool the planet by removing a major greenhouse gas from the planet's atmosphere.¶ What researchers are calling artificial trees, actually towers filled with various materials that adsorb carbon dioxide from the air, could play a major role in reducing climate change -- if they prove profitable.¶ "This is an industry still in its infancy," said Billy Gridley of Global Research Technologies, LLC, the company creating the C02-

scrubbing towers. "This will eventually rival the size of today's energy markets."¶ GRT's artificial tree is based on an environmentally friendly resin, originally developed by Klaus Lackner, a professor at Columbia University in New York. The alkaline resin reacts with acidic carbon dioxide, holding it in place. After one hour exposed to the air, the resin is completely saturated with CO2.¶ Dry resin soaks up

the CO2. Adding water releases the CO2, which is then captured and stored. Drying the resin again restores its abilities, a cycle that can be repeated indefinitely.¶ Over 24 hours Gridley estimates an artificial tree, containing about 32,800 feet of resin, will harvest about one ton of CO2 each day.¶ When the first artificial tree is ready, two to three years from now, it will cost about $150 for each ton,

Gridley estimates. When the technology is fully mature, the price will be as low as $20.¶ GRT plans to sell the purified CO2 to a range of buyers. Oil and natural gas companies are probably the biggest customers for the artificial trees. Petroleum companies pump CO2 underground to raise the pressure and force oil to the surface. Greenhouses could pump in extra C02 to help plants grow. Fizzy soda drinks and sanding auto parts also require concentrated CO2.¶ All of

these customers currently get CO2 by truck or by pipeline, most of which originates in Texas. The advantage of the artificial trees is that they can be placed next to whatever factory needs CO2 without having to ship it in. ¶ Another use for the artificial trees would be in the cap-and-trade carbon credit system. The idea is that companies that produce CO2 would pay another company, like GRT, to get rid of it. The most likely place to

put the C02 is in the salt-lined caverns that once held oil, a process known as carbon sequestration.¶ Wherever the CO2 is placed, at least it is out of the atmosphere, said David Keith, a professor at the University of Calgary in Canada, who developed his own artificial, C02-catching towers years ago and is working to refine his models. Keith, GRT, and other organizations aren't trying to profit from climate change; they are looking to prevent or at least slow it.¶ "Nobody doubts that this is doable," said Keith. "It's a matter of doing it at cost, and right now it's still unclear how that can be done."

Building Artificial is the best way to solve warming Banks 9 (Michael, April 27, Michael Banks is news editor of Physics World, Engineers call for 'artificial trees' to reduce CO2,

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2009/aug/27/engineers-call-for-artificial-trees-to-reduce-carbon-dioxide)

Constructing a forest of 'artificial trees' is one of the most promising technologies to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, according to a report published by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers in the UK. The report also calls for a national UK programme for research and development into "geoengineering" projects that could provide a better

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2009/aug/27/engineers-call-for-artificial-trees-to-reduce-carbon-dioxide

http://news.discovery.com/tech/artificial-trees-cool-climate.html

understanding of the risks and costs of manipulating the climate. ¶ Most attempts to deal with climate change involve reducing emissions of CO2 and in December the United Nations Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen will attempt to set binding targets for lowering such emissions for the first time. Yet even an agreement to cut CO2 emission by 50% by 2050 may not be enough

to stop the planet's average temperature rising by 2 °C by the end of the century.¶ Geoengineering – deliberate intervention into the climate system to counteract man-made global warming – offers an alternative approach. The new report, Geoengineering – Giving us Time to Act?, looks at different geoengineering options for tackling climate change, including adding iron to the oceans to produce phytoplankton blooms that then absorb CO2 and constructing giant sunshades in space that can reflect the Sun's rays.The authors – led by Tim Fox, head of

environment and climate change at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers – found that constructing fly-swat-shaped "artificial trees" is the most promising approach to reducing CO2. Such a tree would work by letting air pass through into the structure and then catching the CO2 via a "sorbant" material, such as sodium hydroxide. The CO2 is then removed and buried underground in a similar manner to conventional carbon capture and storage.¶ According to the report, constructing 100,000 such "trees" – each costing around $20,000 – would require 600 hectares of land but would be enough to remove the CO2 from the UK's homes and transport system.

Artificial trees solve better than the AFF, we can take CO2 out of the atmosphereMSNBC No Date (Green-energy ideas so crazy they just might work,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38730065/ns/technology_and_science-future_of_energy/t/green-energy-ideas-so-crazy-they-just-might-work/#.UBH04LSe6So)

Chances are that CO2-emitting forms of energy generation are not going to completely go away any time soon, and even if they do, the atmosphere would retain their legacy of greenhouse gases. That's where

the structure shown in this drawing comes into play. Researchers are hoping it will behave like a tree and scrub carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The so-called artificial tree is one of several ideas under development that use a proprietary absorbent material to trap carbon dioxide from the air . The gas is then stored, and the absorbent material is recycled to capture even more carbon dioxide.

Iron Dumping CP

1NC

Text: The United Nations should allow and implement a strategy of Ocean Fertilization.

Ocean Fertilization solves Warming; Decreases the Amount of CO2Horton 8 ( Jennifer, March 18, raduated from Emory University, where she earned a B.S. in environmental studies. How can adding iron to

the oceans slow global warming?, http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/iron-sulfate-slow-global-warming2.htm)

Global warming has become one of the leading issues of the 21st century . As scientists predict more ominous

scenarios, like Floridabeing underwater within decades, people are demanding action. Enter forward-thinking scientists and companies like Planktos and Climos, who propose adding iron to the world's oceans to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and, in turn, to decrease temperatures. The idea of dumping iron in the oceans to lower temperatures has been around since the late 1980s and has been known variously as carbon

sinking, ocean seeding or iron fertilization. The premise is actually simple. Iron acts as a fertilizer for many plants, and some, like the phytoplankton that form the base of the marine food web, need it to grow. Adding iron to the water stimulates phytoplankton growth, which in turn gobble up carbon dioxide through photosynthesis. The resulting decrease in carbon dioxide is supposed to help reduce temperatures since carbon dioxide is one of the main gases responsible for trapping heat on the earth's surface through the greenhouse effect . Numerous iron dumping trials have been conducted since oceanographer John Martin suggested

the idea more than 15 years ago [source: Haiken]. One trial conducted in 2004 indicated that each atom of iron added to the water could draw between 10,000 and 100,000 atoms of carbon out of the atmosphere by encouraging plankton growth [source: Schiermeier]. Some scientists theorize that adding iron to the Southern Ocean alone could reduce carbon dioxide levels by 15 percent [source: Schiermeier]. Scientist Oliver Wingenter suggests a more cautious approach, arguing that adding massive amounts of iron to the ocean could cause a major cooling of more

than 10 degrees Celsius [source: Wingenter]. He recommends fertilizing just 2 percent of the Southern Ocean to cause a 2 degree Celsius cooling and to set back the tipping point of global warming 10 or more years [source: Wingenter]. Instead of focusing on cutting carbon dioxide levels, Wingenter's research concentrated on increasing other gases that result from the phytoplankton blooms, namely dimethyl sulfide, or DMS. DMS is largely responsible for cloud formation in the polar region and could increase cloud reflectivity, which would in turn reduce temperatures. During his iron fertilization experiments, Wingenter found that adding iron increased the concentration of DMS five-fold [source: Wingenter].

http://climos.com/news/articles/slowingglobal.htm



http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art

http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/iron-sulfate-slow-global-warming2.htm

http://maps.howstuffworks.com/maps-of-florida.htm

http://geography.howstuffworks.com/oceans-and-seas/the-geography-of-oceans.htm

http://science.howstuffworks.com/iron.htm

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/global-warming.htm



2NC/1NR Solvency

Dumping Iron into the Oceans solves Warming; takes CO2 out of the atmosphereReuters 12 (July 18, Ocean Fertilization Study Finds That Dumping Iron Might Help Remove Atmospheric Carbon Through Algae,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/ocean-fertilization-study-iron_n_1684020.html)

Dumping iron in the seas can help transfer carbon from the atmosphere and bury it on the ocean floor for centuries, helping to fight climate change, according to a study released on Wednesday. The report, by an international team of experts, provided a boost for the disputed use of such ocean fertilisation for combating global warming. But it failed to answer questions over possible damage to marine life. When dumped into the ocean, the iron can spur growth of tiny plants that carry heat-trapping carbon to the ocean floor when they die, the study said. Scientists dumped seven tonnes of iron sulphate, a vital nutrient for marine plants, into the Southern Ocean in 2004. At least half of the heat-trapping carbon in the resulting bloom of diatoms, a type of algae, sank below 1,000 metres (3,300 ft). "Iron-fertilised diatom blooms may sequester carbon for timescales of centuries in ocean bottom water and for longer in the sediments," the team from more than a dozen nations wrote in the journal

Nature. Burying carbon in the oceans would help the fight against climate change, caused by a build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that scientists say is raising temperatures and causing more floods, mudslides, droughts and higher sea levels. The study was the first convincing evidence that carbon, absorbed by algae, can sink to the ocean bed. One doubt about ocean fertilisation has been whether the carbon stays in the upper ocean layers, where it can mix back into the air. A dozen previous studies have shown that iron dust can help provoke blooms of algae but were inconclusive about whether it sank. Large-scale experiments with ocean fertilisation using iron are currently banned by the international London Convention on dumping at sea because of fears about side-effects. "CRYING SHAME" "I am hoping that these results will show how useful these experiments are," lead author Victor Smetacek of the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany told Reuters. "It's a crying shame, honestly," he said of the

moratorium, which he said meant that even small-scale experiments were too complex and costly for researchers. He said that ocean fertilisation should be overseen by the United Nations and should not be eligible for carbon credits under U.N. treaties. He said private companies should not be allowed to run experiments so that proper oversight can be ensured.

Ocean fertilisation is one of several suggested techniques for slowing climate change known as "geo-engineering". Other possibilities include reflecting sunlight with giant mirrors in space. "Most scientists would agree that we are nowhere near the point of recommending ocean iron fertilisation as a geo-engineering tool," Ken Buessler of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in the United States wrote in a commentary in Nature. But he added that many thought that bigger and longer experiments were needed to see

if the technology worked. "If the 50 percent figure for algal bloom biomass sinking to the deep ocean is correct then this represents a whole new ball game in terms of iron fertilisation as a geo-engineering technique," said Dave Reay, a senior lecturer in carbon management at the University of Edinburgh who was not involved in the study. "Maybe such deliberate enhancement of carbon storage in the oceans has more legs than we thought but, as the authors acknowledge, it's still far too early to run with it," he said. Smetacek said the publication had been delayed since 2004 partly because of problems in checking that the 150 square km (60 square miles) patch of ocean where the iron was dumped - an eddy in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current - had not mixed with waters outside. The experts said that the input of iron was similar to that found after the melt of icebergs in the oceans - iron concentrations in coastal regions tend to be much higher. (Editing by Alessandra Rizzo)

Iron sinks CO2 to the ocean; Solves better than the AFF because we take it out of the airIngram 12 (Richard, July 18, reporter for the AFP, Ocean fertilization experiment stores CO2, http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/ocean-fertilization-experiment-stores-co2)

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/ocean-fertilization-experiment-stores-co2

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/ocean-fertilization-experiment-stores-co2

German researchers on Wednesday said they had evidence that sowing the ocean with iron particles sucks up and stores carbon dioxide, preventing the gas from stoking dangerous climate change. But their work, touching on a fiercely controversial issue called geoengineering, came under attack from other scientists and environmentalists. These said a far bigger question — whether such schemes could damage the marine biosphere — remained unanswered. Published in the science journal Nature, the paper is one of the biggest and most detailed probes into ocean fertilization, a practice that is banned under

international law although scientific research into it is permitted. Its goal is to take CO2 from the atmosphere and store it in the deep sea so that it no longer adds to the greenhouse effect. This would be done by scattering the ocean surface with iron dust, a nutrient for microscope marine vegetation called phytoplankton. As the plants gorge on the iron, they also suck up atmospheric CO2 thanks to natural photosynthesis. In the next step, the phytoplankton die and sink to the deep ocean floor — taking with them the CO2, which would lie in the sediment, possibly for centuries.

Carbon Tax CP

Carbon Tax CP 1NC

Text: The United States Federal Government should implement a revenue-neutral carbon tax.

A carbon-tax is the only way to reduce emissions – corrects incentives and creates spill-over effects Carbon Tax Center ’10 “Why a Carbon Tax?”, Carbon Tax Center: Pricing Carbon Efficiently and Equitably, March 3, http://www.carbontax.org/introduction/#no-tax-increase

The rationale for a carbon tax is simple : the levels of CO2 already in the Earth’s atmosphere and being added daily are destabilizing established climate patterns and threatening the ecosystems on which we and other living beings depend. Very large and rapid reductions in the United States’ and other nations’ carbon emissions are essential to avoid runaway climate change and avert resulting severe weather events, inundation of coastal areas, spread of diseases, failure of agriculture and water supply, infrastructure destruction, forced migrations, political upheavals and international conflict. A carbon tax

must be the central mechanism for reducing carbon emissions . Currently, the prices of gasoline,

electricity and fuels in general include none of the costs associated with devastating climate change. This omission suppresses incentives to develop and deploy carbon-reducing measures such as energy efficiency (e.g., high-mileage cars and high-efficiency heaters and air conditioners), renewable energy (e.g., wind turbines, solar panels), low-carbon fuels (e.g., biofuels from high-cellulose plants), and conservation-based behavior such as bicycling, recycling and overall mindfulness toward energy consumption. Conversely, taxing fuels according to their carbon content will infuse these incentives at every link in the chain of decision and action — from individuals’ choices and uses of vehicles, appliances, and housing, to businesses’ choices of new product design, capital investment and facilities location, and governments’ choices in regulatory policy, land use and taxation. A carbon tax won’t stop global climate change by itself — other, synergistic actions are required as well. But without a carbon tax, even the most aggressive regulatory regime (e.g., high-mileage cars) and “enlightened” subsidies

(e.g., tax credits for efficiency and renewables) will fall woefully short of the necessary reductions in

carbon burning and emissions.

http://www.carbontax.org/introduction/#no-tax-increase

Solvency – Emissions/Warming

Note: There are more cards in the Hoya-Spartan Adv CP file. This is not a 2nc block but some additional cards; integrate them into one file.

Carbon Tax solves econ and warming, B. C. provesBauman and Hsu, 12, Yoram Bauman, an environmental economist, is a fellow at Sightline Institute in Seattle. Shi-Ling Hsu, a law professor at Florida State University, is the author of “The Case for a Carbon Tax.” 7/4/12, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/opinion/a-carbon-tax-sensible-for-all.html?_r=1

ON Sunday, the best climate policy in the world got even better: British Columbia’s carbon tax — a tax on the carbon content of all fossil fuels burned in the province — increased from $25 to $30 per metric ton of carbon dioxide, making it more expensive to pollute.¶ This was good news not only for the environment but for nearly everyone who pays taxes in British Columbia, because the carbon tax is used to reduce taxes for individuals and businesses. Thanks to this tax swap, British Columbia has lowered its corporate income tax rate to 10 percent from 12 percent, a rate that is among the lowest in the Group of 8 wealthy nations. Personal income taxes for people earning less than $119,000 per year are now the lowest in Canada, and there are targeted rebates for low-income and rural households.¶ The only bad news is that this is the last increase scheduled in British Columbia. In our view, the reason is simple: the province is waiting for the rest of North America to catch up so that its tax system will not become unbalanced or put energy-intensive industries at a competitive disadvantage.¶ The United States should jump at the chance to adopt a similar revenue-neutral tax swap. It’s an opportunity to reduce existing taxes, clean up the environment and increase personal freedom and energy security.¶ Let’s start with the economics. Substituting a carbon tax for some of our current taxes — on payroll, on investment, on businesses and on workers — is a no-brainer. Why tax good things when you can tax bad things, like emissions? The idea has support from economists across the political spectrum, from Arthur B. Laffer and N. Gregory Mankiw on the right to Peter Orszag and Joseph E. Stiglitz on the left. That’s because economists know that a carbon tax swap can reduce the economic drag created by our current tax system and increase long-run growth by nudging the economy away from consumption and borrowing and toward saving and investment.¶ Of course, carbon taxes also lower carbon emissions. Economic theory suggests that putting a price on pollution reduces emissions more affordably and more effectively than any other measure. This conclusion is supported by empirical evidence from previous market-based policies, like those in the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act that targeted sulfur dioxide emissions. British Columbia’s carbon tax is only four years old, but preliminary data show that greenhouse gas emissions are down 4.5 percent even as population and gross domestic product have been growing. Sales of motor gasoline have fallen by 2 percent since 2007, compared with a 5 percent increase for Canada as a whole.¶ What would a British Columbia-style carbon tax look like in the United States? According to our calculations, a British Columbia-style $30 carbon tax would generate about $145 billion a year in the United States. That could be used to reduce individual

http://www.law.fsu.edu/faculty/shsu.html

http://www.standupeconomist.com/

and corporate income taxes by 10 percent, and afterward there would still be $35 billion left over. If recent budget deals are any guide, Congress might choose to set aside half of that remainder to reduce estate taxes (to please Republicans) and the other half to offset the impacts of higher fuel and electricity prices resulting from the carbon tax on low-income households through refundable tax credits or a targeted reduction in payroll taxes (to please Democrats).¶ Revenue from a carbon tax would most likely decline over time as Americans reduce their carbon emissions, but for many years to come it could pay for big reductions in existing taxes. It would also promote energy conservation and steer investment into clean technology and other productive economic activities.¶ Lastly, the carbon tax would actually give Americans more control over how much they pay in taxes. Households and businesses could reduce their carbon tax payments simply by reducing their use of fossil fuels. Americans would trim their carbon footprints — and their tax burdens — by investing in energy efficiency at home and at work, switching to less-polluting vehicles and pursuing countless other innovations. All of this would be driven not by government mandates but by Adam Smith’s invisible hand.¶ A carbon tax makes sense whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, a climate change skeptic or a believer, a conservative or a conservationist (or both). We can move past the partisan fireworks over global warming by turning British Columbia’s carbon tax into a made-in-America solution.


Carbon tax substantially reduces emissions and gets other nations on board Handley ’09 James Handley, chemical engineer and attorney who previously worked in the private sector and for the Environmental Protection Agency, March 11, “Imagine: A Harmonized, Global CO2 Tax”, Carbon Tax Center, http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2009/03/11/imagine-a-harmonized-global-co2-tax/

In their seminal report last February, “Policy Options for Reduction of CO2 Emissions,” Peter Orszag (now Budget Director) and Terry Dinan of the Congressional Budget Office meticulously compared cap-and-trade with carbon tax options. They concluded that a carbon tax would reduce emissions five times more efficiently, primarily because of price volatility under a fixed cap. CBO had no difficulty “imagining a harmonized global carbon tax.” Chapter 3 of the Orszag-Dinan report, “International Consistency Considerations,” describes straightforward ways to harmonize carbon taxes. If nations choose different carbon tax rates, border tax adjustments permitted under World Trade Organization rules authorize higher-taxing nations to enact tariffs to equalize tax rates on imported products to the same levels applied to similar domestically-produced products. Indeed, Rep. John Larson’s new carbon tax bill employs precisely this strategy. In effect, the U.S. would collect and retain the revenue generated by equalizing carbon taxes on products imported from countries that haven’t enacted their own or whose carbon tax rate is lower than ours. That will provide a powerful incentive for our trading partners to follow our lead. In contrast, under cap-and-trade, harmonization would require determining the implicit carbon price in a system where carbon prices are hidden and fluctuating. The CBO report observed, “Linking cap-and-trade programs would… entail additional challenges beyond those associated with harmonizing a tax on CO2.” The report noted, for example, that linked cap-and-trade programs could create perverse incentives for countries to choose less stringent caps so they could become net suppliers of low-cost allowances. Or, the report continued, if a country that did not allow borrowing future allowances linked with a country that did, firms in both countries would have access to borrowed allowances. CBO concluded that “[O]ther flexible design features — such as banking, offsets, and a safety valve — would be available to all firms in a linked system should any one country allow its firms to comply in those ways.” In short, national cap-and-trade systems would be nearly impossible to harmonize globally because different countries are likely to enact cap-and-trade systems with differing features that when linked would tend to defeat or de-stabilize each other. On the other hand, harmonization of domestic carbon taxes using border adjustments is a familiar and straightforward process for international trade and tax law experts under WTO.


Carbon Tax is the Most Effective way to Solve Emissions with many BenefitsHandley, 12 Book Review: The Case for a Carbon Tax, by Shi-Ling Hsu, James Handley, 7/6/12 http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2012/07/06/book-review-the-case-for-a-carbon-tax-by-shi-ling-hsu/

“The Case For A Carbon Tax” (Island Press, 2011, 233 pp) brings to mind Hans Christian Andersen’s “ugly duckling” story. The word “tax” screams “cost” to most people, and so the beauty of a

carbon pollution tax isn’t apparent on first glance. Prof. Hsu reveals the beauty as he shows why a gradually-rising carbon tax is the least costly and most effective policy for curbing the pollution driving global warming, and how enacting such a tax can usher in a new era of clean energy and efficiency. ¶ Trained in engineering, law and economics, Shi-Ling Hsu, a law professor who has just moved from the University of British Columbia to Florida State University, deftly marshals a multi-disciplinary “case” for a carbon tax. He opens by describing and comparing the four main climate policy tools: subsidies, regulations, cap-and-trade, and carbon taxes. Then he briskly articulates ten arguments for a

carbon tax, emphasizing economic efficiency and the advantages of basing a coordinated international system on a simple, transparent tax. ¶ Hsu is especially strong in rebuttal, answering the arguments against carbon taxes, including the oft-repeated assertion that a carbon tax is

politically impossible. He dissects psychological “hang-ups” that have kept the public and elected officials from embracing carbon taxes. Hsu points to British Columbia’s enactment and implementation of North America’s first carbon pollution tax, arguing that it is broadly supported because its revenue is used to reduce taxes for individuals and businesses. As Hsu

and Yoram Bauman wrote this week in their New York Times op-ed, “The Most Sensible Tax of All“: ¶ On Sunday, the best climate policy in the world got even better: British Columbia’s carbon tax — a tax on the carbon content of all fossil fuels burned in the province — increased from $25 to $30 per metric ton of carbon dioxide, making it more expensive to pollute. This was good news not only for the environment but for nearly everyone who pays taxes in British Columbia, because the carbon tax is used to reduce taxes for individuals and businesses. Thanks to this tax swap, British Columbia has lowered

its corporate income tax rate to 10 percent from 12 percent, a rate that is among the lowest in the Group of 8 wealthy nations. Personal income taxes for people earning less than $119,000

per year are now the lowest in Canada, and there are targeted rebates for low-income and rural households.¶ Hsu crisply articulates the theory of Pigouvian taxes — the idea of taxing pollution rather than productive activity. But he sidesteps the thorny question of how high to set a carbon tax and how rapidly to increase it.

And he does not mention the potential efficiency advantages of using carbon tax revenues to reduce other taxes such as taxes on work and thereby use climate policy to improve overall economic well-being. (Economists

call that a “double dividend.”) He notes that while British Columbia’s carbon tax is revenue-neutral, the regressive effects of carbon taxes can be addressed by a wide variety of other mechanisms, leaving substantial revenue for cash-strapped governments, as recent reports and a new book by the International Monetary Fund have stressed.¶ Hsu delves into the limitations of EPA regulations, which he shows cannot create the broad incentives for innovation and planning needed to drive carbon eminssions way down:¶ A [carbon] tax, by imposing a cost on every single ton of pollutant, constantly engages the polluter with the task of reducing her pollution tax bill. By contrast, a command and control scheme that mandates a one shot, irrevocable installation of pollution control equipment allows for the polluter to stop thinking about pollution reduction. Why, if compliance is achieved, should the polluter look for other ways to reduce?¶ There are further problems, too: EPA can too easily be persuaded or intimidated by industry into granting exemptions and relaxing standards. Hsu also glosses over the enormous effort that would be required to write and enforce permits for each of the thousands of point sources of CO2. One has to wonder where and how the already-stretched EPA (and state environmental agencies) would find funding for such a massive undertaking.¶ Hsu neatly unveils the hidden high cost of taxpayer-funded subsidies of renewables and supposed low-carbon fuels.

Subsidies, along with regulations and cap-and-trade with offsets, are attractive to the public and Congress despite serious limitations on their effectiveness, because their costs are largely hidden. Not only is Congress notoriously ineffective

at picking technology winners, but subsidies create “lock-in” to incumbent technologies and businesses, foreclosing opportunities to spur innovation. In contrast, as Hsu shows, a carbon pollution tax’s laser focus on CO2 pollution creates incentives for all low-carbon alternatives, leaving specific technology decisions to engineers rather than politicians.¶ Cap-and-trade with offsets seems to be Hsu’s choice for second-best policy; it allows flexibility and could result in a “price on carbon” pollution, albeit one that is indirect and subject to price volatility. Happily, Hsu debunks the notion of “emissions certainty” that was used to sell cap-and-trade, by pointing out that for a “stock” pollutant such as CO2 that persists in the atmosphere for a century, the objective must be cumulative rather than annual reductions. Even year-to-year “emissions certainty” is vitiated in the European Emissions Trading System by provisions allowing borrowing and banking of allowances as well as by voluminous offsets. Carbon prices there have remained so low that recent analyses have concluded that industrial facilities will have little incentive to reduce their emissions through at least 2020.¶ Hsu points out the hidden costs that cap-and-trade would impose on consumers, profiting the financial sector and purveyors of offsets. His most egregious example: Chinese refrigerant manufacturers who garnered far more revenue from offsets awarded for destroying their greenhouse gas byproducts than from the sale of their underlying products. As documented by UN and GAO reports, the carbon market paid about 100 times more for the installation of emissions reducing equipment (an HCFC 23 incinerator) than the price of the equipment. The Chinese refrigerant manufacturer and the investors in the offset project reaped those windfalls, contradicting claims about the efficiency of cap-and-trade.¶ As

Hsu illustrates, evaluating and verifying offset projects is staggeringly difficult. Applications for hundreds of different project types are submitted to a single U.N. panel with little capacity to evaluate “additionality” — to determine whether projects would have occurred in the absence of offset funding. Stanford University law professor and offset expert Michael Wara estimates that 30-50% of offset projects in the U.N. systems should not have been awarded credit, a fraction so large as to overwhelm any claim of “emissions certainty” under a cap with offsets.¶ Hsu

concludes that linking cap-and-trade internationally would offer constant opportunities for mischief and arbitrage. In contrast, under a tax every country would have an incentive to scrupulously monitor emissions in order to collect the revenue. Moreover, the transparency of a carbon tax offers potential for international linkage via World Trade Organization sanctioned Border Tax Adjustments. WTO rules were built around a consumption tax — the European Union’s Value Added Tax; Hsu suggests that a carbon tax

should similarly be supportable under WTO rules. But he seems to understate the capacity of Border Tax Adjustments to protect domestic energy-intensive industry while offering a growing monetary incentive to trading partners to enact their own carbon taxes.¶ Finally, Hsu’s discussion of the psychology of carbon taxes adds a dimension that we haven’t seen elsewhere. As

behavioral economists like Daniel Kahneman have shown, we humans tend to underestimate the benefits of avoiding future harms while overestimating the cost to avoid them. And when a harm isn’t clearly identified with a specific person or persons, we have difficulty

feeling concern. One child trapped in a well evokes national interest and empathy, but because we can’t see or name the millions who might drown or starve because of climate instability, we refuse to bear the near-term price of avoiding catastrophe. And we are easily misled into thinking that policies whose price is hidden, such as subsidies, regulations or cap-and-trade with offsets, are preferable to a carbon tax. Hsu proposes that polls disclose the cost of all policy alternatives in order to fairly gauge public opinion.¶ Hsu has managed the difficult task of writing a book that is at once readable and authoritative, comprehensive and concise in its “case” for the most broadly effective, least-bureaucratic and least-costly approach to the climate crisis: a gradually-rising carbon pollution tax. We highly recommend “The Case For A Carbon Tax” to either the novice or the experienced reader who is looking for a single source to get either them up to speed or give them further insight on effective climate policy.


Carbon Tax has been Extremely Successful and EffectivePlace and Bauman, 12 , ERIC DE PLACE AND YORAM BAUMAN Yoram Bauman, an environmental economist, is a fellow at Sightline Institute, a regional sustainability research centre in Seattle.¶ Eric de Place directs Sightline Institute’s energy policy program. 7/9/12, the Sun, Washington, Oregon should take cue from B.C.’s carbon tax, http://www.vancouversun.com/business/economy/Washington+Oregon+should+take+from+carbon/6908073/story.html

It’s been a rough year for climate solutions in Canada. Prime Minister Stephen Harper officially pulled the plug on Canada’s participation in the Kyoto accord last December. The move was all the more discouraging for being largely symbolic: Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions trends are nowhere close to achieving the reductions called for by the agreement. Meanwhile, coal mining and oil extraction are on the rise in Western Canada.¶ Even British Columbia’s carbon tax — arguably the world’s best climate policy — seems at risk of stalling out.¶ Yet on the occasion of the carbon tax’s fourth birthday — and final scheduled increase — British Columbians have reason for good cheer.¶ With apologies to

Shakespeare, we come not to bury the carbon tax but to praise it.¶ From our vantage point south of the border, the carbon tax is a smash hit. It’s not perfect, but it is a working model of a “tax shift” — the sensible idea of taxing things we don’t want (like pollution) and un-taxing things that we do want (like income). It’s an idea that is gaining support in B.C.’s West Coast neighbours, Oregon and Washington. ¶ Many economists agree that putting a higher price on carbon is the most effective strategy for combating climate change. Since B.C.’s carbon tax was introduced, gasoline consumption per capita in the province has dropped by 4.5 per cent, more than anywhere else in Canada. This modest short-term reduction will lead to more significant long-term reductions as households and businesses invest in more energy-efficient cars, homes, workplaces and lifestyles. ¶ Plus, B.C.’s carbon tax shift is partly to thank for an income tax that is the lowest in the country, and a corporate income tax rate that remains among the lowest in the G7. Lower-income and rural residents receive tax rebates, and some simple tweaks to the tax would ensure greater fairness and equity going forward.¶ Skeptics would do well to remember that ending the carbon tax would mean cutting government services or, more likely, just taxing something else — probably something B.C.’s residents and businesses would rather not tax. For

an example of how not to structure taxes, the province need not look far.¶ Washington state’s tax system is an unravelling disaster. Sales taxes reach as high as 9.5 per cent, helping to create the most regressive tax system in the United States. And our start-up-killing business tax, which taxes gross receipts rather than profits, is roundly detested by the state’s business community. If Washington were to import B.C.’s common-sense carbon tax shift, it would be a vast improvement to the tax system. Alternatively, Washington could use some of the carbon tax revenue to address multibillion-dollar shortfalls in core government services like education and transportation.¶ B.C. is leading the way, but that doesn’t mean the province is alone. On July 1, the day B.C. increased its carbon tax for the final time, Australia also inaugurated a carbon tax shift. Meanwhile, California will launch its new cap-and-trade program Jan. 1.¶ It would be understandable if Canadians have given up hope that Americans will ever get our act together to

address global warming. But the American public seems to be ahead of Washington, D.C., and the mainstream U.S. media. In fact, a poll conducted by Yale and George Mason University in November 2011 found that fully 65 per cent of Americans support a modest revenue-neutral carbon tax, including a majority of Republicans.¶ Public opinion is likely to become even more favourable to carbon pricing in the near future. Climate change will get more attention as the economy recovers from the financial crisis, global temperatures continue to rise and the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change releases new scientific assessments in 2013 and 2014.¶ British Columbia has blazed the path forward. It’s

up to Oregon and Washington to complete a regional bloc of smart climate policy in the Northwest — and British Columbians should take pride in their leadership.


Carbon Tax is Fast ActingMonitor, 12, Monitor Editorial, Time for U.S. to tax carbon emissions, 7/12/12 http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/341381/time-for-us-to-tax-carbon emissions?SESS14b045f33a8e7eac97e5786e0724f0ef=google

Anthony Thomas was an externality. So were Sherry Garrett and Ann Narcisse. They are among at least 18 Chicago residents whose deaths in recent days were attributed to the heat wave that has baked middle America this summer.¶ Externalities are costs - or benefits - that are not paid by the producers or consumers of a product but by society. No one can trace a path between the carbon dioxide emitted by a polluter, the added warming of the planet that it caused, and the hot air in the last breath taken by a heat wave's victim. It's possible that, even if human activity wasn't changing the climate, the heat waves would have occurred anyway. But the links between carbon emissions and the weird and

worsening weather keep getting stronger.¶ Fortunately, many nations are making a major effort to combat climate change. The United States and its crippled Congress aren't. ¶ On July 1, Australia's government imposed a tax on carbon emissions by major polluters equivalent to $23.50 U.S. dollars per ton. Also this month, British Columbia raised its tax on carbon emissions from $25 to $30 per metric ton. The Canadian province instituted the tax in 2008 as a way to reduce both carbon emissions and the tax burden on individuals and businesses. It began at $10 and increased by $5 every year until it reached its current $30 cap. ¶ European and Scandinavian nations have taxed carbon emissions for years. Even China, where environmental concerns have not exactly been front and center, plans to institute a carbon tax in 2015. The United States, which is the world's No. 2 carbon-emitting nation after China, should lead, not follow on this issue, and institute a carbon tax of its own next year.¶ Economist Yoram Bauman and law professor Shi-Ling Hsu, writing in The New York Times, applauded British Columbia's carbon tax system and explained how a similar system

could work in the United States. In British Columbia, in just four years, the tax reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 4.5 percent and raised enough money to lower the corporate tax rate from 12 percent to 10 percent. Taxes on personal income for those earning less than $119,000 went down as well, and low-income residents get rebates to offset the increased cost to consumers attributed to the tax.¶ "Substituting a carbon tax for some of our current taxes - on payroll, on investment, on businesses and on workers - is a no-brainer. Why tax

good things when you can tax bad things, like emissions?" Bauman and Hsu wrote. ¶ A $30 carbon tax in the United States would raise roughly $145 billion per year, enough to reduce corporate and individual income taxes by 10 percent and still leave $35 billion to spare, Bauman and Hsu concluded. That money could be used any number of ways, from subsidizing alternative energy and energy efficiency programs to reducing the deficit. ¶ There would also be a voluntary component to the carbon tax, which electric utilities, oil and gas companies and others would pass on. Consumers could reduce their carbon tax bill by switching to a renewable fuel, biking instead of driving to work, insulating their homes and taking other steps to curb energy use.¶ A carbon tax would make polluters pay for doing a bad thing, emitting

a greenhouse gas that warms the planet. Through lower taxes, it would reward people for doing good things: earning, saving and investing. A bill to institute a national carbon tax will almost certainly come before the next Congress. When it does, New Hampshire's congressional delegation should unite in support of it.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/341381/time-for-us-to-tax-carbon


Carbon Tax is Cost Effective and Benefits EveryoneColebatch, 12, Tim Colebatch is The Age’s economic editor, The economists got it right, that's the truth, 7/3/12 http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/the-economists-got-it-right-thats-the-truth-20120702-21d7q.html

¶ I'VE come to think we should take more notice of economists. You might see them as impractical nerds. But look back over our long debate on how to tackle climate change, and one thing stands out: the economists got it right, the politicians got it wrong.¶ Last year the Economic Society of Australia surveyed its members on 46 policy issues. On some, it found economists evenly divided: on the merits of the NBN, for example, or whether Australia should promote nuclear power, whether patients should pay more of their health bills, and whether the GST should be lifted so income tax and company tax can be reduced.¶ Labor's cost-benefit rules are far from comprehensive, but they're better than none. ¶ ¶ But on other issues economic opinion is clear cut. Top of the list is whether taxpayers' money should be spent on big infrastructure projects without an independent publicly released cost-benefit analysis first to check the project stacks up. The survey found 85 per cent of economists want

cost-benefit studies to be mandatory. (Who doesn't? Politicians.)¶ Surprisingly, the second most clear-cut response was on climate change: 79 per cent of economists agreed that price-based mechanisms - a carbon tax, subsidies or an emissions trading scheme - are a better way to tackle climate change than using direct regulation.¶ Advertisement ¶ Tony Abbott has an economics degree but, being Tony, I doubt that he's a paid-up member of the union; he probably didn't take part. But after his insistence that the NBN be subject to a cost-benefit analysis, we might have hoped that he would apply the same rule to his own policies. Alas, not so.¶ On Saturday, Abbott pledged to spend $4 billion of our money on three showpiece road projects, with no requirement that they pass a cost-benefit analysis. His Melbourne project was the East-West Link, which failed a cost-benefit analysis when proposed in 2008.¶ The Gillard government is now paying for the Baillieu government to try to come up with a business case for a revised plan. If it does, fine. But surely our money should not be used to pay for projects that cost more than they're worth.¶ Labor's cost-benefit rules are far from comprehensive, but they're better than none. It matters because the start of any new government is a chance to improve the rules - or make them worse. Abbott is signalling that, under his government, cost-benefit equations won't matter. Politics will rule.¶ The start of a carbon price is a rare victory for the economists, and the biggest reform by the Rudd/Gillard governments. It culminates a process that began a decade or so ago when Peter Costello, Alexander Downer and David Kemp took a joint submission to cabinet proposing a price on carbon emissions. John Howard rejected it at the time, but finally took it to the 2007 election as policy.¶ It should not be a left/right issue and, in most of the world, it isn't. Go to Britain, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, South Korea or New Zealand, and you will find Abbott's counterparts there are just as committed to carbon pricing as Julia Gillard is. (Britain's Tory PM David Cameron wrote to Gillard last year to congratulate her on the carbon tax, praising it as ''a strong and clear signal'' to the rest of the world.)¶ Abbott will destroy it, but future Australian governments, left and right, will bring back carbon pricing, because it is the cheapest, most effective way to tackle global warming, which, if left unchecked, could do

immense damage to our world.¶ A carbon price works because it gives business and individuals an incentive to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Despite the Coalition's claims, it is not an economy-wide tax - if it were, it would be far bigger. Rather, it is a tax on emissions from electricity, gas and emissions-intensive industries. It will cost households $10 a week, $5 in electricity and

gas bills - if we do nothing.¶ But the beauty of this tax is that you can avoid it, by using less electricity and gas. Of all the options to cut emissions, it pushes us towards making our use of energy more efficient.¶ There are many ways to do this: turning the thermostat down a degree or so, or the aircon up; replacing energy guzzlers such as plasma TVs or

halogen lights with energy-efficient alternatives; just turning switches off. You pay that $5 a week only if you do nothing to adapt. ¶ It's a decentralised, democratic way to reduce emissions: we choose how to do it, in ways that preserve profits and living standards. Treasury and the Productivity Commission had been nudging the Howard government to do it for years. They were right, and had Howard responded in time, it might have been as uncontroversial here as it was in Europe or New

Zealand.¶ Instead, both sides derailed us into bad policies and point-scoring. If energy efficiency is the cheap way to cut emissions, putting solar panels on our roofs and paying excessive prices for the power they generate is one of the most expensive. We've finally realised that now, but the economists warned us from the start.¶ The politicians gave us gimmicky programs that cost us heaps, but put off the low-cost solution. Both sides used the issue to divide us, rather than unite us behind making a modest but effective start to tackling this potential crisis.¶ ¶


Carbon tax is the most efficient way to slow warming Gardner ’08, Timothy Gardner, Energy and Environment Correspondent for Reuters, Carbon tax seen as best way to slow global warming, Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/10/09/us-climate-finance-sachs-idUSTRE4988X020081009

Cap and trade has emerged as the dominant attempt to slow global warming. Global deals in permits to emit greenhouse gas emissions have hit nearly $65 billion a year. The European Union, under the Kyoto Protocol, has embraced cap and trade since

2005 and voluntary markets have developed in the United States, the developed world's top carbon polluter. But a straight carbon tax on energy production -- at an oil wellhead or refinery for instance -- would be simpler and cheaper than putting a cap on tens of thousands of polluters, Jeffrey Sachs, a special advisor to the U.N. secretary general and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University told a panel on Thursday. As the world prepares to form a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol by the end of next year, focus is sharpening on how well cap and trade markets are fighting

emissions. Carbon taxes would quickly cut emissions across all sectors of the economy, including vehicles and manufacturing, said Sachs. It could also be more efficient than spreading the trade of permits across the financial system. "Having a lot of people engineer financial instruments for carbon when there are much more direct ways to do this strikes me as not really a great investment," Sachs said. "I'm also not so keen on sending our best and brightest off to do more financial engineering," he said. "I think the kind of (financial) meltdown we have right is a little bit of an example of how we've taken a generation of young people and put them in tasks that don't really solve social problems." Yvo de Boer, the U.N. climate chief, told the panel he doubted voters in the United States and other countries would accept new taxes. Sachs admitted that the United States is "neurotic" about new taxes, but said they would be the best way to fund research and development and subsidies for big low-carbon energy projects such as nuclear plants and transmission systems to bring solar power from the Southwest and wind power from the Great Plains states to cities on the coasts. Sachs criticized one of the mainstays of climate trade that has developed in the European Union. Under the Kyoto Protocol the Clean Development Mechanism allows rich countries to offset their carbon footprints by investing in clean energy projects like small wind farms or hydroelectric dams in developing countries. "Things like the CDM are just unfortunately very marginal small tools that aren't going to change the broad framework of how energy is produced and how technology is developed and distributed," said Sachs. De Boer said the CDM has met its goals but that a range of tools could be developed to improve it. Investments could be widened, for instance, to improve whole sectors of developing countries, such as mass transit systems in large cities.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/10/09/us-climate-finance-sachs-idUSTRE4988X020081009

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/10/09/us-climate-finance-sachs-idUSTRE4988X020081009

Solvency – Dependence

Solves oil dependence by boosting natural gas use and domestic oil drillingHouser ’11, Trevor Houser works at Peterson Institute for International Economics, American Eyes on Australia's Carbon Tax, PIIE, Op-ed in the Australian Financial Review, July 12, 2011, http://www.iie.com/publications/opeds/oped.cfm?ResearchID=1873

A carbon tax has long been the favorite tool among economists for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Imposing a tax on something that reduces welfare (like pollution) can allow policymakers to reduce taxes on things that increase welfare (like employment, investment or innovation). And it’s not just liberal economists that find a carbon tax attractive. Gregory Mankiw, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under George W. Bush and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, senior economic advisor to Senator John McCain during the 2008 Presidential Campaign, have both argued the merits of taxing carbon and using the revenue to cut economically distorting corporate and payroll taxes. It’s the deficit reduction potential of a carbon tax that could give US climate policy a new lease on life. This economic logic has elicited support from some leading Republican politicians as well. Most notable is Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska (the highest ranking Senate Republican on energy policy issues) who, while opposing efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, has publically supported a carbon tax. She is joined by ExxonMobil chief executive Rex Tillerson, who argues the economic certainty that comes with a carbon tax is more important than the environmental certainty you get with cap-and-trade. And for Americans increasingly concerned with the security of the country’s energy supply, a carbon tax could yield some unexpected benefits. A colleague and I recently analyzed all leading energy security proposals currently bouncing around Washington—from vehicle efficiency standards to expanded offshore oil drilling. And we threw a carbon tax in just for fun. To our surprise the carbon tax did more to reduce US dependence on foreign oil than almost any other proposal because it both reduced oil demand and increased domestic supply. The latter occurs thanks to a) an increase in natural gas liquids production, an oil substitute pumped alongside the natural gas used to replace coal-fired power plants, and b) CO2 captured from remaining coal-fired power plants used to coax more oil out of older domestic wells.

http://www.iie.com/publications/opeds/oped.cfm?ResearchID=1873

Elections NB – A2: Unpopular

A revenue-neutral carbon tax is popular – true for majorities in BOTH partiesHandley ’11 James Handley, chemical engineer and attorney who previously worked in the private sector and for the Environmental Protection Agency, Majority in U.S. Support Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax, Carbon Tax Center: Pricing Carbon Efficiently and Equitably, http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2011/12/02/majority-in-u-s-support-revenue-neutral-carbon-tax/, 12/2/11

Sixty-five percent of Americans now support a modest revenue-neutral carbon tax to reduce pollution and create jobs, according to a survey of one thousand American adults conducted jointly last month by the Yale Project on Climate Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication.

This is the first poll we have seen showing that a majority of Americans support a carbon tax. Majority support for a carbon tax spanned the political spectrum in the Yale-George Mason poll, with 51% of self-identified

Republicans, 69% of independents and 77% of Democrats supporting a carbon tax with revenue returned as lower taxes. The survey found 60% support for a $10/ton CO2 tax if revenue is returned by reducing income taxes. (The pollsters helpfully noted that $10/ton CO2 equates to around 10 cents per gallon of gasoline.) That support slipped to 49% if revenue is

returned via annual checks to families, with each family receiving the same amount. The apparent preference for an income tax shift over a “dividend” runs counter to the view that voters are more likely to embrace direct checks than tax shifts. The survey did not poll on monthly checks, nor on the payroll tax shift approach backed by many economists and

embodied in Rep. John Larson’s carbon tax bill. In the poll, 70% of respondents rated global warming as a high priority

for the President and Congress, suggesting that reality in the form of this year’s record-breaking 14 weather-related disasters in the U. S. may be affecting public opinion more than the constant drumbeat of industry-funded climate science denial. Greater funding for research on renewable energy was supported by an overwhelming 78% of respondents, with greenhouse gas regulation supported by 63%, slightly less than the 65% support for a carbon tax. The survey also found that 70% of respondents oppose fossil fuel

subsidies, including a whopping 80% opposition among independent voters. The Carbon Tax Center has long urged polling organizations to query voters on revenue-neutral carbon taxes, in order to test opinions on carbon taxes apart from anti-government sentiments. The strong public support for a revenue-neutral carbon tax evidenced by this groundbreaking survey suggests we are on the right track.

More ev.Pike, 11, Cara Pike, Founder and Director of the Social Capital Project, http://www.climateaccess.org/blog/cap-not-trade-study-shows-support-carbon-tax, November 22nd, 2011, “Cap not trade study shows support carbon tax”

According to Public Support for Climate & Energy Policies in November 2011, produced by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate

http://www.climateaccess.org/blog/cap-not-trade-study-shows-support-carbon-tax

http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2011/12/02/majority-in-u-s-support-revenue-neutral-carbon-tax/

http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2011/12/02/majority-in-u-s-support-revenue-neutral-carbon-tax/

Change Communication, there is strong majority public support (65%) in the United States for revenue-neural carbon taxes, particularly when these taxes “help create jobs and decrease pollution.” As with most climate-related issues, support is higher with Democrats; however, even a majority of Republications (51%) can get behind revenue-neutral taxes.

Elections NB – A2: Popular

Public pays no attention to the CP – they aren’t worried about warmingEric Schulzke, 7/10/12, Deseret News writer, North American oil, gas reserves put global warming on defense, http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865558803/North-American-oil-gas-reserves-put-global-warming-on-defense.html

Global warming is slipping as a policy emphasis among American voters . According to a recent poll by the Washington Post and Stanford university , "Just 18 percent of those polled name it as their top environmental concern . That compares with 33 percent who said so in 2007, amid publicity about a major U.N. climate report and Al Gore’s Oscar-winning documentary about global warming. Today, 29 percent identify water and air pollution as the world’s most pressing environmental issue. "The Natural Resources Defense Council sees burgeoning oil exploitation as a leap backward in the battle to control carbon emissions. Referring Canada's proposal to route an oil pipeline through the U.S. heartland, the NRDC blog recently asserted that building the pipeline "would hinder progress to combating global warming."¶

Agenda Politics NB – A2: Unpopular

Obama won’t have to push the CP – even oil lobbyists and leading Republicans like the CPHouser ’11, Trevor Houser works at Peterson Institute for International Economics, American Eyes on Australia's Carbon Tax, PIIE, Op-ed in the Australian Financial Review, July 12, 2011, http://www.iie.com/publications/opeds/oped.cfm?ResearchID=1873

A carbon tax has long been the favorite tool among economists for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Imposing a tax on something that reduces welfare (like pollution) can allow policymakers to reduce taxes on things that increase welfare (like employment, investment or innovation). And it’s not just liberal economists that find a carbon tax attractive. Gregory Mankiw, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under George W. Bush and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, senior economic advisor to Senator John McCain during the 2008 Presidential Campaign, have both argued the merits of taxing carbon and using the revenue to cut economically distorting corporate and payroll taxes. It’s the deficit reduction potential of a carbon tax that could give US climate policy a new lease on life. This economic logic has elicited support from some leading Republican politicians as well. Most notable is Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska (the highest ranking Senate Republican on energy policy issues) who, while opposing efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, has publically supported a carbon tax. She is joined by ExxonMobil chief executive Rex Tillerson, who argues the economic certainty that comes with a carbon tax is more important than the environmental certainty you get with cap-and-trade. And for Americans increasingly concerned with the security of the country’s energy supply, a carbon tax could yield some unexpected benefits. A colleague and I recently analyzed all leading energy security proposals currently bouncing around Washington—from vehicle efficiency standards to expanded offshore oil drilling. And we threw a carbon tax in just for fun. To our surprise the carbon tax did more to reduce US dependence on foreign oil than almost any other proposal because it both reduced oil demand and increased domestic supply. The latter occurs thanks to a) an increase in natural gas liquids production, an oil substitute pumped alongside the natural gas used to replace coal-fired power plants, and b) CO2 captured from remaining coal-fired power plants used to coax more oil out of older domestic wells.

CP has bipartisan supportHandley ’09 James Handley, chemical engineer and attorney who previously worked in the private sector and for the Environmental Protection Agency, March 11, “Imagine: A Harmonized, Global CO2 Tax”, Carbon Tax Center, http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2009/03/11/imagine-a-harmonized-global-co2-tax/

http://www.iie.com/publications/opeds/oped.cfm?ResearchID=1873

Political Feasiblity: Gore also lamented that “our political system has special difficulty considering a carbon tax even if it is revenue neutral.” He has a point. After decades of anti-tax propaganda from the likes of Grover Norquist, Congress is understandably inclined to hide carbon pricing under a name like “cap-and-trade.” But when that first cap-and-trade price spike hits a public that was sold cap-and-trade as the un-tax, won’t its superficial naming advantage evaporate like morning dew? Will “cap-and-trade” still sound better than “revenue-neutral carbon tax” when

we’re stuck with a slow, complex, costly and ineffective system? Moreover, unlike cap-and-trade, a national carbon tax is showing signs of bipartisan support. One reason is that a carbon tax dispenses with the protracted drafting and wrangling inherent in cap-and-trade. British Columbia implemented its carbon tax in five months.


Carbon tax is bipartisan Romm ’12, Senior Fellow at American Progress, editor of climate progress, and holds a Ph.D. in physics from MIT (Joe, Bipartisan Support Grows for Carbon Price as Part of Debt Deal, Climate Progress, February 24th, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02/24/431830/bipartisan-support-carbon-price-debt-deal/)

At the end of this year, the United States will confront a trifecta of difficult fiscal challenges: The Bush tax cuts will be set to expire; the defense budget and spending on civilian programs will face a $110 billion sequester; and a new extension of the federal debt limit will be looming. At the same time, the evidence will be clearer than ever that urgent action is needed to protect our nation and the world from irreversible climate change. The overwhelming scientific consensus will have grown even stronger. And if 2011 is a harbinger of our future, record-breaking droughts and storms will have again afflicted our nation — at immense cost in lives and property damage. These fiscal and

environmental problems may appear unrelated. But as a bipartisan group of current and former members of

Congress, we want to propose a new idea: These seemingly intractable challenges are easier to address together than separately …. If budgeting is ultimately about choices, enacting a policy that reduces

dangerous air pollution while providing hundreds of billions of dollars in debt relief should be a no-brainer. No other policy would do as much for our economy, our security and our future as putting a price on carbon. That’s the opening of a bipartisan Washington Post op-ed on how a price on carbon could immediately help America address two of its biggest long-term problems, global warming and the national debt. The authors: Democrats Henry A. Waxman and Edward J. Markey represent California’s 30th District and Massachusetts’s 7th District, respectively, in the House of Representatives. Republicans Sherwood Boehlert and Wayne Gilchrest formerly represented New York and Maryland districts, respectively, in the House. As I first reported last May, a “high and rising price for carbon pollution has emerged as a credible deficit reduction strategy.” Then in July, I pointed out, ”The only plausible scenario now for seriously addressing US greenhouse gas emissions in a way that would enable a global deal and give us some chance of averting catastrophic multiple, simultaneous climate impacts is for a serious carbon price to be part of the post-2012-election budget deal.” Now 4 members of Congress, 2 Ds and 2 Rs, have stated the obvious: Since higher revenues must be part of any grand bargain to address the debt, a price on pollution makes the most sense. And yes,

Yes, I’m aware the two Republicans ain’t in Congress any more. Ya gotta start somewhere! Here is more of their argument: The best

approach would be to use a market mechanism such as the sale of carbon allowances or a fee on carbon pollution to lower emissions and increase revenue. Using these policies, the United States could raise $200 billion or more over 10 years and trillions of dollars by 2050 while cutting carbon emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050, providing transition assistance to affected industries, and supporting investments in clean-energy technologies. Such a policy would have enormous benefits beyond its fiscal contributions. As the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences concluded last year, “The risks associated with doing business as usual are a much greater concern than the risks associated with engaging in strong response efforts.” Inaction on climate means more intense and frequent heat waves, more droughts, more flooding and more loss of coastline. Delaying action just until the end of the decade will quadruple costs to the global economy, according to the International Energy Agency.

Carbon Tax – Aff Answers

Solvency

Note: There are more cards in the Hoya-Spartan Adv CP file. This is not a 2nc block but some additional cards; integrate them into one file.

CP causes more emissions from the developing worldElliott et al ’12 research scientist and fellow at University of Chicago Computation Institute, Ian Foster, Sam Kortum, Gita Khun Jush,

Todd Munson, David Weisbach, February 27, The University of Chicago and Argonne National Laboratory, “Unilateral Carbon Taxes, Border Tax Adjustments and Carbon Leakage”, INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER NO. 600 (2D Series), page 3 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2072696

While there are a number of important motivations for this approach, there are two central concerns. The first is whether a carbon price that exempts developing nations can sufficiently reduce global emissions.

The developing world is expected to be a major source of emissions in the future. Even if the developed world were to cut its emissions drastically, atmospheric carbon dioxide would not be stabilized by this action alone. The second concern is that if only developed nations impose carbon controls, emissions in the developing world might go up, offsetting any reductions, in a phenomenon known as carbon leakage.

Carbon leakage is thought to arise for two reasons. First, if only a subset of nations impose controls on emissions of carbon

dioxide, energy-intensive production may flee to regions without controls. Second, if nations with carbon controls use fewer fossil fuels, the price of fossil fuels may go down, resulting in more use in other regions. Carbon leakage has the potential to defeat the purpose of having carbon controls, inefficiently shift the location of production and energy use, and create domestic political challenges.

Solvency – Turns Econ

A carbon tax would hurt the economy – businesses can’t expand.Johnson ’12 policy research associate at Americans for Tax Reform, June 14, “Kissing Cousins and Carbon Taxes”, Americans for Tax Reform, http://www.atr.org/kissing-cousins-carbon-taxes-a6970

Testifying in front of the Senate Finance Committee on tax and energy issues, Harvard’s Dr. Dale Jorgenson proposed a tax increase on fossil fuels equivalent to a 1.5 percent increase in federal revenues as a percent of GDP. Chairman Baucus asked if the increase is a “cousin” to a carbon tax and Dr. Jorgenson replied “a kissing cousin.” Defending the tax increase as a way to reduce consumption of carbon based fuels; Dr. Jorgenson claimed such a tax would be most effective if heavily weighted towards coal—this sounds like a carbon tax to us. A carbon tax harms American industries and consumers at a time when businesses need access to cheap energy sources so they can grow our way out of the Great Recession. The Energy Information Agency estimated that coal, oil and natural gas represent 83 percent of US energy sources as of 2010. The same study found that 76 percent of commercial and residential energy consumption and 41 percent of industrial consumption comes from natural gas while petroleum, as expected, represents 94 percent of transportation energy consumption. Additionally,

92 percent of coal produced in this country goes to electrical power generation—power plants designed to sell

electricity to the public to heat and cool our homes. Raising taxes on oil, coal and natural gas drives up costs for everyone and prevents businesses from expanding. Dr. Jorgenson claimed a carbon tax will raise revenues and reduce consumption of fossil fuels, but ignored the negative effects this has on economic growth.

When the government taxes something we get less of it so hoping to increase revenues and reduce

consumption of fossil fuels with a carbon tax seems like faulty logic to us. This is the same logic behind cigarette taxes designed to curb smoking and raise revenue—the government wants to tax your cake and eat it too.

A2: Carbon Tax K Warming

Even if a carbon tax is necessary to solve warming, it is insufficient without the plan – and a carbon tax is inevitableGeman, 12, Left-right climate group quietly weighing proposals for carbon tax, Ben Geman, 7/12/12, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/237651-left-right-climate-group-quietly-weighs-carbon-tax-ideas

Inglis on Wednesday announced that he’s leading a new program at George Mason University called the “Energy and Enterprise Initiative,” which will provide a platform for what he calls conservative ways to address climate change.¶ He told the online magazine Grist that there may be a political opening in a few years, calling the effort a “long play.”¶ “We think it’s 2015, 2016 before anything happens. After the next

midterm. Either a new Republican president will, under market pressure, say to the country that we need a grand bargain to bring down rates and broaden the base, and a great way to do that is to shift off of taxing income and toward taxing CO2,” he said.¶ “Or it’s a second term for President Obama and the same market pressure pushing Congress and the president to do something,” Inglis said.

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/237651-left-right-climate-group-quietly-weighs-carbon-tax-ideas


Links to Elections – Unpopular

Carbon Tax is publicly and politically unpopularClimate Lab, 09 Climate Lab is a website that is dedicated to information about climate change, “Carbon Tax” http://climatelab.org/Carbon_tax

Even supporters of a carbon tax admit that there are barriers to implementing a carbon tax, particularly on a national and international level.

Carbon tax is politically unpopular in the United States. There are some politicians who are concerned with resistance from their constituencies and are worried that it would upset voters. Policy makers are also concerned that higher gas taxes would raise revenue but do little to curb pollution. On the other hand, the public is also worried the abuse of the tax revenue. Carbon Tax could become a revenue grab by desperate governments, that they create artificial winners and losers in the economy and that, if they are not at least done in step with other countries, they will simply drive jobs and business offshore to cheaper locales

Links to Agenda Politics – Unpopular

Links to politics – climate debate is politicized and unpopular Freedman ’11, Andrew Freedman is a senior science writer for Climate Central, Congress turns a blind eye to climate science,

Washington Post, April 12th, 2011, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/congress-turns-a-blind-eye-to-climate-science/2011/04/12/AFxAqQQD_blog.html)

Last week was a bewildering one for those who recognize the abundance of compelling scientific evidence showing that the climate is changing mainly due to human activities and that these changes pose risks to human health and welfare. While the news cycle was dominated by the down-to-the-wire budget negotiations in Washington, ongoing unrest in the Middle East, the nuclear crisis in Japan, a major congressional debate on climate change regulations took place in the House (and Senate) that vividly demonstrated how far off the rails we’ve gone in public discourse of climate science and policy. Let me state right off the bat that I tend to shy away from directly discussing politics in this column, instead sticking to scientific developments in the sprawling and fascinating field of climate research. At the same time, I recognize that

climate science has become so politicized that it’s impossible to steer clear of politics entirely. This is understandable considering that many of the potential solutions to climate change could involve major policy changes, from federal regulations of emissions from cars, trucks, and power plants to a carbon tax on gasoline. The controversy surrounding the science is largely a front for concerns over potential regulation, as is vividly

demonstrated in the book, “Merchants of Doubt”, by Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway. With the passage on April 6 of a bill that would stop the U.S. EPA’s regulations of greenhouse gases from moving forward, the House of Representatives signaled in crystal clear legislative language that it flat out does not believe that manmade climate change is a real phenomenon that poses risks to Americans’ health and welfare. I say this because, during the debate on the EPA measure (which failed in the Senate and was not attached to the 11th hour budget agreement), the House held a separate vote on an amendment which for the first time put all Members on record about whether they agree with the scientific

evidence showing that the global climate is warming, and this warming is likely due in part to human activities. This vote was as close to a climate science litmus test as you’re ever going to get.

Causes huge fights over tax increasesGeman, 12, Left-right climate group quietly weighing proposals for carbon tax, Ben Geman, The Hill, 7/12/12, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/237651-left-right-climate-group-quietly-weighs-carbon-tax-ideas

Lewis, a senior fellow with CEI, criticized the talks and took aim at efforts by former congressman Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) to promote a carbon tax. ¶ ¶ “The GOP’s only clear product differentiator — and most durable political asset — is its reputation as the no tax increase party. The Inglis and AEI initiatives, if successful, would destroy this asset,” Lewis wrote.¶ ¶ Proposals for a carbon tax face very long odds politically, at least for now. With carbon taxes — or tax increases in general — viewed as non-starters in conservative circles, AEI has been tight-lipped about the meeting, which was the subject of a story Wednesday in Greenwire. ¶ ¶ “In recent years, AEI has been accused of being both in the pocket of energy companies and organizing to advocate a carbon tax. Neither is true," AEI said in a statement to E2-Wire ."AEI has been, and will continue to be, an intellectually curious place, where products aren’t influenced by interested parties, and ideas from all are welcome in seeking solutions for difficult public policy problems.”



Ocean Thermal Energy Conservation tech CP

OTEC CP 1NC

Text: The United States federal government should fully fund research, development, and implementation of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion technology.

OTEC is awesome, reverses warming trends and replaces carbon emissionsPaul Curto, DDF in Fluid Dynamics from von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics, MPhil in physics of fluids and plasmas from Yale University, BS Aerospace and MS mechanical engineering University of

Arizona, 11-7-2008, “Ocean Thermal Energy” http://push.pickensplan.com/profile/DrPaulACurto

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) is by far the most balanced means to face the challenge of global warming. It is also the one that requires the greatest investment to meet its potential. It is the only answer that will save us from Armageddon. The Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University was one of its earliest proponents. Given modern materials and design techniques, we should be able to build grazing OTEC plants that may become economical with just a few production units, based upon anhydrous ammonia as the hydrogen carrier. The grazing OTEC plants would produce anhydrous ammonia while surfing the oceans for hot spots to curry heat for their power plants. (BTW there are ammonia pipelines in Indiana and other midwest states today for fertilizer distribution). Ammonia is the second-most predominant chemical manufactured in the world. Since the volumetric energy density of ammonia is three times that of liquid hydrogen, and ammonia combustion can be exceptionally efficient (about the same as burning diesel fuel in turbodiesels), it may be true that a hydrogen economy based upon OTEC and ammonia may be close at hand. The overall replacement of transportable carbon fuels by OTEC-based ammonia is estimated at 100 million barrels of oil per day equivalent over about 40 years if we move to a hydrogen economy. Along with other technologies, carbon fuels could be replaced in roughly 80% of all applications. OTEC is a true triple threat against global warming. It is the only technology that acts to directly reduce the temperature of the ocean (it was estimated one degree Fahrenheit reduction every twenty years for 10,000 250 MWe plants in '77), eliminates carbon emissions, and increases carbon dioxide absorption (cooler water absorbs more CO2) at the same time. It generates fuel that is portable and efficient, electricity for coastal areas if it is moored, and possibly food from the nutrients brought up from the ocean floor. It creates jobs, perhaps millions of them, if it is the serious contender for the future multi-trillion-dollar energy economy.

Ext – Solves Warming

OTEC solves warming, Maria Bechtel and Erik Netz, 1997, “OTEC - Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion”

One of the most critical problems of the next century will certainly be global warming. OTEC is unique among all energy generation the technologies in that not only does it generate no carbon dioxide whatsoever, but it actually counteracts the effects of fossil fuel use. OTEC involves bringing up mineral-rich water from the depths of the oceans. This water will promote growth of photosynthetic phytoplankton. These organisms will absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into their bodies, and when they die, or when the animals, which eat them, die, the carbon dioxide will be sequestered in the depths of the oceans. The effect is not small. Each 100-megawatt OTEC plant will cause the absorption of an amount of carbon dioxide equivalent to that produce by fossil fuel power plant of roughly the same capacity. No other energy technology ever imagined can do this. OTEC plants construction, with laying pipes in coastal waters may cause localised damage to reefs and near-shore marine ecosystems.

OTEC replaces fossil fuels, and reverses warmingHarry Braun, 9-20-2002, Chairman of the Hydrogen Political Action Committee, “OTEC CAN SAVE THE OCEANS”

It follows that all of the impending environmental problems that will result if those remaining fossil fuels are extracted, shipped and burned could be avoided. Moreover, Professor Zener calculated that even if 100 percent of the world's energy needs were provided by OTEC systems, and even assuming the entire world was consuming energy at the rate that the U.S. does, the surface temperature of the tropical oceans would only be lowered by less than one degree Centigrade. Given the current concerns regarding global warming, this slight drop in ocean temperatures could another important by-product of the large-scale deployment of OTEC systems.

Ext – Solves Competitiveness

There is enough energy stored in the thermal gradients of the oceans to power the earth.Joseph C. Huang Senior Scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Hans J.

Krock Professor of Ocean &. Resources Engineering, University of Hawaii and Stephen K. Oney, PhD.

and executive vice present of OCEES July 2003 “Revisit Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion System” http://www.springerlink.com/content/n864l3217156h045/fulltext.pdf

The ocean covers more than 70.8% of the surface of the earth. A nearly equal fraction of the solar energy intercepted by the earth falls onto the ocean surface. The sun irradiates and releases an output of 380 million billion billion Watts (3.8 × 1026 Watts) and about 175 million billion (1.75 × 1017Watts) reaches the earth. Figure 1 shows the annual earth solar energy fluxes in percentile normalized by the annual total radiated solar energy that reaches the earth. However, not all these energy fluxes can be transformed into useful form of energy under present available technologies. The current world total energy consumption, as indicated in the lower right of Figure 1, is about only five thousandth of one percent (0.005%) of the solar energy flux reaching the earth. It is estimated that the amount of thermal energy absorbed in the oceans, on an annual basis, is equivalent to at least 1000 times the total amount of energy presently consumed by human beings over the world (Vega 1995). If only one percent of the solar energy flux in the equatorial zone is extracted from the thermal potential capacity in the ocean alone, it can provide hundreds of times more energy than the total current consumption of electricity. Due to the huge volume and high heat capacity of oceanic water, some rough calculations reveal that all the energies together in the atmosphere, including kinetic energy in hurricanes and other storms, are less than the thermal energy in the surface layer at a two and half meter depth in the ocean.

Alt Energy Popular

Alternative energy is popular – prominent supportersStephen Power, WSJ, 11-3-2010, “US Weighs Funding for Renewable Energy Projects”, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703506904575592843603174132.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The memo written by Mr. Obama's senior advisers suggests the president "consider working with Congress to reprogram" the remaining $2.5 billion to pay for an extension of a separate federal program that allows renewable energy developers to convert the tax credits they get for such projects into cash grants. The memo says the grant program "has been much more effective" and is "likely to have a more significant impact on renewable energy investment" than the loan guarantees. The grant program expires at the end of the year. But the memo warns that "failing to make progress on renewables [sic] loan guarantees could upset the Hill (Sen. Bingaman, Speaker Pelosi)"—a reference to Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D., N.M.) and the outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.). Both have strongly championed the use of federal loan guarantees to boost alternative energy projects. Mr. Bingaman "views [the program] as 'his program,' [and] would strongly oppose" taking money away from it, the memo says. A spokesman for Mr. Bingaman said the senator would "not be happy" if the administration tried to take money out of the loan guarantee program, but added that Mr. Bingaman isn't the only lawmaker who strongly supports the program. "We've been frustrated and a little disappointed that the administration has used this program as an ATM machine," the spokesman added. A spokesman for Ms. Pelosi said the Speaker's "longstanding support for this initiative is well known."

Counterplan is popular in congress Northwest Public Power Association 11-1-2006 [The West Coast and ocean renewable energy, Washington D.C. Report, http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-28797375_ITM, November 1, 2006]

Congress, regulators, and the ocean renewable energy industry have all been ramping up activity over the last 18 months to accommodate increased interest in converting the ocean's energy to renewable power. While ocean technologies have been improving over the years, increased political interest in developing new renewable energy resources and reducing domestic dependence on foreign energy sources is giving the industry a boost. This signals a change in attitude for the potential of ocean energy as it was dealt a significant blow in the 1970s, setting back development and innovation for decade.

Alt Energy Unpopular

Energy policy is politically unpopularJohn D Podesta August 2003, VISITING PROFESSOR OF LAW AT GEORGETOWN

UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER “The Future of Energy Policy” Foreign Affairs

Unfortunately, energy policymaking in the United States in recent years has been neither decisive nor strategic. U.S. energy policy is reminiscent of Mark Twain's quip about the weather: everyone talks about it, but no one does anything. This inertia has deep roots. Vested interests -- in the oil, utility, and transportation industries, for example -- have been powerful economic and political players, protecting the status quo and brooking little interference from the outside. Similarl y, the environmental lobby has proved itself able to block proposals it opposes but less successful in advancing initiatives it favors. As a consequence, little progress has been made toward breaking the gridlock.

OTEC – No Link (Politics)

Bureaucratic issues prevent, not congressBecca Freedman, 6-12-2008, Political Analyst for Harvard Political Review, An Alternative Source Heats Up, Examining the Future of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion http://hprsite.squarespace.com/an-alternative-source-heats-up/,

Even environmentalists have impeded OTEC’s development. According to Penney, people do not want to see OTEC plants when they look at the ocean. When they see a disruption of the pristine marine landscape, they think pollution. Given the risks, costs, and uncertain popularity of OTEC, it seems unlikely that federal support for OTEC is forthcoming. Jim Anderson, co-founder of Sea Solar Power Inc., a company specializing in OTEC technology, told the HPR, “Years ago in the ’80s, there was a small [governmental] program for OTEC and it was abandoned…That philosophy has carried forth to this day. There are a few people in the Department of Energy who have blocked government funding for this.

It’s not the Democrats, not the Republicans . It’s a bureaucratic issue.”

AT: OTEC Bad

Warming outweighs risks of turns. Be skeptical of their turns, OTEC just enhances a natural process.Roger Highfield, Science Editor for the telegraph (UK) – 9-26-2007- “James Lovelock's plan to pump ocean water to stop climate change”- Online- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/09/26/sciwater126.xml

"The Earth is fast becoming a hotter planet than anything yet experienced by humans," they write, explaining that natural processes that would normally regulate climate are being driven to amplify warming, so that higher temperatures can, for example, stimulate the release of more methane from wetlands and amplify the warming. "Such feedbacks, as well as the inertia of the Earth system and that of our response, make it doubtful that any of the well-intentioned technical or social schemes for carbon dieting will restore the status quo. "We need a fundamental cure for the pathology of global heating. Emergency treatment could come from stimulating the Earth's capacity to cure itself." Scientists have put forward several proposals to reduce the amount of solar radiation that reaches the planet's surface, including the use of light-reflecting sulphate particles in the atmosphere and installing mirrors in orbit around the planet. Using radical techniques to "engineer" Earth's climate by blocking sunlight could cool our overheated planet but present great risks that could well worsen global warming should they fail or be discontinued, warned one recent study by Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology. "Geoengineering schemes have been proposed as a cheap fix that could let us have our cake and eat it, too. But geoengineering schemes are not well understood. Our study shows that planet-sized geoengineering means planet-sized risks." However, Dr Rapley said in response: "The

attraction of this approach is that the dangers of "unexpected consequences" are low , because we

are advocating stimulating and enhancing an entirely natural process."

OTEC – Aff Answers

Solvency

OTEC is unfeasible – only a few hundred sites worldwideU.S Department of Energy, 10-20-2010, “Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion,” Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, http://www.energysavers.gov/renewable_energy/ocean/index.cfm/mytopic=50010

OTEC power plants require substantial capital investment upfront. OTEC researchers believe private sector firms probably will be unwilling to make the enormous initial investment required to build large-scale plants until the price of fossil fuels increases dramatically or until national governments provide financial incentives. Another factor hindering the commercialization of OTEC is that there are only a few hundred land-based sites in the tropics where deep-ocean water is close enough to shore to make OTEC plants feasible.

No investment for OTEC – still too risky and expensiveBecca Friedman, Harvard Political Review, 6-17-2008, “Examining the future of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion,” Ocean Energy Council, http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/index.php/OTEC-News/Examining-the-future-of-Ocean-Thermal-Energy-Conversion.html

Despite the sound science, a fully functioning OTEC prototype has yet to be developed. The high costs of building even a model pose the main barrier. Although piecemeal experiments have proven the effectiveness of the individual components, a large-scale plant has never been built. Luis Vega of the Pacific International Center for High Technology Research estimated in an OTEC summary presentation that a commercial-size five-megawatt OTEC plant could cost from 80 to 100 million dollars over five years. According to Terry Penney, the Technology Manager at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the combination of cost and risk is OTEC’s main liability. “We’ve talked to inventors and other constituents over the years, and it’s still a matter of huge capital investment and a huge risk, and there are many [alternate forms of energy] that are less risky that could produce power with the same certainty,” Penney told the HPR.

OTEC can’t solve – weatherBecca Friedman, Harvard Political Review, 6-17-2008, “Examining the future of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion,” Ocean Energy Council, http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/index.php/OTEC-News/Examining-the-future-of-Ocean-Thermal-Energy-Conversion.html

Moreover, OTEC is highly vulnerable to the elements in the marine environment. Big storms or a hurricane like Katrina could completely disrupt energy production by mangling the OTEC plants. Were a country completely dependent on oceanic energy, severe weather could be debilitating. In addition,

there is a risk that the salt water surrounding an OTEC plant would cause the machinery to “rust or corrode” or “fill up with seaweed or mud,” according to a National Renewable Energy Laboratory spokesman.

Microalgae CP

1NC Shell

Text: The USFG should fund microalgae research

Microalgae solves emissions; produces same amount of fuel as dieselGouveia and Oliveira 09 (Luisa, Ana Cristina; works for Society for Industrial Microbiology, Accessed 6/22/12; http://www.smccd.edu/accounts/case/biol690/ref/biofuel.pdf, Sharmeen)

Biodiesel fuel has received considerable attention in recent years, as it is made from non-toxic, biodegradable and

renewable resources, and provides environmental benefits, since its use leads to a decrease in the harmful emissions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and particulate matter and to the elimination of CO2 emissions, with a consequent decrease in the greenhouse effect, in line with the Kyoto Protocol agreement. Biodiesel is usually produced from oleaginous crops, such as rapeseed, soybean, sunflower and from palm, through a chemical transesterification process

of their oils with short chain alcohols, mainly methanol. However, the use of microalgae can be a suitable alternative because algae are the most efficient biological producer of oil on the planet and a versatile biomass source and may soon be one of the Earth’s most important renewable fuel crops [6], due to the higher photosynthetic efficiency, higher biomass productivities, a faster growth rate than higher plants (which is also important in the screening step), highest CO2 fixation and O2 production, growing in liquid medium which can be handled easily, can be grown in variable climates and non-arable land including marginal areas unsuitable for agricultural purposes (e.g. desert and seashore lands), in non-potable

water or even as a waste treatment purpose, use far less water than traditional crops and do not

displace food crop cultures ; their production is not seasonal and can be harvested daily [6–8]. As a matter of fact, average

biodiesel production yield from microalgae can be 10 to 20 times higher than the yield obtained from

oleaginous seeds and/or vegetable oils [7, 34] (Table 1). Some microalgae have high oil content (Table 2) and can be induced to produce

higher concentration of lipids (e.g. low nitrogen media, Fe 3+ concentration and light intensity) [18, 21, 28, 32, 35]. The ability of algae to fix CO2 can also be an interesting method of removing gases from power plants, and thus can be used to reduce greenhouse gases with a higher production microalgae biomass and consequently higher biodiesel yield [22, 39]. Algal biomass production systems can be easily adapted to various levels of operational and technological skills; some microalgae have also a convenient fatty acids profile and an unsaponifiable fraction allowing a biodiesel production

with high oxidation stability [11, 16, 24, 25]. The physical and fuel properties of biodiesel from microalgae oil in

general (e.g. density, viscosity, acid value, heating value, etc.), are comparable to those of fuel diesel

http://www.smccd.edu/accounts/case/biol690/ref/biofuel.pdf

Solvency Wall

NASA’s already produced the tech; provides more fuel than anything elseCasey 12 (Tina is a career public information specialist and former Deputy Director of Public Affairs of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, and author of books and articles on recycling and other conservation themes. She writes frequently on sustainable tech issues for Triple Pundit and other websites, with a focus on military, government and corporate sustainability, and she is currently Deputy Director of Public Information for the County of Union, New Jersey. http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/04/nasa-ready-to-show-off-algae-biofuel-research-project.php Sharmeen)

NASA has developed a system that captures carbon dioxide and helps to prevent pollution from wastewater while creating renewable algae biofuel, fertilizer and possibly animal feed, too. NASA calls its system OMEGA, for Offshore Membrane Enclosures for Growing Algae, self-contained bags of wastewater and fast-growing algae cultures that are designed to float in seawater off the coast of a landmass and produce biofuels, NASA hopes for fueling planes. As the algae grow inside the bags, they absorb sunlight and carbon dioxide through the bags’ membranes and produce oxygen, which releases to the atmosphere through the membrane. The algae also absorb nutrients, creating fresh water that passes easily through the membrane into the sea, acting as a next-level treatment phase, helping to reduce the risk of creating local dead zones. The OMEGA system has been undergoing test runs at the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant. A demonstration scale operation is now ready for its close-up, with a media tour planned for April 17. OMEGA was developed at NASA’s Ames

Research Center in California. NASA claims the OMEGA system is far more efficient than conventional algae farming methods. By growing the algae within a bag rather than in open ponds or channels, OMEGA eliminates the need for water-circulating equipment and virtually eliminates water loss due to evaporation. OMEGA also reduces or eliminates the need for energy-sucking climate control systems that would be needed to regulate the temperature of land-based water storage facilities.

Aside from producing oil, fresh water and oxygen, the spent algae can be reclaimed for use as a fertilizer or soil enhancer. Researchers are also beginning to test algae as a feed supplement for livestock. Equipment maintenance and lifecycle expenses are another important consideration for cost-effective algae farming, and OMEGA wins out here, too. The system involves few moving parts and the plastic tubes could be recycled when

their useful life is up. Algae, especially freshwater algae, is an attractive biofuel due to its ability to grow rapidly while producing lipid cells bursting with oil. Other biofuel crops just can’t compete: according to NASA, some algae can produce more than 2,000 gallons of oil per acre per year, compared to only 600 gallons for palm. Soy beans fare even worse, at only 50 gallons per acre per year. Legislators who are taking aim at the Obama Administration’s algae biofuel initiatives will once again have to rethink their plan if they want to take a potshot at OMEGA.

Algae will replace crude oil, solves emissionsForbes 12 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2012/05/20/will-algae-biofuels-hit-the-highway/-- Sharmeen)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2012/05/20/will-algae-biofuels-hit-the-highway/--

http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/04/nasa-ready-to-show-off-algae-biofuel-research-project.php

http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/04/nasa-ready-to-show-off-algae-biofuel-research-project.php

Algae bio-fuels producers are asking U.S. lawmakers to treat their product the same way as they do other advanced bio-fuels such as cellulosic ethanol. That means including algae in the tax incentives given to advanced bio-fuels and in the Renewable Fuels Standard that sets alternative fuel targets. When the code was written, algae was a nascent concept that never wound up on anyone’s radar. Legislation has just been introduced in the U.S. House to achieve just that. With such tax incentives, the industry says that production costs would come down. Those costs are now considered to be at least double that of petroleum-based fuels, although such figures can vary with location, technology and whether the algae plant can be located near existing power plants or oil refineries so as to capture their carbon emissions. “The idea is to combine the principles of agriculture with the ability to generate a liquid transportation fuel so that we can offer a scalable, low-cost technology in the form of green crude that can be refined directly into gasoline, diesel and jet fuel,” says Tim Zenk, vice president of corporate affairs for San Diego-based Saphhire Energy, before an EnergyBiz audience. What’s the oil industry think of all this? BP, Chevron Corp. and ExxonMobil all have investments in algae. The biggest, of course, is Exxon’s $600 million pledge to Synthetic Genomics. Algae is highly synergistic with the established oil and gas industries and it can be refined on the same site as is petroleum. For Big Oil to get involved means, generally, that it thinks the pursuit will eventually pay off. That remains to be seen. But the added capital is a good sign. Algae still has a long way to go and it won’t likely ever become

a panacea. But it is a quiver in the energy arsenal that could potentially replace some crude oil use, resulting in fewer emissions and better national energy security.

Algae can be used for electricity; reduces emissions Argonne National Laboratory Center for Transportation Research (ANTLC-TC) 2012

http://www.algalbiomass.org/news/3164/argonne-natl-lab-researchers-publish-paper-on-algae-ghg-analysis/

A group of researchers from Argonne National Laboratory’s Center for Transportation Research recently published a scientific paper that identifies key parameters for algal biofuel production using the GREET model, which models greenhouse gas emissions, regulated emissions and energy use for transportation fuels. The paper, titled “Methane and nitrous oxide emissions affect the life-cycle analysis of algal biofuels,” was published in a recent edition of Environmental Research Letters. In the report, the researchers also described several goals they had with this analysis. First, they aimed to establish a framework that could be used to facilitate comparisons among algae scenarios and with other transportation fuels. Second, the research team wanted to identify which parameters produce the most significant impact to life-cycle analysis. As part of this, the paper noted that the team paid a great deal of attention to the amount of energy present within lipid-extracted algae. For example, this includes the energy potential associated with processing lipid-extracted algae in an anaerobic digestion system. The researchers also considered the impact of fugitive methane emissions, the fate of unrecovered nitrogen, as well as the potential for nitrous oxide (N2O). According to information contained in the study, the baseline scenario considered by the researchers produced 55,400 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent (g CO2/e) per 1 million Btu of biodiesel, compared to 101,000 g CO2/e for low-sulfur diesel. The paper stated that the baseline scenario for algae biodiesel features the use of anaerobic digestion for energy and nutrient recovery from lipid-extracted algae. Alternatively, a

reduced emissions scenario featured the use of catalytic hydrothermal gasification rather than anaerobic digestion. On a full life cycle, or “well-to-wheels” basis, the modeling showed that algae biodiesel reduced the total amount of fossil energy use and petroleum used when compared the amount of these inputs required to make petroleum-based diesel. This was true even though the production of algae-based fuel consumed more energy during the production

stage. The high energy use associated with the algae-biofuel production was attributed primarily to

electricity use and fertilizer production . In addition, the total greenhouse gas emissions per million Btu of algae-biodiesel were

less than those associated with petroleum diesel. The research paper largely attributed this to the substantial CO2 credit that results from the

reuse of carbon contained within flue gas emissions exiting a power plant. As a result of the analysis, the research team concluded that while algae biofuel production is energy intensive, substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions of 45 to 60 percent are still achieved when compared to conventional diesel

fuel. According to the paper, most of the energy use was associated with circulating the algae culture and moving the culture to and from the first dewatering step.

Algae is carbon neutralNational Review 12 (“Algae: Fuel of the Future? “http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292913/algae-fuel-future-nash-keune#

Sharmeen)

Some researchers estimate that the algae would consume as much carbon dioxide in the course of

their normal life processes as burning their fuel would produce, making the technology carbon

neutral . Unlike corn-based fuels, algae fuels would be able to mix freely with fossil fuels, meaning they could be transported in the existing

infrastructure. Algae could produce ten times as much fuel per acre as corn, and it could be cultivated in the desert. One of the main problems with corn-based ethanol is that it requires the use of farmland that would otherwise be used for growing food, increasing the cost of grain globally.

At: Cost

Micro bubbles in algae reduce cost dramaticallyScientific American 12(“Micro-Bubbles Cut Cost of Algae-Derived Biofuel”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=microbubbles-cut-cost-of-algae-deri-12-01-27-- Sharmeen)

Algae naturally produce oil. When it’s processed, that oil can be turned into biofuel, an alternative energy source. There’s just one snag—harvesting the oil from algae-filled water is prohibitively expensive. But researchers have

come up with an effervescent solution: bubbles smaller than the width of a human hair can help

reduce the costs of collecting algae oil. So-called micro-bubbles are already used for water

purification—they surround contaminants and float them out of the liquid. Similarly, in water containing algae, bubbles can float the algae to the surface for easy collection and processing. The research builds on previous work that used micro-bubbles to grow algae more densely and thus increase production. This time, however, the researchers produced the fizziness with a new method that uses far less energy, and is cheaper to install. The study is in the journal Biotechnology and Bioengineering. [James Hanotu, HC Hemaka Bandulasena and William B Zimmerman, "Micro-Flotation Performance for Algal Separation"]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=microbubbles-cut-cost-of-algae-deri-12-01-27--

Cellulosic Ethanol CP

1NC Shell

Text: The USFG should fund cellulosic ethanol switchgrass.

Cellulosic Ethanol Switchgrass can solve greenhouse gas emissions by 94%M. R. Schmer, K. P. Vogel,*† R. B. Mitchell,* and R. K. Perrin 08 (Net energy of cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2206559/-Sharmeen)

Perennial herbaceous plants such as switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) are being evaluated as cellulosic bioenergy crops. Two major concerns have been the net energy efficiency and economic feasibility of switchgrass and similar crops. All previous energy analyses have been based on data from research plots (<5 m2) and estimated inputs. We managed switchgrass as a biomass energy crop in field trials of 3–9 ha (1 ha = 10,000 m2) on marginal cropland on 10 farms across a wide precipitation and temperature gradient in the midcontinental U.S. to determine net energy and economic costs based on known farm inputs and harvested yields. In this report, we summarize the agricultural energy input costs, biomass yield, estimated ethanol output, greenhouse gas emissions, and net energy results. Annual biomass yields of established fields averaged 5.2 -11.1 Mg·ha−1 with a resulting average estimated net energy yield (NEY) of 60 GJ·ha−1·y−1. Switchgrass produced 540% more renewable than nonrenewable energy consumed. Switchgrass monocultures managed for high yield produced 93% more biomass yield and an equivalent estimated NEY than previous estimates from human-made prairies that received low

agricultural inputs. Estimated average greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from cellulosic ethanol derived from switchgrass were 94% lower than estimated GHG from gasoline. This is a baseline study that represents the genetic

material and agronomic technology available for switchgrass production in 2000 and 2001, when the fields were planted. Improved genetics and agronomics may further enhance energy sustainability and biofuel yield of switchgrass.A renewable biofuel economy is projected as a pathway to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and enhance rural economies (1). Ethanol is the most common biofuel in the U.S. and is projected to increase in the short term because of the voluntary elimination of methyl tertiary butyl ether in conventional gasoline and in the long term because of U.S. government mandates (2, 3). Maize or corn (Zea mays) grain and other cereals such as sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) are the primary feedstock for U.S. ethanol production, but competing feed and food demands on grain supplies and prices will eventually limit expansion of grain-ethanol capacity. An additional feedstock source for producing ethanol is the lignocellulosic components of

plant biomass, from which ethanol can be produced via saccrification and fermentation (4). Dedicated perennial energy crops such as switchgrass, crop residues, and forestry biomass are major cellulosic ethanol sources that could potentially displace 30% of our current petroleum consumption (5). Net energy production has been used to evaluate the energy efficiency of ethanol derived from both grain and cellulosic biomass (6). Typically, studies have used net energy values (NEV), net energy ratios, and net energy yield (NEY) and have compared biofuel output to petroleum requirements [petroleum energy ratio (PER)] to measure the sustainability of a biofuel. In initial analyses, switchgrass was estimated to have a net energy balance of 343% when used

to produce biomass ethanol (7). More recent energy model analyses that used simulated biomass yields and estimated agricultural inputs indicate that switchgrass could produce >700% more output than input energy (8–10), whereas GHG have been assumed to be near zero (1) or estimated to be slightly positive (8) for

ethanol derived from switchgrass. Lignocellulosic feedstocks such as switchgrass, woody plants, and mixtures of prairie

grasses and forbs have been proposed to offer energy and environmental and economic advantages over current biofuel sources, because these feedstocks from perennial plants require fewer agricultural inputs than annual crops and can be grown on agriculturally marginal lands

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2206559/

Solvency Wall

Cellulosic ethanol is more cost effective, better for the environment and has a greater energy output than other fuelsSolomon 7 (Barry D, “Grain and cellulosic ethanol: History, economics, and energy policy”; Solomon is part of the Environmental Policy Program, Department of Social Sciences, Michigan Technological University http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0961953407000396--Sharmeen)

The last decade the subsidization of grain-based ethanol has been increasingly criticized as economically inefficient and of questionable social benefit. In addition, much greater production of ethanol from corn

may conflict with food production needs. A promising development is the acceleration of the technical readiness of cellulosic alcohol fuels, which can be produced from the woody parts of trees and plants, perennial grasses, or residues. This technology is now being commercialized and has greater long-term potential than grain ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol is projected to be much more cost-effective, environmentally beneficial, and have a greater energy output to input ratio than grain ethanol. The technology is being developed in North America, Brazil, Japan and Europe. In this paper, we will review the historical evolution of US federal and state energy policy support for and the currently attractive economics of the production and use of ethanol from biomass. The various energy and economic policies will be reviewed and assessed for their potential effects on cellulosic ethanol development relative to gasoline in the US. While US interest in fuel ethanol has grown since the oil crises of the 1970s, its use in gasoline blends accounted for only 2.8 percent of total fuel use in motor vehicles in 2005 [1]. Although ethanol (i.e., ethyl alcohol) has the advantage of being derived from domestic resources, its use for fuel has often been criticized as technically, economically and environmentally undesirable (see e.g., [2]). Even so, interest in alternative transportation fuels is growing for two main reasons: oil supply insecurity and its impending peak, and the imperative to lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel use in order to stave off adverse global climatic change [3] and [4]. Several alternative fuels and engines for the transport sector have been assessed in detail in recent years [5]. These include electric and hybrid-electric vehicles (HEVs), compressed natural gas (CNG), hydrogen-fuel cells, and

biomass fuels. While electric and CNG vehicles are available on a small scale their driving range is limited, severely restricting their consumer appeal. Hydrogen-fuel cell vehicles exist as prototypes, but they are extremely expensive and will be impractical for a decade or more [6]. This leaves HEVs and biomass fuels as the most cost-effective alternatives to oil in the near term (Table 1 below lists the various acronyms used in this paper and explains what each stands for). HEVs are attractive, as they increase fuel

use efficiency and thus help to stretch petroleum resources and lower CO2 emissions. Only sustainable biomass fuels however, such as ethanol and bio-diesel, can directly decrease oil reliance. There are several ways to make biomass fuels, as well as alternative alcohol products. For example, in the 1970s methyl alcohol (methanol) received as much consideration as ethanol. Both fuels can be produced from food crops and biomass, as well as from fossil fuels [7]. While methanol can be made at a lower cost than ethanol, some refiners over-blended or used improper blending and handling techniques. This led to consumer and media problems and the eventual phase-out of almost all methanol/gasoline blends, with its use largely restricted to several auto races. Even here, the Indy Racing League announced in March 2005 that the Indianapolis 500 auto race plans to switch its cars from methanol to 100 percent ethanol fuel by 2007 [8]. Similarly, methanol caught on as a feedstock for production of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) under Clean Air Act requirements for 2.0–2.7 percent oxygen blends in ozone and carbon monoxide non-attainment areas. However, MTBE has been at least partially banned in half of the US states in the last several years because of groundwater toxicity problems, although over half of these states never used it [9] and [10]. Alternatively, interest has grown in coupling methanol with fuel cells as a transitional fuel until sufficient hydrogen production capacity becomes available [5]. Nonetheless, the main markets for methanol are for formaldehyde, acetic acid and other chemicals. Another promising option is biodiesel (FAME fatty acid methyl esters), which is made from vegetable oil or animal fats. Biodiesel has similar benefits as cellulosic ethanol, as noted below, but is limited to diesel engines. There are two primary technologies to make ethanol fuel. The first option, in wide use today, is to convert the starchy part of foods such as corn into ethanol through the following seven steps: milling, liquefaction, saccharification, fermentation, distillation, dehydration and denaturing. When sugarcane is used (e.g. in Brazil) only four or five steps are required: milling,

pressing, fermentation and distillation, plus dehydration in the case of alcohol blends. The other option is lignocellulosic or cellulosic ethanol, which is currently being commercialized. This process converts the woody part of

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0961953407000396

trees, plants, grasses or residues into sugars and then ferments the sugars into ethanol. Over 95 percent of ethanol production in the US comes from corn, with the rest made from wheat, barley, milo, cheese whey, and beverage residues [11]. This path to ethanol production has been criticized, often erroneously, for having an unfavorable net energy balance and significant arable land and water requirements [12]. While corn-based ethanol has several important environmental impacts, including soil erosion, loss of biodiversity, and higher volatile organic compound and NOx pollution, it does result in a positive energy return on investment and a 10–15 percent reduction in CO2 emissions (cf. [2], [4], [12], [13] and [14]). These results are more favorable for sugarcane-based ethanol in Brazil [15]. Given land use concerns it is unlikely that grain ethanol can grow from its current US output of 19 hm3 (5.1 Ggal (Giga=109)) year−1 to much more than three times that level, even with increased agricultural productivity [11]. For one thing, over half of the US corn crop is needed as feed grain for

livestock as compared to 17 percent for ethanol [16]. Fortunately cellulosic ethanol has the potential to be superior on

all of these dimensions except for conventional air pollution. Its advantages are that it can reduce net CO2 emissions to almost zero, and that it can be derived from a diverse, widespread resource base (see e.g., [3]). For instance, it can be made from tree species such as hybrid poplar, willow, silver maple and black locust; wood residues including chips and sawdust; construction site residues, municipal residues (MSW), paper and sewage sludge;

corn stover, corn and sugarcane processing residues; cereal straws such as wheat, oat, barley and rice; and grasses such as switchgrass, sorghum, reed canary grass, and miscanthus.

Fuel can be used anywhere, and federal government supports itNPNweb.com 7 (“Industry, government fund cellulosic ethanol project” http://www.npnweb.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=901D2CC3506F4C1187DF5BE4A8A2C0FF&nm=&type=MultiPublishing&mod=PublishingTitles&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=F0D22BD767944591B3EF2B0AEF17C941--Sharmeen)

Cellulosic ethanol is an alternative fuel made from a wide variety of non-food plant materials (or feedstocks), including agricultural wastes such as corn stover and cereal straws, industrial plant waste like saw dust and paper pulp, and energy crops grown specifically for fuel production like switchgrass. By using a variety of regional feedstocks for

refining cellulosic ethanol, the fuel can be produced in nearly every region of the United States, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Though it requires a more complex refining process, cellulosic ethanol contains more net energy and results in lower greenhouse emissions than traditional corn-based ethanol, according to the DOE. E-85, an ethanol-fuel blend that is 85-percent ethanol, is currently available in more than 1,000 fueling stations nationwide,

according to the DOE. Both Chevron and Weyerhaeuser said they already have separate research partnerships under way to accelerate the development of cellulosic biofuels. Chevron has forged alliances with the Georgia Institute of Technology, the University of California at Davis, the Colorado Center for Biorefining and Biofuels, and the DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Weyerhaeuser is collaborating with several research universities, national laboratories and technology-

based companies in research on conversion of forest products into ethanol and other biofuels. The federal government is also supporting development of biofuels from cellulose.

Vs. HSR

HSR increases emissions, and electricity from fossil fuelsBosworth 11 (Tony Bosworth is a campaigner for Friends of the Earth, in its energy and climate team. He has a long track record of working on environmental issues, including a spell as transport campaigner for the environmental campaigning charity.http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/18/world/how-green-is-hsr/index.html--Sharmeen)

Across the world governments are looking to high speed rail to provide fast, modern transport systems fit for the 21st century. By the end of 2012 China is expected to have more high speed rail lines than the rest of the world combined, while President Obama aims to give 80 per cent

of Americans access to fast rail travel within 25 years. But if governments want high speed rail to spearhead the

drive towards a cleaner transport system they must look further than simply providing faster trains .

The UK is currently mulling over a high speed rail link between London and Birmingham, a city about 160 kilometers

north-west of the capital. But according to official estimates, it's unlikely to lead to significant carbon dioxide

cuts -- and may even increase climate-changing emissions. So what's stopping high speed rail being a major part of a

greener transport future in Britain? Over two thirds of the world's electricity comes from fossil fuels so until (or

unless) power stations are weaned off fossil fuels, electric trains will still have a significant climate impact. Tony Bosworth First there's the electricity to power the trains. Over two thirds of the world's electricity comes from fossil fuels so until (or unless) power stations are weaned off fossil fuels, electric trains will still have a significant climate impact -- although rail travel is still

better than flying or driving. Secondly, will high speed rail entice people off the roads and short-haul flights?

French TGVs and the Channel Tunnel rail link have succeeded, but official calculations estimate that only 16 per cent of anticipated passengers for the London to Birmingham line will have swapped from planes or cars. One of the main factors is cost. Despite soaring fuel prices, motoring and flying are still expected to be cheaper than high speed rail. If faster rail travel is to become a realistic alternative it must be affordable too. The UK's high speed rail link is expected to

cost a whopping $54 billion. But living as we do in cash-strapped times there's surely a strong case for investing some of that that money in less grandiose, but more effective, projects.

***Aff answers:***

HSR better than bio fuels; costs less, and saves an economic collapsePerl 2011 (Dr. Anthony Perl is Professor of Urban Studies and Political Science at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, British Columbia,

Canada, where he directs the Urban Studies Program. His latest book, co-authored with Richard Gilbert, is "Transport Revolutions: Moving People and Freight Without Oil.http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/18/world/how-green-is-hsr/index.html--Sharmeen)

Any debate about the future of high-speed rail must consider where this mobility option fits into the 'big picture' of how transportation systems meet looming economic, energy and environmental challenges. In a world where 95% of motorized mobility is currently fueled by oil, high-speed rail offers a proven means of reducing

dependence on this increasingly problematic energy source. This value of using proven electric propulsion technology should not be underestimated when both the time and money to deploy energy alternatives are in short supply. In our recent book Transport Revolutions, Richard Gilbert and I documented the economic, environmental and political dividends to be gained from replacing the internal combustion engines powering today's aircraft, cars, and motor vehicles with traction motors

that can be powered by multiple energy sources delivered through the electric grid. Since electricity is an energy carrier, it can be generated from a mix of sources that incorporate the growing share of geothermal, hydro, solar, and wind energy that will be produced in the years ahead. And because electric motors are three to four times more efficient than internal combustion engines, an immediate improvement will precede

introducing renewable energy into transportation. Grid-connected traction offers the only realistic

option for significantly reducing oil use in transportation over the next 10 years . If such a shift does

not begin during this decade, the risk of a global economic collapse and/or geo-political conflict over the world's remaining oil reserves would become dangerously elevated. Making a significant dent in transportation's oil addiction within 10 years is sooner than fuel cells, biofuels, battery-electric vehicles and other alternative energy technologies will be ready to deliver change. Biofuels that could power aircraft now cost hundreds of dollars per gallon to produce. Batteries that a big enough charge to power vehicles between cities are still too big

and expensive to make electric cars and buses affordable. But grid-connected electric trains have been operating at scale and across continents for over a century. And when the Japanese introduced modern high-speed trains through their Shinkansen, in 1964, the utility of electric trains was greatly extended. Since the 1980s, countries across Asia and Europe have been building new high-speed rail infrastructure to deploy electric mobility between major cities up to 1,000 kilometers apart. For intercity trips between 200 and 1,000 kilometers, high-speed trains have proven their success in drawing passengers out of both cars and planes, as well as meeting new travel

demand with a much lower carbon footprint than driving or flying could have done. If we are serious about reducing oil's considerable risks to global prosperity and sustainability, we will not miss the opportunity offered by high-speed rail to decrease transportation's oil consumption sooner, rather than later.

Clean Tech

1NC Shell

The United States Federal Government should:

-create a National Institutes of Energy modeled on the National Institutes of Health.

-provide $15 billion per year to clean energy research and development projects.

Solves new clean techJosh Freed et al 9, vice president of the third way clean energy program, “Jumpstarting a Clean Energy Revolution with a National Institutes of Energy”, September, http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Jumpstarting_Clean_Energy_Sept_09.pdf

When the United States faces a significant challenge and decides it is critical to act—sending a man to the moon, winning the Cold War, curing deadly disease—we make a national commitment and invest the resources necessary to meet it. Time and again, as the nation has confronted and overcome these clear imperatives, a substantial and sustained boost in federally supported research and development has been a key driver of our success. Getting America running on clean energy—the defining challenge and opportunity of our time—will require a new national commitment to energy innovation. Currently, the federal government lacks both the structure and the financing necessary to meet the energy challenge. The scale and complexity of the challenge before us demands a coordinated and well-funded national effort to transform the global energy sector, yet US policy in this area relies on haphazard financial and political support with little consistent direction. In order to jumpstart a clean energy revolution, the US government must increase its direct support for research and development of new and existing clean energy technologies and create a new structure for energy research that ensures coordination and maximizes its effectiveness. A successful national energy R&D program capable of driving the innovation necessary to make clean energy cheap must embrace two key components: 1. Increase federal investment in energy R&D by $15 billion per year In line with President Obama’s budget request,1 the scale of investment for comparable national priorities, and the recommendations of innovation experts, we propose a sustained $15 billion per year increase in federal clean energy R&D to approximately $20 billion per year.2 This level of funding is necessary to both create new breakthrough technologies and drive improvements to existing technology, enabling the production of clean energy at significantly higher efficiencies and lower costs. 2. Create a National Institutes of Energy Modeled on the National Institutes of Health, a new National Institutes of Energy (NIE) would effectively apply R&D funding to the goal of developing new, low-cost commercial clean energy technologies. The NIE would function as a nationwide network of regionally based, commercially focused, and coordinated innovation institutes. Alongside other effective federal energy R&D agencies, a new NIE would critically strengthen the U.S. clean energy innovation system. Currently, the United States does not have the full portfolio of technologies it needs to transition to clean, affordable energy, and we are not moving quickly enough to develop them. There is widespread agreement among

http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Jumpstarting_Clean_Energy_Sept_09.pdf

innovation experts and energy researchers that neither the private sector nor the federal government is sufficiently invested in creating the new technologies we need or improving the technologies we have today. Only the federal government is able to provide the additional $15 billion in sustained annual funding energy experts believe is necessary to develop clean, affordable energy technologies.

2nc – solvency wall

Collapse of clean tech’s inevitable absent more R&DMatthew Stepp 12, Senior Analyst with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, “Clean Tech Headed for Stagnation”, May 14, http://www.innovationfiles.org/clean-tech-headed-for-stagnation/

Could the recent boom in U.S. renewable energy go bust? Yes, both in the short and long-term and only if we re-think U.S. energy policy can clean energy weather the storm. To be sure, the U.S. clean energy industry has been in a period of rapid growth, largely due to historic federal investments in the research, development, deployment, and manufacture of clean technologies. From 2009 through 2014, the federal government will invest a total of $150 billion, or the equivalent in magnitude to government support for past national challenges like putting a human on the moon (~$170 billion in 2005 dollars over 10 years, pg. 25). Yet clean energy continues to face a fundamental problem: it’s not cost and performance competitive with fossil fuels without government support outside of niche markets. In the short-term clean tech projects are propped up by government support (or regulatory requirements) and in the mid-term the industry requires significant innovations to become subsidy independent and competitive. As such two distinct policy issues are set to thwart industry growth: the looming decline in overall federal support for clean tech after 2014 and the continuing deficit in government support for clean energy R&D and innovation. Letting both policy issues linger unresolved could very well be the death knell for clean energy. In the short-term, the very government support that is buoying uncompetitive clean tech deployment is set to decline drastically. According to the report by analysts at the Brookings Institution, Breakthrough Institute, and World Resources Institute, without any additional Congressional action 75 percent of federal clean tech policies are set to expire by 2014, including numerous incentives that subsidize the higher cost of clean tech projects. Without these incentives, the nascent transition from fossil fuels to clean energy will slow or halt all together, leading to a clean tech bust. But even if much of this funding continues, the nascent clean tech industry is on a potential path of stagnation. In absence of long-term, significantly larger subsidies (which are politically unlikely), government support for clean energy R&D are central to developing and deploying competitive clean tech. In other words, clean tech growth nationwide (and globally) will be determined not by subsidies, but by innovation that can lead to technologies that are better and cheaper than fossil fuels. Yet, our policy choices often don’t reflect this reality. According to ITIF’s Energy Innovation Tracker, the U.S. is investing roughly $6 billion in clean energy R&D in FY2012 – on average a third what leading experts think the U.S. should be investing. In fact, the bulk of the federal government’s historic investment in clean energy – nearly three quarters of the $150 billion – is going to the deployment of existing technologies that are not cost-competitive with fossil fuel sources of energy. While these deployment incentives expand domestic supply chains and are spurring incremental innovations, the policies are acting like blunt force tools propping up lower-risk technologies while playing little role in incenting innovation and technologies to put clean energy on a path to subsidy independence. By not

http://www.innovationfiles.org/clean-tech-headed-for-stagnation/

http://www.innovationfiles.org/clean-tech-headed-for-stagnation/

orienting the significant federal investment in clean tech towards spurring innovation while grossly underfunding R&D, the U.S. is failing to jump start and accelerate the clean tech innovations needed to create a robust, long-term sustainable industry. Even if the expiring tax incentives are extended as is, the long-term stagnation of the industry will still occur due to a lack of innovation. If we want a global clean tech revolution driven by the marketplace, we need to bring the equivalent of “Moore’s law” (the prediction that computing power would double every 24 months while costs would fall by half) to clean energy. Nothing less will work. But it’s not too late to avert both the short-term clean tech bust and long-term innovation stagnation if federal policymakers and clean energy advocates truly make innovation less like empty rhetoric and more its core goal. This means fully funding key clean energy innovation R&D programs even in a time of budget austerity. Consistent support for innovation is absolutely necessary – just ask the fossil fuel industry which continues to reap the benefits of a century’s worth of government largesse deficits or not – and cutting innovation programs does more harm than good to the deficit and economy. Policymakers must also reform clean tech deployment subsidies to link early stage tech development with commercialization. Simply extending expiring or expired subsidies and tax incentives are simply not enough and will only continue to marginally grow the industry. It’s surely not a long-term solution to continue deploying technologies carte blanche even if they don’t hold the promise of competitiveness. A group re-think on clean tech subsidy programs is critical. It’s for “smart” deployment policies that work to pull transformative innovations, rather than just extend incremental innovations of costly energy technologies. We need to ask ourselves what our energy policy goals are. Do we want a clean tech market full of Edsel’s or competitive technologies? Do we want marginal industry growth or do we want a global clean tech transformation? At the end of the day, significant industry growth is only possible if there is an aggressive flow of innovations linked with deployment policies that pull to market emerging, long-term competitive technologies. Today’s energy innovation ecosystem fails on both accounts and our policy choices are to blame.

2nc – competitiveness

Clean tech leadership key to competitivenessJosh Freed et al 9, vice president of the third way clean energy program, “Jumpstarting a Clean Energy Revolution with a National Institutes of Energy”, September, http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Jumpstarting_Clean_Energy_Sept_09.pdf

Given this anticipated increase in energy demand, the countries that develop new energy technology the fastest will have significant economic and competitive advantages. The United States was the leader in nuclear, solar and wind energy development in the 1970s. Government policies and economic conditions in the 1980s, however, led to a decline in American research and development and the rise of innovation and industries in other countries including Denmark, Germany, Spain, Japan and China.13 The U.S. imported 50 percent of annually installed wind turbine components in 2007,14 currently produces less than 10% of the world’s solar cells,15 and is continually losing ground on hybridelectric vehicle manufacturing. Unfortunately, the lack of a sustained national commitment to clean energy innovation is already limiting our access to a major economic driver of the next century.16 Without immediate action to spur clean energy technologies and industries, the United States may also fall behind several Asian nations now aggressively positioning themselves to dominate the burgeoning clean energy sector. The Chinese government is reportedly developing a plan to invest $440-660 billion in clean energy over the next ten years17 and has announced ambitious targets for wind, solar and plug-in hybrid and electric vehicle production.18 South Korea recently announced a “Green New Deal” to invest $84 billion over the next five years to expand research and development and spur the growth of renewable energy, LEDs, smart grid, hybrid vehicle and other clean technologies—a sum representing two percent of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) each year.19 Similarly, Japan will invest $30 billion over the next five years to support R&D in a suite of low-carbon technologies20 while redoubling incentives for solar energy as part of a plan to become the “number one solar power in the world.”21

More evJosh Freed et al 9, vice president of the third way clean energy program, “Jumpstarting a Clean Energy Revolution with a National Institutes of Energy”, September, http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Jumpstarting_Clean_Energy_Sept_09.pdf

While the United States has taken important steps toward transitioning to clean energy, we cannot reach our ultimate goal without new and affordable clean energy technologies. As President Obama and leading energy innovation experts recognize, this will require expanding the government’s investment in research and development by $15 billion per year. To maximize this investment, we also need to



model energy R&D on one of the federal government’s most successful and popular institutions—the National Institutes of Health—by creating a National Institutes of Energy. Increased funding and the establishment of an NIE will help get America running on clean energy through the development of new, low-cost, and deployable clean energy technologies. Such a strategy is critical to secure America’s economic competitiveness in the 21st century.

R&D solves

Boosting R&D funding is uniquely effective at spurring innovation – experts agreeJosh Freed et al 9, vice president of the third way clean energy program, “Jumpstarting a Clean Energy Revolution with a National Institutes of Energy”, September, http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Jumpstarting_Clean_Energy_Sept_09.pdf

President Obama agrees that current government spending on energy R&D is insufficient, and he has called for a sustained $15 billion increase in clean energy technology research and development, bringing overall federal investments to roughly $20 billion annually.41 This is in line with the findings of many of the leading energy research experts. John Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, estimates we need between two and ten times as much funding for energy research as we currently have.42 Two of the country’s leading energy innovation experts, Professors Gregory Nemet and Daniel Kammen, have called for at least $17 billion annually in energy research.43 The Brookings Institution has found that the U.S. needs to spend at least $20 billion per year.44 The Climate Group and the Office of Tony Blair have called on the world’s developed nations to at least double public R&D spending by 2015 and quadruple it by 2020.45 And 34 Nobel laureates recently sent a letter to President Obama calling on him to ensure that any clean energy legislation Congress passes includes the $15 billion per year for clean energy R&D the President requested.46 We agree with this diverse group of experts. At minimum, Congress should appropriate adequate funding to provide a sustained increase in federal clean energy R&D investments consistent with the President’s budget request – sufficient to roughly quadruple annual R&D investments over time. This new funding should be used to strengthen and augment the most effective federal energy research programs, support innovative new paradigms to structure federal energy R&D, and in particular, fund the establishment of a new National Institutes of Energy, outlined in section two.47


NIE solves

Creating an NIE jumpstarts clean tech innovation – coordination of projects is keyJosh Freed et al 9, vice president of the third way clean energy program, “Jumpstarting a Clean Energy Revolution with a National Institutes of Energy”, September, http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Jumpstarting_Clean_Energy_Sept_09.pdf

A new National Institutes of Energy (NIE) should be established to create and oversee a network of regionally based, applications-oriented, coordinated energy innovation institutes, working with top talent from the nation’s leading research universities, national labs, and private sector innovators. Modeled on the successful National Institutes of Health, a National Institutes of Energy will provide an additional research institution designed to most efficiently prioritize the development of commercially deployable and cost-competitive energy technologies. NIH serves as an important model for a new energy innovation institution because of its successful organizational structure, clear mission, and broad public support. The NIH has a unique structure, with 20 decentralized institutes and seven multi-disciplinary research centers. These disparate offices are coordinated by a centralized Office of the Director, allowing the institutes and centers to take advantage of results-oriented expertise while maximizing information sharing and multi-disciplinary discoveries. This dual model should serve as the basis for the organization of the National Institutes of Energy. Each institute and research center has its own director and its own advisory council, comprised of scientists, health advocates, and laypersons. This enables the institutes to conduct their own research and, simultaneously, evaluate and award grants to extramural R&D projects across the country. One of the reasons that NI H has been so successful is that it funds both outside research through individual grants with critical peer review from a diverse community of scientists (depoliticizing individual funding decisions), and also conducts research in-house. The National Institutes of Energy would be created to competitively fund a network of one to two dozen individual Energy Institutes at $50 million to $300 million per institute per year, as well as several larger multidisciplinary research centers.53 Like the NIH, institutes would be largely independent and autonomous, with multiple methods for funding path-breaking research, including in-house research programs and grants for extramural research at public, non-profit and private sector research facilities. And like the NIH, each institute would have its own director and advisory council to determine funding and research priorities and grant awards. While decentralization is important, maximizing effectiveness requires coordination. Similar to the NIH Director,54 the director of NIE would provide oversight and coordination, and establish overall priorities for the network of energy institutes. The director will also serve as the NIE’s advocate to Congress and the Administration. According to a 2003 National Academy of Science report, NIH would, in fact, benefit from added levels of coordination. In line with their recommendations for the NIH, NIE’s Office of the Director would have added coordinating responsibilities. The Director would have a budget, 5% of total NIE appropriations, to fund “special projects” that focus on trans-NIE, high-risk and high-reward research that is often disadvantaged in the traditional process of peer-reviewed research and grants.55


Furthermore, the Office of the Director would be responsible for working with industry to identify key gaps in current technology and research and working with individual institutes to ensure effective technology road mapping.56 Unlike other recent R&D proposals,57 NIH’s unique combination of decentralization and central coordination (particularly after implementing NAS recommendations) will make a National Institutes of Energy a critical and effective energy R&D institution. Offer a clear and directed mission. The mission of the NIH, to fund and conduct groundbreaking medical research throughout the United States, is simple and clear. The National Institutes of Energy should also have a singular mission focused on energy R&D: developing the commercial and affordable clean energy technologies of the future. The Energy Institutes would be designed to integrate fundamental scientific discoveries with applied innovations and work closely with industry, entrepreneurs and the investment community to rapidly develop clean energy technologies and transfer them to the marketplace. The NIE, then, could have an even greater focus on translational research, and incorporate a greater percentage of high-risk, high-reward research, than the NIH (which is focused less on marketplace impact).58 NIE would organize each institute around a primary mission, such as solar energy, carbon sequestration, advanced biofuels, electrified transportation, advanced energy technology manufacturing, or the transmission, storage and management of clean electricity. This is modeled on NIH’s structure, where each institute is focused on a specific area of health such as the National Institute of Cancer. Leverage expertise through regional institutes. Unlike the NIH, whose many centers all conduct in-house research primarily at a single campus near Washington, individual energy institutes should be physically located in diverse regions across the country. Research performed by each institute would respond to the particular needs, challenges and capabilities of the region in which the institute is based. In the process, the energy innovation institutes established by NIE will help drive regional economic development and create jobs in new, high-tech industry clusters that will take the innovations emerging from NIE-funded institutes to market. To take advantage of the existing networks and researchers across the country, institutes should develop close relationships with university research centers and operate in partnership with existing federal research institutions, including existing National Labs, and private research firms.59 Provide independent funding and organization. A new National Institutes of Energy would be nominally housed within the Department of Energy, similar to the way NIH resides within the Department of Health and Human Services. However, just as with NIH, the new NIE would have separate congressional authorization, and a high degree of budgetary and staffing autonomy for each of the institute directors.60 The NIE staff and advisory boards of each institutes should be free to direct funding to individual researchers, in-house R&D programs and public and private research grants, consistent with the mission of that institute and the overall priorities set by the NIE Director.

A2 DoE key

DoE can’t do commercial R&DJosh Freed et al 9, vice president of the third way clean energy program, “Jumpstarting a Clean Energy Revolution with a National Institutes of Energy”, September, http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Jumpstarting_Clean_Energy_Sept_09.pdf

The Department of Energy (DOE) was not intended to prioritize the types of innovation that will lead to new commercial energy technologies that the private sector would adopt. DOE was created from a collection of nuclear weapons related departments, such as the Manhattan Project and the Atomic Energy Commission. To this day, the majority of the Department’s funding and attention remains focused on managing—and cleaning up after—the nation’s sprawling nuclear weapons arsenal, rather than on the commercial uses of energy that are today’s priorities.48 The government energy research that does exist is primarily focused on the national laboratories. While critical for basic research, the national labs are not designed to produce the advances that can lead to new commercial and deployable clean energy technologies. This is because the labs are often too far removed from the needs of the marketplace, and their focus remains split between a broad range of basic science endeavors.49 The other existing DOE offices lack sufficient focus, coordinated priorities, or the optimal structures needed to maximize public-private partnerships. Centralized in Washington DC and chronically underfunded, the DOE offices managing applied R&D programs are responsible for everything from actual research to deployment, home weatherization, and other only loosely related tasks. Without a primary focus on research and development, current DOE institutions are incapable of the rapid translational research necessary to bridge basic science insights and applied research challenges.


Ptx / elections NB

CP avoids backlashJosh Freed et al 9, vice president of the third way clean energy program, “Jumpstarting a Clean Energy Revolution with a National Institutes of Energy”, September, http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Jumpstarting_Clean_Energy_Sept_09.pdf

Public and political support is critical to the success of any federal agency. NIH has received broad support from policymakers and the public, and has demonstrated how such support can critically improve the ability for an agency to meet its mission. In 2005, NIH was ranked as the third most popular federal agency after the CDC and FBI, with 75% of the public rating the agency positively.61 The public is also broadly supportive of government’s commitment to R&D. A recent Pew survey found that 60% of the public agrees that “government investment in research is essential for scientific progress.” And large percentages think that government investments in basic scientific research (73%) and engineering technology (74%) pay off in the long run.62 A detailed May 2009 analysis of American attitudes on climate and energy policy found expanded clean energy research was the most popular policy response presented to respondents, garnering near unanimous public support (92%).63 An institution that is easily identifiable and meets these goals can help build broad support for clean energy innovation as NIH has done for healthcare. NIH’s support is not limited to the public. In a 2003 review of the agency, the National Academy of Sciences found that NIH is “one of the most effective and well-managed elements of the federal government and a centerpiece of its R&D system.”64 Most importantly, the agency’s substantive and popular success has brought it attention from policymakers. This resulted in a doubling of its budget to approximately $30 billion between 1998 and 2003, allowing NIH to greatly expand its ability to meet the nation’s health challenges.65 A new energy R&D institution, modeled on this successful agency, can put a high-profile public face on energy innovation research. This could galvanize the support of policymakers and the public and help to ensure adequate funding for the important project of creating a clean energy future. Even the name of the institution, the National Institutes of Energy, connects the success of the NIH with the need for energy research in the public’s and policymakers’ minds.


Aff – No Solve Competitiveness

Cherry-picking clean tech hampers competitivenessThomas A. Hemphill and Mark J. Perry 12, “A U.S. manufacturing strategy for the 21st century: what policies yield national sector competitiveness?”, April, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1094/is_2_47/ai_n58618168/pg_12/?tag=content;col1

* Energy and Environmental Policy. The U.S. manufacturing sector needs certainty in its long-term energy availability, and a comprehensive national energy policy needs to be established that emphasizes cost efficiency (such as cost per kWh or per Btu), domestic source reliability, and environmentally friendly impacts. These characteristics reflect the need to focus government policy support on three relatively clean and relatively inexpensive non-renewable (but domestically plentiful) fuel sources: low-emission coal, natural and shale gas and nuclear power. Although solar, wind, and biomass offer potential for future renewable sources of energy, these fuel sources are inherently only a minor source of energy, even if their respective costs-per-kWh were to decline to competitive levels with nonrenewable fuel sources (without direct government subsidies). While encouraging the use of energy-efficient and environmentally friendly technologies through tax credits and other incentives, a unilateral U.S. policy approach to reducing green-house gases is tantamount to global competitive capitulation on the part of the U.S. manufacturing sector and economy.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1094/is_2_47/ai_n58618168/pg_12/?tag=content;col1

Economy/Competitiveness CP’s

Corporate Tax Reform

1NC

CP text: The United States federal government should set a statutory corporate tax rate of 25 percent, provide a 95 percent exemption of tax on foreign dividends of active business income, not deny domestic deductions for expenses not directly allocable to foreign earnings, extend the business tax provisions that expired at the end of 2011, including the research and development credit, maintain revenue neutrality, and announce that these changes are permanent.

Tax reform solves economic growth – promotes competitiveness, investment and job creation

BRT 12 – an association of CEOs with over $6 trillion in annual revenues and 14 million employees, BRT members comprise a third of the total value of the U.S. stock market and invest more than $150 billion annually in research and development (Business Roundtable, “Taking Action for America”, March 2012, http://businessroundtable.org/uploads/studies-reports/downloads/20120307_BRT_Taking_Action_for_America.pdf)

The U.S. corporate tax system has failed to keep pace with the changing global economy. The U.S. system is an outlier at a time when capital is

more mobile and the world’s economies are more interconnected than ever before. Modern, streamlined and fiscally responsible tax policies contribute to a competitive business environment that attracts new investment and supports strong economic growth and job creation.

Many countries have reformed their tax policies in response to the increasingly important role that national corporate tax rates play in many

investment and plant location decisions. Unfortunately, the United States has not followed suit. The last significant overhaul of the

U.S. corporate tax system was in 1986 — before the widespread use of the Internet, before the Soviet Union collapsed and before

China became a modernizing economy — and much existing policy dates back to the 1960s and earlier. Most of the policies introduced in the interim have been patchwork solutions that are often temporary in nature. As a result, U.S. corporate tax policy has become increasingly outdated and overly complex, making the United States a less attractive site

for new investment and placing U.S. companies at a disadvantage in the global marketplace.

Reforms of the U.S. corporate tax system must focus on two critical components: the corporate tax rate and the system of international taxation.

First, the U.S. combined statutory corporate tax rate currently stands at more than 39 percent, now the highest in the OECD after Japan reduced its corporate rate this year. In contrast, the average combined statutory corporate tax

rate in other OECD countries was 25.1 percent in 2011. 6 This difference actually understates the United States’ disadvantage. Prospective investors will compare the United States not to the average but to the best country when it comes to tax rate comparisons. Although not as widely noted as the high statutory corporate tax rate, the United States also has a high effective tax rate on corporate income. A study of financial statement effective tax rates for the 2,000 largest companies in the world found that U.S.-headquartered

companies faced a higher worldwide effective tax rate than their counterparts headquartered in 53 of 58 foreign countries over the 2006–09 period. 7

Second, the United States continues to use a worldwide tax system that taxes U.S. companies on both the income that they earn at home and the foreign earnings of their subsidiaries, when those earnings are remitted back to the United States. In contrast, the vast majority of OECD countries use a territorial tax system in which little or no additional tax is typically imposed by the home country on active trade or business profits earned abroad because that income is already taxed in the country where it was earned. The additional tax

imposed by the United States on foreign earnings creates a barrier for U.S. companies desiring to access their foreign earnings that is not faced by their competitors headquartered in most other OECD countries. Foreign markets represent 95 percent of the world’s consumers, and access to these markets helps expand the demand for U.S. goods and services. 8 Accordingly, U.S.-headquartered companies and the jobs of their employees

depend on their ability to compete and win in the global arena.

A competitive U.S. corporate tax rate and territorial system can enhance U.S. economic performance, including more jobs, more investment and increased economic growth with increased living standards for American families. A lower corporate tax rate will enhance the incentives for companies to locate here, attract high-value investments, reduce investment distortions across sectors and lessen the current incentives to rely on debt rather than equity in financing capital investments. Likewise, the adoption of a territorial tax system will increase the incentive for companies to incorporate in the United States, allow U.S.-headquartered companies to compete more effectively in foreign markets, and encourage existing U.S. companies to bring home their earnings from overseas and reinvest them in the United States.

Modernize and simplify the tax code to increase the competitiveness of the United States as a location for investment and employment by both U.S.-based and foreign-based companies. A stable, reliable, equitable and nondiscriminatory tax system that provides a level playing field is essential for long-term economic growth. U.S. policies should strive not only to make the nation competitive with the other world economies, but also to make the United States the best place in the world to launch a career, headquarter a business, hire employees and conduct business operations. In today’s global economy, tax reform is absolutely essential to economic growth and job creation. BRT CEOs believe that these

reforms can be undertaken in a fair and fiscally responsible manner, with the cost of these reforms to be offset as much as possible through appropriate base broadening. The key elements of a modern, streamlined and fiscally responsible corporate tax system include:

• A competitive corporate tax rate comparable to the OECD average. A combined federal and state rate of 25 percent would create a U.S. statutory tax rate equal to the average of America’s trading partners.

• A competitive territorial tax system similar to the rest of the world. This fundamental reform recognizes the jobs created and the value contributed to the U.S. economy by successful American companies with worldwide operations. Fundamental components for a competitive territorial system include:

• Providing a 95 percent or greater exemption of tax on foreign dividends of active business income; and

• Following the practice of other countries. The U.S. system should not deny domestic deductions for expenses not directly allocable to foreign earnings. The U.S. system also should not include other features not adopted abroad — including antideferral rules for active income — that can impede the competitiveness of American companies relative to their foreign competitors.

◗ Extend the business tax provisions that expired at the end of 2011, including the research and development credit and important international provisions. While corporate tax reform is the priority, the extension of these expiring provisions should not be delayed while Congress considers overall reform.

◗ Make every feature of the reformed U.S. corporate tax code permanent, establishing the high-priority objective of eliminating corporate tax policy uncertainty.

Ultimately, any attempt to reform and modernize America’s corporate tax system must achieve the shared goal of creating a strong, competitive, job-creating U.S. economy. If the United States is guided by these principles and

provides competitive and growth-promoting features for research and investments in plant and equipment,

the nation will become more attractive for company headquarters and for the new investment that will increase production of goods and services. This approach to tax reform will foster economic growth, job creation and a higher standard of living.

2NC SolvencyCorporate taxes bad – deters investment, shrinks capital, loopholes, and multinationals

Master 4/5/12 – writes about the economic underpinnings of U.S. foreign policy for the Council of Foreign Relations (Jonathon, Council on Foreign Relations, “U.S. Corporate Tax Reform”, http://www.cfr.org/united-states/us-corporate-tax-reform/p27860)

What are the distortions at the international level?

Differing levels of corporate taxation across an increasingly globalized economy have the effect of distorting

economic outcomes in at least three principal ways, say economists. First, a country with a corporate tax regime that places less of a burden on businesses (i.e. through a lower effective rate) will tend to draw investment away from those with higher taxes, all other factors being equal. A second distortion arises where a reduction in investment in a relatively high-tax country, like the United States, shrinks the capital available to workers and reduces wage levels as a result.

Third, the tax base of a high-tax nation may drop further as domestic companies with international operations cut their taxes by "re-characterizing" their income so as to fall in a lower tax country, or

engage in other such methods like internal transfer pricing (Bloomberg). This profit shifting costs the U.S. Treasury roughly $90 billion a year, according to Kimberly Clausing, an economics professor at Reed College.

What role do multinationals play in the U.S. economy?

U.S. multinationals are domestic companies that own at least 10 percent of a foreign affiliate. According to a 2010 McKinsey report,

multinationals represented less than 1 percent of total U.S. companies in 2007, but accounted for some 19 percent of private sector jobs; 25 percent of private sector wages; 25 percent of private sector gross profits; 48 percent of total U.S. goods exported; and 74 percent of research and development spending.

They are particularly sensitive to international business conditions, including inconsistencies in the way countries tax. Under the current U.S. code, multinationals not only face a relatively high tax rate at home, but are also taxed on their profits made abroad when repatriated. Most other developed countries exempt their corporations from such taxation.

Corporate tax policy hurts competitiveness and growth


The United States currently possesses the highest statutory corporate tax rate in the world, at 35 percent

(discounting state and local taxes). Many analysts say the comparatively high U.S. rate, coupled with a complex array of tax subsidies and loopholes, is a doubly flawed system, overburdening businesses with compliance and planning costs while reducing federal revenues at a time of rising national debt. Others

point out that the U.S. system, which taxes foreign profits of U.S. multinational corporations, may put the country at a competitive disadvantage with most of the industrialized world, which only taxes domestic corporate income. At time when global economic competition is intensifying, some critics suggest an overhaul of the tax code, which last took place in 1986, is long overdue.

Why does corporate taxation matter?

As a percentage of the economy, corporate tax dollars have declined steadily in the post-World War II period, from more than 5 percent of GDP in 1946 to hovering around 2 percent in recent years.

In 2010, corporate taxes represented the third-largest source of federal revenue, accounting for roughly 9 percent of Treasury's income (behind the individual income tax [42 percent] and payroll taxes [40 percent]).

The way a country taxes corporations matters for two primary reasons, say economists. First, corporate taxes alter incentives and may distort domestic economic behavior in ways that are harmful for growth. Donald Marron of the Tax Policy Center says the government shouldn't favor one industry over another in the way it taxes business: "Far better would be a system in which investors deployed their capital based on economic fundamentals."

Second, different tax regimes across the world interact with each other to distort the allocation of international investment. The confluence of these micro and macroeconomic forces has significant consequences for the ability of the United States to compete and thrive in an expanding global economy.

Corporate taxation is an essential component of the national business climate, and one of several factors that multinational corporations weigh when deciding how and where to invest. Others include access to human capital, efficient infrastructure, regulatory environment, rule of law, political stability, etc. "The [United States] used to be so much more attractive in these areas," says Eric Solomon, former assistant secretary for tax policy at the U.S. Treasury Department (2006-2009),"but now we have so much more competition from abroad, so that each of these margins have become much more important."

In 2011, the United States ranked 72nd out of 183 economies worldwide in the area of corporate taxation,

and 19th out of 31 OECD nations, according to the World Bank's Doing Business Project. Rankings accounted for the number of tax payments, the time spent paying, and the overall rate borne by medium-sized businesses.

A 2010 McKinsey Global Institute report on U.S. multinationals and competitiveness says that many business executives interviewed

"believe that current U.S. policies--particularly in the areas of corporate taxes, limits on the immigration of skilled workers, and bureaucratic hurdles and inconsistencies--handicap U.S. companies when competing abroad."

However, the effective corporate tax rate--the ratio that companies actually pay after leveraging a myriad of tax breaks--has averaged around 26 percent in recent years (1987-2008).

How does the U.S. corporate tax compare internationally?

The United States has the highest statutory corporate tax rate in the world--39.2 percent (including state and local) versus an OECD weighted average of 27.8 percent (excluding the U.S.), and a G-7 average of 32.3 percent (excluding the U.S.).

Elections – CP PopularCorporate Tax Reform popular

Malhotra 7/4/12 – writer for the Epoch Times (Heide, “Corporate Tax Dodges on the Table”, http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/business/corporate-tax-dodges-on-the-table-252636.html)

During an election year, corporate tax reform is believed to be very effective, given that the U.S.

public pays high taxes, while many corporations don’t pay their fair share . It is not that corporations are not

handing over a check to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The concern is over the many tax loopholes and subsidies corporations have landed due to their lobbying tactics. ¶ In February, the sitting administration released “The President’s Framework for Business Tax Reform.” At first look, this report appears to be a good deal for the American public.

AT: Hurts revenue

Inefficiencies result in more money being lost than collected from corporate tax


Corporate taxation distorts the U.S. economy in several important ways, according to the Congressional Budget Office. "Once economic activity takes on a pattern that is based on tax rates, resources in the economy are misallocated and inefficiency results, as economic activity shifts away from its most valuable opportunities." A 2010 White House report on tax reform notes that more than 15,000 changes to the tax code have been made since the 1986 reform, many of which are "targeted tax provisions [implemented] to achieve social policy objectives normally achieved by spending programs."

According the Fiscal Times, corporate tax expenditures (tax breaks) will cost the Treasury some $628.6 billion over the next five years.

In addition, the CBO lists the following primary domestic economic distortions created by the corporate tax:

1) Savings and Investment bias: Decreases the incentive for individuals to save (vs. consume) and for businesses to invest because it taxes income from capital. Taxes on capital/labor are often juxtaposed with taxes on consumption (i.e. value-added tax), which many economists see as more efficient and pro-growth.

2) Organization bias: Increases the incentive for businesses to organize as non-corporate entities (WSJ) (i.e. sole

proprietorships, partnerships, etc.), which are not taxed. Consequently, the tax puts certain industries at a disadvantage to the extent that businesses in those industries rely on the corporate form to raise large amounts of capital from many investors.

3) Financing bias: Increases the incentive for businesses to raise capital by borrowing (debt) versus selling shares (equity), since the interest on debt is tax deductible. A greater reliance on borrowing may increase the exposure of some firms to bankruptcy, especially in economic downturns such as the recent financial crisis (FT).

4) Depreciation bias: Biases some types of capital investment over others to the extent that the IRS depreciation rules,

which allow companies to spread tax deductions for a capital asset over its life span, do not reflect actual economic depreciation.

5) Compliance and Planning: The complexity of the code requires businesses to spend a great deal of money on tax compliance and planning--funds that under other circumstances would be allocated elsewhere.

In her book The Economic Effects of Taxing Capital Income, economic policy expert Jane Gravelle asserts that the combined cost of

these five domestic inefficiencies (plus a bias against dividends) could surpass the total amount of corporate

tax dollars collected.

No revenue now – too many loopholes


Corporate Tax Payments and Subsidies¶ CTJ participated in the research of tax payments made by 280 of America’s large

Fortune 500 corporations during the 2008–2010 and 2008–2011 tax seasons. Thirty companies paid no taxes during 2008–

2010. During the 2008–2011 tax period, DuPont Co. paid a 10.9 percent effective tax rate and Wells Fargo & Co. paid a 3.8 percent effective tax rate. ¶ Due to subsidies, Pepco Holdings Inc. received the highest tax break during the 2008–2010 and 2008–2011 tax seasons, -57.6 percent and -39.5 percent respectively, followed by General Electric Co. (GE) with a tax rate of -45.3 percent and -18.9 percent respectively.¶ During the 2008–2011 tax season, Wells Fargo & Co. garnered the largest subsidy at $21.6 billion, followed by GE with a $10.6 billion subsidy, despite an income of $19.6 billion. Verizon Communications Inc.’s subsidy was $7.7 billion, despite an income of $19.8 billion. The Boeing Co. received a subsidy of $6 billion, despite $14.8 billion in profit. The subsidies for the remaining 26 corporations were below $3.5 billion.¶ The company with the highest federal tax break (-39.5 percent), Pepco Holdings, was among the 14 companies that received a subsidy below $1

billion ($941 million). The company with the lowest subsidy ($171 million) was Con-way Inc.¶ Over the four-year period of 2008–2011, the IRS would have received an additional $78.3 billion in federal income taxes if those 30 companies had paid their fair share, according to CTJ’s research.¶ “The Treasury Department reports that corporate taxes fell to only 1.2 percent of our gross domestic product over the past three fiscal years. That’s lower than at any time since the 1940s except for one single year during President Reagan’s first term. By comparison, corporate taxes averaged almost 4

percent of our GDP during the 1960s,” CTJ said.¶ Truth About the U.S. Corporate Tax Rate¶ “America has one of the lowest corporate income taxes of any developed country, but you wouldn’t know it given the hysteria of corporate lobbying outfits

like the Business Roundtable,” according to an April 5 article on the CTJ website.¶ Gallup Poll surveys conducted between 2004 and 2011 suggest that the majority of survey respondents believe that corporations are getting away with paying too little taxes. ¶ Of the 280 companies studied by CTJ, 134 companies earned a large portion of their income in foreign countries. The majority of these companies (87) were taxed at a lower rate on their U.S. earnings than they paid in taxes on their

earnings in foreign countries.¶ According to CTJ, corporations employ a number of accounting gimmicks to make it look like their earnings in the United States come from their subsidiaries located in tax havens, although most of the time, these so-called companies are no more than a post office box.¶ “The problem that corporations are complaining about is actually the high taxes they pay to foreign governments, how could Congress possibly provide any remedy for that? Clearly, what corporations pay in U.S. taxes is what’s relevant to the corporate tax debate before Congress,” the CTJ article said.¶ Keeping Up the Hype About Corporate

Taxes¶ “Overall, financial executives from both large and small businesses view an effective tax rate of 20–25 percent as necessary to make the U.S. federal corporate rate competitive with global tax rates,” according to a recent article by Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC (A&M Taxand), a tax advisory firm.¶ Executives surveyed for the A&M Taxand

article said that they were more concerned about tax code changes than the actual tax expenses. But, they did state that a

lowered tax rate would make our U.S. tax rate more competitive with other countries. The article did not address the subsidies companies received, which lowered the U.S. tax rate below that of foreign countries.

AT: Doesn’t Solve Competitiveness

Failing tax system is the largest internal link – competitiveness reports prove

Donlan 6/9/12 – Editorial Page Editor at Barron's National Business and Financial Weekly (Thomas, Barrons, “An Invisible Problem”, http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424053111904470204577452681573138746.html?mod=BOL_twm_fs)

It was a pleasant surprise the other day to encounter a different story, published by a well-regarded Swiss business

school called IMD (formerly the Institute for Management Development). It operates a World Competitiveness Center, which may

sound like more of the same old stuff, but the new report shows a different way of thinking.

The U.S. was ranked second for 2011, behind Hong Kong. The bad news is that it was first in 2010 and most years before, but it's worth contemplating the advantages that a group of international business executives and analysts still can find in the U.S. economy.

At the top is access to financing, followed by a strong research-and-development culture, an effective

legal environment, dynamism of the economy, a skilled workforce, and reliable infrastructure. At the

bottom, they find the U.S. lacks competency of government and a competitive tax regime .

All of the top six assets are usually cited as American problems by competitiveness experts, especially

those in government, while we rarely meet officials aware that American governments and their tax system are so poorly regarded. The experts rarely work on economic problems created by government.

*AFF – Isolated Corporate Tax Reform Fails

Isolated corporate tax reform fails – it must be combined with a more comprehensive reform


Any proposal for corporate tax reform will have to address the effects on federal revenue, especially given current levels of U.S. debt and the expected growth of entitlement spending over the next several decades.

"A tax package that reduces revenue is not tax reform," writes tax policy expert Bruce Bartlett in The Benefit and the

Burden. "It's just another tax cut." Most economists, he says, view true tax reform as a revenue-neutral, zero-sum

game with both winners and losers. In this view, if the top corporate tax rate is lowered, the tax base will need to be broadened so that some businesses will have to pay more, or funds will have to be raised through other means of taxation (i.e. consumption tax, gas tax, etc.).

Eric Toder of the Tax Policy Center says that "corporate taxes cannot be thought of in isolation," but that any corporate tax reform must be considered in the context of general tax reform that may include other changes, such as the way individuals are taxed. Many economists see the integration of the corporate and individual income tax as a solution to this problem. CFR's Ted Alden writes that it is difficult "to move discretely on any single aspect of tax reform. A tax system that is both more competitive and more fiscally responsible would require an array of changes."

Reform shifts tax burden to income taxes on the lower and middle classes


Shifting Tax Burden to America’s Citizens ¶ “These big, profitable corporations are continuing to shift their tax burden onto average Americans. … This isn’t fair to the rest of us, it makes no economic sense,” said Bob McIntyre, director

at Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ), in an April 9 article on the CTJ website.¶ According to another CTJ article on April 20, Eric Cantor, House

Majority leader, suggested in April at a Bank of America event that people whose earnings are so low that they don’t pay federal personal income taxes should be required to pay such taxes.¶ The CTJ article said that “Cantor’s

comments suggest that, like Rep. Ryan [House Budget Committee chairman], he is interested in ending those tax subsidies that benefit the lower-income or middle-income households but not those benefitting [sic] the rich.”

*AFF – Doesn’t Solve KeynesCorporate tax cuts have no Keynesian stimulus effect

Huang 9 – tax policy analyst with the Center’s Federal Fiscal Policy Team, where she focuses on the fiscal and economic effects of federal tax policy, taught tax law and conducted research in tax law and policy at the University of Auckland (Chye-Ching, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Corporate Tax Rate Cut Likely To Be Ineffective As Stimulus”, http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2269)

Numerous government and independent studies agree that corporate tax rate cuts provide relatively little “bang-for-the-buck” as stimulus. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), for example, has concluded that a corporate rate cut “is not a particularly cost-effective method of stimulating business spending.”[1] The Congressional Research Service

(CRS) has found that in terms of stimulating aggregate demand, the “effect of corporate rate cuts is likely

small .”[2] And Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Economy.com, has rated a corporate tax rate cut as one of the

least effective of all tax and spending options in stimulating the economy, estimating that it would generate only 30 cents in economic demand for every dollar spent on the tax cut.[3] ¶ Nevertheless, some policymakers and business groups — many of them longstanding proponents of corporate tax cuts regardless of economic conditions — now advocate cutting corporate tax rates as a stimulus measure.[4] There is a serious debate to be had about whether cutting corporate rates, especially if done in tandem with measures to close corporate tax loopholes, would strengthen the economy over the long run.[5] But

corporate rate cuts simply are not credible as short-term economic stimulus in a recession.¶ Corporate Rate Cut Would Not Reward New Investments ¶ Explaining why a corporate tax rate cut is relatively ineffective as stimulus,

CRS noted that “Increasing the after-tax income of businesses typically does not create an incentive for them to spend more on labor or to produce more, because production depends on the ability to sell output.”[6]¶ The primary problem employers face in a recession is a shortage of demand for their products, not a shortage of cash.[7] When firms face a shortage of demand, they will find it more attractive to retain — or pass to shareholders — any new cash they receive from a tax cut, rather than invest in increased production of goods and services for which no customers exist. ¶ But passing the tax benefits to shareholders and

business owners would not stimulate the economy much. Shareholders and business owners are two groups that tend to have higher incomes — and thus to save, rather than spend, much of any additional income they receive. As CRS concluded, such a tax cut “is more likely to be spent on reducing debt, or paying out dividends. Both choices would not expand aggregate demand.”[8]¶ In the short run, therefore “a substantial effect of reducing current corporate tax rates is to increase the returns from past investments rather than increase the attractiveness of new

investments,” according to CBO.[9] Only new investments are stimulative.

H1B Visas (Neg)

H1B CP 1NC

Text: The United States Federal Government should increase the cap on H-1B Visas to 195,000.

Solves competitiveness and economy - increases innovation, talent, and job creation David Bier 6/17/12, - immigration policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute- “H1-B Visa Quotas Greatly Restrain Small Business Expansion”; Forbes Magazine; http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/06/17/h1-b-visa-quotas-greatly-restrain-small-business-expansion/

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) announced this week that it had filled its annual H-1B visa quota for foreign high-skilled workers. The announcement comes about five months earlier than last year, signaling that U.S. businesses are

expanding again. But many companies must now wait until next year to attempt to hire needed talent. This constraint is slowing their renewed growth, while unfairly disadvantaging small businesses that lack the resources necessary to navigate America’s complex immigration code. ¶ As America’s technology

and service-based economy has expanded over the last decade, its demand for high-skilled labor has

increased greatly . Global competition requires access to the world’s best talent. Yet during this same period,

Congress has allowed the H-1B quota for high-skilled workers to drop in half—from 195,000 in 2001 to 85,000 today. In 2006, the quota was tapped in less than two months. In 2008, it vanished in less than a day—nearly 125,000 applications

were received in just two days.¶ Market-driven demand grew while government-controlled supply shrank. “In most years,” the Government Accountability Office found last year, “demand for new H-1B workers exceeded the cap.”

This mismatch is further exacerbated by fees and regulations that prevent businesses, particularly small firms, from even applying. One company estimated the cost of the H-1B and green card process at $16,000. More than sixty percent of small businesses surveyed by the GAO “incurred significant business costs resulting from petitions denied due to the cap, delays in

processing H-1B petitions, and other costs.”¶ H-1B regulations advantage large companies because they can

absorb application costs and afford more qualified consultants . Complicated forms and regulations—and the

imperative of speed and accuracy—force most businesses to hire experts for $3,000 for a single applicant. Multinational companies surveyed by the GAO “were generally able to hire their preferred candidates because the firms were skilled at navigating the immigration system.” This legal inequity places start-ups and small firms at a disadvantage.¶ “Some companies would not want to be bothered with foreign students because it would require a lawyer to do all the paperwork,” Elias Shiu, a professor at the University of Iowa’s department of statistics and actuarial science, told The Des Moines Register earlier this year. International students constitute more than sixty percent of Shiu’s department, like many science, engineering, and technology departments at other universities. Yet finding jobs for these highly-qualified workers in the U.S. is almost impossible due to H-1B regulations.¶ Not only can big players navigate the system better than small firms, they often manage to avoid it completely. Large firms like Principal can afford to have actuary offices in China and Brazil. Similarly, Microsoft recently opened offices in Vancouver to make use of Canada’s more expeditious immigration system for foreign software designers. Not only is stimulating off-shoring bad policy, it is unfair to small U.S. competitors who cannot afford offices overseas to avoid visa constraints.¶ Multinational firms do not always need to leave the U.S. to hire the workers they want—they can also use an L-1 visa to bring workers from their foreign offices to a U.S. site for up to seven years, or they can use a B-1 visa to conduct short-term activities like holding business conferences. While these options are

unavailable to most small firms and start-ups, the best response to such inequality isn’t to restrain multinationals, but to

open competition for all American businesses by eliminating H-1B restrictions .¶ Highly-skilled foreign

workers do not “take jobs”—they make jobs. H-1B applications fell dramatically during the recession because companies use H-1B visas not to replace Americans during downtimes, but to recruit workers

during expansion. A 2009 National Foundation for American Policy study found that every H-1B request is correlated

with five new jobs at major firms and more than seven jobs at firms with less than 5,000 employees .

H-1B restrictions slow this expansion and hurt economic growth.¶ Immigration quotas and restrictions are fundamentally unfair and stand in the way of America’s future prosperity. Increasing the H-1B quota would

constitute progress. But better yet, abolishing the quota system and H-1B constraints entirely would not only allow more highly-skilled workers to come, but also make America’s immigration system fair for small

competitors. Fairer competition would increase innovation, entrepreneurship, and job creation ,

benefiting all Americans.¶

H1B CP 1NC

Prerequisite to the aff – The high-skilled worker shortage undercuts infrastructure projects Ratzenberger 7-31-10 [John, inventor, entrepreneur and board member of the Foundation for Fair Civil Justice, “Skilled workers key to state, national economies,” http://newsok.com/skilled-workers-key-to-state-national-economies/article/3480964]

A cultural shift has taken place in America that's tragically made the skilled worker a thing of the past. Our media has

glorified celebrity at the expense of our nation's basic needs, and America will reap the whirlwind within the next two decades. At stake is

nothing less than our long-term economic vitality and national security. Let's start with infrastructure - bridges, roads, water and sewer systems. America is dangerously close to failures that will result in loss of life and are already resulting in loss of economic competitiveness. In many cases, currently funded infrastructure projects cannot move forward due to lack of skilled workers. For example, a national shortage of 500,000 welders has resulted in

delays or cancellations of many key projects. Expand that out over the entire economy and we have a massive crisis on our hands. By 2012, there will be a 3 million skilled worker shortfall in our nation, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. In Oklahoma,

which has had solid energy and manufacturing industries, top companies have difficulty finding adequate skilled workers to fill positions. The average age of American skilled workers is 55, which means the bulk of our skilled worker base will retire in the next decade. There are not enough skilled workers to replace them and maintain the nation's competitive global position. In my interviews with employers across the nation, I hear the same story: Business owners are desperate for skilled workers. Many are reaching out to local schools to attract young people into the trades. Despite the offer of good pay and benefits, the noble skills that involve working with your hands and mind don't hold the same

appeal as they did in decades past. Some businesses are considering moving their operations (and jobs) overseas. We're experiencing the loss of the once-vaunted edge that America enjoyed. From aviation to energy, our national security is at risk. In

order to maintain the world's most sophisticated military, we must produce systems, parts and hardware in America. Without domestic manufacturing operations, critical component work has been moved offshore as a stop-gap measure. The lens through which I view the world is simple: The manual arts always take precedence over the fine arts. Remember, someone had to build the ceiling before Michelangelo could go to work. Negative images of skilled workers - what I call "essential workers" - pervade our culture. The truth is, high-profile athletes and entertainers are non-essential. If all the celebrities like me disappeared overnight, it would be sad, but the world would continue with little disruption. But if plumbers, electricians, welders, carpenters, lathe operators, truck drivers and other "essentials" disappeared, our country would grind to a halt.

2NC Solvency – Economy

Raising the cap on H1B visas solves the economy-

1) Outsourcing – H1B’s bring jobs back onshoreJames Sherk and Diem Nguyen 9- Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis for Labor Policy; Douglas Research Assistant and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies; , “Restricting H-1B Visas Is Bad for Business and the Economy”; http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/05/restricting-h-1b-visas-is-bad-for-business-and-the-economy

American employers cannot find enough highly skilled workers to fill essential positions. There are not enough American workers with advanced skills in computer, engineering, and mathematical occupations to perform the work that many high-tech companies need. This shortage of skilled labor has forced many companies to outsource operations abroad. Raising the cap on H-1B visas for skilled workers would allow American businesses to expand operations here in the United States, creating more jobs and higher wages for American workers. Increasing the H-1B cap would also raise significant tax revenue from highly skilled and highly paid workers. Heritage Foundation calculations

show that raising the cap to 195,000 visas would increase revenues by a total of nearly $69 billion

over eight years . Unlike tax increases, this would be an economically beneficial source of revenue for

PAYGO offsets. (The pay-as-you-go rule mandates that any new congressional spending or tax changes must not add to the federal deficit; any new costs must be offset with money from existing funds.) Congress should therefore act now to raise the cap on visas for highly skilled workers.


2) Job generation- Increasing cap to 195,000 solves James Sherk and Diem Nguyen 9- Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis for Labor Policy; Douglas Research Assistant and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies; , “Restricting H-1B Visas Is Bad for Business and the Economy”; http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/05/restricting-h-1b-visas-is-bad-for-business-and-the-economy

Reports have indicated that Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) plan to introduce a bill that would limit the ability of companies to hire H-1B employees.[1] Arguing that H-1B visa recipients are a threat to American workers, their proposal would add new layers of regulation and procedures making it more difficult for companies to hire foreigners. This argument is misguided. Given the current economic climate, handcuffing employers from hiring talented workers will hurt --not help--the economy , further delaying the ability of businesses to restart the national economic engine . In order to grow the American economy and support the American workforce, Congress should expand and improve the H-1B visa program. Unfounded Fears of the H-1B Current law restricts the H-1B visa to highly skilled foreigners who have an undergraduate degree or higher. Each year, the federal government allows 65,000 visas to be issued, with an additional 20,000 visas for people who have masters degrees or higher. The visas are granted to individuals who have been offered employment in the United States. It is valid for three years and can be renewed once for an additional three years. Many believe H-1B workers merely compete with Americans looking for work. They are wrong. The U.S. workforce is not a " zero-sum game." One hired H-1B worker does not mean an American is out of a job. In fact, the National Foundation for American Policy found that employers hired four new American workers for each new H-1B employee they hire. Additionally, hiring H-1B employees does not lower the wages of American workers. Current law requires that when employers apply for H-1B visas, they must attest that they will pay the visa recipient the same wage they would pay an American with similar skill sets. Rather than limiting the ability of employers to hire H-1B workers by adding more rules and restrictions, Congress should ensure the federal government exercises appropriate oversight in enforcing current laws. Closing the Doors on H-1B Preventing companies from hiring foreign workers harms the U.S. economy's ability to rapidly adapt to marketplace demands. Companies must be able to hire persons best suited to fill positions based on their skill sets--not their nationality. People have varying skill sets unrelated to their country of residence. Simply requiring companies to hire Americans means that the company may not get the best qualified person or even the individual with the right set of professional skills to do the job. The federal government should not be making personnel decisions for American businesses. Keeping the Visa Successful Adding regulations to the H-1B program would be a serious setback to U.S. visa policy and would only end up hurting the U.S. economy. Instead, Congress should Return the cap to the 2001 quota of 195,000 visas a year . Make the program flexible. If the visa quota is met the year before, the cap should be automatically increased by a preset amount legislated by Congress. In addition, unused visas should be recaptured and used the following

year. Create interoperable databases. Making sure the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security databases are interoperable will help minimize the number of fraudulent cases. Increase oversight. The federal government should keep employers who have hired H-1B employees accountable to the program rules. Random site visits should be conducted to ensure employers are following the rules. By improving and expanding the H-1B visa program, Congress can ensure that American businesses have the workforces necessary for further economic growth.


3) Innovation- it’s key to a rebound Ajay Malshe, Cornell Law School J.D.; Goodwin Procter Fellow at the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights

(CAIR) Coalition in Washington D.C, 2010, “From Obsolete to Essential: How Reforming Our Immigration Laws Can Stimulate and Strengthen the United States Economy,” 3 Alb. Gov't L. Rev. 358, HeinOnline

Despite the clearly positive impact that immigrants can have in reviving the U.S. economy, the government has already begun instituting protectionist policies, most notably with the Grassley Sanders amendment to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. ‘ Section 1611 of the new law restricts the ability of companies receiving Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funding from hiring 11-113 workers except under certain conditions.’49 Most notably, banks and other financial institutions are now barred from hiring H-1B workers unless they have offered those positions first to equally qualified U.S. workers.’5° Therefore, employers receiving TARP assistance must now comply with LCA attestations previously imposed only on H-1B dependent employers)” The Economist has also argued that “[r]estricting the immigration of highly skilled workers ” in the stimulus plan “ will hurt America’s ability to innovate” and revive the economy)5 TARP restrictions will only hinder the country’s ability to more efficiently dig out of this crisis. Furthermore, President Obama has stated that part of the solution to the economic crisis will come from our investment in science, research, and technology.’53 This will “lead to new medical breakthroughs, new discoveries, and entire new industries.” Immigrants are disproportionately represented in the field of research and their innovative ideas can potentially create jobs and jumpstart the economy .’55 However, because the government only issues 65,000 H- lB temporary visas each year , the U nited S tates cannot properly spend the billions of dollars allocated to scientific research in the stimulus plan because there are not enough highly skilled workers to take advantage of the allotted funds ) While education reform may eventually provide the United States with a native labor force capable of meeting the demand for highly skilled workers in the science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) fields, such changes will not take place for some time. The U nited S tates must continue to usher in highly skilled foreign labor to use the stimulus funding effectively and help renew its commitment to groundbreaking research . Reforming the immigration scheme to remove backlogs and quotas in immigrant visas while allowing more highly skilled foreign professionals to contribute their innovative ideas and unique backgrounds will allow the United States to spearhead the kind of research and development needed to strengthen the fundamentals of the economy and bring it out of recession . Most importantly, however, the U nited S tates must avoid the urge to hide behind protectionist policies and prevent immigrants from being able to make a valuable contribution. In doing so, the U nited S tates will rise out of this economic crisis and secure the long-term economic future of this country.

4) Reverse brain drain Case et all, 11,Steve Case-Revolution CEO, John Doerr-Partner of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers ; Paul Otellini- Intel Corporation CEO, and Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook COO, all members of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness; “America needs a 21st century immigration policy”; May 19, 2011; Reuters, http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2011/05/19/america-needs-a-21st-century-immigration-policy/)

President Obama’s recent focus on immigration highlights America’s “broken” system and its impact on our economy. Fixing it requires Republicans and Democrats to show political courage and implement reforms to expand and strengthen the American economy. As members of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, we share his deep concern that our nation’s ability to compete economically

is being damaged by the two parties battling over immigration laws and policies . To some, the link

between immigration reform and economic growth may be surprising. To America’s most innovative

industries, it is a link we know is fundamental. The global economy means companies that drive U.S. job creation and economic growth are in a worldwide competition for talent . While other countries are aggressively creating policies and incentives to attract a highly educated workforce, America has stagnated. Once a magnet for the world’s top minds, America now faces a “reverse brain drain” and is no longer the first choice for many entrepreneurs creating new companies and jobs. America needs a pro-growth immigration system that works for U.S. workers and employers in today’s global economy. And we need it now.


We control uniqueness – Economic crisis is looming due to workforce deficiencies

a. Babyboomer retirement Evan Nolan, JD Candidate Georgetown University Law Center, Fall 2009, “Picking Up After The Baby Boomers: Can Immigrants Carry The Load?,” 24 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 77, Lexis

The landscape of the U.S. labor market is set to change dramatically in the next several decades. The largest generation in the history of our nation is preparing to retire. The Baby Boomer generation will exit the workforce in significant numbers over the next twenty to thirty years. n1 Behind them, the Baby Boomers leave arguably the greatest period of workforce productivity ever accomplished. Unfortunately, the achievements may be second thoughts to the pending crises that the retiring generation will also leave behind them. In the next couple years, the oldest of that generation will reach the age of sixty-five and begin thinking about retirement. The oldest of the Baby Boomer generation has already filed for Social Security benefits. n2 Over the next twenty years, more than seventy million Americans will follow. Subsequent generations have not sustained the growth of the Baby Boomers and will not have the capacity to fill the workforce void or pay for their parents' retirement. n3 The current financial crisis only darkens the forecast. The Baby Boomer retirement could potentially cause

two major economic crises : an "entitlement crisis" and a "workforce crisis ." n4 The entitlement crisis

involves the growing discrepancy between revenue from payroll taxes and the federal expenditures on Social Security, Medicare, and other social aid, particularly for retirees who have paid their dues. A potentially debilitating workforce crisis would also ensue when millions set to retire from a labor force that is already seeing declines in growth. n5 Dowell Myers and other social scientists have sought to turn this awful predicament into opportunity, by throwing open the doors to immigration. n6 [*78] They suggest that by liberalizing immigration policies, the influx of immigrants would "significantly mitigate" the entitlement and workforce crises , and the "illegal" stigma attached to millions of unauthorized immigrants would be removed. n7 These immigrants could legally join the American workforce, filling the void left by Baby Boomers and contributing to the Social Security coffers through taxes. n8 The economic benefits of immigration, and even "permitting" undocumented workers, are clear. n9 Expanding the workforce, and subsequently the economy, helps promote GDP growth and provides an answer to the Baby Boomer crises.


b. STEM worker shortage Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, research fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, 7-1-

2008, “US High-Skilled Immigration Policy: A Self-Inflicted Wound,” Peterson Institute for International Economics, http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=972

America rose to global economic prominence, superpower status, and victory in the Cold War on the shoulders of the most highly skilled workforce in the world. However, America's global "skills leadership" is now under challenge. An increasingly vicious combination of long-term trends in the form of retiring baby boomers and stagnating US educational attainment, combined with increasingly restrictive laws on high-skilled

immigration increasingly undermines the US position. This will seriously jeopardize long-term economic

growth opportunities, especially for US high-tech sectors. Aging US baby boomers were the best-educated workers in the world when they entered the workforce 30-some years ago. Building on visionary policies like the GI Bill of 1944, college-level graduation rates for US baby boomers reached almost 40 percent during this period, far exceeding graduation rates of 20 to 25 percent enjoyed by contemporary British, French, German, or Japanese baby boom generations in the late 1960s and 1970s. The year 2008 is the first in which Americans born after World War II can retire with public pensions—hence, the loss of large numbers of well-educated baby boomers will be more severely felt in the United States than among other major industrialized economies. Another long-term worry is the stagnation seen in the average educational attainment of Americans in recent decades. Almost unique in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the tertiary-level graduation rates among present-day US labor market entrants, aged 25 to 34, is the same as that of their baby boomer parents,

aged 55 to 64—stuck below 40 percent. Hence, there's a risk in coming years that as many high-skilled Americans will retire as will enter the workforce. The century-long continuous compositional skills improvement of America's workforce

may soon end. Moreover, while America failed to continue to improve broad educational standards during the

last 30 years, the rest of the world has not stood still. Today, over 50 percent of young Canadians, Japanese, and Koreans obtain tertiary education representing a vast educational advancement relative to their parents' generation. American labor market entrants today

barely make the global skills top-10 list. As a direct result, for the first time in generations, the US risks becoming less skill-abundant than an increasing number of its global economic competitors (see figure 11). US and Canadian baby boomers, aged 55 to 64, were indeed the "brightest kids on the global trading block," when they entered the workforce and rapidly globalizing marketplace. Thus baby boomers were ready to take advantage of trade liberalization and the opening of global markets during the last part of the 20th century, far less true for today's American youth. Policymakers cannot stop the graying of the US population or the imminent retirement of baby boomers. Similarly, successful overhaul of the US education sector could only begin to reverse more than 30 years of educational stagnation over the long term. Improving the education system is hardly a realistic or quick solution to forestalling broad skill

shortages in the US economy over the next decade. US policymakers can only hope to counter these long-term phenomena in a timely manner by reforming high-skilled immigration policies and facilitating the continued and

increasingly economically necessary inflow of high-skilled workers from abroad. Instead, US high-skilled immigration policies have in recent years become tangibly more restrictive—waylaid by wider congressional gridlock on immigration and political emphasis on indiscriminate enforcement. This restrictiveness is relative to earlier periods in US history and, more importantly, other industrialized countries today. In April 2008, for instance, about half of 163,000 US businesses wishing to hire a foreign high-skilled worker on H-1B visas were denied this opportunity by the annual quota of 85,000 available visas2 (65,000 plus 20,000 available to foreign graduates with advanced degrees from US universities). The immigration policy undermines the economic characteristics—entrepreneurial vitality and mastery of new advanced technologies—that make the United States the envy of the world. Just like Google, eBay, and Yahoo, more than half of engineering and technology companies founded in Silicon Valley from 1995 to 2005 had at least one foreign-born founder.3 More than a third of US venture capital–backed technology firms report shifting investments and jobs outside the country due to restrictive regulation,4 and America's largest, most competitive companies cannot get visas for foreign high-skilled workers they want to hire. Meanwhile, contours of the global battlefield for talent are rapidly changing. The recent proposal for an EU "Blue Card" would allow high-skilled workers from outside the European Union to work in multiple EU countries, just one example of a new trend across the OECD. Affected by more rapid population aging than the United States, other OECD countries aggressively work to liberalize their high-skilled immigration laws, while simultaneously tightening

regulation of low-skilled and humanitarian-based immigration. Ironically, the other nations frequently copy US policies, particularly those that attract and retain foreign students. Equally worrisome for the United States, the top countries of origin for high-skilled migrants—fast-growing China and India—offer incentives for skilled workers to return home. In 2007, China launched its "green passage" initiative, aimed at luring back tens of thousands of acclaimed overseas Chinese scientists, engineers, and executives with promises of guaranteed university places for their children, exemption from household-residence registration—or hokou—requirements, and tax benefits.5 The United States—historically the world's country of choice for foreign high-skilled workers—has the most to lose from any change in these human-capital flows. While the rest of

the rich world has caught up in welcoming high-skilled foreigners, the United States could soon struggle to attract global talent. With the skill-base of the US workforce declining at an accelerating pace relative to the rest of the world, America in the

21st century will need foreign high-skilled workers more than ever. At stake is the ability of the US economy to thrive in the global marketplace.

2NC Solvency – Competitiveness

Admitting highly skilled workers boosts US competitivenessMarshall Fitz, Director of Immigration Policy at the Center for American Progress 12-2009, “Prosperous immigrants, Prosperous Americans,” Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/12/pdf/highskilled_immigrants.pdf

Reforming our high-skilled immigration system will stimulate innovation, enhance competitiveness, and help cultivate a flexible, highly-skilled U.S. workforce while protecting U.S. workers from globalization’s destabilizing effects. Our economy has benefitted enormously from being able to tap the international pool of human capital . 5 Arbitrary limitations on our ability to continue doing so are ultimately self-defeating: Companies will lose out to their competitors making them less profitable, less productive, and less able to grow; or they will move their operations abroad with all the attendant negative economic consequences. And the federal treasury loses tens of billions of dollars in tax revenues by restricting the opportunities for high-skilled foreign workers to remain in the United States.6

We control uniqueness – There’s massive workforce shortage looming – visa change is key to restoring US competitivenessDowell Myers, Professor at the USC School of Policy Planning and Development, director of Population Dynamics Research Group and Co-Director of the Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration, 11-24-

2008, “Old Promises and New Blood: How Immigration Reform Can Help America Prosper in the Face of Baby Boomer Retirement,” The Reform Institute, http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/15660.pdf

America is facing a demographic tsunami. The aging of the population will have a profound impact on the federal budget, the workforce, and the housing market. The response to these perils will determine if the United States continues to be a global leader in the 21st century capable of

supporting high economic growth and a rising standard of living. Immigration will play a vital role in

confronting the challenges posed by an aging society and keeping three promises at the heart of our economic success: a secure retirement for seniors; an ample and competent workforce for employers; and a healthy housing market for families. Policy makers cannot afford to view immigration and the retirement of baby boomers as two separate phenomena. We must evaluate our immigration needs in light of the pending massive movement of a significant portion of the population out of the labor pool and housing market and into government funded entitlement programs. Keeping our bedrock promises

will require new blood from beyond our borders. Immigrants can significantly mitigate the three

crises. By firmly grasping the implications of the graying of America we can develop a practical immigration policy that meets the nation’s future needs and enhances our resilience against powerful demographic and economic forces that threaten our global standing and competitiveness.

user, 11/12/12,

Highly Skilled Immigrants boost competitiveness:-innovation-highly-skilled workforce-prevent companies from shutting down or moving-tax revenues


And it’s key to competitivenessJonathan G. Goodrich, March 2008, “Immigration in the Twenty-First Century,” 42 U. Rich. L. Rev. 975, ln

In multiple ways, immigration, whether temporary or permanent, provides for economic growth. Economists estimate that at a minimum America's foreign-born population adds $ 12 billion to the economy by working, consuming, investing, and paying taxes. n97 Despite claims to the contrary, the costs associated with immigration do not outweigh these economic benefits. n98 Moreover, [*987] immigration enhances the competitiveness of the United States in today's global economy by allowing multinational corporations to integrate their operations and recruit skills from a global labor force. n99 At both ends of the occupational spectrum, however, family-focused, security-centric immigration laws prevent U.S. businesses from hiring necessary workers. n100 For cashiers and computer scientists, for those that build homes and for those that build robots, U.S immigration policies are an impediment to, rather than a facilitator of, economic progress. Several factors influence economic growth, including labor force expansion, technology, education, entrepreneurship, and research. n101 Two closely watched factors are a country's productivity rate and its labor growth. n102 Due to a baby-boomer generation on the verge of mass retirement, n103 a declining U.S. fertility rate, n104 and a country at near full employment, economists predict that satisfactory economic expansion will not come from increased productivity. n105 Thus, continued economic success must rely upon a growing labor force. n106 The immigration polices that are now in place, however, prevent that growth from occurring. In addition to immigration's economic implications, living in a post-9/11 world means that security concerns are now also intertwined with immigration policy. But overly broad security measures disregard important economic considerations and result in [*988] unintended and negative consequences on actual security. Millions of low-skilled workers illegally come to the United States and live in near anonymity in order to fill available jobs - many of which are both vital to the economy and the country's infrastructure. Millions of high-skilled workers cannot come to the United States; yet, as President Bush explained, "science and technology [are] essential to the defense of the Nation and the health of our economy." n107 Increasingly, American companies have to rely on foreign businesses in key technological areas. n108 Moreover, the remittances that noncitizens send back to their native countries create strategic ties for the United States and provide an indirect form of international aid. n109 This benefits American security by reducing the lack of education and poverty that often breeds terrorism. n110 Full of rhetoric, however, Congress's current black and white approach to immigration fails to promote either the economy or security of the United States.


Solves global competitiveness- more talent Santiago A. Cueto 6/26/12, International Business Law Advisor and head of Cueto Law Group Firm, “How to make America More Competitive, First, Abolish the H1-B Visa Quota”-International Business Law Advisor: Insights on International Litigation and Transactions, http://www.internationalbusinesslawadvisor.com/2012/06/articles/random-thoughts-and-observatio/h1-b-visa/

As an international attorney based in Miami, I field lots of questions from both foreign and domestic companies looking to hire foreign workers for skilled positions available in our region. ¶ And that’s hardly a surprise– there are hundreds of foreign based multinational companies operating in our region including Embraer, Telefonica, Bacardi and Komatsu. ¶ The primary mechanism by which foreign workers are hired by these companies is through the H-1B temporary visas. These visas are typically the only practical way for a skilled foreign national to work long-term in the United States. ¶ That’s why I was disappointed to learn that companies in Florida–or anywhere in the U.S.– won’t be able to hire anyone on a new H-1B visa until April, 2013. ¶ This is because the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services just announced that it reached the statutory cap for Hi-B visas for the current fiscal year. ¶ While it will still be possible for those already in H-1B status to change jobs to another employer or for someone to obtain a new H-1B visa to work at a university or nonprofit research institute (and other limited exceptions) all new H1-B applications will be rejected for the next 15 months. ¶ The moratorium on issuing H1-B visas could not have come at a worse time. America is struggling to get back on its feet after suffering through the most severe fiscal crisis since the Great Depression. ¶

Eliminating multinational companies from hiring highly skilled labor will only make the U.S. less

competitive and prolong an already glacially paced recovery. ¶ As one Forbes Capital Flows

commenter noted in the article H1-B Visa Quotas Greatly Restrain Small Business Expansion: ¶ Global

competition requires access to the world’s best talent. Yet during this same period, Congress has

allowed the H-1B quota for high-skilled workers to drop in half—from 195,000 in 2001 to 85,000 today. In 2006, the quota was tapped in less than two months. In 2008, it vanished in less than a day—nearly 125,000 applications were received in just two days. ¶ The article further notes that: ¶ A 2009 National Foundation for American Policy study found that every H-1B request is correlated with five new jobs at major firms and more than seven jobs at firms with less than 5,000 employees. H-1B restrictions slow this expansion and hurt economic growth. ¶ As the article makes clear, immigration quotas and restrictions are fundamentally unfair and stand in the way of America’s future prosperity. ¶ The only fair thing to do is to abolish the H-1B quota. ¶ Doing so would benefit all Americans and

result increased innovation, entrepreneurship, and job creation .

Boosting high-skilled immigration restores US competitivenessDarrel M. West, vice president and director of Governance Studies and founding director of the Center

for Technology Innovation at Brookings Institute, 2010, Brain Gain: Rethinking U.S. Immigration Policy

The most important challenge is to develop a new narrative that defines immigration as a brain gain that improves economic competitiveness and national innovation. A focus on brains and competitiveness would help America overcome past deficiencies in immigration policy and help the country meet the economic and innovation challenges of the twenty-first century.’ There is considerable evidence that the United States is falling behind on innovation. An analysis of patents granted shows that the long-term U.S. dominance has come to an end. In 1999 American scientists were granted 90,000 patents, compared with 70,000 for those from all other countries. In 2009, for the first time in recent years, non-U.S. innovators earned more patents (around 96,000) than did Americans (93,000). one-third of the American workforce holds science or technology positions. That is slightly less than the 34 percent figure for Germany and the Netherlands hut is higher than the 28 percent in Canada and France. Looking at another measure, the U.S. government spends only 2.8 percent of its GDP on public research and development. That is less than the 4.3 percent spent by Sweden, 3.1 percent by Japan, and 3.0 percent by South Korea hut is more than is spent by Germany (2.5 percent), France (2.2 per cent), Canada (1 .9 percent), or England (1 .9 percent). Europe as a whole devotes 1.9 percent of its total GDP to research and development, while industrialized nations spend around 2.3 percent.’


Immigration Key- spur innovation and competitiveness

David Park 3/23/12, Jobs Creation Alliance Founder/Creator, “Immigration Reform is key to Job Creation”, US News and World Report, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/03/23/immigration-reform-is-key-to-job-creation

As America continues to look for more jobs Washington can't seem to come up with an answer. We've heard solutions from policy wonks, politicians, and academics, but rarely from people who have first-hand experience actually creating jobs. The voice of the small business owner is faintly being heard, but I'm not so sure our friends on Capitol Hill are listening. There is continual talk about destructive regulations and burdensome red tape, but very little discussion over specific policies and regulations that are so burdensome and in need of reform. Well, here's one from a job creator: immigration.¶

Immigration reform is key to spurring innovation and getting the economy back on track. I'm a small business owner who realizes the role legal immigrants play in creating new jobs. As founder and CEO of a boutique merchant bank, I've started or acquired nearly 30 small and midsize companies, creating hundreds of jobs for Americans across the country. I am also an immigrant and an example of how highly-skilled immigrants educated in the United States can drive job creation right here at home. ¶

Employment-based immigration provides ways for highly skilled immigrants to come to the United States on either a permanent or temporary visa and contribute to our economy. I came to the United States at the age of six because my parents wanted me to have the opportunity to live the American Dream. While at that time, immigration law was by no means lax, the window of legal immigration opportunity has been closing more and more as the process gets bogged down in the bureaucratic morass. The sad truth is, America's dysfunctional immigration law doesn't hurt the would-be immigrants

as much as it cripples our nation's competitiveness and prospect for future prosperity and job growth .¶

Solv – Hegemony

Highly skilled immigration makes heg sustainable and effectiveJoseph Nye, Harvard University Distinguished Service Professor and Sultan of Oman Professor of

International Relations at Harvard Kennedy School, Nov. 2010, “The Future of American Power: Dominance and Decline in Perspective,” Foreign Affiars, Nov/Dec

Some argue that the United States suffers from "imperial overstretch," but so far, the facts do not fit that theory. On the contrary, defense and foreign affairs expenditures have declined as a share of GDP over the past several decades. Nonetheless, the United States could decline not because of imperial overstretch but because of domestic underreach. Rome rotted from within, and some observers, noting the sourness of current U.S. politics, project that the United States will lose its ability to influence world events because of domestic battles over culture, the collapse of its political institutions, and economic stagnation. This possibility cannot be ruled out, but the trends are not as clear as the current gloomy mood suggests. Although the United States has many social problems--and always has--they do not seem to be getting worse in any linear manner. Some of these problems are even improving, such as rates of crime, divorce, and teenage pregnancy. Although there are culture wars over issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion, polls show an overall increase in tolerance. Civil society is robust, and church attendance is high, at 42 percent. The country's past cultural battles, over immigration, slavery, evolution, temperance, McCarthyism, and civil rights, were arguably more serious than any of today's. A graver concern would be if the country turned inward and seriously curtailed immigration. With its current levels of immigration, the United States is one of the few developed countries that may avoid demographic decline and keep its share of world population, but this could change if xenophobia or reactions to terrorism closed its borders. The percentage of foreign-born residents in the United States reached its twentieth-century peak, 14.7 percent, in 1910. Today, 11.7 percent of U.S. residents are foreign born, but in 2009, 50 percent of Americans favored decreasing immigration, up from 39 percent in 2008. The economic recession has only aggravated the problem. Although too rapid a rate of immigration can cause social problems, over the long term, immigration strengthens U.S. power. Today, the United States is the world's third most populous country; 50 years from now, it is likely to still be third (after India and China). Not only is this relevant to economic power, but given that nearly all developed countries are aging and face the burden of providing for the older generation, immigration could help reduce the sharpness of the resulting policy problem. In addition, there is a strong correlation between the number of H-1B visas and the number of patents filed in the United States. In 1998, Chinese- and Indian-born engineers were running one-quarter of Silicon Valley's high-tech businesses, and in 2005, immigrants were found to have helped start one of every four American technology start-ups over the previous decade. Equally important are the benefits of immigration for the United States' soft power. Attracted by the upward mobility of American immigrants, people want to come to the United States. The United States is a magnet, and many people can envisage themselves as Americans. Many successful Americans look like people in other countries. Rather than diluting hard and soft power, immigration enhances both. When

Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew concludes that China will not surpass the United States as the leading power of the twenty-first century, he cites the ability of the United States to attract the best and brightest from the rest of the world and meld them into a diverse culture of creativity. China has a larger population to recruit from domestically, but in his view, its Sinocentric culture will make it less creative than the United States, which can draw on the whole world.

Solv – Hegemony

Highly skilled immigrants are vital to US leadershipEd Hooper, staff writer, 4-28-2010, “Politics Trumping Visa Reform,” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ed-hooper/politics-trumping-visa-re_b_555596.html

National organizations estimate more than 37 percent of PhDs in science and engineering awarded by colleges and universities each year go to foreign-born students. While most are reportedly staying according to a 2007 study, experts say those numbers are likely to nosedive in the next report. Undoubtedly the U.S. produces great home-grown engineers and scientists, but a formidable number of immigrants have brought revolutionary advances in sciences and technologies to American shores. Croatian immigrant Nikola Tesla made the national electrical grid possible with his invention of a coil. Russian immigrant and aviation pioneer Igor Sikorsky invented the helicopter. German immigrant Albert Einstein and Italian immigrant Enrico Fermi helped usher in the atomic sciences. Hungarian immigrant John von Neumann pioneered the digital age that made computers possible. And, if Werner von Braun hadn't surrendered to the 44th Infantry Division in World War II Berlin, Americans wouldn't have had a space program. These immigrants helped form the backbone of U.S. leadership in science and technology that sustained this nation on the world's stage for the last 100 years. This is one case where the U.S. needs history to repeat itself. The unique business model that drives competitiveness between private and government laboratories in a capitalist system has been the propellant that maintains the U.S. as the world's leader in science and technology. From Silicon Valley to Oak Ridge, the greatest tool American-based companies have is their historical ability to bring in talented foreign minds without hassle to research, start new businesses and teach at colleges or universities. And it

must be preserved .

Highly skilled immigrants are key to US leadership and military superiorityDoris Meissner, former Commissioner of the US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and Senior Fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, Deborah w. Meyers, Demetrios g. Papademetriou and

Michael Fix, Summer 2007, “Immigration and America's Future: A New Chapter,” 5 Geo. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 473, Lexis

Immigration helps the United States maintain its leadership in science and technological innovation, which has traditionally been a foundation of American economic power and performance. Some of the world's most talented people are attracted to the United States for schooling, work, and freedom. The attraction often springs from the American higher education system, which [*477] provides an unrivalled teaching and research infrastructure. Seventeen of the top twenty universities considered to be the best in the world are located in the United States. n22 This higher education system sustains U.S. leadership in the global marketplace and undergirds U.S. superiority in critical national security

sectors such as defense and intelligence. Science and engineering specialties are particularly essential

to national security and economic success, and here immigrants play a substantial role. While 12% of the population and 14% of the workforce were foreign-born in 2003, a quarter of all college-educated

workers in science and engineering occupations were foreign-born; 40% of scientists and engineers holding doctoral degrees were foreign-born; and a majority of doctorate holders in computer science, electrical engineering, civil engineering, and mechanical engineering were foreign-born. n23 In 2005, graduate enrollments in engineering were 48% foreign-born temporary residents; in the physical sciences, they were 40%. n24 In contrast, the two largest graduate fields chosen by native-born students are education and public administration. n25 In the 2006 State of the Union address, President Bush announced the American Competitiveness Initiative, an ambitious math and science education program that funds increased training to maintain American leadership in innovation. n26 At the same time, foreign students and professionals will continue to play a key role in maintaining the country's edge in the global economy. And, given the global nature of science and technology research and development, workers in these careers will likely always be mobile and international. Effective, predictable, and welcoming immigration regimes are becoming important factors in a newly competitive global environment. The United States thus has a strong interest in building an immigration system that provides opportunities for the highly skilled and their families to travel, work, and live here.

Solv – Green Tech

Highly skilled immigrants are key to developing the US alternative energy industryJeff Joseph, A Senior Partner at the Joseph Law Firm, “Immigration: They Key to a Booming, Green

Economy,” 6-25-2010, http://josephlawfirm.blogspot.com/2010/06/immigration-key-to-booming-green.html

If there is one thing on which economists, analysts, and researchers seem to agree, it is this: Immigration is essential to keeping American business at the top of the international business market, especially in the energy and engineering sectors. Indeed, even some politicians, such as New York’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Richard Lugar (R-IN), have recognized the important role immigration has to play in American business. According to Mayor Bloomberg, “Our immigration policy is national suicide. I can’t think of any ways to destroy this country quite as direct and impactful as our immigration policy. We educate the best and the brightest and then we don’t give them a green card. We want to create jobs and we won’t let entrepreneurs from around the world come here.” It is for that reason that Senators Kerry and Lugar have introduced the Startup Visa Act. The Startup Visa Act proposes legislation that would modify the EB-5 Visa to increase job creation and America’s international business competitive edge. Immigrant entrepreneurs who are creating new businesses would be able to obtain visas, so long as there is investment capital from within the U.S. of at least $100,000 and equity financing of at least $250,000. A new Migrant Policy Institute Report, The Impact of Immigrants in Recession and Economic Expansion, found that “immigration unambiguously improves employment, productivity and income,” although it does require some short-term adjustments, such as job training or new technology. Despite common conceptions among Americans, immigration does not reduce Americans’ employment rates over the long-term (ten years). But it does increase Americans’ productivity and the average income over the same period. In fact, immigration between 1990 and 2006 is credited with a 2.9% wage increase among American workers. Still, immigration during a recession can have short-term, negative effects, but those effects dissipate fairly quickly, within seven years at most. In contrast, immigration during economic growth periods has an immediate, positive effect, creating enough jobs to leave Americans’ jobs completely untouched. Darrell M. West, author of a new book, Brain Gain: Rethinking U.S. Immigration Policy (Brookings Institution Press, 2010), points out that many of America’s greatest scientists, inventors, educators, and entrepreneurs came to the United States as immigrants. He asserts that the U.S. must establish an increased open-door policy to attract unique foreign talent in the fields of energy, information technology, and international commerce. In a review of the book, Mayor Bloomberg recognizes that “the most important step we can take to strengthen America’s long-term economic health is passing comprehensive immigration reform. For America to compete in the 21st Century, we need to be able to attract—and keep—the world’s best, brightest, and hardest working.” And this seems to be particularly important in the green energy field. A recent report published by the Immigration Policy Center of the American Immigraiton Council, authored by Richard T. Herman and Robert L. Smith, Why Immigration Can Drive the Green Economy, discusses how the connection between immigration and the development and commercialization of alternative fuel sources is rarely discussed among

policymakers. Yet it is this very connection that will help the United States lead the way towards cleaner, less expensive energy. Although policymakers imagine that the development of renewable energy will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, most fail to understand that much of the clean-energy talent remains abroad. Thus, experts urge that expanding our own clean-energy industry will require working with people overseas, in countries that have been pursuing alternative fuel sources for several decades already. Unfortunately, tough immigration restrictions make this type of foreign collaboration difficult, if not impossible.

Solv – Hegemony

Even without foreign founders – there aren’t enough workers to sustain domestic clean tech companiesNorman C. Plotkin, immigration attorney and partner at Jackson & Hertogs LLP, 3-16-2009, “Time to plan for the H-1B visa filing deadline,” http://cleantech.com/news/4270/time-plan-h-1b-visa-filing-deadline

Clean technology companies in the U.S. may find themselves in the unusual position of receiving federal stimulus funding while at the same time not being able to hire and retain key employees. The economic downturn has stopped many employers across all industries from making new hires, but cleantech companies are gearing up for even greater hiring to meet the challenges of our changing economy. However, many of the best potential hires will be foreign nationals who require employment authorization issued by U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) to legally work in the U.S. Many times the most appropriate visa for these workers is the H-1B visa. The H-1B nonimmigrant visa is for highly skilled workers and is one of the few visas available to foreign scientists and engineers to work for U.S. companies. The predicament is that H-1B visas are not always available. Strict annual quotas have meant that many more H-1B visas have been requested in each of the last few years than available numbers. What this means for cleantech companies is that they in particular may be barred from hiring key personnel because of strict reductions in visa numbers. Since most cleantech companies are startups, they may not be prepared to deal with this hiring issue because they do not have the infrastructure in human resources to make them aware of the restrictions. For individuals who have not already been counted against the annual H-1B cap, there is only a short window in which to file H-1B visa petitions: between April 1 and 7, 2009. Given the relative youth of cleantech, cleantech companies are particularly vulnerable to being shut out by the H-1B cap. How many F-1 students (recent Masters and PhD candidates) has your company hired in the past year? If you even have one, you should be looking at a long term solution to keeping the F-1 student on board. What are your hiring needs going into the balance of the calendar year?

Solv – STEM Shortage XT

US economic leadership is collapsing now because of the STEM gapMarvin Cetron, president of forecasing international Ltd and Oven Davies, science analyst and

former senior editor of Omni magazine, 8-2010, “Trends Shaping Tomorrow's World forces in the natural and Institutional environment,” The Futurist, Vol. 44, No. 4

The United States is losing its scientific and technical leadership to other countries. * "The scientific and technical building blocks of our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strength," the National Academy of Sciences warns. "Although many people assume that the United States will always be a world leader in science and technology, this may not continue to be the case inasmuch as great minds and ideas exist throughout the world. We fear the abruptness with which a lead in science and technology can be lost--and the difficulty of recovering a lead once lost, if indeed it can be regained at all." * According to the National Science Board, R&D spending grows by 6% per year in the United States, on average. China spends 20% more on R&D each year. * China is now second to the United States in the number of research articles its scientists publish each year and gaining rapidly. * In patents earned each year, Americans are now in sixth place and falling. * Military research now absorbs much of the money that once supported basic science. Since 2000, U.S. federal spending on defense research has risen an average of 7.4% per year, compared with only 4.5% for civilian research. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has been legendary for its support of "blue sky" research that led to dramatic technical advances, including the creation of the Internet. Today it focuses increasingly on immediate military needs and low-risk development efforts. * More than half of American scientists and engineers are nearing retirement. At the rate American students are entering these fields, the retirees cannot be replaced except by recruiting foreign scientists. According to the National Academy of Engineering, the United States produces only about 7% of the world's engineers. Only 6% of American undergraduates are engineering majors, compared with 12% in Europe and 40% in China. Of the doctoral degrees in science awarded by American universities, about 30% go to foreign students. In engineering, it is 60%. * By inhibiting stem-cell research, cloning, and other specialties, the United States has made itself less attractive to cutting-edge biomedical scientists. The United Kingdom is capitalizing on this to become the world's leader in stem-cell research. In the process, it is reversing the brain drain that once brought top British scientists to the United States. More than 70 leading American biomedical researchers have moved to the U.K. along with many less noted colleagues. Latin America also has been receiving scientific emigres from the United States. * About 25% of America's science and engineering workforce are immigrants, including nearly half of those with doctoral degrees. During the 15 years ending in 2007, one-third of the American scientists receiving Nobel Prizes were foreign-born. * According to Purdue University President Martin Jischke, more than 90% of all scientists and engineers in the world live in Asia. Assessment and Implications: If this trend is not reversed, it will begin to undermine the U.S. economy and shift both economic and political power to other lands. According to some estimates, about half of the improvement in the American standard of living is directly attributable to research and development carried out by scientists and engineers.

Demand to import foreign scientists and engineers on H-1b visas also will continue to grow. Publicity about the H-1b program, and about the offshoring of R&D to company divisions and consulting labs in Asia, in turn will discourage American students from entering technical fields. This has already been blamed for shrinking student rolls in computer science. In 2005, China for the first time exported more IT and communications goods ($180 million) than the United States ($145 million). Its lead has grown each year since then.

Solv – Boomer Retirement XT

Highly skilled labor shortage coming – baby boomer retirementJeb Bush, former governor of Florida, Edward Alden, Bernard L. Schwartz senior fellow at the Council

on Foreign Relations, specializing in U.S. competitiveness, and Thomas F. McLarty III, former White

House Chief of Staff for US President Bill Clinton, 2009, “U.S. Immigration Policy,” Council on Foreign Relations, www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Immigration_TFR63.pdf

The Task Force believes that the costs of losing preeminence in attracting talented immigrants would be very high. The U nited S tates has hit a plateau in the numbers of American students graduating with advanced degrees, particularly in scientific and technical fields. Indeed, the number of science and engineering PhDs earned by U.S. citizens has fallen by more than 20 percent in the past decade. 23 The United States will face an accelerating shortage of highly skilled workers as the bulk of the baby boom generation starts heading into retirement. In 2006, there were more holders of master’s, professional, and doctoral degrees among the age fifty-five to fifty-nine cohort, which is nearing retirement, than among the thirty to thirty-four cohort. More worrisome, this stagnation in the educational achievement levels of Americans has come at a time when many other countries — South Korea, Canada, Japan, France, Spain, and others—have continued to expand the share of their populations receiving higher education.

Immigration key to mitigate the coming baby boomer retirementDowell Myers, Professor at the USC School of Policy Planning and Development, director of Population Dynamics Research Group and Co-Director of the Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration, 11-24-


What would these same citizens say about the three perils of our aging society? Many may not be thinking about it or considering what lies ahead. Given the substantial ways in which immigrants can help us meet our coming challenges, it is time to rethink whether immigrants are a burden or whether they might be a benefit. There are times when new blood could be much desired. The United States is currently facing a painful, yet short-term economic downturn. The aging of our society, as expressed by the ballooning senior ratio and the impending retirement of the baby boomers, represents a singular

event with severe implications for longterm economic growth and prosperity. Immigration will play a

critical role as we seek to confront this epic challenge. The next president and congress will have to deal with immigration reform and the retirement of the baby boomers. In order to deal effectively with both they must not be viewed separately. As policy makers address fixing our broken immigration system, they must be cognizant of the perils presented by the retirement of the boomers and the vital

role of a rational and forward-looking immigration policy for mitigating these threats and making America more resilient.

Solv – Outsourcing XT

Low H-1B Visas Cap outsource work and skilled foreigners NFAP 08- National Foundation for American Policy- 2008, “H1B Visas and Job Creation,” pg. 2, http://www.nfap.com/pdf/080311h1b.pdf

Preventing companies from hiring ¶ foreign nationals by maintaining the current low limit on H-1B visas is likely to produce the unintended ¶ consequence of pushing more work to other countries. When asked, “Which of the following your company has ¶ done in response to the lack of H-1B visas to fill positions in the U.S.?” 65 percent of the companies said they ¶ “Hired more people (or outsourced work) outside the United States.” This is significant in that even if those ¶ companies responding to the survey are heavier users of H-1B visas it means that these are the companies most ¶ likely to hire outside the United States in response to an insufficient supply of skilled visas for foreign nationals.¶

http://www.nfap.com/pdf/080311h1b.pdf

A2: Cap not Filled

Visa cap reached mid yearPTI 12, Press Trust of India reporter, June 14, 2012, “First time in years, cap on H1B visa reached”, The Times of India: United States, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-06-14/us/32234919_1_specialty-occupation-petitions-cap-subject-petitions-cap-on-h1b-visa

WASHINGTON: For the first time in several years, the Congressionally mandated 65,000 H-1 B work visas, the most sought after by Indian professionals in the US, has reached its cap.¶ "USCIS announced today that it has received a sufficient number of H-1 B petitions to reach the statutory cap of 65,000 for fiscal year (FY) 2013. June 11 was the final receipt date for new H-1 B specialty occupation petitions requesting an employment start date in FY 2013," an official statement said.¶ In the past few years, it either crossed over to next year or the cap was reached later in the year. It is noteworthy that the cap has been reached mid-year in particular during the recent economic crisis.

A2: Wages

H-1B Visa workers do NOT steal jobs

Immigration Policy Center 11, Immigration Policy Center; American Immigration Council; "The US Economy Still Needs Highly Skilled Foreign Workers”; 3/2011, www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/us-economy-still-needs-highly-skilled-foreign-workers/)

H-1B workers don’t “steal” jobs from U.S. workers. H-1B visas are issued to temporary, “nonimmigrant” workers in “specialty occupations.” As described by the Congressional Research Service, a “specialty occupation” is one “requiring theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in a field of human endeavor including, but not limited to, architecture, engineering, mathematics, physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, law, accounting, business specialties, theology, and the arts, and requiring the attainment of a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent as a minimum.” Under the H-1B program, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is tasked with ensuring that H-1B workers “do not displace or adversely affect wages or working conditions of U.S. workers.” To this end, each employer seeking to hire an H-1B worker is required to file a Labor Condition Application (LCA) with DOL in which “the employer must attest that the firm will pay the nonimmigrant the greater of the actual compensation paid other employees in the same job or the prevailing compensation for that occupation; the firm will provide working conditions for the nonimmigrant that do not cause the working conditions of the other employees to be adversely affected; and that there is no applicable strike or lockout.” If DOL certifies the employer’s LCA, the employer can file a petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services on behalf of a potential H-1B worker, who must demonstrate that he or she has “the requisite education and work experience” for the job. If approved, the H-1B worker is authorized to work for the U.S. employer for up three years, with one renewal allowed, for a maximum stay of six years.

A2: Brain Drain

H-1B Workers return homeMandira Banerjee 09- News Reporter for News America Media - 2009, "Hanging in Balance"; Khabar; www.khabar.com/magazine/cover-story/Hanging_In_Balance.aspx/)

Vivek Wadhwa describes the return of H-1B workers to their home countries as a reverse brain drain. “Most students and skilled temporary workers who come to the United States want to stay—but we’re leaving these potential immigrants little choice but to return home.” In non-technology fields, getting an H-1B is more challenging. Durga, who was searching for a job last year, was told by a recruiter in Chicago that the clients “won’t want to touch her with a bargepole because she needed an H1-B visa to work for them.” So she moved to New York, where “it has been easier moving on to a better position.” The major issue with H-1B visas is that it is tied to an employer. So, in many ways, H-1B workers are at the mercy of their employer-sponsors. If they are fired or choose to quit, they must return to their native countries. They can't change jobs unless the old and new employers agree. “There was a situation in 2001 where my then-employer gave me two months’ notice to find another job since they were cutting costs and had to let people go. It was a little nerve-wracking until I found my next job,” says Shankar (H-1Bees), who now has a green card. Durga, too, feels restricted by the visa situation. “I feel like I am leashed to a post and always straining at it. If I didn’t need a work permit, I would have been able to move into a field that better suits my temperament and my long-term goals.”

CP is best – causes reverse Brain Drain- Immigrants return home and bring talent backMICHELLE HIRSCH 5/14/2012, The Fiscal Times’ Economics and tax policy for Washington, D.C. Bureau; “US Educated Immigrants Return to Their Homelands”; The Fiscal Times;

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/05/14/US-Educated-Immigrants-Return-to-Their-Homelands.aspx#page1

Demographers were stunned last month when new data revealed a trend reversal: immigrants are no longer flocking to the U.S., and some have made a U-turn and returned home. Data from the Internal Revenue Service show that 1,800 people, mostly living abroad, either renounced their U.S. citizenship or handed in their green cards—more than the total number of people who did so in 2007, 2008, and 2009 combined. A few made the choice to avoid paying U.S. taxes on income earned abroad, but others are seeking greener pastures in the global economy. ¶ ¶ ¶ With the U.S. facing a shortage of skilled workers, the wave of immigrants who are turning their backs on America is foreboding. A growing population of highly-educated Americans and foreign nationals educated in the states are less committed to living

http://www.khabar.com/magazine/cover-story/Hanging_In_Balance.aspx/

and working in the U.S., preferring to return to their homelands, many of which are emerging economies.¶ “It’s only really come to light in the last year or two, but we’re noticing a pattern of highly-skilled children of foreign-born U.S. immigrants leaving the U.S. for the countries where their parents were born,” said Madeleine Sumption, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. Sumption says the trend is strong in China, India and Brazil where dramatic economic growth over the last decade has opened up opportunities for entrepreneurship and led U.S. multinationals to hire overseas employees with western educations. “We’re putting together a picture of what’s happening partly from data and partly from anecdotal evidence since it’s a relatively new phenomenon.”¶ Entrepreneurship experts say a combination of booming developing economies, a still-soft U.S. economy, and difficulty obtaining green cards is driving foreign-born U.S. students who in past years would have remained in the U.S. on temporary visas to move home. ¶ “Some of the sheen has come off the U.S. economy as the place to make your fortune—especially if you’re from another country and have a U.S. education,” said Robert Litan, vice president of research and policy at the Kauffman Foundation. “They know all the hot things that are going in the United States, and see a real opportunity to replicate them or do something similar in their home country that doesn’t have it.” ¶ According to data from the Brazilian government, U.S. applications for permanent work visas in Brazil rose 77 percent between 2008 and 2011, and temporary visas rose 36 percent during that time. ¶ China and India have not released those same statistics, though other data point to growing numbers of American-educated individuals choosing to move to those countries. The Chinese Ministry of Education estimates that the number of Chinese living overseas who returned to China more-than tripled between 2007 and 2010 from 44,000 to 135,000. ¶

A2: Brain Drain

No Brain Drain- foreigners go back Stacy Nguyen 11, Editor of Northwestern Asian Weekly, “New Program aimed at slowing U.S.’s brain drain”, The Northwest Asian Weekly, 10/28/2011, http://www.nwasianweekly.com/2011/10/new-program-aimed-at-slowing-u-s-%E2%80%99s-brain-drain/

Each year, many American employers, including Microsoft’s Bill Gates, lobby Congress to lift the H1B cap, stating that it is too restrictive and companies cannot hire the workers they need. ¶ “We heard from the entrepreneurs in the community and they articulated a concern that there are not adequate avenues for the best and brightest students who come here to the U.S. for education to remain here in the U.S. to use the skills and knowledge they have gained for the good of this country,” said USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas in a conference call. “What we see is an exodus instead. We educate and we train, and because the access is not available to them, they leave and they contribute to other countries.”


CP is popular- strong and broad constituencies and congressional supportPatrick Thibodeau, Computerworld, 3-15-08 Five reasons why the H-1B visa cap will increase, http://blogs.computerworld.com/five_reasons_why_the_h_1b_visa_cap_will_increase?page=23

There is grass root support for the H-1B visa A major use of H-1B visas is to help facilitate offshore outsourcing and even in this downturn outsourcing will continue to grow. That’s the broad outlook by industry analysts. The pressure for visas remains. But the H-1B visa has a very broad, grass root constituency that extends beyond the tech sector. In the 2007 fiscal year, nearly 20,000 companies, academic institutions, hospitals, public schools and others received only one H-1B visa. These organizations send emails as well. Four: The H-1B lottery is a big problem for tech firms The forecasted demand for H-1B visas is going to force the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) to hand out visas via a random lottery for the fiscal year 2009 that starts Oct 1. For the 2008 fiscal year, the USCIS received more than 123,000 visa petitions in two days for the 65,000 cap. Despite that number, the odds were still good that a petition would be approved in its lottery. The USCIS put all those visa petitions in a hat and selected about 100,000, rejecting the rest. The selection process works like college admission: The USCIS accepts more petitions then it has slots and expects a certain number of these applications to be withdrawn or disqualified. But this year there seems to be broad consensus that the number of visa petitions will exceed last year's total, and companies may face visa odds of two-to-one or higher. This makes the outlook for getting a visa very unpredictable and unacceptable to tech groups, which are now pushing for a cap increase with special urgency. But here is an important point to keep in mind: The people who receive visas under the 65,000 cap are more likely to only have a bachelor degree. They are the worker bees. The U.S. has a separate H-1B visa cap of 20,000 for foreign nationals who graduate with advance degrees from U.S. universities. But there was no lottery for these graduates because there was no sudden rush in demand. The USCIS filled those petitions on a first-come, first serve basis until April 30 that year. That may change this year. Five: Congressional support for visa Lawmakers have moved the cap up and down before and they will do it again. Congress will increase the cap this year or next and may make it retroactive as well. Had an immigration bill been approved last year the cap would have been 115,000. The open question is whether the H-1B visa will be reformed as part of a cap increase. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) last year pushed for a reform that set a limit on how the visa is used. One rule set a limit that no more than 50 percent of the U.S.-based employees at a company using H-1B workers can be visa holders. It was a measure aimed at making the India offshore firms a little less nimble and raising it as a trade issue for India.

Democrats and Republicans support increasing the caps of H1B visasRoy Mark, InternetNews Reporter 05-11-07 http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3671211/Bills-Would-Expand-H1-B-Visa-Quotas.htm]

Bills to expand H1-B visas are stacking up like cordwood in Congress. A favorite among the technology industry, H1-B visas allow U.S. companies to sponsor foreign born U.S. graduates in science, engineering and math for up to six years of U.S. employment. In the wake of last week's announcement that the 2008 allotment of 85,000 H1-B visas was expended after only one day, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) reintroduced Tuesday his Securing Knowledge, Innovation and Leadership (SKIL) bill. The legislation would exempt from the H1-B visa quotas U.S. educated foreign workers with advanced degrees in math, science, technology and engineering fields. The bill would also create a market-based H-1B cap, expanding or decreasing depending on demand. Last month, U.S. Reps. Reps. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) introduced the Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act of 2007 (STRIVE), which would expand the current H1-B cap of 65,000 to 115,000. Under the bill, the cap would jump to 180,000 in any year after the 115,000 limit is reached.


H-1B opponents have no clout Patrick Thibodeau, Computerworld, “Five reasons why the H-1B visa cap will increase” 03-15-08. http://blogs.computerworld.com/five_reasons_why_the_h_1b_visa_cap_will_increase

H-1B opponents have no clout If H-1B visas weren’t part of the larger immigration reform issue in Congress, the H-1B cap would have been increased long ago. The opponents have been piggybacking on the broader immigration debate and they know it. But the H-1B opposition is in decline even as the debate grows more intense. Five years ago, tech workers in Connecticut – many working or connected to the financial services industry (the first industry to really embrace offshoring) – organized a lobbying group, the Organization for the Rights of American Workers (TORAW). By 2003, Connecticut's congressional reps had introduced several bills – all affecting the H-1B issue. The legislation went nowhere, but Connecticut tech workers proved that an organized effort can have impact. It’s all part of history now. TORAW has disbanded, out of money and members. The broader base of opponents are alert, well connected and can fire off thoughtful, well researched emails to lawmakers at an instant, but TORAW is illustrative of the anemic state of the opposition. Opponents lack lobbying muscle in Washington. Two: The Gates effect Bill Gates is, obviously, a powerful proponent of the H-1B visa. But where is the opposition’s star power? Lou Dobbs isn’t it. The Programmers Guild has been effective in raising issues, but the real heavy weight organization, with true lobbying ability, is the IEEE-USA, and it has scaled back its opposition to H-1B visas. This group has staked out a position focused on visa reform and improving access to permanent residency, the Green Cards. The IEEE-USA was once more direct about the impact of the H-1B visa: In 2004, when the cap was scaled back to 65,000 the IEEE-USA pointed out: The number of unemployed U.S. high-tech professionals dropped sharply from the first quarter of 2004 to the third quarter. The decline mirrors the reinstatement of the H-1B visa cap to its historical level of 65,000 in Fiscal Year 2004 from 195,000 in FY 03. That was a strong message to send to Congress. But the IEEE-USA also represents many academic institutions that depend on the H-1B visas. Although universities are exempted from the cap, foreign enrollments may suffer if students feel they have little chance of remaining in the U.S. longterm. Universities also have strong ties to tech companies. It is probably safe to say that the IEEE-USA, as an organization, is getting pulled in different directions.

H-1B lobbies dominate the opposition Rob Sanchez, Computerworld, “Five reasons why the H-1B visa cap will increase” 03-15-08. http://blogs.computerworld.com/five_reasons_why_the_h_1b_visa_cap_will_increase

Opposition to H-1B is almost non-existent except for a few unhappy technical workers that have been victimized by the flood of cheap foreign labor into the U.S. So far techies and other types of workers affected by H-1B such as teachers and nurses have been unwilling or unable to organize – and none of them cooperate across career boundaries. Most opposition groups have either withered or shut down due to lack of public support. Employers and a scattering of immigration support groups have shown no such reluctance to organize and actively lobby Congress -- and they are being heard. Ironically many

engineers and programmers don’t believe an H-1B increase is possible because they arrogantly believe that Congress is somehow afraid of them. Considering their lack of participation in politics that kind of narcissistic thinking could be fatal to their careers. The best hope that H-1B increases won’t happen is that Congress continues its reputation as “Do Nothing”. Unfortunately with the pressure and enticements Bill Gates just offered them they have every reason to “do something” this time around. So far it looks like a very one sided battle in which only one voice is being heard. Techies are going to lose this battle if they don't quickly get their acts together, and judging by the fact that H-1B has been in place for over 18 years, there is little reason for optimism.

H1B – Aff Answers

Solvency

Immigrants cant solve the coming economic crisesEvan Nolan, JD Candidate Georgetown University Law Center, Fall 2009, “Picking Up After The Baby Boomers: Can Immigrants Carry The Load?,” 24 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 77, Lexis

The general suggestion recently put forth by social scientists promotes liberalization of immigration laws as a response to resolving the imminent crises of the Baby Boomer retirement. n110 They believe that an influx of immigrants could fill the void in the U.S. workforce left behind by the retiring Baby Boomers and help pick up part of the tab for the Baby Boomers' Social Security and Medicare benefits. I recognize that the Baby Boomer crises may provide excellent justification for

opening the doors to more liberalized immigration policies. However, it is essential to understand how small of an impact these immigrants could make on solving the pending workforce and entitlement crises, and I point out where they fall

short. Such policy decisions may help resolve the immigration debate, for now, but they still leave the Baby Boomer retirement issues relatively unresolved. Many hope that immigration reform can be at least one of the answers in resolving, or at least alleviating the pressures of the pending entitlement and workforce crises. Myers insists in the title of his work that "immigration reform can help America prosper in the face of the baby boomer retirement." n111 He points out that immigration reform may help slow the rapidly rising senior ratio and help pay for the Baby Boomers' retirement, because immigrants tend to be younger and have even higher workforce participation rates than native workers. n112 Though Myers refrains from offering specific suggestions for immigration reform, others have suggested loosening the strict requirements for high skill-level visas n113 and withdrawing the harsh restrictions and penalties on "illegal" immigrants. n114

Myers addresses the entitlement crisis by suggesting that immigrants and, over time, their American school-educated children will be able to help bear [*92] the weight of the Social Security and Medicare burdens. n115 By liberalizing immigration laws, more immigrants could legally join the tax-paying American workforce. The tax payments of these immigrants

and their children, once they start working, will help pay for the retirement of the Baby Boomers. However, this approach falls short for three reasons. First, the additional tax revenue that immigrants would produce through their employment would fall drastically short of anything resembling an answer to the entitlement crisis. A quick look at the

current immigration situation, which permits a significant number of undocumented workers already, reveals how far off an answer is now. In 2005,

undocumented immigrants paid $ 9 billion in Social Security and Medicare taxes. n116 Yet, the federal budget outlays for Social Security and Medicare totaled over $ 800 billion. n117 The undocumented workforce makes

up five percent of the American workforce, and anywhere from one-half to three-quarters of the undocumented workforce contributes to Social Security and

Medicare taxes. n118 Yet, their tax payments amount to only one percent of the Social Security and Medicare expenditures, and this is before any Baby Boomers have retired. A significant number of illegal immigrants already contribute

their income to Social Security taxes, and this revenue still comes no where close to meeting the current needs of Social Security, let alone the future needs of the Baby Boomers. Allowing even more immigrants to enter America and the workforce would

be a move in the right direction. But such a policy would require an unrealistic number of immigrants to meet the needs of

the Baby Boomers, as demonstrated by the current, vast discrepancy between Social Security revenues and expenditures. Second, growing the U.S. workforce by liberalizing immigration laws would require legalizing the "illegal" immigration. Doing so

would just complicate the problem both in the short and long term. Immediately, millions of undocumented workers would be entitled to social benefits to which

they currently do not have access. After years of contributing to Social Security and Medicare taxes, as many currently do, they would eventually be able to collect Social Security and Medicare themselves as they reach retirement, exacerbating the problem. The Social Security system is not a Ponzi scheme to which more and more people should be added to help pay others off. This leads to the final

shortfall: the creation of disincentives. Because immigration reform is pulled into the Social Security debate, even more Americans may be less likely to favor such immigration reform if it means [*93] the formerly "illegal" immigrants will suddenly be entitled to benefits they had previously been precluded from collecting. Those who followed the rules will likely oppose liberalizing the immigration laws in favor of those whose "illegal" activity would be instantly rewarded. Next,

Myers turns to the workforce crisis. Here, he acknowledges the immigrants' share of the growth in the American workforce. "[Immigration] has accounted for a large share of the growth: 23.8% of workforce growth in the 1980s, 39.6% of the 1990s, and 54.2% of 2000-

07." n119 Though the numbers look good, it is merely a present day snapshot, and does not offer much suggestion for the pending workforce crisis. The implication that immigrants are capable of filling the Baby Boomer void again suffers three significant shortfalls. First, the number of immigrants necessary to move to the United States to fill the void is likely unavailable. When the Baby Boomers retire, the workforce demand may increase, but the

supply of available immigrants to join the workforce will likely be unable to keep pace. Immigration numbers

are still increasing, but at a much lower rate than in previous years. n120 Baby Boomers will be exiting the workforce in much higher numbers. In the last twenty-seven years, the foreign-born workforce increased from seven million to twenty-four million. n121 With more than seventy million Baby Boomers settling into

retirement over the next twenty-seven years, the immigration rate would need to triple before it filled any significant part of the void. The home countries of our current immigrants may not have enough people to support such an expansion of emigration. The second problem with invoking immigration reform to fill the workforce void of retiring Baby Boomers involves an age discrepancy. Immigrant workers tend to be young. n122 The Baby Boomers are retiring from more experienced positions. The current workforce lacks the numbers to fill those spots and inexperienced immigrants would need years of

work and time for advancement before they were qualified to step into those roles. The final shortfall involves a discrepancy in skill levels, but should not be confused with experience, or the age discrepancy described above. Skill levels, as indicated by education, differ

significantly between native workers and most of the immigrants that have been migrating to the United States for work. The immigrants, who include low-skilled workers in high proportions, are being asked to replace the Baby Boomer generation, which includes a relatively high proportion of highly-skilled workers. Overall average skill level across

the U.S. workforce would fall, and productivity would likely fall along with it. Certainly, the United States could loosen the restrictions and [*94] improve the incentives for attracting more highly-skilled foreign workers. Unfortunately, this sub-market is complicated with "natural" restrictions, such as requiring bar passage for lawyers, passing the boards for doctors and nurses, and other kinds of certifications for highly-skilled jobs. Such restrictions might deter an otherwise qualified candidate from immigrating to the United States. And there is likely little support for waiving many of these self-imposed restrictions.

Solvency

Raising the cap is insufficient- only green cards solve workforce shortage Cromwell J.D. Candidate Brooklyn ‘9

(Courtney L.-, Spring, Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commerical Law, “Friend of Foe of the U.S. Labor Market: Why Congress Should Raise or Eliminate the H1-B Visa Cap”, 3 Brook. J. Corp. Fin. & Com. L. 455, Lexis)

Proponents of the H-1B visa argue that the visa cap threatens to set the United States behind in innovation and science and actually increases layoffs of U.S. workers because it encourages off-shoring. 190 If employers in the United States cannot hire foreign workers with the experience and training required, "then companies who are trying to remain globally competitive are left with only one solution: shifting those operations offshore." 191 Many U.S. companies "concede that the uncertainty created by Congress' inability to provide a reliable mechanism to hire skilled professionals has encouraged placing more human resources outside the United States to avoid being subject to legislative winds." 192

While the practice of off-shoring began mainly with the working class, commonly with apparel workers, and then moved into areas like customer service (as with American Express), a number of IT industry leaders such as IBM have begun the practice of off-shoring some of their technical support positions and software jobs. 193 Companies are finding that "knowledge-based endeavors," such as technical support positions and software jobs, "require relatively little overhead costs beyond a basic telecommunications infrastructure." 194 Moreover, information-based productive activities involve far less complex issues of coordination by virtue of the ability of [*476] work products to "move unencumbered by the limits of time and space as bits and pixels in global communication networks." 195

Most recently, Microsoft Corp. announced the plan to open a large software development center in Vancouver to enable it to "recruit and retain highly skilled people affected by immigration issues in the [United States]." 196 The stated benefits for companies engaging in off-shoring are plentiful and include cheaper labor (which benefits consumers), economic efficiency and the ability to bring new job opportunities to third world nations. 197 However, off-shoring has many disadvantages including the loss of American jobs, which forces more people into unemployment and hurts the U.S. economy. 198 Other disadvantages include the risk of abuse of workers in foreign countries who are forced to work for low wages 199 and most relevant, the risk of the United States "losing its leading role in innovation." 200 If the cap remains low, then foreigners who make up a significant portion of U.S. university science graduates, and "who have been extremely helpful to U.S. technological success" will no longer be able to come to the United States with their creative and innovative ideas, 201 thus depriving the United States of the vital brain power needed to remain a leading intellectual influence in the global realm.

As more and more U.S.-educated foreign students are forced to leave the United States after graduation for lack of available visas, they return to their home countries, which become "attractive locales for off-shoring." 202

n202 Yang, supra note 51, at 154. But see Wadhwa et al., America's New Immigrant Entrepreneurs, supra note 172, at 2. Adding to the off-shoring problem is that "the number of skilled workers waiting for visas [green cards] is significantly larger than the number that can be admitted to the United States. This imbalance creates the potential for a sizeable reverse brain-drain from the United States to the skilled workers' home countries." Id. Therefore, it can be argued that increasing the visa cap for H-1B workers, who will eventually seek permanent residence status in the United States, without also increasing the limit on employment-based immigration, will still worsen the backlog on permanent residence applications and thus will not prevent knowledge-based H-1B workers from returning back to their countries of origin after their six-year terms are expired if they cannot obtain green cards. Under these facts, increasing the H-1B visa cap alone will not likely solve the off-shoring problem. See also Scott Duke Harris, Now Playing in Immigration Politics, the 'Reverse Brain Drain', SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, Aug. 22, 2007 ("The tight cap on permanent visas may force entrepreneurs back home to create rival companies in China, India and elsewhere. To avoid the possibility of a 'reverse brain drain,' they urged immigration reform to allow skilled immigrants to stay, thus protecting the U.S. competitive advantage.").

A2: Skills Shortage

No skills shortageHarold Salzman, PHD, Senior Research Associate, the Urban Institute, 11-6-2007, “Globalization of R&D and Innovation: Implications for U.S. STEM Workforce and Policy,” Submitted to the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation of the Committee on Science and Technology, http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/901129_salzman_stem_workforce.pdf

Where’s the Problem? Hiring Difficulties versus Labor Market Shortages and Perceptions about the Future of Science and Engineering It is generally asserted, without much evidence, that education deficits are responsible for the difficulty employers experience in hiring. It is important to distinguish between the problems an employer may have hiring the people he or she wants and an actual shortage of workers or potential workers. Although there may, in fact, be a labor market shortage, all the evidence cited in various policy reports is entirely individual employer accounts of problems in hiring. The industries most vocal about labor market shortages and the need to import workers may be voicing unrealistic expectations of desired work experience more than deficiencies in the skills or education of a new hire, or just dissatisfaction with the cost of labor. In previous research (Lynn and Salzman 2002), we found that managers in engineering and technology firms do not claim a shortage of applicants, nor do they complain about applicants with poor math and science skills or education. They do often note difficulty in finding workers with desired experience, specific technical skills, or a sufficient number of “brilliant” workers in the pool.8 The complaint, quite often, appears to be one of unrealistic expectations, as unwittingly illustrated in a recent BusinessWeek (2007) article on labor shortages. In this article, a company president described the current labor shortage as follows: “There are certain professions where skills are in such demand that even average or below-average people can get hired.” It is difficult to consider an inability to only hire above-average workers a labor market shortage. Complaints also reflect firms’ dissatisfaction about the need to train new entrants; often at issue is whether firms or education institutions should shoulder the costs of training new hires.

A2: Labor Shortage

No labor shortage – flawed data and industry lies. T. D. Clark, Staff writer for Industry Market Trends, 11-21-2006, “Labor Shortage: Fact or Fiction?” http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/archives/2006/11/qualified_labor_shortage_debate_fact_or_faction.html

Doomsayers rely on such demographic data, as well as employment projections from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS),

to determine that as early as 2010 there won't be enough workers available to staff the nation's jobs. But such predictions often are flawed or fail to take into account a full view of the facts. Perhaps more intriguing: …by 2012, there will be 3.3 million

fewer workers than jobs. But there are numerous flaws with that math. Most significantly, the two data sets involved, both of which are supplied by BLS, are derived from different sources and cannot be compared accurately. To subtract one from the other is to make an apples-and-oranges comparison that is invalid and misleading. There are a slew of other examples in the cover story debunking the BLS, but even without all these mitigating factors, the number of available workers still will exceed the number of jobs, according to the HR Magazine analysis. Then again, a piece from The Seattle Times earlier this month has the ability to send the labor shortage debate into a tailspin once again, with immigration as the catalyst. Stephen Anthony, president of the Fort Worth Building and Construction Trades Council, a network of union groups, said illegal immigrant welders have kept wages down for U.S. workers. Union welders earn on average $23 an hour, while nonunion welders generally earn about $12 an hour in the Fort Worth area, he said. Yet Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C.-based group that opposes illegal

immigration, is skeptical. "Any industry you care to name, you will generally find that the employer says, 'We can't find anybody,'" he said. "What they really mean is, 'Given what we want to pay, we can't find anybody.' And that's the kicker." Are select employers and the BLS full of, ahem, BS? Are they creating a false sense of panic as it relates to labor shortages in order to acquire workers willing to work for income less than they're worth? Well, perhaps we should toss in some more statistics to complicate the debate further. This month, the Small Business Times had the lowdown on some figures released by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) based on a survey of small businesses. "An historically high 63.3 percent of the adult population has a job, and the unemployment rate [was] 4.4 percent in October," said NFIB chief economist William Dunkelberg. "This does not sound like a labor market with deficient labor demand, but it's showing clear signs of a mismatch between supply and demand, with clear shortages of qualified workers." That's qualified workers. Hmm, so, 1) highly skilled/qualified workers 2) willing to work for less than their worth? Sounds just like the problems IMT hears from engineers on a fairly frequent basis. One of our readers recently touched on both factors: What does exist is a shortage of educated, skilled, motivated people who are willing to work for small dollars, few or no benefits, in positions offering little advancement potential. Employers want to get by very cheaply, so instead of hiring an experienced individual who knows the technology, they'll haul a guy off the plant floor and make do with him, paying him very small dollars. I've seen this done repeatedly in corporations whose names you would recognize. According to The Associated Press (via Leading the Charge), the purported shortage is felt the greatest in the energy and power sector, where there may soon be a shortage of workers who operate power plant equipment and repair power lines. A handful of schools aim to correct the problem by offering power industry training, and utility companies have started "aggressively seeking out colleges to create more." "Every day we delay hiring people, another 40-year veteran is retiring and won't be there to pass along valuable experience," said Jim Hunter, director of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers utility department. While labor shortages in the utilities sector might appear more sincere, there is still plenty of other compelling information out there claiming that the labor shortage debate carries little merit and is even a hoax. The news and comments posted at the Inside Recruiting blog, for instance, perpetuate these beliefs; meanwhile, the blog even serves up a recent reader poll, the results of which indicate that not everyone is on board with the labor shortage estimates currently circulating. The most critical piece that has come across our desks on the labor shortage scare is derived from The American Economic Alert in an article entitled "The Labor Shortage Hoax," by Alan Tonelson, a Research Fellow at the U.S. Business & Industry Educational Foundation and the author of "The Race to the Bottom: Why a Worldwide Worker Surplus and Uncontrolled Free Trade are Sinking American Living Standards." In his analysis, Tonelson tears into recent labor shortage stats and studies with the ferocity of a pit bull, even taking on the likes of Deloitte regarding a study the company did for the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM): To put it mildly, NAM should ask for its money back. Only 10 percent of the 8,000 companies contacted by Deloitte replied, and as Wall Street Journal columnist David Wessel noted, lots of self-selection surely was at work. Specifically, employers not perceiving any shortages probably were much less likely to bother responding than those that did. But that's only the beginning of Tonelson's criticism: Deloitte ignored a major irony that practically shouts out from the results: Although the consulting firm recommended that companies spend at least three percent of their payrolls on employee training, it found that fully three-quarters of all respondents fell short of this threshold. Does this sound like the behavior of firms

that value trained workers and are desperate to secure them? Clearly, the validity and accuracy of labor shortage data is

questionable. And the myriad of factors that play into the debate, whether retiring baby boomers, illegal or even legal immigrants, offshore outsourcing or fewer upcoming engineers all seem to feed the flames of this hot-button topic from different and seemingly unrelated angles. It's a debate that will surely continue — but so long as outspoken pundits and everyday workers continue to voice their displeasure with sloppy data and unnecessary panic, a labor shortage capable of bringing the U.S. economy to its knees is about as likely as John Kerry becoming a successful stand-up comic.

Wages DA

CP Decreases American Jobs- companies replacing with H1-B immigrantsPhyllis Schlafly 12, columnist for Town Hall Daily and author of Feminist Fantasies, “H1-B Visas Take American Jobs”, Town Hall, 3/20/12, http://townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/2012/03/20/h1b_visas_take_american_jobs

When President Obama was participating in a live video chat, Jennifer Wedel asked him, "Why does the government continue to issue and extend H-1B visas when there are tons of Americans just like my husband with no job?" Her husband is a semiconductor engineer who was laid off three years ago and is still unable to find an engineering job.¶ We all would like the answer to that question.¶ The U.S. Census Bureau reports that, counting only U.S.-born individuals, there are 101,000 with an engineering degree who are unemployed, another 244,000 who are not working or not looking for work and therefore not counted in unemployment statistics, and an additional 1.47 million who have an engineering degree but are not working as an engineer.¶ Obama's answer to Wedel sounded like he had been well briefed by the big corporation lobbyists. He even expressed bewilderment that any U.S. high-tech engineer could be out of work because industry executives tell him there is an unfilled "huge demand" for engineers.¶ Obama said, "H-1Bs should be reserved only for those companies who say they cannot find somebody in that particular field." Yes, indeed, they should. But in fact, they are not.¶ Created in 1990, the H-1B program was designed for employers to import foreign H-1B workers to fill various high-tech jobs only when Americans could not be found, and the law was supposed to make it illegal for an employer to replace an American with an H-1B worker. However, the big corporation lobbyists succeeded in fuzzying up the law so there is now no effective rule to prevent employers from firing American jobholders and replacing them with H-1B aliens.¶ Big companies prefer H-1B workers because they can pay them significantly less than Americans, never have to give them a raise or promotion, and have the unilateral power to deport them. H-1B workers don't dare to complain about working conditions or unpaid long hours, and they can't quit to take a better job.¶ Most H-1B workers are imported for entry-level jobs and trained by experienced U.S. workers who are then laid off. This process has introduced a new expression and acronym into the English language -- DYOG: Dig Your Own Grave.¶ One senator understands this problem: Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. In a letter to the president last month, he pointed out how Obama's response to Jennifer Wedel shows he is only regurgitating the corporation lobbyists' sales talk with their phony mantra that "there are better and brighter people abroad."¶

Links to Agenda Politics

Congress hates the CP – don’t want to do immigration policy in an election year Patrick Thibodeau 6/12/12, ComputerWorld Reporter, “With H-1B cap reached, Congress has three options. Here's how Congress may deal with tech industry proposals after the H-1B cap is reached quickly this year.” June 12, 2012 http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9228021/With_H_1B_cap_reached_Congress_has_three_options_

Computerworld - The H-1B cap for next year was reached this week, completing the annual petition process at the fastest pace since the start of the 'great recession.¶ ¶ The quick pace may prompt Congress to act on new legislation to appease the tech industry and its demands for access to foreign workers. It has several options, including some that do not include a controversial direct cap increase.¶ ¶ The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service announced Monday that the cap of 85,000 H-1B visas was met on Monday, just two months after the start of petition submissions on April 1. The federal government's fiscal year begins Oct. 1.¶ ¶ The list below shows how quickly the cap was reached in recent years. The government starts accepting petitions each year on April 1.FY 2013, cap reached: June 11, 2012.¶ FY 2012, cap reached: Nov. 22, 2011.¶ FY 2011, cap reached: Jan. 26, 2011.¶ FY 2010, cap reached: Dec. 21, 2009.¶ FY 2009, cap reached: April 7, 2008. (One week after the U.S. started accepting

petitions.)¶ The fast pace of reaching the cap this year will likely trigger some calls for an increase in

H-1B visas , though Congress is unlikely to act in an election year.

EB Visas CP 1NCText: The United States Federal Government should exempt certain highly skilled workers from employment-based visa limits, reform the per-country quota system for immigrant visas, and recapture unused immigrant visas to ease the burden on oversubscribed categories.

1. Expanding employment based visas is the vital internal link to economic growth – no other policy measure comes close

Tim Kane, senior fellow at Heritage and Robert Litan, VP for research at the Kauffman Foundation, 4-

30-2010, “knowledge economy immigration: a priority for u.s. growth policy,” http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/Knowledge_Economy_Immigration_Policy_4-30-09.pdf

There are countless policy improvements that can enhance economic growth in the United States—

policies that will create jobs in the private sector, enhance wages, and fundamentally improve the health and welfare of the people. In this year when an economic recession is a pressing concern for a new Congress and Administration, attention is focused on fiscal and monetary policies, but the environment for legal and

institutional policy reform is ripe as well. Of all the policies that could be changed, probably none would have a

greater positive impact on long-term economic growth than removing barriers to the immigration of

highly skilled and highly educated individuals. Nearly all reform proposals have natural advocates who are active in lobbying the

Congress. In contrast, knowledge economy immigration reform does not have a natural advocacy group to petition the government. Past immigrants who are now citizens have no personal stake in such reform and foreign interests (including immigrants) are unable to press their case with U.S. government leaders for legal reform. Furthermore, the benefits of high-skill immigration are predominantly widespread positive externalities, so no single constituency benefits enough to advocate on behalf of immigrants. Making the situation more difficult, legal knowledge economy migration is easily confused with “illegal immigration” and the larger issue of immigration reform in the United States, which is dominated by concerns over low-skill migrants from Latin America. This predicament is unfortunate, and in these times when the economy is contracting rather than growing, something that must change. While debate, even among the experts,

continues about the net economic and social impact of low-skill immigrants, the case for expanded immigration of highly skilled immigrants, or those seeking higher skills, is overwhelming. In this essay we outline both the economics and politics supporting

the expanded immigration of skilled foreign immigrants, as well as those seeking skills. In so doing, we offer some concrete, common sense recommendations for welcoming more immigrants who are waiting to contribute to the growth of our increasingly knowledge-based economy. The Benefits of Knowledge Economy

Immigration For the past two decades, the U.S. has been home to about half of all immigrants in developed countries who have more than a high-school education, maintaining a lead in the global competition for talent. However, in the wake of tougher scrutiny of immigrants in our post-9/11 world, the U.S. faces increasing competition for human talent from other countries. America still has two key advantages in this race for talent: its universities, which continue to rank among the world’s best, and the world’s largest, most technologically advanced economy, which still is hospitable to entrepreneurial activity. Immigrants have taken advantage of these opportunities to an unusual degree.

According to research from Arlene Holen, "Over the five years 20032007, 143,391 bachelor’s degrees were granted in STEM fields in the United States to non-

resident aliens, 255,267 master’s degrees, and 49,532 doctoral degrees." She further estimated that nearly 200,000 of these science, technology, engineering, or math (STEM) graduates would have stayed and worked in the U.S. but for constraints by the federal government that required them to leave. And so the American economy has lost out on the

multiple benefits generated by knowledge economy immigrants, five of which are described here: First, immigrants are responsible for a disproportionate number of successful high-growth companies. Among technology and engineering companies started in the

U.S. during the 1995-2005 period, 25 percent had at least one immigrant key founder according to a 2007 study by Vivek Wadhwa of Duke University and his co-

authors. In Silicon Valley, over 50 percent of the startups in that period had at least one immigrant key founder.1 Second, immigrant-founded companies generate jobs for native Americans. Amar Bhidé’s 2008 study (described in his book The Venturesome Economy) of 106 U.S.

venture-backed businesses found that some “60 percent of the founding teams included immigrants.”2 Bhidé notes that the ratio of immigrants to natives declines as companies mature, indicating immigrants are creating opportunities for U.S. workers born here. The evidence bears this out. In 2006, the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) estimated that since 1990 venture-backed firms owned by immigrants have created more than 400,000 jobs and collectively represented

a market capitalization of roughly $500 billion.3 Third, immigrants to the United States are responsible for a disproportionate number of inventions. Foreign nationals account for 25 percent of international patent applications filed from the U.S.4

Fourth, contrary to the perception among some, skilled immigrants are not displacing native Americans in the U.S. market. Entrepreneurs widely report that perhaps the most significant constraint on their ventures’ growth is the difficulty finding and

attracting highly skilled workers.5 Indeed, by failing to attract and retain skilled knowledge workers from abroad, we will reduce jobs available for native Americans. If we can’t be successful in attracting foreign workers here, U.S.-based firms will have stronger incentives to locate new facilities or move existing ones off-shore in

order to employ foreign, high-skill workers in their home countries.6 Better to bring those workers here, and thus keep U.S.-based facilities and the jobs they create

at home. Fifth, high-skilled immigrants have a positive impact on the federal budget. Preliminary analysis by Arlene Holen

of the Technology Policy Institute7 finds that the gross loss of federal revenues from two groups—foreign graduates and H1-B workers—who were required to leave the U.S. during 2003-2007 was $2.7 to $3.6 billion and $4.5 to $6.2 billion respectively. These estimates are only for the losses that have already occurred. The lost opportunity representing migrants who have never been able to enter the U.S. may be several multiples higher. Moreover, Holen’s estimates do not take account of the long-term boost to our GDP and the growth in federal revenues from encouraging the permanent migration of skilled foreign residents or foreign residents who come to this country to obtain those skills and use them to start and grow new enterprises. Legal Barriers to Knowledge Economy Immigration Immigration into the U.S. adds significantly to the size of the U.S. labor force and is one of the signature differences between the relatively high rates of economic growth and demographic health of the United States relative to other advanced economies, notably those in Europe. In testimony before Congress in May 2007, Peter Orszag, then director of the Congressional Budget Office (and now Director of the Office of Management and Budget) said, “In 2006, 23 million workers—one in seven workers in the United States—were foreign born, and half had arrived since 1990. During the past decade, foreign-born workers accounted for half of the growth of the U.S. labor force.”

2. And it’s key to competitivenessJonathan G. Goodrich, March 2008, “Immigration in the Twenty-First Century,” 42 U. Rich. L. Rev. 975, ln

In multiple ways, immigration, whether temporary or permanent, provides for economic growth. Economists estimate that at a minimum America's foreign-born population adds $ 12 billion to the economy by working, consuming, investing, and paying taxes. n97 Despite claims to the contrary, the costs associated with immigration do not outweigh these economic benefits. n98 Moreover, [*987] immigration enhances the competitiveness of the United States in today's global economy by allowing multinational corporations to integrate their operations and recruit skills from a global labor force. n99 At both ends of the occupational spectrum, however, family-focused, security-centric immigration laws prevent U.S. businesses from hiring necessary workers. n100 For cashiers and computer scientists, for those that build homes and for those that build robots, U.S immigration policies are an impediment to, rather than a facilitator of, economic progress. Several factors influence economic growth, including labor force expansion, technology, education, entrepreneurship, and research. n101 Two closely watched factors are a country's productivity rate and its labor growth. n102 Due to a baby-boomer generation on the verge of mass retirement, n103 a declining U.S. fertility rate, n104 and a country at near full employment, economists predict that satisfactory economic expansion will not come from increased productivity. n105 Thus, continued economic success must rely upon a growing labor force. n106 The immigration polices that are now in place, however, prevent that growth from occurring. In addition to immigration's economic implications, living in a post-9/11 world means that security concerns are now also intertwined with immigration policy. But overly broad security measures disregard important economic considerations and result in [*988] unintended and negative consequences on actual security. Millions of low-skilled workers illegally come to the United States and

live in near anonymity in order to fill available jobs - many of which are both vital to the economy and the country's infrastructure. Millions of high-skilled workers cannot come to the United States; yet, as President Bush explained, "science and technology [are] essential to the defense of the Nation and the health of our economy." n107 Increasingly, American companies have to rely on foreign businesses in key technological areas. n108 Moreover, the remittances that noncitizens send back to their native countries create strategic ties for the United States and provide an indirect form of international aid. n109 This benefits American security by reducing the lack of education and poverty that often breeds terrorism. n110 Full of rhetoric, however, Congress's current black and white approach to immigration fails to promote either the economy or security of the United States.

3. Prerequisite to the aff – The high-skilled worker shortage undercuts infrastructure projects

Ratzenberger 7-31-10 [John, inventor, entrepreneur and board member of the Foundation for Fair Civil Justice, “Skilled workers key to state, national economies,” http://newsok.com/skilled-workers-key-to-state-national-economies/article/3480964]

A cultural shift has taken place in America that's tragically made the skilled worker a thing of the past. Our media has glorified

celebrity at the expense of our nation's basic needs, and America will reap the whirlwind within the next two decades. At stake is nothing less than our long-

term economic vitality and national security. Let's start with infrastructure - bridges, roads, water and sewer systems. America is

dangerously close to failures that will result in loss of life and are already resulting in loss of economic competitiveness. In many cases, currently funded infrastructure projects cannot move forward due to lack of skilled workers. For example, a national

shortage of 500,000 welders has resulted in delays or cancellations of many key projects. Expand that out over the entire economy and we have a massive crisis on

our hands. By 2012, there will be a 3 million skilled worker shortfall in our nation, according to the U.S. Department of

Labor. In Oklahoma, which has had solid energy and manufacturing industries, top companies have difficulty finding adequate skilled workers to fill positions. The average age of American skilled workers is 55, which means the bulk of our skilled worker base will retire in the next decade. There are not enough skilled

workers to replace them and maintain the nation's competitive global position. In my interviews with employers across the nation, I hear the same story: Business owners are desperate for skilled workers. Many are reaching out to local schools to attract young people into the trades. Despite the offer of good pay and benefits, the noble skills that involve working with your hands and mind don't hold the same appeal as they did in decades past. Some businesses are considering moving

their operations (and jobs) overseas. We're experiencing the loss of the once-vaunted edge that America enjoyed. From

aviation to energy, our national security is at risk. In order to maintain the world's most sophisticated military, we must produce systems, parts

and hardware in America. Without domestic manufacturing operations, critical component work has been moved offshore as a stop-gap measure. The lens through which I view the world is simple: The manual arts always take precedence over the

fine arts. Remember, someone had to build the ceiling before Michelangelo could go to work. Negative images of skilled workers - what I call "essential workers" - pervade our culture. The truth is, high-profile athletes and entertainers are non-essential. If all the celebrities like me disappeared overnight, it would be sad, but the world would continue with little disruption. But if plumbers, electricians, welders, carpenters, lathe operators, truck drivers and other "essentials" disappeared, our country would grind to a halt.

2NC Solvency – General

EB Visa solvencyDemetrious G. Papademetriou et al, PhD Political Science, July 2009, Aligning Temporary Immigration Visas with US Labor Market

Needs: The Case for a New System of Provisional Visas, Migration Policy Institute, http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/Provisional_visas.pdf

Provisional visas offer several clear advantages over the existing system of employment- based immigration. They would: • Protect the rights and working conditions of both immigrant and US workers. Provisional visas would give immigrants clear ownership of their visas within a reasonable time frame, and would decouple long-term immigration status (the path to permanent residence) from a particular employer relationship. Visa portability would permit immigrants

to leave a bad job, allowing more room for market forces to set wages and working conditions. Protect the interests of employers. Provisional visas would require less bureaucracy, since employers would not be required to sponsor multiple visas for the same worker. Employers would also gain greater certainty about their immigrant

employees’ future immigration status. • Promote immigrant integration and long-term investment in human capital. The provisional visa’s increased predictability would encourage immigrant workers to make investments that pay off over many years, including learning new skills or improving English language ability. This would improve long-term integration. Indeed, by establishing clear criteria which provisional visa holders must meet to renew their visas, the system would create positive incentives for immigrants to adopt the behaviors Americans value. Provisional visas provide an organic mechanism for the United States to prioritize over-arching criteria such as immigrants’ English acquisition, constructive engagement

with their new communities, paying taxes, or any other reasonable goals that Congress may determine. • Improve economic efficiency. Provisional immigrants would be better able to respond to market demand by moving to where demand is greatest, rather than being tied to one employer or even one sector. Immigrants as a group are already thought to boost the economy because they are more sensitive to wage differentials across the country when they first arrive;31

provisional visas would allow them to remain flexible in this manner even as they wait for their permanent resident status. • Sharpen immigrant selection while preserving the market-driven system. In recent years, governments across the world have grappled with immigrant selection systems in search 31 George Borjas, “Does Immigration Grease the Wheels of the Labor Market?” (Brookings papers on economic activity, 1:2001, Brookings Institution, March 2001). 16 of a more effective way to recruit immigrant workers who can make the greatest contribution and thrive in their country. Provisional visas retain the crucial selection device that allows this to happen — employer screening — while creating a mechanism to base permanent status decisions on a six-year track record in the United States. •

Attract top talent from around the world. The most talented immigrant workers — including young individuals with high potential — may have a choice of destination.32 World-class firms and universities still allow the United States to have something akin to a “right of first refusal” when it comes to the most talented.33 This advantage must be safeguarded — and strengthened — as other countries (many of whom also offer good economic opportunities) provide a much more competitive immigration package, both to employment-based immigrants and to international students who represent one of the most important sources of foreign-born talent. The provisional visa would attract talented workers who are willing to work on time-limited visas, but want the option of permanent residence in the future, and allow the United States to continue to enjoy its overwhelming advantage in

choosing the most qualified foreign workers for some time to come. • Facilitate enforcement where immigrants are not a good long-term fit. The provisional visa would include requirements during the period of residence to be in touch with the immigration information systems (for example, providing updated employer and address information). Such requirements and records also would facilitate enforcement for workers who fail to meet the criteria for visa renewal or transition to permanent status. Provisional visa holders who leave as required at the end of their visa period could be first in line for a future provisional visa, while overstaying a provisional visa could bring disqualification from future legal admission.

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/Provisional_visas.pdf

The CP boosts high-skilled immigrationAjay Malshe, Cornell Law School J.D.; Goodwin Procter Fellow at the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights

(CAIR) Coalition in Washington D.C, 2010, “From Obsolete to Essential: How Reforming Our Immigration Laws Can Stimulate and Strengthen the United States Economy,” 3 Alb. Gov't L. Rev. 358, HeinOnline

The simplest solution would be to eliminate the quota requirement and allow the government to issue immigrant visas to individuals regardless of their country of origin. This would be a more efficient method for awarding immigrant visas and would allow employers to retain their highly skilled employees without the fear of losing them to immigration backlogs . In fact, such a proposal was made in the High Skilled Per Country Level Elimination Act of 2008, which sought to eliminate immigrant visa quotas.’85 However, the quota system has been a part of our immigration scheme for some time now and Congress may be reluctant to eliminate it. As an alternative to eliminating the per-country quota, a staggered quota system could be used where quotas for immigrants from countries that possess a larger number of individuals seeking admission are higher than those for immigrants from countries where demand for immigrant visas is relatively low. Based on the State Department’s monthly Visa Bulletin, it is apparent that the demand for immigrant visas is higher for individuals from China, India, Mexico, and the Philippines than from other countries.’86 Congress should enact a higher quota for immigrants from these oversubscribed countries to eliminate backlogs and retrogressions. For countries with a low volume of individuals seeking immigrant visas to the United States, the quota can be lowered. Quotas can be adjusted on a yearly basis by the State Department, based on its projections of how many visas are being sought from each country. This approach is preferable to that taken in the CIR Bill of 2006, which sought to simply increase the quota across the board)87 A staggered system will be more attuned with U.S. economic needs and will maximize the efficiency of the immigrant visa scheme.


Raising the cap on EB visas solves the economy-

1) InnovationFareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, 10-21-2010, “How to Restore the American Dream,” TIME, http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2026776-3,00.html

Shift from consumption to investment. Fundamentally, America needs to move from consumption to investment. Everyone agrees that the best way to create good jobs in the U.S. is to create new industries and companies and to innovate within old ones. This means large investments in research, technology and development. As a society, this needs to become our strongest focus. (See how the future of work is changing.) Despite substantial increases and important new projects under the Obama Administration, the federal government is still not spending as much on R&D as a percentage of GDP as it did in the 1950s. I would argue that it should be spending twice that level, which would be 6% of GDP. In the 1950s, the U.S. had a huge manufacturing base that could absorb millions of semiskilled workers. Today, manufacturing is a small part of the economy and faces intense global competition. The only good jobs that will stay in the U.S. are jobs related to knowledge and innovation. Additionally, in the 1950s, America was the only research lab in town, accounting for the vast majority of global scientific spending. Today, countries around the world are entering the arena. Two weeks ago, South Korea — a country of just 50 million people! — announced plans to invest $35 billion in renewable-energy projects. We should pay for this with a 5% national sales tax — call it an American innovation tax — which would be partly offset by a small reduction in income taxes. This would have the twin benefits of tamping down consumption and yielding some additional funds. All the proceeds from the tax should be focused on future generations, because we need to invest massively in growth. (Comment on this story.) The often overlooked aspect of investment is investment in people. America has been able to create the future in large measure because it has tapped into the energies and work of immigrants. It has managed to invest in human capital by taking smart, motivated people from around the globe, educating them in the planet's best higher-education system and then unleashing them in a dynamic economy. In this crucial realm, the U.S. is now disinvesting. After training the world's best and brightest — often at public expense — we don't find ways to make sure they stay here by giving them a green card but rather insist that they leave and take their knowledge to another country, where they will invent, inspire, build and pay taxes. Every year, we send tens of thousands of the smartest Indians and Chinese back home, which is a great investment — in the future of those countries.

2) Skilled laborAjay Malshe, Cornell Law School J.D.; Goodwin Procter Fellow at the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights

(CAIR) Coalition in Washington D.C, 2010, “From Obsolete to Essential: How Reforming Our

Immigration Laws Can Stimulate and Strengthen the United States Economy,” 3 Alb. Gov't L. Rev. 358, HeinOnline

Comprehensive reform of the immigration scheme must also tackle the problems of the employment-based immigrant visa system. Backlogs and quotas are a huge burden on the United States’ ability to attract highly qualified foreign workers and keep them here. This article proposes three substantive changes to the employment-based scheme: (1) exempt certain highly skilled workers from employment-based visa limits; (2) reform the per- country quota system for immigrant visas; and (3) recapture unused immigrant visas to ease the burden on oversubscribed categories. To revitalize and strengthen the U.S. economy, it is necessary to recruit the best and brightest foreign workers. These are the immigrants who will complement the native labor force, stimulate innovation and production, and create jobs for Americans. While these workers typically arrive in the United States through the H-1B visa program, the majority of them will attempt to obtain permanent residency while they are here. To end the current recession and strengthen the U.S. economy, Congress must begin by simplifying the process for immigrant workers. This is why Congress should exempt certain high- priority workers in fields of great importance from the employment-visa quota and preference category system. The employment-visa exemption would apply primarily to immigrants with advanced degrees in STEM fields that are crucial to this country’s attempt at economic recovery. The CIR Bill of 2006 also suggested this mechanism, exempting from the immigrant visa scheme aliens with certain advanced degrees in the STEM fields that had been working the previous three years in the United States as nonimmigrants.’79 When necessary, the Department of Labor can also exempt immigrants that work in fields of critical shortage.’ The Department of Labor should have little difficulty identifying fields of critical shortage through employment surveys and monitoring fields that traditionally suffer from shortages of native labor. However, critical shortages vary from time to time and should not be part of the permanent cap-exempt structure) Other bills have suggested creating a new category of immigrant visas for STEM professionals rather than an exemption. An exemption, however, is preferable. A new visa category would not go far enough to revitalize the economy—it would still be subject to the quota system, resulting in oversubscription. Highly skilled workers who are already working in the United States should be encouraged to make a commitment to the United States by becoming permanent residents and eventually citizens. Immigration policy must prioritize long-term interests, which means attracting and retaining highly skilled workers so that they can continue to contribute to the economy. The per-country quota system that prevents the government from effectively issuing immigrant visas to those who want them must be reformed. The quota system has always been the subject of much contention, even dating back to the enactment of the original immigration & Nationality Act in i9S2) The current law allows only approximately 9,800 individuals from any country to obtain an employment-based immigrant visa each year.’ This creates a remarkably inefficient immigration scheme that profoundly inhibits the nation’s ability to retain the immigrants it needs to compete in the global economy. The simplest solution would be to eliminate the quota requirement and allow the government to issue immigrant visas to individuals regardless of their country of origin. This would be a more efficient method for awarding immigrant visas and would allow employers to retain their highly skilled employees without the fear of losing them to immigration backlogs. In fact, such a proposal was made in the High Skilled Per Country Level Elimination Act of 2008, which sought to eliminate immigrant

visa quotas.’85 However, the quota system has been a part of our immigration scheme for some time now and Congress may be reluctant to eliminate it.

3. Entrepreneurship Daily Telegraph Reporter, 25 August 2008, Immigratin is ‘big boost for economy’,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2621595/Immigration-is-big-boost-for-economy.html

Immigrant workers fill skill gaps and do jobs British workers do not want, says a report by the Institute for Public

Policy Research (IPPR). But it found that employers and local economies were not reaping the full benefits because many migrants were staying for short periods instead of settling in Britain. The IPPR said local economies benefited because migrants might have different skills that could lead to the establishment of new types of businesses and they tended to be more entrepreneurial. Immigrants could also expand the market for local businesses by establishing links to their countries of origin. IPPR analysis of statistics showed that more than a million immigrants came to Britain from the eight countries that joined the EU in May 2004 but about half of those had now returned home. The report recommends that local councils and the Government ensure they are doing enough to attract and retain immigrants. At the same time, the IPPR says the Government should ensure that British-born workers receive adequate training and career development opportunities. Local authorities and employers need to ensure that British workers' wages and job opportunities are not damaged and that firms do not become overly reliant on

immigrant workers. Laura Chappell, an IPPR research fellow, said: "Migrant workers can bring enormous benefits. However, many of these contributions – such as new ideas and ways of working, and an entrepreneurial spirit – may have been neglected. "Local communities, alongside local leaders, businesses, universities, and central government, need to recognise the variety of benefits that migrants can bring, and plan accordingly."

4. Reverse brain drain Case et all, 11,Steve Case-Revolution CEO, John Doerr-Partner of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers ; Paul Otellini- Intel Corporation CEO, and Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook COO, all members of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness; “America needs a 21st century immigration policy”; May 19, 2011; Reuters, http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2011/05/19/america-needs-a-21st-century-immigration-policy/)

President Obama’s recent focus on immigration highlights America’s “broken” system and its impact on our economy. Fixing it requires Republicans and Democrats to show political courage and implement reforms to expand and strengthen the American economy. As members of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, we share his deep concern that our nation’s ability to compete economically

is being damaged by the two parties battling over immigration laws and policies . To some, the link

between immigration reform and economic growth may be surprising. To America’s most innovative

industries, it is a link we know is fundamental. The global economy means companies that drive U.S. job creation and economic growth are in a worldwide competition for talent . While other countries are aggressively creating policies and incentives to attract a highly educated workforce, America has stagnated. Once a magnet for the world’s top minds, America now faces a “reverse brain drain” and is no longer the first choice for many entrepreneurs creating new companies and jobs. America needs a

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2621595/Immigration-is-big-boost-for-economy.html

pro-growth immigration system that works for U.S. workers and employers in today’s global economy. And we need it now.


We control uniqueness – Economic crisis is looming due to workforce deficiencies

a. Babyboomer retirement Evan Nolan, JD Candidate Georgetown University Law Center, Fall 2009, “Picking Up After The Baby Boomers: Can Immigrants Carry The Load?,” 24 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 77, Lexis

The landscape of the U.S. labor market is set to change dramatically in the next several decades. The largest generation in the history of our nation is preparing to retire. The Baby Boomer generation will exit the workforce in significant numbers over the next twenty to thirty years. n1 Behind them, the Baby Boomers leave arguably the greatest period of workforce productivity ever accomplished. Unfortunately, the achievements may be second thoughts to the pending crises that the retiring generation will also leave behind them. In the next couple years, the oldest of that generation will reach the age of sixty-five and begin thinking about retirement. The oldest of the Baby Boomer generation has already filed for Social Security benefits. n2 Over the next twenty years, more than seventy million Americans will follow. Subsequent generations have not sustained the growth of the Baby Boomers and will not have the capacity to fill the workforce void or pay for their parents' retirement. n3 The current financial crisis only darkens the forecast. The Baby Boomer retirement could potentially cause

two major economic crises : an "entitlement crisis" and a "workforce crisis ." n4 The entitlement crisis

involves the growing discrepancy between revenue from payroll taxes and the federal expenditures on Social Security, Medicare, and other social aid, particularly for retirees who have paid their dues. A potentially debilitating workforce crisis would also ensue when millions set to retire from a labor force that is already seeing declines in growth. n5 Dowell Myers and other social scientists have sought to turn this awful predicament into opportunity, by throwing open the doors to immigration. n6 [*78] They suggest that by liberalizing immigration policies, the influx of immigrants would "significantly mitigate" the entitlement and workforce crises , and the "illegal" stigma attached to millions of unauthorized immigrants would be removed. n7 These immigrants could legally join the American workforce, filling the void left by Baby Boomers and contributing to the Social Security coffers through taxes. n8 The economic benefits of immigration, and even "permitting" undocumented workers, are clear. n9 Expanding the workforce, and subsequently the economy, helps promote GDP growth and provides an answer to the Baby Boomer crises.

b. STEM worker shortage Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, research fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, 7-1-

2008, “US High-Skilled Immigration Policy: A Self-Inflicted Wound,” Peterson Institute for International Economics, http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=972

America rose to global economic prominence, superpower status, and victory in the Cold War on the shoulders of the most highly skilled workforce in the world. However, America's global "skills leadership" is now under challenge. An increasingly vicious combination of long-term trends in the form of retiring baby boomers and stagnating US educational attainment, combined with increasingly restrictive laws on high-skilled

immigration increasingly undermines the US position. This will seriously jeopardize long-term economic

growth opportunities, especially for US high-tech sectors. Aging US baby boomers were the best-educated workers in the world when they entered the workforce 30-some years ago. Building on visionary policies like the GI Bill of 1944, college-level graduation rates for US baby boomers reached almost 40 percent during this period, far exceeding graduation rates of 20 to 25 percent enjoyed by contemporary British, French, German, or Japanese baby boom generations in the late 1960s and 1970s. The year 2008 is the first in which Americans born after World War II can retire with public pensions—hence, the loss of large numbers of well-educated baby boomers will be more severely felt in the United States than among other major industrialized economies. Another long-term worry is the stagnation seen in the average educational attainment of Americans in recent decades. Almost unique in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the tertiary-level graduation rates among present-day US labor market entrants, aged 25 to 34, is the same as that of their baby boomer parents,

aged 55 to 64—stuck below 40 percent. Hence, there's a risk in coming years that as many high-skilled Americans will retire as will enter the workforce. The century-long continuous compositional skills improvement of America's workforce

may soon end. Moreover, while America failed to continue to improve broad educational standards during the

last 30 years, the rest of the world has not stood still. Today, over 50 percent of young Canadians, Japanese, and Koreans obtain tertiary education representing a vast educational advancement relative to their parents' generation. American labor market entrants today

barely make the global skills top-10 list. As a direct result, for the first time in generations, the US risks becoming less skill-abundant than an increasing number of its global economic competitors (see figure 11). US and Canadian baby boomers, aged 55 to 64, were indeed the "brightest kids on the global trading block," when they entered the workforce and rapidly globalizing marketplace. Thus baby boomers were ready to take advantage of trade liberalization and the opening of global markets during the last part of the 20th century, far less true for today's American youth. Policymakers cannot stop the graying of the US population or the imminent retirement of baby boomers. Similarly, successful overhaul of the US education sector could only begin to reverse more than 30 years of educational stagnation over the long term. Improving the education system is hardly a realistic or quick solution to forestalling broad skill

shortages in the US economy over the next decade. US policymakers can only hope to counter these long-term phenomena in a timely manner by reforming high-skilled immigration policies and facilitating the continued and

increasingly economically necessary inflow of high-skilled workers from abroad. Instead, US high-skilled immigration policies have in recent years become tangibly more restrictive—waylaid by wider congressional gridlock on immigration and political emphasis on indiscriminate enforcement. This restrictiveness is relative to earlier periods in US history and, more importantly, other industrialized countries today. In April 2008, for instance, about half of 163,000 US businesses wishing to hire a foreign high-skilled worker on H-1B visas were denied this opportunity by the annual quota of 85,000 available visas2 (65,000 plus 20,000 available to foreign graduates with advanced degrees from US universities). The immigration policy undermines the economic characteristics—entrepreneurial vitality and mastery of new advanced technologies—that make the United States the envy of the world. Just like Google, eBay, and Yahoo, more than half of engineering and technology companies founded in Silicon Valley from 1995 to 2005 had at least one foreign-born founder.3 More than a third of US venture capital–backed technology firms report shifting investments and jobs outside the country due to restrictive regulation,4 and America's largest, most competitive companies cannot get visas for foreign high-skilled workers they want to hire. Meanwhile, contours of the global battlefield for talent are rapidly changing. The recent proposal for an EU "Blue Card" would allow high-skilled workers from outside the European Union to work in multiple EU countries, just one example of a new trend across the OECD. Affected by more rapid population aging than the United States, other OECD countries aggressively work to liberalize their high-skilled immigration laws, while simultaneously tightening regulation of low-skilled and humanitarian-based immigration. Ironically, the other nations frequently copy US policies, particularly those that attract and retain foreign students. Equally worrisome for the United States, the top countries of origin for high-skilled migrants—fast-growing China and India—offer incentives for skilled workers to return home. In 2007, China launched its "green passage" initiative, aimed at luring back tens of thousands of acclaimed overseas Chinese scientists, engineers, and executives with promises of guaranteed university places for their children, exemption from household-residence registration—or hokou—requirements, and tax benefits.5 The United States—historically the world's country of choice for foreign high-skilled workers—has the most to lose from any change in these human-capital flows. While the rest of

the rich world has caught up in welcoming high-skilled foreigners, the United States could soon struggle to attract global talent. With the skill-base of the US workforce declining at an accelerating pace relative to the rest of the world, America in the

21st century will need foreign high-skilled workers more than ever. At stake is the ability of the US economy to thrive in the global marketplace.

2NC Econ Other

Employment Visas economic impactsDemetrious G. Papademetriou et al, PhD Political Science, May 2009, Harnessing the Advantages of Immigration for a 21st-

Century Economy: A Standing Commission on Labor Markets, Economic Competitiveness, and Immigration, Migration Policy Institute, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=harnessing%20the%20advantages%20of%20immigration&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.migrationpolicy.org%2Fpubs%2FStandingCommission_May09.pdf&ei=tiHuT_vENaue6wG7o_SbCg&usg=AFQjCNE-dm1VvtTCqiJeSJhiJ822pa0O2A&sig2=2caZD_6YlxkASLvyNNTxEg

Rather, our focus is on one set of policy priorities and outcomes — the effects of immigration on US labor markets and economic growth — and on the subset of immigration streams that are most directly tied to these economic outcomes: employment- based/labor market immigration, in both permanent and temporary variants. And while permanent employment-based visas account for just 15 percent of the permanent visas the United States issues each year,7 they are the immigration stream dedicated to the nation’s economic and labor market interests and thus should be driven by a calculus of economic

costs and benefits. These economic effects are complex. On the one hand, labor market immigration makes an immediate contribution to the US economy by allowing US firms to hire immigrant workers across the skills continuum. At the high-skilled end, foreign-born students, researchers, workers across many disciplines (but primarily in the sciences,

technology, and the professions), and entrepreneurs have been at the heart of American innovation and productivity for decades. About a third of America’s 20th-century Nobel Prize winners, for example, were immigrants.8 Immigrants also founded or cofounded a quarter of all new engineering and technology companies formed in the United States between 1995 and 2005, were responsible for a quarter of America’s patents in 2006 (up from 7 percent in 1998)9 and made up seven out of 16 inductees into the National Inventors Hall of Fame in 2009.10 What is significant about the latter set of numbers is that they can be attributed to changes to US immigration law in 1990 that substantially expanded the number of visas available to better-skilled and educated immigrants. This lesson animates the proposal being made here.

Boosting immigration solves the economyDowell Myers, Professor at the USC School of Policy Planning and Development, director of Population Dynamics Research Group and Co-Director of the Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration, 11-24-


As the economy has risen to the top of the national agenda, immigration has dropped as a voter concern. However, these two issues are not mutually exclusive and should not be treated as such. While

the present economic crisis requires immediate attention and action, an even greater economic

challenge , posed by the aging of our society, lies directly ahead . As we seek to recover from the current recession, the onset of the aging effect may hold back our recovery, due to a mounting fiscal deficit, workforce shortages, and weakened housing demand. This paper from eminent demographer Dowell Myers explores how the aging of the population, epitomized by the impending retirement of the baby

boom generation, will be a watershed event with severe ramifications for our economy and the

standard of living of all Americans. Dr. Myers observes how immigration can mitigate the adverse effects of this monumental demographic shift and make America more resilient in the face of this

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=harnessing%20the%20advantages%20of%20immigration&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.migrationpolicy.org%2Fpubs%2FStandingCommission_May09.pdf&ei=tiHuT_vENaue6wG7o_SbCg&usg=AFQjCNE-dm1VvtTCqiJeSJhiJ822p



colossal challenge. The current housing crisis precipitated a major economic downturn that has roiled markets around the globe and caused much anxiety among Americans regarding their financial security. Likewise, aging boomers placing their homes on the market en masse could unhinge the housing

market anew, with significant consequences for the economy . However, new arrivals from abroad

eager and able to purchase homes could moderate the effects of such a circumstance . The U.S. has benefited immensely from its ability to confront massive challenges and emerge a stronger nation. As this paper illustrates, reforming our broken immigration system will be crucial to enhancing our resilience in the face of the demographic and economic challenges ahead.

Decline in skilled foreign immigrants seriously threatens the future of the US economy Peter J. Landis, employment and business related immigration attorney, 7-10-2009, “Commentary: How U.S. Immigration Policy Hurts the U.S. Economy,” LawFirms.com News, http://www.lawfirms.com/news/immigration-law/immigration-policy-hurts-us-economoy.htm

A growing number of recent studies document what I have long suspected; rather than protecting U.S. workers, increasing restrictions on the legal immigration of foreign workers actually undermines the U.S. economy by hindering efforts to spur technological innovation and impairing America’s ability to compete in the global marketplace. Studies by the Harvard Business School, the National Foundation for American Policy, Peterson Institute of International Economics and the National Science Board demonstrate that highly skilled foreign workers actually create new employment opportunities for U.S. workers. A March 2009 Kaufman Foundation Study, on the other hand, shows that in recent years increasing numbers of highly skilled foreign workers in the U.S., often discouraged by the protracted process and long delays in obtaining lawful permanent resident status here, have been choosing to return to their home countries; an indication the U.S. is losing the world’s best and brightest to countries that compete with us in the global marketplace. When combined with clear and unambiguous census trends showing the aging of the U.S. population and a projected shortage of workers to replace the baby boomers who are beginning to retire, it is evident that our increasingly restrictive

immigration policies seriously jeopardize our economy and put the U.S. at a significant competitive

disadvantage .


Solves econ and competitivenessStuart Anderson, former staff director of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee, is executive director

of the National Foundation for American Policy, 12-2008, “Creating Staying Power for U.S.-Educated Internationals,” International Educator, https://www.aplu.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=1285

A recent report from the National Science Foundation provides confirmation: The rate of growth of the S&E [science and engineering] labor force may decline rapidly over the next decade because of the aging of individuals with S&E educations, as the number of individuals with S&E degrees reaching traditional retirement ages is expected to triple. If this slowdown occurs, the rapid growth in R&D employment and spending that the United States has experienced since World War II may not be sustainable. The growth rate of the S&E labor force would also be significantly reduced if the U nited S tates becomes less successful in the increasing international competition for immigrant and temporary nonimmigrant scientists and engineers . Many countries are actively reducing barriers to high-skilled immigrants entering their labor markets at the same time that entry into the United States is becoming somewhat more difficult. Despite this, many recent statistics suggest that the United States is still an attractive destination for many foreign scientists and engineers. Slowing of the S&E labor force growth would be a fundamental change for the U.S. economy, possibly affecting both technological change and economic growth.5 Countries with a larger share of the population with at least a college degree include Russia, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Norway, Ireland, Belgium, Spain, Denmark, and France.6 “America will feel the full impact of the 30-year stagnation in skill levels in the U.S. workforce when many baby boomers begin retiring, which makes expeditious reform of U.S. high-skilled

immigration policies imperative ,” writes Kirkegaard. “Urgent reforms of the broader U.S. education

system—even if immediately and successfully implemented—will produce more young American

graduates only in the long term. However, in the short term—say at least over the next decade— only

high-skilled immigration can provide American employers with the skilled workforce they need to

continue to compete and expand in a global skills-biased economy.”7

Boosting high-skilled immigration is key to competitivenessSeth Hoy, Research and Communications Associate at the Immigration Policy Center, 3-31-2010, “Immigration and the Future of American Innovation: Does America Need to Pump Up the Volume?,” Immigration Policy Center, http://immigrationimpact.com/2010/03/31/immigration-and-the-future-of-american-innovation-does-america-need-to-pump-up-the-volume/

It should come as no surprise to anyone following the global economy that when it comes to innovation and competition, America has lost that loving feeling . Numbers in key areas of innovation —percentage of patents issued, government funded research and venture capitalists’ investments—are all down. While some point a finger at a weaker economy, others look to poor domestic policy and increased global competition. Either way, American innovation is slowly fading on the global stage. In the Huffington Post this week, Arianna Huffington examined where the United States ranks in terms of

global innovation and competition—dead last, according to the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. The percentage of patents issued to Americans dropped (down 2.3% in 2009), government funded research is down (now 27% from 50% in 1979), and venture capitalists aren’t investing as much in the U.S. (down $12 billion in 2009 from $22 billion in 2008). Why? According to a report by the Boston Consulting Group, America is falling behind in several areas key to supporting innovation— work force quality and economic, immigration and infrastructure policies. The recent economic recession and the loss of our educational edge are also cited as reasons for America’s innovative decline . So how does America pump up the innovative volume? Huffington suggests that America needs to kick internet technology plans into high gear, invest in the green economy and revamp our broken immigration policy to allow more foreign-born entrepreneurs to start businesses in the U.S. and create American jobs. Huffington writes: Great ideas come from all over the world, and if we don’t welcome the people with those great ideas and make it easy for them to come here, they will go elsewhere . Indeed, they already are going elsewhere. Right now the U.S. has an immigration limit for skilled workers of 65,000, and an additional 20,000 slots for those with advanced degrees from U.S. universities. This kind of rigid cap doesn’t make sense in today’s world. The “visa process has been plagued with backlogs resulting from this quota,” says Jonathan Ortmans, a senior fellow at the Kauffman Foundation. “As a result, high-skilled immigrants are looking for opportunities elsewhere in an increasingly competitive global labor market, [and] taking their innovative ideas with them.” While the Start-Up Visa Act—a recent bipartisan bill proposed by Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) to “drive job creation and increase America’s global competiveness by helping immigrant entrepreneurs secure visas to the United States”—is a good start, it only goes so far in attracting the best and brightest talent from around the world.

Immigrant entrepreneurship is key to sustaining a growth differential – tech is key David Hart, director of the center for science and technology policy at George mason university, Zoltan

Acs, director of the center for entrepreneurship and public policy at George Mason University, and

Spencer Tracy, head of the national policy research council, 7-2009, “High-tech Immigrant Entrepreneurship in the United States,” Small Business Administration

A vigorous high-technology sector is vital to sustain U.S. prosperity in the 21st century. The new products, services, and business models that the high-tech sector generates differentiate this nation’s output from that of the rest of the world and enable capital accumulation, wage gains, and productivity growth. A high level of entrepreneurship, by which we mean the founding of new businesses, makes the high-tech sector vigorous. High-tech entrepreneurs, by which we mean the founders of new high-tech businesses, take risks that managers of existing high-tech businesses choose not to take and recognize opportunities that they fail to spot. High-tech entrepreneurship requires a rare combination of inclinations, capabilities, and resources. Half of new businesses fail within five years (Shane 2008), so founders must be optimistic, but also capable of weathering severe challenges. Because the opportunities in high-tech sectors blend together technological and market factors, individual entrepreneurs and founding teams in these sectors typically combine technical expertise rooted in formal education with market savvy that flows from extensive business experience. They must also be able to tap quickly and effectively into networks of customers, suppliers, expertise, finance, and talent

as business opportunities ripen. Foreign-born individuals play an important role in U.S. high-tech entrepreneurship. By virtue of having left their native land, they may have entrepreneurial inclinations. Their 7 large presence in American higher education and the U.S. labor force, especially science and engineering disciplines and occupations, equips them with valuable knowledge that bears on high-tech innovation. Their outsider status may allow them, in some cases, to recognize “out-of-the box” opportunities that native-born individuals with similar knowledge and skills do not perceive. These capabilities may be linked to unique entrepreneurial resources, such as access to partners, customers, and suppliers in their countries of origin. In this study, we quantify the role of immigrants2 in high-tech entrepreneurship in a nationally representative sample of rapidly growing “high-impact” companies (HICs). This class of companies drives job creation and aggregate growth in the United States. We find that, while most previous studies have overstated the role of immigrants in high-tech entrepreneurship, it is nonetheless very important. For instance, about 16% of the companies in our sample had at least one foreign-born entrepreneur among their founding teams, and these high-tech companies display better performance in some respects than high-tech companies in our sample whose founders were all native-born. We also provide a profile of high-tech immigrant entrepreneurs. The vast majority are strongly rooted in the United States. Most of them received their highest educational degree here and have become citizens.

We control uniqueness – There’s massive workforce shortage looming – visa change is key to restoring US competitivenessDowell Myers, Professor at the USC School of Policy Planning and Development, director of Population Dynamics Research Group and Co-Director of the Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration, 11-24-


America is facing a demographic tsunami. The aging of the population will have a profound impact on the federal budget, the workforce, and the housing market. The response to these perils will determine if the United States continues to be a global leader in the 21st century capable of

supporting high economic growth and a rising standard of living. Immigration will play a vital role in

confronting the challenges posed by an aging society and keeping three promises at the heart of our economic success: a secure retirement for seniors; an ample and competent workforce for employers; and a healthy housing market for families. Policy makers cannot afford to view immigration and the retirement of baby boomers as two separate phenomena. We must evaluate our immigration needs in light of the pending massive movement of a significant portion of the population out of the labor pool and housing market and into government funded entitlement programs. Keeping our bedrock promises

will require new blood from beyond our borders. Immigrants can significantly mitigate the three

crises. By firmly grasping the implications of the graying of America we can develop a practical immigration policy that meets the nation’s future needs and enhances our resilience against powerful demographic and economic forces that threaten our global standing and competitiveness.


Admitting highly skilled workers boosts US competitivenessMarshall Fitz, Director of Immigration Policy at the Center for American Progress 12-2009, “Prosperous immigrants, Prosperous Americans,” Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/12/pdf/highskilled_immigrants.pdf

Reforming our high-skilled immigration system will stimulate innovation, enhance competitiveness, and help cultivate a flexible, highly-skilled U.S. workforce while protecting U.S. workers from globalization’s destabilizing effects. Our economy has benefitted enormously from being able to tap the international pool of human capital . 5 Arbitrary limitations on our ability to continue doing so are ultimately self-defeating: Companies will lose out to their competitors making them less profitable, less productive, and less able to grow; or they will move their operations abroad with all the attendant negative economic consequences. And the federal treasury loses tens of billions of dollars in tax revenues by restricting the opportunities for high-skilled foreign workers to remain in the United States.6

Boosting high-skilled immigration restores US competitivenessDarrel M. West, vice president and director of Governance Studies and founding director of the Center

for Technology Innovation at Brookings Institute, 2010, Brain Gain: Rethinking U.S. Immigration Policy

The most important challenge is to develop a new narrative that defines immigration as a brain gain that improves economic competitiveness and national innovation. A focus on brains and competitiveness would help America overcome past deficiencies in immigration policy and help the country meet the economic and innovation challenges of the twenty-first century.’ There is considerable evidence that the United States is falling behind on innovation. An analysis of patents granted shows that the long-term U.S. dominance has come to an end. In 1999 American scientists were granted 90,000 patents, compared with 70,000 for those from all other countries. In 2009, for the first time in recent years, non-U.S. innovators earned more patents (around 96,000) than did Americans (93,000). one-third of the American workforce holds science or technology positions. That is slightly less than the 34 percent figure for Germany and the Netherlands hut is higher than the 28 percent in Canada and France. Looking at another measure, the U.S. government spends only 2.8 percent of its GDP on public research and development. That is less than the 4.3 percent spent by Sweden, 3.1 percent by Japan, and 3.0 percent by South Korea hut is more than is spent by Germany (2.5 percent), France (2.2 per cent), Canada (1 .9 percent), or England (1 .9 percent). Europe as a whole devotes 1.9 percent of its total GDP to research and development, while industrialized nations spend around 2.3 percent.’

user, 11/12/12,

Highly Skilled Immigrants boost competitiveness:-innovation-highly-skilled workforce-prevent companies from shutting down or moving-tax revenues

Solv – Economic Leadership

Only the plan signals commitment to economic leadership -- key to visa demandJohn Pearson, director of the Bechtel International Center at Stanford University, 6-12-2008, “Need for Green Cards for Skilled Workers,” CQ Congressional Testimony

Other countries are recognizing the value of educating the next generation of world leaders and attracting the world’s scientific, technological, and intellectual elite. U.S. immigration law and policy have not yet effectively been adapted to the era of globalization. My own institution is witness to this, but it is not alone. Even so, the best and the brightest still want to come here. We should welcome them by creating a clearer path to green card status for them that is not tied to unnecessarily low caps on the green cards available annually. In a global job market, employers look for the talent they need wherever they can find it, and students and highly talented workers look for the places to study and work that offer them the most opportunity. This means that options for employment after graduation are integral to attracting bright and talented international students. Employment prospects are now a part of their calculus in deciding of where to study, work, and live. Not all students who arrive to study in the U.S. wish to remain; some have commitments to their home country. But others discover their potential in the environment of U.S. higher education and their career and life goals are changed. It is no secret that U.S. immigration law makes it difficult for international students to work after graduating, even from the most prestigious U.S. higher education institutions. The annual H-1B cap lottery is reported internationally, highlighting that the entire annual allotment is depleted in a day or two. But the truth behind the overwhelming demand for H-1Bs is that many if not most of the applicants would rather be applying for a green card, but are unable to do so because of backlogs and delays. It is fair to say that many employers would also like to be able to make some of these students permanent employees sooner, rather than later. It does not make sense that in a global competition for highly educated and talented workers, we turn away the graduates from our colleges and universities. This is doubly true for those graduating with Master’s degrees and Ph.Ds. When they leave the United States, they go to work in other countries for companies that often directly compete with American companies. What better way to capture the world’s best and brightest who want to become part of our nation than to make it easier for them to remain to contribute to American economic and scientific leadership after they graduate from U.S. universities? Our ability to remain competitive and build our innovation- and knowledge-based economy requires that our laws reflect the reality of the global market for talent for international students and highly educated workers. Creating a clearer path to green card status for graduates from U.S. colleges and universities, in STEM subjects, would be a serious step in showing that we have a commitment to continuing to be the leader in international education and in industry. Madam Chairman, appended to my testimony is NAFSA’s 2006 report, Restoring U.S. Competitiveness for International Students and Scholars, which I ask to be included in the record.

Solv – Hegemony

Highly skilled immigration makes heg sustainable and effectiveJoseph Nye, Harvard University Distinguished Service Professor and Sultan of Oman Professor of

International Relations at Harvard Kennedy School, Nov. 2010, “The Future of American Power: Dominance and Decline in Perspective,” Foreign Affiars, Nov/Dec

Some argue that the United States suffers from "imperial overstretch," but so far, the facts do not fit that theory. On the contrary, defense and foreign affairs expenditures have declined as a share of GDP over the past several decades. Nonetheless, the United States could decline not because of imperial overstretch but because of domestic underreach. Rome rotted from within, and some observers, noting the sourness of current U.S. politics, project that the United States will lose its ability to influence world events because of domestic battles over culture, the collapse of its political institutions, and economic stagnation. This possibility cannot be ruled out, but the trends are not as clear as the current gloomy mood suggests. Although the United States has many social problems--and always has--they do not seem to be getting worse in any linear manner. Some of these problems are even improving, such as rates of crime, divorce, and teenage pregnancy. Although there are culture wars over issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion, polls show an overall increase in tolerance. Civil society is robust, and church attendance is high, at 42 percent. The country's past cultural battles, over immigration, slavery, evolution, temperance, McCarthyism, and civil rights, were arguably more serious than any of today's. A graver concern would be if the country turned inward and seriously curtailed immigration. With its current levels of immigration, the United States is one of the few developed countries that may avoid demographic decline and keep its share of world population, but this could change if xenophobia or reactions to terrorism closed its borders. The percentage of foreign-born residents in the United States reached its twentieth-century peak, 14.7 percent, in 1910. Today, 11.7 percent of U.S. residents are foreign born, but in 2009, 50 percent of Americans favored decreasing immigration, up from 39 percent in 2008. The economic recession has only aggravated the problem. Although too rapid a rate of immigration can cause social problems, over the long term, immigration strengthens U.S. power. Today, the United States is the world's third most populous country; 50 years from now, it is likely to still be third (after India and China). Not only is this relevant to economic power, but given that nearly all developed countries are aging and face the burden of providing for the older generation, immigration could help reduce the sharpness of the resulting policy problem. In addition, there is a strong correlation between the number of H-1B visas and the number of patents filed in the United States. In 1998, Chinese- and Indian-born engineers were running one-quarter of Silicon Valley's high-tech businesses, and in 2005, immigrants were found to have helped start one of every four American technology start-ups over the previous decade. Equally important are the benefits of immigration for the United States' soft power. Attracted by the upward mobility of American immigrants, people want to come to the United States. The United States is a magnet, and many people can envisage themselves as Americans. Many successful Americans look like people in other countries. Rather than diluting hard and soft power, immigration enhances both. When

Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew concludes that China will not surpass the United States as the leading power of the twenty-first century, he cites the ability of the United States to attract the best and brightest from the rest of the world and meld them into a diverse culture of creativity. China has a larger population to recruit from domestically, but in his view, its Sinocentric culture will make it less creative than the United States, which can draw on the whole world.

The employment based visa process deters highly skilled applicants – compromising US leadershipNAFSA, Association of International Educators, 6-2006, “Restoring US Competitiveness,” http://www.nafsa.org/resourcelibrary/default.aspx?id=9169

What is most alarming is that, for the first time, the United States seems to be losing its status as the destination of choice for international students. For a variety of reasons that go beyond education and recruitment policy, the United States has lost the allure it once had. It is no longer seen as being as attractive a country to the rest of the world, and that has profound implications not only for international students, but for U.S. leadership and security. The picture for international scholars and researchers is not much better. Although the number of international scholars at U.S. doctoral degree-granting institutions increased in the academic year 2004–05 after two years of decline, according to the Institute of International Education, the near-universal perception of the nation’s leading scientific associations is that their international members increasingly feel that the process of gaining entry to the United States is not worth the trouble.

Highly skilled immigrants are vital to US leadershipEd Hooper, staff writer, 4-28-2010, “Politics Trumping Visa Reform,” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ed-hooper/politics-trumping-visa-re_b_555596.html

National organizations estimate more than 37 percent of PhDs in science and engineering awarded by colleges and universities each year go to foreign-born students. While most are reportedly staying according to a 2007 study, experts say those numbers are likely to nosedive in the next report. Undoubtedly the U.S. produces great home-grown engineers and scientists, but a formidable number of immigrants have brought revolutionary advances in sciences and technologies to American shores. Croatian immigrant Nikola Tesla made the national electrical grid possible with his invention of a coil. Russian immigrant and aviation pioneer Igor Sikorsky invented the helicopter. German immigrant Albert Einstein and Italian immigrant Enrico Fermi helped usher in the atomic sciences. Hungarian immigrant John von Neumann pioneered the digital age that made computers possible. And, if Werner von Braun hadn't surrendered to the 44th Infantry Division in World War II Berlin, Americans wouldn't have had a space program. These immigrants helped form the backbone of U.S. leadership in science and technology that sustained this nation on the world's stage for the last 100 years. This is one case where the U.S. needs history to repeat itself. The unique business model that drives competitiveness between private and government laboratories in a capitalist system has been the propellant that maintains the U.S. as the world's leader in science and technology. From Silicon Valley to Oak Ridge, the greatest tool American-based companies have is their historical ability to bring in talented foreign

minds without hassle to research, start new businesses and teach at colleges or universities. And it

must be preserved .

Highly skilled immigrants are key to US leadership and military superiorityDoris Meissner, former Commissioner of the US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and Senior Fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, Deborah w. Meyers, Demetrios g. Papademetriou and

Michael Fix, Summer 2007, “Immigration and America's Future: A New Chapter,” 5 Geo. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 473, Lexis

Immigration helps the United States maintain its leadership in science and technological innovation, which has traditionally been a foundation of American economic power and performance. Some of the world's most talented people are attracted to the United States for schooling, work, and freedom. The attraction often springs from the American higher education system, which [*477] provides an unrivalled teaching and research infrastructure. Seventeen of the top twenty universities considered to be the best in the world are located in the United States. n22 This higher education system sustains U.S. leadership in the global marketplace and undergirds U.S. superiority in critical national security

sectors such as defense and intelligence. Science and engineering specialties are particularly essential

to national security and economic success, and here immigrants play a substantial role. While 12% of the population and 14% of the workforce were foreign-born in 2003, a quarter of all college-educated workers in science and engineering occupations were foreign-born; 40% of scientists and engineers holding doctoral degrees were foreign-born; and a majority of doctorate holders in computer science, electrical engineering, civil engineering, and mechanical engineering were foreign-born. n23 In 2005, graduate enrollments in engineering were 48% foreign-born temporary residents; in the physical sciences, they were 40%. n24 In contrast, the two largest graduate fields chosen by native-born students are education and public administration. n25 In the 2006 State of the Union address, President Bush announced the American Competitiveness Initiative, an ambitious math and science education program that funds increased training to maintain American leadership in innovation. n26 At the same time, foreign students and professionals will continue to play a key role in maintaining the country's edge in the global economy. And, given the global nature of science and technology research and development, workers in these careers will likely always be mobile and international. Effective, predictable, and welcoming immigration regimes are becoming important factors in a newly competitive global environment. The United States thus has a strong interest in building an immigration system that provides opportunities for the highly skilled and their families to travel, work, and live here.

Solv- Green Tech

Highly skilled immigrants are key to developing the US alternative energy industryJeff Joseph, A Senior Partner at the Joseph Law Firm, “Immigration: They Key to a Booming, Green

Economy,” 6-25-2010, http://josephlawfirm.blogspot.com/2010/06/immigration-key-to-booming-green.html

If there is one thing on which economists, analysts, and researchers seem to agree, it is this: Immigration is essential to keeping American business at the top of the international business market, especially in the energy and engineering sectors. Indeed, even some politicians, such as New York’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Richard Lugar (R-IN), have recognized the important role immigration has to play in American business. According to Mayor Bloomberg, “Our immigration policy is national suicide. I can’t think of any ways to destroy this country quite as direct and impactful as our immigration policy. We educate the best and the brightest and then we don’t give them a green card. We want to create jobs and we won’t let entrepreneurs from around the world come here.” It is for that reason that Senators Kerry and Lugar have introduced the Startup Visa Act. The Startup Visa Act proposes legislation that would modify the EB-5 Visa to increase job creation and America’s international business competitive edge. Immigrant entrepreneurs who are creating new businesses would be able to obtain visas, so long as there is investment capital from within the U.S. of at least $100,000 and equity financing of at least $250,000. A new Migrant Policy Institute Report, The Impact of Immigrants in Recession and Economic Expansion, found that “immigration unambiguously improves employment, productivity and income,” although it does require some short-term adjustments, such as job training or new technology. Despite common conceptions among Americans, immigration does not reduce Americans’ employment rates over the long-term (ten years). But it does increase Americans’ productivity and the average income over the same period. In fact, immigration between 1990 and 2006 is credited with a 2.9% wage increase among American workers. Still, immigration during a recession can have short-term, negative effects, but those effects dissipate fairly quickly, within seven years at most. In contrast, immigration during economic growth periods has an immediate, positive effect, creating enough jobs to leave Americans’ jobs completely untouched. Darrell M. West, author of a new book, Brain Gain: Rethinking U.S. Immigration Policy (Brookings Institution Press, 2010), points out that many of America’s greatest scientists, inventors, educators, and entrepreneurs came to the United States as immigrants. He asserts that the U.S. must establish an increased open-door policy to attract unique foreign talent in the fields of energy, information technology, and international commerce. In a review of the book, Mayor Bloomberg recognizes that “the most important step we can take to strengthen America’s long-term economic health is passing comprehensive immigration reform. For America to compete in the 21st Century, we need to be able to attract—and keep—the world’s best, brightest, and hardest working.” And this seems to be particularly important in the green energy field. A recent report published by the Immigration Policy Center of the American Immigraiton Council, authored by Richard T. Herman and Robert L. Smith, Why Immigration Can Drive the Green Economy, discusses how the connection between immigration and the development and commercialization of alternative fuel sources is rarely discussed among

policymakers. Yet it is this very connection that will help the United States lead the way towards cleaner, less expensive energy. Although policymakers imagine that the development of renewable energy will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, most fail to understand that much of the clean-energy talent remains abroad. Thus, experts urge that expanding our own clean-energy industry will require working with people overseas, in countries that have been pursuing alternative fuel sources for several decades already. Unfortunately, tough immigration restrictions make this type of foreign collaboration difficult, if not impossible.

Even without foreign founders – there aren’t enough workers to sustain domestic clean tech companiesNorman C. Plotkin, immigration attorney and partner at Jackson & Hertogs LLP, 3-16-2009, “Time to plan for the H-1B visa filing deadline,” http://cleantech.com/news/4270/time-plan-h-1b-visa-filing-deadline

Clean technology companies in the U.S. may find themselves in the unusual position of receiving federal stimulus funding while at the same time not being able to hire and retain key employees. The economic downturn has stopped many employers across all industries from making new hires, but cleantech companies are gearing up for even greater hiring to meet the challenges of our changing economy. However, many of the best potential hires will be foreign nationals who require employment authorization issued by U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) to legally work in the U.S. Many times the most appropriate visa for these workers is the H-1B visa. The H-1B nonimmigrant visa is for highly skilled workers and is one of the few visas available to foreign scientists and engineers to work for U.S. companies. The predicament is that H-1B visas are not always available. Strict annual quotas have meant that many more H-1B visas have been requested in each of the last few years than available numbers. What this means for cleantech companies is that they in particular may be barred from hiring key personnel because of strict reductions in visa numbers. Since most cleantech companies are startups, they may not be prepared to deal with this hiring issue because they do not have the infrastructure in human resources to make them aware of the restrictions. For individuals who have not already been counted against the annual H-1B cap, there is only a short window in which to file H-1B visa petitions: between April 1 and 7, 2009. Given the relative youth of cleantech, cleantech companies are particularly vulnerable to being shut out by the H-1B cap. How many F-1 students (recent Masters and PhD candidates) has your company hired in the past year? If you even have one, you should be looking at a long term solution to keeping the F-1 student on board. What are your hiring needs going into the balance of the calendar year?

EB Visa’s start the tip off for global economic prosperity. (green energy)Audrey Singer, Senior Fellow, Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program, and Devashree Saha, senior policy analyst Brookings

Metropolitan Policy Program, 4/4/ 2012, Eb-5 Visas: A Smarter, Cleaner Plan, The New Republic, http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-avenue/102368/eb-5-visas-smarter-cleaner-plan

Even though the EB-5 program has been around since 1990, it is only in the last few years that state and local economic development officials have begun to look toward using EB-5 for development in target sectors. Austin, Tex. has recently proposed creating the state’s first regional center that will focus specifically on green tech and renewable energy projects. It

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-avenue/102368/eb-5-visas-smarter-cleaner-plan

would be one among eight other regional centers in Arizona, California, Michigan, and Nevada that are geared toward renewable energy development. Other regional centers have focused on other industry sectors with considerable success, such as the redevelopment of former military bases into mixed-use projects. The Immigrant Investor Program has had its share of problems, which accounts for its low use since being introduced more than two decades ago. The latest

data reveals that since being established, the EB-5 program has so far created 43,300 full-time jobs and attracted more than $2.2 billion, with half of this happening just since 2008. While the $2.2 billion number is small (annualized that is just over $100 million a year, a fraction of $236 billion the U.S. brings in foreign direct investment), in the current economic context this source of international financing can make a difference for local projects and the communities that host them. The complexity of the application process, the uncertainty of meeting the requirements and the long adjudication process to move from conditional to permanent residency have been cited as stumbling blocks for potential investors in a study by the GAO. Add to those a complex international set of intermediaries, little oversight of the marketing of EB-5 visas, and unclear guidelines regarding the measurement of job creation, and the proposition weakens for many potential investors.

Nonetheless, local leaders like Mayor Leffingwell of Austin may be onto something by focusing on green energy, a sector that Austin “has in its DNA,” which might be very attractive to foreign investors—especially those from China, which has aggressively set its sights on leading the global clean energy race. While the immigrant investor program should not be viewed as a magic bullet, it is more likely that carefully vetted projects that fit into local development plans can have success. Indeed, as noted in Brookings’ recent report outlining an economic development agenda for Nevada, one of Nevada’s most promising routes to attracting investment in its identified target sectors is by

strategically making use of the EB-5 program. Other regions can similarly make use of the so far underutilized EB-5 program to attract much needed inward investment into their target sectors. EB-5 investment financing should be viewed as one piece of funding within a broader global engagement strategy

Solv – STEM Shortage XT

US economic leadership is collapsing now because of the STEM gapMarvin Cetron, president of forecasing international Ltd and Oven Davies, science analyst and

former senior editor of Omni magazine, 8-2010, “Trends Shaping Tomorrow's World forces in the natural and Institutional environment,” The Futurist, Vol. 44, No. 4

The United States is losing its scientific and technical leadership to other countries. * "The scientific and technical building blocks of our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strength," the National Academy of Sciences warns. "Although many people assume that the United States will always be a world leader in science and technology, this may not continue to be the case inasmuch as great minds and ideas exist throughout the world. We fear the abruptness with which a lead in science and technology can be lost--and the difficulty of recovering a lead once lost, if indeed it can be regained at all." * According to the National Science Board, R&D spending grows by 6% per year in the United States, on average. China spends 20% more on R&D each year. * China is now second to the United States in the number of research articles its scientists publish each year and gaining rapidly. * In patents earned each year, Americans are now in sixth place and falling. * Military research now absorbs much of the money that once supported basic science. Since 2000, U.S. federal spending on defense research has risen an average of 7.4% per year, compared with only 4.5% for civilian research. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has been legendary for its support of "blue sky" research that led to dramatic technical advances, including the creation of the Internet. Today it focuses increasingly on immediate military needs and low-risk development efforts. * More than half of American scientists and engineers are nearing retirement. At the rate American students are entering these fields, the retirees cannot be replaced except by recruiting foreign scientists. According to the National Academy of Engineering, the United States produces only about 7% of the world's engineers. Only 6% of American undergraduates are engineering majors, compared with 12% in Europe and 40% in China. Of the doctoral degrees in science awarded by American universities, about 30% go to foreign students. In engineering, it is 60%. * By inhibiting stem-cell research, cloning, and other specialties, the United States has made itself less attractive to cutting-edge biomedical scientists. The United Kingdom is capitalizing on this to become the world's leader in stem-cell research. In the process, it is reversing the brain drain that once brought top British scientists to the United States. More than 70 leading American biomedical researchers have moved to the U.K. along with many less noted colleagues. Latin America also has been receiving scientific emigres from the United States. * About 25% of America's science and engineering workforce are immigrants, including nearly half of those with doctoral degrees. During the 15 years ending in 2007, one-third of the American scientists receiving Nobel Prizes were foreign-born. * According to Purdue University President Martin Jischke, more than 90% of all scientists and engineers in the world live in Asia. Assessment and Implications: If this trend is not reversed, it will begin to undermine the U.S. economy and shift both economic and political power to other lands. According to some estimates, about half of the improvement in the American standard of living is directly attributable to research and development carried out by scientists and engineers.

Demand to import foreign scientists and engineers on H-1b visas also will continue to grow. Publicity about the H-1b program, and about the offshoring of R&D to company divisions and consulting labs in Asia, in turn will discourage American students from entering technical fields. This has already been blamed for shrinking student rolls in computer science. In 2005, China for the first time exported more IT and communications goods ($180 million) than the United States ($145 million). Its lead has grown each year since then.

Solv – Boomer Retirement XT

Highly skilled labor shortage coming – baby boomer retirementJeb Bush, former governor of Florida, Edward Alden, Bernard L. Schwartz senior fellow at the Council

on Foreign Relations, specializing in U.S. competitiveness, and Thomas F. McLarty III, former White

House Chief of Staff for US President Bill Clinton, 2009, “U.S. Immigration Policy,” Council on Foreign Relations, www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Immigration_TFR63.pdf

The Task Force believes that the costs of losing preeminence in attracting talented immigrants would be very high. The U nited S tates has hit a plateau in the numbers of American students graduating with advanced degrees, particularly in scientific and technical fields. Indeed, the number of science and engineering PhDs earned by U.S. citizens has fallen by more than 20 percent in the past decade. 23 The United States will face an accelerating shortage of highly skilled workers as the bulk of the baby boom generation starts heading into retirement. In 2006, there were more holders of master’s, professional, and doctoral degrees among the age fifty-five to fifty-nine cohort, which is nearing retirement, than among the thirty to thirty-four cohort. More worrisome, this stagnation in the educational achievement levels of Americans has come at a time when many other countries — South Korea, Canada, Japan, France, Spain, and others—have continued to expand the share of their populations receiving higher education.

Immigration key to mitigate the coming baby boomer retirementDowell Myers, Professor at the USC School of Policy Planning and Development, director of Population Dynamics Research Group and Co-Director of the Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration, 11-24-


What would these same citizens say about the three perils of our aging society? Many may not be thinking about it or considering what lies ahead. Given the substantial ways in which immigrants can help us meet our coming challenges, it is time to rethink whether immigrants are a burden or whether they might be a benefit. There are times when new blood could be much desired. The United States is currently facing a painful, yet short-term economic downturn. The aging of our society, as expressed by the ballooning senior ratio and the impending retirement of the baby boomers, represents a singular

event with severe implications for longterm economic growth and prosperity. Immigration will play a

critical role as we seek to confront this epic challenge. The next president and congress will have to deal with immigration reform and the retirement of the baby boomers. In order to deal effectively with both they must not be viewed separately. As policy makers address fixing our broken immigration system, they must be cognizant of the perils presented by the retirement of the boomers and the vital

role of a rational and forward-looking immigration policy for mitigating these threats and making America more resilient.


No backlash to permanent legal immigration increases – dems and reps don’t care. Washington Watcher, 4-20-2010, “Legal Immigration Increased (YES—INCREASED!) During The Recession,” http://www.vdare.com/washington_watcher/100420_legal_immigration.htm

DHS has not yet released its figures for temporary workers or illegal aliens. The few Democrats and left wing groups who make any opposition to immigration usually focus their attention to temporary workers , while conservatives limit their opposition to illegal immigration . But the fact is that legal permanent immigration is by far the most important category of immigration to reduce . While illegal aliens can get amnesty, and "temporary" workers often end up staying here permanently—with anchor babies exacerbating both problems—both groups in theory will eventually be out of the country. Legal Permanent Residents, in contrast, are here, displacing American workers and using taxpayer-funded services, for good.

Permanent immigration increases popularStuart Anderson, former staff director of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee, is executive director

of the National Foundation for American Policy, 12-2008, “Creating Staying Power for U.S.-Educated Internationals,” International Educator, https://www.aplu.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=1285

Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Judd Gregg (R-NH) have expressed interest in putting off a legislative fight on H-1B visas and instead first achieving consensus on raising the quotas for employment-based green cards. Even though H-1B visa holders are not the

indentured servants alleged by critics, everyone agrees that green card holders eventually enjoy the

exact same labor mobility as U.S. professionals, so cries of unfair competition ring more hollowly.

Green cards are bipartHuma Khan, staff writer, 4-21-2010, “'Shooting Itself in the Foot': Is U.S. Turning Away Entrepreneurs?,” ABC News,http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Business/economic-job-growth-driven-foreign-enterpreneurs-argue/story?id=10428413&page=2

foreign-enterpreneurs-argue/story?id=10428413&page=2

The bipartisan framework for immigration reform drafted by Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., proposes that certain immigrants who are receiving degrees in fields like math, science , engineering and technology receive a green card immediately upon their graduation, instead of having to get an H1B visa through an employer. A comprehensive immigration bill drafted by Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., expands green cards for skilled immigrants and seeks to cut the backlog that goes into processing these visas. In February, Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Richard Lugar, R-Ind., introduced the Start Up Visa Act of 2010. The bill would allow immigrant entrepreneurs to receive a two-year visa if he or she can show that a qualified U.S. investor is willing to dedicate a minimum of $250,000 to their start-up venture.

The CP has critical bipartisan support – prefer our evidence, it assumes changed republican motivationsStewart J. Lawrence, immigration policy specialist, 1-14-2011, “Is a Deal on Immigration Possible Before 2012?,” http://www.counterpunch.org/lawrence01142011.html

A second option is to punt on legalization and expanded enforcement altogether and to focus for now on visa reform - an issue on which there is already much greater bipartisan agreement. The two sides could agree to work on a bill that made it easier for foreign scientists and engineers to get work visas and to transition to legal residency. That would mean raising or even eliminating the current visa " cap " for high-skill workers (from its current, widely acknowledged to be inadequate level of 65,000) and changing the rules so that foreign-born students in US schools could become legal residents more quickly. The virtue of this approach is that it can be sold as a contribution to US global

“ competitiveness ” - and a blow to China - and a step toward in reviving the depressed economy. While

it means importing workers at a time of high joblessness, the workers are widely viewed as ones the country should have. That probably wouldn’t be the case if the visa reform debate were extended to unskilled workers, reviving the age-old polemics over the pros and cons of an economy-wide "guest worker program" which have torpedoed bipartisan initiatives on immigration reform in the past. The GOP far-right has long attacked a guest worker program as a spur to illegal immigration, while the left has viewed it as a system for indentured labor and super-exploitation, much like the infamous Bracero program of the 1950s and 1960s. The Washington Post recently editorialized in favor of focusing on a high-skill visa program, but significantly, said nothing about a guest worker program. The Post was merely reflecting the views of the US business community, especially the high-tech sector, as well as Senate moderate s in both parties, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) whose support would be

critical to initiating such an effort . In short, the vaunted " deadlock" on immigration that many

predicted would last through 2012 may not, in fact, last that long . Neither party can afford to be viewed as "obstructionist" on an issue that has proven to be the nation's thorniest and most volatile -but on which the public is demanding real action. In some ways, the tables have now turned : with the GOP running the House, it's finally in a position to set the agenda and to compel the Democrats to respond. And having made clear last week that the agenda is no longer one immediately guaranteed to inflame Latinos, and much of the nation - birthright citizenship - the Democrats must now prepare to parry with the GOP on workplace enforcement - and beyond. Of course, there's always the chance that the two parties may get distracted by other issues, and simply try to punt for two more years. But as the mid-term elections revealed, the do-nothing strategy carries real risks for both parties -- the Democrats especially. Republicans successfully exploited immigration as a “wedge” issue with white voters in key congressional districts, which helped them win the House. But they alienated some Latinos in California and the Southwest, and that clearly helped cost them the Senate. With 23 Senate Democrats up for re-election in 2012, compared to just 10 Republicans, senior Republican strategists have no intention of making that mistake again . Therefore, the best option for Democrats is for the President to get out in front on immigration as quickly as possible and to forge a modest deal that can steal the GOP's thunder. It won't be the whole “enchildada” - not even close. But by demonstrating that he's prepared to embrace the concerns of both parties, and indeed, stand up to his own base, in the

short term, Obama may finally "win" with immigration - ensuring his own re-election, averting a

further rightward slide, while setting the stage for an expanded legalization program after 2012. Given the current electoral math, that's probably the best the Democrats can hope for.

The CP has bipartisan supportCyrus Mehta, graduate of Cambridge University and Columbia Law School, is the Managing Member of

Cyrus D. Mehta & Associates, PLLC, 11-10-2010, “Silver Lining on Immigration After the November 2010 Mid-Term Elections”, http://www.ilw.com/articles/2010,1110-mehta.shtm

Let's hope that our pessimism is off the mark, although I admit that I might be dreaming given that Rep. King's anti-immiration rhetoric is shriller than most even among other enforcement oriented Republicans, http://bit.ly/a6S0ac. There might be common ground between the President, Democrats and Republicans to pass incremental measures, which is now the new mantra if anything can ever be achieved. The Economist also feels that it might be premature to write off any prospect for immigration reform, http://www.economist.com/node/17366155. Indeed, there is precedent for this. Some of the most innovative ameliorative immigration legislation such as the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act and the Child Status Protection Act got passed in a Republican controlled Congress . One common ground between the Administration and the new Congress , at least in the short term, is to work together to pass more business friendly immigration measures, such as more H-1B visas for skilled workers and an expansion in the e mployment- b ased preferences , with perhaps adding new categories for business entrepreneurs and those with advanced skills in the sciences and technology. Even Rep. King in the BusinessWeek article seems to be inclined to pass measures "for higher-skilled workers only if the potential employees meet criteria to boost the U.S. economy." All these proposals should be appealing to the new Republican leadership at the helm in the House who believe in the spirit of personal responsibility, hard work and enterprise , without relying on the government for a handout. Immigrants best exemplify this ideal. Finally, even though Republicans gained a lot in the mid-term elections, beware that an overtly anti-immigration agenda will see you go down in flames like Sharon Angle in Nevada who demonized immigrants in her election campaign commercials or Meg Whitman whose hypocritical attitude towards her immigrant nanny was telling on the voters, http://bit.ly/cZX2Zo . Indeed, it is likely that the reason why the Democrats still control the Senate is because of Latino voters who either rewarded or punished candidates based on their attitude towards immigrants. Barbara Boxer, as an example, was the recipient of this reward. In the past, one of the reasons for lack of support from Republican leaders , who traditionally supported immigration, was that the Democrats would take credit. This is no longer true after the recent Republican election gains. Now is the time for both the Democrats and the Republicans to work together in Congress, along with the President's support, to pass immigration friendly measures so that both parties can claim credit among voters in future election cycles.

EB Visa doesn’t link to politicsAdam Green, Two Bills. Two Choices: EB-5 and Startup Bills Now Before Congress, 6/18/2012 EB-5info.com,

http://info.eb5info.com/bid/144537/Two-Bills-Two-Choices-EB-5-and-Startup-Bills-Now-Before-Congress

http://info.eb5info.com/bid/144537/Two-Bills-Two-Choices-EB-5-and-Startup-Bills-Now-Before-Congress

Two new bills now sit before Congress, and both of them could impact the effect of foreign capital – and foreign-born entrepreneurs – on US job creation. The first is Senator Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) EB-5 bill, which would make the EB-5 visa program permanent. Co-sponsored by Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), this bill would do precisely what its proponents have been pushing for over the last several years: end periodic Congressional re-authorization of the program and turn EB-5 into an enduring national fixture. Bipartisan support? It’s an ambitious effort, and Senator Leahy has made no bones about his support for it since well before last December’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the EB-5 program. In that meeting, immigration attorney Robert Divine spoke on behalf of IIUSA and suggested

that Congress make the program permanent sooner rather than later. If we let EB-5 “sunset” and face re-authorization in perpetuity, he argued, many investors will be afraid to invest in new projects lest the program expire as they make their long-term plans. A compelling argument, indeed, but the question is, will the bill actually pass? 2012 is an election year, of course. And we’re faced with a heavily divided legislature that can’t seem to agree very often. Let’s just hope that our elected representatives can find common ground on job creation – this is a bipartisan bill – and make something happen. This is the legislation that IIUSA, numerous regional centers, civic-minded immigration

attorneys, and the larger EB-5 community have worked hard to put into place. Its passage would lead to more investment in this country, which means more new jobs for US citizens. And those things are hard for any politician to oppose, regardless of party affiliation.

D-VT bill, EB-5 is on the chopping blockCapitol Quotes, 5/30/12, Leahy introduces bill to permanently authorize job-creating EB-5 foreign investment program, The

Mountain Times, http://mountaintimes.info/news/breaking-news/2012/05/leahy-introduces-bill-to-permanently-authorize-job-creating-eb-5-foreign-investment-program/

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced legislation Thursday, May 24 to make permanent the charter for a successful, job-creating immigrant

visa program that has brought economic development and job growth to Vermont since 1997. After months of negotiation, the legislation introduced Thursday by Leahy will grant a permanent authorization to the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Regional Center program. Vermont's Regional Center has been a successful private-public partnership between the State of Vermont and several Vermont businesses. The bill introduced Thursday will also extend the voluntary E-Verify program, as well as two visa programs for religious workers and the so-called "Conrad 30," or rural doctors, visa. The bill is co-sponsored by the Senate Judiciary Committee's Ranking Member Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). "Vermont has been a model for the success of the EB-5 Regional Center Program, and I want to see that great success continue for Vermonters, and those who wish to pursue business opportunities in our great state" said Leahy. "I am grateful

that Senator Grassley has worked with me to craft this legislation, and I am optimistic its introduction marks the beginning of a strong bipartisan effort to make these long-standing programs permanent. When enacted, the measure we introduce today will also pave the way for my efforts to improve and build upon the EB-5 Regional Center Program to ensure stability for investors and entrepreneurs, and to ensure that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has the tools it needs to keep this program a strong, secure, and vital part of our economy." Leahy has successfully steered short-term extensions of the pilot program through Congress. The current authorization will expire in September 2012. Earlier this week, Leahy secured a three year extension of the programs during the Appropriations Committee's consideration of the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. Vermont's Regional Center was re-chartered in 2007. Two Vermont ski resorts, Jay Peak and Sugarbush, are active participants in the Regional Center pilot program and have been engaged in ambitious development projects. Other capital investment projects are in the works around the state. Vermont's Regional Center projects have drawn business and tourism to the state, fueling local economies and creating jobs. Since it was created in 1993, the regional center program has attracted more than a billion dollars in foreign investment to the United States, and created thousands of new domestic jobs - hundreds, in Vermont. There are now over 220 Regional Centers across the country, with new applications pending. The Regional Center program attracts foreign investors seeking legal permanent residency and a chance to invest in the American economy. Investors must pledge a minimum of $500,000 to a project within an approved regional center and independently apply for an EB-5

http://mountaintimes.info/news/breaking-news/2012/05/leahy-introduces-bill-to-permanently-authorize-job-creating-eb-5-foreign-investment-program/

http://mountaintimes.info/news/breaking-news/2012/05/leahy-introduces-bill-to-permanently-authorize-job-creating-eb-5-foreign-investment-program/

visa. If approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), foreign investors are granted a conditional two-year green card. After two years, the investor must provide proof that they have created at least ten jobs as a result of the investment and have met additional investment requirements set by USCIS. As a result of the program's popularity, additional applications are pending with USCIS to establish new Regional Centers in several states.

Cuban Embargo CP

Text: The United States Federal Government should repeal its trade embargo on the Republic of Cuba.

The embargo on Cuba is a cold war relic that is only hurting the economy- KT global trade

Johnson et. Al 10 (Andy, director of the national security program, Kyle Spector, policy advisor for the National Security Program, Kristina Lilac, works for the national security program, Third Way Publications, September 16, 2010, http://content.thirdway.org/publications/326/Third_Way_Memo_-_End_the_Embargo_of_Cuba.pdf, ADP)

The US has had normal trade relations with many countries just as problematic, if not more so, than Cuba, including China, Vietnam (President Clinton lifted the 1975 trade embargo in

1994), and even the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War.8 In an era of global economic integration, maintaining strong economic relations with other countries is vital to growing the economy. The rest of the world has recognized that C uba does not pose a threat and has normalized trade relations, leaving the US alone in its imposition of the embargo. As long as other countries are willing to supply Cuba with all of its needs, the US embargo will never be effective and will only hurt the US economy. Furthermore, by blaming the US for Cuba’s lack of economic prosperity and using the embargo as a scapegoat, Cuba’s leadership has eluded responsibility for the poor standard of living

on the island and routinely portrays the US as an oppressor of the Cuban people. Cuba has the potential to be a sizeable market for US goods should the embargo come to an end. Despite all of the trade restrictions, the US exported $710 million worth of food to Cuba in 2008, making the US Cuba’s largest food supplier.9 A March 2010 Texas

A&M University study found that expanding agricultural trade and travel between the US and Cuba could result in $365 million in increased sales of US goods in Cuba and create 6,000 new jobs in the US.10

Global trade is key to the economy—empirics and GDP analysis

Griswold, 11 Daniel Griswold is director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute and author of Mad about Trade: Why Main Street America Should Embrace Globalization. “Beneficiaries of Trade: You and Me,” http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/beneficiaries-trade-you-me Accessed 7/1/12 BJM

Whenever the U.S. Commerce Department reports rising imports and an expanding trade deficit, the economic priesthood pronounces it bad

news for the economy. "Rising trade deficit could drag down economy," is a typical newspaper headline. As the Associated Press summarized conventional thinking a few months ago, "Growth slows when imports outpace exports, because more jobs go to foreign

workers." This is wrong in theory and in practice. The stakes are high. Misguided worries about imports and trade deficits feed public anxieties, and can lead policy makers to reach for protectionist measures that do more harm than good. They can cause investors to misread the fundamental forces driving growth. Contrary to the

prevailing orthodoxy, the U.S. economy shows no sign of suffering during periods when the trade deficit is expanding. The mistaken assumption that imports and trade deficits are a drag on growth depends on the seemingly plausible idea that anything we import is one less thing we make ourselves. The Bureau of Economic Analysis supports this error in its quarterly estimates of gross domestic product by reporting that a rise in imports always represents a "subtraction in the calculation of GDP." Don't believe it. Much of

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/beneficiaries-trade-you-me%20Accessed%207/1/12

what we import doesn't displace domestic production so much as complement it. Imports fuel American

industry by providing the raw materials, intermediate inputs and capital machinery our producers need to compete. Competition from imports spurs innovation, cost containment, and productivity gains. Lower prices for imported consumer goods allow households to spend more on home-grown services. The dollars we spend on imports quickly return to buy U.S. assets. In 2010, our trade deficit in goods of $647 billion was exactly offset by our trade surplus in services and investment income and our large capital surplus — the amount of U.S. assets, including Treasury bonds, purchased by foreigners, minus the foreign assets purchased by Americans. The grand balance of U.S. international transactions last year, as in every year, was zero. Contrary to the BEA's unhelpful wording, a rising level of imports doesn't "subtract" from gross domestic product. The problem is the way by which the government calculates GDP. It doesn't actually count what we produce, but rather what we spend — adding up what the government spends, what households spend, what we invest, and what we export. Imports are already counted in domestic expenditures in a way that makes them indistinguishable from domestic goods and services. If the BEA didn't subtract imports from total domestic expenditures, GDP would be overstated. So, when the BEA reports that imports "subtracted" two percentage points from economic growth in the past quarter, that doesn't mean that GDP would have grown that much faster without those pesky imports. It only means that other components — private and government expenditures, investment, and exports — were overstated by that amount. The subtraction reduces the overstatement, not real gross domestic product. In a recent study for the Cato Institute, I tested the conventional wisdom on imports and the economy. Since 1980, the trade deficit has grown as a share of GDP during five sustained periods: 1982-84, 1992-95, 1997-2000, 2001-06 and 2009-10. It has shrunk during three sustained periods: 1987-92, 2000-01 and 2006-09. I then examined how the U.S. economy performed during each of these periods in terms of real gross-domestic-product growth, equity prices (as measured by the Standard & Poor's 500 Index), manufacturing output, total civilian employment and the unemployment rate. Contrary to the prevailing orthodoxy, the U.S. economy shows no sign of suffering during periods when the trade deficit is expanding. To the contrary, real GDP grew more than three times faster at an

annualized rate — 3.6%, versus 1% — during periods when the trade deficit was expanding, compared to those in which it was shrinking. A rising trade deficit was good news for investors, as well. The S&P 500 climbed an annualized average of 11% during periods when the deficit was "worsening" compared with less than 1% during periods when it was "improving." Despite worries that trade is causing the de-industrialization of America, manufacturing output expanded at a robust 5.2% a year during periods of rising deficits, and shrank by 2% a year when the trade gap was contracting. People who blame job losses on trade deficits should consider this: Civilian employment expanded at a healthy 1.4% a year during periods of rising trade deficits, while job growth was virtually zero during stretches when the deficit was shrinking. The jobless rate declined an average of 0.4 percentage points per year when the trade gap was on an

upward trend, and jumped a painful one point per year when the deficit was trending down. Apparently, the only thing worse for the U.S. economy than a rising trade deficit is a falling one. Politicians obsessed with the trade balance should give up

the goal of promoting exports over imports. The aim of U.S. trade policy should be to maximize the freedom of Americans to buy and sell in global markets for mutual gain, whatever the mix of goods, services and assets we freely choose to trade.

Extensions under 2nc econ extensions

2NC Embargo Bad General

Embargo bad, laundry list

Mario A Arezeno, 2003 MBA of Military Art and Science, University of Miami, FL, “The US Embargo on Cuba: A time for change?”, https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:8anMK_WN3TEJ:www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc%3FAD%3DADA416135+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShr-nFtmtDsDZt47cdsnJW075RlUHmposSy1Qyq0rBf71lxkX5R0xl41XNUGvYZFj7Z3ykxwHcqfdRA9f5nFE0EGrmu4YAQfEoTzLUn9g7Q9K3J6sWV1KhiNeGPMzQuxWeVnl9R&sig=AHIEtbRhAS3WSWEWJ7i7mCD642K4BbuBTQ

The counter argument is that it is not about the economics, it is about the advancement of the Cuban society and the proliferation of

humanitarian resources for the Cuban people. Over the past decade, Cuba has suffered from food shortages and a deterioration of the health care system. The embargo itself is a form of repression of the Cuban people by isolating them from the basic human needs of food and medicine and the benefits of economic prosperity. Anti-embargo supporters argue trade is essential for the spread of democracy and human rights. Advocates argue the embargo is a human rights violation in itself. Anti-embargo supporters use the Helms-Burton Act as an example to demonstrate yet another inconsistency with the Cuban American lobby argument, by pointing out that the act they so passionately fight for is about overthrowing Castro, secondly economics, and a distant third the advancement of the Cuban people. The act primarily focuses on the unconditional removal of Castro and the compensation for the expropriation of property and not the influx of resources to the island.

2NR

Extend the Arezeno 03 ev, the embargo creates a shortage of wealth in cuba which has several effects. First it creates food shortages which kills many people in Cuba and creates a low quality of life. Second it destroys the health care system, which also prevents treating simple ailments and creates a lower quality of life. Third trade is the only mechanism that solves for the structural problems of economic poverty. Fourth only trade solves for the spread of demo and human rights; by opening up trade we can have leverage over cuba and begin to reform their policies like we did with all the other former soviet bloc countries. Fifth, the embargo is a violation of human rights itself. Thats an independent reason to vote neg and also a link to how the embargo isolate the US from the international community.

2NC Econ Extensions

Extend the Johnson 10 ev, the embargo hurts the US in many ways. First there are 6 thousand jobs and 365 million in annual sales that we’re missing, which is a substantial drain on the economy. Second the US is isolated by being the only country unwilling to trade with cuba. That isolates us from the global economy and hurts us even more. Third trade opens up more econ in the future and brings more freedom to countries in the future.

Extend the Griswold 11 ev, trade deficits create protectionism that harms trade even further. Second trade deficits have literally no effect, statistically a rising deficit correlates with expanding economy. Third competition spurs the economy through innovation and lower prices.

Embargo destroys global integration and cooperation

Joy Gordon, Winter 2012, Prof of Philosophy at Fairfield Univ, Senior fellow at Global Justice Program at Yale, Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, Volume 36:1, 63-79

In some regards, because of the extraordinary power held by the United States in many domains, the U.S. unilateral embargo functions as a global embargo. The HelmsBurton Act effectively blocks Cuba’s access to global financial institutions-including the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the International Bank for Reconstruction

and Development, and the InterAmerican Development Bank-by requiring the U.S. representatives on their boards to vote against granting

Cuba membership or access to loans or development by the United States in many nearly impossible for any of these organizations to admit Cuba or provide US' unilateral loans or development aid. In the IMF, the United States

holds almost 17 percent of the votes; only three other countries-France, Germany, and the United Kingdom-hold more than 4

percent of the Votes. By contrast, over 90 Countries hold 0.1 percent of the vote or less.26 The World Bank has roughly the same structure. In the unlikely event that the U.S. vote is not sufficient to deny Cuba access to financing from the organization, the Helms-Burton Act would then imposes punitive measures: if the institution were to somehow extend loans or aid to Cuba, the United States Will reduce its contribution to that institution by the same amount.

2nr extension

Extend the Gorder 12 card, this card’s analysis is both broad and deep on the embargo topic. First since the US holds disproportionate power in all international institutions which prevents any countries from trading with cuba and stops them from joining international institutions. Second, since the US blocks all trade w Cuba it jams up the international trade community, that destroys global integration and trade. Third any humanitarian aid given to Cuba is cut by the same amount by the US. That disincentivizes anyone working with cuba and destroys global cooperation.

CP solves better for jobs and exports

National Security Program, September 16, 2010, “End the Cuba Embargo”, http://content.thirdway.org/publications/326/Third_Way_Memo_-_End_the_Embargo_of_Cuba.pdf

Cuba has the potential to be a sizeable market for US goods should the embargo come to an end. Despite all of the trade restrictions, the US exported $710 million worth of food to Cuba in 2008, making the US Cuba’s largest food supplier. A

March 2010 Texas A&M University study found that expanding agricultural trade and travel between the US and Cuba could result in $365 million in increased sales of US goods in Cuba and create 6,000 new jobs in the US.

2nr extension

Extend the NSP 10 ev, the US is missing out on 365 million in trade and 6 thousand jobs. That’s a substantial portion of the agriculture trade that the US is missing out on and would be greater than and more structurally solvent than the aff.

Good for econ, politically overwhelmingly popular


Every sector of American society is challenging the Cuban American lobby that so vehemently fights to maintain the embargo. The International Trade Commission estimates that the U.S. loses over $4 billion per year in lost trade with Cuba. The U.S. agriculture sector, led by the American Farm bureau, is becoming one of the loudest voices lobbying against the embargo, because it is one of the sectors most likely to benefit from trade with Cuba. Estimated annual losses to the farming community total $1 billion. Cuba currently imports between $700 million and $1 billion in food products primarily from Argentina, France and Vietnam (Miami Herald, 2001) at a greater cost and distance, for lesser quality products.

2nr extension

Extend the arezeno 03 ev, the US ag industry loses over 4 billion a year, that’s way more substantial than anything the aff claims to solve

2NC Soft Power DA

Soft power

Center for Democracy in the Americas, Nov 16, 2012, “The Paralysis of Analysis and the Politics of Denial”, http://cubacentral.wordpress.com/tag/united-nations/

Carlos Iglesias, a U.S. Navy Commander and a candidate for a Master’s Degree at the Army War College, believes that the time has arrived.

His thesis, submitted last month, said this about the “longstanding blowback” against the policy globally and concludes it isn’t worth the cost: “…decades-long sanctions against the island have netted few if any national objectives, all the while depleting substantial national soft power. The cost-benefit analysis to U.S. national foreign policy will remain exceedingly unfavorable, if not outright counter-productive.”

2nr extensions

Our Center for Democracy in the Americas cards is super hot on the soft-power point; not only does trying to justify a crippling embargo against

a small island country drain substantial international support, but it diverts international focus from good uses to this blatantly awful use. Our

card is from November and interacts with the current political climate, prefer it on this point

The Embargo kills our soft power- the US just looks like a bully

Rumbaut 11 (Rubén G., ENCASA/US-CUBAUniversity of California, Irvine, “The UN, the US Embargo, and the 20 year rout; 10 Reasons to Oppose the Embargo,” CubaCentral, October 21, 2011, http://cubacentral.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/the-un-the-us-embargo-and-the-20-year-rout-10-reasons-to-oppose-the-embargo/, ADP)

“The U.S. trade and travel embargo against Cuba is the longest in history, and the most senseless and irredeemable. It is the act of a bully, based on pique. It is an abysmal moral and political failure, diminishing not Cuba but the U.S. in world opinion and respect. It has achieved the opposite of what it has sought,

hurting both the Cuban people as well as U.S. interests. The embargo is opposed by virtually the entire world as well as large domestic majorities, even Cuban exiles and dissidents; yet, the U.S. government persists with

its petty punitive policy, not out of reasoned principle but for internal political posturing. The spectacle of the world’s largest economy and sole superpower, seeking in vain for half a century to strangle a baseball-loving small developing nation that dared to defy it, is a modern David and Goliath story — and no one loves Goliath.”

2nr extension

Extend the rumbaut 11 card, the embargo undercuts all of our softpower claims. Cuba is literally one of the weakest countries in the world militarily and economically. The embargo not only appears imperialistic by coercing the rest of the world not to trade with cuba, but also creates a david and goliath mentality that rallies the world against the US.

The world is on cuba’s side

http://cubacentral.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/the-un-the-us-embargo-and-the-20-year-rout-10-reasons-to-oppose-the-embargo/


Benjamin Willis, November 14, 2012, A Glimmer of Hope; Obama, Cuba and United States, founding member of CAFE (Cuban Americans for Engagement), http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/11/14/obama-cuba-and-united-states/

Yesterday marked the 21st annual vote by the United Nations to condemn the U.S. embargo against Cuba. What started out as an attempt to rebuke the U.S. for its policy of economic strangulation of the island has turned into an yearly denouncement by the entire planet. The final vote was an almost universal drubbing of the United States’ embarrassing policy: 188-3 with the Marshall Islands and Micronesia abstaining.

2nr extensions

Extend the willis ev from November 14. The world has publically declared for 21 years in a row that the US is wrong on the embargo. And not

just by a small margin, every country except 2 small pacific island countries voted in favor of cuba. Not only is this the most recent card on the

subject but its obviously overwhelming

Embargo discredits Obama

Bradley A Smith, Join the Debate, April 14, 2009, politico, Professor, election law and campaign finance, http://www.politico.com/arena/archive/newsstoriesobamacuba.html

You like to talk about science. Well, the consensus among economists in favor of free trade is roughly as great as the consensus among scientists in favor of evolution. It's just a question of whether you will roll over and put the self-

interest of the unions ahead of the good of the country. This is a no brainer and your hesitancy on trade calls into question your commitment to economic growth and to the reduction of poverty in the developing world, your political toughness, and frankly, your intelligence. Your commitment to free trade will reaffirm your rapidly tattering centrist credentials at home, too.

2nr extension

Extend Smith 09, the vast majority of economists agree that free trade is the best way to solve poverty and its attendant effects. Furthermore, obama’s nominal support of free trade and open relations is severely undercut by his refusal to move at all on the cuba embargo. It signals that Obama is hypocritical and the US is not committed to its humanitarian aid goals

Repeal improves soft and hard power

Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Join the Debate, April 14, 2009, politico, Professor, Harvard Business School, http://www.politico.com/arena/archive/newsstoriesobamacuba.html

President Obama just gave the world an astonishing, powerful demonstration of both hard power and soft power at almost the same

time – use of force without hesitation in the piracy episode, use of persuasion and engagement with Cuba. This augurs well for U.S. leadership at the Summit of the Americas and beyond. Obama has made it clear that he will be tough on thugs (and drugs), while willing to invest in relationships of peaceful exchange. And both are good moves for the U.S. economy, in the first instance showing that we will protect the instruments of world trade, including shipping,

and in the case of Cuba, opening up a wide range of investment possibilities close to home and access to a highly educated work force. Brilliant moves.

2nr extension

http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/rosabeth_moss_kanter.html

Extend the Kanter 09 card, this card is fantastic on the points of both soft and hard power. Kanter argues that dedicated relations and economic openness are key to soft power, and the only major stumbling block left in the US soft power strategy is the cuba embargo. Second opening the embargo allows for immigration of talented individuals and a re-appropriation of US forces in a more useful way.

2NC Heg GeneralsRepeal improves soft and hard power

Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Join the Debate, April 14, 2009, politico, Professor, Harvard Business School, http://www.politico.com/arena/archive/newsstoriesobamacuba.html

President Obama just gave the world an astonishing, powerful demonstration of both hard power and soft power at almost the same

time – use of force without hesitation in the piracy episode, use of persuasion and engagement with Cuba. This augurs well for U.S. leadership at the Summit of the Americas and beyond. Obama has made it clear that he will be tough on thugs (and drugs), while willing to invest in relationships of peaceful exchange. And both are good moves for the U.S. economy, in the first instance showing that we will protect the instruments of world trade, including shipping,

and in the case of Cuba, opening up a wide range of investment possibilities close to home and access to a highly educated work force. Brilliant moves.

2nr extension

Extend the Kanter 09 card, this card is fantastic on the points of both soft and hard power. Kanter argues that dedicated relations and economic openness are key to soft power, and the only major stumbling block left in the US soft power strategy is the cuba embargo. Second opening the embargo allows for immigration of talented individuals and a re-appropriation of US forces in a more useful way.

Embargo shows weakness of US heg

MRC May 2003, “Asner Defends Castro: “We didn’t have a free election in 2002”, http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/908078/posts

Asner blamed the U.S. for driving Castro to communism: “What is the, because when Castro first took over, we all celebrated enormously. Cuba, which was never supposed to be under the hegemony of the United States had finally found its freedom. Within a year, because of pressure by the United States, Fidel demonstrated his independence of the United States. The United States could not tolerate a little country, a little Hispanic

country 90 miles off the United States declaring its independence of the United States so immediately embargoes, everything began to take place, forcing him into the sphere of Soviet influence.”

2nr extensions

Our MRC card gives a pretty substantial historical analysis about how the embargo actually weakened US projection in Cuba by forcing the Cuban governments to turn to Anti-US sources for funding and development, which is still happening. If the US were to lift the embargo then the Cubans could take the easy route and just trade with the US, converting cuba and hurting Anti-US entities

http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/rosabeth_moss_kanter.html

2NC Prolif internalProlif


A 1998 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Threat Assessment refers to Cuba’s possibility of developing Weapons of Mass Destruction, at least in

the research and development phase. Cuba possesses the scientific facilities and expertise to develop Weapons of Mass Destruction and if misguided or supported by outside terrorist resources it could result in grave consequences to U.S. national security. These are very real issues Americans have ignored for over ten years that deserve our attention before we wake up one day and the media is reporting Fidel Castro’s death, and we find ourselves unprepared to handle the situation in Cuba. A post-Castro regime may result in Cuba becoming a rogue state vulnerable to terrorist cells, drug cartels, and an economic crisis like the 1991 crisis, another mass exodus of Cuban refugees to the United States and worst of all another Cuban Missile Crisis. The U.S. government is aware of these issues and the consequences of the embargo, but because of political reasons and a small percentage of Cuban Americans influencing our politicians and the lack of interest in

general by our nation, our leadership has chosen not to act on the embargo and develop a strategy for improving conditions in Cuba. Our goal for Cuba should be to develop a sincere strategy for a peaceful transition to ensure Cuba does not become a rogue state or the

source of illegal migration to the United States by helping improve conditions on the island through economic growth and prosperity.

2nr extensions

The arezeno 03 card is going to win us this prolif arg. Not only does cuba have the tech to build nuclear weapons, but they also have the facilities. The most likely source of prolif is going to be from Cuba. Not only can we not know whether they are developing or not, because of the embargo, but if they were and Castro were to die those nukes could fall into the hands of a failed state or terrorists. This is an immediate impact that the aff simply cant access.

2NC Environmental Leadership DA

Repealing the embargo solves US-Cuba relations, solves environmental diplomacy

Whittle 11 (Daniel, Senior Attorney and Cuba Program Director Environmental Defense Fund, “The UN, the US Embargo, and the 20 year rout; 10 Reasons to Oppose the Embargo,” CubaCentral, October 21, 2011, http://cubacentral.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/the-un-the-us-embargo-and-the-20-year-rout-10-reasons-to-oppose-the-embargo/, ADP)

“Oil drilling in Cuban waters creates an unprecedented urgency to rethink U.S. policy toward Cuba. An oil spill in Cuba could be disastrous to shorelines, marine life, coastal communities and livelihoods in both countries. The U.S. should eliminate political and legal obstacles that hinder its ability to share expertise if an emergency occurs in shared waters. The Obama Administration has taken some positive steps to promote scientific exchange and dialogue on environmental protection with Cuba. Environmental diplomacy—done right and carried out in good faith—can lay a foundation for real and lasting improvement in Cuba-U.S. relations. “

<<Insert impact card>> (there should be some in the CCS aff file)



2NC Deforestation Add-onPoverty in Cuba leads to deforestation

Reuters, October 21, 2011, http://hpub.org/cuba-embargo-loses-187-to-2-at-united-nations/

Leaders reared in failed states and societies are often backward, gimpy and corrupt. If enough individuals develop a personality disorder, the

national traits of an entire nation begin to change for the worse. Cuba, like Haiti, suffers a permanent economic dislocation,

but on a higher plane of poverty under the direction of a disciplined, well organized group less chaotic than its surroundings.

Regardless, the bonhomie of cheery islanders born in “paradise” is reduced to levity in both nations. The ennui of poverty is standard. The stellar Cuban-American entrepreneur has his diametric opposite in the feckless nincompoop running Cuba’s state enterprises at a loss. He doesn’t care, its no one’s property . The successful Haitian businessman is outnumbered 100 to one by Haitians living on less than two dollars a day. He doesn’t care either… he got his.

Fallow fields in Cuba at an opportunity cost and deforestation in Haiti at a profit. In the Third World, churlishness in thought and deed, at work and at play; stupidity and mediocrity, like a slow-motion earthquake, rumble underfoot for years until all their

latent chaos is released in the avalanche of a “natural” disaster. Thus, the jerry-built housing stock of Haiti, its concrete mix watered-down with too much sand and supporting beams lacking Rebar , its housing inspectors bought off for a song, collapse on the wicked and the innocent alike, and presently the mighty cavalry of the North swoop down on the Apocalypse, nor will they soon depart.

Defo leads to water corruption, which kills marine life – reforest happening now but only moderate success

Office of Global Analysis, March 2008, Cuba’s Food & Agriculture Situation Report, https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:_9urCJmM8-sJ:www.fas.usda.gov/itp/cuba/cubasituation0308.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShaLq5RsMp7D56eBmSIy0v1J3MAmVPBNCTpyTOolMbvm-SQxoBCqE1R-bVqGEtAgiXBVlznPsopxYDq6FGohLQAYQoXfo12Et-g5KsZK-wz7C-Kq3Th_trEAVuiZ0Miyt2G1Z04&sig=AHIEtbTWfLzztlfrMcwVtKPeutAx8NoE6Q

These water problems are further exacerbated by Cuba’s long history of deforestation. In 1812, Cuba was 90 percent covered with forest, but by 1975, coverage had shrunk to 18 percent. Most of the remaining forests are in inaccessible mountainous

and swampy coastal areas. In recent years, the government has instituted a series of reforestation programs that have been only moderately successful. One of Cuba’s best water-based natural resources is its numerous beaches, reputed to be some of the best in the Caribbean. The island is narrow and 1,200 kilometers long, with an irregular

coastline of 5,746 kilometers. It has more than 200 bays and more than 300 natural beaches, plus numerous port cities. Another Cuban water-based resource is the abundance of fish and other marine species found in its coastal waters. Cuba’s near-shore waters also contain many pristine coral reefs.

2nr extensions

Our Reuters 11 card is excellent on this point. Cuba’s poverty means that non-state individuals have no opportunity to make inroutes to wealth, and state employed individuals can use public land for personal wealth. That means the forests of Cuba suddenly become potential wealth sources for the political elite and the deforestation becomes unchecked and rampant. Only repealing the embargo can solve for the internals and thus solve deforestation

Our Office of Global Analysis 08 ev is excellent on the defo impacts. Not only does defo have the obvious impact of clearing the forests of Cuba, but it also destroys the shallow water resources which destroys the beaches, port economy and marine species (including fish and coral reef). Those internals to bio-d and and econ are way better than the affs. Add on top of that that our ev talks about the structural nature of deforestation in Cuba and this becomes the round winning card

2NC Popular

Bipartisan support for repeal

Litvinsky 09 (Marina, reporter for The Global Information Network, “Penny Worthy Being Saved,” Global Information Network, April 1, 2009, Proquest, ADP)

WASHINGTON, Mar. 31, 2009 (IPS/GIN) - A bipartisan group of U.S. senators and interest groups is backing a bill that would end the long economic embargo against Cuba, including travel restrictions to the island. The 'Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act' was introduced Tuesday by Senators Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat and Senate Democratic Policy Committee chair, and Michael Enzi, a Republican from Wyoming. They were joined by 20 cosponsors, including influential Senators Christopher Dodd and Richard Lugar, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Human Rights Watch (HRW).

"The people of Cuba ought to be free," said Senator Dorgan, pointing to the U.S.'s failed Cuba policy in achieving this. The nearly 50-year-old embargo on Cuba is only "punishing American people," he said. If passed, the bill would prohibit the president from regulating or prohibiting travel to or from Cuba by U.S. citizens or legal residents or any of the transactions ordinarily incident to such travel, except in time of war or armed hostilities between the United States and Cuba, or of imminent danger to the public health or the physical safety of U.S. travellers. The Cuban embargo, introduced in 1961 and subsequently tightened further, prohibits travel to and business dealings with Cuba for all U.S. citizens. Many have argued that this policy actually thwarts U.S. interests

and further strengthens the government there. "The U.S. embargo on Cuba is a 50-year failure, and lifting the ban on travel is a good first step toward a more rational policy," said Myron Brilliant, senior vice president for International Affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "The embargo was implemented to try to bring freedom to Cuba, but it made a martyr out of a tyrant and

actually has helped prop up the regime." Sponsors of the bill include agricultural associations who believe the lifting of travel restrictions to Cuba will increase U.S. agricultural sales of such commodities as poultry, wheat and soybeans. Agricultural sales to Cuba have

averaged 400 million dollars annually since 2000. "In the long term we need to do more to open up channels of trade (in Cuba), like we do in other countries," said Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation. Proponents of the

legislation point out that the 47-year-old embargo has done nothing to promote democracy or force the Cuban government to obey human rights standards. "Human Rights Watch has been monitoring human rights in Cuba for nearly two decades and the dismal state of human rights has not improved," said Jose Miguel Vivanco, executive director of the Americas Division at HRW

Congress wants to repeal the embargo

Congress Daily 09 (“GAO Report Gives Road Map for Lifting Cuban Embargo,” Congress Daily/ A.M., October 2, 2009, Proquest, ADP)

Three House lawmakers led by Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel offered a plan Thursday for ending the Cuban trade embargo that has been in effect since 1962. Rangel and Reps. Barbara Lee , D-Calif., and Jeff Flake , R-Ariz., released a GAO report outlining steps that could be taken to end the embargo, which Rangel called "a failed and outdated policy that has not resulted in any advances for the Cuban or American people."

Cubans key to electoral vote


Although most progressives would agree that last Tuesday’s elections did little to resolve the overwhelming list of challenges that faces our

nation there is a glimmer of hope that the United States is inevitably moving towards a policy of engagement and normalization with Cuba. Barack Obama and the Democratic party showed that they were able to listen to voices within the Cuban American community crying out for a new stance towards the island of their families and their heritage over the din of the distorted hysteria projected by the historical Cuban exile

community of southern Florida. As a result, Obama took a record amount of the Cuban American votes in Miami-Dade County and Democrat Joe Garcia easily beat the hapless Republican incumbent David Rivera for Florida’s 26th

congressional district. These victories for candidates who have demonstrated a clear intention to work towards a more “normal” policy with Cuba reflect the desire for both political parties to acknowledge

the raw statistics of public opinion polls in both Florida and across the United States concerning current policy towards Cuba. After decades of voting for Republican politicians who were willing to cozy up to criminals such as Orlando Bosch

and Luis Posada Carriles in order to project a hard-line approach the Cuban Americans of Miami are abandoning their blind support for the

policy of economic strangulation that is the United States embargo towards Cuba. Outside of Florida, gains in the senate by Democrats in races that were all but gift-wrapped for the Republicans just three months ago bode well for what

will eventually be a long slog through both houses in order to finally dismantle the Helms-Burton Act, the codification of the odious embargo that will be universally denounced in the UN this Tuesday, November 13th.

No link to politics, completely non-unique

Hilary Moise, July 20, 2006, “US Embargo against Cuba under Growing Siege”, http://www.politicalaffairs.net/u-s-embargo-against-cuba-under-growing-siege/

Washington’s embargo against Cuba has been a longstanding obstacle to U.S.-Cuban relations of any kind, but the emergence of economic opportunities in the Cuban market has prompted a possible thaw in the historic hostilities.

Although ideological skirmishes over politics and trade continue between the United States and Cuba, recent legislative activity in Congress has broken with the White House’s longstanding tradition of harsh invectives and vengeful, punitive

foreign policy toward the island nation. For example, recent votes in the House of Representatives on amendments intended to roll back recent restrictions on travel, trade deals and the embargo itself, reflect the growing shift in U.S. opinion concerning Cuba.

Politics turn: energy special interest


The chorus of critics demanding a reform of the embargo policy has swelled as major U.S. energy companies join the ranks, pushing the State Department and Congress for a legislative exemption to the trade embargo that would allow them to join the heated international competition for access to Cuban oil reserves. The longstanding U.S.

ideology of “transformational diplomacy” has dominated as justification for the strict enforcement of the embargo, yet economic interests are gathering momentum and influencing the current intensified lobbying effort to thwart the decidedly unprofitable embargo. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates U.S. exporters lose $1.2 billion annually as a result of their inability to access Cuban markets. The only embargo-weakening legislation to attract any significant support in Congress this

year have been bills concerning the negative economic impact of the embargo on U.S. industry, a likely indication that future profits are outweighing ancient prejudices in American political culture, Congress and the Fortune 500.

2nr extensions

Extend our Moise 06 evidence, it makes the specific claim that congress and industry are both against the embargo, with powerful lobbies on the side of repeal. There is literally zero risk that we link to

politics here and only a probably chance we turn it .

Extend Moise 06, There have been 3 different updates to US-Cuba relations during Obama’s term and none of them have sparked the link or anything near it. There is absolutely no brink here and our evidence is specific on this point

2NC Ableism internals

Embargo causes more ableism and restricts tools to solve ableism

Joy Gordon, Winter 2012, Prof of Philosophy at Fairfield Univ, Senior fellow at Global Justice Program at Yale, Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, Volume 36:1, 63-79

Conventional Wisdom holds that multilateral embargoes are more effective than unilateral embargoes. But while U.S. unilateral measures have not been effective at ending the Castro regime, they have had a far greater impact on Cuba’s economy and society than would ordinarily be expected of a unilateral trade embargo. This is partly because the United

States would be Cuba’s largest and closest trading partner, and the lack of access to U.S. markets means that Cuba is excluded from buying a broad range of U.S.goods that cost less to buy and transport than comparable goods produced elsewhere in the World. According to a study by the Congressional Research Service, imports to Cuba were 50 percent higher overall as a result of the embargo.2 For example, Braille machines produced in the United States, used for teaching blind and partially sighted children, are significantly less expensive than those produced elsewhere. Consequently, Cuba’s costs when it buys Braille machines for schools are $1100 per machine, rather than $700 for the machines produced in the United States.3 Likewise, because cytostatic serums, used to treat certain types of malignant tumors, cannot be purchased from U.S. companies, Cuba buys them from Europe or Asia, or through third countries, which significantly increases their costs.“ Additionally, according to the UN Human Settlements Program, Cuba’s inability to purchase construction materials from U.S. sources adversely affects cost and logistics to such a degree that it undermines the availability of adequate housing in Cuba. On one occasion, this lack of access to cheap U.S. materials compromised Cuba’s Kresponse to housing reconstruction needs resulting from destructive hurricanes in 2001 and 2002, in both cases primarily affecting the most vulnerable sectors of the population.” Thus, even as a unilateral measure, the fact that the embargo denies Cuba access to U,S. markets is itself costly and damaging to the Cuban economy.

Lifting embargo key to diabetes and cancer medicine, a better internal than case

Patricia Grogg, October 4, 2006, Cuba Embargo’s Boomerang Effect, Common Dreams, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1004-07.htm

Washington's embargo against Cuba also has an impact on the United States economy and prevents millions of U.S. citizens from benefiting from Cuban medical progress, according to a report released by the Cuban foreign ministry. The text of the report will be presented at the United Nations General Assembly, which on Nov. 8 will be examining for the fifteenth consecutive

year the need to end the embargo imposed by Washington on Havana more than four decades ago. The document states that "because of the blockade regulations" it has been impossible to begin clinical trials in the U.S. with TheraCIM, a Cuban pharmaceutical product for treating brain tumours in children. TheraCIM is produced by the Molecular Immunology Centre, which in 2004 made a deal with U.S. company CancerVax to develop and produce therapeutic vaccines against

cancer. This medication is registered in Cuba and other countries for treating cancer of the head and neck, and has been proved to reduce tumour mass. It could benefit children in the United States and other countries with this type of cancer, the report points out. It also adds that were it not for the embargo,

millions of people in the United States suffering from diabetes could benefit from Citoprot P, a unique

product and treatment method that accelerates healing of diabetic foot ulcers, reducing the risk of lower extremity amputations. Citoprot P was developed by the Cuban Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology. According to the

foreign ministry report, about 20.8 million people in the United States suffer from diabetes, a chronic incurable disease.

2nr extensions

Extend the Gordon 12 card, not only was it released in the last few weeks but it makes two excellent claims about ableism in the Cuban Embargo context. First there are products that would help prevent and cure diseases that cause detrimental effects. If we were to lift the embargo we could trade products not only to help individuals in the US but also in Cuba. That would significantly decrease the impetus against differently abled people and solve some of the main reasons it is caused. Second the tools that help people in differently abled positions are significantly more expensive, both on the Cuban and American side. For example braille machines cost about 150% more than they normally would, meaning that tools of solvency are taken away by maintaining the embargo.

Our Grogg ev is pretty good here. The embargo prevents US citizens from using Cuban based medical advances, including diabetes and cancer treatments that are significantly better than our medical technologies. That means about 21 million people suffering from diabetes cant be helped and many more children and adults will get cancer that could be easily prevented. Those are structural and ongoing ableist problems that only the CP can interact with.

2NC Will say Yes Cuba says yes

Jennifer Gerz-Escandon, October 9, 2008, End the US-Cuba embargo: It’s a Win-Win, Christian science monitor, Professor of Political Science, http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/1009/p09s02-coop.html

Even as Cubans recover from hurricanes Gustav andIke, their desire to end the embargo remains strong. In rejecting a modest initial offer of US aid on Sept. 4, Cuban President Raúl Castro called instead for the whole enchilada of normalized economic relations. The United States is equally resolute in its nearly 50-year-old opposition to the socialist dictatorship. As simply put by the CATO Institute, Washington's chief rationale for the embargo has been to "compel a democratic transformation" in Cuba.

Obama softening the ground for last 4 years, Cuba will reciprocate trade


If Obama could have run on his record of pursuing a different policy with Cuba he might have been able to carry even more states in the election. In contrast to the empty promises he gave his supporters concerning tackling global-

warming, pursuing peace, and rebuilding America’s manufacturing base with “green” jobs, his success at re-drawing the “line in the sand” between the U.S. and Cuba has been a positive step towards redefining America’s policy towards the communist nation. Obama’s decision to scrap George W. Bush’s policies of allowing Cuban Americans to travel to the island only once every three years was an easy, yet necessary step. He changed regulations in favor for open travel to the island by Cuban Americans in 2009. Remittances were also allowed to be sent and have helped family members on the island to set up private businesses in Cuba’s nascent mixed economy that has resulted from the economic reforms that the Cuban government has implemented in the past few years. All of

these decisions have been applauded throughout the Cuban American community. Unfortunately, Cuban Americans have had to defend these

rights, not privileges, because elected politicians from their own community like David Rivera, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Marco Rubio have

attacked such simple conveniences as “appeasement”.

http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Washington%2C+DC

http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Cato+Institute

http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/United+States

http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Raul+Castro

http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Hurricane+Ike

2NC Agriculture internal link

We access their market internals better


For years, US farmers have lobbied Congress – only somewhat successfully – to open Cuban markets, which are lucrative and feature low transportation costs. Both sides could realize benefits from greater liberalization: relaxed payment

options for cash-strapped Cuba and the end of licenses and quotas for US farmers. Despite the embargo, the US is Cuba's largest supplier of food and its sixth-largest trading partner.

Repeal would be great for ag sector


U.S. agriculture and other industries stand to increase their profits considerably, if the Moran amendment

succeeds. Combined, exporters sell an average of $800 million worth of agricultural commodities, food and

medicine to Cuba annually . The USDA Foreign Agricultural Service reports that although in 2004, Cuba became the 21st largest market for U.S. agricultural exports , the new 2005 Treasury regulation made sales to Cuba more difficult and led to a 22 percent decline in the sale of agricultural products in the Cuban market the following year .

2nr extensions

Oh my god this Moise 06 ag card is the end of the aff, not only is it specific it in the amount the repeal would increase the ag exports (800 mil), but it predicts that the market would be even better in the long term. This card is better than anything in their 1ac and disgustingly specific. You should be giving it full weight right now

2NC grain internal

Repeal key to US grain market (and politically popular)

Greg Dworkin Join the Debate, April 14, 2009, politico, Contributing Editor, Daily Kos, http://www.politico.com/arena/archive/newsstoriesobamacuba.html

Current American policy towards Cuba is just stupid. There’s no other single word that better describes it (well, maybe

anachronistic, but stupid is a better fit.) It’s ineffective, it hurts mid-western farmers who want to sell grain, it’s pandering to a no-longer-monolithic voting block in a single state (Florida) whose younger members aren’t obsessed with it, it criminalizes families, and it desperately needs updating.

http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/greg_dworkin.html

2NC Rice internalRice Internal


One of the key agricultural sectors that stand to profit from expedited sales to Cuba is the rice industry. Cuba is the largest single grain market in the Caribbean, with 40 percent of the region’s annual imports. For U.S. rice producers, Cuba is an almost captive market, as the United States is a much closer and more convenient source for Cuba than Asia, the next nearest rice exporter. A 2005 USDA Foreign

Agricultural Service report on the potential of the Cuban rice market states that “U.S. rice probably stands to benefit the most from greater market access.” Furthermore, “if trade were not restricted, Cuba could replace Mexico and Japan as the top market for U.S. rice in quantity and value.” The huge potential of this untapped agricultural market in Cuba could have a dramatically positive impact on U.S. exports, and private businesses and trade organizations have begun to fight for access to this market in earnest. The Moran amendment’s success thus far demonstrates that when the interests of the domestic industry stand to benefit, the ideological zealotry that keeps the Cuba embargo afloat can be conveniently redefined.

2nr extensions

Extend the Moise 06 card, it literally says that if there were no embargo Cuba would be our number 1 export market for rice. Period. That’s by far the best internal there could possibly be to the rice advantage and is the best evidence on this point. Their case has absolutely no way of capturing this evidence and you should be giving us full weight on it

2NC Dairy InternalLifting embargo would triple dairy sales, at a minimum

Delia Lloyd, correspondent, Politics Daily, 2010, “Ten Reasons to Lift the Cuba Embargo”, http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-the-cuba-embargo/

It's good economics. It's long been recognized that opening up Cuba to American investment would be a huge boon to the tourism industry in both countries. According to the Cuban government, 250,000 Cuban-Americans visited from the United States in 2009, up from

roughly 170,000 the year before, suggesting a pent-up demand. Lifting the embargo would also be an enormous boon the U.S. agricultural sector. One 2009 study estimated that doing away with all financing and travel restrictions on U.S. agricultural

exports to Cuba would have boosted 2008 dairy sales to that country from $13 million to between $39 million and $87 million, increasing U.S. market share from 6 percent to between 18 and 42 percent.

2nr extensions

Extend the Lloyd card, the aff simply doenst have an answer here. Our card says that lifting the embargo would increase dairy sales by at least 300% but up to 700%. That means that the Cuban market share would be about 42% of what the US produces; that’s almost half. The economics here are just too much to ignore. And that change in the economy happens immediately post Counterplan. The only way you don’t vote on this card is if you let them somehow perm, which is pretty much a non-starter, but we’ll get to that later on the flow.

2NC renewable energy internal link

Embargo Repeal best internal to renewable energy


By gaining the freedom and cooperative assistance to make this transition, Cuba could address its own energy dependence while leap-frogging years ahead on modernization. For starters, Cuba could explore the sugar-bioenergy market and the energy-related uses of nickel. Given the abundance of well-trained but under-employed Cuban engineers, the ingredients for a perfect storm of innovation are already present. For its part, by ending the embargo, the US simultaneously gains security through stability in Cuba. More important, by investing in the future prototype for emerging markets – a 42,803-square-

mile green energy and technology lab called Cuba – America gains a dedicated partner in the search for energy independence.

2NC Ethanol internal

Embargo repeal means sugarcane, which means cheap ethanol

Neocon News, Feb 15, 2008, “Obama Position Change on Cuban Embargo”, http://www.neoconnews.com/2008/02/15/obama-position-change-on-cuban-embargo/

Cuba’s main business is growing sugarcane. Using sugar is the cheapest and most practical way to produce ethanol. Every year from an acre of sugarcane you can produce 750 gallons of ready-to-use ethanol. (And it can be done

organically.) If Cuba was allowed to trade freely with the US it could supply ethanol to US motorists at half the price you now pay for gasoline. When you look at the figures for Cuba you find that 75% of Cuba is sugar cane country.

That’s like a paddock one hundred and seventy miles square. It would produce enough to continuously run 30 million cars on straight ethanol. Or 35 million cars on E85, which a lot of modern American cars are designed for. It is thus very logical for the oil conglomerates and the Middle East oil states to insist, and demand, and to connive, to insure that the Cuban Embargo continues indefinitely.

2nr extensions

The Neocon News card is so good on the renewables point, Cuba grows loads of Sugarcane which could be easily turned into ethanol and sold at half the price of gas. That means we solve immediately post plan and can spur a sustainable transition into renewables. Plan simply can not compete here

2NC illegal immigration internalSolves illegal immigration and spending problems


Finally, a key component of renewing relations is ending illicit emigration. At issue is the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act,

amended in 1995. It encourages disaffected Cubans to risk their lives for the reward of an expedited path to US citizenship upon reaching

American soil. They also receive immediate access to a work permit and the ability to acquire residency in one year. A 2002 article from The

Miami Herald reported that 1 in 20 Cubans being smuggled to the shores of the United States dies in the attempt. Meanwhile, smugglers collect up to $10,000 a person. Retiring the "wet-foot, dry-foot" policy and normalizing

immigration laws could stop the Cuban brain drain, end charges of a US immigration double standard, and save hundreds of millions of dollars for the US taxpayers who must fund four different agencies to implement this policy.

http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Miami+Herald+Publishing+Company

http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Miami+Herald+Publishing+Company

2NC spending internalSee illegal immigration internal link

2NC Oil Spill Add on

Repeal key to oil spill response

William E Gibson, May 10, 2012, Cuba embargo threatens spill response plans, ex US official says, http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-05-10/news/fl-cuba-drilling-panel-20120510_1_deepwater-horizon-cuba-embargo-oil-spill

A Spanish energy company is poised to strike oil off the shores of Cuba within a week, but a former U.S. environmental official warned on Thursday that the U.S. embargo has hampered plans to protect South Florida from a potential spill.

Embargo prevents oil spill response, would effect whole gulf

William E Gibson, May 10, 2012, Cuba embargo threatens spill response plans, ex US official says, http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-05-10/news/fl-cuba-drilling-panel-20120510_1_deepwater-horizon-cuba-embargo-oil-spill

Although the Spanish company Repsol is moving slowly in drilling an exploratory oil well in waters north of Cuba and the island

nation is monitoring the work carefully, the U.S. hasn't done enough to help prevent an accident there, experts

warned Thursday. The U.S. embargo against Cuba would impede a response, said William Reilly, a former head of the

Environmental Protection Agency who led a probe of the 2010 Gulf oil spill. While the Cubans have been attentive to the risks, "the United States government has not interpreted its sanctions policy in a way that would clearly make available in advance the kind of technology that would be required" in case of an emergency, Reilly said at a Center for

International Policy forum on the drilling. The kind of equipment used in the 2010 spill could be ensnared by the embargo, Reilly said. Repsol began drilling in February 16 miles from the Cuban coast. An accident there could send oil into coral reefs along the Cuban and Florida coasts, said Dan Whittle, a senior attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund. The embargo generally bars U.S. commerce with Cuba and caps the amount of U.S.-made components in offshore equipment at 10 percent. It

allows companies to ask the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control for licenses to do business with Cuba. But in an offshore emergency, that could take too long, said lawyer Robert Muse, an international trade

specialist. He said the government should create a general license allowing anyone connected with spill response or offshore drilling to travel

freely to Cuba in an emergency. Federal officials say they are making plans for companies to move quickly in the event of a spill in Cuban

waters, including licenses for U.S. firms to deploy equipment.

Cuban waters key to bio-d

Rob Almeida, May 18, 2012, Drilling off cuba and how the embargo could be very costly for the US, http://gcaptain.com/drilling-cuba-

embargo-badly/

If disaster strikes offshore Cuba, US citizens will have nobody else to blame except the US Government because outdated policies are impacting the ability to prepare sufficiently for real-life environmental threats. Considering Cuba waters are home to the highest concentration of biodiversity in the region and is a spawning ground for fish populations that migrate north into US waters, a Cuban oil spill could inflict unprecedented environmental devastation if not planned for in advance.

http://www.chron.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=business&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Robert+Muse%22

http://www.chron.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=business&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Office+of+Foreign+Assets+Control%22

http://www.chron.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=business&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Treasury+Department%22

http://www.chron.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=business&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Environmental+Defense+Fund%22

http://www.chron.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=business&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Dan+Whittle%22

http://www.chron.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=business&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Center+for+International+Policy%22

http://www.chron.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=business&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Center+for+International+Policy%22

http://www.chron.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=business&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22William+Reilly%22

2NC Oil Dependence

Cuba oil key to energy stability and international competitiveness


Steadily increasing competition for limited oil reserves, combined with escalating fears of rising oil prices among the American public, have driven U.S. oil companies to seek out new sources of energy.

Moreover, in recent years, suspected Cuban oil reserves in the North Cuban Basin have become much more attractive. Karen Matusic, a spokeswoman for the American Petroleum Institute, a Washington lobbying group representing several companies including

Exxon Mobil Corp and Chevron Corp, has stated that her clients support the exemption legislation “in the context of increasing access to oil and gas reserves as a way to ensure U.S. companies’ competitiveness globally.” Furthermore, Cuba’s auctioning of access to oil reserves no more than 50 miles off the U.S. shore, is giving foreign oil companies the advantage on resources in America’s backyard. Recently, oil companies from Norway, India, Spain and China signed drilling deals that grant access to Cuba’s offshore reserves. Demands for an exemption to the trade restrictions being enforced by the Cuba embargo have grown increasingly more forceful among U.S. oil companies, and their support will improve the chances of the Western Hemisphere Energy Security Act of 2006 succeeding in the current session of Congress.

2nr extensions

Extend the Moise 06 ev on oil drilling, not only does it set out a pretty specific timeline brink of right now, because there’s fierce competition to get contracts on Cuba’s oil reserves immediately, but it also makes the predictive claims that if we lift the embargo and drill in cuba we could pay less and have a more secure oil resource. Global context is the issue and the repeal is the only way to solve

2NC Oil/Venezuela internalOpening oil trade solves for Venezuelan influence

Office of Global Analysis, March 2008, Cuba’s Food & Agriculture Situation Report, https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:_9urCJmM8-sJ:www.fas.usda.gov/itp/cuba/cubasituation0308.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShaLq5RsMp7D56eBmSIy0v1J3MAmVPBNCTpyTOolMbvm-SQxoBCqE1R-bVqGEtAgiXBVlznPsopxYDq6FGohLQAYQoXfo12Et-g5KsZK-wz7C-Kq3Th_trEAVuiZ0Miyt2G1Z04&sig=AHIEtbTWfLzztlfrMcwVtKPeutAx8NoE6Q

But in recent years, economic assistance and subsidized oil exports from Venezuela have provided a new engine for economic growth for Cuba. These imported energy inputs have allowed commercial production to increase in

some sectors, including some commercial agricultural production on the larger scale farms. The magnitude of this support from Venezuela and expanding trade credits and investment from China have somewhat mitigated the adverse impact of the U.S. embargo.

2nr extensions

Extend the Office of Global Analysis 08 ev, we turn the South America power projection by re-engaging with the economies of south America by the most important focal point, Cuba’s oil resources. If we lift the embargo it completely takes out the Venezuelan impetus to help Cuba

2NC European Allies

European Allies detest Embargo

Rory Carroll, October 2009, “UN Condemns American Embargo on Cuba, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/28/cuba-embargo-un-vote

Even US allies such as Britain, Australia and Colombia side against the superpower, saying its Cuba policy is a cold war anachronism given US trade with undemocratic states such as China and Vietnam. One European ambassador called the embargo "demented".

2nr extensions

Extend our Carroll 09 card, the Europeans are literally calling the embargo “demented”, there is no evidence better on the attitudinal orientation between the US and its European allies than our card. Not only should you prefer our ev, but you should prefer the ev that’s specific to the current situation, and it doenst get any more specific that this.

2NC Russia Relations Internals

The Russian Congress wants repeal lifted

Hispanic Business, Nov 20, 2012, “Russia’s State Duma Calls on US to Lift Cuba Embargo”, http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news/newsbyid.asp?idx=301282

Members of Russia's State Duma have appealed to parliaments of UN members states to call for the USA to end its economic embargo of Cuba, Russian Interfax news agency reported on 20 November. "The unilateral embargo of the Republic of Cuba established by the United States of America in circumvention of the United Nations will not only restrain the development of the Cuban economy, but also undermine the rights and lawful interests of Cuban citizens living in other states and also third states," a statement passed by the Duma on 20 November said. Cuban experts estimate the economic damage to Cuba since the beginning of the

blockade to be more than 108bn dollars as of December 2011, the document says. The Duma members welcome the initiative of Cuba's leaders which aims to modernize the national economy and increase the population's standard of living. They think that lifting the economic sanctions and normalizing Cuban-American relations will help the implementation of this initiative, the document said. The State Duma appealed to parliaments of UN members states "to call on the USA to end its economic, trade and financial blockade of the Republic of Cuba", the document said.

Repeal Embargo key to Russia relations – now key

Russia Times, nov 14, 2012, Moscow Votes to end Washington 52 year Cuban Embargo, http://rt.com/politics/moscow-cuba-washington-embargo-churkin-669/

On Tuesday, Russia threw its support behind a UN resolution that calls on Washington to end the trade embargo, Russian Permanent Representative to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin said at a meeting of the UN General Assembly on Tuesday. "We hope that after the US government eases its embargo in certain areas – in particular, on US citizens' visiting relatives in Cuba, as well as on making money transfers and postal orders. Other steps for the final lifting of the embargo will follow," the Russian ambassador said

from the rostrum of the UN General Assembly. He stressed that Russia has consistently called for the termination of the embargo, in addition to halting “political and military pressure that aggravates confrontational tendencies in international relations." The UN General Assembly on Tuesday voted overwhelmingly to

condemn the US commercial, economic and financial embargo against Cuba. Russia was among 188 UN member states that voted in favor of the resolution, which calls on Washington to lift the embargo against Cuba "as soon as possible."

Russia wants repeal

Voice of Russia, November 16, 2012, “Russia Hopes that the USA may Eventually Lift Cuban Embargo” https://02varvara.wordpress.com/tag/united-states-embargo-against-cuba/

According to Russian Ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin , Russia hopes that the Americans will follow their decision to ease their blockade of Cuba with other moves that’d fully lift the blockade. The UN General Assembly adopted

a resolution urging Washington to give up its trade embargo , which is now in its 51st year. Recently, the USA somewhat eased the blockade. Specifically, it’s removed the restrictions concerning visits by US citizens to their relatives in Cuba, as well as allowing cash remittances.

Churkin feels that the unilateral US sanctions have proved incapable of affecting the Cuban people ’s choice of the model of social development, but have only served to lower the island country’s living standards.

Cuba is extremely important to Russia

Russia Times, nov 14, 2012, Moscow Votes to end Washington 52 year Cuban Embargo, http://rt.com/politics/moscow-cuba-washington-embargo-churkin-669/

Between 1959 and 1991, the Soviet Union delivered 170 million tons of oil, 13 million tons of grain, and 300,000 trucks, cars and tractors to

Cuba, according to the Council on Hemispheric Affairs. Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia remains Cuba's leading creditor and the two countries maintain close economic ties with each other.

2nr extensions

Theres no way they compete with the Hispanic Business Nov 20 card. Our ev is recent and specific on Russia’s feelings towards the embargo. More than that, its not just some random person talking about it, it’s the Russian Congress giving a statement directed towards the US. Its rare that you come across and honest and excellent card in debate but this is just one of those.

The rest of our evidence reflects this, not only as diplomats in the UN from Russia coordinate their calls to the US, but also from economic and human rights stances. All of our ev is from Mid November up to the present. There is simply no way that their evidence competes with us on this point.

2NC Russia/Venezuela/Brazil/China internals

Cuba key to Russia, Venezuela, Brazil and China

One News, December 23, 2008, Cuba Projects 2009 economic Growth, http://tvnz.co.nz/content/2428217/4042040/article.html

Cuba's economy will grow more than 4% in 2009 as new accords with foreign countries and economic reforms compensate for negative international factors, the country's economy minister said. Economy and Planning Minister Jose Luis

Rodriguez said hurricanes and other factors would restrict 2008 economic growth to 4%, compared with the planned 7%. "We are going to grow more next year than this year," Rodriguez said in an interview broadcast on Monday by state-run Radio Rebelde."The country has important cooperation agreements. Those signed with Venezuela, with Brazil and with Russia. Relations with China will continue and broaden," he said. Communist Cuba's economy, which grew 7.3% in 2007,

is more than 90% controlled by the state. Cuba and Venezuela this month announced more than 150 cooperation agreements for 2009 valued at $2 billion, including continued expansion of a joint venture oil refinery and petrochemical complex

in central Cienfuegos province.

2NC International Law Internal

Embargo is against international law

Russia Times, nov 14, 2012, Russia hopes US may eventually lift cuba embargo, http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_11_14/Russia-hopes-US-may-eventually-lift-the-blockade-of-Cuba/

The UN General Assembly has once again demanded that the United States "in the shortest possible time" lift the commercial and financial embargo against Cuba. The blockade was introduced 51 years ago and seriously undermines the economy of the island. 186 UN member states have spoken out in support of the resolution; three countries have voted against (including the U.S.), and two abstained. The resolution calls on the international community to refrain in future from destructive actions such as

those taken by Washington against Cuba. As emphasized in the document, these actions are contrary to countries’ obligations under the UN Charter, and international law.

2NC drugs, terror, trafficking

Cuba will work with US on drugs, terror and human trafficking

Russia Times, November 14, 2012, Condemned again: Genocidal US embargo on cuba slammed by UN for 21st year, http://rt.com/news/cuba-embargo-un-vote-635/

Cuba has offered to work in tandem with the US in areas such as the fight against drug trafficking, terrorism and human trafficking. However, Washington has affirmed that its policy towards Cuba will remain intact for the time being.

Lift embargo key to terror and drug trafficking proximity


Present day menaces include transnational threats like terrorist cells operating and planning attacks from Cuba against the United States, relatively unnoticed by U.S. intelligence agencies because of our inability to enter the island. Another ever-present threat is the possibility of the drug cartels using the island as a staging base or drug transit zone between South America and the U.S. Illegal migration is another major transnational threat affecting our nation and the Western Hemisphere in general. With the increasing number of Cuban Americans among our society, it is only natural that these Americans have the well-being of their families left in Cuba on their minds. If conditions do not improve on the island, Cuban Americans may feel that their only recourse for the well-being of their families is to continue bringing them to the U.S. by any means possible to include illegal means.

2nr extensions

Our Arezeno 03 ev makes three claims you need to take down. First the embargo restricts US intelligence from knowing if any drug or terrorist related activities are going on. Second the anti-american stance of Cuba could produce terrorists by normal means of poverty and imperialism. Third illegal immigration would make it much easier for terrorists to get into the US by predetermined routes from other Cubans. Only lifting the embargo solves these causes and it solves them immediately.

2NC TerrorismRepeal embargo key to relations, terrorism, sustainable 3 rd world dev

Democracy Now, Feb 7, 2012, US Maintains Embargo of Cuba after 50 Years Despite International Condemnation, http://www.democracynow.org/2012/2/7/us_maintains_embargo_of_cuba_after

I think it’s time for us to end the embargo on Cuba. And I think that we have to end it because, if you think about what’s

happening internationally, our planet is shrinking. And our biggest foreign policy challenge—and it feeds into—directly

into the battle on terrorism and feeds into issues of trade and our economy—is how we make sure that other countries, in developing nations, are providing sustenance for their people, human rights for their people, a basic structure of government to their people that is stable and secure, so that they can be

partners in a brighter future for the entire planet. And the Cuban embargo has failed to provide the sorts of rising standards of living and has squeezed the innocents in Cuba and utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro, who has now been there since I was born. So, it’s time for us to acknowledge that that particular policy has failed.

Significant Trade off w terrorism


Keeping the embargo in place requires that the US government devote time and resources to fighting a Cold War-era threat. Senator Chris Dodd argued in a 2005 oped that the US spends “extraordinary resources” each year to enforce the sanctions instead of devoting such resources to the fight against terrorism. While the

financial resources dedicated to enforcing the embargo may be limited compared to resources dedicated to other causes, lifting the Cuban embargo could put the US in a better position to fight terrorist organizations by freeing up resources currently enforcing the embargo. For example, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets

Control (OFAC), which governs travel and trade between the US and Cuba, is also responsible for maintaining sanctions against truly problematic countries, including Iran and North Korea. OFAC also is

responsible for responding to economic threats posed by terrorist organizations and narcotics traffickers.

By ending OFAC’s need to regulate the Cuban embargo, OFAC could instead devote those resources to respond to the current threats posed by rogue states and terrorist networks.

Lift embargo key to prevent terrorism and encourage econ & demo


The President of the United States in his 2002 National Security Strategy states “Free trade and free markets have proven their ability to lift whole societies out of poverty” “The events of September 11, 2001, taught us that weak states, like

Afghanistan, can pose as great a danger to our national interests as strong states.” Cuba should not be

allowed to become a weak state. Encouraging market reform and economic trade with Cuba will eventually promote the change both anti-embargo and pro-embargo supporters want in Cuba.

2nr extensions

The democracy now card is pretty hot; poor relations and lack of growth are the production factors for terrorism. Only by having development and a commitment to relations can we reverse that causality. Lifting the embargo would lead to normalized relations and sustainable growth, which would solve terrorism.

The National Security Program ev is also excellent on this point, not only does it cite senator Chris Dodd, who is on the military committee and would know best, but it also gives a departmental and budget based analysis of how funding for the embargo (which is generally ineffective) saps money from real threats of terrorism. Those resources could be reallocated to more effectively solve terrorism before it happens, which is a great internal to the terrorism impacts

2NC Genocide

Embargo is tantamount to genocide

RT, November 14, 2012, Condemned again: Genocidal US embargo on cuba slammed by UN for 21st year, http://rt.com/news/cuba-embargo-un-vote-635/

The UN has urged the US to lift the 52-year trade embargo with Cuba in an almost-unanimous vote. Cuba likened the blockade to “genocide” and said it was disappointed that Obama had not taken measures to lift the disputed embargo. Of the

193 members of the UN assembly, 188 voted to abolish what is widely perceived as an illegal blockade. The only two nations that got behind

the US were Israel and the Pacific nation of Palau, while two countries abstained from the vote. This is the 21st year running that the UN has decried the American economic sanctions against the island nation. Cuba’s Foreign Minister Bruno

Rodriguez addressed the assembly, voicing Cuban disappointment that despite Obama’s pledge to open a new chapter in Cuban-American

relations on assuming office four years ago, no steps had been taken the lift the crippling embargo. " The reality is that the last

four years have been characterized by the persistent tightening of …the embargo ," he said. The Cuban

government has calculated that since the blockade was enforced in 1960 the total financial damage to Cuba’s economy is around US$3 trillion.

Rodriguez qualified the maintenance of the embargo as tantamount to “genocide” and a “massive,

flagrant and systematic violation of the human rights” of the people of Cuba.

2NC Demo Promo

Trade in cuba key to demo

Delia Lloyd, correspondent, Politics Daily, 2010, “Ten Reasons to Lift the Cuba Embargo”, http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/24/ten-reasons-to-lift-the-cuba-embargo/

It's good politics . Supporters of the trade embargo -- like Cuban-American Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) -- have long argued that easing the

restrictions would only reward Castro for the regime's ongoing repression of political dissidents. We need to keep up the economic pressure on

Cuba, so this logic goes, in order to keep pressure on the regime to do something about human rights. But there's a long-standing empirical relationship between trade and democracy . The usual logic put forth to explain this relationship is

that trade creates an economically independent and politically aware middle class, which, in turn, presses for political reform. It's not clear that this argument actually holds up when subjected to close causal scrutiny (although the reverse

does seem to be true -- i.e., democratic reform creates pressure for trade liberalization). Still, it's difficult to disagree with the proposition that by enabling visiting scholars and religious groups to stay in Cuba for up to two years (as the presidential order would

allow) rather than a matter of weeks (as is currently the case) we'd be helping, not hurting, democracy in Cuba. First, easing the current travel restrictions would allow for far deeper linkages between non-governmental organizations from both countries, which some see as a powerful mechanism for democratic reform . Second, because American visitors would be staying on the island longer, scholars and activists alike would gain much better insight into where the pressure points for democracy actually exist.

Repeal key to demo and econ dev in cuba


Peter Hakim, President of the Inter-American Dialogue, has rightly argued that a “democratic society in Cuba should be the objective of U.S. engagement, not a precondition.” Vietnam and China both fall under the rule of communist leadership, yet the US has taken steps to establish formal diplomatic relations and open trade with both countries. Cuba should not continue to be the exception. Others have argued that US-Cuba cooperation on issues such as counter-narcotics efforts could benefit both countries and initiate trust-building among the two countries. Policymakers on both sides of the aisle can agree that the embargo has failed to meet its stated purpose of bringing change to Cuba’s communist government, making a change in course a necessary next step. Lifting the antiquated embargo would help to move Cuba into the 21 st century, removing the barriers currently preventing the US from engaging Cuba and presenting the US with an opportunity to bring about change in Cuba through economic and diplomatic channels. By opening Cuba, the US could finally achieve the change it has been seeking for nearly fifty years.

Repeal key to demo, trade, rights, communication, anti-authoritarianism

Daniel Griswold, October 12, 2005, “Four Decades of Failure: The US Embargo against Cuba,http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decades-failure-us-embargo-against-cuba

Economic sanctions rarely work. Trade and investment sanctions against Burma, Iran, and North Korea have failed to change the behavior of any of those oppressive regimes; sanctions have only deepened the deprivation of the very people we are trying to help. Our research at the Cato Institute confirms that trade and globalization till the soil for democracy. Nations open to trade are more likely to be democracies where human rights are respected. Trade and the development it creates give people tools of communication-cell phones, satellite TV, fax machines, the Internet-that tend to undermine oppressive authority.

Trade not only increases the flow of goods and services but also of people and ideas. Development also creates a larger middle class that is usually the backbone of democracy.

Solves poverty and demo promo


Critics argue free markets do not promote democracy. However, free trade and open markets do promote open economies and societies with greater freedom for their people, with better opportunities and less poverty. Less poverty equals stability. Charles William Maynes, President of the Eurasia Foundation and a leading political scientist in the

United States calls this idea of free markets promoting democracy “Liberal Internationalism.” He argues open markets lead to the formation of a middle class; the middle class then brings pressure on non-democratic governments to open the political process; once that opening occurs, democracy develops.

Repeal key to demo in Cuba

Scholastic, “Should the US end its cuba embargo?”, Sept 6, 2012, http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/should-us-end-its-cuba-embargo

It's time for a fundamental change in our Cuba policy. We can start by ending the trade embargo and by lifting

the ban on travel to Cuba by American citizens. Only by engaging the Cuban people, and by building bridges between our citizens and theirs, will we succeed in bringing freedom and democracy to our neighbor.

2nr extensions

Extend the Lloyd ev here, theres a cycle of demo-trade that can only be brought about by lifting the embargo. Open trade produces democratic results by allowing more ideas and interactions, that in turn leads to more trade by increasing standards of living and economic prosperity, which leads to more democratization, etc. The first step is to lift the embargo, the aff has no routes into this ev.

The National Security Program is great on the point of development, it gives an historical analysis of how the embargo has hurt democratic and economic development in Cuba by restricting outside dialogue and making Cuban people reliant on the Castros. If the embargo were to be lifted new ideas and money would flood in to the people and release them from the grip of the Castros, thus making the foundation for democratic and economic growth.

Extend the Griswold 05 ev, Not only does it give a pretty good historical analysis of how sanctions don’t work, it specifically relates how the Cuban embargo has been particularly counter-effective. He goes on to explain that globalization opens space for democracy and economic development. That means a more stable, upwardsly mobile citizenry which would challenge authoritarianism. Also open trade makes more open liberalized societies, contributing to an antiauthoritarian global system.

Extend the Scholastic article, the embargo has failed to produce democratic results, only be allowing cultural exchange and economic interaction can we hope to foster democracy in Cuba.

2NC Poverty Internal

Poverty

Pat Flanagan, et al, No date, Allan Bellanger, Shaun Hughes, Luke Filipos, “The US/Cuba Embargo”, http://www.angelfire.com/empire2/nwh0/

The United States should lift the embargo on Cuba sooner rather than later to help the Cuban people.

The embargo has lasted forty years and it has not worked. According to U.S. Representative Mike Ross "The US embargo was put in place some forty years ago, yet it has failed to open the doors of democracy to the Cuban people." If this embargo is lifted there is a good chance that the people of Cuba will be brought out of poverty and the standard of living will improve. The embargo has been more of a detriment to the people than to

Castro. It has destroyed jobs and opportunities for the people. Castro is the culprit and the people should not be put at

fault for his wrongdoings. He earned his wealth by taking advantage of the people of Cuba and the people must have a way to escape poverty.

2nr extensions

Extend the Flanagan ev, its pretty good on the point that the embargo actually makes it harder to interact with Cubans which is a detrement to both economic and democratic reform. Without lifting the embargo Cubans are indefinitely relegated to poverty, that’s a systemic impact that the aff simply cant access

2NC Internet access InternalEmbargo prohibits internet access

Katie Dodge, No Date Given, “The United States Embargo on Cuba”, http://sitemaker.umich.edu/infosurgentscuba/u.s._embargo_

The embargo completely hinders Cubans from accessing the technology that would allow a free-flow of information with the rest of the world. Citizens are cut off from the world around them, and even when they are able to access Internet cafés, the Internet is so slow and heavily monitored that it is virtually impossible to do more that send an email or two. Dissidents are heavily persecuted, and it is common for journalists to be imprisoned for subverting the Cuban law. Because of the embargo imposed by the United States, the Cuban government is given more power over its citizens and their abilities to communicate with the rest of the world. In addition, the restrictions on traveling into and out of the country make it difficult for information to spread in the absence of Internet access.

2nr extensions

Our Dodge ev is really good here, there are 3 issues preventing Cuban internet access. First the embargo makes it so that the internet is extremely slow. Second the internet is monitored heavily, and third dissidents are persecuted for even small slights. The only way to solve that problem is to open the embargo and allow free flow of goods and services.

2NC UN/Int’l Law LegitimacyUN-US relations/ UN legitimacy

Pat Flanagan, et al, No date, Allan Bellanger, Shaun Hughes, Luke Filipos, “The US/Cuba Embargo”, http://www.angelfire.com/empire2/nwh0/

The trade embargo by the United States on Cuba is unfair on account of the fact that it is not sanctioned by international law; it is an abuse of the U.S. power; and the UN is against it, which could prove detrimental to the integrity of the U.S. and UN. The United Nations and the Customary International Law do not sanction this embargo because the UN only approves the embargo under certain circumstances, which the current embargo on Cuba has not met. By continuing this cessation of trade the U.S. is violating many of the statements made by the UN to help promote trade; most notably statement seven which states "Maintaining liaison with other United Nations organs and specialized agencies concerned with international trade”. It is also an abuse of the U.S. power. The United States does not have the authority to do what it wants, whether or not it may have the power. And

lastly, this could hurt the already shaky relations between the U.S. and the rest of the U.N., and could even put them on bitter terms if the embargo is kept up.

2nr extensions

Extend the Flanagan ev, not only is the embargo illegal under international law but it continues to be a detriment to US-UN relations and may even become a major point of souring if it continues. On top of that, it hurts the integrity of the US and UN as international sources.

2NC South America internalEmbargo epitomizes the anti-heg narrative of latin America

Delia Lloyd, Feb 7, 2012, “On Marco Rubio, Repealing the Embargo and Reading Castro’s Memoirs”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/on-rubio-repealing-the-embargo-and-reading-castros-memoirs/2012/02/06/gIQAwFCHwQ_blog.html

Understanding Castro’s life is also key to understanding Latin American ideas about sovereignty. To this

day, Castro’s Cuba retains a sort of hallowed place in Latin America’s David vs. Goliath mentality — the tiny island that stood up to its hegemonic neighbor. I recently took a tour of the presidential palace in Argentina, which holds, on its first floor, a gallery of portraits of influential Latin American heroes.

Cuba relations key to reverse historic heg slippage in Latin America

William M LeoGrande, 2010, Latin American Research Review, Vol 45, No. 2, pp 217-227, Cranky Neighbors: 150 Years of US-Cuban Relations, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/latin_american_research_review/summary/v045/45.2.leogrande.html

January 2, 2009, marked the fiftieth anniversary of the triumph of the Cuban Revolution—half a century in which the third world was decolonized; the cold war came to an end; and globalization put health, environment, crime, and

terrorism on the transnational agenda. In Latin America, the hegemony of the United States dissipated, fundamentally transforming ties with the hemisphere. Yet relations between Washington and Havana remained frozen in time, hardly changed from the earliest months of Fidel Castro's rule. No other aspect of U.S. diplomacy around the globe was so unaffected by the momentous changes that swept through and transformed the international system. Like Dorian Gray, U.S. policy has stayed unnaturally ageless while all about it changes. What is it about this "infernal island," as Teddy Roosevelt called it,that gives rise to such singular obsession on the part of the United States? The revolution's fiftieth anniversary has brought forth a spate of new books on U.S.-Cuban relations that, either explicitly or implicitly, offer answers to that question.

2nr extensions

This LeoGrande 10 card is disgustingly good, it gives historical analysis as to why the US has lost hegemonic power projection in South and Central America because it’s been seen as too forceful and harsh, specifically in the case of Cuba. If we lift the embargo and reverse the trend we can start re-projecting heg into the Americas and repair our global diplomacy

Extend the Lloyd 12 ev, it makes a pretty specific claim that the embargo props up the South American Anti-US narrative. If we removed the embargo it would remove that narrative and open space to begin working better relations with other South American countries

2NC ImperialismEmbargo is imperialism

UN General Assembly, October 25, 2011, UN Plenary 41st and 42nd meetings, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2011/ga11162.doc.htm

The representative of Iran said that the overwhelming support for the resolution reflected the common understanding and will of the international community concerning the “inhumane and illegitimate” embargo imposed by the United States against the Cuban Government and people. Depriving civilian populations of their economic and social rights infringed upon their basic human rights and was therefore illegal.

Indeed, this was the main feature of the sanctions as known today. Such measures were illegal largely because economic sanctions were a tool to impose hegemonic intentions of big powers; sanctions always ended in targeting daily lives of civilians; sanctions had proven to be futile and there was no strong proof that independent nations compromised their revered national interests to hegemonic powers due to sanctions.

Imperialism


The flaw with this idea and the Helms-Burton Act is that the United States has lost international credibility, by passing a law criticized as imperialistic in nature by the U.S. imposing its power, authority and influence over a sovereign nation, with unconditional and inflexible terms for change before it will entertain the idea of lifting the embargo. This is not the intent of an embargo. An embargo is not designed to mandate how a country should run its internal affairs.

2nr extensions

We have a much better link into imperialism in our UN ev, the international community literally calls the embargo “inhumane and illegitimate” while also illegally ignoring human rights. Not only is it hegemonic, its completely imperialistic. If you have any doubt who opposes imperialism this card should wipe that doubt away

2NC Nickel/Cobalt internal

Cuba key to Nickel and Cobalt resources

Patricia Grogg, October 4, 2006, Cuba Embargo’s Boomerang Effect, Common Dreams, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1004-07.htm

In addition, the U.S. imports about 148,000 tons of primary nickel and some 10,000 tons of cobalt annually "from distant markets." But "If the blockade did not exist," it could purchase these raw materials from Cuba, only 200 kilometres away, the report notes. At present Cuba produces about 77,000 tons of nickel a year, and output is set to increase through an investment programme agreed with Canada in March 2005 for the expansion

and modernisation of a joint venture company to exploit the mineral. Cuba has proven nickel reserves of 800 million tons, and potential reserves are estimated at two billion tons. The country's cobalt reserves amount to approximately 26 percent of total world reserves, according to official sources.

2nr extensions

Our Grogg ev is pretty hot here. It specifically says that Cuba has about 26% percent of the world’s Cobalt and Nickel reserves. If the embargo were lifted that resource would be immediately open to us and solve all their internal links

2NC hardpower defense

Their hardpower internals don’t mean anything in the Cuba context, softpower is keyJennifer Gerz-Escandon, October 9, 2008, End the US-Cuba embargo: It’s a Win-Win, Christian science monitor, Professor of Political Science, http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/1009/p09s02-coop.html

While phasing out the Cuban embargo won't render a quick solution to fractured US-Cuba relations or end the evaporation of

esteem the US is suffering throughout Latin America, it would mark a significant achievement of hemispheric leadership on a divisive issue. By ending the embargo, the US may learn that under the right circumstances, the soft power of diplomacy proves more effective in reshaping America's perception in Latin America than the hard power of economic isolation ever did.

http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Latin+America

2NC realismEmbargo is anti-realist

Stephen M. Walt Join the Debate, April 14, 2009, politico, Professor of International Affairs, Harvard, http://www.politico.com/arena/archive/newsstoriesobamacuba.html

The shift is long overdue. Our long-standing embargo of Cuba (and the related travel restrictions) has been a failure for over four decades. It didn’t make much sense during the Cold War and makes even less sense now, and has been kept in place solely to appease a narrow interest group that was motivated more by spite than by a sense of realism. We could have done a lot more to undermine Castro by opening up to Cuba and showing his countrymen what they were missing, instead of giving him a bogeyman to rail against and to use to justify his own oppressive rule. Obama’s initiative is but a first step, but it’s the right one. And better late than never.

http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/stephen_m_walt.html

2NC solves communism

CP solves Cuban communism through trade

Michael K. Fauntroy Join the Debate, April 14, 2009, politico, Asst. Professor of Public Policy, George Mason University, http://www.politico.com/arena/archive/newsstoriesobamacuba.html

Cuban communism will fall of its own weight once their people see the impact of U.S. economic interaction with the island nation. It may not happen soon, but it will happen faster than if the status quo continued. The Castro regime may well prove to be a paper tiger and ending the embargo will get us closer to an answer. I am among those who believe that the U.S. embargo has delayed the inevitable in Cuba. Those arguing against this change – and defending a failed status quo – are locked into a failed ideological view of U.S.-Cuba relations and will be proven wrong. In some ways, it’s not their fault. Many were born into a fiercely divided community on this issue and went with the prevailing sentiment. The results of the 2008 Florida general election revealed a generational divide that helps to make this policy all the more sensible.

http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/michael_k_fauntroy.html

A2 Cuba heg counterCuba doesn’t counter US power in latin America post CP


Peter Brookes, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense under George W. Bush, said that lifting the embargo could lead to Cuba becoming a regional power, arguing that the US “[doesn’t] need a pumped-up Cuba that could become a

serious menace to US interests in Latin America, the Caribbean—or beyond.” While Venezuela, for example, has challenged the US on some interests, its anti-American leadership has not been able to present a serious counterweight to the US or have a significant impact on US security. Given that Venezuela is a much bigger economic player than Cuba due to its oil revenues, it is highly unlikely that Cuba would pose a significant geopolitical challenge to the US, even if significant sums of money enter Cuba’s economy.

2nr extensions

Our ev is pretty good, it makes comparative claims about Venezuela not being able to challenge the US on heg, and compares Cuba to a miniature version of Venezuela. If Chavez cant challenge, then Castro definitely cant

A2 Repeal helps Castro

Embargo enhances Castro’s power

Daniel Griswold, October 12, 2005, “Four Decades of Failure: The US Embargo against Cuba,http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decades-failure-us-embargo-against-cuba

As a foreign policy tool, the embargo actually enhances Castro’s standing by giving him a handy excuse for the failures of his homegrown Caribbean socialism. He can rail for hours about the suffering the embargo inflicts on Cubans, even though the damage done by his domestic policies is far worse. If the embargo were lifted, the Cuban people would be a bit less deprived and Castro would have no one else to blame for the shortages and stagnation that will

persist without real market reforms. If the goal of U.S. policy toward Cuba is to help its people achieve freedom and a better life, the economic embargo has completely failed. Its economic effect is to make the people of Cuba worse off by depriving them of lower-cost food and other goods that could be bought from the United States. It means less independence for

Cuban workers and entrepreneurs, who could be earning dollars from American tourists and fueling private-sector growth. Meanwhile, Castro and his ruling elite enjoy a comfortable, insulated lifestyle by extracting any meager surplus produced by their captive subjects.

No embargo, no Castro


Castro has successfully charmed the United Nations and the world into believing the root of his economic and social failures are the sanctions imposed by the United States. He has manipulated public opinion, the media and his people into convincing them the root of all evil is the United States.

He has transformed the embargo into the evil instrument of the bully America, on the poor and defenseless

island who poses no threat to the free world. It appears the sanctions are helping Castro personally maintain power by rallying support against the embargo from the international community and his country. Has the time come to lift the embargo on Cuba? If not for the sake of the Cuban people, then for the sake of no longer being Castro’s scapegoat.

No Vindication of Castro


Because we lift the embargo now, does not mean we have to like Fidel Castro or agree with his politics. The idea is to get involved while things are relatively stable and influence the situation under peaceful conditions rather than the alternative of crisis action and possible military intervention.

2nr extensions

Extend Griswold 05, not only has the embargo failed, but it is actually counterproductive. By cutting off the Cubans from the US, Castro can blame the US for any inequities or structural deficiencies on the US and strengthen his power for nothing. The embargo not only removes Castro’s excuses, but it also challenges his totalitarian claims by allowing more exposure from outside sources

A2 Cant solve right now

Companies ready now, only thing in way is embargo

Jennifer Dlouhy, May 10, 2012, Experts say Cuba embargo could worsen a spill, http://www.chron.com/business/article/Experts-say-Cuba-

embargo-could-worsen-a-spill-3550198.php

Houston-based Helix Energy Solutions Group has a license to deploy a device to cap a gushing subsea well , designed for Repsol's drilling. The device is in Houston. Helix has staged chemical dispersants, remotely operated vehicles and other equipment

near Tampa, Fla., but it could be on the scene faster if it were in Cuba, said Lee Hunt, former head of the International

Association of Drilling Contractors.

http://www.chron.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=business&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22International+Association%22

http://www.chron.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=business&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22International+Association%22

http://www.chron.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=business&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Helix+Energy+Solutions+Group%22

A2 aff solves CP generalNo risk of aff solvency, 6 cuba embargo specific reasons

Rob Almeida, May 18, 2012, Drilling off cuba and how the embargo could be very costly for the US, http://gcaptain.com/drilling-cuba-

embargo-badly/

It’s a great start, and Helix certainly proved their capabilities during the 2010 Macondo well blowout and oil spill, however Cuba is under a full economic and diplomatic embargo with massive implications. This means:1) The Scarabeo 9’s blowout

preventer, the most crucial piece of well control equipment on board the rig was made by a US company. The trade embargo prohibits OEM spare parts or repair items to be sold to Repsol. Also, technical expertise from the OEM cannot be provided. 2) The “capping stacks” which have been created by Helix ESG, BP, the MWCC and others, are not authorized for use in Cuban waters. This means, if an uncontrolled blowout does occur, these essential piece of equipment will not be available until authorization is given and a delivery method determined. This is a significant issue considering the BP “capping stack” weighs somewhere around a half million pounds. Reports indicate there are no cranes in Cuba capable of lifting such a piece of gear that massive on to a ship. 3) The deepwater drilling experts in the US are not authorized to provide assistance to Cuba in case of a disaster. 4) All the training programs that have been developed post-Macondo

are not available for Cuban nationals. In fact, any training that will result in a professional license or certification is off limits to Cubans. 5) Tyvek suits, the essential work-wear for HAZMAT cleanup, are not authorized to be brought into Cuba due to supposed military applications. In addition the Scarabeo 9 was classed by

DNV on 19 August 2011 in Singapore, and she is due for her 1-year “checkup” on 19 August 2012, with a 3 month window on either

side of that date. As expected, DNV has told us that there will be no US-based employees involved.

A2 Perm (Prez only Plans)Prez cant do alone, needs congress (no perm)


In addition, Congress stipulated a requirement that only Congress may amend the act, removing any policy authority from the President and his ability to modify the embargo in response to reforms that may take place in Cuba. Prior to Helms-Burton, the embargo had to be renewed annually and its authority rested with the President,

but under Helms-Burton, the authority over the sanctions was transferred to Congress, investing only the legislature with the power to permanently reduce or eliminate the embargo altogether (Schwab 1999, 184).

Aff – Links to Politics

Embargo popular- too risky to pass during an election year

Hall and Ordonez 12 (Kevin and Franco, reporters for McClatchy Newspapers, “Cuba Embargo Costly to U.S. Business,” Herald Net, April 15, 2012, http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20120415/NEWS02/704159928, ADP)

But the embargo is popular in Florida, a battleground state in the upcoming presidential election, where Cuban exile voters in Miami will no doubt prove a major influence. Ninoska Perez, a commentator on Miami's Spanish-

language Radio Mambi, said nothing has happened in Cuba that merits lifting the embargo. The Castro regime continues to repress its people, she said, adding that during Pope Benedict's recent visit, dissidents were prevented from attending events and had their

phone lines cut. Rep. David Rivera, R-Fla., also defended the embargo, saying it's the only foreign policy tool the United States has to ensure that the next government doesn't follow the Castro regime's leadership path.

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20120415/NEWS02/704159928

Restoring Americas Future CP

Note - What the CP does

FYI - What the CP does

Minarik et al 10 - Senior VP and Director of Research, Comm. for Economic Development Former Associate Director for Economic Policy, OMB Former Chief Economist, House Budget Committee <Dr. Joseph Minarik. “Restoring America’s Future Executive Summary” Debt Reduction. November 2010.

1. Revive the Economy and Create Jobs • Enact a “payroll tax holiday” for one year (2011) – excusing employers and employees from paying the 12.4 percent tax into the Social

Security Trust Funds. • Under Congressional Budget Office (CBO) assumptions, this will create between 2.5 and 7 million new jobs. • The tax holiday will not impact the solvency of the Trust Funds, which will be reimbursed in full from general revenues at the same time that they would have received payments in the absence

of the holiday. 2. Reduce and Stabilize the Debt • By 2020, reduce and stabilize the federal debt below 60 percent of GDP, an internationally recognized standard for fiscal

stability, and reduce annual budget deficits to manageable levels. • The plan will balance the primary budget (the budget other than interest) by 2014. • On a “unified budget basis,” which includes interest, the plan will ensure that future budget deficits are small and manageable. But, above all, it will ensure a strong economy for

future generations of Americans. • Reduce federal spending from a projected 26 percent of GDP to 23 percent by 2020, with revenues at 21.4 percent. • These fiscal changes will enable the Federal Reserve to hold interest rates down longer in order

to strengthen the economic recovery. 3. Create a Simple, Pro-growth Tax System • Cut tax rates; broaden the tax base; boost incentives to work, save, and invest; and ensure, by 2018, that nearly 90 million households (about half of potential tax filers) no

longer have to file tax returns. Cut individual income tax rates and establish just two rates – 15

and 27 percent – replacing the current six rates that go up to 35 percent. 16 | P a g e Cut the top corporate tax rate to 27 percent from its current 35 percent, making the United States a more attractive place to invest. Eliminate most deductions and credits and simplify those that remain while making them better targeted and

more effective. Replace the deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions with 15 percent refundable credits that anyone who owns a home or gives to charity can claim. Restructure provisions that benefit low-income taxpayers and families with children by making them simpler, more progressive, and enabling most recipients to receive them without filing tax returns. • Establish a new 6.5 percent national Debt Reduction Sales Tax (DRST) that – along with the spending cuts

outlined in this plan – will reduce the debt and secure America’s economic future. • These reforms, taken together, will make the tax system more progressive. 4. Restrain Rising Healthcare Costs (Savings through 2020: $756 billion, excluding interest) • Incentivize employers and employees to select more cost-effective health plans: Cap the exclusion of employer-provided health benefits in 2018, and then phase it out over

ten years. • Control Medicare costs in the short term: Gradually raise Medicare Part B premiums from 25 to 35 percent of total program costs (over five years). Use Medicare’s buying

power to increase rebates from pharmaceutical companies. Modernize Medicare’s benefits package, including the copayment structure. Bundle Medicare’s payments for post-acute care to reduce costs.

Restoring America’s Future 1NC Shell

CP Text: The United States federal government should implement the Restoring America’s Future plan.

OR

CP Text: The United States federal government should

- Suspend Social Security payroll taxes for one year,- Extend efforts to balance the primary budget by 2014,- Freeze domestic and defense discretionary spending, - Cut spending in farm and government retirement programs, and- Create a simple, pro-growth tax system that broadens the base and reduces rates.

The “Restoring America’s Future” plan is bipartisan and solves the economyMinarik et al 10 - Senior VP and Director of Research, Comm. for Economic Development Former Associate Director for Economic Policy, OMB Former Chief Economist, House Budget Committee <Dr. Joseph Minarik. “Restoring America’s Future Executive Summary” Debt Reduction. November 2010.

We offer this plan as proof that a group of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents can work together to create a balanced package of spending cuts and revenue increases that solves the debt crisis. Other groups might prefer other combinations of policies to reach the same ends. We created this plan to show that it can be done – and thereby encourage others from both political parties to bring their ideas to a constructive, respectful, and ultimately successful dialogue. Overview America is the strongest, most prosperous, and most resilient nation in

history. However, America’s leadership and greatness, our strength and prosperity, are not guaranteed. We face two huge challenges simultaneously. First, we must recover from the deep recession that has thrown millions out of work, slashed home values and closed businesses across the country. Second, we must take immediate steps to reduce the unsustainable debt that will be driven by the aging of the population, the rapid growth of healthcare costs, exploding interest costs, and the failure of policymakers to limit and prioritize spending. These two challenges must be addressed at the same time, not sequentially. We need immediate action to sustain the recovery and create jobs, but we cannot delay putting in place measures that will restrain the buildup of debt. If we do not control the debt, the recovery will

not be sustainable. With current policies in place, even when we recover from the recession, the debt will grow far larger than the economy itself, forcing the nation to borrow enormous and unprecedented sums of money, increasing our dependence on China and other foreign lenders, diminishing our living standards, raising risks of an economic crisis, and reducing America

to a second-rate power. At stake are both our economic security and our national security. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warns that threats to our economy are “real and growing” and that our path is “unsustainable” because, at some point, our creditors will refuse to lend to us. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen calls the debt “the single biggest threat to our national security.” That’s why we face a fundamental choice: We can close our eyes, keep avoiding the problem, and generate more debt that will threaten our economy, mortgage our children’s future, and diminish our

leadership around the world. To arrive at consensus on a plan of this size and complexity, each of the Task Force members made significant compromises. Not every member agrees with every element of this

plan. But, each member agrees on the urgency of economic recovery and stabilizing the debt and believes that, as a whole, this plan offers a balanced, effective, and reasonable approach to the twin challenges at hand. Perhaps most importantly, the plan demonstrates that at this time of political uncertainty, a bipartisan group can craft a comprehensive and viable blueprint to tackle the nation’s most serious economic challenges. 8 | P a g e Or, we can choose a new course – one that can revive our economy, create new and better jobs, restore our financial independence, and ensure that America remains the world’s preeminent economic, military, and political power. This

report, “Restoring America’s Future,” is a plan for that new course that we believe will meet both the short- and the longer-run challenges simultaneously. It was developed by the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Debt Reduction Task Force, which is chaired by former Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete V. Domenici and former White House Budget Director Alice M.

Rivlin and includes 19 leading citizens from across America. The Task Force members are former White House and Cabinet officials, former Members of Congress, former governors and mayors, business and labor leaders, economists and budget experts. They are Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. They are

Americans from across the country, with widely diverse views about public policy and the role of government. By 2020, the plan will reduce and stabilize the national debt below 60 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) – an internationally recognized standard – and ensure that the debt stops growing faster than our economy. The plan will balance the “primary budget,” the budget other than interest payments, by 2014. On a “unified budget basis,” i.e., including interest, the plan will ensure that future budget deficits are small and manageable. But, above all, it will ensure a strong economy for future generations of Americans. The Task Force approached its task as both a challenge and an opportunity, and recommends significant and

sorely needed changes to both taxes and spending. On the spending side, this plan fixes Social Security, which is on an unsustainable path, reins in rising healthcare costs, and freezes both defense and domestic discretionary spending. On the tax side, this plan dramatically simplifies taxes by eliminating years of tax breaks – allowing major tax rate reductions, while raising additional revenues to reduce the debt. Lower corporate rates will make America more competitive, and lower individual rates with a simplified tax system will give taxpayers renewed confidence that our system is fair and understandable. A Debt Reduction Sales Tax (DRST), along with the plan’s spending cuts, will reduce our debt. Reviving the economy and creating up to 7 million new jobs Currently, millions of Americans cannot find jobs or are underemployed. At the same time, we face the long-term problem of soaring deficits and debt. Some politicians and economists present a false choice: reduce unemployment or stabilize the debt. Restoring America’s future, however, requires that we do both – and begin now. The key to both reducing unemployment and stabilizing the debt begins with a strong economy that reignites demand for goods and services and encourages businesses

to invest and create jobs. This bipartisan plan calls for (in 2011) – called a “payroll tax holiday” – which will immediately add money to employee paychecks while incentivizing companies to hire new workers. This tax cut of nearly $650 billion will provide a big shot in the arm to revive our economy and create jobs. Restoring America’s Future will: • Revive the economy and create 2.5 to 7 million new jobs over two years with a payroll tax holiday. • Balance the primary budget in 2014, reduce deficits including interest to small and manageable levels, and stabilize the debt below 60 percent of GDP by 2020. • Create a simple, pro-growth tax system that broadens the base, reduces rates, makes America more competitive, and raises revenue to reduce the debt. • Reduce the unsustainable rate of growth in healthcare costs. • Strengthen Social Security to ensure that it will pay benefits for 75 years and beyond, while not increasing the retirement age and protecting the most vulnerable elderly. • Freeze domestic and defense discretionary spending. • Cut other spending, including farm and government retirement programs.

2NC Solvency - Econ

Current federal budgeting is insufficient – CP key to solveMinarik et al 10 - Senior VP and Director of Research, Comm. for Economic Development Former Associate Director for Economic Policy, OMB Former Chief Economist, House Budget Committee <Dr. Joseph Minarik. “Restoring America’s Future Executive Summary” Debt Reduction. November 2010.

Our growing debt and the risks of inaction At the same time, we must restore optimism about the economy’s future in order to boost investment. A comprehensive debt-reduction package will assure investors worldwide that America is back on track, with a solid plan and a stable economic future. Without action, growing deficits and debt will create serious problems for our economy, our prosperity, and our leadership role in the world. First, the higher the debt, the more interest we have to pay. At the moment, interest rates are at historically low levels because of our weak economy and because the fiscal problems of other countries leave investors around te world few attractive alternatives to U.S. Treasury securities. But as our economy recovers and other nations address their problems, interest rates will return to higher levels, which will increase interest costs on our debt significantly.

In 2020, the federal government will pay $1 trillion – 17 percent of all federal spending – just for interest payments. Viewed another way, the federal government will have to allocate about half of all income tax receipts to pay interest, and interest payments will exceed the size of the defense budget. Moreover, by 2025, federal revenues will be completely consumed by the combination of interest payments, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The Treasury will have to borrow money to finance all of its other obligations – including defense, homeland security, law enforcement, food and drug inspection and other vital operations. These projections are based on fairly moderate assumptions about future interest rates. The nation’s outlook will grow far more

ominous if America’s creditors lose confidence in the federal government’s commitment to address its debt problem – which will increase interest rates. A loss of confidence in the markets could also send the value of the dollar plunging overseas, which could trigger runaway inflation and still higher interest rates. Rising debt and rising interest costs could evolve into a “death spiral,” with the two feeding off one another in an ever-more vicious cycle. No one knows when such a catastrophe might occur, but no prudent nation would put itself at such risk. Even without a crisis, rising debt will increase our reliance on foreign lenders, raising a host of other economic and national security issues. Already, more than half of U.S. federal debt is foreign-owned and China is the largest foreign holder. Rising deficits and debt will weaken the nation in other serious ways as well. Federal deficits soak up private savings that would otherwise be available for investment in

factories, equipment, and jobs. At some point, without a change in policy, the federal government’s out-of-control borrowing will have to stop. The only question is whether policymakers address the debt problem now in a deliberative and thoughtful manner – or whether they will be forced to do so by a sudden economic crisis. No easy answers Most Americans would be reluctant to cut several key categories of federal spending. In fiscal year (FY) 2010: • Medicare and Medicaid consumed 21 percent of federal spending; • Social Security consumed 20 percent; • Defense consumed 20 percent; • Other mandatory spending (for example, veterans’ compensation, unemployment insurance, and food stamps) consumed 17 percent; and 13 | P a g e • Interest on the debt consumed 6 percent. • That leaves only 16 percent for everything else – veterans’ health care, homeland security and law enforcement, education and student aid, roads and bridges, food and drug inspection, energy and the environment, and so on. Clearly, there are no easy answers to the debt crisis.

Policymakers cannot solve the debt crisis simply by eliminating congressional earmarks (less than one percent of the discretionary budget) or foreign aid, which is less than one percent of the total budget. Nor can policymakers significantly reduce the debt by eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse,” although they surely should undertake efforts to eliminate as much waste, fraud, and abuse as possible. Nor can policymakers realistically solve the problem simply by cutting domestic discretionary spending. Stabilizing the debt by 2020 through domestic discretionary cuts alone would require eliminating nearly all such spending – everything from law enforcement and border security to education and food and drug inspection. Nor can policymakers rely on hopes of a strong economy to “grow our way out of the deficit.” Just to stabilize the debt at 60 percent of GDP, the economy would have to grow at a sustained rate of more than 6 percent per year for at least the next ten years. The economy has never grown by more than 4.4 percent in any decade since World War II. Nor can policymakers solve the problem simply by raising taxes on wealthy Americans. Reducing deficits to manageable levels by the end of the decade though tax increases on the most well-to-do Medicare & Medicaid21% Social Security20% Defense Spending20% Other Mandatory Spending17% Interest on the Debt6% Everything Else16% 14 | P a g e Americans would require raising the top two bracket rates to 86 percent and 91 percent (from

the current 33- and 35-percent rates). There are no easy answers, no quick fixes. Following is a bipartisan, fair and reasonable plan that calls for reforms to every part of the budget and the participation of all Americans to restore America’s future for our children and grandchildren.

2NC CP Popular (Politics NB)

CP is bipartisanMinarik et al 10 - Senior VP and Director of Research, Comm. for Economic Development Former Associate Director for Economic Policy, OMB Former Chief Economist, House Budget Committee <Dr. Joseph Minarik. “Restoring America’s Future Executive Summary” Debt Reduction. November 2010.

We believe that America is facing two huge challenges that can only be surmounted if both political parties work together: recovery from the recession and restraining the soaring federal debt. We also believe that these two challenges must be addressed simultaneously. Strong action to curb the mounting debt will reinforce the recovery, not impede it.

The federal budget is on a dangerous, unsustainable path. Even after the economy recovers from this deep recession, federal spending is projected to rise substantially faster than revenues and the government will be forced to borrow ever-increasing amounts.

Federal debt will rise to unmanageable levels, which will push interest rates up, endanger our prosperity, and make us increasingly vulnerable to the dictates of our creditors, including nations whose interests may differ from ours. This alarming prospect was created by the actions of both political parties over many years, with strong public approval. Promises to provide benefits and services through Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and many other spending programs, as well as reductions in taxes, were extremely popular and both parties took credit for them. But now, with an aging population and increasingly expensive health care, federal spending will rise much faster than revenues if those popular policies are not changed. However, the actions needed to reduce the growth of national debt and bring deficits back to manageable levels are all unpopular.

Neither party can take the required actions alone without suffering adverse political consequences. The only hope is for the two parties to come together around a bipartisan plan – which liberals, moderates, and

conservatives alike see as fair – and work together to make it a reality. On January 25, 2010, the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) – founded by former Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker (R-TN), Tom Daschle (D-SD), Bob Dole (R-KS), and George Mitchell (D-ME) –

launched a Debt Reduction Task Force to develop a long-term plan to reduce the debt and place our nation on a sustainable fiscal path. The BPC asked us to co-chair the Task Force and we were honored to accept. The two of us share strong beliefs that America must learn to live within its means, that the current budget path endangers the future of our country, and that bipartisan action is urgently needed. Each of us played a significant role in the successful bipartisan efforts that brought the federal budget

into surplus for four years in a row starting in the late 1990s and reduced the debt held by the public. Senator Domenici was a leader in bipartisan negotiations that crafted the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 and the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Alice Rivlin was part of the Clinton Administration’s effort, working first with a Democrat-led and then a Republican-

led Congress that achieved those surpluses. We know from personal experience that bipartisan budget agreements are extremely difficult to create – neither side gets what it wants – but they are possible. The budget outlook is even more threatening today than it was then, but we have faith that our political leaders will see the urgency of working together to

take the difficult actions that will restore America to economic health and constructive world leadership. Our Task Force – 19 Americans

from across the country, with diverse backgrounds and views – has examined a broad range of spending and revenue options for the federal government. Today we are releasing our plan, “Restoring America’s Future.” We believe that it provides a comprehensive, viable path to restore our economy and build a stronger America for future generations and for those around the world who look to the United States for leadership and hope.

Penny/Nickel CPInflation based advantage

1NC Shell

Text: The United States Treasury should eliminate production of both the one cent and five cent valued coin from the United States Mint.

Solves the Economy- Pennies and Nickels cause unsustainable inflation- they cost more to produce than their actual value and they’re considered useless CBS News 09 (February 11, 2009, cbsnews.com/, “Should We Make Cents?,” http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-3801455.html?pageNum=2&tag=contentMain;contentBody, ADP)

Should we make cents? We're talking about those insignificant one cent pieces in your pocket or purse. It may or may not come as a surprise

that it now costs the U.S. Mint almost two cents to make a penny and almost a dime to make a nickel. If the economy of that eludes you, join the club. As correspondent Morley Safer first reported in February, even in Washington, where they literally have the right to print money and where anything under a billion is chump change, there is an ongoing debate over whether it's worth the trouble to keep making cents. Every year, the U.S. Mint turns out eight billion shiny new pennies, using hi-tech presses that operate faster than the eye can see, stamping out Abe Lincoln on blank pieces of metal. And, says U.S. Mint Director Edmund Moy, despite inflation, despite

their lowly status, eight billion pennies still add up to $80 million. Trouble is, to get $80 million in pennies, the government spends $134 million; to produce 1.3 billion nickels, as the Mint did last year, costs $124 million, even though the coins are worth about only half that much. "It's weird economics, when you really come down to it, isn't it?"

Safer asks. "Well, from our perspective at the United States Mint it's unsustainable. You can't sustain losses on pennies and nickels and expect to be a viable organization that benefits the American people," Moy

says. How did we get in this fix? "You know, coins are made out of metal. And worldwide demand for copper, nickel and zinc have dramatically increased over the last three years. That's what's primarily driving up the cost of making the penny and nickel," Moy explains. Nickels are made mainly of copper; pennies are 98 percent zinc. On the frenzied commodity exchange, the price of copper has tripled in the last five years; zinc has doubled. Both are in heavy demand, used in everything from electrical wiring to suntan lotion, so both coins are worth less than the metals they contain. But if you're thinking of putting in a backyard smelter and melting down your spare change to make a profit, forgeSmit it. The Treasury Department has declared that illegal. Asked if there was a fear that people would melt their pennies and sell them by the pound, Moy tells Safer, "Well, you know, other countries that have been in the same situation have ended up having shortages because people melt them. My colleagues in India at the Indian mint have noted that once the rupee became more valuable melted down as razor blades they disappeared overnight. And there was a shortage of rupees that India is still recovering from." In the five o'clock shadow of the rupee's close shave, Washington is considering ways to reduce the cost of making pennies and nickels. Among them, giving the mint authority to use cheaper metals, like steel. And though efforts in Congress to retire the penny altogether have failed in past

years, its detractors say the time has come. "Inflation has rendered the penny nearly valueless, right? If you can't buy anything with a penny, if it takes at least a nickel or a dime to buy anything, then that individual unit just doesn't serve much good," argues Stephen Dubner, the co-author of the bestseller "Freakonomics," a zany look at money and

American culture. He puts the penny in the same category as your pesky appendix and other useless relics. "It's like having a fifth and a half finger on your hand," Dubner says, laughing. "I have to trim the nail, I gotta buy five and a half fingered gloves. But wouldn't it be easier just to have the five? And that really is what the penny is about. It's just not useful."

Solving inflation is key to an economic recoveryCBS 11 (June 14, 2011, losangeles.cbslocal.com, “Survey: Inflation, Shaky Jobs Outlook May Kill Economic Recovery,” http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/06/14/survey-inflation-shaky-jobs-outlook-may-kill-economic-recovery/, ADP)

LOS ANGELES (CBS) — For the second straight month, Americans are losing confidence in the U.S. economy, which could spell trouble for the sputtering recovery. Consumer sentiment is essentially unchanged from April to May, according to The Consumer Reports Trouble Tracker Index, which measures the amount of financial difficulties consumers face. Ed Farrell, the director at Consumer Reports National Survey Research Center told KNX 1070 that a slowdown in the jobs market could be behind the recent slowdown. “The problem is that people still have this overwhelming burden of the employment situation, which is riding them very heavily,” said Farrell.

He noted that a recent jobs report shows the U.S. is losing nearly as many jobs are being created every month. Farrell’s survey – which measures consumer sentiment and consumer troubles – shows that nearly one-third of Americans faced one or more

financial difficulties, nearly a 5 percent increase from April. The threat of looming inflation on consumer staples like food and energy is also weighing down expectations for the economy. “The recovery at this point is really in danger of stalling,” said Farrell. “There’s nothing in the data that suggests that a robust recovery is likely in the next one month, two months, three months or even six months.”

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/06/14/survey-inflation-shaky-jobs-outlook-may-kill-economic-recovery/

2NC Solvency

Eliminating the penny solves inflation

The Register 12 (“Penny Wise,” The Register-Guard, April 9, 2012, Proquest, ADP)

Eliminating the penny would be a reminder of how deeply the value of American money has eroded over time. Fifty years ago, a penny was

worth eight times what it is today. Eliminating the penny (or for that matter the nickel, which costs 11.2 cents to produce) would be an admission of defeat by the force of inflation. No president or Congress would want to raise that white flag, unless one of them could blame it on the other. Eliminating the penny could, in fact, compound inflationary effects. A Penn State economist estimated in 2001 that if prices were rounded to the nearest nickel, between 60 percent and 93 percent of the rounding would go in one direction - up. The conclusion makes intuitive sense, because so many items, from gasoline to bananas, have prices that end in 9. Advocates of an end to the penny say that rounding would go in both directions because most transactions involve more than one item, and the addition of a sales tax pushes the cost of a 99-cent item above a dollar. The argument is unpersuasive to Oregonians, who pay no sales tax.

2NC Avoids Politics

Both republicans and democrats hate the pennyWhaples 12 (Robert, reporter for CNN, “It’s Time to Eliminate the Penny,” CNN , February 17, 2012, http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-17/opinion/opinion_whalpes-pennies-economics_1_nearest-nickel-penny-red-cent?_s=PM:OPINION, ADP)

People from across the political spectrum should unite to retire the penny. Conservatives care about the color

red -- they hate the red ink that losses by the U.S. Mint impose on taxpayers. Conservatives also loathe inflation, but unfortunately, the penny's value has been slowly eroded by inflation over the years, so the penny isn't worth a red cent any more. Liberals love the color green. A penny will turn a sour shade of green if you leave it out in the elements long enough, but it's environmentally un-green. Using pennies means an increase in zinc and copper mining, an increase in energy use and pollution at these mines and an increase in energy use and pollution as the government, banks and businesses put rolls of pennies into sacks and lug them from place to place.

CP avoids politics- republicans hate the penny

Cocco 06 (Marie, reporter for the Washington Post and Newsday, “Penny Worthy Being Saved,” The Times Union, July 7, 2006, LexisNexis, ADP)

The soaring cost of metals - a penny is mostly zinc, encased in a thin copper coating - is the culprit. Though the mint still makes a profit overall,

there are a few members of Congress (notably Rep. Jim Kolbe of Arizona, who has pushed an anti-penny agenda for years) who think penny production is wasteful and should be abandoned. Proposals to eliminate the penny would have the coins phased out gradually, perhaps by re-pricing everything to make pennies obsolete. Thus would a $2.99 fast-food meal become $3 and so on.

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-17/opinion/opinion_whalpes-pennies-economics_1_nearest-nickel-penny-red-cent?_s=PM:OPINION

Aff – Links to Politics

Public hates the penny and congress will side by them, especially in an election year

Standard Examiner 12 (“66% of Americans Favor Keeping the Penny,” The Standard Examiner, March 30, 2012, http://www.standard.net/stories/2012/03/30/66-americans-favor-keeping-penny, ADP)

WASHINGTON -- A poll released today by Americans for Common Cents shows overwhelming support for the penny by the American public. Over two-thirds (67%) of those surveyed favored keeping the penny in circulation ."These results confirm the strong and unwavering support the penny continues to receive from America," said Mark Weller, Executive Director of ACC. Weller's group includes more than 50 organizations that support continued production of the penny. "Americans understand that eliminating the penny would lead to a rounding process and cost them hundreds of millions of dollars in higher

prices." In an Economic Action Plan, Canada recently announced it will eliminate the Canadian penny from their coinage system. According to Weller, Canada's decision to remove its lowest denomination coin will have little impact on the US penny. Congress has already asked the US

Mint to make recommendations later this year on how to make US coins less expensively. Congress and the Administration will likely wait for the Mint recommendations, especially in an election year when the public is sensitive to price issues. "Suggesting that eliminating the penny saves money is wrong," Weller said. The Mint has stated

publicly that it takes almost a dime - 11 cents - to make every nickel. "From a budget standpoint, it's hard to see how you save money by eliminating the penny and making more costly nickels," Weller added. The Opinion Research poll

found that over three-quarters of those surveyed (77 percent) were opposed to rounding cash transactions fearing merchants will raise prices rather than lose pennies and round down. "The alternative to the penny is rounding - something that Americans abhor," Weller said.

http://www.standard.net/stories/2012/03/30/66-americans-favor-keeping-penny

Sunshades CP 1nc

The United States federal government should develop and deploy sunshades beyond the Earth’s mesosphere.

Solves warming Victor et al 2009 – a Professor at Stanford Law School, Director of Stanford's Program on Energy and Sustainable Development, and an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. M. Granger Morgan is Head of Carnegie Mellon University's Department of Engineering and Public Policy and Director of the Climate Decision Making Center. Jay Apt is Professor of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University. John Steinbruner is Professor of Public Policy and Director of the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland. Katharine Ricke is a doctoral student at Carnegie Mellon University (David G., March/April 2009 “The geoengineering option” http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/22456/The_Geoengineering_Option.pdf )

Each year, the effects of climate change are coming into sharper focus. Barely a month goes by without some fresh bad news: ice sheets and glaciers are melting faster than expected, sea levels are rising more rapidly than ever in recorded history, plants are blooming earlier in the spring, water supplies and habitats are in danger, birds are being forced to find new migratory patterns. The odds that the global climate will reach a dangerous tipping point are increasing. Over the course of the twenty-first century, key ocean currents, such as the Gulf Stream, could shift radically, and thawing permafrost could release huge amounts of additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Such scenarios, although still remote, would dramatically accelerate and compound the consequences of global warming. Scientists are taking these doomsday scenarios seriously because the steady accumulation of warming gases in the atmosphere is forcing change in the climate system at rates so rapid that the outcomes are extremely difficult to predict. Eliminating all the risks of climate change is impossible because carbon dioxide

emissions, the chief human contribution to global warming, are unlike conventional air pollutants, which stay in the atmosphere for only hours

or days. Once carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere, much of it remains for over a hundred years. Emissions

from anywhere on the planet contribute to the global problem, and once headed in the wrong direction, the climate system is slow to respond to attempts at reversal. As with a bathtub that has a large faucet and a small drain, the only practical way to lower the level is by dramatically cutting the inflow. Holding global warming steady at its current rate would require a worldwide 60-80 percent cut in emissions, and it would still take decades for the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to stabilize. Most human emissions of carbon dioxide come from burning fossil fuels, and most governments have been reluctant to force the radical changes necessary to reduce those emissions. Economic growth tends to trump vague and elusive global aspirations. The United States has yet to impose even a cap on its emissions, let alone a reduction. The European Union has adopted an emissions-trading scheme that, although promising in theory, has not yet had much real effect because carbon prices are still too low to cause any significant change in behavior. Even Norway, which in 1991 became one of the first nations to impose a stiff tax on emissions, has seen a net increase in its carbon dioxide emissions. Japan, too, has professed its commitment to taming global warming. Nevertheless, Tokyo is struggling to square the need for economic growth with continued dependence on an energy system powered mainly by conventional fossil fuels. And China's emissions recently surpassed those of the United States, thanks to coal-fueled industrialization and a staggering pace of economic growth. The global economic

crisis is stanching emissions a bit, but it will not come close to shutting off the faucet. The world's slow progress in cutting carbon dioxide emissions and the looming danger that the climate could take a sudden turn for the worse require policymakers to take a closer look at emergency strategies for curbing the effects of global warming. These strategies, often called "geoengineering," envision deploying systems on a planetary scale, such as launching reflective particles into the atmosphere or positioning sunshades to cool the earth .

These strategies could cool the planet, but they would not stop the buildup of carbon dioxide or lessen all its harmful impacts. For this reason, geoengineering has been widely shunned by those committed to reducing emissions. Serious research on geoengineering is still

in its infancy, and it has not received the attention it deserves from politicians. The time has come to take it seriously. Geoengineering could provide a useful defense for the planet -- an emergency shield that could be deployed if surprisingly nasty climatic shifts put vital ecosystems and billions of people at risk. Actually raising the shield, however, would be a political choice. One nation's emergency can be another's opportunity, and it is unlikely that all countries will have similar assessments of how to balance the ills of unchecked climate change with the risk that geoengineering could do more harm than good. Governments should immediately begin to undertake serious research on geoengineering and help create international norms governing its

use. THE RAINMAKERS Geoengineering is not a new idea. In 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson received the first-ever U.S. presidential briefing on the dangers of climate change, the only remedy prescribed to counter the effects of global warming was geoengineering. That advice reflected the scientific culture of the time, which imagined that engineering could fix almost any problem. By the late 1940s, both the United States and the Soviet Union had begun exploring strategies for modifying the weather to gain battlefield advantage. Many schemes focused on "seeding" clouds with substances that would coax them to drop more rain. Despite offering no clear advantage to the military, "weather makers" were routinely employed (rarely with much effect) to squeeze more rain from clouds for thirsty crops. Starting in 1962, U.S. government researchers for Project Stormfury tried to make tropical hurricanes less intense through cloud seeding, but with no clear success. Military experts also dreamed of using nuclear explosions and other interventions to create a more advantageous climate. These applications were frightening enough that in 1976 the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques to bar such projects. By the 1970s, after a string of failures, the idea of weather

modification for war and farming had largely faded away. Today's proposals for geoengineering are more likely to have an impact because the interventions needed for global-scale geoengineering are much less subtle than those that sought to influence local weather patterns. The earth's climate is largely driven by the fine balance between the light energy with which the sun bathes the earth and the heat that the earth radiates back to space. On average, about 70 percent of the earth's incoming sunlight is absorbed by the atmosphere and the planet's surface; the remainder is reflected back into space. Increasing the reflectivity of the planet (known as the albedo) by about one percentage point could have an effect on the climate system large enough to offset the gross increase in warming that is likely over the next century as a result of a doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Making such tweaks is much more straightforward than causing rain or fog at a particular location in the ways that the weather makers of the late 1940s and 1950s dreamed of doing.

2NC Solvency – Generic

Only the cp solves warmingANI 3/20/2010 (“IPCC has underestimated climate-change impacts, say scientists” http://news.oneindia.in/2010/03/20/ipcchas-underestimated-climate-change-impacts-sayscientis.html)

According to Charles H. Greene, Cornell professor of Earth and atmospheric science, "Even if all man-made greenhouse gas emissions were stopped tomorrow and carbon-dioxide levels stabilized at today's concentration, by the end of this century, the global average temperature would increase by about 4.3 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 2.4 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels, which is significantly above the level which scientists and policy makers agree is a threshold for dangerous climate change." "Of course, greenhouse gas emissions will not stop tomorrow, so the actual temperature increase will likely be significantly larger, resulting in potentially catastrophic impacts to society unless other steps are taken to reduce the Earth's temperature," he added. "Furthermore, while the oceans have slowed the amount of warming we would otherwise have seen for the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the ocean's thermal inertia will also slow the cooling we experience once we finally reduce our greenhouse gas emissions," he

said. This means that the temperature rise we see this century will be largely irreversible for the next thousand years. "Reducing greenhouse gas emissions alone is unlikely to mitigate the risks of dangerous climate change," said Green. "Society should significantly expand research into geoengineering solutions that remove and sequester greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere," he said. "Geoengineering solutions must be in addition to, not replace, dramatic emission reductions if society is to avoid the most dangerous impacts from climate change," he added. (ANI)

Reversing the impact to the CO2 solves their offenseAngel 2006 - an astronomer and optics expert at the University of Arizona (Roger, “Feasibility of cooling the Earth with a cloud of small spacecraft near the inner Lagrange point (L1)” http://www.pnas.org/content/103/46/17184.full.pdf)

Projections by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are for global temperature to rise between 1.5 and 4.5°C by 2100 (1), but recent studies suggest a larger range of uncertainty. Increases as high as 11°C might be possible given CO2 stabilizing at twice preindustrial content (2). Holding to even this level of CO2 will require major use of alternative energy sources and improvements in efficiency (3). Unfortunately, global warming reasonably could be expected to take the form of abrupt and unpredictable changes, rather than a gradual increase (4). If it were to

become apparent over the next decade or two that disastrous climate change driven by warming was in fact likely or even in progress, then a method to reduce the sun’s heat input would become an emergency priority. A 1.8% reduction is projected to fully reverse the warming effect of a doubling of CO2 (5), although not the chemical effects. One way known to reduce heat input, observed after volcanic eruptions, is to increase aerosol scattering in the stratosphere (6). Deployment of 3 to 5 million tonsyear of sulfur would be needed to mitigate a doubling of CO2. This amount is not incompatible with a major reduction in the current

atmospheric sulfur pollution of 55 million tonsyear that goes mostly into the troposphere. The approach we examine here to reduce solar warming is to scatter away sunlight in space before it enters the Earth’s atmosphere. The preferred location is near the Earth–sun inner Lagrange point (L1) in an orbit with the same 1-year

period as the Earth, in-line with the sun at a distance 1.5 million km (Gm) (Fig. 1). From this distance, the penumbra shadow covers and thus cools the entire planet.

2NC Solvency – Plant Growth

Sunshades is the best of both worlds – solves the impact to warming while gaining the benefits of CO2Knovel 1/27/12 (“Scientists Studying Whether Geoengineering Could Offset Global Climate Change” http://why.knovel.com/all-engineering-news/1232-scientists-studying-whether-geoengineering-could-offset-global-climate-change.html)

With global temperatures and population rising, scientists are increasingly studying how geoengineering could potentially allay food shortages, among other concerns. A shifting global climate is worrying lawmakers throughout the world, as higher temperatures and a dearth of

precipitation in many regions have eroded crop yields. With total global population projected to continue to climb at a rapid clip over the next century, scientists are working to develop geoengineering schemes that could combat such negative effects. Some parts of the world are already feeling the effects of a simultaneous uptick in temperatures and drop in precipitation. Farmers in areas in the Middle East and Africa, among other locations, are struggling to cultivate crops amid current environmental conditions. If the problems are left untreated, they could

wreak havoc on future food supplies, sending prices soaring. Over the past few years, the prices of many commodities have surged. Inclement weather in Australia, Russia, China and North America hurt grain production, for example. For nations that rely on others for such critical food

staples, the jump in prices was particularly worrying. Researchers contend that geoengineering technologies could be used to fight global climate change. Stanford Universityenvironmental scientist Ken Caldeira noted that governments could decide to employ geoengineering as they "do something desperate to protect our food and our people." China has famously employed geoengineering technology for the better part of the past decade. Prior to the start of the 2008 Olympics, officials said they were working to prevent rain from affecting opening ceremonies through a geoengineering scheme. Scientists have posited a slew of geoengineering theories, with some more plausible than others, NPR reports. One such scheme involves the blasting of tiny particles into the upper atmosphere that could disperse sunlight before it reaches Earth's surface. Geoengineering enthusiasts assert that such a system would mimic the effects of volcanic ash clouds, whose sulfate droplets naturally do so. The Carnegie Institution for

Science recently championed such an approach. Carnegie researcher Julia Pongratz said that by using high-flying airplanes to constantly replenish a layer of small particles in the stratosphere, governments could cultivate food growth. Pongratz and her colleagues argued in their findings, published online in Nature Climate Change, that so-called "sunshade geoengineering" could spur the growth of crops in many regions of the world. The team of scientists concluded,

moreover, that sunshade geoengineering was beneficial when compared both with current atmospheric conditions and with the future projection of doubled carbon dioxide. This, according to the researchers, is because deflecting sunlight lowers global temperatures but does not affect carbon dioxide concentrations. "In many regions, future climate change is predicted to put crops under temperature stress, reducing yields," Pongratz

said. "At the same time, the beneficial effects that a higher CO2 concentration has on plant productivity remain active."

http://why.knovel.com/all-engineering-news/1232-scientists-studying-whether-geoengineering-could-offset-global-climate-change.html

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/research/2008-02-29-china-weather_N.htm



http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/01/20/145535536/geoengineered-food-climate-fix-could-boost-crop-yields-but-with-risks?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter



Sunshades solve plant growth Parker 1/24/12 – economist (Randall, “High CO2 Sunshade Geoengeneering would Increase crops” http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/008489.html)

Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide might cause so much heating that some countries will respond by releasing sulfate aerosols to reflect sunlight and cool the planet. If that happens the question arises: Will the net effect of less sunlight (which would reduce energy flowing to plants) be outweighed by the plant-boosting effects of lower temperatures and higher CO2? Some climate scientists did modeling that suggests globally crop yields would rise overall but fall in some areas. Although scientists know that climate change in recent decades has negatively impacted crop yields in many regions, the study by Pongratz and colleagues is the first to examine the potential effect of geoengineering on food security. Pongratz's team, which included Carnegie's Ken Caldeira and Long Cao, as well as Stanford University's David Lobell, used models to assess the impact of sunshade geoengineering on crop yields. Using two different climate models, they simulated climates with carbon dioxide levels similar to what exists today. A second set of simulations doubled carbon-dioxide levels – levels that could be reached in several decades if current trends in fossil-fuel burning continue unabated. A third set of simulations posited doubled carbon dioxide, but with a layer of sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere deflecting about 2% of incoming sunlight away from the Earth. The simulated climate changes were then

applied to crop models that are commonly used to project future yields. The team found that, in the model, sunshade geoengineering leads to increased crop yields in most regions, both compared with current conditions and with the future projection of doubled carbon dioxide on its own. This is because deflecting sunlight back to space reduces temperatures, but not CO2. "In many regions, future climate change is predicted to put crops under temperature stress, reducing yields. This stress is alleviated by geoengineering," Pongratz said. "At the same time, the beneficial effects that a higher CO2 concentration has on plant productivity remain active."

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/008489.html

2NC Solvency – Feasibility

no tech barriersAstrobiology Magazine 2007 (David Tenebaum, “Pies in the Sky: A solution to global warming” http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/2309/pies-in-the-sky-a-solution-to-global-warming)

Much more speculative are some ambitious plans for high-tech parasols to block sunlight before it reaches this planet. At the NASA Institute for

Advanced Concepts (NIAC) meeting last fall, Roger Angel, an astronomer and optics expert at the University of Arizona, produced a highly detailed – and highly futuristic -- proposal for a sunshade huge enough to cut incoming sunlight by 1.8 percent. That, he says, should counteract the warming expected from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Angel’s plan builds on an early design by James Early of Lawrence

Livermore National Laboratory, but it slims the mass down from 100 million tons to 20 million tons – something that, he says, conceivably could be launched from Earth. Angel does not consider solar sunblock the optimum choice in the struggle against global warming, but rather a fallback position “if things get seriously bad.” If, for example, ice starts sliding faster from

Greenland than expected, sun shields “may be a useful idea” to prevent vast coastal flooding. The Early concept calls for a giant sun-shield near the L1 Lagrange point, about 1.8 million kilometers (about 1.2 million miles) above Earth.

Here, the gravity of Earth and sun balance, enabling a shield to remain stationary for years. A collection of observations by the Earth Observing System flagship Terra were stitched together into a seamless true-color mosaic of every square kilometer

(.386 square mile) of our planet. Angel suggests that the shield, covering an area of 4.7 million square kilometers (slightly

smaller than the area of the continental United States west of the Mississippi River), would be best made as a cloud of 16 trillion free-flying circular refractors, each 0.6 meter (2 feet) in diameter. . Each refractor would be about 5 microns thick and weigh 1.2 grams. The refractors would be launched in stacks and then deployed upon reaching the target zone. At every stage, Angel has proposed high-technology solutions to staggering challenges. He would launch the refractors to escape velocity with an electromagnetic coil gun, which propels a missile based on electromagnetic repulsion, then propel them to L1 with ion thrusters using argon as fuel. Once in place, each disk would sense its position using hyper-miniature cameras that detect sun and Earth. Adjustable trim tabs (tiny mirrors) catch solar radiation pressure as needed to maintain the disk’s correct orientation and position in space. If the disks had reflective mirror surfaces, they would quickly be pushed toward Earth

by solar radiation pressure, so they will be designed to refract (bend) sunlight, not reflect it. Since they would make only a small deflection, the disks would evade most of the radiation pressure, Angel says. He estimates the disks could remain in orbit for at least 50 years, until their solar cells degraded and they could no longer

position themselves. With money from NIAC, Angel says, “we have built a prototype optical element, a micron-thick [refractive] hologram on glass.. When you hold it up and look directly at the moon, the moonlight disappears off the axis and is spread away into radial spectra.”

Sunshades are a feasible alternative that solves warming

Stiles 06 - Professor at the University of Arizona (Lori, Back to Eurek Alert, "Space Sunshade might be feasible in global warming emergency", http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-11/uoa-

ssm110306.php)

The possibility that global warming will trigger abrupt climate change is something people might not want to think about. But University of Arizona astronomer Roger Angel thinks about it. Angel, a University of Arizona Regents' Professor and one of the world's foremost minds in modern optics, directs the Steward Observatory Mirror Laboratory and the Center for Astronomical Adaptive Optics. He has won top honors for his many extraordinary conceptual ideas that have become practical engineering solutions for astronomy. For the past year, Angel has been

looking at ways to cool the Earth in an emergency. He's been studying the practicality of deploying a space sunshade in a global warming crisis, a crisis where it becomes clear that Earth is unmistakably headed for disastrous climate change within a decade or two. Angel presented the idea at the National Academy of Sciences in April and won a NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts grant for further research in July. His collaborators on the grant are David Miller of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Nick Woolf of UA's Steward Observatory, and NASA

Ames Research Center Director S. Pete Worden. Angel is now publishing a first detailed, scholarly paper, "Feasibility of cooling the Earth with a cloud of small spacecraft near L1," in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The plan would be to launch a constellation of trillions of small free-flying spacecraft a million miles above Earth into an orbit aligned with the sun, called the L-1 orbit. The spacecraft would form a long, cylindrical cloud with a diameter about half

that of Earth, and about 10 times longer. About 10 percent of the sunlight passing through the 60,000-mile length of the cloud, pointing lengthwise between the Earth and the sun would be diverted away from our planet. The effect would be to uniformly reduce sunlight by about 2 percent over the entire planet, enough to balance the heating of a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere. Researchers have proposed various alternatives for cooling the planet, including aerosol scatterers in the Earth's atmosphere. The idea for a space shade at L1 to deflect sunlight from Earth was first proposed by James Early of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in 1989. "The earlier ideas were for bigger, heavier structures that would have needed manufacture and launch from the moon, which is pretty futuristic,"

Angel said. "I wanted to make the sunshade from small 'flyers,' small, light and extremely thin spacecraft that could be completely assembled and launched from Earth, in stacks of a million at a time. When they reached L1, they would be dealt off the stack into a cloud. There's nothing to assemble in space." The lightweight flyers designed by Angel

would be made of a transparent film pierced with small holes. Each flyer would be two feet in diameter, 1/5000 of an inch thick and weigh about a gram, the same as a large butterfly. It would use "MEMS" technology mirrors as tiny sails

that tilt to hold the flyers position in the orbiting constellation. The flyer's transparency and steering mechanism prevent it from being blown away by radiation pressure. Radiation pressure is the pressure from the sun's light itself. The total mass of all the fliers making up the space sunshade structure would be 20 million tons. At $10,000 a pound, conventional chemical rocket launch is prohibitively expensive. Angel proposes using a cheaper way developed by Sandia National Laboratories for electromagnetic space launches, which could bring cost down to as little as $20 a pound. A total 20 electromagnetic launchers launching a stack of flyers every 5 minutes for 10

years could deploy the sunshade. The electromagnetic launchers would ideally run on hydroelectric power, but even in the worst-case environmental scenario with coal-generated electricity, each ton of carbon used to make electricity would mitigate the effect of 1000 tons of atmospheric carbon. Once propelled beyond Earth's atmosphere and gravity with electromagnetic launchers, the flyer stacks would be steered to L-1 orbit by solar-powered ion propulsion, a new

method proven in space by the European Space Agency's SMART-1 moon orbiter and NASA's Deep Space 1 probe. "The concept builds on existing technologies ," Angel said. "It seems feasible that it could be developed and deployed in about

25 years at a cost of a few trillion dollars. With care, the solar shade should last about 50 years. So the average cost is about $100 billion a year, or about two-tenths of one percent of the global domestic product." He added, "The sunshade is no substitute for developing renewable energy, the only permanent solution. A similar massive level of technological innovation and financial investment could

ensure that. "But if the planet gets into an abrupt climate crisis that can only be fixed by cooling, it would be good to be ready with some shading solutions that have been worked out."

2NC CO2 DA NB

(this is kind of obvious but just in case…)

Sunshades wont reduce CO2Quick 1/26/12 (Darren, “Study finds sunshade engineering could improve crop yields” http://www.gizmag.com/sunshade-geoengineering-study/21225/)

In the face of potentially catastrophic effects on global food production, some have proposed drastic solutions to counteract climate change such as reflecting sunlight away from the Earth. A new study from the Carnegie Institution for Science examining the effects of sunshade geoengineering has concluded that such an approach would be more likely to improve food security than threaten it. Just as large

volcanoes cool the planet by ejecting massive amounts of small particles into the stratosphere, one sunshade geoengineering proposal would involve using high-flying airplanes to release small particles in the stratosphere that would scatter sunlight back into space. Just like the volcanic particles, these would fall back to Earth within a year so they would have to be constantly replenished to stop the planet heating back up. The fear is that such an approach could have unintended consequences for the climate, particularly in terms of its effect of precipitation. While climate change in recent decades has been found to negatively affect crop yields in many regions, a new study led by Carnegie's Julia Pongratz is the first to examine the potential effect of geoengineering on food security. To assess the impact of sunshade geoengineering on crop yields, Pongratz's team, which included Carnegie's Ken Caldeira and Long Cao, as well as Stanford University's David Lobell, used two different climate models. The team first simulated climates with CO2 levels similar to what exists today. A second set doubled CO2 levels to simulate levels that could be reached in several decades if current trends in fossil-fuel burning continued unabated. A third set doubled the levels of CO2, but with a layer of sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere deflecting about two percent on incoming sunlight away from Earth. The team then applied the simulated

changes to crop models that are commonly used to project future yields. They found that for both current and doubled CO2 levels, sunshade geoengineering would lead to increased crop yields in most regions. This because while such an approach would reduce temperatures by deflecting sunlight back into space, it wouldn't affect the levels of CO2. "In many regions, future climate change is predicted to put crops under temperature stress, reducing yields. This stress is alleviated by geoengineering," Pongratz said. "At the same time, the beneficial effects that a higher CO2 concentration has on plant productivity remain active."

cp backed by geo-engineering lobby – doesn’t drain capital Phantom Report 2/6/12 (“Bill Gates backs climate scientists lobbying for large scale geoengineering” http://www.phantomreport.com/bill-gates-backs-climate-scientists-lobbying-for-large-scale-geoengineering)

http://www.phantomreport.com/bill-gates-backs-climate-scientists-lobbying-for-large-scale-geoengineering

http://www.phantomreport.com/bill-gates-backs-climate-scientists-lobbying-for-large-scale-geoengineering

A small group of leading climate scientists, financially supported by billionaires including Bill Gates, are lobbying governments and international bodies to back experiments into manipulating the climate on a global scale to avoid catastrophic climate change. The scientists, who advocate geoengineering methods such as spraying millions of tonnes of reflective particles of sulphur dioxide 30 miles above earth, argue that a “plan B” for climate change will be needed if the UN and politicians cannot agree to making the necessary cuts in greenhouse gases, and say the US government and others should pay for a major programme of

international research…. Concern is now growing that the small but influential group of scientists, and their backers, may have a disproportionate effect on major decisions about geoengineering research and policy… “We will need to protect ourselves from vested interests [and] be sure that choices are not influenced by parties who might make significant amounts of money through a choice to modify climate, especially using proprietary intellectual property,” said Jane Long, director at

large for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the US, in a paper delivered to a recent geoengineering conference on ethics. “The eco-clique are lobbying for a huge injection of public funds into geoengineering research. They dominate virtually every inquiry into geoengineering…. “Every scientist has some conflict of interest, because we would all like to see more resources going to study things that we find interesting,” said Caldeira. “Do I have too much influence? I feel like I have too little. I have been calling for making CO2 emissions illegal for many years, but no one is listening to me. People who disagree with me might feel I have too much influence. The best way to reduce my influence is to have more public research funds available, so that our funds are in the noise. If the federal government played the role it should in this area, there would be no need for money from Gates.

Aff – Cant Solve Warming

Doesn’t solve for ocean acidification or other effects of warming Nicholson 1/23/12 - has spoken at MIT/Stanford VLAB, SXSW Interactive, the National Science Foundation, the National Research Council, the Space Studies Board and Brookhaven National Laboratory (Christie, “Blocking the sun to save the planet” http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/thinking-tech/blocking-the-sun-to-save-the-planet/10004)

To be sure, however, the models also predict that some areas might be harmed by the slightly darker days. Some experts also worry that such a

drastic measure doesn’t solve the issue of ocean acidification, which is causing massive deterioration of coral reefs and basically impacting every corner of sea life. Plus there are plenty of political issues regarding high-flying

planes traversing the Earth spewing aerosols. “The climate system is not well enough understood to exclude the risks of severe unanticipated climate changes, whether due to our fossil-fuel emissions or due to intentional intervention in the

climate system,” said Julie Pongratz of Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution, in a press release. “Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is therefore likely a safer option than geoengineering to avert risks to global food security.”

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/thinking-tech/blocking-the-sun-to-save-the-planet/10004

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/thinking-tech/blocking-the-sun-to-save-the-planet/10004

Aff – Warming Turns

Cp can’t solve warming and it will cause food crisis and ozone destruction Ovitz 1/29/12 - is a Collegian columnist (Kimberly, “Sci-Fi Fix for carbon emissions” http://dailycollegian.com/2012/01/29/sci-fi-fix-for-carbon-emissions/)

Though sunshade and other geo-engineering processes attempt to alleviate anthropogenic effects on the environment, they also pose serious

consequences. Reducing the sunlight that reaches the earth’s surface could impact agricultural yields and reduce precipitation rates, threatening food security and causing hunger and famine. Another likely consequence is ozone destruction. This would result in an increase in ultraviolet radiation into the atmosphere; a phenomenon which occurs via large volcanic eruptions, on occasion, yet not constantly over a span of 20 years by which this

programs proposes. Simultaneously, sunshade geo-engineering doesn’t account for the non atmospheric impacts of carbon emissions, like that of ocean acidification. A program such as this — which masks takes the impacts of human error into account — would likely avert political and scientific focus on reducing the entirety of carbon impacts in favor of a low cost, high risk, quick fix of geo-engineering. By attempting to regulate one aspect of carbon emissions through geo-engineering, the uncertainty of the process creates many more uncertainties. Balancing budgets on a variety of scales is part of our daily lives, and carbon emission is one of them. Further carbon emissions with initiatives to dissipate increasing amounts of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, appears counterintuitive to the matter

of reducing an abundance of emissions. The geo-engineering process provides a cover up of carbon emissions issue without actually reducing the amount carbon in the atmosphere.

Sunshades wont solve warming and will actually hurt the environment Vergano 2/25/11 – science reporter (Dan, “Can Geo-engineering put the freeze on global warming” http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2011-02-25-geoengineering25_CV_N.htm)

•Space mirrors. Hundreds of thousands of thin reflective yard-long disks fired into a gravitational balance point between the sun and Earth

could dim sunlight. Cost aside, rocket failures or collisions might lead to a tremendous orbital debris cloud circling the Earth. And a recent Geophysical Research Letters space tourism report suggests the rocket fuel burned to launch the needed number of shades would dump enough black soot — which absorbs sunlight and heats the atmosphere — to increase average global temperatures about 1.4 degrees. Leaving aside the environmental risks each one carries, the estimated costs tend to increase with how quickly each method removes carbon or deflects

sunlight. The space reflectors would top the bill at a cost of several trillion dollars over 25 years.

"Geoengineering technologies, once developed, may enable short-sighted and unwise deployment, with potentially serious unforeseen consequences," said a 2009 American Meteorological Society statement. Turning over weather management to human beings raises, "legal, ethical, diplomatic, and even national security concerns," the statement added. Deflected storm

tracks could result in floods such as the ones hitting Australia last month or Pakistan last year. And simply cutting temperatures won't stop the rise in ocean acidification arising from increased carbon dioxide levels in the air, which may affect marine life underlying the ocean food web.

http://dailycollegian.com/2012/01/29/sci-fi-fix-for-carbon-emissions/

Heg CPs

1NC Seabasing CP

The United States Federal Government should develop and implement a mobile Sea Basing naval capability as quickly as possible aimed at ensuring adequate United States forward deployment and power projection capabilities.

Seabasing solves hegCommander Michael F. Perry, US Navy, 6-5-09, “IMPORTANCE OF SEABASING TO LAND POWER GENERATION”, USAWC PROGRAM RESEARCH. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA508337&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

This study reaches six conclusions regarding the importance and future of Seabasing. First, given America’s increasingly limited access to overseas bases, Seabasing is essential to land power generation and will likely become even more essential throughout the 21st Century. Specifically, land power is of little use without access to the internal lines of communication that it seeks to sever and control. Seabasing provides the most efficient and effective means of placing boots on the ground, particularly in the increasingly frequent case where modern air and seaports are unavailable due to underdevelopment, devastation or anticipated losses. Rather, Seabasing allows applying force directly to an objective from the relative security of the sea. Second, Corbett was right. The ultimate center of gravity of any opponent is its homeland and internal lines of communication. Sea and air power lack the direct and sustained influence required to achieve a decisive and lasting victory. Thus, historically, and for the foreseeable future, “imposing one’s will on an enemy involves threatening the integrity of his state” by “threatening or conducting an invasion of his homeland.”98 Such “gun boat diplomacy” works best when one clearly has the ways and means to impose a desired end. Seabasing allows Joint Force Commanders to rapidly mass and move land power around the periphery of a continental opponent and attack at the times and places of their choosing. This clearly communicates the ability of

U.S. forces to rapidly respond anywhere in the world. Nothing could be more important to deterring

aggression against the U.S. and its allies and supporting American foreign policy.99 Thus, Seabasing “is

the most promising option available to national security planners, both civilian and military, because it can achieve political purpose in a manner which most other joint capabilities cannot match.”

Solvency 2NCSea basing solves hegemony-

1) Leverages our best military asset to boost flexibility and reduce response timesMichael Perry, 2009, U.S. navy commander, “ Importance of Seabasing to Land Power Generation”, U.S. Army War College, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA508337&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

The rise of the Soviet Navy during the Cold War presented a new peer competitor and slowed development of sea based support of land power generation. However, the fall of the Soviet Union has renewed interest in “Seabasing.” 3 Once again, the U.S. lacks a peer competitor on the high seas and must reconsider its relevance to national security. The primary difference is that Huntington’s advice has become even more relevant and important. In particular, Seabasing supports the National Security Strategies of the U.S. with mobile operational and logistics platforms that help offse t the dramatic decline in U.S. access to overseas bases . These national security strategies require rapid access to potential Joint Operating Areas and deployment of follow-on forces as necessary to deter potential aggressors and execute and reinforce U.S. Foreign Policy . In response, Sebasing allows the U.S. Navy to project military power on short notice anywhere in the globe either unilaterally or in support of Joint and combined operations. This eliminates the need to support marginally democratic regimes for fear of losing access to overseas bases or forcibly seize or establish marginally useful expeditionary air and sea ports . Rather, Joint Force Commanders can apply force directly to an objective at the time and place of their choosing from the relative safety of the high seas As a result, Seabasing has become a Joint Integrating Concept of great importance to all aspects of the U.S. D epartment o f D efense . Specifically, Sebasing forms one of the “Pillars ” of the “ Sea Power 21” strategy to evolve the U.S. Navy from a “blue-water, war-at-sea” force to a “global joint operations ” force, which is capable of confronting “regional and transnational d angers ” on land as well as sea. 4 Similarly, Seabasing is essential to transforming the U.S. Army and Air Force to a more responsive and truly joint force . Yet, over 50 years after Huntington first described its importance, the U.S. Navy and Department of Defense are still struggling to clearly define the goals and objectives of Seabasing and overcome the “mythology and misunderstanding” that has “stifled” its development.5

2) Generates a multiplier effect for land powerMichael Perry, 2009, U.S. navy commander, “ Importance of Seabasing to Land Power Generation”, U.S. Army War College, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA508337&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

This study reaches six conclusions regarding the importance and future of Seabasing. First, given America’s increasingly limited access to overseas bases, Seabasing is essential to land power generation and will likely become even more essential throughout the 21st Century. Specifically, land power is of little use without access to the internal lines of communication that it seeks to sever and control. Seabasing provides the most efficient and effective means of placing boots on the ground, particularly in the increasingly frequent case where modern air and seaports are unavailable due to underdevelopment, devastation or anticipated losses. Rather, Seabasing allows applying force directly to an objective from the relative security of the sea. Second, Corbett was right. The ultimate center of gravity of any opponent is its homeland and internal lines of communication. Sea and air power lack the direct and sustained influence required to achieve a decisive and lasting victory . Thus, historically, and for the foreseeable future, “ imposing one’s will on an enemy i nvolves threatening the integrity of his state” by “ threatening or conducting an invasion of his homeland. ”98 Such “gun boat diplomacy” works best when one clearly has the ways and means to impose a desired end. Seabasing allows J oint Force Commanders to rapidly mass and move land power around t he periphery of a continental opponent and attack at the times and places o f their choosing . This clearly

communicates the ability of U.S. forces to rapidly respond anywhere in the world. Nothing could be

more important to deterring aggression against the U.S. and its allies and supporting American

foreign policy.99 Thus, Seabasing “is the most promising option available to national security planners , 21 both civilian and military, because it can achieve political purpose in a manner which most other joint capabilities cannot match.”

3) Meets the demands of modern warfare DSBTF (Defense Science Board Task Force), 2003, a committee of civilian experts appointed to advise the U.S. Department of Defense on scientific and technical matters, “ Defense Science Board Task Force on Sea Basing”, Department of Defense, http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA429002.pdf

Forcible entry from the sea has played an essential role in virtually every major U.S. military operation, from the “shores of Tripoli,” to the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish American War, World War II and the Korean War. Sea-based operations , practiced by both the Army and Marines, have undergone continuous evolution, culminating in the amphibious assaults that played a decisive role in the European and Pacific theaters in World War II and in Korea. The geography of the U nited S tates, as an island power with the need to project military power across two great oceans, has made amphibious warfare a core competence in the American way of war. With the end of the Cold War, the world has entered a period of uncertainty. The U nited S tates has national interests in many of the world’s potential areas of conflict . It must have the capability to project its military power to deal with a full range of military contingencies . Over the past eight years the D efense S cience B oard has conducted a series of studies on the tactics, logistics and technology of land warfare in the post Cold War era. Its recommendations have emphasized light, rapidly deployable, maneuver forces

supported by remote fires—in other words, the replacement of mass by responsive, precision firepower and maneuver . Others have foreseen a similar future where brigades perform functions that once required corps or divisions.1 These scenarios of future war rest on having intermediate staging bases in or near the theater of operations to support troops, logistics and combat fire support. Recent events in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq have underlined, however, that the availability of such bases is, more often than not, uncertain due to physical or political factors that delay, limit or prevent their use. Moreover, modern weaponry, such as precision. Seabases, while certainly not immune from attack, can provide the U nited S tates with a capability suited t o future military needs : most likely areas of future conflict are within reach of the sea. Seabases are mobile, complicating adversary defense operations and providing options for U.S. military forces . Seabases are sovereign , not subject to alliance vagaries, and seabases can be scaled to support activities larger than brigade-sized operations . Forcible entry from modern seabases, however, represents a substantially greater challenge than the amphibious operations of World War II and Korea. Large-scale amphibious assaults across beaches will face increasingly difficult challenges in the future. Instead, forces will initially leapfrog beaches. They will employ air and precision surface assault to penetrate and drive far inland to secure a lodgment, and then move to directly attack military objectives. At present, naval surface fire support lacks the reach and precision to support such movement inland . Thus, combat fire support must come from organic artillery and aircraft. The weight and volume of logistics required to support such inland forces will require high volume, heavy lift air capabilities , at least until U.S. forces have made the shore safe for resupply.

4) Creates force independence Robert E. Harkavy, 2005, Penn State Political Science Profesor, “Thinking about Basing”, U.S. Naval War College and Gale Group, http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/zselden/Course%20Readings/Harkavy.pdf

The U nited S tates has been reshaping its global presence to deal with new threats , emanating from sometimes new sources, in a very fluid and complex global environment . It is po sitioning itself according to new geopolitical emphases (arcs of crisis, African oil fields, etc.) and also in line with its own "transformation"--an emphasis on smaller, lighter, more mobile forces . There is a clear shift away from the residual Cold War global presence, marked by heavy forces stationed where they would be expected to fight --in Central Europe and Korea. The upshot of the scenarios themselves, the comparative costs involved, the necessity to retain military personnel and attend to their families' needs, and a desire to lower the intrusiveness of the U.S. presence and infringement on other nations' sense of sovereignty is that global presence is being seen in terms of trade-offs . The traditional option is forward presence/basing; a new possibility is sea basing ; both political and new technological realities , however, increasingly allow for resort to basing military operations in the continental United States (Conus) itself. The latter two broad options are, of course, linked.

But the third, Sea Basing, is considered by many in the Department of Defense to be the most transformational of the three ideas . It envisions putting a substantial Marine Corps ground force on shore and sustaining it from ships at sea rather than from a land base . Thus, the Navy and Marine

Corps could conduct amphibious assaults (including "forcible-entry" operations, like those conducted on Japanese-held Pacific islands during World War II) without needing to seize the enemy territory to build a base or to get permission from a nearby country to use an existing base. Supporters argue that sea basing would therefore allow U.S. forces to operate overseas more independently, flexibly, and quickly. (32)

We control uniqueness – Sea basing must be implemented to project and sustain our powerWork – Robert, United States Under Security of Navy, distinguished graduate of the Naval Reserve

Officers Training Course at the University of Illinois – 2006 – “Reposturing the Force” Naval War College Newport Papers - http://andrewserickson.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/a_place_and_a_base_guam_and_the_american_presence_in_east_asia.pdf

This Sea-Based Transport Fleet, while ideally suited to the strategic conditions of the¶ Cold War, is woefully inadequate for the emerging conditions and challenges of the Joint¶ Expeditionary Era. The U.S. military and its allies are fighting a persistent, global irregular war in which repositioning and support of scarce ground forces is as important as it¶ was in World War II. They are also faced with the possibility of confronting regional adversaries with nuclear weapon s , which may be used to coerce regional neighbors into denying access to U.S. forces and to threaten fixed theater points of entry. Moreover, they¶ confront the prospect of increasingly powerful littoral defenses or A2/AD networks using¶ conventional guided weapons , which will require sustained operations from the sea in order to conduct progressive roll-back and theater break-in operations. Finally, the U.S.¶ military may be tasked to provide logistics support to joint forces operating ashore to a¶ degree not required since World War II. All of these circumstances call for the recreation¶ of operationally independent, sea-based fire, maneuver, and logistics forces .¶ It would thus be most accurate to say that “sea basing” is an idea whose time has come¶ again. With deference to Admiral Clark, it hardly seems likely that the future Navy will¶ support joint combat power from the sea “to a greater extent” than it did during World¶ War II or Korea. However, it is certainly true that it will need to be able to project and¶ sustain joint combat power from the sea to a far greater degree than was necessary in¶ the Cold War . Therefore, the former CNO was exactly right to conclude that thinking¶ about sea basing and how it should shape the future Navy should be the first priority¶ for DoN strategists, planners, and fleet platform architects.

Sea basing solves hegemony – Allows for rapid forward deployment and global deterrence Michael Perry, 2009, U.S. navy commander, “ Importance of Seabasing to Land Power Generation”, U.S. Army War College, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA508337&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

Seabasing supports numerous aspects of America’s National Security, Defense and Military Strategies. This is best summarized by President George W. Bush recently declaring that the U.S. is “developing joint sea bases that will allow our forces to strike from f loating platforms close to the action, instead of being dependent on land bases far from the fight. ”36 In particular, U.S. National Defense Strategy relies up on the “ability to rapidly deploy and redeploy forces ” as the “keystone ” of U.S. National Military Strategy.37 Seabasing facilitates rapidly assembling and projecting the forces required to address any traditional, irregular, catastrophic and/or disruptive challenge and denies the sanctuary needed to plan attacks a gainst the U.S. and develop w eapons of m ass d estruction .38 This directly addresses national objectives regarding “strategic access ” to “retain freedom of action,” “ strengthening alliances and partnerships ” and establishing “favorable security conditions .”39 Thus, Seabasing reassures our allies, helps deter and defeat potential adversaries, maximizes use of the “global commons ” of the high seas, and ensures “timely generation and deployment of military forces” throughout the world.40 This approach to force design and planning “ focuses less on a specific adversary” and more on flexibly responding to how an “adversary might fight” at a nearly unlimited number of locations.41 Thus, the extremely flexible capabilities of Seabasing 11 are ideally aligned with the extremely flexible requirements of the National Security, Defense and Military Strategies of the United States .

Key to Power Projection – Global access, joint operations, and requisite component of Army and Air Force deploymentCommander Michael F. Perry, US Navy, 6-5-09, “IMPORTANCE OF SEABASING TO LAND POWER GENERATION”, USAWC PROGRAM RESEARCH. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA508337&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

The rise of the Soviet Navy during the Cold War presented a new peer competitor and slowed development of sea based support of land power generation. However, the fall of the Soviet Union has renewed interest in “Seabasing.” 3 Once again, the U.S. lacks a peer competitor on the high seas and must reconsider its relevance to national security. The primary difference is that Huntington’s advice has become even more relevant and important. In particular, Seabasing supports the National Security Strategies of the U.S. with mobile operational and logistics platforms that help offset the dramatic decline in U.S. access to overseas bases. These national security strategies require rapid access to potential Joint Operating Areas and deployment of follow-on forces as necessary to deter potential aggressors and execute and reinforce U.S. Foreign Policy. In response, Sebasing allows the U.S. Navy to project military power on short notice anywhere in the globe either unilaterally or in support of Joint and combined operations. This eliminates the need to support marginally democratic regimes for fear of losing access to overseas bases or forcibly seize or establish marginally useful expeditionary air and sea ports. Rather, Joint Force Commanders can apply force directly to an objective at the time and place of their choosing from the relative safety of the high seas. As a result, Seabasing has become a Joint Integrating Concept of great importance to all aspects of the U.S. Department of Defense. Specifically, Seabasing forms one of the “Pillars” of the “Sea Power 21” strategy to evolve the U.S.

Navy from a “blue-water, war-at-sea” force to a “global joint operations” force, which is capable of confronting “regional and transnational dangers” on land as well as sea.4 Similarly, Seabasing is essential to transforming the U.S. Army and Air Force to a more responsive and truly joint force. Yet, over 50 years after Huntington first described its importance, the U.S. Navy and Department of Defense are still struggling to clearly define the goals and objectives of Seabasing and overcome the “mythology and misunderstanding” that has “stifled” its development.5 This study defines Seabasing and its relevance to the classic strategies of sea power as well as the current National Security Strategies and Joint Military Doctrine of the United States. As will be shown, Seabasing has become increasingly important to the land and air, as well as sea, services of the U.S. Department of Defense. In particular, Seabasing has become increasingly essential to land power due to the decreasing number of nations willing to grant the U.S. access to overseas bases. Finally, this study discusses the decisions and challenges that have slowed development of Seabasing and concludes that Seabasing can only be developed efficiently and effectively if progressed in a truly joint and organized fashion. At stake is the ability of the U.S. to deter aggression and reinforce its foreign policy with credible and timely threats to potential adversaries and offers of assistance to allies located throughout the world.

Seabasing is super awesomeG.J. Flynn, Lt. General USMC, 3-26-2009, “Seabasing,” http://www.quantico.usmc.mil/download.aspx?Path=./Uploads/Files/CDI_Seabasing%20for%20the%20ROMO%2026%20Mar%2009.pdf

In March 2005 the new National Defense Strategy (NDS) emphasized “the importance of influencing events before challenges become more dangerous and less manageable.”17 It described how the United States faced a time of great uncertainty and had to address an array of current and potential adversaries who would likely use a combination of traditional, irregular, catastrophic and disruptive methods against us.18 It identified the need to enhance eight key operational capabilities, most of which appeared to make the case for a sea-based approach to joint operations. (These included: strengthening intelligence; protecting critical bases of operation; operating from the global commons; projecting and sustaining forces in distant anti-access environments; denying enemies sanctuary; conducting network-centric operations; improving proficiency against irregular challenges; and increasing capabilities of partners—international and domestic.)19 The NDS also espoused the necessity of revising our overseas force posture through a system of main operating bases, forward operating sites, cooperative security locations and, “In addition to these, joint seabasing too holds promise for the broader transformation of our overseas military posture,” noting that “Prepositioned capabilities afloat are especially valuable.”20 Based on the guidance provided by the NDS, Marine Corps Operating Concepts for a Changing Security Environment (MOC) articulated an updated family of concepts. It noted: Operational Maneuver from the Sea is our conceptual foundation for littoral power projection. The concept of Seabasing advocates a means of rapidly deploying, employing and sustaining globally sourced forces in a manner that provides the President and the joint force commander additional political and military options for overcoming challenges posed by a changing security environment. Another concept, Distributed Operations, builds upon our warfighting philosophy and understanding of that environment to generate training, education, and equipment innovations that will prepare Marines for the challenges ahead...informed by Operational Maneuver from the Sea, and enabled by

Seabasing and Distributed Operations...this volume describes Marine Corps forces that will be organized, based, trained and equipped for forward presence, security cooperation, counterterrorism, crisis response, forcible entry, prolonged operations and counterinsurgency.21 Assuming that naval force structure would not change appreciably in the near future but recognizing that the NDS required greater capacity for forward presence, security cooperation and counterterrorism, the MOC proposed additional sizing options for more integrated Navy-Marine Corps forces and associated shipping. These included more frequent use of special-purpose MAGTFs and Marine detachments afloat, along with various combinations of surface combatants, amphibious shipping, prepositioning ships, and high-speed vessels. Two sets of classified CONOPS, one occurring in 2015 and the other in 2025, were subsequently developed to illustrate each of the concepts in the MOC. These CONOPS used approved Defense Planning Scenarios that addressed a broad range of military operations. Even as the MOC was nearing completion, the Navy and Marine Corps began work on Naval Operations Concept 2006 (NOC 06). NOC 06 reflected the logic of the MOC and called for “more widely distributed forces to provide increased forward presence, security cooperation with an expanding set of international partners, preemption of non-traditional threats, and global response to crises in regions around the world where access might be difficult.”22 It described the challenge facing the Navy and Marine Corps as one of remaining “capable of traditional naval missions while simultaneously enhancing our ability to conduct non- traditional missions,” and posited that “U.S. Naval forces are adaptable and have utility across the spectrum of operations. By adaptively task- organizing current and emerging Navy and Marine Corps capabilities into closely integrated force packages tailored to the needs of the Combatant Commanders and their component commanders, we can enhance our capability and capacity to balance the varied and competing demands of the national strategy.” 23 Specifically, NOC 06 espoused seabasing as the means of supporting both expeditionary power projection and proactive security cooperation. With respect to the latter, it advocated the use of global fleet stations (GFS) as one manifestation of seabasing: GFS is a persistent sea base of operations from which to coordinate and employ adaptive force packages within a regional area of interest. Focusing primarily on Phase 0 (shaping) operations, Theater Security Cooperation, Global Maritime Awareness, and tasks associated specifically with the War on Terror, GFS offers a means to increase regional maritime security through the cooperative efforts of joint, inter-agency, and multinational partners, as well as Non-Governmental Organizations. Like all sea bases, the composition of a GFS depends on Combatant Commander requirements, the operating environment, and the mission.24 A second edition of the MOC was published in June 2007 in order to incorporate the 34th CMC’s planning guidance in the preface as well as to nest Chapter 1 more closely with NOC 06. Within a section titled “The Central Idea: Selective Distribution and Re-aggregation” Chapter 1 states: Employed in concert with the other elements of national power and an expanding set of multinational partners, U.S. Naval forces will contribute to denying transnational actors their freedom of movement and action, deterring state support of such actors, providing an effective counter to extremist ideology and winning the war of ideas. Concurrently, U.S. Naval forces must remain capable of deterring regional aggression by state actors, precluding operational/strategic surprise, and effectively responding to the unexpected. U.S. Naval forces will...provide a distributed, persistent, sea-based presence throughout the arc of instability to expand U.S. influence without the increased destabilization that can be the unintended consequences of a heavy footprint ashore. Leveraging our ability to operate

from international waters, seabasing will provide both operational maneuver and assured access. Sea-based forces will establish and maintain military to military relationships to increase the number, capabilities, and capacities of our multinational partners. These operations will demonstrate U.S. commitment to such partnerships and provide a positive message by helping the local people to improve their security, infrastructure, economic opportunity, and living conditions. ...While these globally distributed forces will collectively constitute an economy of force operation, their ability to rapidly re-aggregate gives them the concurrent ability to act as a strategic reserve for crises and contingencies. U.S. Naval forces are likely to deploy in a given configuration, disperse to accomplish missions such as forward presence and security cooperation, and then be called upon to merge with other Navy, Marine Corps, joint, interagency or multinational elements to assume different missions such as crisis response or expeditionary power projection.25

Seabasing key - land power and air power is insufficient Commander Michael F. Perry, US Navy, 6-5-09, “IMPORTANCE OF SEABASING TO LAND POWER GENERATION”, USAWC PROGRAM RESEARCH. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA508337&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

Similarly, recent events in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq have demonstrated the limits of air and sea power without adequate land power. Simply put, naval blockades and air strikes influence and interdict, but rarely achieve decisive victory. On the contrary, U.S. ground forces destroy, occupy, exert lasting influence, and communicate he highest level of commitment and determination. “Thus, use of land power or potential use of land power” is typically “the decisive factor” in joint operations. 52 Seabasing reinforces land power with viable options that potential adversaries cannot overcome with anti-access strategies. For example, although the U.S. Army has historically deployed its forces by sea,53 it “has built much of its logistical doctrine with the underlying assumption that logistics bases must be present worldwide.”54 This is an increasingly invalid assumption given the increasing inability of the U.S. to safely station thousands of troops overseas. Rather, joint operations increasingly require rapid response to austere environments with little or no host nation support. In response, the Transformation Plan of the U.S. Army calls for fielding a relatively light “combat-capable brigade anywhere in the world in 96 hours, a division in 120 hours, and 5 divisions in 30 days.”55 Yet, the U.S. Army remains almost exclusively reliant upon the U.S. Air Force to for the rapid deployment of these forces. As a result, rapidly transporting a single medium Stryker Brigade would require securing a friendly aerial port of debarkation and nearly one-third of the C17 and C5 sorties of the U.S. Air Force over a period of 5 to 14 days. This timeline far exceeds the 4 days the U.S. Army desires and places unreasonable demands upon the U.S. Air Force. Thus, “Army officials now recognize that airlift alone will not be sufficient and that some combination of airlift and sealift will likely be used to deploy these brigades.”56 Finally, current U.S. Army plans for sealift and pre-positioned materials still require friendly sea ports of debarkation to handle its relatively large deep-draft ships. This leaves the Army tied to Seabasing could do much to address U.S. Army requirements for access to Joint Operating Areas and expediting deployment thereafter. This will likely involve restructuring the current Strategic Flotilla, pre-positioned stocks, and some Brigade Combat Teams of the U.S. Army to support in-stream joint reception, staging, and onward movement from Seabases.58 For example, the Army has achieved a 50%

reduction in the deployment requirements of its Stryker Brigades.59 In addition, Seabasing will require heavy lift aircraft capable of delivering up to 20 tons directly to an objective located up to 240 nautical miles inland60 and Theater Aviation Sustainment Maintenance Facilities to provide the Air Cavalry of the U.S. Army with immediate access to depot level repairs.61

Sea Basing will help America become a 21st Century hegemonHenning – Mark, Commander in the US Navy, works in US Army Way College in Pennsylvania – 2005 – http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA432391 “US Navy Transformation: Sea Basing as Sea Power 21 Prototype” USAWC

In summary, this strategic research paper has presented differing perspectives on what has been argued as Sea Power 21's most transformational pillar, Sea Basing. From a naval perspective, Sea Basing is a capability inherent in the Navy’s vision of future joint warfare ; however, transformation requires tough choices and the current operating concept requires greater Army and Air Force input. From an expeditionary perspective, Sea Basing is a fundamental requirement to transform the Marine Corps’s vision of future joint warfare and only minor refinements are needed to the current operating concept. From a land power perspective, Sea Basing is an important capability in future joint warfare but the current operating concept has major logistics challenges that must first be overcome if it is to support Army and Air Force units. From a joint perspective, Sea Basing is an important component of the revised global force posture for future joint warfare, and therefore, the joint staff is moving forward in their development of the Sea Basing Joint Integrating Concept. The perspective from the scientific community is that Sea Basing is technically feasible with focused research and development but significant achievements in operational capability are unlikely by 2015. As a result of these differing perspectives, Congressional budget and maritime industrial planners have expressed concern over the disparity between the Navy’s Sea Basing vision, shipbuilding plans, and budget inputs. Throughout this research paper, it has been argued that an incremental, evolutionary approach to Sea Basing is appropriate as the U.S. Navy transitions from its role as a Cold War Superpower to a 21st century Hegemon . Critiques from military leaders as well as historical perspectives all validate a Sea Basing requirement. Proposed programs based on Sea Power 21's Sea Basing vision are a risky investment: "a bridge too far" in terms of time, technology, joint interoperability and money. Recent experiences in Sea Basing demonstrate that low risk alternatives exist today and suggest that simpler, cheaper ways and means may provide an adequate solution to the problem of how to transform the U.S. Navy while winning the GWOT. Experience gained through fleet exercises, theater security cooperation, and future ad hoc operations are required; a critical eye should be maintained for future windows of opportunity where technology, resources, and operational doctrine converge to enable a truly, revolutionary transformation.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA432391

Seabasing CP – AT: No Capability

Military is already developing seabasing – Empirically worksDouglas M. King, Colonel USMC, and John C. Berry, ret. Marine officer, 3rd Q 2008, “Seabasing: Expanding Access,” Joint Force Quarterly, http://www.quantico.usmc.mil/seabasing/resources/BSSB/Seabasing%20Article.pdf

The Navy and Marine Corps have been involved in a number of seabasing initiatives, both operational and programmatic, which have expanded into joint endeavors. The creation of Global Fleet Stations (GFS), for example, is an operational initiative designed to increase the capability and capacity for discrete, proactive activities as describe in the Naval Operations Concept 2006: “Focusing primarily on Phase 0 (shaping) operations, Theater Security Cooperation, Global Maritime Awareness, and tasks associated specifically with the War on Terror, GFS offers a means to increase regional maritime security through the cooperative efforts of joint, inter-agency, and multinational partners, as well as Non-Governmental Organizations. Like all sea bases, the composition of a GFS depends on Combatant Commander requirements, the operating environment, and the mission.”15 To date, GFS experiments have been conducted with our partners in South America and West Africa and have been deemed highly successful.

Solv – Quick Response XT

Sea basing sovles quick, flexible response timesBarnard – Richard, official editor in chief, specifically for the Navy League of the United States – 04, “Sea Basing Concept Promises a Revolution in Power Projection”, http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/jun_04_10.php

The sea base is scalable to each mission, capable of fast deployment and able to operate independently of in-theater ports or air bases . It must be able to sustain a fighting force 2,000 miles from the nearest friendly base.

The Defense Science Board’s (DSB) August 2003 report, “Sea Basing,” states that, “Special operations forces, soldiers and Marines would

assemble , together with their equipment , on the sea base to match the mission’s needs. … It entails the projection of land forces substantially beyond the beachhead …[and support] of such forces for prolonged periods.” At the Navy League’s Sea-

Air-Space Exposition in Washington, D.C., in April, Hanlon said Rumsfeld had directed all of the services to find ways “to go faster, farther and deeper than we’ve ever done before. ” Vice Adm. John B. Nathman, deputy chief of naval operations for warfare requirements and programs, described Rumsfeld’s dictate as “a 10-30-30” strategy under which the

services would deploy to a world hot spot within 10 days, defeat an enemy in 30 days and be ready to fight again in another 30 days. Hanlon noted

that “whatever we do in the future is going to be a joint fight,” and that the maneuver and speed now expected of joint forces will be easier to achieve because they no longer will be tied to their iron mountain of materiel. “ We’ll be able to access things very rapidly from our sea base , take what we need , do our mission and get out of there.”

Quick response key to maintaining heg DOD, 03, Department of Defense, August 2003, “Defense Science Board on Sea Basing” http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA429002.pdf

As the picture of the future strategic landscape emerges, it will be difficult to predict whether the U.S. military will have to focus on humanitarian efforts in the future like Somalia,peacekeeping in Europe, fighting a regional hegemon or deterring a country from becoming a nuclear power in our uncertain global security environment. U.S. security strategists cannot foresee the future and determine who will strike U.S. interests, where they will occur or where the U.S. may have to intervene militarily. The term may is significant because if diplomacy fails, the presence of substantial U.S. military power located within striking distance, and its threatened use, may be sufficient in averting a crisis. Threats to U.S. security will almost certainly emanate from non-state actors or rogue regimes located within the Gap, and most likely, they will be located within the littorals. The U.S. will need to respond quickly if deterrence and diplomacy fail, and if the threat is grave enough, preemption may be necessary. Additionally, as economic globalization continues, there will be those countries that feel they are not getting their fair share of the world’s wealth. Any or all of these scenarios will require a force that can arrive “on scene” within days if not hours, provide forcible-entry capability, defend itself, and remain a visible forward presence of U.S. national interests. Sea basing can provide the solutions for all of these

http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/jun_04_10.php

diverse scenarios, proving its value in both the political and military realms. While other military employment options are always available to the JFC, none provide the range of military options or quick response offered by a sea based force. Sea basing is the most promising option available to national security planners, both civilian and military, because it can achieve political purpose in a manner which most other joint capabilities cannot match. It can provide a forcible-entry capability that can arrive on location, within days in most cases, providing virtual immediate crisis response, and remain on site if necessary. Sea basing provides a new course for U.S. national security strategy by offering flexibility, mobility, sovereignty and decisive combat power packaged in a world where bases and access cannot be guaranteed.59 It is an evolutionary concept that fully supports the security requirements as set forth in the National Security Strategy. The U.S. should pursue Sea Basing as a capability with strategic relevance and place it at the core of its National Military Strategy.

Solv – A2: Asymmetric Threats

Seabasing is impervious to unconventional threats and US sea power would dominate conventional challenges anywayColonel Christopher Mayette, United States Marine Corps, 3-26-09, “SEABASING: A STRATEGY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY?”, Strategy Research Project. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA500880

Inherent in the mobility of the sea base is an increased level of force protection against many of the common lower end threats. While the “political and security climate in some locations proposed for the U.S. forward bases could require a disproportionate amount of manpower be dedicated to local security requirements,” the sea base derives much of its security from its physical location. 21 Most irregular warfare or unconventional adversaries would need to strike at forces while they were operating ashore. The sea base itself is secure from random small arms fires, mortar fire, car bombs and attacks of that nature. In order to strike at a sea base over the horizon, adversaries would require sophisticated intelligence and surveillance assets as well as sophisticated strike capabilities such as missiles, mines, submarines or a fleet capable of challenging U.S. naval superiority. These sophisticated capabilities do pose a significant threat to the sea base. Nevertheless, these more conventional threats occur in areas where the U.S. can draw on a sizeable naval and technological advantage compared to most adversaries.

Key to check terrorists and asymmetric threatsKate Brannen, Associate Editor @ Inside the Army, 1-11-10, “Army: Seabasing A Critical Capability”. http://www.thegnomesociety.com/2010/01/army-seabasing-critical-capability.html

According to McMaster, the renewed focus on seabasing is linked to the changing threat landscape. ³We now have to worry about industrialized nations, but we have to really worry about the least industrialized nations because our enemies, especially transnational terrorist organizations, they use safe havens as support bases and they typically [are] in lawless areas -- underdeveloped areas in terms of governance and also in terms of infrastructure,² he said. ³So for us to be able to go into those areas, we need different kinds of capabilities.² The increasing rate at which enemies can acquire advanced technologies makes developing a seabasing capability a more urgent need, said McMaster. Recent conflicts highlight the types of capabilities that may soon be developed by potential adversaries, he added. ³There have been some snapshots or harbingers of the future -- in the 2006 Lebanon conflict in connection with dispersed forces using complex terrain to launch rocket attacks into Israel,² he said. ³But what if those rockets were long-range ballistic missiles with a greater degree of accuracy? Well, what that would mean is as we establish staging bases and logistical bases and so forth that those would be vulnerable, maybe, to long-range enemy capabilities.² ³Again, 2006 is an example of this, where you had a non-state actor with a pretty advanced capability of shore-to-ship missiles,² he said.

Solv – A2: No Capability

Military is already developing seabasing – Empirically worksDouglas M. King, Colonel USMC, and John C. Berry, ret. Marine officer, 3rd Q 2008, “Seabasing: Expanding Access,” Joint Force Quarterly, http://www.quantico.usmc.mil/seabasing/resources/BSSB/Seabasing%20Article.pdf

The Navy and Marine Corps have been involved in a number of seabasing initiatives, both operational and programmatic, which have expanded into joint endeavors. The creation of Global Fleet Stations (GFS), for example, is an operational initiative designed to increase the capability and capacity for discrete, proactive activities as describe in the Naval Operations Concept 2006: “Focusing primarily on Phase 0 (shaping) operations, Theater Security Cooperation, Global Maritime Awareness, and tasks associated specifically with the War on Terror, GFS offers a means to increase regional maritime security through the cooperative efforts of joint, inter-agency, and multinational partners, as well as Non-Governmental Organizations. Like all sea bases, the composition of a GFS depends on Combatant Commander requirements, the operating environment, and the mission.”15 To date, GFS experiments have been conducted with our partners in South America and West Africa and have been deemed highly successful.

Deployable in less than ten yearsIndian Express, 5-4-2009, “All at sea,” http://www.indianexpress.com/news/all-at-sea/454035/1

Basing troops and equipment on foreign soil is fraught with difficulty. Even friendly countries can cut up rough at crucial moments, as America found when Turkey restricted the use of its territory and airspace during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. In an occupied country the situation is worse, as a base is a magnet for attacks. Nor can you always put your base where you need it. If a country does not

want to host it, and cannot be bribed to, that-short of invasion-is that. But no one owns the high seas, and partisans rarely have access to serious naval power. So America, still the world's only superpower and thus the one with most need for

foreign bases, is investigating the idea of building military bases on the ocean. They would, in effect, be composed of parts that can be rearranged like giant Lego bricks. The armed forces could assemble them when needed, add to them, subtract from them and eventually dismantle them when they are no longer required-and all without leaving a trace. Constructing such bases is a formidable technological challenge. Not only do you have to provide quarters for servicemen, but you also have to handle, store and retrieve large amounts of supplies and weapons without access to dockside cranes. Shuffling the containers carrying these, so that those needed immediately are accessible, is akin to solving a moving-block puzzle where the blocks weigh many tonnes each. But America seems committed to the idea,

and the first seabases should be deployable within a decade.

The US is developing Seabasing and it will be longterm

General Michael W Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps, 3/10/2004, FDCH Testimony

In the near-term, the Marine Corps' top priorities are to maintain our high state of readiness and to provide capable forces that meet the demanding needs of the Unified Combatant Commanders in order

to prosecute the Global War On Terrorism in support of the Nation. For the long - term , the Marine Corps and Navy are committed to developing a Seabasing capability that will provide a critical joint competency for assuring access and projecting power that will greatly improve the security of the United States. The marked increase in our warfighting capability will be apparent as we introduce new systems such as the MV-22 Osprey, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, the Joint Strike Fighter, and the Lightweight 155mm howitzer into our force structure, using them to enhance the already potent combat power of our Marine Air-Ground Task Forces as integral elements of our Nation's joint force.

Seabasing will be available in 2015

States News Service, November 11/4, 2004

A recently completed joint co-sponsored experiment explored joint seabasing capabilities that will be available in the 2015 timeframe. Sea Viking 04 (SV04), a two-week U.S. Joint Forces Command and Marine Corps co-sponsored experiment , which ended on Oct. 29, examined how to best project joint force power ashore relying heavily on a joint seabase, according to Navy Cmdr. Mike Taylor, a USJFCOM joint context wargame planner. "Seabasing offers a lot of flexibility that you don't have with fixed bases ashore," said Taylor who explained that the roughly 200 Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and coalition service experiment participants brought their seabasing concepts and objectives to the simulated

future experimentation scenario. Some experiment objectives included: refining joint forcible entry concepts and joint force projection and sustainment concepts better understanding the distributed collaborative information environment. According to a Pentagon joint forcible entry study, the definition for joint forcible entry is "a designated area in a hostile or potentially hostile territory that, when seized and held, makes the continuous landing of troops and materiel possible and provides maneuver space for subsequent operations." Both a common operational picture and a collaborative information environment compose the backbone for successful seabasing including deployment and sustainment, said Taylor. Coordinating logistics for a hundred ships, thousands of airplanes, and many more service members is complicated and experiment participants, including participants from Australia and the United Kingdom came together at the USJFCOM Joint Experimentation (J9) facility and used data-sharing technology within a collaborative information environment, such as a shared point portal service to distribute pertinent information. Service members from Sweden, Canada, Germany, and France also observed with the experiment. "Everyone wants to know where's the fuel, where's the beans, and where's the bullets," said Taylor in reference to the importance of updating logistics information in a collaborative joint/coalition environment. Many ideas for the experiment came from lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan, Taylor noted. During the experiment, analysts were able to see when players were speaking with military and non-military entities, allowing for a more complex analysis of seabasing processes that needed to be refined, according to Taylor. "It's better to see where we need work during experimentation rather than in real-world operations," said Taylor. "Next year, we are taking what we learn in Sea Viking - about seabasing command and control and employ it in Unified Course 05 (UC 05)," the USJFCOM/Navy co-sponsored wargame, said Taylor.

Solv – A2: Vulnerable

Sea Basing solves vulnerability Lord – Carnes, Editor for the Naval War College – 2006 – Reposturing the Force”, Naval War College Newport Papers, http://andrewserickson.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/a_place_and_a_base_guam_and_the_american_presence_in_east_asia.pdf “

Finally, there is the alternative—if indeed it is one—of “sea basing.” Sea basing as a doctrinal term of art has gained currency over the last several years as one of the three “pillars” of the U.S. Navy’s vision document “Seapower 21.” As suggested earlier, the idea of sea basing is not altogether n ew; it has its roots in the amphibious warfare doctrine of the Marine Corps and in the Navy’s feats of power projection and sea-based logistics support across the Pacific in World War II. Much remains unclear about the current sea-basing concept, particularly its overall scope and its implications for the Composite Default screen design and procurement of future naval platforms. What is clearly new about it , however, is the (implicit or explicit ) claim that it will radically increase the ability of U.S. naval and joint forces to operate, and to project power to considerable distances ashore, independently of land bases in friendly countries . Robert Work provides a detailed analysis of sea basing as currently understood, both in a broad strategic context and with reference to the evolution of recent thinking within the Navy and Marine Corps on this subject. While supportive in general of the rediscovery of the sea-basing concept, Work is critical of some of the arguments that have been used in its behalf—for example, the virtually axiomatic claim that a sea base would be less vulnerable than land bases to a competently armed adversary . He is also critical of many of the features of the emerging sea-basing construct, with its emphasis on rapidity of deployment and support of major combat operations, and he cautions about potential costs. According to Work, the utility of sea basing in smaller-scale, irregular conflict scenarios, especially those associated with counterterrorist missions, has been unduly neglected. Work provides a vision for a “sea-based power projection fleet” designed to contribute to both major combat operations and global irregular war, and he sketches a comprehensive, fiscally constrained architecture for such a fleet. In doing so, he breaks much new ground and opens a wide-ranging, long-overdue debate on these issues.

http://andrewserickson.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/a_place_and_a_base_guam_and_the_american_presence_in_east_asia.pdf

http://andrewserickson.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/a_place_and_a_base_guam_and_the_american_presence_in_east_asia.pdf

Solv – A2: Allied Cooperation

Seabasing allows us to flexibly cooperate with alliesWork – Robert, United States Under Security of Navy, distinguished graduate of the Naval Reserve

Officers Training Course at the University of Illinois – 2006 – “Reposturing the Force” Naval War College Newsport Papers - http://andrewserickson.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/a_place_and_a_base_guam_and_the_american_presence_in_east_asia.pdf

It would thus be most accurate to say that “sea basing” is an idea whose time has come¶ again. With deference to Admiral Clark, it hardly seems likely that the future Navy will¶ support joint combat power from the sea “to a greater extent” than it did during World¶ War II or Korea. However, it is certainly true that it will need to be able to project and¶ sustain joint combat power from the sea to a far greater degree than was necessary in¶ the Cold War . Therefore, the former CNO was exactly right to conclude that thinking¶ about sea basin g and how it should shape the future Navy should be the first priority ¶ for DoN strategists, planners, and fleet platform architects .¶ As a starting point, the Navy should resurrect the idea of a Sea-Based Power-Projection¶ Fleet with three distinct components: a Sea-Based Strike Fleet, consisting of aviation¶ power-projection platforms and VLS-equipped surface combatants and submarines; a¶ sea-based expeditionary maneuver fleet, designed to exploit the sea as a broad maneuver¶ space and to mount combined-arms attacks from the sea; and a mobile Logistics Sea¶

Base, including both combat and mobile logistics forces. While each of these three components plays a critical role in the Sea-Based Power-Projection Fleet, the remainder of¶ this chapter will focus on the future requirements for sea-based expeditionary maneuver.¶ Said another way, it will concentrate on the steps needed to transform today’s Sea-Based¶ Transport Fleet into a flexible and effective Sea-Based Expeditionary Maneuver Fleet.

A2: Econ k Heg

The economy does not determine hegemony – prefer military indicatorsDr. Robert Farley – U Kentucky Diplomacy and International Commerce assistant professor – 3/7/12, Over the Horizon: The Future of American Hegemony, WPR, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/11696/over-the-horizon-the-future-of-american-hegemony

How might we know that the American Century has actually ended? Shifts in hegemony rarely come with a herald; even when the U.S. was at its most dominant in 1945, the shape of the future was hardly clear. Indeed, the U nited S tates surpassed the U nited K ingdom in economic power -- and in latent military power -- around the turn of the 20th century , yet no one claims that the American Century began in 1900, or that British hegemony ended when the GDP numbers turned south . Indeed, while the United States surely played a pre-eminent role in global politics after 1945, the existence of the Soviet Union put a wide swath of the globe off limits to direct U.S. influence. In military terms , we are still many years from a replay of the kind of global military and ideological competition that characterized the Cold War, even if we accept worst-case assumptions about China ’s growth and belligerence. ¶ The rise of China and India seems inevitable, and it is quite likely that both will exceed the total GDP of the U nited S tates before the end of the 21st century. However, the rise of Japan and Europe relative to the U.S. seemed inevitable 25 years ago. Moreover, while the rise of China and India might introduce uncertainty, economic power does not translate automatically into military and political influence . Recall again that the U nited S tates possessed the world’s largest economy for some 40 years before “its” century is supposed to have begun . The U.S. also benefitted from advantages that neither China nor India currently enjoy, such as a relatively high per capita GDP and a secure geographic position. Even if the United States holds only a plurality of global military and economic power, it still may remain the most influential state in the world. Russia, China, Japan and India will have more to fear from one another than from the United States, allowing the U.S. to play a critical balancing role. Moreover, the U nited S tates has weathered the financial crisis better than some , particularly the European Union. And while China and India have maintained robust growth during the past five years, social, economic and political cracks may be emerging.

A2: Power Projection Not Key

Power projection key to heg – New threat landscape just makes this more trueKate Brannen, Associate Editor @ Inside the Army, 1-11-10, “Army: Seabasing A Critical Capability”. http://www.thegnomesociety.com/2010/01/army-seabasing-critical-capability.html

To counter this, joint forces will have to work in close cooperation, said McMaster, adding, ³we see an increasing role for joint land forces -- Marine Corps and Army -- to help maintain or preserve freedom of movement and action in those domains.² ³And the Army¹s role in doing that would be to counter the enemy¹s ability to place their capabilities outside of our surveillance and precision strike capabilities and weapon systems,² he said. ³It¹s really a land force that could conduct effective reconnaissance in close terrain and difficult terrain, initially oriented on confirming or denying the presence of the enemy and then transitioning to offensive operations and employing joint capabilities to destroy that enemy force and then go to what we call an area security operation to deny the enemy the ability to use that terrain so we can maintain our own freedom of movement and access in the aerospace and maritime domains.² TRADOC is working with the other services on these concepts. There is a joint capabilities document under development, he said, and a joint capabilities-based assessment under way. The services are working to refine these concepts to ensure ³as we do this capabilities-based assessment, it rests on the strongest conceptual foundation that it can.² McMaster stressed the importance of this expeditionary capability to the Army¹s future. ³It¹s critical to our national security to have the capability to deploy rapidly into these least industrialized, austere environments that don¹t have a lot of mature infrastructure and to deploy a force that can immediately operate effectively with adequate mobility and combined arms capability -- combination of fires, maneuver, all the things you need to be an effective combat force,² said McMaster.


Defense still a sacred cowWilliam Brainigin and Walter Pincus, staff writers for the Washington Post, 1-27-2011, “Defense budget cuts come under fire from lawmakers,” Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/26/AR2011012607768.html

A day after President Obama pressed Congress for spending reductions in his State of the Union address, House

Republicans and Democrats challenged some of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates's plans to cut $78 billion from the Pentagon budget over the next five years. At the opening hearing of the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday, the new

Republican chairman, Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (Calif.), said that while he agrees with Gates "that we must scrutinize defense

programs to ensure we are getting the most bang for our buck and concentrating our limited resources on the highest-priority programs . . . I will not support initiatives that will leave our military less capable and less able to fight." Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn III told the committee that over the past six months, the services had achieved Gates's goal of saving $100 billion over the next five years by reducing excess spending and ending programs such as the Marines' amphibious landing craft. The savings are to be applied toward each service's operating expenses and spent on weapons deemed necessary. In addition, at the direction of the White House, the

services have projected $78 billion more in cuts in overall Pentagon spending in the five years beginning in 2012. McKeon took issue with

those reductions, saying the military services are not allowed to reallocate savings derived from shrinking the size of the Army and Marine Corps.

Strong lobbies support defense-spendingUS State News, 9-13-09, “MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS, NOT MILITARY SPENDING, MUST BE AT HEART OF NATIONAL SECURITY, SPEAKERS TELL DPI/NGO CONFERENCE ROUND TABLE”. Lexis.

During the ensuing question-and-answer period, one participant asked if the United States was ready to reduce military spending as a precondition for increased security, peace and development, as called for in Article 26 of the United Nations Charter. Another expressed concern over militarism in Chile, which had experienced its own "9/11" in 1973, when a military coup led by Augusto Pinochet ousted the President. Several non-governmental organization representatives said they were moved by Ms. Anaya's statement, and supported her call for justice for impoverished, disadvantaged people who had fallen into a life of crime and violence. One asked about the process of forgiveness, and its link to global security. Several participants asked how quality education could be achieved in Mexico and elsewhere. In response, Ms. Berrigan said it was in fact possible for the United States to reduce its military budget. In April, there had been some rearranging at the United States Pentagon, which was looking at weapons systems that were no longer relevant to

national security and military concerns. A proposal to cut military expenditures by 25 per cent had been made, but there

was disagreement over where to cut spending. Cutting spending required political will and not bowing to pressure from the strong lobby in Washington, D.C., of weapons manufacturers. The United States and other countries had much to learn from countries like Costa Rica that did not have a military budget, but had achieved national security.

Efficiency is key – Bipartisan support if the counterplan offsets inefficient programsPost-Standard Syracuse, 5-24-09, “GILLIBRAND ADDS CNY BACKERS TO STOP PRIMARY FIGHT”. Lexis.

President Barack Obama's invite list to the White House took on a decidedly Central New York appearance this past week. The president invited Maffei to join him at bill signing ceremonies twice during the week, while also extending a hand across the aisle to host Rep. John McHugh, R-Pierrepont Manor. McHugh was part of a more intimate group of only five members of the House and Senate Armed Services committees who joined Obama on Friday morning at the White House Rose Garden. McHugh could be seen on national television broadcasts, standing in a prominent spot behind Obama's right shoulder as the president signed the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. The legislation, which passed Congress with broad bipartisan support, is aimed at cutting wasteful and inefficient spending on defense projects. McHugh, as the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, played a crucial role in passing the bill.

Sea Basing – Aff Answers

Solvency – Heg

Seabasing can’t respond to new threats and trades off with other military capabilities Tangredi, Sam J - regional director of the planning consulting firm Strategic Insight Ltd / retired U.S.

Navy captain – 10/1/11, SEA BASING: Concept, Issues, and Recommendations, Publication: Naval War College Review, http://www.readperiodicals.com/201110/2441210281.html#b

Whether sea basing can replace land bases, or at least dependence on land bases, raises bureaucratic issues within DoD that contribute to the reluctance to commit to joint sea basing. For one thing, a greater commitment to sea basing— along with a qualitative or quantitative reduction in overseas land bases—might cause allies and partners to question American commitment to mutual defense. To some extent,

however, it is a question of foresight. If the future of American war fighting consists of pacifying terror-supporting insurgent groups within landlocked countries or continuing the use of quick-striking SOF forces supported by land-based tactical aviation (including unmanned aerial vehicles flown from the continental United States), investment in sea basing would not seem a priority.22 At times this seems to be Secretary Gates’s view, but not always. 23 If future wars are going to be dominated by ever more precise global strike from the continental United States—which would seem to be the U.S. Air Force’s preferred future—sea basing would also seem a low priority. However, if the future involves a range of regional crises in which the United States wishes to retain direct influence, there is a lot to commend sea basing as a primary

instrument. As antiaccess capabilities of potential opponents expand, the survival of regional land bases becomes problematic. The exact locations of these bases are well known; they can be struck repeatedly by ballisticmissiles relying solely on preprogrammed coordinates. But prioritizing sea basing could also mean a future defense posture in which overall DoD force structure is predominantly maritime . Relying

primarily on naval assets as the foundation of most joint force regional basing could be seen as a defeat for jointness—which is still largely considered in DoD to mean proportional shares of the pie for all services (and major defense agencies).This is a formula that theGates Pentagondid not break, and as defense cuts are imposed on major acquisition programs, it is likely that they will affect the services roughly equally. Although the developing planning related to the “Air/Sea Battle” operational concept would seem to be bringing Air Force–Navy cooperation to a peak, the potential for competition for resources between sea basing and global strike in a flat defense budget is obvious. At the same time, the Air Force is not keen to admit the vulnerability of its long-term regional

bases, which are presumed to be TANGREDI 35 required if land-based tactical aviation is to be effectively applied to a regional contingency. The Army has an interest in resupplying its forces—presumably already on the ground—by sea, but it has no interest in becoming a secondmarine corps. Until May 2011, the Army’s focus—with program leadership by the Department of the Navy—was the development of the Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV), a ferry-based logistics catamaran built by Austal USA. The JHSV,which is not considered combat survivable, is designed for high-speed insertion of troops in “‘soft power’ missions—responding to natural disasters, providing humanitarian assistance, conducting port visits and training partner military forces, among others.”24 InMay, the Army transferred its share of the JHSV program to the Navy. Under these circumstances, sea-basing proponents might emphasize supplementing regional bases rather than replacing them. But in a flat or shrinking defense budget, “supplementing” any capability would likely be seen as a luxury.

Seabasing fails – costly and inflexible Robert E. Harkavy, Professor of Political Science at Pennsylvania State University, 2006, “Thinking about Basing,” http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/zselden/Course%20Readings/Harkavy.pdf

The CBO report briefly discusses four arguments against sea basing , whether on a modest or major scale. (36) Those arguments are the possible inability of even maximal sea-basing schemes to deal

http://www.readperiodicals.com/201110/2441210281.html#b

with large-scale military operations , such as in Iraq in 1990-91 and 2003; the vulnerability of sea bases to attack from ballistic and cruise missiles, maybe even greater than that of less concentrated land bases; the seeming unlikelihood that the U nited S tates would attempt large scale amphibious operations when it has not done so since the Korean War; and the expense of all the new ships and connectors needed. Though the third argument may be specious--this is what sea basing is all about, the projected lesser availability of land bases in an ambiguously evolving global political climate--but the other three are serious. For instance, the sea-basing force envisioned by the CBO for 2035 could cost seventy to ninety billion dollars over that period . Such numbers would dwarf the current non-Egypt/Israel security assistance budgets, raising the prospect of trade-offs between them and sea basing.

Solvency – No Tech

Sea Basing will fail – we don’t have the technology Henning – Mark, Commander in the US Navy, works in US Army Way College in Pennsylvania – 2005 – “US Navy Transformation: Sea Basing as Sea Power 21 Prototype,” USAWC http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA432391

In summary, this strategic research paper has presented differing perspectives on what has been argued as Sea Power 21's most transformational pillar, Sea Basing. From a naval perspective, Sea Basing is a capability inherent in the Navy’s vision of future joint warfare; however, transformation requires tough choices and the current operating concept requires greater Army and Air Force input. From an expeditionary perspective, Sea Basing is a fundamental requirement to transform the Marine Corps’s vision of future joint warfare and only minor refinements are needed to the current operating concept. From a land power perspective, Sea Basing is an important capability in future joint warfare but the current operating concept has major logistics challenges that must first be overcome if it is to support Army and Air Force units. From a joint perspective, Sea Basing is an important component of the revised global force posture for future joint warfare, and therefore, the joint staff is moving forward in their development of the Sea Basing Joint Integrating Concept. The perspective from the scientific community is that Sea Basing is technically feasible with focused research and development but significant achievements in operational capability are unlikely by 2015 . As a result of these differing perspectives, Congressional budget and maritime industrial planners have expressed concern over the disparity between the Navy’s Sea Basing vision , shipbuilding plans , and budget inputs . Throughout this research paper, it has been argued that an incremental, evolutionary approach to Sea Basing is appropriate as the U.S. Navy transitions from its role as a Cold War Superpower to a 21st century Hegemon. Critiques from military leaders as well as historical perspectives all validate a Sea Basing requirement. Proposed programs based on Sea Power 21's Sea Basing vision are a risky investment: "a bridge too far" in terms of time, technology, joint interoperability and money. Recent experiences in Sea Basing demonstrate that low risk alternatives exist today and suggest that simpler, cheaper ways and means may provide an adequate solution to the problem of how to transform the U.S. Navy while winning the GWOT. Experience gained through fleet exercises, theater security cooperation, and future ad hoc operations are required; a critical eye should be maintained for future windows of opportunity where technology, resources, and operational doctrine converge to enable a truly, revolutionary transformation.

Designs for seabasing capabilities don’t even exist-and can’t support full combat operations Amol M Sabnis, Lt Cdr, Indian Navy, 2004, “Concept of Sea Basing and its Effect on Indo -US Relations: The Way Ahead,” online: http://dodreports.com/pdf/ada520272.pdf



Sea Basing as a concept is bound to develop further and take a more concrete form. At the very least, it will involve the presence of a large number of US ships in various parts of the world. These forward-deployed ships will give the capability for the US to immediately deploy its forces in any region of the world. Sea basing will give the capability to deploy personnel up to brigade strength according to the magnitude of the crisis. It will also speed up the tempo of operations ashore, give the US the capability to sustain operations for a longer duration than present and permit re-constitution and re-deployment of forces. The shortcoming of sea basing is that it will not be able to support a full combat operation of the magnitude of Operation Iraqi Freedom without host nation support . Yet, the current capabilities of ships and aircraft are inadequate to meet the demands of sea basing . Future designs will have to cater for these requirements. Mobile Offshore Bases or semi-submersible platforms may be an integral part of the sea base. However, these concepts will have to further develop before they can turn into reality. Sea Basing is an incremental concept and it does not appear to have any fixed deadlines as of now. Considering the current capabilities vis-à-vis the future capabilities, the concept will take at least fifteen more years to mature into a full-fledged system.

Solvency – Allied Coop

Transition to seabasing freaks out our alliesSam Tangredi, regional director of Strategic Insight Ltd. And author of numerous articles on strategy

and defense policy, Autumn 2011, “Sea Basing: Concepts, Issues, and Recommendations,” Naval War College Review, Vol. 64, No. 4 http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/d49d4281-7790-435d-9b3f-c7df59fb1544/Sea-Basing--Concept,-Issues,-and-Recommendations

Whether sea basing can replace land bases, or at least dependence on land bases, raises bureaucratic issues within DoD that contribute to the reluctance to commit to joint sea basing. For one thing, a greater commitment to sea basing — along with a qualitative or quantitative reduction in overseas land bases—might cause allies and partners to question American commitment to mutual defense . To some extent, however, it is a question of foresight. If the future of American war fighting consists of pacifying terror-supporting insurgent groups within landlocked countries or continuing the use of quick-striking SOF forces supported by land-based tactical aviation (including unmanned aerial vehicles flown from the continental United States), investment in sea basing would not seem a priority . 22 At times this seems to be Secretary Gates’s view, but not always. 23 If future wars are going to be dominated by ever more precise global strike from the continental United States—which would seem to be the U.S. Air Force’s preferred future—sea basing would also seem a low priority.


Causes fightsSam Tangredi, regional director of Strategic Insight Ltd. And author of numerous articles on strategy

and defense policy, Autumn 2011, “Sea Basing: Concepts, Issues, and Recommendations,” Naval War College Review, Vol. 64, No. 4 http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/d49d4281-7790-435d-9b3f-c7df59fb1544/Sea-Basing--Concept,-Issues,-and-Recommendations

However, tighter resource constraints usually bring out the worst in organizational rivalries and bureaucratic politics;

a clash among sea basing , global strike, planning for future wars like the wars we are in, recapitalizing or

“resetting” land forces, and expanding special-operations capabilities seems inevitable. Under the current Pentagon leadership and the economic constraints facing the U. S. government, such a clash would likely find sea basing on the short end.

Shipbuilding 1NC ShellCounterplan Text: The United States Federal Government should develop and deploy a naval fleet of 313 ships by 2020.

That revitalizes the shipbuilding industry, solves naval heg, and avoids the link to politicsHewitt 11 (Hugh, author, law professor at Chapman University School of Law, and broadcast journalist “A stimulus We all could (Or should) Support” http://townhall.com/columnists/hughhewitt/2011/09/29/a_stimulus_we_all_could_or_should_support/page/full/ )

There's a stimulus plan that President Obama could put forward that would attract strong bipartisan support and which would also produce great jobs at great wages while strengthening the nation's defenses. He could propose to build the Navy the country needs. Five years ago the United States Navy put forward a plan to deploy a fleet of 313 ships by 2020. The Navy is presently at or around 280 ships in its ranks. A year ago the Congressional Research Service filed an assessment of the state of Navy shipbuilding which included these numbers : The Navy’s five-year (FY2011-FY2015) shipbuilding plan includes a total of 50 new battle force ships, or an average of 10 per year. Of the 50 ships in the plan, half are relatively inexpensive LCSs or JHSVs. The Navy’s FY2011 30-year (FY2011-FY2040) shipbuilding plan includes 276 ships. The plan does not include enough ships to fully support all elements of the 313-ship plan over the long run. The Navy projects

that implementing the 30-year plan would result in a fleet that grows from 284 ships in FY2011 to 315 ships in FY2020, reaches a peak of 320 ships in FY2024, drops below 313 ships in FY2027, declines to 288 ships in FY2032-FY2033, and then

increases to 301 ships in FY2039-FY2040. The Navy projects that the attack submarine and cruiser-destroyer forces will drop substantially below required levels in the latter years of the 30-year plan. The Navy estimates that

executing the 30-year shipbuilding plan would require an average of $15.9 billion per year in constant FY2010 dollars. A May 2010 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report estimates that the plan would require an average of $19.0 billion per year

in constant FY2010 dollars, or about 19% more than the Navy estimates. The CBO report states: “If the Navy receives the same amount of funding for ship construction in the next 30 years as it has over the past three decades—an average of about $15 billion a year in 2010 dollars—it will not be able to afford all of the purchases in the 2011 plan.” The Navy is short by more than 30 ships of its own admitted needs. That is the equivalent of just under three complete aircraft carrier strike force groups (each with 13 ships built around a carrier and each requiring about 8,000 sailors). Using the CRS numbers, a rough estimate of the cost of that entire additional ship-building program could not be more than an additional $25 billion

dollars per year. How can the president propose blowing another $400 billion in Stimulus 2.0 without at the same time allocating the money needed to build the Navy required to maintain America's security and the world's sea lanes? Certainly many of the jobs that would be generated by a fleet build-out would be union jobs, checking off one of the president's needs. Shipbuilding would be disproportionately located in Virginia --a purple state-- but would also be located in and would inevitably assist the economies of all the deep blue west coast states, even if it did end up at

least in part with some Mississippi jobs created as well. The politics work. There would be bipartisan support. No one doubts that the United States must have a Navy that is second to none and one that far outdistances its closest competitor. So if the president really and truly wants a stimulus proposal that will sail through the House and Senate (and please pardon the pun), let him ask for the money needed to return the navy to full strength, and to do so in the next three to five years, not the next ten to twenty or more


The navy revitalizes the industryJean 11 (Grace writer for the National Defense magazine “Navy’s shipbuilding challenges Loom Large 2020s”

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2011/June/Pages/Navy%E2%80%99sShipbuildingChallengesLoomLargeinthe2020s.aspx)

Shipyards lack programmatic vision to invest as heavily as they ought to in improving facilities, said Donald “Boysie” Bollinger, president and CEO of Bollinger Shipyards Inc., headquartered in Lockport, La. His ship construction facilities are small

compared to other U.S. yards. But when he tours the “big boys,” he often finds that his modest-sized yard boasts automation that exceeds their capabilities. “ Why? Because we invest in tooling for programmatic demands that we have,” he said. For example,

in preparation to build the Coast Guard’s fast response cutter fleet of 33 ships, the yard planned accordingly with modernization efforts.

“With that knowledge, we can invest in tooling that makes it a very efficient program,” he said. U.S. shipyards have the capability to produce quality products at competitive prices, he added. “We can be as efficient

as any shipbuilder in the world. I know it. I compete every day in the world shipbuilding community,” he said. “If you do the discipline of engineering and if you do the discipline of scheduling and you have discipline on changes, we can be competitive. That’s what the rest of the world does, and does it in spades.” But experts often question why U.S. shipyards cannot build

vessels as efficiently as Korean yards do. “The Koreans don’t start building a ship until they design it. And they don’t just build one. They follow the Henry Ford model: Any color you want, but nothing else will change,” said Bollinger. Shipyards all have strengths and weaknesses, and the Navy needs to leverage those unique strengths, said John F. “Dugan”

Shipway, former president of Bath Iron Works in Maine. “Timely decisions over the next couple years of what we’ll build will provide ability to build ships affordably in the next decade,” he advised. As budgets flatten and shipyards learn to live within that situation, the Navy may want to look at making greater use of multi-year procurement or block buy contracts, said O’Rourke. Navy officials also have to learn to manage programs better, he added. As for industrial base issues, it is important to recognize that the shipbuilding base extends beyond the shipyards and includes combat system makers, components suppliers, research and development teams, designers and engineers, he said. “A shipyard can only control a certain fraction of a ship’s total cost. So as we try to work toward shipbuilding affordability and to constrain shipbuilding costs, we need to focus beyond yards,”

said O’Rourke. He suggested that naval shipbuilders institute a method to maintain constant visibility on suppliers’ status. In many segments of the shipbuilding business, the industry is heading toward a monopoly of suppliers. “You need to find ways to use competition where you can, and smartly, in this industrial situation,” O’Rourke said. One way is to compete shipbuilding contracts at higher or lower levels than at the yard. At the mission level, for

example, the Defense Department could pitch ships against other forms of military platforms for performing certain missions. Or the Navy could compete at the supplier level for components, he suggested. “Everybody knows where ships are going to go because there’s only enough [shipbuilding] capacity to absorb that load. So we need to ensure there’s slack in capacity to preserve

that uncertainty in their contract award decisions,” said O’Rourke.

The counterplan revitalizes the shipbuilding industryMunoz 4/2/12 (Carlo staff writer for the hill “Panetta: Reduced Navy fleet size won’t sink US shipbuilding, defense industries” http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/navy/219517-panetta-new-navy-ship-strategy-will-support-us-industrial-base)

The Navy's new five-year shipbuilding plan provides adequate support for U.S. defense industry firms, even if it calls for a smaller number of vessels, according to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. The new plan, sent to Congress last Wednesday, is based on the goal of building a 300-

ship fleet for the Navy. That plan falls short of the service's original 313-ship minimum it had set in previous years. It also falls well short of the 500-ship fleet service leaders say is required to meet the base demands of U.S. combat commanders

around the globe. "There'll be some ups and downs and there are some ships that obviously we'll draw down that are outdated. But overall, we are going to . . . not only maintain, but increase our ships in the Navy," Panetta told reporters Sunday

after a speech aboard the USS Peleliu. The ship strategy, he added, will generate enough work to keep U.S. shipbuilders afloat, according to Panetta. "I want to maintain our industrial base for the future so that we can produce the ships we need for the future. And I want to do it in American shipyards," he said.

Increasing naval ships strengthens the shipbuilding industryWittman 8 ( Robert representative from Virginia “Working toward a 313-ship Navy at a minimum” http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/7742-working-toward-a-313-ship-navy-at-a-minimum)

Our investment in the future of our submarine force by further accelerating an increased build rate is a step that will further close the impending shortfall in the submarine force and strengthen our domestic industrial base, and the provision that continues to maintain our aircraft carrier fleet at 11 ships are essential aspects of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 that will

enable our nation to meet current and future national security needs and long-term challenges. Cost-effective shipbuilding is the foundation of our nation’s naval fleet. I look forward to the establishment of the 313-ship Navy in years to come. Maintaining the shipbuilding industry in America, maintaining the forward presence of our ships, and maintaining our safety and security at home are viable, essential goals that our nation must strive to meet now and for centuries to come.


Bipartisan support for the 313 ship goalAbott 10 (Stephen writer for the will and the wallet “The Navy’s Perennial Conundrum: Cost Overruns with Fleet Sizing” http://thewillandthewallet.squarespace.com/blog/2010/3/18/the-navys-perennial-conundrum-cost-overruns-interfere-with-f.html) JC

The campaign for a 313 ship battle fleet is one of Washington’s classic, bipartisan perennials – as is the failure to actually follow through. Whether we will ever reach this goal remains uncertain, in part, because ship cost overruns continually accelerate beyond each year’s funding. Increasing the size of the current 285 ship battle force is a stated goal of the Navy and leading members of Congress. On multiple occasions the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) has included a call for 313 hulls in congressional testimony, a position also used as “a reference point” in the

2010 version of the Navy’s 30 year plan. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) likewise sets the Navy’s size requirements near the 300+ ship level. Congress has been supportive of this goal. Soon after the President’s

election, a bipartisan group of 18 senators wrote Obama to ask him to retain the 313 ship goal. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO), along with his Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS), likewise entered the FY2011 budget cycle pushing the Navy to slow down ship retirements in order to increase fleet numbers.

Quadrennial defense review proves bipartisan supportKaplan 11 ( Robert senior fellow at the center for a New American Security “The US navy fostered globalization: we still need it” http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f9d59564-19b7-11e1-ba5d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1zOpg7VI2) JC

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f9d59564-19b7-11e1-ba5d-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1zOprgv00 There is no guarantee that this situation will last, however. In the 1980s era of high Reaganism, the US navy boasted close to 600 warships. In the 1990s, following the collapse of the Berlin Wall, that number fell to about 350. The US navy’s current strength is 284 warships. In the short term that number may rise to 313 because of the introduction of littoral combat

ships. Over time, however, it may fall to about 250, owing to cost overruns, the need to address domestic debt and the decommissioning of ageing warships in the 2020s. Meanwhile, the bipartisan quadrennial defence review last year recommended that the US move toward a 346-ship navy to fulfil its global responsibilities. Wen talks overshadowed by disputes China warns US on territory disputes Global Insight Risks in Australia-US pact

There is a big difference between a 346-ship US navy and a 250-ship navy – the difference between one kind of world order and another. Armies respond to unexpected contingencies, but it is navies and air forces that project power. Power is relative. If other nations were not building up their own navies and air forces, these numbers would matter less than they do. In fact, the western Pacific is in the middle of an arms race. This is not a low-tech expansion of ground forces; but a high-tech acquisition of submarines, surface warships, fighter jets, missiles, and cyberwarfare capabilities. The US armed forces have rarely been needed more to preserve the balance of power, and so maintain a peaceful environment for economic interaction.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f9d59564-19b7-11e1-ba5d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1zOpg7VI2

http://thewillandthewallet.squarespace.com/blog/2010/3/18/the-navys-perennial-conundrum-cost-overruns-interfere-with-f.html

Aff – Links to Ptx

Military spending cuts has bipartisan supportCollender 12 (Stan expert on federal budget and worked in the staffs of the house and senate budget committees “Obama pentagon spending cuts will change the budget debate long before they reduce the budget” http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/2456/obama-pentagon-spending-cuts-will-change-budget-debate-long-they-reduce-bud)

The Pentagon Has Become Increasingly Unpopular. After foreign aid and NASA, military spending is the area of the federal budget that has the least amount of public support. Many national polls conducted over the past year show that more than half the country thinks that reductions in defense spending are warranted. The Obama administration could not possibly fail to notice that, while the generality of “a strong defense” continues to be

popular, there is a growing feeling that it can be provided at a much lower cost. 2. The President’s Focus On The Deficit Made A Close Look At The Pentagon Impossible To Avoid. This is simple math more than complex politics. The political difficulties with reductions in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and increases in taxes, plus the limited amount of spending (at least by federal standards) in annual nondefense appropriations meant that there was no place else for the White House to turn for deficit reductions but to national

security programs. 3. The GOP Is Already On Record In Favor Of Cutting Military Spending. No matter how often congressional Republicans now try to come up with alternatives that would eliminate or mitigate the national security “sequester” that was triggered when the anything-but-super committee failed in late November to agree on a

deficit reduction plan, the fact remains that they first agreed to throw the Pentagon under the budget bus when they voted for the Budget Control Act in early August. That allows the White House to claim bi-partisan support for Pentagon reductions.

Aff – Links to Elections

Public hates defense spendingSmith 12 (Jeffery managing editor of national security at iwatch news “Public overwhelmingly supports large defense spending cuts” http://www.iwatchnews.org/2012/05/10/8856/public-overwhelmingly-supports-large-defense-spending-cuts)

While politicians, insiders and experts may be divided over how much the government should spend on the nation’s defense, there’s a surprising consensus among the public about what should be done: They want to cut spending far more deeply than either the Obama administration or the Republicans. That’s

according to the results of an innovative, new, nationwide survey by three nonprofit groups, the Center for Public

integrity, the Program for Public Consultation and the Stimson Center. Not only does the public want deep cuts, it wants those cuts to encompass spending in virtually every military domain — air power, sea power, ground forces, nuclear weapons, and missile defenses. According to the survey, in which respondents were told about the size of the budget as well as shown

expert arguments for and against spending cuts, two-thirds of Republicans and nine in 10 Democrats supported making immediate cuts — a position at odds with the leaderships of both political parties. The average total

cut was around $103 billion, a substantial portion of the current $562 billion base defense budget, while the majority supported cutting it at least $83 billion. These amounts both exceed a threatened cut of $55 billion at the end of this year under so-called “sequestration” legislation passed in 2011, which Pentagon officials and lawmakers alike have claimed would be devastating. “When Americans look at the amount of defense spending compared to spending on other programs, they see defense as the one that should take a substantial hit to reduce the deficit,” said Steven Kull, director of the Program for Public Consultation (PPC), and the lead developer of the survey. “Clearly the polarization that you are seeing on the floor of the Congress is not reflective of the American people.”

Oil CPs

Fuel Economy CP

1NCCP Text: The United States federal government should require new light-duty vehicles to achieve a fuel economy and emissions performance equivalent to an average of 62 miles per gallon by 2025.

It reduces oil dependence drastically and doesn’t link to elections

Dutzik et al 11 – *Tony Dutzik is Senior Policy Analyst with Frontier Group specializing in energy, transportation, and climate policy, **Elizabeth Ridlington works as a policy analyst with Frontier Group focusing on global warming, energy efficiency and clean vehicles, worked as an assistant to the director of the Fund for the Public Interest and U.S. PIRG, ***Rob Kerth is a policy analyst at Frontier Group, ****Travis Madsen is a policy analyst at Frontier Group, *****Daniel Gatti is a staff attorney with Environment America (“Getting Off Oil”, Summer 2011, http://www.frontiergroup.org/sites/default/files/reports/Getting-Off-Oil-vUS.pdf)

Light-Duty Vehicle Fuel Economy and Global Warming Pollution Standards

The policy: Require new vehicles to achieve fuel economy and emissions performance equivalent to an average of 62 miles per gallon by 2025.

The savings (compared with business as usual case):

• 130 million barrels of oil per year by 2020

•395 million barrels of oil per year by 2030

(Note: Savings estimated here are from conventional vehicles. This policy produces additional savings through increased use of electric vehicles; those savings are listed under “Deployment of Electric Vehicles,” below.)

Since 1975, the federal government has imposed minimum fleetwide fuel economy standards for light-duty cars

and trucks. Those fuel economy standards led to a 40 percent reduction in fuel consumption per mile by light-duty vehicles between 1975 and 1987, curbing America’s dependence on oil. 93

Over the course of the next two decades, however, vehicle fuel economy stagnated and even declined, as more Americans shifted from cars to less fuel efficient light trucks. Over the last several years, however, the United

States has experienced a renaissance in the drive to reduce oil consumption in cars and light trucks .

In 2010, the federal government launched new standards that call for a significant increase in vehicle fuel economy while, for the first time, limiting global warming pollution from vehicle tailpipes—a move brought about by the pioneering efforts of 14 states that had developed similar standards over the past decade. The new standards are designed to increase the average fuel economy of the vehicle fleet to 34 miles per gallon (mpg) by model year 2016.

Meanwhile, consumer concern about oil dependence is dramatically reshaping the automobile market. Analysis indicates that sales of hybrid cars have jumped more than 46 percent since March 2010, three times faster than the overall increase in car sales, while SUV sales have stagnated. 94

The new standards on fuel economy and global warming pollution from cars will ensure that energy-saving technologies—from turbocharging to hybrid-electric drive—will find their way into more new vehicles. But there remains plenty of room for improvement. Technologies such the use of plug-in cars that run partially or entirely on electricity create the opportunity for a quantum leap in vehicle fuel economy and global warming emission performance. 95

The Obama administration is now considering fuel economy and global warming pollution standards for 2017 and later years. Those

standards should require new cars and light trucks to achieve the equivalent of 62 mpg fuel economy by 2025.

Beyond 2025, there will be opportunities to go further by increasing the use of electric vehicles, if we lay the appropriate groundwork. This

scenario assumes that automobile manufacturers comply with a 62 mpg standard in equal parts by improving the efficiency of gasoline-powered vehicles and by increasing sales of electric vehicles. The estimated savings in this scenario include only those from vehicles with internal combustion engines. The details of and savings from the electric vehicle policy are described under “Deployment of Electric Vehicles,” below.

2NC Solves Oil DependenceFuel standards drastically reduce oil consumption – saves 2 million barrels a day

Weiss 12 – Senior Fellow and the Director of Climate Strategy at American Progress, where he leads the Center's clean energy and climate advocacy campaign (Daniel, A Testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, 3/7/12, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/03/pdf/weiss_testimony.pdf)

Model year 2011 cars go 7 percent farther on a gallon of gas compared to those made in 2008. And these savings will grow through 2016, when the average car will meet a standard of 35.5 miles per gallon—a 30 percent improvement from the 2010 standard.

In 2011 the administration finalized the first-ever fuel economy standards for work trucks, buses, and other heavy vehicles beginning in 2014.

The White House determined that these standards “will save American businesses who operate and own these commercial vehicles approximately $50 billion in fuel costs over the life of the program.” The new standards will save more than 500 million barrels of oil, too.

Later this year the administration—with the support of the major auto manufacturers and the United Auto Workers union—plans to finalize

fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles manufactured from 2017–2025. By 2025 cars and light trucks will go twice as

far on a gallon of gas compared to 2010 vehicles. These standards will save more than 2 million barrels of oil

per day . Drivers of model year 2025 passenger vehicles will save $8,200 in lower gasoline purchases

over the life of their vehicle compared to 2010 vehicles.

EIA’s latest projections found that the United States will import less oil thanks to the aforementioned oil production and

greater vehicle efficiency—not including the proposed 2017– 2025 fuel economy standards.

Fuel economy solves oil dependence

Mark et al 2 – *Jason Mark is director of the Union of Concerned Scientists Transportation Program, **David Friendman is deputy director of the Clean Vehicles Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, ***Therese Langer was a Staff Scientist for the Rutgers University Environmental Law Clinic and is currently the Transportation Program Director at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,****David Doniger is the policy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's (NRDC) Climate and Clean Air Program, and the chief global warming lawyer (“Increasing America’s Fuel Economy”, February 2002, http://commutesolutions.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAFEbriefingbk.pdf)

Raising fuel economy standards is the most effective way to reduce overall oil dependence .

· Cars and light trucks account for 40 percent of U.S oil use—8 mbd. 17

· Raising fuel economy standards for new cars, SUVs and other light trucks to an average of 40 mpg over the next 10 years will save nearly 2 mbd in 2012 and nearly 4 mbd by the end of the next decade. This is more oil than current imports from the Persian Gulf and the projected yield from the Arctic Refuge, combined.

· Raising fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks to 40 mpg over the next decade would yield cumulative oil savings of 3 billion barrels by 2012 and more than 12 billion barrels by 2020. 18

Popular – Public

Energy-saving options popular – this only applies to the CP

Tompson 12 - *Trevor Tompson is the director of The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research; **Jennifer Agiesta is Deputy Director of Polling at the Associated Press; **Jennifer Benz, Ph.D., Research Scientist, NORC; ***Joseph S. Broz, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, NORC; ****Dennis Junius, M.A., News Survey Specialist, The Associated Press; *****Matthew Kozey, J.D., Principal Research Analyst, NORC (“Energy Issues: How the Public Understands and Acts”, June 2012, http://www.apnorc.org/Common/pdfs/AP-NORC-Energy-Report.pdf)

The public is looking to the government and the industry for solutions to the country’s energy problems. Sixty-two percent of the public believe that the government should be extremely or very involved in finding solutions to this country’s energy problems. Democrats (79%) are more likely to say the government should be involved, compared to only 42 percent of Republicans who report that the government should be extremely or very involved in finding solutions to the country’s energy problems.

Of those that think the government should be at least slightly involved in finding solutions (90%), 58 percent think the government should focus on helping the energy industry provide better energy-saving options for consumers compared to 38 percent who believe the government should focus directly on consumers to help them

make better choices. This is true for both Democrats and Republicans.

Doesn’t link – the public doesn’t know about fuel efficiency

Tompson 12 - *Trevor Tompson is the director of The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research; **Jennifer Agiesta is Deputy Director of Polling at the Associated Press; **Jennifer Benz, Ph.D., Research Scientist, NORC; ***Joseph S. Broz, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, NORC; ****Dennis Junius, M.A., News Survey Specialist, The Associated Press; *****Matthew Kozey, J.D., Principal Research Analyst, NORC (“Energy Issues: How the Public Understands and Acts”, June 2012, http://www.apnorc.org/Common/pdfs/AP-NORC-Energy-Report.pdf)

Given the lack of awareness and trust in government sources of energy savings information, it is perhaps not

surprising that the public does not know a lot or a great deal about some major government and private sector energy savings programs.

• Forty-six percent of the public report knowing a lot or a great deal about programs to phase out incandescent light bulbs.

• Thirty-three percent of the public report knowing a lot or a great deal about Energy Star product labels.

• Twenty-five percent report knowing a lot or a great deal about fuel efficiency standards for cars.

Solves better than HSR

HSR barely reduces oil dependence – this evidence is from a report that advocates HSR in order to reduce dependence

Dutzik et al 11 – *Tony Dutzik is Senior Policy Analyst with Frontier Group specializing in energy, transportation, and climate policy, **Elizabeth Ridlington works as a policy analyst with Frontier Group focusing on global warming, energy efficiency and clean vehicles, worked as an assistant to the director of the Fund for the Public Interest and U.S. PIRG, ***Rob Kerth is a policy analyst at Frontier Group, ****Travis Madsen is a policy analyst at Frontier Group, *****Daniel Gatti is a staff attorney with Environment America (“Getting Off Oil”, Summer 2011, http://www.frontiergroup.org/sites/default/files/reports/Getting-Off-Oil-vUS.pdf)

High-Speed Rail

The policy: Build high-speed rail lines in 11 high-priority corridors by 2030.

The savings (compared with business as usual case):

• 6 million barrels per year by 2020

• 15 million barrels per year by 2030

Nations around the world have operated high-speed rail lines for more than 50 years, dating back to the launch of Japan’s Shinkansen bullet

train in 1964. True high speed rail lines are operated on electricity, potentially substituting for the use of two transportation modes that are highly dependent on oil—cars and airplanes. In addition, high-speed rail lines that operate at high capacity can be significantly more energy efficient than airplane or car travel. 114

Tech PossibleFuel-efficient cars possible – the technology exists


The technology exists today to cost-effectively boost the fuel economy of cars and light trucks to 40 mpg

by 2012. This can be done while maintaining the power, performance and safety that consumers demand. By using technologies such as variable valve engines and continuously variable transmissions in a higher percentage of vehicles than are available to consumers today, the auto industry could be putting its technological know-how to work improving the fuel economy of the nation’s vehicle fleet.

Detroit was capable of raising fuel economy in the past.

· When Congress enacted CAFE standards in 1975, automakers used new technology to nearly double passenger car fuel economy over ten years. 1 Technological developments did not stop when fuel economy standards were

effectively frozen; instead vehicle technology continued to evolve. In the absence of higher standards, technology went into increasing power and performance.

Three national reports have recently concluded that there is a wide array of technologies available today to cost-effectively improve the fuel economy of cars and light trucks.

· Mid–range estimates from the recent NAS fuel economy report indicate that the fleet average could approach 40 mpg using existing and emerging technology in the next 10 to 15 years.

· The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy laid out a package of technologies that would raise the average fuel economy of vehicles to over 40 mpg in the same time frame, while improving safety and keeping vehicle costs below new car trend prices 2

Solve StimulusFuel economy solves the stimulus internal link – it results in job growth and increases consumption


FUEL ECONOMY AND JOBS

Raising fuel economy would create new jobs in the automotive sector as a result of large-scale production and use of up-to-date technologies and materials. The modest increase in sticker prices for fuel-

efficient cars would be more than offset by consumers' gas savings, which would be spent on products and services, creating new jobs throughout the economy. On the other hand, if fuel economy continues to stagnate, the

next oil shock could mean big trouble for the U.S auto industry.

Higher fuel economy standards would mean more auto industry jobs.

• Due to increased investment in the industry, a standard of 40 mpg by 2012, rising to 55 mpg by 2020 would create 40,000 new jobs in the automotive sector by 2010, and 104,000 by 2020. 1 Fuel economy improvements put money into consumers' pockets, creating jobs across the economy.

• If fuel economy reached 40 mpg by 2012, consumers would save $16 billion in annual fuel costs. The resulting spending would generate job increases in almost all sectors—72,000 new jobs in ten years and 244,000 jobs in twenty years. The retail trade, agriculture, restaurant, health services, construction, and other industries would all gain between 20,000 and 80,000 new jobs in twenty years. 2

• While an increase in fuel economy would result in a decline in oil drilling and refining jobs, the energy sectors are among the least labor-intensive in the US economy, and much of our oil spending goes overseas. Transferring dollars from oil production to other sectors produces a net increase in employment. The auto industry's claims that higher fuel economy standards mean fewer jobs are based on faulty assumptions.

· In 1992, proposals to raise CAFE standards for cars from 27.5 mpg to 40 mpg by 2000 were met by claims from the auto manufacturers' association that such a step would mean the loss of 150,000 to 300,000 jobs. A Los Angeles Times investigation revealed the claim assumed that assembly lines and entire plants producing cars that did not meet the new standards would simply be shut down. 3

This extreme scenario does not reflect the reality that car and truck models will be improved, not eliminated, and that the standards will be gradually introduced.

· In 2001, GM urged the St. Louis City Council to pass a resolution against fuel economy improvements using the same specious argument. GM argued that it would respond to a 3 mpg increase in light truck fuel economy standards simply by eliminating the least efficient existing products causing the loss of 36,200 UAW/GM jobs.

· CAFE standards apply to fuel economies averaged across automakers’ fleets and do not restrict production of individual vehicle models.

Manufacturers would have time and flexibility to adapt to new standards. U.S. manufacturers can’t afford to be industry laggards.

· Oil price hikes in the 1970s hit domestic automakers hard, because foreign automakers such as Honda and Toyota then led the Big Three on

fuel economy. High oil prices in the future could hit American automakers hard, just as happened in the 1970s. A planned, phased-in increase of fuel economy standards will provide critical insurance against a repeat of this scenario.

· After the oil shocks of the 1970s and early 1980s, Chrysler, in a temporary departure from the Big Three's customary point of view, saw fuel-efficient cars as an important market to capture and opposed efforts to roll back CAFE standards.

According to a 1985 Chrysler ad, "…CAFE protects American jobs. If CAFE is weakened now, come the next energy crunch American manufacturers will not be able to meet the demand for fuel-efficient cars…again. And American workers—both in the Auto Industry and in the other industries that serve it— will be out on the street. Many of their jobs—as was true for the last two times around—will disappear forever." 4

Solve WarmingFuel economy standards solve warming and air pollution


FUEL ECONOMY: THE BIGGEST SINGLE STEP TO CURBING GLOBAL WARMING AND IMPROVING AIR QUALITY

Emissions from cars and light trucks threaten our environment and public health. There is a scientific consensus that the average global temperature is rising, and that humans are responsible for this change. 1

Burning oil in passenger vehicles releases CO2 that builds up in the atmosphere and works like a blanket that

traps heat near the earth’s surface. This causes the average global temperature to rise. Since America’s enormous fleet of passenger vehicles accounts for one-fifth of all U.S. CO2 emissions, raising CAFE standards is the single biggest step our country can take to curb global warming. Raising CAFE standards would also help reduce key air pollutants, improving public health and helping cities and states meet clean air standards. Cars and light trucks account for a significant portion of U.S. global warming pollution.

· Consuming one gallon of gasoline releases 24-28 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere—19 pounds directly from the tailpipe and an additional 5-8 pounds from upstream sources that include transporting gasoline and refueling. 2,3

· U.S. cars and light trucks alone produce more CO2 pollution than all but three other countries

worldwide: China, Russia and Japan. 4 This amounts to almost 5 percent of total world CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.

· If current trends in fuel economy go unchecked, passenger vehicle fuel use will increase by 56 percent over the next two decades. Under this scenario, annual greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. passenger vehicle sector will rise from 1,450 million tons of CO2 to 2,260 million tons of CO2. 5 Fuel-related pollution from cars and light trucks poses a significant health hazard.

· The amount of fuel a vehicle uses accounts for nearly half of air pollution from passenger vehicles. Cars and light trucks produce an amount of U.S. air pollution that is second only to electricity generation.

· Existing fuel economy standards avert 500,000 tons of hydrocarbon emissions from gasoline production, distribution, and vehicle fuel tanks. Hydrocarbon emissions are a key source of smog, and many of them are toxic and potentially carcinogenic. 6

· Each year, the production and distribution of gasoline to fuel U.S. passenger vehicles causes the emission of 392,000 tons of benzeneequivalent and 848,000 tons of smog-forming hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. 7

· A recent UCLA study linked air pollution and birth defects in Southern California for the first time, finding that pollutants are transferred to the

fetus through the umbilical cord. 8 Congress must raise CAFE standards to protect our future.

· When fully phased in by 2012, a fleet wide fuel economy standard of 40 mpg would avert: 9

o 345 million tons of CO2 emissions.

o Up to 187 million pounds of toxic emissions.

o Up to 404 million pounds of smog forming pollutants.

· When fully phased in by 2020, a fleet wide fuel economy standard of 55 mpg would avert: 10

o 888 million tons of CO2 emissions.

o Up to 481 million pounds of toxic emissions.

o Up to 1,039 million pounds of smog-forming pollutants.

Increased fuel economy dramatically reduces emissions

UCS 4 – Union of Concerned Scientists (“Common Sense on Climate Change: Practical Solutions to Global Warming”, 11/01/04, http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/common-sense-on-climate-5.html)

Common Sense on Climate Change Solution #1: Make Better Cars and SUV's

The technology exists to build cars, minivans, and SUVs that are just as powerful and safe as vehicles on the road today , but get 40 miles per gallon (mpg) or more.

Better transmissions and engines, more aerodynamic designs, and stronger yet lighter material for chassis and bodies can cost-effectively increase the average fuel economy of today's automotive fleet from 24 mpg to 40 mpg over 10 years. This would be equivalent to taking 44 million cars off the road—and it would save individual drivers thousands of dollars in fuel costs over the life of a vehicle.

Because transportation accounts for nearly 30 percent of U.S. annual CO2 emissions , raising fuel

economy is one of the most important things we can do to slow climate change.

The first step is to require Detroit to offer consumers more fuel-efficient vehicles by raising the average gas mileage—the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)—of their fleets. It is especially important to bring SUVs up to the same standards as cars.

*Aff AnswersDoesn’t solve oil or warming

Duhamel 10 – (Jonathon, 4/30/10, “EPA fuel standards costly and ineffective”, http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2010/04/30/epa-fuel-standards-costly-and-ineffective/)

The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed increasing fuel mileage standards for motor vehicles from the current 30.2 mpg for passenger car fleets to 35.5 mpg by 2016. Their rationale for this increase (so they say) is twofold: reduce carbon dioxide emissions and thus

forestall temperature rise; and reduce our total consumption of petroleum products. The fuel standards will fail on both counts .¶ The

proposed fuel mileage standard will have no measurable effect on temperature according to Dr. John Christy,

Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and Alabama’s State Climatologist. Christy testified before Congress last year on California’s proposed vehicle emission reduction of 26% (equivalent to a 43 m.p.g. standard).

Christy’s research found that such a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions would have a theoretical temperature impact of “no more than 0.01 °C by 2100.” “…if the entire world adopted and adhered to this legislation, the net effect would be less than 0.04°C by 2100. As an atmospheric scientist who regularly publishes

temperature records for specific regions as well as the globe, I can assure you this level of impact is too small to be detected. Global

temperatures change by more than this from day to day.”¶ Added to that, there is evidence that better fuel

mileage will not result in lower total fuel consumption . Department of Transportation data show that

as automobiles become more fuel efficient, each car is driven more miles, so that there is actually no reduction in total fuel use.

Fuel tax fails – takes too long to solve

Morrow et al 9 - *Ross Morrow is Assistant Professor in Mechanical Engineering and Economics, **Kelly Gallagher is Director of the Energy Technology Innovation Policy (ETIP) research group at Harvard University, ***Gustavo Collantes is a Former Research Fellow, Energy Technology Innovation Policy Research Group/Science, Techology, and Public Policy Program, ****Henry Lee is Director of the Environment and Natural Resources Program at Harvard School of Government, Co-Chair of the International Infrastructure Program and the Energy Technology Innovation Policy project at Harvard, and a Senior Lecturer in Public Policy, was Director of the Massachusetts’s Energy Office and Special Assistant to the Governor for environmental policy (“Analysis of policies to reduce oil consumption and greenhouse-gas emissions from the US transportation sector”, December 2009, Science Direct)

It is important to note that the response in fuel economy of the national fleet is muted despite these strong gains in

new vehicle fuel economy; see Fig. 9. It takes a number of years for new more efficient vehicles to penetrate into the fleet because so many relatively inefficient cars remain on the road. Scenarios (A–E) had a varied impact on

new vehicle fuel economy in 2030, achieving between 38 and 43.7 mpg, while overall fleet fuel economy in 2030 varied only between 28.9 and 31.2 mpg. In 2020, choosing the best policy for fuel

economy improvement results in a fuel economy improvement for the entire fleet of only 1.2 mpg.

Building Codes (Neg)

Building Codes CP 1NC

Text: The state governments should implement and enforce energy efficiency building codes modeled on California’s building codes.

Efficient building codes solve better – gains in transportation efficiency are inevitableJoan Indiana Rigdon – Nov 2008, Grad of UC Berkeley journalism school, former writer for Wall Street Journal, “Oil: The Never-Ending Crisis,” Washington Lawyer, http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/resources/publications/washington_lawyer/november_2008/oil_crisis.cfm

Unsexy Building Codes Much of the public debate about energy and greenhouse gas emissions is

centered on automobiles, a focus which Bookbinder believes is misplaced. ¶ “Transportation will solve

itself,” he says, explaining that higher fuel-efficiency standards, combined with new biofuels that are

not derived from food, as well as new technologies including plug-in hybrids, ultimately will drive down demand for oil and greenhouse gas emissions.¶ Instead, he says, policymakers could have a

much bigger impact on the country’s foreign oil dependence and greenhouse gas emissions by

adopting energy-saving commercial building codes. California’s per capita consumption of electricity is among the lowest in the nation, Bookbinder says, because the state enacted strict commercial building codes that regulate lighting, heating, cooling, and power transmission, following the oil shocks of the 1970s. ¶ Better commercial building codes would easily trump any savings from residential use of alternative energy, Bookbinder adds. Getting even just one state to upgrade its building codes “is worth more than every Tom, Dick, and Harry running out to put a windmill on their roof,” he says.

**Note: “David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel for the Sierra Club, the nation’s leader in grassroots environmental litigation.”


Changing building codes is key – locks in efficiency and reduces oil dependence US Department of Energy, 18 May 2011, “Why Building Energy Codes?” US DOE, http://www.energycodes.gov/why_codes/

Buildings fundamentally have an impact on people's lives, economic well-being, and the U nited S tates' dependence on foreign oil, national security and the health of the planet. In the U nited States, residential and commercial buildings together use more energy and emit more carbon dioxide than either the industrial or transportation section Buildings use 39% of our total energy, two-thirds of our electricity, and one-eighth of our water. In light of these fundamental environmental issues, and the increasing cost of energy and our current economic challenges, building energy efficiency is a key component of sound public policy.¶ ¶ Because the efficiency with which a home, factory or office building will use energy is determined in part by decisions made far in advance of the actual use of that energy, the network of incentives and disincentives regarding energy choices is complex . Choosing less energy efficient methods of materials may save money upfront, but or result in increased energy costs for the occupant of that building far in the future . This long term impacts of the choices and consequences results in a unique role for government in setting and enforcing building codes and standards, promoting improvements, and collecting and disseminating information regarding new technologies and best practices.

Codes solve oil dependencyUS DOE, Feb 2010, “Building Energy Codes 101”, DOE, pg. 1, http://www.energycodes.gov/becu/documents/BECU_Codes_101_Intro.pdfC4W9rQHt44WzBw&usg=AFQjCNEUSbRtasIqaARmb7iYka_ITA5Plg&sig2=SYLV4jQLTCB6T2BAZKMhfg

The effects of energy use in buildings are nationwide , worldwide, and varied. Having a fundamental impact on¶ people’s lives, these effects include the economic well-being¶ of the nation, the U nited S tates’ dependence on foreign oil, and national security . On an individual basis, even human¶ health can be affected by building energy use when rising¶ energy costs render a conditioned, comfortable, healthy¶ indoor environment unaffordable. On a larger scale, carbon¶ emissions, which are directly tied to building energy use,¶ affect the health of our planet. Some sobering statistics help drive home¶ the reality of building energy use:¶ » Nearly 5 million commercial buildings and 115 million¶ residential households in the United States consume¶ nearly 40 percent of the nation’s total primary energy1¶ » Buildings consume 70 percent of electricity in the¶ United States2¶ » In 2007, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions attributable¶ to lighting, heating, cooling, cooking, refrigeration,¶ water heating, and other building services totaled¶ 2517 million metric tons3 – this is 40 percent of the¶ U.S. total and 8 percent of the global total. What can be done to curb the significant and ever-growing impact of building energy use? The adoption and enforcement of more stringent building energy codes in communities across the country is a critical component. This document provides a basic introduction to¶ the many aspects of

building energy codes, including their:¶ » Benefits in terms of the current energy, economic, and¶

environmental challenges facing our world today¶ » Challenges in terms of adoption, implementation,¶

compliance, and enforcement¶ » Development processes led by the International Codes¶ Council (ICC) and American Society of Heating,¶ Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers¶ (ASHRAE)¶ » Adoption and incorporation into building design and¶ construction by states and jurisdictions¶ » Enforcement at the state and local level.


Energy codes key to solve oil dependenceNASEO (National Association of State Energy Officials) 1/24/12 - http://www.naseo.org/codes/documents/NASEO_Board_Resolution_Supporting_Utility_Credit_for_Codes.pdf, AP

WHEREAS, homes and commercial buildings are America’s largest energy-consuming sector – together ¶ using over 40 percent of the nation’s energy, two-thirds of our electricity consumption, one-eighth of our ¶ water use, and

responsible for almost 40% of our carbon dioxide emissions¶ 1¶ ; and ¶ WHEREAS, reducing building energy consumption is an important objective for our country; and ¶ WHEREAS, studies show that these energy efficiency improvements enhance the affordability, security, ¶ comfort, and health and safety of home ownership by generating net positive cash flow for homeowners; ¶ and¶ WHEREAS, building energy codes help safeguard commercial owners and tenants from long-term ¶ financial burdens that can result from short-term design and construction decisions and can afford ¶ protection from energy price volatility; and¶ WHEREAS,

energy-efficient buildings provide energy, economic, and environmental benefits for many ¶ years, and enhance our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil; and¶ WHEREAS, building energy codes are a key component of a sustainable future for our country; and¶ WHEREAS, building energy codes set minimum requirements for energy-efficient design and ¶ construction of new and renovated buildings that impact energy use and emissions over the decades-long ¶ lifetimes of the buildings .

Codes reduce oil dependenceUS DOE, Feb 2010, “Building Energy Codes 101”, DOE, pg. 25, http://www.energycodes.gov/becu/documents/BECU_Codes_101_Intro.pdfC4W9rQHt44WzBw&usg=AFQjCNEUSbRtasIqaARmb7iYka_ITA5Plg&sig2=SYLV4jQLTCB6T2BAZKMhfg

Building energy codes can play a key role in reducing building¶ energy costs, our nation’s reliance on foreign oil, and carbon¶ emissions as well as in increasing the comfort of our homes and¶ offices. Though the building energy codes world is not without¶ its challenges, the benefits far outweigh the barriers. Crafted in¶ open public forums, all stakeholders and interested and affected¶ parties are welcome to participate in the building energy codes¶ development processes. And the processes used to update both¶ the IECC and ASHRAE 90.1 are designed to make sure the¶ interests of varied stakeholders are considered, including those¶ pertaining to industry, of importance to building scientists, and¶ affecting financial viability. Building energy codes are readily¶ available for states and jurisdictions to adopt, and a broad range¶ of enforcement and compliance tools are available to help policy¶ makers, designers, builders, and the enforcement community¶ successfully implement building energy codes. Building energy codes are a baseline of energy efficiency that constantly drive beyond-code programs to improve. As code cycles iterate from¶ one to the next, today’s beyond-code programs become the¶

baseline of tomorrow. Ultimately, the energy codes community¶ will converge on its true goal—buildings with zero energy use.

http://www.naseo.org/codes/documents/NASEO_Board_Resolution_Supporting_Utility_Credit_for_Codes.pdf

Codes solve emissions and oil dependenceClayton, Krystin, owner of Green House Effects, a company that seeks to better the environment by offering practical sustainability consulting to interested and committed businesses and individuals, 22

October 2010, Examiner, http://tinyurl.com/83rk88n

Manufacturers and vendors alike need to be aware that as there is more and more of a push on energy conservation in the United States, more and more products and construction techniques may become obsolete and actually prohibited by well-meaning engineers who may not be thinking long range or big picture. In a similar manner, as green building codes become widely adopted, the outlawing of products and equipment will become a bigger issue. Isn’t it admirable to create code that saves energy thus reduces greenhouse gas emissions and reduces our dependence on foreign oil? Yes indeed, and if we are to provide a solution that addresses both of those issues (that is using energy efficiently for comfort or convenience and obtaining energy independence), it will be necessary to advocate and promote the technologies that have the most promise to achieve both of those goals to win the separate but equally important wars on energy waste and foreign oil dependence.

Solvency – A2: No Oil In Buildings

Many buildings still use petroleum products for heat – new codes can reduce oil dependenceAnn Bordetsky et al – Natural Resources Defense Council – Feb 2005, SECURING AMERICA Solving Our Oil Dependence Through Innovation, http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/oilsecurity/plan.pdf, http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/oilsecurity/plan.pdf

Oil-heated homes. Petroleum products remain an important source of heating energy in homes. ¶ According to the EIA, approximately 8 million residences continue to burn fuel oil, liquefied petroleum¶

gases (LPG), propane, and kerosene for space and water heating. 60 Cost-effective home improvements to¶ space and water heating systems such as insulating walls, ceilings and pipes, sealing drafts and especially¶ sealing ducts, installing new windows, upgrading thermostats; updating furnaces; replacing old clothes¶ washers and dishwashers with new efficient models; and replacing water heaters can reduce heating oil use ¶ by 30 percent or more. ¶ We should promote residential energy savings with a focus on oil heat to help reduce the nation’s oil ¶ dependence by adopting stringent efficiency standards for house and apartment building boilers and ¶ furnace s; by adopting performance-based tax incentives for home retrofits and for efficient water heaters;¶ and by updating codes for new buildings. Together these measures can save 100,000 barrel of oil per day in ¶ 2015. We should promote residential weatherization and other energy saving programs to help achieve the¶ national oil savings commitment.¶

Many buildings use oil for heat David G. Victor, John Deutch, and James R. Schlesinger, Deutch: Chair of the Task Force, Institute Professor at MIT, Undersecretary of Energy, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Director of Central Intelligence. Victor: Project Director of the Task Force, Director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at Stanford University, Adjunct Senior Fellow for Science and Technology at the Council on Foreign Relations. Schlesinger: Former Secretary of Defense, First Secretary of Energy

Chair of the Task Force, 12 October 2006 “National Security Consequences of U.S Oil Dependency”, Council on Foreign Relations, pg. 46, http://tinyurl.com/7at36cu

While recognizing that there will be no significant early relief, the United States needs to begin now to

adopt technologies and processes that allow for the use of fuels other than those based on

petroleum , in particular those alternative fuels that reduce the negative consequences that come

from the country’s reliance on imported petroleum . For example, oil is still used for space heating of

buildings in some regions;¶ however, those buildings could be heated by natural gas directly or ,¶ for

http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/oilsecurity/plan.pdf

larger buildings, by efficient cogeneration of electricity and space heating . Cars and other light vehicles could be fueled with increasingly larger fractions of biomass-derived liquids (such as ethanol), and vehicles¶ can be fueled by compressed natural gas. Light duty vehicles could be powered increasingly over time by electricity rather than gasoline or diesel fuel. The current generation of hybrid-electric vehicles may be¶ supplanted by ‘‘plug-in hybrids,’’ which allow some fraction of the¶ mileage to be powered by electricity that is charged from the grid,¶ perhaps leading to an eventual transition to fully electric vehicles.13

Solvency – Economy/Warming

Investment in energy efficiency insulates the economy from price shocks and protects the environmentEPA and DOE, this plan has been developed by more than 50 leading organizations, 17 Aug 2006, “National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency” pg. 5, http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-programs/suca/resources.html

Energy efficiency reduces the level of U.S. per capita energy consumption, thus decreasing the

vulnerability of the economy and individual consumers to energy price disruptions from natural

disasters and attacks on domestic and international energy supplies and infrastructure. In addition, energy efficiency can be used to reduce the overall system peak demand or the peak demand in targeted load areas with limited generating or transport capability. Reducing peak demand improves system reliability and reduces the potential for unplanned brownouts or black-outs, which can have large adverse economic consequences.¶ utilities, and other organizations can build. Experience shows that energy efficiency programs can lower customer energy bills; cost less than, and help defer, new energy infrastructure; provide energy savings to consumers; improve the environment; and spur local economic development (see box on Benefits of Energy Efficiency). Significant opportunities for energy efficiency are likely to continue to be available at low costs in the future. State and regional studies have found that adoption of economically attractive , but as yet untapped , energy efficiency could yield more than 20 percent savings in total electricity demand nationwide by 2025. Depending on the underlying load growth, these savings could help cut load growth by half or more compared to current forecasts (Nadel et al., 2004; SWEEP, 2002; NEEP, 2005; NWPCC, 2005; WGA, 2006). Similarly, savings from direct use of natural gas could provide a 50 percent or greater reduction in natural gas demand

growth (Nadel et al., 2004).¶ Capturing this energy efficiency resource would offer substantial

economic and environmental benefits across the country . Widespread application of energy efficiency

programs that already exist in some regions could deliver a large part of these potential savings.9 Extrapolating the results from existing programs to the entire country would yield annual energy bill savings of nearly $20 billion, with net societal benefits of more than $250 billion over the next 10 to 15 years. This scenario could defer the need for 20,000 megawatts (MW), or 40 new 500MW power plants, as well as reduce U.S. emissions from energy production and use by more than 200 million tons of

carbon dioxide (CO2), 50,000 tons of SO2, and 40,000 tons of NOx annually.10 These significant

economic and environmental benefits can be achieved relatively quickly because energy efficiency

programs can be developed and implemented within several years. Additional policies and programs

are required to help capture these potential benefits and address our substantial underinvestment in

energy efficiency as a nation. An important indicator of this underinvestment is that the level of funding across the country for organized efficiency programs is currently less than $2 billion per year while it would require about 4 times today’s funding levels to achieve the economic and environment benefits presented above.


States should build energy codes—solves energy, environment, and economy EPA and DOE, this plan has been developed by more than 50 leading organizations, 17 Aug 2006, “Building Codes for Energy Efficiency” pg. 2-3, http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-programs/suca/resources.html

Building energy codes provide states and municipalities across the country a range of energy,

environmental, and economic benefits . Highlights from several jurisdictions are summarized below

and in Table 1. Energy benefits of building codes include saving on energy bills, reducing peak energy demand, and improving system reliability. For example, California’s building standards have helped save businesses and residents more than $15.8 billion in electricity and natural gas costs since 1975,

and these savings are expected to climb to $59 billion by¶ 2011 (CEC, 2003). When fully implemented,¶

the state’s new 2005¶ building efficiency standards are¶ expected to yield peak energy use¶ reductions of 180 megawatts (MW)¶ annually—enough electricity to power¶ 180,000 average-sized California¶ homes (Motamedi et al., 2004).¶ According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), if all states adopted and fully implemented American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard¶ 90.1-1999, a model energy code for commercial buildings, then building owners and tenants would lower their¶ utility bills by $110 million the first¶ year and save $5.7 billion over 10¶

years. The country would save 16 trillion British thermal units (Btu) of energy that first year and

almost 800 trillion Btu cumulatively over 10 years .¶ The magnitude of each state’s savings¶ depends

on many factors: the efficiency¶ of its current building practices; the stringency of the code it adopts;¶ its population, climate, and building¶ construction activity; and the effectiveness¶ of code training and¶

enforcement (DOE, 2007).States and municipalities are also¶ finding that energy codes can¶ improve

the environment by reducing¶ air pollution and greenhouse gases .¶ For example, the New York

Energy¶ Conservation Construction Code is¶ estimated to reduce carbon dioxide¶ (CO2) emissions by

more than¶ 500,000 tons annually and sulfur¶ dioxide (SO2) by nearly 500 tons per¶ year (DOE, 2002).

Similarly, the 2001¶ Texas Building Energy Performance¶ Standards are projected to reduce¶ nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions¶ statewide by more than 2 tons each¶ “peak” day and more than 1 ton¶ each average day, which helps the¶ state meet Clean Air Act requirements¶ for non-attainment areas¶ (Haberl

et al., 2003). Building energy codes can also help¶ grow the economy . States and municipalities¶

benefit from greater¶ investment in energy-efficient capital¶ equipment and new jobs installing¶

equipment and monitoring building¶ compliance. While spending on¶ energy services typically sends money¶ out of state, dollars saved from efficiency¶ tend to be re-spent locally¶ (Kushler et al., 2005; Weitz 2005a).¶ Codes become even more cost-effective¶ during periods of high heating¶ and cooling fuel prices.¶ At the building level, the “payback¶ period” on any increase in upfront costs¶ is typically short. A Nevada study estimated¶ that upgrading the energy¶ efficiency of commercial buildings to¶ comply with the code would cost about¶ $1.60 per square foot but would result¶ in $0.68 per square foot of energy

bill¶ savings per year, meaning a simple¶ payback of about 2.4 years (Geller et¶ al., 2005). Similarly, it is estimated that while a new home built to the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) in Phoenix, Arizona, will cost an average of $1,517 more than a home built without the code, the difference will be repaid to homebuyers in 3.9 years (based on simple payback). The life-cycle cost savings associated with improved energy efficiency from adopting the IECC is $11,228 per home (Kinney et. al., 2003). While the upfront costs of code compliance can be recouped over short payback periods, the savings do not always accrue to the entity paying the initial compliance costs. This “split incentive” occurs when a developer or builder sees higher costs that are repaid over time to the building owner or occupants.


States must build codes now—environmental and economic gainsUS Department of Energy, 18 May 2011, “Why Building Energy Codes?” US DOE, http://www.energycodes.gov/why_codes/

New buildings, while they represent just over 1% of the total building stock in a given year, are important because they represent a unique chance to effect energy efficiency; keeping in mind that building energy codes also apply to retrofitting of existing buildings. Once a new building is constructed,

it is very expensive and often impossible to achieve the energy efficiency that can be economically

built in at the time of construction. Since buildings will be in existence for decades if not centuries this

is an opportunity that we cannot afford to lose and had we done a more robust job in the past,

retrofitting of existing buildings would not be as critical today. It is vital to make energy efficiency a

fundamental part of the building design and construction process and energy codes are an effective

way to achieve this goal and ensure energy efficiency is a component of all buildings. States have the

lead to make this happen.¶ Research shows that contemporary energy codes could save about 330 Trillion BTU by 2030, almost 2% of total current residential energy consumption. There would also be comparable savings in consumer energy bills, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Those savings help the state economy by putting more money is consumer's pockets and reducing environmental costs to the state and its industry.¶ This Program supports energy code development, adoption, implementation, and compliance initiatives at the national, state and local level and is estimated to generate energy cost savings of more than $2.5 billion per year. Since the inception of the Program 20 years ago accumulated energy savings has been more than 1.5 quads and cost savings to consumers has been more than $14 billion. These savings have resulted primarily from the Program's activities that accelerate the adoption of building energy codes by and within the states and that improve code compliance by means of various software tools and other types of training and technical support.

Government action will help the economyEPA and DOE, this plan has been developed by more than 50 leading organizations, 17 Aug 2006, “National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency” pg. 3, http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-programs/suca/resources.html

Greater investment in energy efficiency helps build jobs and improve state economies . Energy

efficiency users often redirect their bill savings toward other activities that increase local and national

employment, with a higher employment impact than if the money had been spent to purchase

energy (Kushler et al., 2005; NYSERDA, 2004). Many energy efficiency programs create construction and installation jobs, with multiplier impacts on employment and local economies. Local investments in energy efficiency can offset imports from out-of-state, improving the state balance of trade. Lastly, energy efficiency investments usually create long-lasting infrastructure changes to building, equipment

and appliance stocks, creating long-term property improvements that deliver long-term economic value (Innovest, 2002).

Solvency – Economy

Energy codes create jobsNASEO (National Association of State Energy Officials) 3/23/11 - https://www.naseo.org/codes/documents/NASEO-BCAP-State_Benefits_from_Codes.pdf, AP

Building Energy Codes Create Jobs and Save Money and Energy¶ ¶ Setting new standards for energy efficiency through building codes expands and sustains a growing market for energy ¶ audits, retrofits, and weatherization--creating a wide-range of new green jobs. ¶ Just as importantly, adopting and enforcing current model codes can save

consumers and businesses money on their ¶ energy bills. Consumers can spend money saved from reduced energy bills on other goods and services, and businesses ¶ can transfer free-up capital to other areas, such as production, investment, and employee retention. In both cases, ¶ building codes can positively impact the economic health of your state. ¶ Today, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 and the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) are the national

model ¶ energy codes, and each is updated on a three-year cycle. Moving from current practice to the 2009 IECC for new homes ¶ would result in a national weighted average incremental cost of $818.72 per new home. ¶ The annual energy savings per home would be $243.37 on average, meaning the simple payback for

homeowners would ¶ occur in 3.36 years. If the 2009 IECC were adopted and enforced nationwide, a typical new homeowner would see an ¶ annual energy cost savings of nearly 15%. Accrued energy savings mitigates the need for constructing expensive new ¶ utility power plants and decreases the strain on aging infrastructure.

New state energy codes good for econUS DOE (Department of Energy) 5/18/11 “Why Building Energy Codes?”, http://www.energycodes.gov/why_codes/, AP

New buildings, while they represent just over 1% of the total building stock in a given year, are important because they represent a unique chance to effect energy

efficiency; keeping in mind that building energy codes also apply to retrofitting of existing buildings. Once a new building is constructed, it is very

expensive and often impossible to achieve the energy efficiency that can be economically built in at the time of construction. Since buildings will be in existence for decades if not centuries this is an opportunity that we cannot afford to lose and had we done a more robust job in the past, retrofitting of existing buildings would

not be as critical today. It is vital to make energy efficiency a fundamental part of the building design and construction process and energy codes are an effective way to achieve this goal and ensure energy efficiency is a component of all buildings. States have the lead to make this happen.¶ Research shows that contemporary energy codes could save about 330 Trillion BTU by 2030, almost 2% of total current residential energy consumption. There would also be comparable savings in consumer energy bills, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Those savings help the state economy by putting more money is consumer's pockets and reducing environmental costs to the state and its

industry.¶ This Program supports energy code development, adoption, implementation, and compliance initiatives at the national, state and local level and

is estimated to generate energy cost savings of more than $2.5 billion per year. Since the inception of the Program 20 years ago accumulated energy savings has been more than 1.5 quads and cost savings to consumers has been more than $14 billion. These savings have resulted primarily from the Program's activities that accelerate the adoption of building energy codes by and

within the states and that improve code compliance by means of various software tools and other types of training and technical support.

http://www.energycodes.gov/why_codes/

https://www.naseo.org/codes/documents/NASEO-BCAP-State_Benefits_from_Codes.pdf

Energy codes key to solve econNASEO (National Association of State Energy Officials) 1/24/12 - http://www.naseo.org/codes/documents/NASEO_Board_Resolution_Supporting_Utility_Credit_for_Cod

es.pdf, AP

WHEREAS, homes and commercial buildings are America’s largest energy-consuming sector – together ¶ using over 40 percent of the nation’s energy, two-thirds of our electricity consumption, one-eighth of our ¶ water use, and responsible for almost 40% of our carbon dioxide

emissions¶ 1¶ ; and ¶ WHEREAS, reducing building energy consumption is an important objective for our country; and ¶ WHEREAS, studies show that these energy efficiency improvements enhance the affordability, security, ¶ comfort, and health and

safety of home ownership by generating net positive cash flow for homeowners; ¶ and¶ WHEREAS, building energy codes help safeguard commercial owners and tenants from long-term ¶ financial burdens that can result

from short-term design and construction decisions and can afford ¶ protection from energy price volatility; and¶ WHEREAS, energy-efficient buildings provide energy, economic, and environmental benefits for many ¶ years , and enhance our national

security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil; and¶ WHEREAS, building energy codes are a key component of a sustainable future for our country; and¶ WHEREAS, building energy codes set minimum requirements for energy-efficient design and ¶ construction of new and renovated buildings that impact energy use and emissions over the decades-long¶ lifetimes of the buildings; and

¶ WHEREAS, building energy codes make our daily lives better by improving indoor air quality and ¶ public health,

promoting environmentally-friendly behaviors such as recycling and generating less waste ¶ and providing a more comfortable and productive work environment; and ¶ WHEREAS, building energy codes help drive the development, deployment, and innovation of new ¶ building technologies and design strategies; and¶ WHEREAS, more education, training and awareness continue to be needed at the local level on the tools, ¶ applications, best practices and support materials for

greater building energy code adoption, ¶ implementation and compliance; and¶ WHEREAS, building energy codes decrease the

impact and peak load of buildings, helping to lessen the ¶ stress on the electricity grid system, which increases grid

reliability.



Solvency – Warming

Better building codes solve emissionsDepartment of Energy – May 2010, “Building Energy Codes 101”, http://www.energycodes.gov/becu/documents/BECU_Codes_101_Slide_Notes.pdf

Energy use in buildings makes up a very significant piece of the pie. Thus, it has a direct impact on the greatest challenges of our time, including:

• Economic well-being for individuals, businesses, and governments

• Dependence on foreign oil and national security

• Global climate change.

Even human health is at stake—for many families, rising energy costs make it unaffordable to sustain a comfortable, conditioned indoor environment.

Some sobering statistics help drive home the reality of building energy use:

• Nearly 5 million commercial buildings and 115 million residential households in the United States consume over 40 percent of the nation’s total primary energy

• Buildings consume 70 percent of electricity in the United States

• In 2007, carbon dioxide emissions attributable to lighting, heating, cooling, cooking, refrigeration, water heating, and other building services totaled 2517 million metric tons—40 percent of the U.S. total and 8 percent of the global total.

Clearly, building energy use must be addressed to protect the interests of individual consumers, our

nation, and the world. Building energy codes are a critical component of the effort to curb the ever-

growing impacts of building energy use.

But why codes?

Building energy codes set minimum efficiency boundaries that bring about vital, tangible benefits.

Not surprisingly, better codes mean better benefits. Recent research shows that if building energy codes* were upgraded to be 30 to 50 percent more stringent, adopted among states, and effectively implemented, excellent progress would be made in the areas of energy consumption, cost savings, and CO2 emissions reduction:

• Reduced energy consumption—by approximately 0.5-quadrillion Btu per year by 2015, and 3.5-quadrillion Btu per year by 2030. This is equivalent to the power generated by 260 medium power plants.

• Rising cost savings—more than $4 billion per year back in homeowners’ pockets by 2015, a figure that could rise to over $30 billion per year by 2030. Even accounting for increased up-front efficiency investment costs, net benefits are quite significant.

• Reduced CO2 emissions—by roughly 3 percent in terms of the projected national CO2 emissions in 2030.

Energy codes key to solve econNASEO (National Association of State Energy Officials) 1/24/12 - http://www.naseo.org/codes/documents/NASEO_Board_Resolution_Supporting_Utility_Credit_for_Cod

es.pdf, AP

WHEREAS, homes and commercial buildings are America’s largest energy-consuming sector – together ¶ using over 40 percent of the nation’s

energy, two-thirds of our electricity consumption, one-eighth of our ¶ water use, and responsible for almost 40% of our carbon dioxide emissions¶ 1¶ ; and ¶ WHEREAS, reducing building energy consumption is an important objective for our country; and ¶ WHEREAS, studies show that these energy efficiency

improvements enhance the affordability, security, ¶ comfort, and health and safety of home ownership by generating net positive cash flow for homeowners; ¶ and¶ WHEREAS, building energy codes help safeguard commercial owners and tenants from long-term ¶ financial burdens that can result from short-term design and construction decisions and can afford ¶ protection

from energy price volatility; and¶ WHEREAS, energy-efficient buildings provide energy, economic, and environmental benefits for many ¶ years , and enhance our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil; and¶ WHEREAS, building energy codes are a key component of a sustainable future for

our country; and¶ WHEREAS, building energy codes set minimum requirements for energy-efficient design and ¶ construction of new and renovated buildings that impact energy use and emissions over the decades-long ¶ lifetimes of the buildings; and ¶ WHEREAS, building energy codes make our daily lives better by improving indoor air quality and ¶ public health, promoting environmentally-friendly behaviors such as recycling and generating less waste ¶ and providing a more comfortable and productive work environment; and ¶ WHEREAS, building energy codes help drive the development, deployment, and innovation of new ¶ building technologies and design strategies ; and¶

WHEREAS, more education, training and awareness continue to be needed at the local level on the tools, ¶ applications, best practices and support materials for greater building energy code adoption, ¶ implementation and compliance; and¶ WHEREAS, building energy codes decrease the impact and peak load of buildings, helping to lessen the ¶ stress on the electricity grid system, which increases grid reliability.




Energy codes key to solve warmingEnvironment Texas Research and Policy Center 3/8/12, “Building a Better America: Reducing Pollution and Saving Money with Efficiency”, http://www.environmenttexas.org/sites/environment/files/reports/TXE_buildingreport_online.pdf, AP

We can save money and help solve global warming by reducing the amount of energy we use, including in the

buildings where we live and work every day. More than 40 percent of our energy — and 10 percent of all the energy used in the world — goes toward powering America’s buildings. But today’s high-efficiency homes and buildings prove that we have the technology and skills to drastically improve the efficiency of our buildings while simultaneously improving their comfort and affordability.¶ If we apply those lessons to all buildings, we can reduce energy use in our homes and workplaces by a quarter, lowering global warming pollution from buildings 30 percent by 2030.¶ Actions taken by local, state and federal governments and by the private sector have already led to major

gains in the energy performance of buildings. The Energy Information Administration (EIA)’s projections of energy use per square foot in our buildings go down every year. Energy intensity projections in the commercial and

residential sectors have gone down 10 percent, and projections accounting for the use of best available technology go even further — up to 30 percent better than we predicted just a handful of years ago. But we can and we must improve, implementing an aggressive two-part strategy that sets bold efficiency standards for new buildings and encourages investments in energy-efficiency improvements in the buildings we

already have.¶ This report analyzes the effects of meeting bold efficiency goals and provides state-by-state data on the economic and environmental benefits as compared to a business- as-usual scenario . The policies needed to meet those goals are outlined in the report and we highlight forward-thinking cities and states where these policies are already making a difference

for home and business-owners.¶ Taking decisive action to improve the energy performance of our buildings through a combination of policy and public and private investments would go a long way toward reducing our nation’s energy use:¶ • Cutting natural gas and fuel oil consumption in buildings by over 20 percent each by 2030.¶ • Cutting total energy use in our existing building stock 30 percent by 2030.¶ • Newly constructed buildings will consume 50 percent less energy in 2020 and 75 percent less energy in 2030 than new construction did in 2008 .¶ Thanks to this reduction in energy

use, Americans will reap great financial benefits as a result of lowered energy expenditures:¶ • Electricity bills will decline by 34 percent by 2030, saving households an annual average of $450 on residential energy bills compared

to what they pay today.¶ • Heating oil and natural gas bills will decline in every state.¶ And, better, more energy-efficient buildings will reduce our global warming emissions.¶ • Global warming pollution from buildings will fall 11 percent by 2020, with that reduction increasing to 30 percent by 2030.¶ • By 2030, the cumulative avoided emissions will total 696 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, the equivalent of shutting down more than 150 coal-fired power plants in two decades.¶ Achieving these benefits will require strong policies that promote energy efficiency and educate builders, building-owners and renters about the energy performance of buildings, including:¶ •

Adoption of strong building energy codes targeting reductions in energy use versus today’s average homes

and commercial buildings. The codes should target 50 percent reductions by 2020 and 75 percent by 2030 . We will also

need strong commitments from cities and other stakeholders: a goal of achieving zero net energy buildings — buildings that produce as much energy as they consume — by 2030, and incentives to increase distributed renewable

energy generation.¶ • An aggressive program of energy efficiency retrofits sufficient to reduce energy consumption by 30 percent in households and 50 percent in commercial facilities by 2030, including financing programs like

Property Assessed Clean Energy, on-bill financing, weatherization programs, utility-funded incentive programs and public private partnerships.¶ • Adoption of strategies to increase transparency and develop consumer demand for

energy-efficient apartments, homes and businesses, including energy use disclosure and incorporation of efficiency measures into the real estate appraisal process.¶ • Adoption of strong energy efficiency standards for household appliances and commercial equipment used in buildings.

Building codes key to solve warming

http://www.environmenttexas.org/sites/environment/files/reports/TXE_buildingreport_online.pdf

Kate Galbraith 5/21/09 – Energy Expert, New York Times Writer – “The Race for Better Building Codes”, New York Times, http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/the-race-for-better-building-codes/, AP

Creating stricter building codes can help fight global warming, experts say.¶ Buildings account for more than one-third of national energy use and 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Green Building Council.¶ Experts say that there is an easy way to reduce that number: tightening up building codes, so that they require more effective insulation and other improvements.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/the-race-for-better-building-codes/

A2: State Spending DA

More efficient codes save money and boost the economyDepartment of Energy – May 18, 2011, “Building Energy Codes Program,” http://www.energycodes.gov/why_codes/

New buildings, while they represent just over 1% of the total building stock in a given year, are important because they represent a unique chance to effect energy efficiency; keeping in mind that building energy codes also apply to retrofitting of existing buildings. Once a new building is constructed, it is very expensive and often impossible to achieve the energy efficiency that can be economically built in at the time of construction. Since buildings will be in existence for decades if not centuries this is an opportunity that we cannot afford to lose and had we done a more robust job in the past, retrofitting of existing buildings would not be as critical today. It is vital to make energy efficiency a fundamental part of the building design and construction process and energy codes are an effective way to achieve this goal and ensure energy efficiency is a component of all buildings. States have the lead to make this happen.¶ Research shows that contemporary energy codes could save about 330 Trillion BTU by 2030, almost 2% of total current residential energy consumption. There would also be comparable savings in consumer energy bills, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Those savings help the state economy by putting more money is consumer's pockets and reducing environmental costs to the state and its industry. ¶ This Program supports energy code development, adoption, implementation, and compliance initiatives at the national, state and local level and is estimated to generate energy cost savings of more than $2.5 billion per year. Since the inception of the Program 20 years ago accumulated energy savings has been more than 1.5 quads and cost savings to consumers has been more than $14 billion. These savings have resulted primarily from the Program's activities that accelerate the adoption of building energy codes by and within the states and that improve code compliance by means of various software tools and other types of training and technical support.

FYI – How States Adopt Energy Codes

States adopt codes through legislative or regulatory action – federal changes are not binding US DOE, Feb 2010, “Building Energy Codes 101”, DOE, pg. 11, http://www.energycodes.gov/becu/documents/BECU_Codes_101_Intro.pdfC4W9rQHt44WzBw&usg=AFQjCNEUSbRtasIqaARmb7iYka_ITA5Plg&sig2=SYLV4jQLTCB6T2BAZKMhfg

Adoption of energy codes can occur directly through legislative action or by regulatory action through agencies authorized by¶ the legislative body to oversee the development and adoption¶ of codes. When adoption is accomplished through legislation,¶ a committee may be appointed to provide recommendations¶ and/or draft the legislation. When adoption occurs through a¶ regulatory process, states and local governments often appoint¶ an advisory body comprising representatives of the design,¶ building construction, and enforcement communities. This¶ advisory panel recommends revisions that should be considered¶ for adoption. In basing their recommendations on model¶ energy codes, the advisory panel considers modifications to the¶ model codes to account for local preferences and construction¶ practices. The panel also may serve as a source of information¶ during the adoption process. Their recommendations then enter¶ a public review process.¶

Overview of the adoption process

The code adoption process generally includes the following steps

(note that the details of the adoption process vary depending on

whether the energy code is adopted by legislation, regulation, or

a local government):

1. A change is initiated by a legislative or regulatory¶ agency with the authority to promulgate energy codes.¶ Interested or affected parties also may initiate a¶ change. An advisory body typically is convened and¶ will recommend a new energy code or revisions to an¶ existing energy code.

2. The proposal undergoes a public review process¶ consistent with the legislative or regulatory process¶

under which the code is being considered. Public review¶ options include publishing a notice in key publications,¶ filing notices of intent, or holding public hearings.¶ Interested and affected parties are invited to submit¶ written or oral comments.

3. The results of the review process are incorporated¶ into the proposal, and the final legislation or¶

regulation is prepared for approval.

4. The approving authority reviews the legislation¶ or regulation. Revisions may be submitted to the¶

designated authority for final approval or for filing.

5. After being filed or approved, the code becomes¶ effective, usually on some specified future date.¶

This delay creates a grace period that allows¶ those regulated to become familiar with any new¶

requirements. The period between adoption and¶ effective date typically varies from 30 days to six¶

months.

Timing the adoption and revision of state

and local codes

Some states adopt or revise energy codes in concert with

the publication of a new edition of new codes, such as the

ICC Codes or ASHRAE Standard. This may occur either

through a legislative or regulatory process, or when the state

regulation or legislation refers to “the most recent edition,”

in which case the adoption will simply occur automatically

without formal action. The effective date of a new adoption

can also be tied to the publication date of an energy standard

or model energy code, e.g., “This regulation shall take effect

one month from publication of the adopted model energy

code.”

Other states review the new editions on a case-by-case

basis to consider adoption, without a designated time

line for adoption.

Building Codes – Aff Answers

Solvency

Codes are too hard to enforce – fiat can’t solve Department of Energy – May 2010, “Building Energy Codes 101”, http://www.energycodes.gov/becu/documents/BECU_Codes_101_Slide_Notes.pdf

Despite these clear benefits, the road to achieving them is challenging.

To be effective, building energy codes must first be painstakingly developed, then go through a complex, coordinated process that includes code adoption, implementation, compliance, and enforcement by states and other jurisdictions.

One example of a code challenge is that code adoption is not automatic in most states. Without statewide adoption, local jurisdictions are left without state guidance or resources, and builders on the ground can face a confusing patchwork of codes across their region. Adding complication, the challenges of implementation, compliance, and enforcement vary with different jurisdictions; lack of both training and manpower are often cited as roadblocks to proper enforcement.

As with any aspect of building codes, plan review and inspections take time, and this must be accounted for in department staffing. Training is also critical across the design, building, and enforcement communities. Not only is there a need for understanding new code language, but new construction techniques, materials, and technologies must also be considered and learned.

CP doesn’t solve training, awareness, and regulation issuesMinjoo Lee - Bucknell University – 9/4/11, Improving Building Energy Efficiency: Adoption, Enforcement, and Compliance with Energy Standards and Codes, WISE and ASHARE, http://www.wise-intern.org/journal/2011/documents/MinjooPaper.pdf

Following standards and codes is the most cost-effective way to increase building energy efficiency because it requires implementation of existing minimum benchmarks. There is a strong linkage between adoption, enforcement, and compliance that makes each process equally important. Unfortunately, there are barriers to each process. There is not enough urgency in adoption of energy codes, not enough regulation on measuring compliance, inconsistent structure of training for code officials, misconception that all energy efficient buildings demand high upfront costs, a lack of awareness and interest of the public, and a lack of cooperation from building owners themselves.

Only solves a fraction of the national target Ann Bordetsky et al Roland Hwang, Anne Korin, Deron Lovaas, Luke Tonachel February 05 – National Resources Defense Council -

SECURING AMERICA: Solving Our Oil Dependence Through Innovation”, NRDC (National Resources Defense Council), http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/oilsecurity/plan.pdf, AP

Approximately one-third of U.S. oil demand is consumed in industrial manufacturing plants, airplanes, ¶ and residential homes. Efficiency gains in these sectors can save America more than 300,000 barrels per ¶ day in 2015 or 12 percent of the 2.5 millions barrels per day national target.

http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/oilsecurity/plan.pdf

Solvency

Transportation matters more and codes fail International Energy Agency – 2012, Enabling low-carbon end-use: Increased energy efficiency, electrification and power sector decarbonisation, http://www.iea.org/media/etp/Factsheet%20ETP%202012%20-%20End%20Use%20Sector.pdf

The industry, building (including residential and services sub-sector) and transport sectors account for a great majority of final energy consumption. To achieve ETP 2012’s 2°C Scenario (2DS), which gives the world an 80% chance of keeping average global temperature rise below 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels, these sectors must couple increase use of decarbonised electricity as well as improve energy efficiency, cutting their own total CO2 emissions by more than 20% before 2050, even as the power sector reduces its emissions by 80%.

The 2DS calls for the building sector to reduce total CO2 emissions by more than 60% by 2050. Because buildings can stand for more than 100 years, actions cannot be limited to tighter controls on new construction, but must also include existing stock.

Total energy savings in the buildings sector in the 2DS, compared to the 4DS, amounts to 33 EJ in 2050. About 70% of buildings’ potential savings between the 4DS and 2DS are in the residential sub-sector and residential space heating alone amounts to 22% of the total savings in the buildings sector.

Additional investment needed to realise the 2DS is estimated to be USD 11.5 trillion: USD 7.5 trillion in the residential sub-sector and USD 4.0 trillion in the services sub-sector. This investment is required to ensure that new buildings meet more stringent building codes, to refurbish around 60% of the OECD building stock still standing in 2050 to low-energy standards, and for additional investments in heat pumps, solar thermal systems, co-generation systems, lighting systems and appliances. In the residential sub-sector, improvements in building shells account for almost half of the incremental investment needs; in the services sub-sector, around 40% of all investment is required for this purpose.

Implementation of best available technologies (BATs) in the industry sector could reduce energy consumption by 20% from today’s level, one of the least-cost options to reduce energy consumption and emissions in industry. Optimising inefficient motors and related drive systems typically increases their efficiency by 20% to 25%. Given the ubiquitous use of motors in industry, this could reduce global electricity demand by as much as 7%.

But efficiency alone will not be sufficient to offset strong growth in industrial demand, so industry must adopt new technologies, such as smelting reduction, separation membranes, advanced catalysis, black liquor gasification, and carbon capture and storage (CCS), are needed to achieve significant emissions reduction.

The transport sector uses more than 52% of the oil extracted now, and that share has been increasingly constantly over the last decades because of oil’s high energy density cost-competitiveness

compared with most alternative fuels. In the short term, improved fuel economy of today’s internal combustion engine (ICE) in cars and trucks (and efficiency improvements in other transport modes) can deliver the largest fuel savings and CO2 emissions reduction. After 2030 and by 2050, the 2DS calls for sales of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) to reach 50% for cars and light-duty trucks.

Under favourable conditions, hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles could represent close to 20% of annual vehicle sales in 2050. The success of such vehicles depends on the wider use of hydrogen in the economy, as well as on the development of sustainable production methods, the efficiency of hydrogen as a storage medium (compared to competing solutions) and the capacity to finance the necessary infrastructure deployment.

Biofuels will play an increasingly important role in decarbonising the remaining internal combustion automobiles as well as ships and aircraft, since liquid fuels used by these modes will represent more than 75% of energy used in transport in 2050.

State Spending DA – Link

The state must fund the programsEPA and DOE, this plan has been developed by more than 50 leading organizations, 17 Aug 2006, “National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency” pg. 5, http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-programs/suca/resources.html

Energy efficiency programs require consistent and long-term funding to effectively compete with

energy supply options. Efforts are necessary to establish this consistent long-term funding. A variety of

mechanisms have been, and can be, used based on state , utility, and other stakeholder interests . It is

important to ensure that the efficiency programs’ providers have sufficient long-term funding to recover program costs and implement the energy efficiency measures that have been demonstrated to be available and cost effective. A number of states are now linking program funding to the achievement of energy savings.¶ Modify policies to align utility incentives with the delivery of cost-effective energy efficiency and modify ratemaking practices to promote energy efficiency investments. Successful energy efficiency programs would be promoted by aligning utility incentives in a manner that encourages the delivery of energy efficiency as part of a balanced portfolio of supply, demand, and transmission investments. Historically, regulatory policies governing utilities have more commonly compensated utilities for building infrastructure (e.g., power plants, transmission lines, pipelines) and selling energy, while discouraging energy efficiency, even when the energy-saving measures might cost less. Within the existing regulatory processes, utilities, regulators, and stakeholders have a number of opportunities to create the incentives for energy efficiency investments by utilities and customers. A variety of mechanisms have already been used. For example, parties can decide to provide incentives for energy efficiency similar to utility incentives for new infrastructure investments, provide rewards for prudent management of energy efficiency programs, and incorporate energy efficiency as an important area of consideration within rate design. Rate design offers opportunities to encourage customers to invest in efficiency where they find it to be cost effective and participate in new programs that provide innovative technologies (e.g., smart meters) to help customers control their energy costs.

Biofuels (Neg)Some biofuels are listed in the warming section also that can be extensions of this CP

Biofuels CP 1NC

Test: The United States Federal Government should provide tax credits the development and production of advanced biofuels.

Federal tax credits for advanced biofuels key to solve dependencyJim Collins – President of DuPont Industrial Biosciences – 3/16/12, Biofuels Key to Energy & Economic Policy, Energy Experts Blog, National Journal, http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/03/should-government-subsidize-en.php

Now that gas prices are hovering close to $4 a gallon, reflecting both underlying global supply demand dynamics and the fears of a supply disruption in the Middle East, we are again reminded why it is good government policy to invest in alternatives to the petroleum fuels that the US transportation sector is dependent upon.

The availability and cost of transportation fuels are core to our energy security and economic growth. Acknowledging the risks of that dependence , the US military is moving aggressively to drive advanced biofuels. We believe that Congress should continue to drive this technology as well. Extending the tax credits that are important for the deployment of the first plants that will produce cellulosic ethanol and other advanced biofuels in the U.S is an appropriate policy tool to get these first plants on line. These tax credits help alleviate the risk that is inherent with commercializing new technologies such as advanced biofuels, which can require large investments and long-time horizons. Once this first generation of plants are up and running , it will be up to us and others to succeed or fail in the marketplace based on the merits of our technologies and execution.

Already, DuPont has invested millions of dollars in advanced biofuels research and development. We are now operating a demonstration plant in Vonore, Tenn., that is producing cellulosic biofuel from corn stover, providing fuel for fleet vehicles at the University of Tennessee. In the second half of 2012, DuPont will break ground on a commercial-scale biorefinery in Nevada, Iowa, that will produce 27.5 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol annually—one of the first to be built in the U.S. Once we produce at commercial scale, we will license these technologies widely, providing expanded economic opportunities for current growers and speeding the rate of advanced biofuels production.

U.S. policy support for biofuels has already helped to encourage private investments in the ethanol industry, which last year grew to produce nearly 14 billion gallons, easily meeting the “renewable fuel” portion of the RFS and exporting record volumes of ethanol to other countries, while at the same time eliminating 485 million barrels of imported oil and contributing more than $33 billion in crop revenue to US farmers, (according to Feb. 2012 report produced by Environmental Economics for the Renewable Fuels Association, “Contribution of the Ethanol Industry to the Economy of the United States”).

http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/03/should-government-subsidize-en.php

http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/03/should-government-subsidize-en.php

It will still take time to ramp up production of cellulosic ethanol to match the volume achieved today by corn ethanol, but we cannot afford to halt the progress just as the train is leaving the station. Relying solely on US domestic fossil fuel production will not be sufficient to offset the growing global demand and geopolitical risks that will continue to create volatility and upward price pressures on transportation fuel prices.

This is why we need a strong collaborative partnership between business investment and government support for advanced biofuels.

2NC Solvency – Dependence

Advanced biofuels solve oil dependenceNathanael Greene et al., director of NRDC's renewable energy policy program, December 2004, Growing¶ Energy¶ How Biofuels Can¶ Help End America’s¶ Oil Dependence, National Resources Defense Council, pg. 5, http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/biofuels/biofuels.pdf

America’s oil dependence threatens our national security, economy, and environment .¶ We

consume 25 percent of the world’s total oil production, but we have¶ 3 percent of its known reserves. We spend tens of billions of dollars each year to¶ import oil from some of the most unstable regions of the world. This costly habit¶ endangers our health: America’s cars, trucks, and buses account for 27

percent of¶ U.S. global warming pollution, as well as soot and smog that damage human lungs.¶ The

U nited S tates does not have to rely on oil to drive our economy and quality of¶ life. We can

replace much of our oil with biofuels —fuels made from plant materials¶ grown by American farmers.

These fuels , especially those known as cellulosic biofuels,¶ can be cost-competitive with gasoline

and diesel, and allow us to invest our¶ energy dollars at home. They can also slash global warming emissions, improve air¶ quality, reduce soil erosion, and expand wildlife habitat.¶ If we follow an aggressive plan to develop cellulosic biofuels between now and 2015,¶ America could produce the

equivalent of nearly 7.9 million barrels of oil per day by 2050.¶ That is equal to more than 50 percent

of our current total oil use in the transportation¶ sector and more than three times as much as we

import from the Persian Gulf alone .¶ In combination with improved fuel efficiency in cars and smart

growth planning¶ in our towns and cities, biofuels can free America from foreign oil in a cost-effective¶

and environmentally safe way:

By 2025, producing the crops to make these fuels could provide farmers with profits

of more than $5 billion per year.

Biofuels could be cheaper than gasoline and diesel, saving us about $20 billion per

year on fuel costs by 2050.

Biofuels could reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 1.7 billion tons per year—

equal to more than 80 percent of transportation-related emissions and 22 percent of

total emissions in 2002.

Advanced biofuels solve oil dependenceMichael Pacheco PH.D, Director of the National Bioenergy Center and National Renewable Energy

Laboratory, 24 May 2006, “How Biofuels Can Help Reduce Dependence on Foreign Oil” NREL, pg. 2, http://www.nrel.gov/biomass/pdfs/pacheco_testimony.pdf

The Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy recently looked at the question of whether the nation’s biomass resource could foster a biofuels industry large enough to meet a significant portion of our nation’s future fuel needs. The report, now commonly referred to as “The

Billion Ton Study,” for the first time confirmed that the U.S. could yield more than a billion tons of

biomass annually for energy needs. And, importantly, we could do this without negatively affecting the nation’s ongoing needs for food or fiber. This is significant because the 1.3 billion tons of biomass that

was forecasted contains as much energy as 3.5 billion barrels of oil.

Let me provide some perspective on that. This 3.5 billion barrels is about 60% of the 6 billion-plus

barrels of oil the U.S. consumes each year. Domestically, the United States, including Alaska, currently produces about 2 billion barrels of oil per year. That’s only 67 percent of the potential we see from biomass. U.S. oil production peaked in the early 1970s at the same level of production, about 3.5 billion

barrels per year. The U.S. has never produced more than 3.5 billion barrels a year of oil.

2NC Solvency – Dependence

Incentivizing advanced biofuels solves dependence – boosts oil displacement Brian Murray – Dir. Economic Analysis, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions @ Duke –

5/11/12, Advances Needed for Biofuels to Succeed, Energy Experts Blog, National journal, http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/05/the-nexus-between-biofuels-ene.php

If biofuels are to become an effective instrument for energy and environmental improvement, more effort should be focused on creating the scientific and technological breakthroughs necessary to allow advanced biofuels to compete .

Today policy to expand domestic liquid biofuels has three underlying goals:

1. Lessen dependence on foreign oil

2. Increase rural incomes

3. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions

Current policy, dominated by the expanded production and use of corn-based ethanol, has a modest effect on the first goal , a substantive effect on the second, and virtually no effect on the third.

Biofuels do directly reduce imports of petroleum . For every gallon of ethanol produced, there is displacement of gasoline use —though less than 1:1, given different energy content per gallon. And some displacement does seem to be occurring. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports most recent growth in U nited S tates consumption of motor fuels was met by increased use of diesel and biofuels. There are mitigating factors, however.

Biofuel ( ethanol ) is but a small part of the domestic use fuel mix accounting for roughly 6 percent of overall use in 2011, and thus has limited leverage over imports. This leverage grows if biofuel’s share of the mix grwos, as is scheduled under the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) leading up to 2022. Second, there are complex market feedback effects that can counter the direct effects of gasoline displacement. A recent study by economists at the University of Missouri published in the journal Energy Policy shows ethanol subsidies, such as the recently expired Volumteric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) tax credits, can actually reduce gas prices and cause an offsetting increase in consumption, much like the well-known rebound effect with fuel efficiency standards. This weakens the displacement of gasoline and oil imports.

To its credit, expanded use of corn-based ethanol has boosted the income of corn producers—approximately 30 percent of the U.S. corn crop is now used in ethanol production. Corn prices have roughly doubled since 2007, when the ethanol expansion took off. Other contributing factors to this boost exist as well; including higher energy input costs and increased global demand. Most economic

studies attribute some, though not all, of the price rise to ethanol mandates. Other crop prices have risen too. This is due, in part, to growers switching crops—soybean to corn for example—to meet the expanded demand for the latter and placing price pressure on the former. Livestock producers, food processors, and consumers face higher input costs and thus bear some burden from this expansion. So the distributional effects within agricultural markets are considerable.

The greenhouse gas effects of biofuels are controversial, especially with corn-based ethanol. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s analysis of the RFS2 indicated a small reduction in GHG emissions from corn-based ethanol use and larger reductions from advanced varieties such as cellulosic ethanol. Subsequent research, including our own (http://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/climate/policydesign/net-global-effects-of-alternative-u.s.-biofuel-mandates) , suggests more modest greenhouse gas effects from ethanol, even a greenhouse gas increase in some cases. The big uncertain factor in all this is how much of the emissions effect from ethanol expansion is due to indirect land use change (ILUC), including that in other countries who convert land (and generate emissions) to meet the additional demands for biofuel feedstock. The range of ILUC estimates is wide and very sensitive to assumptions about the extent of the market and the characteristics of the land being affected.

Considering all these factors, success of biofuel policy in the U.S. is a mixed bag. It has helped raise the income of certain farmers, but put price pressure on others. In addition, it has had a modest effect on oil imports, and been nearly a wash when it comes to reducing greenhouse gases.

For biofuels to succeed, beyond merely raising the incomes of certain producers, may depend on the penetration of advanced biofuels that do not draw from the food supply. These biofuels would not require large amounts of land to produce, and have a sufficiently higher energy content . This is recognized in policies such as the RFS2, which requires a majority of the fuels mandate to come from cellulosic and other advanced biofuels in the future. But progress in this area is slow and more research and development focused on making these advanced biofuels contend in the marketplace is needed.

Solv – Environment

Biofuel saves the environment-80% less greenhouse gasesUS EnviroFuels.com, 2011, “Benefits” United States EnviroFuels, http://www.usenvirofuels.com/benefits.shtml

Advanced Biofuel ethanol is one of the best tools we have to fight air pollution from automobiles. Why? Because Advanced Biofuel ethanol contains 35 percent oxygen. Adding oxygen to gasoline results in more complete fuel combustion, thereby reducing harmful tailpipe emissions.¶ The addition of oxygen to gasoline by blending with ethanol improves internal engine fuel combustion, and reduces tailpipe pollutants such as carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter. When ethanol is mixed at the 10% level with gasoline (E10) the total fuel mix is more efficient, has better combustibility and translates into cleaner automotive tailpipe emissions, reduced smog formation, and improvement in the quality of the ambient air shed. Furthermore, ethanol is miscible with water (water soluble), non-toxic, clean burning, contains no sulphur, nitrogen or heavy metals, and completely biodegradable. So if you accidentally spill some, there is no need to worry about poisoning the ground or water.¶ An extensive life cycle analysis of the Highlands EnviroFuels project revealed that the facility will produce Advanced Biofuel resulting in an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions versus the manufacturing of gasoline from oil.

Biofuels key to the environmentNathanael Greene et al., director of NRDC's renewable energy policy program, December 2004, Growing¶ Energy¶ How Biofuels Can¶ Help End America’s¶ Oil Dependence, National Resources Defense Council, pg. 16, http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/biofuels/biofuels.pdf

Biofuels can help clean up the environment¶ At every stage—from growing the crops to burning biofuels—cellulosic biofuels can¶ provide important environmental advantages if we reward environmental performance¶ sufficiently. The bulk of these advantages would come from reducing our dependency¶ on oil, but many also would come from growing a crop such as switchgrass that has¶ a dramatically smaller environmental footprint than traditional row crops.¶ The potential environmental benefits of greatly reducing our oil dependence¶ through an aggressive package of fuel efficiency and biofuels are enormous.

Solv – Economy

Advanced biofuel solves warming and the economyAnnegrethe Jakobsen, Senior Public Affairs Manager, 26 Jan 2012“Advanced biofuels could create millions of jobs while greening the economy”, The Energy Collective, http://tinyurl.com/7xtalp5

The socioeconomic prospects of deploying advanced biofuels go well beyond energy security. The report shows that the eight regions analyzed have the potential to diversify farmers’ income, generate revenues ranging from $1 trillion to $4.4 trillion between today and 2050 and create millions of jobs.¶

For example, advanced biofuels could create up to 2.9 million jobs in China, 1.4 million jobs in the US A, and around 1 million in Brazil . The impact on climate change would also be reduced considering advanced biofuels emit 80 percent less greenhouse gas than ethanol.¶ During the session at Davos where the study was launched, Novozymes' CEO pointed out that at a time when everyone is striving to create jobs to secure our economic future and finding a sustainable way to produce energy, this study shows the benefits of a transition towards sustainable biofuels and bioproducts based on agricultural residues. It also strongly signals that policy incentives will result in great payback to society.

Incentives Solve

More incentives keyEnvironmental News Service – 10/11/11, Cellulosic Ethanol Production Far Behind Renewable Fuel Standard, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2011/2011-10-11-093.html

The U nited S tates is not likely to reach cellulosic ethanol production mandates spelled out in the federal R enewable F uel S tandard by 2022 unless "innovative technologies are developed or policies change," says a new congressionally-requested report from the National Research Council . ¶ Cellulosic ethanol is a biofuel produced from wood, grasses, or the non-edible parts of plants, such as corncobs or citrus peels. The report says a cloud of "uncertainty" surrounds environmental and economic benefits expected to result from use of this biofuel.¶ "The Renewable Fuel Standard may be an ineffective policy for reducing global greenhouse gas emissions," said Ingrid Burke, co-chair of the NRC panel that issued the report and a botany professor at the University of Wyoming.¶ In 2005, Congress enacted the Renewable Fuel Standard as part of the Energy Policy Act and amended it in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act. The aim of the RFS is to encourage development of biofuels, lower dependence on foreign oil, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.¶ The law mandates that by 2022 the United States must produce 16 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuels, along with 15 billion gallons of conventional corn-based ethanol, one billion gallons of biodiesel, and four billion gallons of

advanced biofuels.¶ While production of ethanol and biodiesel already exceed the mandate, no commercial cellulosic biofuels plants exist and technologies are at demonstration scale. ¶ Several industrial-scale cellulosic ethanol plants are being built in the United States, including an Abengoa bioenergy biomass plant in Kansas expected to start production in 2013, and an expansion of Poet's conventional ethanol plant in Iowa.¶ Project Liberty will be Poet's first commercial-scale, cellulosic ethanol plant. Scheduled to begin operations in 2013, it is expected to produce 25 million gallons of ethanol per year from corncobs, leaves and husks, provided by Iowa farmers. In September, Poet received final approval for a $105 million loan guarantee for Project Liberty issued through the U.S. Department of Energy's Loan programs Office.¶ But this year cellulosic biofuel output is likely to be 6.6 million gallons, far below the RFS target for 2011 of 250 million gallons, the report points out.¶ The corn ethanol industry has been developing for 30 years, said Wallace Tyner, NRC panel co-chair and an agricultural economics professor at Purdue University. "We have more than 200 corn ethanol plants producing more than 14 billion gallons today. We have only 11 years to reach even higher numbers for cellulosic biofuels."¶ The report finds that although biofuels hold potential for providing net environmental benefits compared with using petroleum-based fuels, specific environmental outcomes from increasing biofuels production to meet the renewable fuel consumption mandate cannot be guaranteed.¶ The type of feedstocks produced, management practices used, land-use changes that feedstock production might require, and such site-specific details as prior land use and regional water availability will determine the mandate's environmental effects, the report says.¶ Biofuels production has been shown to have both positive and negative effects on water quality, soil, and biodiversity. But air-quality modeling suggests that production and use of ethanol to displace gasoline is likely to increase air pollutants such as particulate matter, ozone, and sulfur oxides.¶ In addition, published estimates of water use over the life cycle of corn-grain ethanol are higher than petroleum-based fuels.¶ Renewable fuels advocates criticized the NRC committee for is narrow focus and said a broader view of the entire industry is required to accurately evaluate the likelihood of cellulosic biofuel to meet the mandated requirements.¶ "Global demand for energy continues to escalate yet this report chooses to focus with laser-like precision on the perceived shortcomings of conventional and next-generation biofuels. Instead, we should be comparing the relative costs and benefits of all future energy options," said Renewable Fuels Association Vice President Geoff Cooper, who testified before the National Research Council committee tasked with drafting the report.¶ "Biofuels are increasingly displacing and delaying the need for marginal sources of petroleum - like Canadian tar sands and shale oil - that come with extreme environmental and economic costs," said Cooper. "American ethanol production continues to evolve, reducing water and energy requirements while producing increasing amounts of fuel and livestock feed."¶ The report does recognize some of the improvements in biofuels production, said Cooper, but "it also rehashes many of the well-worn criticisms that have been discredited time

and again."¶ As for the report's key finding, Cooper said the Renewable Fuels Association shares the committee's view that commercializing advanced and cellulosic ethanol technologies will require more policy certainty and a recommitment to reducing oil import dependency .¶ The RFA has long called for an extension of cellulosic ethanol tax incentives and a repeal of decades-old subsidies for the oil industry, totaling at least $4 billion a year in direct benefits.¶ Advanced Ethanol Council Executive Director Brooke Coleman, too, was critical of the report. "The most glaring problem is the Council analyzed the ongoing development of the biofuels industry in a vacuum, as if these fuels are not displacing the marginal barrel of oil, which comes at great economic and environmental cost to the consumer. Congress was seeking a sober analysis of the RFS, and regrettably, this is not it."¶ "The idea that the RFS may not be an effective strategy to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions is regrettable given the published science on the subject," said Coleman. "Even with land use change considerations, advanced biofuels are the lowest carbon fuels being developed in the marketplace; far and away less carbon intensive than electricity, natural gas and even hydrogen fuel cells."

Incentives Solve

Federal incentives are key to creating emerging renewable fuel markets David G. Victor, John Deutch, and James R. Schlesinger, Deutch: Chair of the Task Force, Institute Professor at MIT, Undersecretary of Energy, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Director of Central Intelligence. Victor: Project Director of the Task Force, Director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at Stanford University, Adjunct Senior Fellow for Science and Technology at the Council on Foreign Relations. Schlesinger: Former Secretary of Defense, First Secretary of Energy

Chair of the Task Force, 12 October 2006 “National Security Consequences of U.S Oil Dependency”, Council on Foreign Relations, pg. 46, http://tinyurl.com/7at36cu

Achieving the above four objectives will require the development and¶ deployment of new technologies at commercial scale. The high price of oil is a strong incentive to the private sector to make the investments needed to develop and deploy new technologies. This innovative activity will range from entrepreneurial start-up companies to venture capital funds to large energy and chemical companies. The targets for innovation will include both demand and supply technologies and all fuels from renewables to oil. Just in the past two years, hundreds of¶ start-up companies have been founded in areas from biofuels to batteries.¶ In addition, large oil and chemical companies have launched development¶ projects on biomass, shale, and coal-to-liquids. Research activity¶ has increased dramatically in the nation’s universities and laboratories.¶ These private investments are likely to yield some fruit on their¶ own. However , the pace of the private sector progress depends on a complementary program of federal energy technology research, development, and demonstration

projects. The reason is that investment in new energy technologies is made by private sector firms in

response to their assessment of future market conditions, which include the expected price of oil,

environmental regulations, and government incentives such as tax credits or attractive financing. But, for a variety of¶ reasons, private firms do not take into account the full range of national¶ benefits that come from investment in energy technology R&D.15¶ Private investment will fall short of what is needed, and there is a role¶ for government support of R&D toward the other broad goals for¶ domestic energy policy (increasing energy efficiency, facilitating switching¶ away from oil, increasing the supply of oil from both foreign and¶ domestic sources, and allowing for a more secure and capable energy¶

infrastructure). The Department of Energy (DOE) has responsibility for most of¶ the federal RD&D effort but other agencies also sponsor and perform¶ relevant work. The appropriate mix of RD&D by government agencies,¶ universities, research labs, and private corporations can be debated,¶ as can the proper mix of research, development, and demonstration¶ 15Among the many reasons why private firms do not invest inR&Dat a level commensurate¶ with the large benefits that R&D offers to society: intellectual property rights are incomplete,¶ particularly for long-term R&D; energy technology advances often have important spillovers¶ to other technologies that might not benefit the firms doing the R&D;

and, absent credible policy commitments and economic incentives , firms cannot expect to capture

the national security and environmental benefits of their new technology investments.¶ However, the Task Force is critical of the continuing U.S.¶ federal RD&D effort; it is fragmented, unfocused, and tries to

be all¶ things to all people. More investment in new energy technologies on the supply and demand

side of energy markets is needed as part of a long-term energy policy strategy if the U nited States is

to adequately manage the transition away from a petroleum-based economy .


Obama doesn’t push the CP – lobbies take the hitBiofuels Journal – 6/12/12, ACE, Environmental, and Advanced Biofuel Groups Urge Congress to Protect RFS and Extend Cellulosic Tax Provisions, http://www.biofuelsjournal.com/articles/ACE__Environmental__and_Advanced_biofuel_Groups_Urge_Congress_to_Protect_RFS_and_Extend_Cellulosic_Tax_Provisions-123658.html

In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker John Boehner and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, leading environmental, science and advanced biofuels advocates joined with the American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE) June 12 urging Congress to protect the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and extend expiring tax incentives for cellulosic biofuels.¶

The letter, signed by ACE, the Advanced Ethanol Council (AEC), the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Great Plains Institute, the Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI), the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, the Advanced Biofuels Association and the Biotechnology Industry Association (BIO), comes in the midst of a series of investigatory hearings on the RFS in the Senate and another hearing today in the Senate Finance Committee on energy tax reform.¶ Specifically, the letter calls on Congress to leave the RFS unchanged, stating that "[a]ny effort to open up the RFS would send a chilling signal to a sector where decades-old policies and incentives continue to push investment dollars to the incumbent petroleum industry."¶ The group calls the RFS a “cornerstone” of the emerging advanced biofuels industry in the United States.¶

The letter also calls on Congress to extend existing tax incentives for cellulosic biofuels – both the Producer Tax Credit and Accelerated Depreciation – while it continues to deliberate on more comprehensive tax reform.¶ "We support ongoing efforts to more comprehensively reform energy tax policy to level the playing field between incumbent industries and cleaner alternatives and enhance U.S. competitiveness in the global $2.4 trillion clean energy marketplace,” the letter states.¶ The group letter adds that “[a] reformed tax policy should reflect 21st century energy challenges by complementing the RFS, rewarding environmental performance and driving innovation."¶

Biofuels – Aff Answers

Solvency – Incentives Fail

Government incentives can’t get cellulose onto the market – empirics prove and we don’t have the infrastructureTAYLOR SMITH - Policy Analyst for The Heartland Institute – 1/7/12, Cellulosic Ethanol Continues to Prove Superficiality of Renewable Energy Subsidies, http://blog.heartland.org/2012/01/cellulosic-ethanol-continues-to-prove-superficiality-of-renewable-energy-subsidies/

In the 2006 State of the Union address, President Bush promised the nation that he will use taxpayer funds to develop cellulosic fuels (fuel made from grass, woodchips, or other plant material) to power our cars by 2012. ¶ In 2007, Speaker of

the House Nancy Pelosi and her fellow members of Congress were big believers in cellulosic ethanol and subsequently mandated that the following quantities be

produced. You might wonder how Congress could do that when no facility, no technology, and no idea how to make commercially viable cellulosic ethanol existed. These facts were apparently brushed aside as unworthy

considerations, as is the tendency with facts regarding legislation labeled with the words “energy independence.”¶ For the first mandate, the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated that the bulk of the 100 million gallons would come from two companies in particular, Cello Energy and Range Fuels.¶ Cello Energy failed to meet their end of the supply bargain , having

been told they were responsible to produce 70 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol before they had built their first plant. When they didn’t come even close to

meeting that target they subsequently lied about it. In 2009, they were taken to court and accused of fraud; by 2010 they had declared bankruptcy . ¶ As for Range Fuels, they received much hype after claiming in 2007 that they would be the first company to build a

commercially viable cellulosic plant in Georgia. In the process, they received a $76 million grant from President Bush’s Department of Energy and an additional $6 million from the State of Georgia. When 2008 ended and still no plant, President Obama’s Department of Agriculture threw in a whopping $80 million loan. By 2009, former Range Fuels CEO Mitch

Mandich publicly stated that nobody had figured out how to commercially produce cellulosic ethanol . ¶

That public announcement combined with Cello Energy just months away from cleaning out their office pressured EPA to lower the 2010 target from 100 million gallons to a mere 6.6 million. Range Fuels

would go on to produce four million gallons of methanol.¶ For those counting, that’s $162 million of taxpayer money, already more than the cost Range Fuels estimated to create this wonder-fuel and accomplish everything the media hyped about. What taxpayers got in return were four million gallons of a biofuel that’s been around for decades.¶ Wednesday, the Atlanta Journal reported that Range Fuels was sold to another biofuel-maker at a fire-sale price, with the taxpayer funds going unrecouped.¶ Sam Shelton, director of research programs at Georgia Tech’s Strategic Energy Institute, was long skeptical of Range Fuels’ plans and technology.¶ “It was too damn big a risk for an apparently unproven technology and the due diligence I personally performed on Range would not entice me to invest in it,” Shelton said Wednesday.¶ How one man’s due diligence manages to be superior to the U.S. legislative process still no one knows.¶ Today, oil companies are still required to buy cellulosic ethanol to blend it with conventional gasoline or purchase waiver credits for not using it. Since oil companies cannot buy something that doesn’t exist they are forced to buy these waiver credits, essentially paying the government for failing to comply to their lack of due diligence.¶ As with any business, these costs are passed to the consumer. So if nothing else, the end result of your tax money was not “energy independence,” but higher gas

prices.¶ Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported despite these failures, the subsidies continue to roll in:¶ In August 2011 the Obama

Administration funded a $510 million program in partnership with the Navy to produce advanced biofuels for the military. In September the feds loaned $134 million to Abengoa Bioenergy to build a cellulosic plant in Kansas. The optimistic forecast is that this

plant will produce about 23 million barrels a year—a fraction of what Washington promised in 2006. In September the Department of Energy provided POET, which

advertises itself as the “world’s largest ethanol producer,” a $105 million loan guarantee for cellulosic.¶ Why do subsidies continue unabated if cellulosic ethanol has been nothing but a disaster ? Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Robert Bryce stated in his book, Power

Hungry, that no matter how many times it does fail, enthusiasts always promise that its viability is just right around the corner, ready to rescue the nation from “dependence on foreign oil.” Of course the catch always being “given enough money.” ¶ Consider this quote made by American inventor Thomas Midgley to the Society of Automotive

Engineers, spoken in 1921:¶ From our cellulose waste products on the farm such as straw, corn-stalks, corn cobs and all similar sorts of material we throw away, we can get, by present known methods, enough alcohol to run our automotive equipment in the Unites States.¶ The only problem was the fuel cost about $2 per gallon to produce, about $24 per gallon in current money. Now consider another quote made almost three years ago, by U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu in an article for Newsweek:¶ We will continue to need high-energy-density fuels for years to come. But we can develop new liquid biofuels that will be direct replacements for

gasoline and diesel fuel. These will be next-generation biofuels made from high-energy grasses such as miscanthus and from agricultural wastes.¶ Despite $1.5 billion of subsidies and grants from the Bush and Obama administrations, not much has advanced since Midgley’s time. But Chu and other renewable energy apologists have praised these efforts (at least Obama’s). Calling

dependency on oil “dangerous and short-sighted.” ¶ While Daniel Yergin’s essay, There Will Be Oil, became popular for explaining how

maximum oil output and the ensuing catastrophe has been right around the corner – for over a century. It should be no coincidence that cellulosic ethanol has been

advocated as a near-breakthrough substitute for nearly a century as well. This is likely to continue since it has proven to be a great money-making strategy for fledgling producers even if they don’t produce a drop of viable cellulosic ethanol and oil production thrives. ¶ But what gets overlooked when oil-dependence is referred to as “short-sighted” is the irony that a non-viable product which hasn’t existed anywhere but in the dreams of those in Washington, is being advocated in favor of what hundreds of millions of people who make up the marketplace

determine is the most practical, viable form of energy.¶ For example, a study on alternative automotive energy solutions done by a Colorado-based energy consulting firm suggests that a singular focus on producing cellulosic ethanol in a commercially viable form obscures the huge operational demands that will ensue from trying to displace our transportation energy with a low-power density fuel. ¶ Consider displacing 10% of current transportation energy with the yet-to-exist commercially viable cellulosic ethanol, and the following

obstacles.

1) 15% of our cropland currently under cultivation re-purposed for biomass production . Roughly the size of Oklahoma. According to Bryce, that pinches America’s ability to grow food. Less American-grown food means higher prices, adversely affecting the poor the most.

2) The infrastructure required to meet the demands of biomass production on this large of scale is currently non-existent, and would require a billion-dollar-effort from the U.S. Farming Sector to make the tractors and processing material viable . With no guarantees it would even be worth it since the long fermentation periods of switchgrass would make preventing contamination impossible.

Also, environmental problems…

3) It would take 146 gallons of water to produce one gallon of cellulosic ethanol. Compared to five gallons of water for one gallon of conventional gasoline.

4) Production of cellulosic ethanol would also result in more than one-and-a-half times the CO2 emissions of conventional gasoline.

Politicians who are undeterred by the poor history of renewable energy subsidies should recognize that products with no economic merit cannot be force-fed into the market or it will be spit back out each and every time. If a product was truly profitable, then free individuals would have independently launched that industry long before it crossed the mind of any lawmaker, as was the case with every other great achievement in history. Government attempts to accelerate the process and the resulting backfires will surely put off the day a great renewable energy breakthrough is achieved.

Incentives for advanced biofuels fail – 1.5 billion still hasn’t produced results Wall Street Journal – 12/14/11, The Cellulosic Ethanol Debacle, http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970204012004577072470158115782-lMyQjAxMTAxMDEwMzExNDMyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email_bot

Years before the Obama Administration dumped $70 billion into solar and wind energy and battery operated cars, and long before anyone heard of Solyndra, President Bush launched his own version of a green energy revolution. The future he saw was biofuels. In addition to showering billions of dollars on corn ethanol, Mr. Bush assured the nation that by 2012 cars and trucks could be powered by cellulosic fuels from switch grass and other plant life.¶ To launch this wonder-fuel industry, the feds under Mr. Bush and President Obama have pumped at least $1.5 billion of grants and loan subsidies to fledgling producers. Mr. Bush signed an energy bill in 2007 that established a tax credit of $1.01 per gallon produced.¶ Most important, the Nancy Pelosi Congress passed and Mr. Bush signed a law imposing mandates on oil companies to blend cellulosic fuel into conventional gasoline. This guaranteed producers a market. In 2010 the mandate was 100 million barrels, rising to 250 million in 2011 and 500 million in 2012. By the end of this decade the requirements leap to 10.5 billion gallons a year.¶ When these mandates were established, no companies produced commercially viable cellulosic fuel. But the

dream was: If you mandate and subsidize it, someone will build it. ¶ Guess what? Nobody has . Despite

the taxpayer enticements, this year cellulosic fuel production won't be 250 million or even 25 million gallons. Last year the Environmental Protection Agency, which has the authority to revise the mandates, quietly reduced the 2011 requirement by 243.4 million gallons to a mere 6.6 million. Some critics suggest that even much of that 6.6 million isn't true cellulosic fuel.¶ The EPA has already announced that the 2012 mandate of 500 million gallons is unattainable, so it is again expected to lower the mandate to fewer than 12 million gallons for next year.¶ One reason the mandates can't be met is the half-dozen or so companies that received the first round of subsidies to produce cellulosic fuel never got off the ground. Some 70 million gallons, or 70% of the cellulosic supply to meet the 2010 mandate, was supposed to come from Alabama-based Cello Energy. Incredibly, those projections were made before Cello had built its plant to produce the fuel and before the technology was proven to work.¶ In 2009 a jury in a civil fraud case ruled that Cello had lied about how much cellulosic fuel it could produce. Some of the fuel that Cello showed to investors was derived from petroleum, not plants. The firm produced little biofuel and in October 2010 it declared bankruptcy.¶ It gets worse. Because there was no cellulosic fuel available, oil companies have had to purchase "waiver credits"—for failing to comply with a mandate to buy a product that doesn't exist. In 2010 and this year, the EPA has forced oil companies to pay about $10 million for these credits. Since these costs are eventually passed on to consumers, the biofuels mandate is an invisible tax paid at the gas pump.¶ And for what? An October 2011 report on biofuels by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the mandates "may be an ineffective way to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions." Because production is so low, advanced cellulosic fuels also do very little to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The report notes that "currently, no commercially viable biorefineries exist for converting cellulosic biomass to fuel." ¶ Why? Because of what the National Academy report calls "the high cost of producing cellulosic biofuels compared with petroleum-based fuels, and uncertainties in future biofuel markets." The report does say that technological breakthroughs could make cellulosic fuels cost-competitive in the future, but that same leap of faith has driven subsidies to alternative energy for 40 years.¶ Still, the subsidies roll on. In August 2011 the Obama Administration funded a $510 million program in partnership with the Navy to produce advanced biofuels for the military. In September the feds loaned $134 million to Abengoa Bioenergy to build a cellulosic plant in Kansas. The optimistic forecast is that this plant will produce about 23 million

barrels a year—a fraction of what Washington promised in 2006. In September the Department of Energy provided POET, which advertises itself as the "world's largest ethanol producer," a $105 million loan guarantee for cellulosic.¶ ¶ To recap: Congress subsidized a product that didn't exist, mandated its purchase though it still didn't exist, is punishing oil companies for not buying the product that doesn't exist, and is now doubling down on the subsidies in the hope that someday it might exist. We'd call this the march of folly, but that's unfair to fools.


Advanced Biofuels too costly and too slow to be competitiveReuters, International News Agency, 5 October 2011, “U.S. unlikely to hit advanced biofuel goal, study says”, CNET, http://tinyurl.com/7astndj

The United States will likely fail to reach its long-term mandate for making advanced ethanol from trees, grasses, and crop waste unless producers innovate significantly, a scientific advisory group said yesterday.¶ The National Research Council's comments are the latest sign that backers of alternative fuels must wait longer for "next-generation" ethanol. Touted as the motor fuel of the future, it has struggled with high production costs and other setbacks.¶ "Absent major technological innovation or policy changes, the...mandated consumption of 16 billion gallons of ethanol-equivalent cellulosic biofuels is unlikely to be met in 2022," a study by the council said, referring to long-term targets in U.S. law for the biofuel.¶ The study, which drew challenges from the U.S. agriculture secretary and industry groups, also said cellulosic fuel without subsidies would be feasible only with oil above $190 a

barrel, far higher than the current level near $80 .¶ The council, part of the U.S. National Academy of

Sciences which offers scientific advice under a congressional charter, said the U.S. mandate for renewable fuels may be an ineffective policy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.¶ The report itself may not hurt near-term investment in cellulosic production, but the weak economy will, said Pavel Molchanov, an analyst at financial services company Raymond James and Associates.¶ "There's no disputing that in this kind of economy with credit markets tight, it's definitely not easy for advanced biofuel developers to raise large amounts of capital," he said.¶ Fuel of the future?¶ In June, the Environmental Protection Agency slashed for the second year running its proposed near-term mandate for cellulosic production set by Congress in 2007 under then-President George W. Bush.¶ The federal government and producers say the fuel is a way to reduce imports of foreign oil and cut emissions of gases blamed for warming the planet. Next-generation ethanol has also been seen as a way to cap the growth of using corn to make fuel, which has been blamed for pushing up food prices.¶ Companies aiming to make cellulosic ethanol or provide enzymes that break down its feedstocks include DuPont's Genecor, Abengoa Bioenergy, Qteros, and Novozymes A/S. Despite years of work, there are not yet any commercial-scale plants to make cellulosic ethanol.

Advanced biofuels uncompetitiveThe National Academies, 4 October 2011, “Certain Biofuel Mandates Unlikely to Be Met by 2022¶

Unless New Technologies, Policies Developed”, The National Academies, http://tinyurl.com/7hz8xye

Key barriers to achieving the renewable fuel mandate are the high cost of producing cellulosic

biofuels compared with petroleum-based fuels and uncertainties in future biofuel markets , the

report finds. Biofuel production is contingent on subsidies, the nature of the mandate, and similar policies. Although the mandate guarantees a market for the cellulosic biofuels produced, even at costs considerably higher than fossil fuels, uncertainties in enforcement and implementation of the

mandated levels affect investors' confidence and discourage investment . To reduce costs of biofuels,

the committee suggested carrying out research and development to improve feedstock yield and increasing the conversion yield from biomass to fuels.

Advanced biofuels not competitive-too slow, high costs, no investor confidenceReuters, International news agency, 25 July 2011, “Cellulosic-ethanol industry struggles to take off”, CNET, http://tinyurl.com/bueqxyf

The great promise of a car fuel made from cheap, clean-burning prairie grass or wood chips--and not

from expensive corn that feeds the world-- is more mirage than reality .¶ Despite years of research,

testing, and some hype, the next-generation ethanol industry is far from the commercial success

envisioned by President George W. Bush in 2006, when he pledged so-called cellulosic biofuels would be "practical and competitive" by 2012.¶ Instead the only real alternative to traditional gasoline is ethanol made from corn, a fuel environmentalists say is not green at all because of the energy-intensive nature of modern farming.¶ Critics say it is a failure of government policy, not science, that the U.S. is still so dependent on corn for its biofuels. Washington has backtracked on cellulosic-ethanol production targets and failed to provide assurances to investors that the sector would be subsidized over the long term.¶ While there are dozens of pilot and demonstration cellulosic-ethanol projects around the country, the groundwork for the first commercial plants is only now getting under way.¶ Battered by recession, funding remains scarce for $100-million-plus plants needed for commercial-scale production so cellulosic can compete against cheaper ethanol-based corn.¶ "The earliest you're going to see efficient cellulosic ethanol is five years," said Richard Brock, president of Brock Associates, an advisory firm in Milwaukee.¶ For the industry to take off, investors need to be reassured that Congress will extend a cellulosic-production tax credit for several years and cellulosic-output targets will be big enough to encourage blenders to lock in future capacity.¶ "It would certainly increase volumes at a faster rate than what we've seen in the last couple of years," said Mac Statton, biofuels analyst with the Energy Department's forecasting arm.¶ Gasoline in the United States is blended with up to 15 percent ethanol,

which helps reduce oil imports.¶ In the short term, however, the cellulosic industry's slow growth will

make little difference to either America's addiction to foreign crude oil or the strains on corn supplies

that critics claim have pushed up food prices.¶ Cellulosic-biofuels production was supposed to reach 500 million gallons next year under federal mandates that rise each year until it eventually passes corn-based ethanol output.¶ But no cellulosic production is expected this year and it may grow to only a few million gallons next year.¶ Because the cellulosic industry is not able to meet the production goals mandated by Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to lower them.¶ That's what the agency did this month for the third straight year when it proposed lowering the original half-billion-gallon target for 2012 to between 3.6 million and 15.7 million gallons. EPA issues the final target in November.¶ The Energy Department doesn't expect cellulosic output to reach its first 1 billion gallons

until 2018. Congress, under its mandates, wants 7 billion gallons that year.¶ The industry has made great progress in bringing down the production costs of cellulosic ethanol from $5 to $6 a gallon a decade ago to as low as $2.50. However, the first cellulosic plants are expensive to build and will add to that $2.50 cost, putting cellulosic slightly above corn ethanol's cost.


Advanced Biofuels are bad for the environmentGerard Wynn, Senior Environmental Markets Correspondent and Timothy Gardner, Energy and

Environment Correspondent, 22 October 2009, “Advanced biofuels will stoke global warming –study”, Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/22/idUSN2225048

LONDON/WASHINGTON, Oct 22 (Reuters) - A new generation of biofuels, meant to be a low-carbon

alternative, will on average emit more carbon dioxide than burning gasoline over the next few

decades, a study published in Science found on Thursday.¶ Governments and companies are pouring billions of research dollars into advanced fuels made from wood and grass, meant to cut carbon emissions compared with gasoline, and not compete with food as corn-based biofuels do now.¶ But such

advanced, " cellulosic" biofuels will actually lead to higher carbon emissions than gasoline per unit of

energy, averaged over the 2000-2030 time period, the study found.¶ That is because the land required to plant fast-growing poplar trees and tropical grasses would displace food crops, and so drive deforestation to create more farmland, a powerful source of carbon emissions.¶ Biofuel crops also

require nitrogen fertilizers, a source of two greenhouse gases : carbon dioxide (CO2) and the more

powerful nitrous oxide.¶ "In the near-term I think, irrespective of how you go about the cellulosic

biofuels program, you're going to have greenhouse gas emissions exacerbating the climate change

problem, " said lead author, Jerry Melillo, from the U.S. Marine Biological Laboratory .¶ U.S. ethanol

industry group the Renewable Fuels Association said biofuels are by definition emissions neutral because their tailpipe carbon output is absorbed by growing plants.¶ Without steps to protect forests and cut fertilizer use, gasoline out-performs biofuels from 2000-2050 as well.¶ The paper did not mean cellulosic biofuels had no place.¶ "It is not an obvious and easy win without thinking very carefully about the problem," said Melillo. "We have to think very carefully about both short and long-term consequences."¶ A related study, also published in the journal Science on Thursday, said the United Nations had exaggerated carbon savings from biofuels and biomass, in a mistake copied by the European Union in its cap and trade law, by ignoring deforestation and other land use changes.¶ The mistake was carried into U.S. climate legislation as well, and would worsen as governments put a price on carbon, driving more biofuel use, it said.

Biofuels have the same effect on the environment as fossil fuelsDavid Bradley, Technical editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry but the article focuses on the studies

of Mark Jakobson (a qualified environmental expert and professor at Stanford), 2 September 2009, “Biofuels vs. Fossil Fuels”, ScienceBase, http://tinyurl.com/kt8d2j

Biofuels are not much better than fossil fuels in terms of the impact on atmospheric pollution levels and effects on climate change, according to Mark Jacobson professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University. This is especially true when making claims about the sustainability of biofuels in comparison with hydrogen fuel cells and battery-driven electric vehicles charged up using solar, wind, tidal or other truly renewable energy sources.¶ To

quote from his web page, the main goal of Jacobson’s research is to…¶ …understand physical, chemical, and dynamical processes in the atmosphere better in order to address atmospheric problems, such as climate change and urban air pollution, with improved scientific insight and more accurate predictive tools. He also evaluates the atmospheric effects of proposed solutions to climate change and air pollution, examines resource availability of renewable energies, and studies optimal methods of combining renewables.¶ In order to accomplish these important goals Jacobson has developed and applied various models to simulate gas, aerosol, cloud, radiative, and land/ocean-surface processes that could give scientists and engineers a much more overarching perspective on the climate than other simpler models.¶ Jacobson points out that the use of biofuels, particularly ethanol, has expanded in the last few years, although in South America biofuels have been popular and successful for decades. This more recent and rapid expansion of biofuel use in transport across North America and elsewhere is based on the notion that by replacing fossil fuels with biofuels we may somehow ameliorate global warming and air pollution. After all, he

growing plants absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, they are then converted into biofuels,

which are burned in modified vehicle internal combustion engines, which releases the carbon dioxide into the atmosphere again, where it is used by the next generation of biofuel crop plants to grow and so on.

Biofuels contribute to global warmingAshley Phillips, Senior Producer at ABC News, 7 Feb 2008, “Biofuel: Bad for the Environment?” ABC News, http://tinyurl.com/7z3oqjx

"Any biofuel that causes the clearing of natural ecosystems will increase global warming," he continued.¶ In the Princeton study, which was led by Timothy Searchinger, a German Marshall Fund fellow and a researcher at Princeton University, numbers told a striking story.¶ Past data that has outlined the benefits of biofuels didn't include the issues surrounding the impact of land use and the carbon released into the air as a result, both studies said.¶ Using models that calculated carbon emissions in various countries, the Princeton researchers found that the production of corn-based ethanol nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gasses for 167

years. Similarly, biofuels made from switchgrass, if grown on land originally intended for corn, increase

carbon emissions by 50 percent .¶ "By excluding emissions from land-use change, most previous

accountings were one-sided," the researchers wrote. "Because they counted the carbon benefits of using land for biofuels but not the carbon costs – the carbon storage and sequestration sacrificed by diverting land from its existing uses."¶ "Twenty percent of CO2 emissions come from land use change and deforestation," Searchinger said. "We're simply transferring the problem ... from the fossil fuel side to the land-use side" when we produce biofuel.¶ Researchers in the Nature Conservancy study,

which has been going on since March 2007, found nearly identical results . In this study, researchers

compared the amount of carbon in the air in natural ecosystems and crop land around the world.¶

"There is three times as much carbon in the plants and soil as there in the air," Fargione said. "This is a

globally significant concern that is dramatically contributing to global warming ."


Causes fights in Congress – won’t even do it for the militaryDARIN VON RUDEN – The Chippewa Herald – 7/9/12, Von Ruden: Congress short-sighted in military’s access to advanced biofuels, http://chippewa.com/news/opinion/columns/von-ruden-congress-short-sighted-in-military-s-access-to/article_793ec182-c9fc-11e1-a290-0019bb2963f4.html

Unfortunately, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives have recently made moves to prevent the Department of Defense from purchasing advanced biofuels, in a misguided attempt to save the few extra cents per gallon that biofuels cost over petroleum-based fuels. This strategy is penny-wise but pound-foolish.

Keystone XL CP 1NC

Text: The United States Federal Government should fully construct and operationalize the Keystone XL pipeline.

Keystone XL solves US foreign oil dependence Petty in 12 <Kathleen. “Dewhurst says Keystone XL Pipeline needed to decrease America's foreign oil dependency” February 24, 2012. http://www.mywesttexas.com/top_stories/article_fe7651e5-9398-5373-9532-7290e2f36587.html>//CS

Passing legislation that will allow to develop the Keystone XL pipeline is instrumental in weaning America from its dependency on Middle Eastern oil, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said Wednesday. "I have long wanted to end America's dependence

on foreign oil," he said, speaking during an interview at the Reporter-Telegram. "The Keystone pipeline provides 20 percent of what we need to end our demand." President Barack Obama rejected the proposed pipeline, but TransCanada Corp.'s

Keystone XL could re-submit its application with tweaks to the pipeline route. Both Dewhurst and fellow Senate candidate Ted Cruz blame Obama for not signing a deal they say would have created jobs, revenue and a decrease in purchasing of oil from foreign countries, particularly in the Middle East. Obama has responded to criticizing Republicans during speeches by saying he's supporting domestic exploration for oil, the development of alternative energies and nuclear facilities and other possibilities. Dewhurst said the idea that Obama has done anything supportive of the oil and gas industry is laughable. "President Obama's claim of supporting oil and gas activity is disingenuous and insulting," he said. "Here's a man who seemingly hates hydrocarbons. Here's a man who has helped propose numerous taxes on the oil and gas industry and restricted their drilling. President Barack Obama is no friend of the oil and gas industry. I know, because I've been in the oil and gas industry for almost the entirety of my career." Cruz agreed and said in a statement that Obama's decision is another example of his policies that over-regulate and stunt economic growth.

"President Obama's decision killed tens of thousands of jobs with the stroke of a pen," he said. "The

president could do the right thing and let construction of the pipeline proceed, which would transport hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil from Canada to U.S. refineries. But, unfortunately, we've seen this before: The president has engaged in a three-year war on jobs. And, the American people have paid the price."

2NC Solves Dependence/Prices

Keystone XL solves oil prices and dependence NPN 12 <National Petroleum News. “Refiners to U.S. House: High crude oil prices drive high gasoline prices” March 28, 2012. https://www.npnweb.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=901D2CC3506F4C1187DF5BE4A8A2C0FF&nm=&type=MultiPublishing&mod=PublishingTitles&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=4D1DB78127494E7CBB83363976B04A70>//CS

High crude oil prices are the primary factor behind high gasoline prices, American Fuel & Petrochemical

Manufacturers President Charles T. Drevna told a House subcommittee. The most effective actions to help U.S. consumers would be to increase U.S. oil production, increase oil imports from Canada and reduce overregulation, Drevna said. Drevna noted that, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, "only six cents of every dollar that Americans pay for gasoline goes to the refining industry that AFPM represents. The cost of crude oil accounts for 76 cents, followed by taxes at 12 cents, and

distribution and marketing also at six cents. "Refiners, as well as petrochemical manufacturers, are the first customers of a barrel of oil and the first to be impacted when oil prices rise," Drevna said in written testimony for a March 7 hearing on gasoline prices by the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power. "Refiners don't set the price of oil any more than automakers set the price of steel, bakers set the price of wheat or restaurants set the price of cattle," Drevna added. "Oil is an international commodity that trades in the free market and its price is not controlled by its purchasers." Drevna called on the Obama administration to allow increased exploration and development of vast oil and natural gas resources on federal lands and in federally controlled waters to meet U.S. energy needs, create

jobs and improve economic and national security. In addition, Drevna advocated approval of the Keystone XL pipeline to bring 700,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada to Gulf Coast refineries. Drevna said overly burdensome and conflicting government regulations threaten U.S. competitiveness. He said some regulations are not doing anything to protect the environment but only jeopardize jobs and raise consumer costs. Examples of these are Tier 3 regulations to reduce sulfur in gasoline, greenhouse gas regulations, lengthy permitting delays, and requirements under the Renewable Fuel Standard involving

biofuels, Drevna said. Oil prices have risen recently because of concerns about the future of Iranian oil production, increased oil demand in developing nations and the decline in the value of the U.S. dollar,

Drevna said. "Historically, the best mechanism available to address high crude oil prices has been to take actions to increase the global crude oil supply," Drevna said. "When America has taken such actions in the past, it has sent a message to the market that our country is serious about meeting our energy and national security needs." Drevna said U.S. exports of refined petroleum products -primarily diesel fuel because there is an excess domestic supply -are benefitting American consumers. He pointed out that

America imports about 60 percent of the crude oil the nation needs and is not a net exporter of gasoline. "Exports don't raise gasoline prices," Drevna said. "Rather, exports bring billions of dollars to America, preserve and create jobs, strengthen our economy and reduce our trade deficit. In fact, in allowing domestic refiners to run at higher utilization rates, exports are likely keeping consumer costs from rising further. If all American manufacturers and agricultural interests were prohibited from exporting their products, they would produce less -and that could actually raise consumer prices." AFPM, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (formerly known as NPRA, the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association) is a trade association representing U.S. manufacturers of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, other fuels and home heating oil, as well as petrochemicals used as building blocks for thousands of vital products in daily life. AFPM members make modern life possible and keep America moving and growing as they meet the needs of our nation and local communities, strengthen economic and national security, and support 2 million American jobs.

Solves Econ/Oil

CP solves Oil Dependence and the economyKelly in 12 <William. “Allen West: Keystone XL pipeline would reduce foreign oil dependence” January 5, 2012. http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/news/allen-west-keystone-xl-pipeline-would-reduce-forei/nMFLK/ >//CS

The Keystone XL oil pipeline would create 20,000 jobs in the nation’s manufacturing and construction sectors, boosting the economy while helping put the United States on the road toward energy independence, U.S. Rep. Allen West told a Rotary Club of Palm Beach audience on Thursday. West cited Iran’s threat to close the key global oil passageway, the Strait of Hormuz, as evidence of the need for the United States to end its dependence on foreign oil. About one-sixth of the world’s oil passes on tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, and analysts have warned the price of Brent crude could temporarily jump to as high as $210 if the strait is closed; the current price is $112.66, according to

Oil-Price.net. The U.S. has pledged to keep the shipping route open. Nearly 50 percent of the oil consumed in the United States is imported from foreign countries. The 1,661-mile pipeline would bring tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada, to refineries in Texas. Congress recently passed legislation that contains a provision requiring President Barack Obama to make a decision within 60 days on whether to allow the pipeline.

Keystone XL solves dependence and boosts the economyHoeven in 12 <John. “Why we need the Keystone Oil Pipeline” February 24, 2012. http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/23/opinion/hoeven-keystone-pipeline-defense/index.html>//CS

The Keystone XL pipeline represents a big step toward true North American energy independence, reducing our reliance on Middle Eastern oil and increasing our access to energy from our own nation and our closest ally, Canada, along with some oil from Mexico -- to 75% of our daily consumption, compared with 70% now. That decades-long goal for our

country is finally within reach, but we need to stay focused on the big picture, and we need to act. This $7 billion, 1,700-mile, high-tech transcontinental pipeline is a big-time, private-sector job creator, and it will also hold down the gas prices for consumers and reduce our energy dependence on an unstable part of the world. Finally, it will do so with good environmental stewardship. That's why I, along with 44 of my colleagues from across the nation, introduced new legislation to move the project toward approval and construction after President Barack Obama's rejection of the project last month. Another view: Ted Turner on the case against the Keystone XL pipeline Sen. John Hoeven The Hoeven-Lugar-Vitter amendment to the highway funding bill, which we are now working to pass, authorizes TransCanada to construct and operate the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta, Canada, to the Midwest and Gulf Coast, transporting an additional 830,000 barrels of oil per day to U.S. refineries. This includes 100,000 barrels of crude oil a day from the Bakken region of North Dakota and Montana. That's key to my state, because providing pipeline capacity and gathering systems for that much North Dakota crude will take as many as 500 trucks a day off of roads in the oil patch. That's a win-win for producers, state revenues and most

importantly, public safety on our Western highways. Cutting through the Keystone XL hysteria The Keystone XL project is good for

North Dakota, but it is vital for the nation. Some 75% of the pipe for the Keystone XL pipeline will be made here in North America, 50% of it in Arkansas. Some 90% of all other construction materials will come from companies in the United States and Canada. From an environmental perspective, the project has been under review since September 2008, more than three years, and the State Department's environmental review, completed in August 2011, found "no significant impacts on most resources" providing environmental restrictions are met. Further, our new legislation includes all federal and state safeguards and sets no time limit on Nebraska's ability to further review the pipeline's route through the state, the only portion of the route in contention. Additionally, 80% of the new Canadian oil sands development is being developed "in situ," meaning, it has a similar carbon footprint and emissions as conventional oil wells.

Solves oil dependence and the economyOlson in 12 <Pete Olson. “We need a domestic energy solution to reduce dependence on foreign oil” February 18, 2012. http://thehill.com/special-reports/energy-and-environment-february-2012/209607-we-need-a-domestic-energy-solution-to-reduce-dependence-on-foreign-oil>

With gas prices climbing and projected to rise beyond $4 per gallon by spring, the ripple effects are on the way too. Higher energy costs mean higher food prices, potential job losses for small businesses and less money for families to meet their basic needs. The erratic rise and fall of gas prices is a direct result of poor energy policies and America’s unhealthy reliance on energy from unstable regions of the world. The recent escalation of tensions between Iran and Western nations has resulted in a threat to close the Strait of Hormuz. This strait is a critical pathway for a huge portion of global oil. As a Navy aviator who flew over the Strait of Hormuz, I know firsthand the importance of this region to the world’s energy supply. Iran knows it too, which is why it has threatened to shut down the

strait — threats that have a direct impact on today’s oil prices. We know the instability in the Middle East causes volatility in markets. What’s the solution? Reduce our reliance on this region for our oil. America needs a comprehensive energy policy that allows us

to develop more of our own resources here at home, allow the Keystone XL pipeline to go forward without delay and give America true energy independence. President Obama has repeatedly declared that America needs an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy. Yet his words do not match his actions. His administration has issued rule after rule to stifle energy production and increase the cost of developing domestic energy. The most recent example is the Bureau of Land Management’s dramatic scaling back of a plan to develop domestic resources by reducing the available acreage for oil-shale and oil-sands development by about three-fourths in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming. The Environmental Protection Agency is also feverishly trying to tie hydraulic fracturing to contamination in groundwater. Yet, each time it has been proven wrong — at a great expense to the very industry that is revolutionizing domestic energy production. In Texas, the EPA usurped state authority in a groundwater case involving hydraulic fracturing by issuing an emergency order to take over the state’s investigation. It also sent an alert to the environmental community prior to its public announcement, claiming it was about to “make big news” before producing any evidence that groundwater contamination was linked to hydraulic fracturing. Last December, the EPA released a preliminary report that “theorized” hydraulic fracturing in the Pavillion, Wyo., area “may have” caused chemical contamination of “some” water wells. But there has been no independent verification of this conclusion, and the EPA itself admits there is no direct connection.

Hydraulic fracturing has been used to extract gas from wells for 50 years without a single confirmed contamination report. States have exercised appropriate oversight, and are best suited to monitor the energy-development efforts of their individual states. Texas has some of the strictest disclosure requirements in the country. Yet the Obama administration has systematically

worked to slow down, if not stop, the use of fracturing. This process, if allowed to develop properly, will drastically reduce our need to import oil from volatile regions and hostile nations. In the meantime, we could begin to reduce our Middle East imports sooner if the president would approve the Canadian Keystone XL pipeline now. If the United States continues to stall, China is lined up to take our place and take that crude. It was also reported this week that China is buying up Saudi Arabian oil, while negotiating further deals with Iran. Iran faces harsh U.S. economic sanctions

and an oil embargo from the European Union. All of this means that oil prices will continue to escalate on a global scale. The president can reduce our reliance on unstable foreign sources of oil by approving the Keystone XL pipeline, opening up more of our own domestic resources for development and ensuring that the federal government plays an appropriate

role in these operations. All of these actions will reduce our reliance on unstable nations for oil, create high-paying American jobs, bring millions in revenue into the federal Treasury and strengthen our national security. My colleagues and I in the House will continue to push for a comprehensive energy policy that achieves these goals.

Avoids PTX - Agenda

Counterplan has bipartisan support – especially with RepublicansCornilles in 12 <Rob. “How bipartisan is support for the Keystone XL oil pipeline?” January 10, 2012. http://www.politifact.com/oregon/statements/2012/jan/14/rob-cornilles/how-bipartisan-support-keystone-xl-oil-pipeline/>

The major party candidates in the 1st Congressional District are on opposite sides of whether President Barack Obama should approve the building of a massive oil pipeline project from Canada to Texas. Democrat Suzanne Bonamici is opposed; she worries about the environmental

impact. Republican Rob Cornilles is supportive; he said in last week’s televised debate, about halfway through the program, that the project has bipartisan support. "I do support the Keystone Pipeline. It’s a bipartisan proposal. Democrats and Republicans alike in Congress want this to move forward, because it’s not only a job creator, it’s also a way for us to responsibly manage how that oil is transferred from Canada to Mexico. Does the pipeline have bipartisan

support? Much of the really vocal support for this project comes from Republicans. Democrats, not so much, although there are some who want the project. Environmentalists are opposed while labor’s AFL-CIO has decided not to take a formal position. Senate Democrats who like the project are Max Baucus D-Mont., Jon Tester D-Mont., Mary Landrieu D-La., Mark Pryor, D-Ark., and Mark Begich, D-Alaska, Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and Kent Conrad, D-N.D. We queried our delegation. Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley are opposed. Rep. Earl Blumenauer was among 32 House Democrats who sent a letter urging the State Department to reject the route. Schrader is opposed to the expedited process, but not necessarily against — or for — the project. We don’t think the support of one Democrat or one Republican

makes a proposal bipartisan, but it’s clear some Democrats are on board with the project. If we had to picture a bipartisan meter, the needle probably would surpass the halfway mark but fall short of 75 percent.

Counterplan avoids the link to politics - bipartisan public and congressional supportGabbay in 12 <Tifanny. “SENATE BLOCKS KEYSTONE PIPELINE BILL, 11 DEMOCRATS DEFECT” March 8, 2012. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/senate-blocks-keystone-pipeline-bill-11-democrats-defect/>//CS

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate killed Republican-backed attempts to overturn several of President Barack Obama’s environmental and energy policies Thursday as lawmakers worked against a March 31 deadline to keep aid flowing to more than 100,000 transportation construction projects around the country. The two-year, $109 billion transportation bill before the Senate has wide, bipartisan support, but has

become a magnet for lawmakers’ favorite causes and partisan gamesmanship. Among the amendments batted aside were GOP proposals to bypass Obama’s concerns about the Keystone XL oil pipeline, to delay tougher air pollution standards for industrial boilers and to expand offshore oil drilling. Action on those and other amendments came under an agreement between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., aimed at clearing the way for passage of the transportation bill next week. Obama lobbied some Senate Democrats by telephone ahead of the Keystone vote, urging them to oppose an amendment by Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., that would have prevented the president from intervening in decisions related to construction of the pipeline and would have speeded its approval. Pointing to the administration’s environmental concerns about the project, which would carry tar sands oil from Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast, Republicans accused Obama of standing in the way greater oil supplies at a time when Americans are coping with rising gasoline prices. But some Democrats, especially those from oil producing states, were torn between support for the pipeline and their support for the president. The amendment was defeated 56-42, even though 11 Democrats broke ranks to support it.

Sixty votes were needed for passage. Republican leaders jumped on the White House lobbying. “Most Americans strongly support

building this pipeline and the jobs that would come with it,” McConnell said in a statement. The president’s lobbying against the Keystone provision came “a week after the president signaled to me and to Sen. McConnell that he might be willing to work with us on some bipartisan steps forward on energy legislation that the American people support,” House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told

reporters. “If we’re going to have bipartisan action on energy, the Keystone pipeline is an obvious place to start.”

Avoids PTX - Elections

Public supports Keystone, avoids elections net benefitJohnson in 12 <Charles. “AMERICANS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORT KEYSTONE PIPELINE” February 25, 2012. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/02/25/pew-poll-americans-overwhelmingly-support-keystone-pipeline>//CS

Is Barack Obama governing for the 23% who oppose the Keystone pipeline? It seems a new poll from the Pew Research Center says yes.

There is far more support for the Keystone XL pipeline that would carry upwards of 800,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada to Texas, even though only 24% of Americans have even heard about the issue and 37% of Americans

haven't heard anything at all about it. Of those who have heard of it, 66% of Americans say the government should approve the pipeline, including 49% of Democrats, 66% of Independents, and 84% of Republicans. It

seems the pipeline is a winning issue for Republicans, but only if they succeed in educating more people about its importance. It's easy to see why one would want to support Keystone. It would create 200,000 jobs during its beginning phases and could create upwards of half a million jobs by 2035. Both labor unions and businesses support it. Why doesn't the president? Republicans would do well to keep emphasizing this issue, especially if so few Americans have heard of it and especially as the price of gas continues to reach historic highs.

A2 Pipeline = Emissions

Emissions from Canadian oil production is inevitableHoeven in 12 <John. “Why we need the Keystone Oil Pipeline” February 24, 2012. http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/23/opinion/hoeven-keystone-pipeline-defense/index.html>

If the Keystone XL pipeline isn't built, Canadian oil will still be produced -- 700,000 barrels a day of it -- but instead of coming down to our refineries in the United States, instead of creating jobs for American workers, instead of reducing our

dependence on a turbulent part of the world, that oil will be shipped to China. It will have to be carried there on large oil tankers, creating more carbon emissions, and it will be processed at facilities with weaker environmental safeguards.

A2 Leaks

No leaks – pipeline is safeHoeven in 12 <John. “Why we need the Keystone Oil Pipeline” February 24, 2012. http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/23/opinion/hoeven-keystone-pipeline-defense/index.html>

Finally, it's important to point out that the Keystone XL pipeline is nothing new. Thousands of pipelines crisscross our nation, delivering refined products to fuel our cars, heat our homes and power our industries. In fact, the original Keystone pipeline, which became operational in 2010, runs from Alberta through my state of North Dakota. Contrary to claims

by critics, the pipeline itself has never leaked. The leaks happened at fittings and seals at above-ground pumping stations, which were properly and promptly fixed. I have worked toward approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, first as governor of North Dakota and now as a U.S. senator, because I believe it helps our nation on so many levels. It is just the kind of project

that will grow our economy and create jobs in the right way -- through private-sector investment. The Keystone XL pipeline will also help to wean us from our dependency on oil from volatile regions of the world and help us move toward a true energy independent future. It will make our nation safer and stronger for the American people.

Aff – Doesn’t solve jobs

Keystone XL wouldn’t create jobs – their authors are biased Johnson in 12 - chief economist at the Climate Center of the Natural Resources Defense Council <Laurie. “Keystone XL pipeline: Good for Big Oil, bad for the economy” February 1, 2012. http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ljohnson/keystone_xl_pipeline_good_for.html>//CS

Interesting quote. TransCanada and its allies can’t seem to keep their numbers straight for the proposed tar sands Keystone XL pipeline. Just the day before, the company released a press statement predicting 20,000 pipeline and 118,000 “spin-off” jobs. In September of 2010, they claimed 13,000 jobs. Two months prior to that, a “study” they commissioned was released predicting 250,000 to over half a million jobs (p. 33). The Republican Party claims over 100,000. All of these estimates contradict the statement by the company’s own Vice President, even those at

the lower end. Analysts who aren’t trying to make money off the pipeline conclude that it would create far fewer jobs. Researchers at Cornell University project as few as 2,500 jobs, and the State Department up to 6,000 (p.ES-22). Notably, most projections are for short-term jobs associated with construction—something proponents don’t always make clear. (There’s nothing wrong with short-term jobs, any would be welcome, but their temporary nature shouldn’t be in the fine print). According to the State Department, as few as 20 jobs will be permanent (p. 3.10-80) (excluding “induced” jobs created from wages spent by these workers). (Click here for a good summary explaining the differences across industry and independent analyses, by the Columbia Journalism Review). So

what is going on here? After failing to convince their own country’s citizens that the pipeline would be good for them, Big Oil and its Congressional protectors have launched what can only be characterized as an aggressive disinformation campaign to build the pipeline. Preying on the fears of America’s unemployed and economically insecure, they are trying to sell it as a national jobs plan and a way to increase national security by reducing dependence on foreign oil. It’s a cruel hoax. Canadians didn’t fall for it, and neither should we. The proposed project would construct a 1,700 mile conduit from Alberta, Canada for the world’s dirtiest and most corrosive form of oil (tar sands) right through the heart of America’s farmland —threatening not only the bread basket of the US, but also the world. It promises little to potentially negative economic returns for Americans. Maybe that’s why President Obama made the bold decision to reject TransCanada’s permit application. With Citizens United giving the oil industry (even more) unlimited influence, and the American Petroleum Institute’s blatant threat to the President to approve Keystone XL or face “huge political consequences,” Obama’s courage shouldn’t be underestimated.

Aff – Kills Jobs

Keystone XL would kill jobsJohnson in 12 - chief economist at the Climate Center of the Natural Resources Defense Council <Laurie. “Keystone XL pipeline: Good for Big Oil, bad for the economy” February 1, 2012. http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ljohnson/keystone_xl_pipeline_good_for.html>//CS

Here’s the truth about the pipeline: * It will create only a very modest number of jobs. While these jobs are important and could certainly help some workers, industry has grossly overstated its case. * It might destroy more jobs than it creates: By TransCanada’s own account, Keystone XL is expected to increase oil prices in the Midwest (building a pipeline to the Gulf Coast will eliminate an excess supply of the oil in the Midwest, pushing up prices). As part of its permit application to the Canadian government, TransCanada said (p.21) annual oil company revenues are expected to increase as a result

by $2 to nearly $4 billion. In turn, our farmers could see an increase in fuel costs of $2.6 billion dollars or more over 2009 levels…Higher oil prices might be good for the oil industry, but they will increase the cost of living and doing business in the Midwest, negatively impacting its economy and potentially increasing unemployment. Pipeline leaks and spills into aquifers and water ways threaten the livelihoods of a quarter of a million farmers, and businesses providing outdoor recreation and other tourism services. Public health is also threatened, as already evidenced from a major tar sands spill in 2010 along a different pipeline (more below).

Aff – Doesn’t Solve Oil

Counterplan doesn’t solve oil dependenceJohnson in 12 - chief economist at the Climate Center of the Natural Resources Defense Council <Laurie. “Keystone XL pipeline: Good for Big Oil, bad for the economy” February 1, 2012. http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ljohnson/keystone_xl_pipeline_good_for.html>//CS

Finally, the pipeline will not reduce our oil dependence or increase national security. The price of TransCanada’s oil will be determined by surging global demand for oil, and OPEC’s monopolistic production decisions that limit the world’s oil supply and increase its price (the cartel (OPEC) has almost 80

percent of the world’s known oil reserves). For all the rhetoric about energy independence and controlling the price of oil, Keystone XL’s marginal contribution to global production won’t amount to a hill of beans. There is one source of potential long-term job creation about which oil industry has remained silent: jobs created to clean up inevitable spills and leaks. So far, TransCanada has experienced major problems with the section of the Keystone project already completed. In its first year of operation, its so-called safe “state-of-the-art” pipeline has already leaked 35 times, (21 times in Canada, 14 in the U.S--p. 3.13-11). According to the University of Nebraska, approximately 91 major spills can be expected over the 50-year lifetime of the pipeline. Clean up jobs will last longer than that… There is also the potential for a major disaster. In 2010, the largest tar sands spill in U.S. history devastated the Kalamazoo River with over 800,000 gallons of oil at a price tag of over $700 million. We’re still cleaning it up, a year and a half later.

Aff – CP Hurts Econ

Turn – CP leads to oil spills and hurts the economyJohnson in 12 - chief economist at the Climate Center of the Natural Resources Defense Council <Laurie. “Keystone XL pipeline: Good for Big Oil, bad for the economy” February 1, 2012. http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ljohnson/keystone_xl_pipeline_good_for.html>//CS

A worst-case spill from Keystone XL could cause widespread groundwater and river contamination. Any resulting clean up expenditures will strain public budgets, diverting limited resources away from productive investments that generate long term job growth, such as infrastructure, education, and clean energy. Finally, there’s public health and the environment. The $700 million figure cited above was just for cleaning up. According to a November 2010 report (p.12) from the Michigan Department of Community Health, almost 60 percent of people surveyed who lived near the Kalamazoo spill experienced at least one adverse health effect following it, including respiratory, gastrointestinal and neurological symptoms

(compared to a baseline of less than 5% in a community 15 miles upstream of the spill). Ethics aside, sick people do not make a healthy economy. Nor do the droughts, forest fires, extreme weather, smog pollution, and other impacts associated with climate change: extracting tar sands oil generates three times as much global warming pollution (in addition to generating other pollutants) as does conventional oil. We should take heed of Canadians' oppostion to

transporting Alberta's dirty oil through their own land for their own oil; they are no fools. They know TransCanada’s Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is a terrible project: it promises few if any jobs, puts existing jobs at risk, and threatens water supplies, public health, and the environment. They know the oil industry has one objective and one objective only:

to increase profits. It is not to bestow a new supply of cheap oil on the US or reduce unemployment. As PT Barnum famously said, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” Let’s make sure we’re not one of them.

Aff – Kills Jobs

Keystone XL would kill jobsJohnson in 12 - chief economist at the Climate Center of the Natural Resources Defense Council <Laurie. “Keystone XL pipeline: Good for Big Oil, bad for the economy” February 1, 2012. http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ljohnson/keystone_xl_pipeline_good_for.html>//CS

Here’s the truth about the pipeline: * It will create only a very modest number of jobs. While these jobs are important and could certainly help some workers, industry has grossly overstated its case. * It might destroy more jobs than it creates: By TransCanada’s own account, Keystone XL is expected to increase oil prices in the Midwest (building a pipeline to the Gulf Coast will eliminate an excess supply of the oil in the Midwest, pushing up prices). As part of its permit application to the Canadian government, TransCanada said (p.21) annual oil company revenues are expected to increase as a result

by $2 to nearly $4 billion. In turn, our farmers could see an increase in fuel costs of $2.6 billion dollars or more over 2009 levels…Higher oil prices might be good for the oil industry, but they will increase the cost of living and doing business in the Midwest, negatively impacting its economy and potentially increasing unemployment. Pipeline leaks and spills into aquifers and water ways threaten the livelihoods of a quarter of a million farmers, and businesses providing outdoor recreation and other tourism services. Public health is also threatened, as already evidenced from a major tar sands spill in 2010 along a different pipeline (more below).

Aff – Doesn’t solve jobs

Keystone XL wouldn’t create jobs – their authors are biased Johnson in 12 - chief economist at the Climate Center of the Natural Resources Defense Council <Laurie. “Keystone XL pipeline: Good for Big Oil, bad for the economy” February 1, 2012. http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ljohnson/keystone_xl_pipeline_good_for.html>//CS

Interesting quote. TransCanada and its allies can’t seem to keep their numbers straight for the proposed tar sands Keystone XL pipeline. Just the day before, the company released a press statement predicting 20,000 pipeline and 118,000 “spin-off” jobs. In September of 2010, they claimed 13,000 jobs. Two months prior to that, a “study” they commissioned was released predicting 250,000 to over half a million jobs (p. 33). The Republican Party claims over 100,000. All of these estimates contradict the statement by the company’s own Vice President, even those at

the lower end. Analysts who aren’t trying to make money off the pipeline conclude that it would create far fewer jobs. Researchers at Cornell University project as few as 2,500 jobs, and the State Department up to 6,000 (p.ES-22). Notably, most projections are for short-term jobs associated with construction—something proponents don’t always make clear. (There’s nothing wrong with short-term jobs, any would be welcome, but their temporary nature shouldn’t be in the fine print). According to the State Department, as few as 20 jobs will be permanent (p. 3.10-80) (excluding “induced” jobs created from wages spent by these workers). (Click here for a good summary explaining the differences across industry and independent analyses, by the Columbia Journalism Review). So

what is going on here? After failing to convince their own country’s citizens that the pipeline would be good for them, Big Oil and its Congressional protectors have launched what can only be characterized as an aggressive disinformation campaign to build the pipeline. Preying on the fears of America’s unemployed and economically insecure, they are trying to sell it as a national jobs plan and a way to increase national security by reducing dependence on foreign oil. It’s a cruel hoax. Canadians didn’t fall for it, and neither should we. The proposed project would construct a 1,700 mile conduit from Alberta, Canada for the world’s dirtiest and most corrosive form of oil (tar sands) right through the heart of America’s farmland —threatening not only the bread basket of the US, but also the world. It promises little to potentially negative economic returns for Americans. Maybe that’s why President Obama made the bold decision to reject TransCanada’s permit application. With Citizens United giving the oil industry (even more) unlimited influence, and the American Petroleum Institute’s blatant threat to the President to approve Keystone XL or face “huge political consequences,” Obama’s courage shouldn’t be underestimated.

Aff – Links to PTX

CP links to politics – lumped with partisan discussions about the transportation billGabbay in 12 <Tifanny. “SENATE BLOCKS KEYSTONE PIPELINE BILL, 11 DEMOCRATS DEFECT” March 8, 2012. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/senate-blocks-keystone-pipeline-bill-11-democrats-defect/>//CS

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate killed Republican-backed attempts to overturn several of President Barack Obama’s environmental and energy policies Thursday as lawmakers worked against a March 31 deadline to keep aid flowing to more than 100,000 transportation

construction projects around the country. The two-year, $109 billion transportation bill before the Senate has wide, bipartisan support, but has become a magnet for lawmakers’ favorite causes and partisan gamesmanship. Among the amendments batted aside were GOP proposals to bypass Obama’s concerns about the Keystone XL oil pipeline, to delay tougher air pollution standards for industrial boilers and to expand offshore oil drilling. Action on those and other amendments came under an agreement between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., aimed at clearing the way for passage of the transportation bill next week. Obama lobbied some Senate Democrats by telephone ahead of the Keystone vote, urging them to oppose an amendment by Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., that would have prevented the president from intervening in decisions related to construction of the pipeline and would have speeded its approval. Pointing to the administration’s environmental concerns about the project, which would carry tar sands oil from Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast, Republicans accused Obama of standing in the way greater oil supplies at a time when Americans are coping with rising gasoline prices. But some Democrats, especially those from oil producing states, were torn between support for the pipeline and their support for the president. The amendment was defeated 56-42, even though 11 Democrats broke ranks to support it. Sixty votes were needed for passage. Republican leaders jumped on the White House lobbying. “Most Americans strongly support building this pipeline and the jobs that would come with it,” McConnell said in a statement. The president’s lobbying against the Keystone provision came “a week after the president signaled to me and to Sen. McConnell that he might be willing to work with us on some bipartisan steps forward on energy legislation that the American people support,” House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters. “If we’re going to have bipartisan action on energy, the Keystone pipeline is an obvious place to start.”

Stimulus CPs

Tax Cuts CP

1NC

CP Text: The United States federal government should extend the Making Work Pay tax credit and the changes to the United States tax code under the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act for one year.

Solves Keynesian stimulus and avoids elections

Yzaguirre 7/12/12 – Political writer for the Huffington Post (Mark, “The President Should Extend All Tax Cuts for One Year”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-yzaguirre/bush-tax-cut-extension_b_1663765.html)

This isn't because Westen is opposed to tax cuts for the middle class or because he wants to make these tax cuts permanent for everyone.

Westen argues that this is bad policy because while $250,000 per year isn't a small income, it is far below the income level of the top percentiles (namely the top 0.1 percent) who have been able to insulate themselves from much of the financial

heartache of the past decade. He states that this is bad politics because most people in the $250,000 income range are wage-earners who reside in suburbs or exurbs that President Obama needs to carry in order to win re-election. Westen says this is bad messaging because setting the cutoff at $250,000 makes the policy debate dwell on an arbitrary number rather than larger principles.

The Westen piece is a great article that should be read in its entirety. I want to focus on the messaging point and add a few thoughts, which

Westen may or may not agree with. Setting the cutoff point for tax cuts at $250,000 allows Mitt Romney and the Republicans to demagogue the tax issue by encouraging them to raise arguments about the fairness of raising taxes on two-income professional households when their main goal is to preserve the financial advantages of the very wealthy. To be fair, GOP disingenuousness on issues of economic policy isn't anything new and any

Democratic administration needs to face it. But setting the tax cutoff point at $250,000 hands the GOP an

avoidable issue and gives them an exit.

I suggest that President Obama should have acted (and perhaps can still act) more boldly by proposing to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone for one more year. That way Romney and the Republicans in Congress would have to either accept his proposal or explain why tax cuts should not be extended for one year,

without having the cover of the issue of the $250,000 cutoff point. It would have put the Republicans

in a bind and would have resonated well with the general public.

Such a proposal may not satisfy those who want to use tax policy to address broader issues of income inequality, but such people aren't a majority of voters, much less a majority of Democrats. Even if the President wanted to cater to them, waiting a year to do so wouldn't make a

huge difference if larger societal changes (whether with regard to deficit concerns or economic inequality) are the goal. Also, raising taxes when the economy is weak isn't a good idea from a Keynesian perspective, so waiting an extra year to do so is good from a policy perspective.

2NC Payroll Tax SolvencyTax cuts have a multiplier of up to 5.0 – they’re empirically far more effective than infrastructure spending

Boskin 10 - Professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush (Michael, Wall Street Journal, “Why the Spending Stimulus Failed”, 12/1/10, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704679204575646994256446822.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

President Obama and congressional leaders meeting yesterday confronted calls for four key fiscal decisions: short-run fiscal stimulus, medium-

term fiscal consolidation, and long-run tax and entitlement reform. Mr. Obama wants more spending, especially on infrastructure, and higher tax rates on income, capital gains and dividends (by allowing the lower Bush rates to expire). The intellectual and political left argues that the failed $814 billion stimulus in 2009 wasn't big enough, and that spending control any time soon will derail the economy.

But economic theory, history and statistical studies reveal that more taxes and spending are more

likely to harm than help the economy . Those who demand spending control and oppose tax hikes

hold the intellectual high ground.

Writing during the Great Depression, John Maynard Keynes argued that "sticky" wages and prices would not fall to clear the market when demand declines, so high unemployment would persist. Government spending produced a "multiplier" to output and income; as each dollar is spent, the recipient spends most of it, and so on. Ditto tax cuts and transfers, but the multiplier is assumed smaller.

Macroeconomics since Keynes has incorporated the effects of longer time horizons, expectations about future incomes and policies, and incentives (including marginal tax rates) on economic decisions.

Temporary small tax rebates, as in 2008 and 2009, result in only a few cents per dollar in spending. The bulk (according to economists such as Franco Modigliani and Milton Friedman) or all (according to Robert Barro of Harvard) is saved, as people spread any increased consumption over many years or anticipate future taxes necessary to finance the debt. Empirical studies (such as those by my colleague Robert Hall and Rick Mishkin of Columbia) conclude that most consumption is based on longer-term considerations.

In a dynamic economy, many parts are moving simultaneously and it is difficult to disentangle cause and effect. Taxes may be cut and spending increased at the same time and those may coincide with natural business cycle dynamics and monetary policy shifts.

Using powerful statistical methods to separate these effects in U.S. data, Andrew Mountford of the University of London and Harald Uhlig of the University of Chicago conclude that the small initial spending multiplier turns negative by the start of the second year. In a new cross-national time series study, Ethan

Ilzetzki of the London School of Economics and Enrique Mendoza and Carlos Vegh of the University of Maryland conclude that in open economies with flexible exchange rates, "a fiscal expansion leads to no significant output gains."

My colleagues John Cogan and John Taylor, with Volker Wieland and Tobias Cwik, demonstrate that government purchases have a

GDP impact far smaller in New Keynesian than Old Keynesian models and quickly crowd out the

private sector . They estimate the effect of the February 2009 stimulus at a puny 0.2% of GDP by now.

By contrast, the last two major tax cuts—President Reagan's in 1981-83 and President George W. Bush's in 2003—boosted growth. They lowered marginal tax rates and were longer lasting, both keys to success. In a survey of fiscal

policy changes in the OECD over the past four decades, Harvard's Albert Alesina and Silvia Ardagna conclude that tax cuts have been far more likely to increase growth than has more spending.

Former Obama adviser Christina Romer and David Romer of the University of California, Berkeley, estimate a tax-cut multiplier of 3.0, meaning $1 of lower taxes raises short-run output by $3. Messrs. Mountford and Uhlig show that substantial tax cuts had a far

larger impact on output and employment than spending increases, with a multiplier up to 5.0.

Conversely, a tax increase is very damaging. Mr. Barro and Bain Capital's Charles Redlick estimate large negative effects of increased marginal tax rates on GDP. The best stimulus now is to stop the impending tax hikes. Mr.

Alesina and Ms. Ardagna also conclude that spending cuts are more likely to reduce deficits and debt-to-GDP ratios, and less likely to cause recessions, than are tax increases.

Tax cuts create a simulative effect – increases consumer spending

Feinblum 7/14/12 – (Benjamin, “Tax Cuts for Small Businesses and the Middle Class Will Spur Job Creation”, http://www.policymic.com/articles/11181/tax-cuts-for-small-businesses-and-the-middle-class-will-spur-job-creation)

Business leaders are asking for increased demand for their products and services. When asked -- by Obama --

CEOs explained, "that is why we hire!" We hire to build something someone ordered. We hire engineers for projects. We hire to fill customer needs.

CEOs also explained that there are millions of high tech manufacturing jobs, and jobs that require advanced training that they cannot fill. They cannot find people who are trained for those jobs.

This is occurring in the context where more than $2 trillion in cash sits on corporate balance sheets. The largest supply of cash in history.

If demand can be created that will release those trillions from the hands of business into the economy, then America will see explosive growth. Jobs, jobs, jobs.

This demand creates the hiring that we want, and is what the CEOs told Obama it would do so.

This chart illustrates the level of cash on the sidelines.

How do we get there?

1) Find every person who could create demand for products and services and give them a tax cut.

The American Jobs Act, Obama's legislation, gives tax cuts to everyone who is employed. If you have a job, you get to keep more money. The

idea is to leave more money in the hands of those who have secure employment because that is who feels secure enough to spend the money.

Spending churns up demand in the economy. The economy is businesses and individuals spending. If you buy a hamburger you are churning

the economy forward. You are the economy. Start spending and the economy grows. Here is the plan in the American Jobs Act to give you more tax money back. This is money in your wallet.

2) Give massive tax cuts to small businesses.

The American Jobs Act, Obama's legislation, gives big tax cuts to small businesses. Small businesses create 98% of new jobs. Most of them in the first few years of business. They don't appear overnight. My businesses did the hiring after about three years or more. Job creation is a building up process. Building business takes years, not seconds. View the entire plan in short form and full form here:

Tax Cuts to Help America's Small Businesses Hire and Grow.

Tax cuts are more simulative than Keynesian spending – prefer our evidence: their models fail

Mankiw 8 – chairman of the economics department at Harvard University (Greg, “Spending and Tax Multipliers”, December 11, 2008, http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/12/spending-and-tax-multipliers.html)

By contrast, recent research by Christina Romer and David Romer looks at tax changes and concludes that the tax multiplier is about three: A dollar of tax cuts raises GDP by about three dollars. The puzzle is that, taken together, these findings are inconsistent with the conventional Keynesian model. According to that model, taught even in my favorite textbook, spending multipliers necessarily exceed tax multipliers.

How can these empirical results be reconciled? One hypothesis is that that compared with spending increases, tax cuts produce a bigger boost in investment demand. This might work through changing relative prices in a

direction favorable to capital investment-- a mechanism absent in the textbook Keynesian model .

Suppose, for example, that tax cuts are not lump-sum but instead take the form of cuts in payroll taxes (as suggested by Bils and Klenow). This tax cut would reduce the cost of labor and, if labor and capital are complements, increase the demand for capital goods. Thus, the tax cut stimulates demand not only by increasing disposable income and consumption spending (the textbook Keynesian channel) but also by incentivizing more investment spending. A similar result might obtain if the tax cut included, say, an investment tax credit.

This hypothesized channel seems broadly consistent with the empirical findings of Blanchard and Perotti, Mountford and Uhlig, Alesina and

Ardagna, and Alesina, Ardagna, Perotti, and Schiantarelli. The results of all these authors suggest you need to go beyond the

standard Keynesian model to understand the short-run effects of fiscal policy.

My advice to Team Obama: Do not be intellectually bound by the textbook Keynesian model. Be prepared to recognize that the world is vastly more complicated than the one we describe in ec 10. In particular, empirical studies that do not impose the restrictions of Keynesian theory suggest that you might get more bang for the buck with tax cuts than spending hikes.

2NC Unemployment SolvencyUnemployment benefits solves jobs and consumer spending

Bivens 11 – Ph.D. in Economics from the New School for Social Research (Josh, Economic Policy Institute, “Payroll tax cut helps, but it’s a limited tool”, December 22, 2011, http://www.epi.org/publication/payroll-tax-cut-helps-limited-tool/)

This inability to connect economic policy to the larger problem of joblessness is a real problem with the debate over the payroll tax cut. This disconnect explains why the unemployment insurance extension bundled with the payroll tax cut have attracted so much less attention. After

all, if all that matters is the first tranche of money, the payroll tax cut will affect many more households than the UI extension. But all serious economists agree that the extension of unemployment insurance is a far more efficient fiscal support – providing about 50 to 100 percent more jobs per dollar added to the deficit.¶ What makes unemployment insurance so much more efficient? It is laser-targeted at families in genuine distress, meaning that the recipients will spend every marginal dollar that comes in the door. This also makes the extension better targeted at alleviating actual economic misery. I, for example, get a pretty big benefit from the

payroll tax cut and that’s nice, but I’m (knock wood) doing pretty well. People like me really shouldn’t be highest on the list of policymakers’ concerns today. Sadly, this last point might not make for good politics.¶ President Obama spoke Thursday about

the need to extend these UI benefits. Good for him for reminding people that it’s not just tax cuts on the agenda. And if he can connect both unemployment insurance and the payroll tax cut issue to the larger jobs-crisis, even better for him. It would be a welcome addition to what has been too narrow debate.

AT: Perm do BothThey are incompatible -- Fiscal stimulus creates an expectation of tax increases to pay it off which prevents spending, only tax reduction alone stimulates investment

Redstate 10 – (“Another punch to the gut of Keynesian economic “stimulus””, 12/2/10,

http://www.redstate.com/bs/2010/12/02/another-punch-to-the-gut-of-keynesian-economic-stimulus/)

Many signs point to “yes”. As long as businesses and individuals foresee a future of big increases in taxes and

health care expense (my health care increased 25% next year, by the way…Thanks, Barack), they will not part with their money, which means little or no investment and little or no private sector job growth. A substantial reduction in taxes that provides a more robust economy and a measure of certainty will go a long way towards stimulating business investment and unleashing the billions that remain in the bank, awaiting a return to fiscal and political sanity in DC.

It’s one or the other – tax cuts must be coupled with spending cuts

Trumball 7/9/12 – Staff writer at CS Monitor focused on economic issues (Mark, “Obama tax-cut plan: easing risk of 'fiscal cliff'?”, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0709/Obama-tax-cut-plan-easing-risk-of-fiscal-cliff)

But economists generally say the move, by taking spending power out of the hands of high-earning Americans, would also dent current economic activity. For reference, that $83 billion equals about half a percent of America's gross domestic product, or GDP.

Forecasters don't believe the hit to GDP would be precisely that size. What they do say is that, if all the currently scheduled tax-cut expirations

occur on Dec. 31, a new recession is a very real threat.

A government report Friday showed only tepid job growth in June, highlighting the economy's fragility and its importance in the election campaign.

Obama's proposal on continued tax cuts for the middle class would reduce the overall size of what some analysts have dubbed "taxmageddon." Keeping those cuts in place would push up the 2013 federal deficit by some $108 billion, Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated.

In turn, that leaves more money in consumers' hands, reducing the size of the cliff that might damage economic growth.

Obama threw down a challenge to Republicans: "Let's agree to do what we agree on," he said, for the good of the economy. Both parties have embraced the idea of keeping tax rates low for most Americans. Obama said the two sides should act on that idea, for 2013 at least, and then debate their differences on policy toward the rich during the election campaign.

Some economists, including Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, say the economy requires a two-part fiscal strategy.

First, avoid the full-scale cliff of tax hikes and scheduled federal spending cuts , to stave off a possible

recession. Second, put the federal budget toward more stable footing for the long term, such as by imposing spending restraint that kicks in gradually, as well as by reforming the tax code.

Tax Cuts Popular – ElectionsDoesn’t link to elections – avoids the current debate about the cutoff

Weston 7/9/12 – Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at Emory University; the founder of Westen Strategies, a strategic messaging firm (Drew, “Let's Cap the Tax Cut at $253,571.33”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/obama-tax-cut_b_1660814.html)

First, the decision to choose $250,000 is bad policy, bad politics, and bad messaging.

It's bad policy because the main beneficiaries of the "winner take all" economy of the last 30 years have actually not been the upper 2 percent (although those with incomes hovering around $250,000 have certainly done a lot better than those with the 1980 equivalent of incomes of $50,000, who now earn $45,000 (a steep 10% decline -- nowhere near their 50-plus percent decline in

wealth and savings). In contrast to the 98th percentile, the upper 1 percent have done quite well -- although the real winners are the top .1 and .01 percent, who have taken virtually every dime of extra income over the last decade and then some.

It's bad politics because most of the people in this country who earn $250,000 live in suburbs or exurbs. These are not only desperately-needed Democratic voters, but they see themselves as middle class, not rich, and they share many of the economic insecurities of the rest of the country, with job loss, home foreclosures, and underwater mortgages constant sources of stress. Most earn $250,000 because they worked hard for it, not inherited it.

A defining feature of the Great Recession, unlike prior recessions, is that its tentacles have reached into the upper middle class, to precisely these Americans. If you live in Dothan, Alabama and earn $250,000, you're rich. New York City? Los Angeles? Chicago? Atlanta? After you knock the first $80,000 off for taxes, pay for someone to take care of your kids if you both work, and pay for private schools if you don't live in the right part of town, you're down to about $120,000. Now pay your mortgage and your property taxes.

You get my point. I'd sure rather be in the 98th percentile than the lower 97 below it, but outside of Dothan, you might be comfortable enough, but you you're probably not building an elevator for your "a couple of Cadillacs," as Mitt "common touch" Romney would put it.

And that leads to why it's bad messaging.

When you throw out an arbitrary number as your cap for tax cuts (or virtually anything else), you immediately get off message and into the weeds. Why? Because your number rapidly becomes contested (as I just showed by example). What's the cut-off for rich? Should we index it by place of city? State?

The other problem with specific numbers is that they take people into their heads and away from their guts, which they respond to appeals to

values like fairness. You don't want them engaged in internal debate about the validity of your numbers. It's like talking with voters about climate change by citing sea water levels in fractions of an inch, which doesn't pass the layperson's "who cares" test, even though it's perfectly legitimate to a climate scientist.

The White House had two easy ways around this. One was to talk in units of millions. Personally, I wouldn't have gone down to a quarter of a million for all the reasons I just described. But if I felt some compulsion to do so (likely because my pollster asked the question that way and didn't think to ask it a different way), I would have called it a quarter of a million. That smacks of opulence.

Better yet, a half a million. Who can contest that if you make a half a million a year you can't afford to pay fifteen to twenty thousand more in taxes so somebody working three jobs to make one-tenth of what you earn can have health care? Selfish pig.

But better yet, stick with a million. Why? Because the difference in revenue is not all that large, but the difference in meaning is substantial. Everyone knows the term "millionaire," and now you can use it when you talk about it. In the

midst of the 2010 elections, when Democrats were about to lose more than 50 seats in the House, Democrats threw 20 of those seats by refusing to run on a millionaires' tax. I can tell you that with some certainty because while Democrats were getting trounced, the following "talking point" won by 40 points over anything the other side could say with a representative national sample of 1000 registered voters: "In tough times like these, millionaires ought to be giving to charity, not getting it." Try arguing with that.

The second point is as basic as the first if you understand the basics of messaging.

Extending middle class tax cuts by a year is the kind of "bold" move that has defined the Obama presidency. Economists can't say much with certainty, but they do say with a decent degree of it that the middle class isn't going to be out of the woods in the next year. Or two. Or three. So why throw people who have been treated like dogs what feels like a bone?

Tax cuts popular

Schoen 7/9/12 – political strategist and news contributor (Doug, “What Obama Really Needs To Do”, http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougschoen/2012/07/09/what-obama-really-needs-to-do/2/)

President Obama’s announcement today that he favored an extension of the Bush tax cuts for all those Americans

earning under $250,000 a year expertly changed the subject of the political debate away from Friday’s anemic jobs report to a subject he was more comfortable with, promoting fairness and tax equity in America.

By advocating an extension of the Bush tax cuts for upwards of 97% of the populace and higher taxes for the rich, the President continued to drive his class based message which has thus far been effective in neutralizing Governor

Romney’s attempts to make the performance of the Obama administration the central issue in this election.

For the second time in less than a month President Obama succeeded in changing the subject. With the economy worsening in June, the President’s announcement on immigration framed the political debate in a way that uniquely and centrally benefitted the President, particularly with Hispanic voters in swing states. By now pivoting away from the healthcare decision, which ratified the Affordable Care Act as being constitutional because the mandate represented a constitutionally protected tax, and the poor job numbers, the President was able to once again trump Governor Romney tactically.

While this is a short-term win for the President, it may not provide long-term dividends in November. This strategy misses the point of what the

American people need and what swing voters want to hear about. Swing voters want to hear about more than short-term tax cuts and short-term fixes to the immigration laws. Swing voters, and indeed all Americans, want to hear about large

scale and comprehensive fiscal reform that will keep us from going over what has been referred to as the “fiscal cliff.” The American people want, and require, solutions to our problems. So far the President and Governor Romney have failed to deliver.

The only difference between the two candidates is that Governor Romney has been far less adept than President Obama at shifting our attention.

The real losers in this scenario are the American people whose concerns about the national debt and deficit, economic growth and unemployment have been largely unaddressed. The real challenge facing both campaigns is to not waste the rest of the campaign debating class based solutions, initiatives and fixes that have nothing to do with our real world problems.

There is another strategy available to Obama that he has yet to consider. It’s a strategy that could catapult him in the polls and in the process help America significantly. It would even revitalize the Democratic Party and offer them the boost they desperately need.

The strategy for Obama should be to stop playing politics. Stop using classed based politics as his go-to strategy. Stop attacking Romney for outsourcing, for foreign bank accounts and for Bain Capital. Just stop it all.

Obama needs to rise above. He needs to tell the electorate that he gets it. He should say, “You know what, I want to talk about our economic problems, our budgetary problems and I want to develop a clear, new initiative.”

He should hold nothing back. Put it all on the table. The tax cuts, tax reform, spending cuts, entitlement reform – all

out there for negotiation. Even his hallmark legislation, the Affordable Care Act, should be in the mix.

Americans support lowering taxes over government spending – especially independents

Agiesta 11 – AP Polling Director (Jennifer, 12/15/11, “Most Americans want payroll tax extension, remain furious with Congress, politics”, http://ap-gfkpoll.com/featured/congress-and-the-payroll-tax)

As for how to balance the federal budget, more now favor cutting government services as the best means to bring federal spending into balance. Sixty percent think lawmakers should focus on budget cuts over tax increases. That figure had been as low as 53 percent in August, during the showdown over raising the country’s debt limit.

The biggest shift on that question has come from independents . In the August poll, 37 percent said lawmakers should focus

on increasing taxes and 42 percent said cutting services. Now, that divide stands at 28 percent for raising taxes and 59 percent for cutting services.

Tax cuts popular - polls

WPO 2/16/12 – (World Public Opinion, program managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, “Public Consultation Finds Bipartisan Support for Extending Bush-Era Tax Cuts, But Only for Income Under $250k”, http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/710.php lb=btgov&pnt=710&nid=&id=)

In conclusion, seven in ten (71%) favored extending the cuts for income below $250,000. This included 22% who favored extending the cuts for all income levels, as well as 49% who favored limiting the extension to income below $250,000.

A similar margin (73%) favored terminating the cuts for income over $250,000. This included 24% who favored terminating them for all income levels, as well as the 49% who favored terminating them only for income above $250,000.

These positions were relatively consistent regardless of party affiliation. Extending cuts for household

income below $250,000 was supported by 74% of Republicans, 65% of Democrats, and 76% of independents. Letting cuts expire for higher incomes was supported by 65% of Republicans, 83% of Democrats, and 67% of independents.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/710.php

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/710.php

Keynes Spending Fails

Deficit spending fails – the Ricardian equivalence theorem – more debt causes people reduce consumption

Cochrane 9 – Professor of Finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, former head of the National Bureau of Economic Research asset pricing group (John, 9/11/9, “John Cochrane’s Response to Paul Krugman”, http://modeledbehavior.com/2009/09/11/john-cochrane-responds-to-paul-krugman-full-text/)

Most of all, Krugman likes fiscal stimulus. In this quest, he accuses us and the rest of the economics profession of “mistaking beauty for truth.”

He’s not that clear on what the “beauty” is that we all fell in love with, and why one should shun it. And for good reason. The first siren of beauty is simple logical consistency. Paul’s Keynesian economics requires that people make plans to consume more, invest more, and pay more taxes with the same income. The second siren is even vaguely plausible assumptions about how people behave. Keynesian economics requires that the government is able to systematically fool people again and again. It presumes that people don’t think about the future in making decisions today. Logical consistency and vaguely plausible foundations are indeed “beautiful” but to me they are also basic preconditions for “truth.”

In economics, stimulus spending ran aground on Robert Barro’s Ricardian equivalence theorem . This theorem says that debt-

financed spending can’t have any effect because people, seeing the higher future taxes that must pay off the debt, will simply save more. They will buy the new government debt and leave all spending decisions unaltered . Is this theorem true? It’s a logical connection from a set of “if” to a set of “therefore.” Not even Paul can object to the connection.

Deficit spending bad for the economy – it results in tax hikes which massively outweigh the benefits of stimulus

Mountford and Uhlig 5 - *Andrew Mountford is a professor of economics at University of London, **Harald Uhlig is a professor of economics and business at Humboldt University (“What are the Effects of Fiscal Policy Shocks?”, http://sfb649.wiwi.hu-berlin.de/papers/pdf/SFB649DP2005-039.pdf)

An important lesson one can draw from the results is that while a deficit-financed expenditure stimulus is possible, the

eventual costs are likely to be much higher than the immediate benefits . For suppose that government spending is increased by two percent, financed by increasing the deficit: this results , using the median values from Table 5, at

maximum, in less than a three percent increase in GDP. But the increased deficit needs to be repaid

eventually with a hike in taxes. Even ignoring compounded interest rates, this would require a tax

http://sfb649.wiwi.hu-berlin.de/papers/pdf/SFB649DP2005-039.pdf

hike of over two percent . 8 This tax hike results in a seven percent drop in GDP . Thus unless the policy maker's discount rate is very high the costs of the expansion will be much higher than the initial benefit.

This general line of reasoning is consistent with the balanced budget spending shock whose impulses are shown in Figure 9. This shows that

when government spending is financed contemporaneously that the contractionary effects of the tax increases

outweigh the expansionary effects of the increased expenditure after a very short time.

Keynesian stimulus fails – it results in ambiguous strategies to pay off the debt which deters investment and stops the benefits of stimulus

Barro 11 – professor of economics at Harvard University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution (Robert, 9/10/11, “How to Really Save the Economy”, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/opinion/sunday/how-to-really-save-the-economy.html?pagewanted=all)

The poor results should not surprise us given the macroeconomic policies the government has pursued. I agree that the recession warranted

fiscal deficits in 2008-10, but the vast increase of public debt since 2007 and the uncertainty about the country’s long-run

fiscal path mean that we no longer have the luxury of combating the weak economy with more deficits.

Today’s priority has to be austerity, not stimulus, and it will not work to announce a new $450 billion jobs plan while promising vaguely to pay for it with fiscal restraint over the next 10 years, as Mr. Obama did in his address to Congress on Thursday. Given the low level of government credibility, fiscal discipline has to start now to be taken seriously. But we have to do even more: I propose a consumption tax, an idea that offends many conservatives, and elimination of the corporate income tax, a proposal that outrages many liberals.

These difficult steps would be far more effective than the president’s failed experiment. The administration’s $800 billion stimulus program raised government demand for goods and services and was also intended to stimulate consumer demand. These interventions are usually

described as Keynesian, but as John Maynard Keynes understood in his 1936 masterwork, “The General Theory of Employment,

Interest and Money” (the first economics book I read), the main driver of business cycles is investment . As is typical, the

main decline in G.D.P. during the recession showed up in the form of reduced investment by businesses and households .

What drives investment? Stable expectations of a sound economic environment, including the long-run path of tax rates, regulations and so on. And employment is akin to investment in that hiring decisions take into account the long-run economic climate .

The lesson is that effective incentives for investment and employment require permanence and transparency. Measures that are transient or uncertain will be ineffective.

And yet these are precisely the kinds of policies the Obama administration has pursued: temporarily cutting the payroll tax rate, maintaining the marginal income-tax rates from the George W. Bush era while vowing to raise them in the future, holding off on clean-air regulations while promising to implement them later and enacting an ambitious overhaul of Wall Street regulations while leaving lots of rules undefined and ambiguous.

Obama undermines the plan – he’ll continue his ambiguous economic strategy which deters investment and stops the benefits of Keynesian spending

Barro 11 – professor of economics at Harvard University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution (Robert, 9/10/11, “How to Really Save the Economy”, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/opinion/sunday/how-to-really-save-the-economy.html?pagewanted=all)

The poor results should not surprise us given the macroeconomic policies the government has pursued. I agree that the recession warranted

fiscal deficits in 2008-10, but the vast increase of public debt since 2007 and the uncertainty about the country’s long-run

fiscal path mean that we no longer have the luxury of combating the weak economy with more deficits.

Today’s priority has to be austerity, not stimulus, and it will not work to announce a new $450 billion jobs plan while promising vaguely to pay for it with fiscal restraint over the next 10 years, as Mr. Obama did in his address to Congress on Thursday. Given the low level of government credibility, fiscal discipline has to start now to be taken seriously. But we have to do even more: I propose a consumption tax, an idea that offends many conservatives, and elimination of the corporate income tax, a proposal that outrages many liberals.

These difficult steps would be far more effective than the president’s failed experiment. The administration’s $800 billion stimulus program raised government demand for goods and services and was also intended to stimulate consumer demand. These interventions are usually

described as Keynesian, but as John Maynard Keynes understood in his 1936 masterwork, “The General Theory of Employment,

Interest and Money” (the first economics book I read), the main driver of business cycles is investment . As is typical, the

main decline in G.D.P. during the recession showed up in the form of reduced investment by businesses and households .

What drives investment? Stable expectations of a sound economic environment, including the long-run path of tax rates, regulations and so on. And employment is akin to investment in that hiring decisions take into account the long-run economic climate .

The lesson is that effective incentives for investment and employment require permanence and transparency. Measures that are transient or uncertain will be ineffective.

And yet these are precisely the kinds of policies the Obama administration has pursued: temporarily cutting the payroll tax rate, maintaining the marginal income-tax rates from the George W. Bush era

while vowing to raise them in the future, holding off on clean-air regulations while promising to implement them later and enacting an ambitious overhaul of Wall Street regulations while leaving lots of rules undefined and ambiguous.

Is there a better way? I believe that a long-term fiscal plan for the country requires six big steps.

Three of them were identified by the Bowles-Simpson deficit reduction commission: reforming Social Security and Medicare by increasing ages of eligibility and shifting to an appropriate formula for indexing benefits to inflation; phasing out “tax expenditures” like the deductions for mortgage interest, state and local taxes and employer-provided health care; and lowering the marginal income-tax rates for individuals.

I would add three more: reversing the vast and unwise increase in spending that occurred under Presidents Bush and Obama; introducing a tax on consumer spending, like the value-added tax (or VAT) common in other rich countries; and abolishing federal corporate taxes and estate taxes. All three measures would be enormously difficult — many say impossible — but crises are opportune times for these important, basic reforms.

A broad-based expenditure tax, like a VAT, amounts to a tax on consumption. If the base rate were 10 percent, the revenue would be roughly 5 percent of G.D.P. One benefit from a VAT is that it is more efficient than an income tax — and in particular the current American income tax system.

I received vigorous criticism from conservatives after advocating a VAT in an essay in The Wall Street Journal last month. The main objection — reminiscent of the complaints about income-tax withholding, which was introduced in the United States in 1943 — is that a VAT would be a money machine, allowing the government to readily grow larger. For example, the availability of easy VAT revenue in Western Europe, where rates reach as high as 25 percent, has supported the vast increase in the welfare state there since World War II. I share these concerns and, therefore, favor a VAT only if it is part of a package that includes other sensible reforms. But given the likely path of government spending on health care and Social Security, I see no reasonable alternative.

Abolishing the corporate income tax is similarly controversial. Any tax on capital income distorts decisions on saving and investment. Moreover, the inefficiency is magnified here because of double taxation: the income is taxed when corporations make profits and again when owners receive dividends or capital gains. If we want to tax capital income, a preferred method treats corporate profits as accruing to owners when profits arise and then taxes this income only once — whether it is paid out as dividends or retained by companies.

Liberals love the idea of a levy on evil corporations, but taxes on corporate profits in fact make up only a small part of federal revenue, compared to the two main sources: the individual income tax and payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

In 2009-10, taxes on corporate profits averaged 1.4 percent of G.D.P. and 8.6 percent of total federal receipts. Even from 2000 to 2008, when corporations were more profitable, these taxes averaged only 1.9 percent of G.D.P. and 10.3 percent of federal receipts. If we could get past the political fallout, we could get more revenue and improve economic efficiency by abolishing the corporate income tax and relying instead on a VAT.

I had a dream that Mr. Obama and Congress enacted this fiscal reform package — triggering a surge in the stock market and a boom in investment and G.D.P. — and that he was re-elected.

This dream could become reality if our leader were Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton — the two presidential heroes of the American economy since

World War II — but Mr. Obama is another story. To become market-friendly, he would have to abandon most of his core economic and political principles .

More likely, his administration will continue with more of the same : an expansion of payroll-tax cuts, short-term tax

credits, promises to raise future taxes on the rich, and added spending on infrastructure , job training and unemployment benefits.

The economy will probably continue in its sluggish state, possibly slipping into another recession . In that case, our best hope is for a Republican president far more committed to the principles of free markets and limited government than Mr. Bush ever was.

AT: DeficitTax brackets on the rich solve

Weston 7/9/12 – Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at Emory University; the founder of Westen Strategies, a strategic messaging firm (Drew, “Let's Cap the Tax Cut at $253,571.33”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/obama-tax-cut_b_1660814.html)

Worried about the deficit? That's why God created the possibility of 75% tax rates on the highest earners (15% less than during the Eisenhower years -- last I looked, a Republican administration). You can milk 98 percent of the people of their incomes and savings after a year, in misbegotten efforts to bring down the deficit created because so many of those middle and working class people got laid

off because of the greed of the .01%, or you can create tax brackets that break at half a million, a million, 5 million, 10 million, and above 10 million, and have a tax code that is fair, progressive, and wildly popular. And impose a 75% tax on incomes above, say, 10 million, and CEOs might decide that, instead of giving themselves that extra 15 million dollar bonus, they'll keep their 5 million dollar salary and just 5 million of that bonus (because now they're only going to get 25% of it) and give $2000 each to each of their 5000 employees, who helped earn them that bonus and won't be taxed at 75 percent.

Ryan Tax CutsTax cuts save the economy and competitiveness

Ferrara 6/21/12 – Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute, General Counsel for the American Civil Rights Union, and Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, White House Office of Policy Development under Reagan, Associate Deputy Attorney General under H.W. Bush (Peter, “President Obama's Perfect Plan For The Economic Decline Of America”, http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/06/21/president-obamas-perfect-plan-for-the-economic-decline-of-america/2/)

Under President Obama’s plan, on January 1 of next year the top tax rates of virtually every major federal tax will increase, as already enacted under current law. That is because the tax increases of Obamacare would go into effect, and the Bush tax cuts would expire, which Obama refuses to renew for singles making over $200,000 a year, and couples making over $250,000. The English translation of that target for the tax increases is the nation’s small businesses, job creators and investors.

As a result, with the Bush tax cuts just expiring for these targeted taxpayers, the top 2 income tax rates would jump by nearly 20%, the capital gains tax would soar by nearly 60%, the tax on dividends would nearly triple, the Medicare payroll tax would skyrocket by 62% for the above disfavored taxpayers, and the top death tax rate would rise from the grave to 55%.

That is all on top of the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world at nearly 40%; counting the

federal corporate rate of 35% and state corporate rates on average. But under Obama, there is no relief in sight. Instead, Obama is pushing still more tax increases. Under his proposed Buffett rule, the capital gains tax rate would increase by 100%, and would be the fourth highest in the industrialized world. Many OECD countries, in fact, impose no capital gains tax because it is just another layer of taxation on capital income on top

of the corporate and individual income taxes. All of this would leave American businesses

uncompetitive in the global economy.

How is this going to produce strong sustained growth and generate good middle class jobs? It is going

to do just the opposite , as the multiple tax rate increases would only sharply reduce the incentive

for productive activities , such as savings, investment, business expansion, business start ups, and job

creation. That will simply encourage even more capital flight from the U.S., and a continued capital strike by the capital that remains. All this translates into yet another recession next year, with fewer jobs, rising unemployment, and soaring deficits and debt. This does not signal Obama fighting for the middle class; instead it points to him trashing the economic chances of the very voters whose favor he seeks.

The alternative GOP vision is spelled out in the budget produced by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan,

which was passed by the Republican controlled House, and is supported by Romney. That includes individual tax reform closing loopholes and reducing tax rates to 25% for couples earning over $100,000 per year, and 10% for those making less, and corporate tax reform slashing crony capitalist loopholes and reducing the 35%

federal rate to an internationally competitive 25%. And then the aforementioned Obama tax increases would be repealed.

CBO has scored these tax reforms as restoring federal revenues to their long term, postwar, historical average from 1948 to 2008 of 18.5% of GDP.

The reduced tax rates under such reform would produce exactly the opposite results of Obama’s tax rate increases,

increasing incentives for all of the above productive activities. That would restore traditional American prosperity and job creation as a result.

But in his speech in Cleveland, Obama opposed tax reform that would lower rates and close loopholes. He said it would be a tax increase on the

middle class. The problem for Obama is that Ryan’s tax reform plan does not involve any tax increase for the middle class. His plan cuts tax rates for every taxpayer, including those in the middle class. And that has always been the Republican position.

President Reagan cut tax rates across the board for everyone, including the middle class, and expanded the personal exemption, which benefits middle and lower income taxpayers the most. President Bush cut tax rates for everyone, and for lower income workers by a greater proportion than for higher income workers. As a result, by 2007, before President Obama had even entered office, official IRS data showed that the middle 20% of all income earners, the true middle class, paid only 4.7% of all federal income taxes.

What Obama has done throughout his Presidency is the opposite of tax reform. He has expanded the loopholes and increased rates. Those loopholes have included new and expanded welfare tax credits and corporate welfare like his green energy handouts. When his own Simpson-Bowles Commission recommended real tax reform closing loopholes in return for reducing rates, Obama only paid lip service to it, but didn’t lift a finger to advance the proposal.

Problematic for Obama is that higher tax rates with more loopholes reduce economic growth, jobs and prosperity. The higher rates discourage critical job creating, pro-growth investment, and the loopholes distort markets and promote inefficiency and waste, which is a further drag on growth. Tax reform with lower rates and fewer loopholes, by sharp contrast, promotes powerful pro-growth incentives while reducing the inefficient drag of market distorting loopholes. That is why the bipartisan tax reform of 1986 under President Reagan, when America was under adult supervision, was so powerful in fueling the generation long, 25 year, Reagan boom from 1982 to 2007.

AT: Ryan Proposal Will PassIt won’t pass – the democratic senate will block it.

Douglas and Lightman 3/20 /12 – reporters for McClatchy (William and David, “House GOP lays out election-year budget plan, Democrats reject it”, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/03/20/142548/house-gop-lays-out-election-year.html#storylink=cpy)

WASHINGTON — Republicans in the House of Representatives unveiled their latest federal budget proposal Tuesday, an election-year manifesto that GOP presidential and congressional candidates embraced and President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats dismissed.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s proposal has no chance of becoming law — it won’t pass the Democratic-controlled Senate — but it’s likely to rekindle last year’s fierce partisan bickering on Capitol Hill over budget deficits and debt.

The 100-page budget represents a GOP campaign blueprint, drawing sharp fiscal contrasts between Republicans on one side and Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress on the other.

The Wisconsin Republican's budget plan takes aim at favorite GOP whipping targets, calling for repealing Obama’s health care law, eliminating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and shifting Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program _ commonly called food stamps _ to block-grant programs for states.

On taxes, Ryan proposes collapsing the six tax brackets into just two: 10 percent for low-income earners and 25 percent for higher wage earners and corporations. That would be down from the current top rate of 35 percent. The biggest winners would be those who earn more than $200,000.

“The president’s budget is putting us on a path of a debt crisis, of decline…,” Ryan said. “Here is what the path to prosperity proposes. We propose to get our budget on a sustainable path.”

White House officials quickly dismissed Ryan’s budget as a partisan non-starter.

“The House economic plan draws on the same wrongheaded theory that led to the worst recession of our lifetimes and contributed to the erosion of middle-class security,” White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said.

Ryan’s budget calls for cutting discretionary spending to $1.028 trillion in 2013, less than the $1.047 trillion spending cap that Democrats and Republicans agreed to last August in a hard-fought debt deal. Top Senate Democrats quickly accused Ryan of a "breach of faith" because of that.

Ryan also reprises his controversial pitch to revamp Medicare, a proposal that Democrats pounced on last year by accusing Republicans of reneging on the federal government’s commitment to senior citizens. Ryan renews his call to cap spending on future retirees and offer them a subsidy to buy private health insurance from federal insurance exchanges.

He added a new wrinkle: He’d keep traditional Medicare as an option. However, seniors could end up paying more for traditional coverage if that proved to be more expensive than private plans.

“We preserve the Medicare guarantee for today’s seniors so they can count on the benefit that they’ve organized their retirement around and we preserve the guarantee for tomorrow’s seniors by empowering them with choices, including a fee-for-service traditional option within a premium-support system,” Ryan said.

He crafted the traditional option with Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., but other House and Senate Democrats made it clear Tuesday that the idea — along with the rest of Ryan’s budget — will win little or no support from them.

“The Republican proposal would end the Medicare guarantee, shift costs to seniors and let Medicare die on the vine, while providing billions in tax breaks for big oil and special interests, and destroying American jobs,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “The American people have already rejected this plan before, and this year will be no different.”

Independent budget analysts said politics was likely to outweigh policy.

“Chances are nothing is going to get done because it’s an election year,” said Robert Bixby, the executive director of

the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan group devoted to fiscal discipline. “It’s a marker for Republicans to take into the political campaign. It’s got two very good ideas: the Medicare provision and the limiting of tax expenditures. However, there’s a lot more work to be done for it to work in a legislative way.”

Bixby questioned how Ryan could win lower tax rates without tackling some of “the sacred cows of the tax code.”

“You’d have to eliminate the exclusion of employee-provided health care, the mortgage interest deduction, charitable deductions,” Bixby said. All of those have strong political support.

Ryan’s plan reopened the bitter rift between Democrats and Republicans over spending and debt, and the debate that raged throughout the day previewed the coming election fight.

Democrats reacted with a predictable wave of outrage.

Minimum Wage CP

1NC

Text: The United States Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $9.50 an hour.

Raising the minimum wage solves the stimulus effect without increasing government spendingCallahan, 2012 (David, June co-founder of Demos and now edits the Demos blog

PolicyShop.nethttp://www.policyshop.net/home/2012/6/7/how-to-stimulate-growth-without-new-government-spending.html How to Stimulate Growth Without New Government Spending)

Of course, though, such new spending is a heavy -- perhaps impossible -- lift right now thanks to a relentless campaign to paint past stimulus

efforts as a failure. Elected leaders who care about pulling the economy out of a ditch shouldn't stop pushing for new spending, particularly on infrastructure, but they also need to give more attention to other options that

don't involve new outlays or losses in tax revenue. One obvious option is to raise wages, putting more money in the hands of Americans who are likely to spend it immediately. Congress could do this by increasing the minimum wage, as proposed just yesterday by Jesse Jackson, Jr., and a group of House Democrats, who introduced a bill called the

"Catching Up to 1968 Act," or H.R. 5901. The bill would raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour, which is roughly where

that wage would be today if it had kept pace with inflation since 1968. What's more, this increase would take effect immediately, as opposed to being phased in over time -- increasing its stimulative effects. And it would index the minimum wage to inflation, so that the wage doesn't keep falling behind as Congress dawdles (with the help of business lobbyists.) The fairness case for raising the minimum wage is well known. This wage, which Congress has only raised three times in the past 30 years, is absurdly low. A full-time worker making minimum wage pulls in just $15,000 a year, which doesn't get you very far. It is impossible to afford a two-bedroom apartment on this money anywhere in the United States, much less a studio apartment in most cities. Even two full-time workers making a few dollars above the minimum wage and living together are looking at serious hardship in most places. That's not right in a country that valorizes work and believes this virtue should be rewarded. But the stimulus case for raising the minimum wage is also compelling. A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

found that: Following a minimum wage hike, household income rises on average by about $250 per quarter and spending by roughly $700 per quarter for households with minimum wage workers. Most of

the spending response is caused by a small number of households who purchase vehicles. This makes sense. Low-income workers live on the edge, spending every dollar that comes to them (in contrast to rich people who tend to use tax breaks to

simply save more), and many are driving older, unreliable vehicles. Give these households a wage boost, and they'll not only spend it immediately, but feel confident borrowing more to spend beyond their wage increase and buy a better car. The borrowing part is not necessarily a great thing, but it helps growth. A study by the Economic Policy Institute in

2009 found that if President Obama fulfilled his campaign promise to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011, this step would have generated $60 billion in stimulus over two years. Not only would existing workers be doing better, but all their new spending would help create jobs for others.

AT: Minimum Wage Does Not Solve Stimulus

Empirics prove by raising the minimum wage it solves stimulus Filion 9 (Kai, May 28, a policy analyst for the Economic Policy Institute, A SteAlthy StimuluS¶ how boosting the minimum wage is helping to

¶ support the economy, http://epi.bluestatedigital.com/page/-/IssueBrief255_Final.pdf)

The recently enacted American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included policies to help struggling families and ¶ create jobs. But an extremely effective and simple policy that achieves both of these goals is often overlooked: ¶ increases in the minimum wage. Each increase provides financial relief directly to minimum wage workers and ¶ their families and helps to stimulate the economy. By increasing workers’ take-home pay, families gain both financial ¶ security and an increased ability to purchase goods and services, thus creating jobs for other Americans. ¶ I n 2007, Congress passed a three-step federal minimum wage increase. The first two increases took effect in ¶ July 2007 and July 2008 , and the final will take effect in July 2009. These increases boost consumer spending and

¶ stimulate the economy in the following ways:¶ • The first two increases will have generated an estimated $4.9 billion of spending by July 2009, precisely when our ¶ economy needed it the most. ¶ • The final increase in July 2009 is expected to

generate another $5.5 billion over the following year. ¶ • The increase to $9.50 by 2011 that President Obama promised during the campaign would generate an estimated ¶ $60 billion of additional spending over a two-year period.

Raising the minimum wage solves stimulusReuters 9 (May 28, U.S. minimum wage hike a stimulus to economy: report,

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/05/28/us-economy-usa-wage-idUSTRE54R6YD20090528)

The Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think-tank based in Washington, said recent rises in the minimum wage have acted as a "stealth stimulus," preventing the worst recession in generations from spiraling out of control. ¶ The study found that the bottom-rung pay increases will boost spending by $4.9 billion.¶ Such findings counter conventional wisdom among economists, who tend to argue that mandated wage increases hurt businesses' bottom line, putting a crimp on hiring.¶ On the contrary, say EPI analysts, who argued that further growth in low-end incomes would go a long way toward engendering an

economic recovery.¶ "An increase in the minimum wage would not only benefit low-income working families, but it would also provide a boost to consumer spending and the broader economy," said Kai Filion,

an analyst at EPI.¶ In the first increase in over a decade, the minimum wage was raised to $5.85 two years ago after a tough battle in Congress. ¶ The EPI study found the July 2007 minimum wage hike benefited over 700,000 families and added $1.7 billion in additional spending over the following year.¶ A July 2008 increase benefited over 1.3 million families and added $3.1 billion in additional spending over the following year, the EPI analysts added.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/05/28/us-economy-usa-wage-idUSTRE54R6YD20090528

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/05/28/us-economy-usa-wage-idUSTRE54R6YD20090528

http://epi.bluestatedigital.com/page/-/IssueBrief255_Final.pdf

Minimum Wage Increase Solves Stimulus and Jobs; It can’t failJamieson 11 (Dave, August 7, the Huffington Post’s workplace reporter, Minimum Wage Increase Would Help Sluggish Economy, Say

Experts, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/07/minimum-wage-increase-help-economy-experts_n_872617.html)

The economists made their argument at a time when the American economy remains stubbornly sluggish. On Friday, the federal government

released a disappointing report showing that the economy hasn't been adding jobs at the pace it needs to for a robust recovery. The unemployment rate has risen to 9.1 percent, and many experts believe it will be several years before it drops to pre-recession levels. Many of the jobs being added also happen to be lower-wage positions. ¶ The current federal minimum wage is $7.25, or about $15,000 a year for a full-time worker. The minimum wage had been stuck at $5.15 for over 10 years until 2007, when a series of increases were put into effect. Seventeen states currently have a minimum wage set

higher than the federal standard, and a number of states are considering giving their lowest-paid workers another raise.¶ The economists arguing for a minimum-wage boost compared it to stimulus action, saying that it pumps money into local economies and can even lead to job growth. Such an increase is like food stamps or unemployment benefits in that

the recipients, who tend to be low-wage workers and their family members, usually have to spend the money rather than sock it away. Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, said it's one way to shift money

from corporate profits -- which companies often sit on -- to low-income workers, who can do more immediate spending.¶ "When you get an increase in the minimum wage, you're getting a wage increase to the people that are low-wage families who depend on these earnings to make ends meet," said Shierholz. "They have no choice but to spend that money in their local economy. That's the stimulus you get."

Minimum wage increase is long overdue; it wouldn’t just help low wage worker it would help the economyWoo 12 (Nicole, July 20, the director of domestic policy at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, An Increase in the Minimum

Wage Is Long Overdue,

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/07/20/an-increase-in-the-minimum-wage-is-long-overdue)

And with unemployment still over 8 percent, an increase in the minimum wage would help the overall economy. Since low-wage workers tend to plow any extra wages right back into their local communities—whether that means getting their cars or homes fixed, going out for a meal with their families, or buying clothes for their

growing kids—raising the minimum wage to $9.80 per hour over three years would boost economic activity by over $25 billion over those years. This would create about 100,000 jobs, according to the Economic Policy

Institute.¶ ¶ An increase of the minimum wage is long overdue. Not only is it the right thing to do for struggling American families, but it's good for the rest of us as well.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/07/20/an-increase-in-the-minimum-wage-is-long-overdue


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/07/minimum-wage-increase-help-economy-experts_n_872617.html


AT: Minimum Wage Not Popular with the Public

Raising Minimum Wages is Popular with the Public Jamieson 11 (Dave, August 7, the Huffington Post’s workplace reporter, Minimum Wage Increase Would Help Sluggish Economy, Say


Yet public opinion polls consistently show that voters like seeing the minimum wage raised, said Celinda

Lake, president of polling firm Lake Research Partners. "When we've done public polls, anywhere from 86 to 67 percent say they support an increase in the minimum wage," Lake said at the CAP event. "A solid majority of voters believe that raising the minimum wage will help the economy."

Polls say that raising the minimum wage is popular with the publicWoo 12 (Nicole, July 20, the director of domestic policy at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, An Increase in the Minimum



Raising the minimum wage also is popular; a national poll has found that nearly three in four likely voters support increasing the minimum wage to $10 and indexing it to inflation. Sen. Tom Harkin and Rep. George Miller propose to raise the minimum wage to $9.80 by 2014, adjust it to keep up with the rising cost of living (as 10 states already do), and also raise the even lower minimum wage for waiters, bartenders, and other tipped workers.





AT: Minimum Wage Kills Jobs

Employers won’t take any hits from raising the minimum wageJamieson 11 (Dave, August 7, the Huffington Post’s workplace reporter, Minimum Wage Increase Would Help Sluggish Economy, Say


WASHINGTON -- A group of economists made the case on Tuesday for raising the federal and state minimum wages across the country as a way to boost the stagnant economy and improve the standard of living among low-wage earners.¶ Backed by what they described as 15 years' worth of research, a panel at progressive think tank the Center for American Progress (CAP) argued that higher minimum wages flush more money into the economy without cutting into job growth -- the latter a long-held contention of business interests and many conservatives.¶ Michael Reich, an economics professor and director of the

Institute for Research on Labor and Employment at the University of California, Berkeley, said his research has shown that businesses don't suffer from having to dish out slightly higher wages to their lowest-paid employees. In fact, he argued there are benefits to employers. ¶ "The labor market absorbs the minimum wage," said Reich.

"Turnover goes way down when there's a minimum-wage increase. Employees -- when they stay longer, they'll be more experienced and more productive. And the employers will have lower turnover costs."



AT: Minimum Wages not Popular in Congress

Raising Minimum Wages is Popular with the Public Jamieson 11 (Dave, August 7, the Huffington Post’s workplace reporter, Minimum Wage Increase Would Help Sluggish Economy, Say


Yet public opinion polls consistently show that voters like seeing the minimum wage raised, said Celinda

Lake, president of polling firm Lake Research Partners. "When we've done public polls, anywhere from 86 to 67 percent say they support an increase in the minimum wage," Lake said at the CAP event. "A solid majority of voters believe that raising the minimum wage will help the economy."

Polls say that raising the minimum wage is popular with the publicWoo 12 (Nicole, July 20, the director of domestic policy at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, An Increase in the Minimum



Raising the minimum wage also is popular; a national poll has found that nearly three in four likely voters support increasing the minimum wage to $10 and indexing it to inflation. Sen. Tom Harkin and Rep. George Miller propose to raise the minimum wage to $9.80 by 2014, adjust it to keep up with the rising cost of living (as 10 states already do), and also raise the even lower minimum wage for waiters, bartenders, and other tipped workers.

Public Popularity is key for salient bills Brandice Canes-Wrone, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Scott de Marchi, Duke University, 02 “Presidential

Approval and Legislative Success”, THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS, http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?

type=1&fid=1886900&jid=JOP&vol umeId=64&issueId=02&aid=1886892&bodyId=&membershipNumber=&societyETOCS ession=, [Stolarski]

Ever since Neustadt (1960) characterized public prestige as a keystone of presidential power, political scientists have been interested in whether approval ratings facilitate presidential success in Congress. Our main contribution has been to establish the necessary conditions for

this relationship. In particular, we find that only for legislation that is both complex and salient will popularity translate into policy influence. That different researchers have found varying results when considering bills in the

aggregate is thus not surprising. It is only when these attributes are taken into account jointly that the role of





presidential approval is explained. This finding resurrects approval as a significant resource for presidents in the legislative arena. Furthermore, our explanation is useful not only for post hoc analysis but also for predicting a president’s chance of capitalizing upon approval for a given legislative item. Moreover, while highly popular presidents may bemoan the finding that approval does not facilitate influence over all types of legislation, a good deal of reassurance can be offered. First, the class of legislation over which approval does facilitate influence is

not at all trivial. Even focusing exclusively upon the complex and highly salient sample, it comprises one-third of our data, and we have excluded foreign policy issues, which are generally complex. Second, presidents can increase the salience

of issues through plebiscitary activities such as speechmaking (Canes-Wrone 2001; Cohen 1995). Given that even marginal increases in salience augment the impact of approval for complex issues, this capacity offers a valuable means by which presidents can translate popularity into legislative influence. Finally, although presidents cannot alter issue complexity, they have some degree of choice over the legislation that they promote. In the example with which

we began this paper, Bush was not forced to expend his historic approval ratings on the simple issue of crime. Our results indicate that a president can capitalize on such popularity if he champions legislation that is salient and complex. Thus, our analysis not only has implications for the relationship between a president’s approval and legislative success, but also for the type of policy agenda that a popular president should adopt.

Do Nothing CP

1NC

Text: The United States Federal Government should stop all intervention with the free market.

No Government Intervention solves the economy. Empirics Prove Higgs 9 (Robert, February 9, s senior fellow in political economy for The Independent Institute, editor of The Independent Review, and

author of "Depression, War, and Cold War, Instead of stimulus, do nothing – seriously,

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2009/0209/p09s01-coop.html)

As we wait to see how the politicians in Washington will alter the stimulus package the Obama administration is pushing, many questions are being raised about the measure's contents and efficacy. Should it include money for the National Endowment for the Arts, Amtrak, and child care? Is it big enough to get the economy moving again? Does it spend money fast enough? Hardly anyone, however, is asking the most important question: Should the federal government be doing any of this? In raising this question, one risks immediate dismissal as someone

hopelessly out of touch with the modern realities of economics and government. Yet the United States managed to navigate the first century and a half of its past – a time of phenomenal growth – without any substantial federal intervention to moderate economic booms and busts. Indeed, when the government did intervene actively, under Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt, the result was the Great Depression.¶ Until the 1930s, the Constitution served as a major constraint on federal economic interventionism. The government's powers were understood to be just as the framers intended: few and explicitly enumerated in our founding document and its amendments. Search the Constitution as long as you like, and you will find no specific authority conveyed for the government to spend money on global-warming research, urban mass transit, food stamps, unemployment insurance, Medicaid, or countless other items in the stimulus package and, even without it, in the regular federal budget.¶ This Constitutional constraint still operated as late as the 1930s, when federal courts issued some 1,600 injunctions to restrain officials from carrying out acts of Congress, and the Supreme Court overturned the New Deal's centerpieces, the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act, and other statutes. This judicial action outraged President Roosevelt, who fumed that "we have been relegated to the horse-and-buggy definition of interstate commerce." Early in 1937, he responded with his court-packing plan. Although Roosevelt lost this battle, he soon won the war. As the older, more conservative justices retired, the president replaced them with ardent New Dealers such as Hugo Black, Stanley Reed, Felix Frankfurter, and William O. Douglas. The newly constituted court proceeded between 1937 and 1941 to

overturn its anti-New Deal rulings, abandoning its traditional, narrow view of interstate commerce and giving the federal government carte blanche to spend, tax, and regulate virtually without limit.¶ After World War II, the government enacted the Employment Act of 1946, codifying the government's declared responsibility for managing the economy "to promote maximum employment, production, and purchasing power," and it has actively intervened ever since, purportedly to attain these declared ends. Its shots have often misfired, however, and we have endured booms and busts, a decade of stagflation, bouts of rapid inflation, and stock-market crashes.

The present recession may become the worst since the passage of the Employment Act. ¶ Federal intervention rests on the presumption that officials know how to manage the economy and will use this knowledge effectively. This presumption always had a shaky foundation, and we have recently witnessed even more compelling evidence that the government simply does not know what it's doing. The big bailout bill enacted last October; the Federal Reserve's massive, frantic lending for many different purposes; and now the huge stimulus package all look like wild flailing – doing something mainly for the sake of being seen to be doing something – and, of course, enriching

politically connected interests in the process.¶ Our greatest need at present is for the government to go in the opposite direction, to do much less, rather than much more. As recently as the major recession of 1920-21, the government took a hands-off position, and the downturn, though sharp, quickly reversed itself into full recovery. In contrast, Hoover responded to the downturn of 1929 by raising tariffs, propping up wage rates, bailing out

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2009/0209/p09s01-coop.html

farmers, banks, and other businesses, and financing state relief efforts. Roosevelt moved even more vigorously in the same activist direction, and the outcome was a protracted period of depression (and wartime privation) from which complete recovery did not come until 1946.¶ The US government has shown repeatedly that as an economic manager it is not to be trusted. What we need most are authorities wise enough to follow the dictum, "First, do no harm." The stimulus package will do enormous harm. The huge debt burden it entails, by itself, ought to condemn the measure. America is already drowning in debt. But the measure will also wreak harm in countless other directions by effectively reallocating resources on

a grand scale according to political priorities, rather than according to individual preferences and economic rationality. As our history shows, the economy can recover strongly on its own, if only the politicians will stay out of the way.

Do Nothing Solvency

Search Terms Government Intervention Bad Economy

The Government is the reason why we are in such bad financial timesWoods 9 (Thomas, May 6, is a New York Times bestselling author of nine books, and a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute,

Government Intervention for Economy Makes Things Worse, http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/government-intervention-for-economy-makes-things-worse/2009/05/06/

In March 2007 then-Treasury secretary Henry Paulson told Americans that the global economy was "as strong as I've seen it in my business career." "Our financial institutions are strong," he added in March 2008. "Our investment banks are strong. Our banks are strong. They're going to be strong for many, many years." Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke said in May 2007, "We do not expect significant spillovers from the subprime market to the rest of the economy or to the financial system." In August 2008, Paulson and Bernanke assured the country that other than perhaps $25 billion in bailout money for Fannie and Freddie, the fundamentals of the economy were sound. Then, all of a sudden, things were so bad that without a $700 billion congressional

appropriation, the whole thing would collapse. In the wake of this change of heart on the part of our leaders, Americans found themselves bombarded with a predictable and relentless refrain: the free market economy has failed. The alleged remedies were equally predictable: more regulation, more government intervention, more spending, more money creation, and more debt. To add insult to injury, the very people who had been responsible for the policies that created the mess were posing as the wise public servants who would show us the way out. And following a now-familiar pattern, government failure would not only

be blamed on anyone and everyone but the government itself, but it would also be used to justify additional grants of government power. The truth of the matter is that intervention in the market, rather than the market economy itself, was the driving factor behind the bust. F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for his work showing how the central bank's intervention into the economy gives rise to the boom-bust cycle, making us feel prosperous until we suffer the inevitable crash. Most Americans know nothing about Hayek's theory (known as the Austrian theory of the business cycle), and are therefore easy prey for the quacks who blame the market

for problems caused by the manipulation of money and credit. The artificial booms the Fed provokes, wrote economist Henry

Hazlitt decades ago, must end "in a crisis and a slump, and...worse than the slump itself may be the public delusion that the slump has been caused, not by the previous inflation, but by the inherent defects of 'capitalism.'" Although my recently released book, Meltdown explains the process in more detail, an abbreviated version of Austrian

business cycle theory might run as follows: Government-established central banks can artificially lower interest rates by increasing the supply of money (and thus the funds banks have available to lend) through the banking system. This is supposed to stimulate the economy. What it actually does is mislead investors into embarking on an investment boom that the artificially low rates seem to validate but that in fact cannot be sustained under existing economic conditions. Investments that would have correctly been assessed as unprofitable are falsely appraised as profitable, and over time the result is the squandering of countless resources in lines of investment that should never have been begun. If lower interest rates are the result of increased saving by the public, this increase in saved resources provides the material wherewithal to see the additional investment through to completion. The situation is very different when the lower interest rates result from the Fed's creation of new money out of thin air. In that case, the lower rates do not reflect an increase in the pool of savings from

which investors can draw. Fed tinkering, in other words, does not increase the real stuff in the economy. The additional investment that the lower rates encourage therefore leads the economy down a path that is not sustainable in the long run. Investment decisions are made that quantitatively and qualitatively diverge from what the economy can support. The bust must come, no matter how much new money the central bank creates in a vain attempt to stave off the inevitable day of reckoning. The recession or depression is the necessary, if unfortunate, correction process by which the malinvestments of the boom period, having at last been brought to light, are finally liquidated. The diversion of resources into unsustainable investments out of conformity with consumer desires and resource availability comes to an end, with businesses

failing and investment projects abandoned. Although painful for many people, the recession/depression phase of the cycle is not where the damage is done. The bust is the period in which the economy sloughs off the malinvestments and the capital misallocation, re- establishes the structure of production along sustainable lines, and restores itself to health. The damage is done during the boom phase, the period of false prosperity that precedes the bust. It is then that the artificial lowering of interest rates causes the squandering of capital and the initiation of unsustainable investments. It is then that resources that would genuinely have satisfied consumer demand are diverted into projects that make sense only in light of the temporary and artificial conditions of the boom. Adding fuel to the fire of the most recent boom was the so-called Greenspan put, the unofficial policy of the Greenspan Fed that promised assistance to private firms in the event of risky investments gone bad. The Financial Times described it as the view that "when markets unravel, count on the Federal Reserve and its chairman Alan Greenspan (eventually) to come to the rescue." According to economist Antony Mueller, "Since Alan Greenspan took office, financial markets in the U.S. have operated under a quasi-official charter, which says that the central bank will protect its major actors from the risk of bankruptcy. Consequently, the reasoning emerged that when you succeed, you will earn high profits and market share, and if you should fail, the authorities will save you anyway." The Financial Times reported in 2000, in the wake of the dot-com boom, of an increasing concern

that the Greenspan put was injecting into the economy "a destructive tendency toward excessively risky investment supported by hopes that the Fed will help if things go bad." When things do go bad, pumping more money into the banking system, thereby lowering interest rates once again, only exacerbates the problem, because it encourages the continued wasteful deployment of capital in unsustainable lines that will eventually have to be abandoned anyway, and it forces healthy, wealth-generating firms to have to go on competing with bubble firms for labor and capital. When interest rates are made artificially low, they encourage the kind of investment that would normally occur only if more saved resources existed to fund them than actually do. Continuing to force interest rates down only perpetuates the allocation of capital into outlets that the economy's current resource base cannot sustain.

The Federal Government can never solve the economy, only the free market canDennis 9 ( Jan, Business and Law Editor, May 9, Government intervention stifling economic growth and recovery, expert says,

http://news.illinois.edu/news/09/0609economicgrowth.html)

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. – Massive bailouts and other moves by the U.S. government to stem a near-epic economic meltdown could set the U.S. economy back by more than a half-century, a University of Illinois business expert

warns. Instead of mending the bruised economy, Rajshree Agarwal says government intervention is stifling innovation, entrepreneurship and other free-market dynamics that fuel long-term growth. “Politicians are

looking for quick fixes, but the issue is not so much whether this current crisis can be fixed,” she said. “The larger issue is that in trying to find a quick solution we risk throwing the baby out with the bath water, setting our economy back 50, 60 or 70 years.” Government intervention flies in the face of economic theory, said Agarwal, a professor of business administration who studies factors that influence economic expansion. She wrote a research paper in 2007 examining economist Joseph Schumpeter’s long-held theory of “creative destruction,” which maintains economies grow when innovation kills off old, inefficient businesses and spawns new ones. Agarwal found that growth also follows an alternative path of “creative construction,” which allows for win-win

scenarios as established firms adapt to change and are joined by new businesses seeking to cash in on breakthroughs in knowledge. But government bailouts are throttling the free-market competition that fuels growth, she said. By handing over billions of dollars to prop up large, existing firms, government is giving them an unfair edge that chases away potential rivals. “There should have been zero bailouts, and government should have just

let the market correct itself,” she said. “By buying into the ‘too-big-to-fail’ fallacy, the bailouts have set our economy back because economic power now resides in inefficient firms who ignored basic risk-return relationships and who weren’t able to navigate the downturn on their own. More importantly, we’ve removed the underpinnings for growth.” “The rebuttal to that could be that without bailouts the entire financial system implodes,” she said.

“Indeed, you could have had a crisis that would have made the Great Depression look like a picnic. But if you go back to the origins of the depression, as documented by Alan Greenspan himself, it was caused by government intervention and Federal Reserve Bank policies, not the free market.” Agarwal says federal intervention during the current crisis has also wrongly shifted economic power away from market forces and into the hands of government, mirroring policies that once stalled economic growth in India and Russia. She says recent U.S. policy marks a disturbing trend towards big government, big business and big labor, where corporations survive not because of their entrepreneurial decision-making but because of government pull and political power. “When businesses and consumers make economic decisions in a free market, any one being wrong is not a big deal,” Agarwal said. “But if only the government is deciding, the consequences of not getting it right can be catastrophic to the economy.” More than 250 banks turned down bailouts through the federal Troubled Assets Relief Program as of late April, which Agarwal says is evidence that the free market best regulates the economy, not government. “Why say no to ‘free’ money? Because of the strings attached,” she said. “These banks are the ones that were fiscally responsible in the first place. And they quickly realized that government dictates on what, to whom and how loans should be given

would hurt their ability to do business and be successful.” Government should move toward deregulation and fewer “big brother” policies as it mulls ways to ward off future recessions, said Agarwal, who will who appear this month on “First Business,” a nationally syndicated financial program that airs on about 150 television affiliates in the U.S. and is distributed internationally. Agarwal, who also will be a panelist at a U. of I. economic forum June 13 in Chicago, says pro-free market arguments have mustered little support in the current politico-economic climate, where capitalism is being blamed for the deepest economic downturn in

decades. But she argues that government policies are the real culprit, and says a free-market approach is the best route to restore prosperity. “The U.S. was the biggest bastion of capitalism and individual rights,” she said. “What’s most depressing is that now we’re turning back. And if that doesn’t change, we may be leading the rest of the world back.”

Monetary Stimulus CP

1NCCP: The United States Federal Reserve should implement a third round of monetary stimulus.

Monetary stimulus continues job creation

Gustin 4/6/12 – Business reporter for Time (Sam, Time, “QE3 Watch: Will Slowing Jobs Picture Spur More Fed Stimulus?”, http://business.time.com/2012/04/06/qe3-watch-will-slowing-jobs-picture-spur-more-fed-stimulus/#ixzz217my1nBb)

Friday’s jobs report painted a disappointing picture about the U.S. employment situation, but it shouldn’t have come as much of a surprise. Last

week, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that the economy is not growing fast enough to sustain the jobs momentum of the last few months. The question now is whether Fed policymakers feel the stalling jobs picture warrants a third round of Fed monetary stimulus, or quantitative easing (QE3).

The prospects of further easing seemed to dim earlier in the week after payroll services firm ADP estimated that 209,000 jobs were created last month, and the Labor Dept. said that initial claims for state unemployment benefits fell to a seasonally adjusted 357,000, the lowest level since April 2008. On Tuesday, the Fed released minutes from its last meeting suggesting that as the economy improves, policy-makers are cooling to a third round of action.

But the official Labor Dept. unemployment report — which was roundly viewed as disappointing — seemed to revive the QE3 chatter. Many economic analysts suggested that while the weak jobs report doesn’t ensure another round of Fed stimulus, in which the central bank would buy up bonds, it does mean that the Fed will be weighing that option closely.

“In terms of policy, we do not believe this number alone is sufficient to propel the Fed into action at the April FOMC meeting (April 24-25),” Michael Gapen, an economist at Barclay’s Capital Research, wrote in a note to clients. “That said, the soft employment numbers certainly leave the door open for further accommodation and may shift the decision point to the June FOMC as the Fed continues to monitor the incoming data.”

There appears to be a decidedly mixed appetite at the central bank for another round of easing. Last week, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke hinted

that QE3 remains on the table in a speech because stronger growth — which Fed action could help trigger —

is needed to keep the economy creating jobs . “Further significant improvements in the unemployment

rate will likely require a more rapid expansion of production and demand from consumers and businesses, a process that can be supported by continued accommodative policies,” Bernanke said.

Federal Employment Reserve Authority CP (Stimulus)

1NC

Text: The United States federal government should establish a Federal Employment Reserve Authority to maintain state branches charged with maintaining updated and prioritized lists of public works projects, providing constant evaluation for financing and unemployment levels, and triggering financing when unemployment reaches trigger levels.

FERA is the most effective form of stimulus – overcomes political challenges and “shovel ready” barriers – better than single investmentsStephens 12 – Senior Editor and Policy Fellow at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College (February 8, Michael, Multiplier Effect

from The Levy Economics Institute, “The ‘Shovel Ready’ Excuse and a Fed for Public Works?,” http://www.multiplier-effect.org/?p=3527, mrs)

The latest chapter in the “why was the original stimulus so small?” story is a memo from December 2008 that reveals Larry Summers’

assessment as to why the stimulus (ARRA) had to be limited to around $800 billion—about half of what was necessary, in Summers’ estimation. There are various conclusions you can draw from this memo, but the aspect I’d like to focus on is this: Larry Summers’

suggestion that $225 billion of “actual spending on priority investments” is all that the government could get out the door over a two year time span (and so the rest had to be made up of tax cuts, aid to states, etc.).

Let’s grant for the sake of argument that Summers is correct about this “shovel ready” figure. The question is: what can we do about it? If you’re looking for short-term results, the answer is probably “not much.” Even things like speeding up environmental impact assessments for infrastructure projects wouldn’t have much effect (at the link, Brad Plumer tells us that only 4 percent of highway infrastructure projects even require such environmental reviews).

But looking ahead, there is more we could and should be doing. Back in 2009 Martin Shubik sketched out a plan in

a Levy Institute policy note for creating a “Federal Employment Reserve Authority“—a kind of Fed for employment (yes, I know: the Federal Reserve is the “Fed for employment.” But you don’t need to look very hard to see that the sides of

the dual mandate aren’t equally weighted). Among other things, the FERA would maintain state branches that are charged with keeping updated and prioritized lists of potential public works projects (with a preference for

self-liquidating projects) and providing constant monitoring and evaluation so that financing can be put in place as soon as unemployment reaches a particular trigger level in that region. Regional public

investment would respond to objective employment conditions.

The US doesn’t do a great job with conventional “automatic stabilizers.” One of the biggest social assistance programs, TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), is far less responsive to poverty than we might want it to be (less responsive anyway than its predecessor, Aid to Families with Dependent Children). (See also Peter Orszag’s Bloomberg column today comparing US and European fiscal stabilizers.)

Shubik’s FERA-initiated projects wouldn’t be quite as “automatic” as conventional fiscal stabilizers, but this new setup would have the

benefits of (1) speeding up the public works process (being able to move more than $225 billion over two years), and (2) responding in a more mechanical way to employment crises, rather than depending entirely

on the outcomes of Congressional procedure. Such automated responses are in many ways preferable to setting fiscal policy and levels of public investment according to the whim and mood of whichever “moderate”* holds the 60th

vote in the Senate.

http://www.multiplier-effect.org/?p=3527

Now, you might want to say that these sorts of decisions ought to be kept within the confines of the legislative arena, allowing a clash of economic policy visions to determine the course of policy. But that’s not really the way the US political system is set up. The way it works (or not) is that the political party in Congress that doesn’t control the White House is given both the incentive and the ability to see that unemployment remains high. That’s not a recipe for sensible policy. Getting reasonably coherent policy responses out of the legislature during an economic crisis would require a different set of political institutions from the ones we have right now; it would require political reforms about as dramatic as the creation of a Shubik-style FERA.

2NC Solvency

Federal Employment Reserve Authority solves – stimulates the economy through job creationShubik 9 – professor emeritus of economics at Yale, PhD and AM in Economics from Princeton, and BA and MS in Mathematics and

Political Economy from the University of Toronto (May, Martin, The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, “A Proposal For A Federal Employment Reserve Authority,” http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/pn_09_05.pdf, mrs)

A Financial Fail-Safe Mechanism

Our financial institutions and instruments are part of a delicate overall guidance and control system for the

political economy. The structure has to match the supply of public goods and taxation to the demands of the electorate. This calls for a blend of economic, political, bureaucratic, and social forces.

The Federal Reserve System, created by act of Congress in 1913, has been evolving and adjusting for nearly a century. The system’s organizational structure is laden with checks and balances, and represents diverse interests. Its Board of Governors is appointed by the president and requires confirmation by the Senate. Like the Supreme Court, the Federal Reserve Board is the product of the interplay of political, economic, and legal forces. The number of governors reflects a designer judgment call on the balancing of powers and the ability of the institution to function.

It is suggested that, in order to keep a socially acceptable index of unemployment below some specified level, a government agency similar in power and structure to the Fed would be appropriate. This agency—a Federal Employment Reserve Authority, or FERA—would be devoted to monitoring the “natural rate of unemployment,” which is “natural” in the sense that it is dependent on society’s existing institutions, laws, customs, and technology.

FERA would require considerable hand-tailoring to provide the appropriate control details needed. But as a permanent body it would be a vast improvement over a last-minute, temporary disaster-relief program such as the Depression-era Works Progress Administration (WPA).

In the design of an institution aimed at modifying the level of unemployment it is highly probable that we would need to hand-tailor a control structure with governance numbers different from those of either the Supreme Court or the Federal Reserve in order to fit the population of the United States in the 21st century. A sketch of this proposed institution is provided below.

In addition to its governing board, the Federal Reserve System includes 12 district banks and has approximately 25,000 employees. An agency such as FERA more naturally calls for a central or controlling authority in Washington and a branch in each of the 50 states. Each state branch would have on average 100 to 200 employees—for an agency-wide total of 5,000 to 10,000—and a board of governors split among business and labor representatives, as well as academics and federal and state representatives. Each branch would monitor unemployment in its state. It would also maintain a list of potential public works projects with priorities and potential revenue-generation possibilities. The priority would be self-liquidating projects where some portion of the

revenues would flow back to either the state or the federal government.

The central Authority would be responsible for developing state and federal taxation and funding guidelines in concert with the Federal Reserve System and the Treasury via a Joint Assessment Financing Board (JAFB). The duties of this board would be to constantly monitor the listing, evaluation, financing, and paybacks proposed by each state branch so that the structure of the financing could be set in place as soon as the employment level in any

region exceeded the trigger value. A further duty of the JAFB would be to determine the breakdown of

http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/pn_09_05.pdf

unemployment in the state—how much is attributable to recession, and how much is attributable to the application of new technology. (Technological unemployment should not call for agency action except via an Educational Retraining Board acting in concert with the educational resources of the state and the federal Department of Education.)

It is important to stress that constant monitoring, along with the ability to act quickly and deliberately, is a necessity. This will require that legislation be passed in advance to provide flexibility in emergency financing without having to request funding from Congress during a crisis.

The central Authority would supervise oversight of the projects to be enacted. The state branches and member firms would be responsible for the generation and maintenance of micro information on local unemployment, the valuation of projects worthy of sponsorship in a high-unemployment environment, and the distinction between recession and technological unemployment in their area.

There are several basic principles that should be adhered to by the Authority:

(1) It should never own assets that it does not have the in-house capability to evaluate, and should avoid supervision of projects where it does not have in-house expertise.

(2) Its role is to coordinate and stimulate activities promoting employment, not to employ individuals directly. Only under conditions of a deep depression should a direct, WPA–style employment approach be permitted as an act of last resort.

(3) The Authority must stress transparency in the availability of its information sources, evaluation of the regional economic and employment status, as well as the projects to be implemented and the bidding and procurement procedures employed.

(4) Once unemployment goes above a fixed level of, say, 6 or 7 percent (to be adjusted as circumstances warrant), the Authority would put out bids for projects in coordination with federal and state funding authorities involved in financing. The drafting of institutional rules is an evolutionary process, and there are many details to be worked out. Rather than a blueprint, the above comments are offered as a platform for building in a fail-safe mechanism to protect the real economy when the financial-control structure fails.

FERA is key to address unemployment and global economic woes – it’s the most effective form of stimulus and other forms of recovery failAvaari Financial 12 (June 14, “Policies For A Strong Economic Recovery…,”

http://onceusave.com/policies_for_a_strong_economic_recovery/, mrs)

The high unemployment rate and the associated lack in aggregate demand is the root cause of the tepid economic recovery. Fiscal stimulus is a band-aid. We need – now and for the next few years – massive government spending to support the unemployed and prevent the defaults of state and local governments. The economy needs to be shocked to regain traction with this stimulus. Beyond that,

spending will not stimulate anything, and it has nothing to do with the causes of the crisis or with putting an end to it. It is the strong pain killer that the economy needs for the infection that afflicts it, but it is just a pain

killer, not a cure. Yale economist Martin Shubik in a 2009 proposal, recommended creating a Federal Employment Reserve Authority which would identify shovel-ready projects around the country that the government could invest in during recessions. Once the projects are identified, the spending on these could be activated before the onset of next-recession. This would be akin to having some medicine in the medicine cabinet ready to use, rather than having to make a long trip to the drugstore late at night, which you are

likely not to do. You will most likely just go to bed and suffer. We do not want to have the US and the world economy

http://onceusave.com/policies_for_a_strong_economic_recovery/

suffer any longer. Well-crafted tax adjustments can be useful, but only if targeted to address the deflationary pressures and/or

the fragility of the financial system. By the same token, trade protection, total capital control and other similarly “brilliant” ideas floating around need to be opposed. They will do nothing to attack the causes of the crisis, and they could make the recession deeper and more protracted.

FERA is the medicine necessary to fix the economy – other investments are just patchwork solutionsKavoussi 11 (October 14, Bonnie, Huffington Post Business, “U.S. Economy Needs More Federal Spending, Yale Economists Say,”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/14/federal-spending-stimulus-yale-economists-recommend_n_1011097.html, mrs)

As Yale University economists gathered on Thursday evening to discuss job growth strategies, many warned that a

failure to act aggressively risks the increasing possibility of many years of economic stagnation, elevated joblessness and declining living standards.

Some suggested that the government must act quickly to put millions of Americans back to work with large- scale public projects , while warning that an inadequate response risks a U.S. fate similar to Japan's so-called lost decade.

After a collapse in housing prices and the stock market, Japan in the 1990s suffered from a deflationary spiral that the government and central bank enabled by not substantially increasing spending or lowering borrowing costs. Unemployment remained elevated as consumer spending declined, and both people's debt and goods and services became more expensive.

"Think about Japan in 1989. It was a global powerhouse which many people thought would be number one and dominate the world economy, and 20 years after ... it is off the economic map," said economist Aleh Tsyvinski. "I am afraid that we are on the verge of something much greater and much more problematic with the U.S. economy."

Economist John Geanakoplos said the current predicament must be viewed as a long-term problem that requires long-term solutions. He proposed that government officials set up expert committees to investigate how to remake American infrastructure for the next 10 to 20 years, building airports, trains and roads for the future rather than patching up old models.

In the long run, Geanakoplos said, infrastructure investment raises money for the government because those employed in construction and those using the new infrastructure spend more and pay higher taxes. Both the government's budget and the economy benefit, he said.

Economist Robert Shiller agreed with Geanakoplos' prescription for more infrastructure investment. "When we go through a crisis like this, it's a time for us to improve everything," Shiller said.

He suggested that the government create a Federal Employment Reserve Authority -- inspired by Yale economist Martin Shubik's 2009 proposal -- which would identify shovel-ready projects around the country that

the government could invest in during recessions. Just as people cannot get over colds all at once, Shiller said, the government cannot bring the unemployment rate "rapidly down" if it does not prepare for the disease beforehand.

If the U.S. pinpoints shovel-ready projects before the next recession , Shiller said, " We'd have some medicine in the medicine cabinet ready to use, rather than having to make a long trip to the drugstore late at night, which you don't do. You'll just go to bed and suffer."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/14/federal-spending-stimulus-yale-economists-recommend_n_1011097.html

2NC Doesn’t Link to Politics

FERA is politically viable and effectively manages unemployment Da Costa 9 (April 30, Pedro, Reuters, “A Federal Reserve … of Employment?,” http://blogs.reuters.com/macroscope/2009/04/30/a-

federal-reserve-of-employment/, mrs)

The Federal Reserve role as a lender of last resort has never been more prominent than in the current crisis. But Martin Shubik,

economics professor at Yale, argues in a policy note that the country might also need another kind of economic body :

A Federal Employment Reserve Authority , or FERA, to stabilize labor markets in troubled times.

“ In order to keep a socially acceptable index of unemployment below some specified level, a government agency similar in power and structure to the Fed would be appropriate,” Shubik writes in a research note published by the Levy Economics Institute.

The proposed agency would not in itself create jobs, but it would have the expertise to evaluate projects for their viability, keeping handy a list of so-called “shovel-ready” public works projects that would be easily implemented and yield the most bang for the taxpayer’s buck.

“FERA would require considerable hand-tailoring to provide the appropriate control details needed. But as a permanent body it

would be a vast improvement over a last-minute, temporary disaster-relief program such as the Depression-era Works Progress Administration (WPA),” Shubik writes.

Shubik’s proposal may sound like a pipe dream, but with the economy losing upwards of 600,000 jobs a month it

is not difficult to envision a day when the notion of a central employment agency begins to gain political traction.

http://blogs.reuters.com/macroscope/2009/04/30/a-federal-reserve-of-employment/

http://blogs.reuters.com/macroscope/2009/04/30/a-federal-reserve-of-employment/

Terrorism Advantage CP

1NC

Text: The United States Federal Government Should Fully Fund MPCA and GTRI.

Fully funding the MPCA and the GTRI prevents unauthorized access to fissile material and solves terrorismNewman and Bunn, 9. *Research Associate, Project on Managing the Atom. AND **Associate Professor of Public Policy, Co-Principal Investigator, Project on Managing the Atom (Andrew and Matthew. June 2009. “Funding for U.S. Efforts to Improve Controls Over Nuclear Weapons, Materials, and Expertise Overseas: A 2009 Update” http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/experts/1803/andrew_newman.html?back_url=%2Fpublication%2F18673%2Fpreventing_nuclear_terrorism.html&back_text=Back%20to%20publication)

SECURING NUCLEAR WARHEADS AND MATERIALS

As noted earlier, if President Obama’s objective of securing all nuclear weapons and weapons-usable materials worldwide within four years is to be achieved, NNSA’s MPC&A and GTRI programs will play a central role, along with the smaller warhead site security and warhead transportation security programs in DOD’s Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) effort.

In May, the administration requested $700 million in FY 2010 funding for these and other programs to improve security and accounting for nuclear weapons and materials, $45 million below the FY 2009 appropriation.5 Some highlights:

MPC&A: Remarkably, the FY 2009 omnibus appropriation, the first in many years with a

Democrat in the White House and Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, was also the first in many years in which the Congress cut the request for the International Nuclear Material Protection and Cooperation. (The administration, however, chose to take these cuts in the Second Line of Defense component of the effort, discussed below under interdicting nuclear smuggling, rather than in the MPC&A program

itself.) The Obama administration’s FY 2010 request of $280 million for the MPC&A program is $55 million more than the FY 2009 appropriation, but $87 million less than the FY 2008 appropriation and a substantial decline from the FY 2007 peak of $406 million.6 (The Obama administration’s FY 2009 supplemental request, approved by the House on May 12 and the Senate on May 14, adds $55 million to the MPC&A and brings total FY 2009 funding to $280 million, the same as the

FY 2010 request.7) For the out-years, the budget documents envision steadily declining funding, as currently planned work in Russia and elsewhere is completed; even in the out-year projections, no funds have been included for expanded efforts to implement the President’s four-year goal. In essence, to

avoid being criticized for carrying large unspent balances from one year to the next, the budget includes funding only for those areas where NNSA already has foreign countries’ agreement to do work, or was confident (when the budget was being prepared) that such agreement would be forthcoming, rather than including not-yet-agreed activities likely to be needed to implement a four-year plan to achieve effective nuclear security worldwide. GTRI: While the FY 2010 request of $354 million is $41 million less than the FY 2009 appropriation, Congress had boosted the FY 2009 appropriation to an unusually high level, far beyond either the FY 2008 appropriation or the request for FY 2009. (The Congressional appropriation was $53 million above the $140 million request for FY 2008 and $55 million above the $340 million request for FY

2009.8) It appears that the GTRI budget includes some accelerated activities meant to meet the four-year target for parts of GTRI’s agenda. But as with the MPC&A program, the funds that would be needed to expand GTRI’s coverage to ensure that the full range of facilities and materials were

addressed, or to provide incentives to countries and facili-ties to allow their weapons-usable material to be shipped away, are not included in the FY 2010 GTRI request. Indeed, under current plans, GTRI would be spending dramatically more after the four-year plan is over ($1.1 billion in 2014) than it would be in FY 2010 or FY 2011. (This is in part because high-density fuels required to convert some 27 of the reactors GTRI hopes to convert will not be available until the latter part of this period,

requiring substantial spending on converting reactors and shipping away irradiated HEU once this high-density fuel becomes available.) It seems certain that if the four-year goal is to be achieved, GTRI’s budgets for FY 2010 and FY 2011 will have to be substantially higher than those in the current request. In particular, more money would be needed to accelerate conversion of the 38 HEU-fueled research reactors that could convert to proliferation-resistant low-enriched uranium (LEU) with LEU fuels already available. GTRI is planning to provide funds to

accelerate private sector efforts to establish fabrication capability for the new high-density LEU fuels, and that is likely to be costly. Additional funds could also accelerate the pace of removing nuclear material from vulnerable sites around the world (in part because here, too, prices are escalating). More money is also needed to secure radiological sources and research reactors around the world—including in the United States, where upgrades are needed for some 1,800 locations with sources of 1,000 curies or more, and for the nation’s 32 domestic research reactors, both of which have now been included in GTRI’s scope.9 Moreover, GTRI is so far planning to return only a small fraction of the U.S.-origin HEU abroad; while most of the remainder is in developed countries, in many cases there is good reason to bring this material back as well, and more funds would be

required to give these facilities incentives to give up their HEU. Finally, NNSA does not yet have a program focused on giving underutilized HEU-fueled reactors incentives to shut down—in many cases likely to be a quicker and easier

approach than conversion. All told, an increase of $200 million or more would be needed for GTRI to move forward as rapidly as possible in reducing these risks—though managing such a large single-year increase would pose a challenge.10

No weapons spreadFerguson, 6—fellow for science and technology at the Council on Foreign Relations, professor in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. (Charles D. March 2006. “Preventing Catastrophic Nuclear Terrorism”

www.fundforpeace.org/web/images/pdf/ferguson.pdf)

Although reducing the growth of terrorist groups is vitally important for the United States to have success in the wider “war on terrorism,” no matter how many terrorists there are, they cannot launch a nuclear attack without access to weapons-usable nuclear materials or intact nuclear weapons. Consequently, securing and eliminating vulnerable nuclear materials and weapons offer points of greatest leverage in preventing nuclear terrorism. For these activities, much more national and international action is urgently needed to address the problems of Pakistan’s highly enriched uranium and nuclear arsenal; Russia’s highly enriched uranium; highly enriched uranium at more than one hundred civilian facilities in dozens of countries; and tactical nuclear weapons. Here, the focus is on how to block terrorists from acquiring these vulnerable nuclear materials and weapons.

Preventing nuclear terrorism is also closely connected to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons to other countries. By reducing the number of countries with nuclear weapons or weapons-usable nuclear materials, terrorists will have fewer places to buy or steal these critical components of nuclear terrorism. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is at the forefront of multilateral efforts to inspect nuclear facilities to try to detect diversion of weapons-usable nuclear materials. Presently, 650 IAEA inspectors are responsible for inspecting nine hundred nuclear facilities in ninety-one countries. The annual budget of the IAEA is about $120 million—comparable to the payroll of the Washington Redskins football team.

Solves Terror

Empirically MPC&A has put into place effective technologies and security measures in locations all over the world. Bunn, 3—Associate Professor of Public Policy; Co-Principal Investigator, Project on Managing the Atom. (March 2003. “Securing Nuclear Warheads and Materials: Materials Protection Control and Accounting” http://www.nti.org/e_research/cnwm/securing/mpca.asp#top)

Key technologies and approaches. The key technologies and approaches being implemented in the MPC&A program range from "rapid upgrades" such as bricking over windows, placing huge concrete blocks on top of material or in front of doors, and the like to comprehensive security and accounting systems, including fences, locked vaults, detectors, sensors, access controls, security cameras, tamper-resistant seals, and the like. One particularly important technology being widely implemented is the portal monitor detectors at doors and other key points that will set off an alarm if some one carrying plutonium or HEU out of the building.

(See discussion in Technical Background.) In addition to such equipment upgrades, the program is working with recipient countries to train personnel in modern MPC&A approaches, get appropriate MPC&A procedures adopted at the relevant facilities, put in place effective MPC&A regulation, and build an infrastructure to supply and maintain MPC&A equipment, to ensure that effective security and accounting for nuclear material can be achieved, and sustained for the long haul.

Shifting approaches. Different activities have been included in the MPC&A program at different times. Originally, the program focused on security and accounting upgrades for weapons-usable nuclear material separated plutonium and highly enriched uranium (HEU) outside of nuclear warheads themselves. After successful cooperation to upgrade security and accounting for Russian HEU naval fuel, the Russian Navy requested that the program help secure Russian naval warhead sites as well, and this has become a major program focus in 1999, now being expanded to include some other Russian warhead sites as well. (See discussion in Warhead Security section.)

Also in 1999, the program added the "Material Consolidation and Conversion" (MCC) initiative, focused on consolidating potentially vulnerable nuclear material in fewer sites and buildings, so as to achieve higher long-term security for the remaining sites at lower cost. After the Russian economic crisis of 1998 when guards were leaving their posts to forage for food, and at some sites the electricity that ran the security systems was shut off when the sites did not pay their bills the program added a substantially greater focus on measures to ensure the "sustainability" of the upgrades over time. In fiscal year 2002, DOE's "Second Line of Defense" program, focused on interdicting nuclear smuggling after material has been stolen, was folded in to the MPC&A program. (See "Interdicting Nuclear Smuggling.") After the attacks of September 11, 2001, when concern over the possibility of radiological "dirty bombs" increased, the program expanded to address urgent concerns over control of radiological sources in the former Soviet Union as well. (See "Radiological Material Control".)

The geographic focus of the effort has also shifted over time. The program has carried out security and accounting upgrades for facilities throughout the former Soviet Union. By May 1999, security and accounting system upgrades had been declared completed at all of the nine sites in the non-Russian states of the former Soviet Union where separated plutonium or HEU is still

located. These sites were then moved out of the MPC&A program to another part of DOE. Since September 11, however, the MPC&A program has put renewed emphasis on ensuring continuing security at these non-Russian sites, and has begun exploring MPC&A cooperation with other states outside the former Soviet Union, including China, India, and Pakistan.[8]

http://www.nti.org/e_research/cnwm/securing/mpca.asp#_edn8

GTRI is effective in decreasing the risks of a nuclear terrorist attack, but more funding is key.Sheely, 9—NNSA Associate Assistant Deputy Administrator Global Threat Reduction Initiative (9/14/2009. Kenneth. “GTRI: Testimony before the House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, and Science and Technology” http://ipradiationsecurity.com/2009/09/18/gtri-testimony-before-the-house-committee-on-homeland-security-subcommittee-on-emerging-threats-cybersecurity-and-science-and-technology/)

III. GTRI’S ROLE IN MITIGATION OF RISKS GTRI works very closely with its federal partners, each of which has a unique role

ensuring a comprehensive system of oversight, prevention, and protection of civilian radiological sources. DHS’s mission is to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States; reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism; and, minimize the damage, and assist in the recovery, from any terrorist attacks that do occur within the United States across multiple sectors (e.g. nuclear, chemical, etc.), leading the Government Coordinating Council(s) (GCC) and collaborating with the industry-led Sector Coordinating Council(s) (SCC) to protect critical infrastructure and key resources. NRC’s mission is to license and regulate the Nation’s civilian use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, promote the common defense and security, and protect the environment. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is the lead Federal law enforcement agency and plays a significant role preventing, interdicting, and investigating potential acts of nuclear and radioactive theft, sabotage or terrorism. NNSA brings the science and expertise of our National Laboratories to create innovative solutions to prevent the acquisition of nuclear and radiological materials for use in weapons of

mass destruction (WMD) and other acts of terrorism. Specifically, GTRI and the DOE laboratories provide unique expertise to evaluate radiological issues and threats because of our significant work both internationally and domestically which allows us to identify “best practices” available in each circumstance.

To address the risks outlined above, GTRI, in cooperation with its federal partners, has initiated a number of voluntary security efforts to further mitigate these potential threats. These include eliminating unwanted sources, hardening kits for specific irradiators, facility wide voluntary security enhancements, specialized training courses for security and law enforcement personnel, and table top exercises for first responders. GTRI’s voluntary security enhancements complement and do not replace NRC’s increased controls

requirements. When requested by the licensee, GTRI works to assess existing security conditions, provide recommendations on security enhancements, and when warranted, fund the procurement and installation of jointly agreed upon security best practices. GTRI considers all 14 isotopes of concern above threshold

quantities (10 Ci or greater), and addresses several areas of security including Deterrence, Control, Detection, Delay, Response, and Sustainability.

GTRI’s voluntary security enhancement efforts have been endorsed by the NRC, DHS, FBI, Organization of Agreement States (OAS), and Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. (CRCPD). NRC has issued Regulatory Information Summaries (RIS) describing both the IDD and voluntary security enhancement efforts of GTRI and recommends that licensees volunteer for these GTRI efforts.

III.A Elimination – Removing Unwanted Sources Since 1997 GTRI’s Off Site Source Recovery Project (OSRP) operated by Los

Alamos National Laboratory, Idaho National Laboratory and the CRCPD has reduced the radiological risk by recovering and eliminating disused and unwanted sealed sources. GTRI, in coordination with NRC, developed recovery prioritization criteria based on risk reduction. As of August 31, 2009, GTRI has recovered over 22,700 sources (totaling more than 720,000 curies) in twelve years.

At present, only 14 states in the U.S. have access to commercial disposal for sealed sources (with the exception

of Ra-226 sources which have a commercial disposal pathway in all 50 states). With the decline in commercial disposal options, GTRI has seen an increase in the number of sources being registered as excess and unwanted. GTRI has found that without disposal access, source owners have no option other than long-term storage, which increases the vulnerability of becoming lost or forgotten .

---Immigration/Border Security 1NC

Text: The United States federal government should:- Increase funding for the Immigration and Naturalization Service,- Track immigrants on visa services,- Enhance border security along Mexico through the United States Border Patrol, and - augment console questioning powers.

The counterplan solves terrorism best – immigration policy is where the US is most vulnerableCamarota 02, Steven Camarota, Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies, “The Open Door: How Militant Islamic Terrorists Entered and Remained in the United States: 1993-2001,” May 2002, from The Center for Immigration Studies, http://cis.org/911-HowMilitantIslamicTerroristsEntered//MC

Because virtually every type of immigration has been exploited by terrorists, focusing on just one category such as student visas, or even temporary visas in general, would be inadequate. All aspects of our immigration system, including the way visas are processed overseas, the handling of foreign citizens at ports of entry, policing the

nation’s borders, and enforcement of immigration laws within the United States need to be reformed in order to reduce the terrorist threat. The fact that terrorists often disregard immigration laws means that strict enforcement of the law within the United

States could significantly reduce the terrorist threat. If those who violate the law are identified and forced to leave the country, not only would

it lower the risk of terrorism, it would also reduce illegal immigration, which is itself a desirable goal. The existence of a large illegal population

(estimated at eight to nine million) creates a general contempt for the law among all parties involved, including those officials charged with

enforcing it. With millions of illegal immigrants already in the country, and with immigration laws widely flouted, it is perhaps easy to

understand why the immigration inspector at Miami’s airport allowed Mohammed Atta back into the country in January 2001 even though he

had overstayed his visa on his last visit and had abandoned his change of status to vocational student by leaving the country. Given the large number of terrorists who have lived in the United States illegally by overstaying a temporary visa, enforcing visa time limits could disrupt or perhaps even uncover future terrorist plots . The first step to

enforcing time limits is the establishment of an entry-exit system that would automatically record the entry and exit of all persons to and from

the United States. Those who overstay should be barred from ever entering the country again. The system would also allow the INS to identify overstayers who are still in the country . Such a system is envisioned in current legislation, and it is up to

elected officials to ensure that it is properly implemented. In addition to the creation of an entry-exit system, there needs to be a system to track temporary visa holders once they enter the country. Currently, a system that requires colleges and universities to inform the INS if a foreign student stops attending class or otherwise violates his visa is being implemented. This system should be expanded to include other temporary visa holders who are affiliated with American institutions such as guestworkers, intracompany transferees, and cultural exchange visitors. Because several terrorists worked in the country illegally, one area of interior

enforcement that might help disrupt terrorism is to enforce the ban on hiring illegal aliens by punishing employers and forcing those found

working illegally to leave the country. The key step in implementing worksite enforcement would be the creation of a national computer

database against which the names of all new hires could be checked. Fraudulent marriages and other deceptions are also common among

terrorists. The INS must do a much better job of investigating all applicants and force those who engage in fraud or deceptive behavior to leave

the country. Although the amount of detention space has increased in recent years, enforcement of immigration laws within the United States will require significantly more detention space. This can be accomplished both by building more INS facilities and by contracting out to jails and prisons systems that have excess capacity. To make interior enforcement possible, there should be a dramatic increase in resources devoted to the enforcement of laws within the United States. At present there are only 2,000 INS agents devoted to worksite enforcement, anti-smuggling operations, and investigating fraud and document forgery . This

number needs to be increased several-fold, along with administrative support staff. With many more agents the INS would be able to investigate irregularities uncovered by the employment database discussed above and allow it to investigate and expose fraudulent applicants. The student tracking system currently envisioned also requires significantly

more investigators, otherwise it will not be possible to follow up reported violations. In addition to interior enforcement, there needs to be a significant increase in the nation’s efforts to control the border, including a dramatic increase in the size of the border patrol and the effective deployment of barriers and sensors along the border. Attempted Brooklyn subway bomber Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer, who was denied a visa by an American consulate, simply went to Canada and

tried to cross the border illegally. Improving visa processing while leaving the borders largely undefended is an invitation for terrorists to do just as Mezer did. There must also be a dramatic increase in efforts to control the border with Mexico. While the southern border has not yet been used by terrorists, there is every reason to believe that if other means of entering the country become more difficult, and the Mexican border remains relatively easy to cross, then al Qaeda would begin to use it as an avenue to enter the United States. A

large smuggling ring specializing in bringing Middle Easterners across the southern border was broken up in the late 1990s, which suggests that

such a prospect is a very real possibility. For visa processing overseas, greater scrutiny is needed for all visa applicants, including in-person

interviews — several 9/11 hijackers were issued visas without ever even being interviewed by a consular officer. As much information as

possible needs to be gathered on all applicants, including fingerprints and photos. Skepticism should become the guiding principle of visa

issuance. Consular officers must ask probing questions in an attempt to verify the applicant’s story, even at the risk of annoying the applicant. Top priority must be given to the protection of the American people and not the feelings of the applicant. Strict enforcement of Section 214(b) of the immigration law would likely have

prevented a number of terrorists from getting temporary visas, because terrorists and those who are likely to overstay their visas have much in

common. Both groups tend to be young and unattached, as were at least three of the 9/11 hijackers. Section 214(b) can also be a useful tool in

keeping out more senior members of al Qaeda, such as Mohammed Atta, because governments in the Middle East have suppressed extremist

movements, forcing terrorists like Atta to spend most of their time abroad. This means they often have little attachment to their current

residence and should therefore not be issued visas. Updating the “watch list” against which the names of visa applicants are checked must be

done in as timely a manner as possible, and maintaining the list must become a high priority for the State Department, INS, law enforcement,

and the intelligence agencies. Current legislation mandates the integration of the watch list with other lists maintain by federal agencies, such

as the FBI’s criminal database and this should be implemented as soon as possible. Because governments in the Middle East have largely

suppressed Islamic extremist movements, Western Europe has now become home to a significant number of terrorist organizations. This fact

coupled with the availability of phony passports, means that it may be necessary to discontinue the visa waiver program and instead require all

individuals from Europe to obtain a visa before visiting the United States. For the Bureau of Consular Affairs, which issues visas, to perform its

vital job of protecting the nation, more consular officers and support staff clearly are needed. At present there are only approximately 900

officers worldwide devoted to visa adjudication. This number must be increased dramatically so that all applicants can be carefully interviewed.

Moreover, it might be necessary to separate visa adjudication from the State Department in order to insulate it from pressure to approve

applicants in an effort not to alienate host governments. The names of all persons entering the country at a port of entry need to be checked

against the watch list every time they enter the country, even those who have visas. Published reports indicate that Khalid al Midhar, who was

on the plane that hit the Pentagon, was identified as a terrorist after he received his visa but before he entered the country for a second time.

Recording the name of each person when he arrives and checking names against the watch list is therefore critically important. For the reforms

suggested above to be possible, the overall level of immigration must be reduced for three reasons: Given limited governmental resources,

issuing fewer permanent and temporary visas would mean greater resources could be devoted to more extensive background checks on each

applicant; Fewer issuances would also mean fewer foreign-born individuals to keep track of within the United States in the future; and

Reduction would give the State Department and the INS the breathing space they need to deal with their enormous processing backlogs, now

over four million, as well as allow them to undertake the necessary reforms. The primary goal of this report is to determine how terrorists have

entered and remained in the country over the last decade, and also to identify problems or outright failures in the nation’s immigration system

so as to make policy recommendations to correct the problems. We examine terrorists associated with al Qaeda over a 10-year period in order to discern patterns in their operations. Of course, domestic terrorist threats exist, and changes

in immigration policy will have no effect on homegrown terrorism, nor will it protect Americans abroad from foreign terrorists. The existence of other threats, however, is no reason not to make every effect to prevent foreign terrorists from entering or remaining in the country. Most importantly, because of its money, organization, international reach, training, fanaticism, desire to obtain weapons of mass destruction, and willingness to inflict maximum death and destruction on civilian and military targets alike, the threat posed by Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network is fundamentally different from that posed by any other terrorists. It is therefore critically important that we develop immigration policies to deal with this foreign terrorist threat.

2NC Solvency - Generic

Current policies are not enough – more regulation and patrol of the border is neededMora 11, Edwin Mora, senior reporter for CNS, “663 Illegal Aliens From Countries With Ties to Terrorism Arrested Along Southwest Border in 2010, Senator says,” March 18th, 2011, From Cybercast News Service, http://cnsnews.com/news/article/663-illegal-aliens-countries-ties-terrorism-arrested-along-southwest-border-2010//MC

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), speaking at a conference on border issues Thursday, said 663 individuals arrested along the southwest border in 2010 were from countries designated as “special interest” or from countries known to have ties with terrorism. “It’s not just that we’re seeing immigration across our southern border from countries like Mexico -- people seeking to work and provide for their families,” said Cornyn, a member of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on homeland security and terrorism. “Indeed in the last year alone -- where 445,000 individuals were detained at the southwest border -- 59,000 came from countries other than Mexico. “These included 663 individuals from special-interest countries like Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen and four countries that have been designated by the U.S. Department of State

as state-sponsors of terror – Cuba, Iran, Syria, and Sudan,” Cornyn said. Special interest countries are those whose citizens are subject to enhanced screening by the Transportation Security Administration on U.S.-bound flights as a result of the attempted Christmas Day bombing of Northwest Flight 253. The U.S. Border Patrol, which falls under the Homeland Security Department, is charged with apprehending aliens attempting to illegally cross U.S. borders. As CNSNews.com previously reported, in fiscal year 2010, around 84 percent of the approximately 448,000 illegal aliens arrested by the U.S. Border Patrol were

not prosecuted. After delivering his remarks at the 15th annual U.S.-Mexico Congressional Border Issues Conference, Sen. Cornyn told reporters he asked the Director of National Intelligence whether the apprehension of the 663 individuals was national security vulnerability. “He said yes it was, so we need to do more,” Cornyn said. What the Obama administration is doing to secure the border more is “obviously not enough,” he added. During

his speech, Cornyn criticized the Obama administration’s border security efforts, saying that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano talks about the resources that have been devoted to border areas -- the so called ‘inputs’ – “where I’m really more interested in what the results, or the outputs, are.” Napolitano, who also spoke at the event, said “taken as whole, the manpower, the technology, the resources, represent the most serious and sustained action to secure the border in our nation’s history, and it’s clear from every statistical measure that the approach is working.” Napolitano called Border Patrol apprehensions a “key indicator of illegal traffic” along the U.S. borders, and she noted the apprehensions have decreased 36 percent in the past two years and are less than one half of what they

were at their peak. Sen. Cornyn suggested that a border security strategy should have a coordinated “interagency approach,” where the various federal entities charged with security along the border are working together and complementing one another. He also said that a “good” border security strategy “should be resourced appropriately.” The annual border conference took place on Capitol Hill and was sponsored by the U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce.

The CP solves terrorism best – all future attacks will be through Mexico unless the US enhances border securityMcCaul 06, Michael McCaul, Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security and the Subcommittee of Investigations, “A Line in the Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border,” 2006, http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/PDF/Border-Report.pdf//MC

Statements made by high-ranking Mexican officials prior to and following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks

indicate that one or more Islamic terrorist organizations has sought to establish a presence in Mexico.

In May 2001, former Mexican National security adviser and ambassador to the United Nations, Adolfo

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/PDF/Border-Report.pdf

http://cnsnews.com/

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/663-illegal-aliens-countries-ties-terrorism-arrested-along-southwest-border-2010

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/663-illegal-aliens-countries-ties-terrorism-arrested-along-southwest-border-2010

Aguilar Zinser, reported, that “Spanish and Islamic terrorist groups are using Mexico as a refuge.”114 Federal

Bureau of Investigation Director Robert Mueller has confirmed in testimony “that there are individuals from countries with known al-Qa’ida connections who are changing their Islamic surnames to Hispanic-sounding names and obtaining false Hispanic identities, learning to speak Spanish and pretending to be Hispanic immigrants.115 These examples highlight the dangerous intersection between traditional transnational criminal activities, such as human and drug smuggling, and more ominous threats to national security. Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez summed it up this way: “I dare to say that at any

given time, daytime or nighttime, one can get on a boat and traverse back and forth between Texas and Mexico and not get caught. If smugglers can bring in tons of marijuana and cocaine at one time and can smuggle 20 to 30 persons at one time, one can

just imagine how easy it would be to bring in 2 to 3 terrorists or their weapons of mass destruction across the river and not be detected. Chances of apprehension are very slim.”116 Furthermore, according to senior U.S. military

and intelligence officials, Venezuela is emerging as a potential hub of terrorism in the Western Hemisphere, providing assistance to Islamic radicals from the Middle East and other terrorists.117 General James Hill,

commander of U.S. Southern Command, has warned the United States faces a growing risk from both Middle Eastern terrorists relocating to Latin America and terror groups originating in the region. General Hill said groups such as Hezbollah had established bases in Latin America. These groups are taking advantage of smuggling hotspots, such as the tri-border area of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay, and Venezuela’s Margarita Island, to channel funds to terrorist groups around the world.118 Venezuela is

providing support—including identity documents—that could prove useful to radical Islamic groups, say some U.S. officials. The Venezuelan government has issued thousands of cedulas, the equivalent of Social Security cards, to people from places such as Cuba, Columbia, and Middle Eastern nations that host foreign terrorist organizations. The U.S. officials believe that the Venezuelan government is issuing the documents to people who should not be getting them and that some of these cedulas could be subsequently used to obtain Venezuelan passports and even American visas, which could allow the holder to elude immigration checks and enter the United States.119 Recently, several Pakistanis were apprehended at the U.S.-Mexican border with fraudulent Venezuelan documents.120 “Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, has been clearly talking to Iran about uranium,” said a senior administration official quoted by the Washington Times. Chavez has made several trips to Iran and voiced solidarity with the country's hard-line mullahs. He has hosted Iranian officials in Caracas, endorsed Tehran's nuclear ambitions and expressed support for the insurgency in Iraq. The Times reports

Venezuela is also talking with Hamas about sending representatives to Venezuela to raise money for the militant group's newly elected Palestinian government as Chavez seeks to build an anti-U.S. axis that also includes Fidel Castro's Cuba. “I am on the offensive,” Chavez said on the al Jazeera television network, “because attack is the best form of defense. We are waging an offensive battle….”121

The border is the most vulnerable access point into the US and terrorists will exploit that – federal action increases national security and risk assessment addresses the issues of portsMcCaul 06, Michael McCaul, Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security and the Subcommittee of Investigations, “A Line in the Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border,” 2006, http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/PDF/Border-Report.pdf//MC

- Risk assessment is where the US evaluates the threat level for the port and then enacts policies relevant to the threat level

The Federal government has taken positive steps to secure its borders, but much more is needed to combat an increasingly powerful, sophisticated, and violent criminal network which has been successful in smuggling illegal contraband, human or otherwise, into our country.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/PDF/Border-Report.pdf//MC

The growth of these criminal groups, along the Southwest border, and the potential for terrorists to exploit the vulnerabilities which they

create, represents a real threat to America’s national security. It is imperative that immediate action be taken to enhance security along our nation’s Southwest border. Greater control of the border can be achieved by: • enhancing Border Patrol resources, including expanding agent training capacity, and technical surveillance abilities; • constructing physical barriers in vulnerable and high-threat areas; • implementing state-of-

the-art technology, cameras, sensors, radar, satellite, and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles to ensure maximum coverage of the Nation’s Southwest border; • making permanent the “catch and return” policy; • expanding the use of the expedited removal policy; •

establishing additional detention bed space; • improving partnerships and information sharing among Federal, State, and

local law enforcement; • building a secure interoperable communications network for Border Patrol and state and local

law enforcement; • mandating a comprehensive risk assessment of all Southwest border Ports of Entry and international land borders to prevent the entry of terrorist and weapons of mass destruction; •

promoting both international and domestic policies that will deter further illegal entry into the United States; and • enhancing intelligence capabilities and information sharing with our Mexican counterparts and improving cooperation with the Mexican government to eradicate the Cartels. The Subcommittee will continue its investigation of border security matters and plans to issue a more comprehensive report on the entire Southwest border. The Subcommittee will hold future hearings, as warranted, on border security.

2NC CP Popular (politics net benefit)

Congress is warming up to talks about immigration and visa reformZiglar and Alden 11, James Ziglar, senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, and Edward Alden, senior fellow at the Council on

Foreign Relations, “The Real Price of Sealing the Border,” April 8th, 2011, from the Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703806304576242660330969554.html//MC

What's needed is to reform our immigration system so that it doesn't encourage illegal immigration.

This requires reforming the laws on legal immigration rather than just the enforcement components. A realistic, flexible visa program that matched available workers to open jobs in both boom times and bust would reduce much of the pressure on limited enforcement resources at the border and in the workplace. What about legalizing those here illegally? Using and misusing the loaded term "amnesty," opponents have shut down consideration of any program that could deal with this question realistically. Such opposition has even blocked the Dream Act, which would have given legal status to about 800,000 children brought to this

country by their parents, who few in Congress actually want to see deported. The Obama administration has been pilloried for focusing on the deportation of illegal immigrants with criminal records rather than indiscriminately hunting down every immigration violator. But a sensible legalization program would bring enforcement resources more in line with reality and restore integrity to the laws by increasing the odds that law-

breakers will be identified, apprehended and deported. Few, if any, government agencies outside the immigration services have been allowed to operate for so long under legal mandates so utterly disconnected from their resources and capabilities. It's a good first step that members of Congress have begun sensible discussions over what types of enforcement measures may be most needed, and how much the country should be willing to spend. It's time for all sides to work together to figure out what measures will yield effective and cost-efficient solutions both to our immigration problem and to our needs for high-skilled and low-skilled labor.

Immigration reform is popular – shields the linkAlden 06, senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations, “Republican split bars way to immigration reform,” March 29th, 2006, from

The Financial Times, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/640c6c62-bf52-11da-9de7-0000779e2340.html//MC

The Senate launched a debate on Wednesday on the most sweeping proposals to reform US immigration laws in two decades, but divisions

within the majority Republican party pose a huge obstacle to approval of the legislation in an election year. Immigration reform, which

President George W. Bush has been seeking for more than two years, has exposed disagreements among conservatives over whether low-wage immigrants should be seen as a boon to the economy or a threat to American workers and a drain on government coffers. In an unusual procedural move, the Senate will debate two different bills that

reflect both sides of that debate. Bill Frist, the Senate Republican leader who is trying to position himself for a presidential run in 2008, has

offered legislation that would tighten border security and increase penalties on US employers who hire illegal immigrants but would not increase the annual quota of legal migrants. That approach is popular in the US, and among Republicans. Recent polls have found that as many as 70 per cent of voters say they favour candidates who pledge to get tougher on illegal immigration. But Mr Frist has tried at the same time not to alienate Hispanic voters, who are an increasingly important Republican constituency, telling a group of Hispanic educators this week that "this nation was made great by men and women who longed for a better life and came to America to find it". As a result, he has pledged to allow a vote that could replace his bill with

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/640c6c62-bf52-11da-9de7-0000779e2340.html//

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703806304576242660330969554.html//

radically different legislation that is favoured by many Democrats and by Senator John McCain, who is likely to be one of Mr Frist's chief rivals in the 2008 Republican presidential primary.

---Intel Gathering 1NCText: The United States federal government should develop and fully integrate information systems that aid in combating terrorism.

Only the CP solves - There are many ways to crack the system and only one successful crack is needed to break the networkGarreau 05, Joel Garreau, staff writer for the Washington Post, “Intelligence Gathering Is the Best Way to Reduce Terrorism,” Are Efforts to Reduce Terrorism Successful?, published by Lauri Friedman, pg 60-63//MC

Another tactic: advancing the cause of the weakest link. “Suppose I’ve got a really powerful pulsetaker,” says Stephenson, “vying for a position of dominance. But I also know that a member of the blood kin group is moving forward who is weaker. If you

arrange an accident to eliminate the pulsetaker, and let the weaker family member come in, you’ve helped corrupt the network.” The beauty of seeding weakness into an organization is that you can degrade its effectiveness while still monitoring it, and not causing a new and potentially more efficient organization to replace it. “You don’t want to blow away the organization. You want to keep some fraudulent activity going on so you can monitor it. If you blow them away, you lose your leads,” says Stephenson. “Better the devil you know. Like [Libyan dictator] [Moammar] Gaddafi. Keep him alive, because you know him.

Who knows what sort of clever mastermind might replace him.” Intelligence is crucial to analyze the network’s weak links so you can destroy it. In a war between human networks, the side with superior intelligence wins. “You’re talking about what amounts to a clan or a tribe or brotherhood of blood and spilled blood. That is really tough to crack.

Trying to infiltrate it—we’re talking years,” says David Ronfeldt, a senior social scientist at Rand. However, from outside the network you can also look for patterns that stand out from the norm, like who talks to whom, e-mail exchanges, telephone records, bank records and who uses whose credit cards, says Ronfeldt. “I would

attack on the basis of their trust in the command and control structures by which they operate,” says Arquilla. “If they believe they are being listened to, they will be inhibited. If we were to reduce their trust in their infrastructure, it would drive them to non-technical means—force them to keep their heads down more. A courier carrying a disk has a hell of a

long way to go to communicate worldwide. If you slow them down, interception is more likely.” Human networks are distinct from electronic networks. But technology is the sea in which they swim. “What made [networks] vulnerable historically is their inability to coordinate their purpose,” says Manuel Castells, author of “The Rise of the Network Society,” the first volume of his trilogy, “The Information Age.” “But at this point,” he says, “they have this ability to be both decentralized and highly focused. That’s what’s new. And that’s technology. Not just electronic. It’s their ability to travel everywhere. Their ability to be informed everywhere. Their ability to receive money from everywhere.” This is why Arquilla is dubious about some traditional intelligence gathering techniques, and enthusiastic about new ones. For instance: You can talk about turning one of the network members over to your side, but “that’s problematic,” he says.

“You don’t know if they’re playing you as a double agent or are simply psychotic.” He is also dubious about the value of satellite reconnaissance in determining what we need to know about these networks. Find a member of the enemy group who is clearly a harmless idiot; treat him as if he were the most important figure and the only one worthy of being taken seriously. However, Arquilla likes the idea of understanding how the network works

by using clandestine technical collection [using technology to spy]. For instance, he says, when any computer user surfs on the Web—looking for travel tickets, say—more often than not a piece of software, called a cookie, is transmitted to

his computer. The device monitors his every move and reports back to some database what he’s done. Now, Arquilla says, “think of something much more powerful than cookies.” They exist, he says. One way to use them is by creating “honey pots.” This involves identifying Web sites used by activists or setting up a Web site that will attract them, and seeding [the honey pots] with these intelligent software agents. When the activists check in, they can’t leave without taking with them a piece of software that allows you to backtrack, getting into at least one part of the enemy network. “That likely gives you his/her all-channel connections, and maybe even some hints about hubs or the direction of some links,” says Arquilla. There are other possibilities. “You know those little cameras that some people have on top of their monitors? Let me just say that it is entirely possible to activate those and operate them and look through them without the machine being turned on,” he says. Software also exists that “allows you to reconstruct every single keystroke. One after

the other. Why is that important? If you do find the right machine, you can reconstruct everything that [was typed]. Even with unbreakable encryption, you have all the keystrokes.” Much of this is hardly new, of course, divide and conquer has worked for a long time. Whenever the police got a Mafia wiseguy—Joe Valachi, for instance—to betray the others, no Mafiosi could trust another one as much anymore. Machiavelli, in “The Prince” of 1505, wrote about the strategic deployment of betrayal to undermine trust. What’s different is our technological ability to track groups in real time and see patterns that may be invisible on the surface.

“Our technology is sufficient that you can now handle radicalized groups. We can deal with 30 to several thousand,” says Carley. “You couldn’t do that before.” In 1996, Arquilla and Ronfeldt wrote a slim but highly prescient volume called “The Advent of Netwar” for the National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the defense agencies. It predicts that in a war between human networks, the

side with superior intelligence wins. It also makes some tactical suggestions about countering human networks with counter-networks that actually have been used to combat computer hackers. They include: • Find a member of the enemy group who is clearly a harmless idiot; treat him as if he were the most important figure and the only one worthy of being

taken seriously. • Single out competent and genuinely dangerous figures; write them off or call their loyalty to the cause

into question. • Control the stories people tell each other to define their reason for living and acting as they do. The terrorist story, says Ronfeldt, “gives these people common cause—us versus them. Right now the U.S. would seem to have the edge at the worldwide level. But within the region, there was the dancing in the streets in Palestine. Part of the story is that America’s evil, and

that America’s presence is to blame for so many of the problems in the Middle East. We have to attack that part.” • Find the list of demands extorted by the network; grant some that make no sense and/or disturb and divide their political aims. • Paint the enemy with PR ugly paint [public relations slander] so that they seem beyond the pale, ridiculous, alien, maniacal, inexplicable. • Destroy their social support networks by using “helpful” but differently valued groups that are

not perceived as aggressive. • Divide and conquer; identify parts of the network that can be pacified and play them against former allies. • Intensify the human counter-networks in one’s own civil society. Adds Manuel

Castells: “We should be organizing our own networks, posing as Islamic terrorist networks. We should then demand to join one of these networks and then destroy the trust structures. Only way to infiltrate. Oldest technique in the world.” Few of these ideas involve flattening Kabul [Afghanistan], all of these analysts note. Stephenson worries that massing the Navy near Afghanistan is “a symbolic show of old-fashioned strength. It’s not about that anymore. This whole

playing ground has shifted.” “In order to do anything, you cannot be blind,” says Castells. “The most extraordinary vulnerability of the American military is it looks like they do not have many informants inside Afghanistan. It also looks like the majority of the components of this network do not relate directly or essentially to nation-states. That is

new. Unless we have a fundamental rethinking of strategic matters, it’s going to be literally, literally exhausting and impossible. It will be desperate missile attacks at the wrong targets with a lot of suffering.

2NC Solvency - Generic

Information systems let us get at the core of terrorist organizations – we only need to get a few “key nodes”Garreau 05, Joel Garreau, staff writer for the Washington Post, “Intelligence Gathering Is the Best Way to Reduce Terrorism,” Are Efforts to Reduce Terrorism Successful?, published by Lauri Friedman, pg 59-60//MC

In the case of terror networks, people are linked by family ties, marriage ties and shared principles, interests and goals. They thus can be all of one mind, even though they are dispersed and devoted to different tasks. They “know what they have to do” without needing a single-central leadership, command or headquarters. There is no precise heart or head that can be targeted, Arquilla says. Even if you take out an Osama bin Laden [that

is, a terrorist] his organization, al Qaeda (“The Base”), still has the resilience of a classic human network. Bin Laden’s, for instance, is made up of an estimated two dozen separate militant Islamic groups in the Philippines, Lebanon, Egypt, Kashmir, Algeria, Indonesia and elsewhere, with hundreds of cells, some of them located in Western Europe and even the

United States, as we’ve now discovered. On the other hand, depending on the structure of the network, removing a few key nodes can sometimes do a lot of good, says Frank Fukuyama, author of the seminal work “Trust: The Social Virtues

and the Creation of Prosperity” and now a professor at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. “Some are so tightly bound to each other that they are not embedded in other networks. Kill a few nodes, and the whole thing collapses. Take the case of the [terrorist group] Sendero Luminoso [Shining Path] in Peru. It couldn’t have been that hierarchical. It was designed for the mountains of Peru. It couldn’t have been terribly centralized. It had a scattered cell structure. It was hard to infiltrate. It was dispersed. And yet when you got [Shining Path founder and leader Abimael] Guzman and a few top aides, the entire thing fell

apart. “The idea that there is no end of terrorists, no way to stamp them all out, that if you kill a hundred, another hundred will spring up—I would be very careful of that assumption. The network of people who are willing to blow themselves up has to be limited. Sure, there are sympathizers and bagmen and drivers. But the actual core network of suicide bombers is probably a much smaller population. It is also tight-knit and hard to infiltrate. But it is limited. It is not obvious to me that there is an endless supply.”

Only the CP solves – information systems and networks are the only ways to challenge asymmetric war fighting and terrorismGarreau 05, Joel Garreau, staff writer for the Washington Post, “Intelligence Gathering Is the Best Way to Reduce Terrorism,” Are Efforts to Reduce Terrorism Successful?, published by Lauri Friedman, pg 57-58//MC

Terrorist organizations are human networks, not armies. They rely on trust, relationships, and communication to operate. Military operations and bombing campaigns will be ineffective against such groups because they will not

destroy the trust and connections those networks are built upon. Therefore, the most effective way to reduce terrorism is to wage a war of wits. With good intelligence gathering techniques, authorities can learn who the key terrorists are and either eliminate them or tarnish their reputations in the eyes of others in the network. Unraveling the ties that bind terrorists will win the war on terrorism. The essence of this first war of the 21st century is that it’s not like the old ones. That’s why, as $40 billion is voted for the new war on terrorism, 35,000 reservists are called up

and two aircraft carrier battle groups hover near Afghanistan,1 some warriors and analysts have questions: In the Information Age,

they ask, how do you attack, degrade or destroy a small, shadowy, globally distributed, stateless network of intensely loyal partisans with few fixed assets or addresses? If bombers are not the right hammer for this nail, what is? Bombers worked well in wars in which one Industrial Age military threw steel at another. World War II, for instance, was a matchup of roughly symmetrical forces. This is not true today. That’s why people who think about these things call this new conflict

“asymmetric warfare.” The terrorist side is different: different organization, different methods of attack—and of defense. “It takes a tank to fight a tank. It takes a network to fight a network,” says John Arquilla, senior consultant to the international security group Rand and co-author of the forthcoming “Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror,

Crime and Militancy.” He asks: “How do you attack a trust structure—which is what a network is? You’re not going to do this with Tomahawk missiles or strategic bombardment.” “It’s a whole new playing field. You’re not attacking a nation, but a network,” says Karen Stephenson, who studies everything from corporations to the U.S.

Navy as if they were tribes. Trained as a chemist and anthropologist, she now teaches at Harvard and the University of London. “You have to understand what holds those networks in place, what makes them strong and where the leverage points are. They’re not random connections,” she says. Human networks are distinct from electronic ones. They are not the Internet. They are political and emotional connections among people who must trust each other in order to function, like Colombian drug cartels and [Spanish] Basque separatists and the Irish Republican Army. Not to mention high-seas pirates, smugglers of illegal immigrants, and rogue

brokers of weapons of mass destruction. But how to [destroy] a network? The good news is that in the last decade we have developed a whole new set of weapons to figure that out.

---NPT 1NCText: The United States federal government should begin disarmament in accordance to the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 2010.

The counterplan solves – other states will model after the United States and it is the only way to ensure the threats of nuclear terrorism and rouge states goes away. It is also gaining domestic and international supportBurt 5/1, Alistair Burt, Parlimentary Under Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the United Kingdom, “The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – At the Heart of the Global Nuclear Debate,” May 1st, 2012, from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/2012/05/01/nuclear-non-proliferation-treaty-at-heart-of-global-nuclear-debate/b0ns//MC

The word “nuclear” is often on the front pages of the press, whether you’re in Tehran, Tokyo or Tunis. In the last few weeks alone, we’ve seen international talks about Iran’s nuclear programme and united international concern that it is developing a nuclear weapon. We have also seen the DPRK rocket launch—ostensibly a failed satellite launch, but widely suspected to be part of a nuclear weapons programme. Yet at the same

time we’ve seen unprecedented agreement by world leaders at the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul to work together to tackle the threat of nuclear terrorism. The issue of nuclear safety was thrust onto the front pages last year during the massive emergency response to the accident at the Fukushima nuclear plant, following the tragic earthquake and tsunami in Japan. Given our expectation that world-wide energy demand is set to double by 2050, and the stark reality that we

must reduce global greenhouse gas emissions if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change, then it is clear that the debate about the peaceful uses of nuclear power and the risks of the spread of nuclear weapons is set to continue. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is at the heart of our approach to this debate. The Treaty, borne out of

fear that the Cold War era would lead to a nuclear arms race, has in many ways surpassed expectations in terms of longevity, participation and meeting its counter proliferation objectives. Today, with 189 States Parties to the Treaty, it has more signatories than any other treaty of its kind. The three non-signatories India, Israel, and Pakistan, are the only additional states believed to have gained possession of nuclear weapons since the Treaty’s inception in 1968. We have left the Cold War era long behind

us, and while the Treaty continues to be a considerable deterrent to the spread of nuclear weapons, we must all work to ensure that it evolves and adapts to counter current and future threats to international peace and security. We took a big step towards achieving this in 2010. As my first overseas duty as a UK Foreign Office Minister I attended the NPT Review Conference at the UN in New York. The outcome was a significant boost to multilateralism. All States Parties agreed to support the Treaty to

meet new and existing threats. A five year action plan was agreed by consensus, spanning the three so-called “pillars” of the NPT – progress toward disarmament by existing nuclear weapon states, measures to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons to others and, a crucial part of the bargain struck in 1968, supporting the peaceful use of nuclear energy for those that want it. Agreement to the action plan represented the start of a process. The real test will be through delivery of the action plan to meet our commitments by the next Review Conference in 2015. The 2012 NPT Preparatory Committee starting this week in Vienna will be the first meeting of States Parties to assess our progress and build on the success of 2010. I hope that all states will come ready to discuss the progress they have made and plans for implementation of the NPT action plan. I am pleased that the UK will have an excellent story to tell. Since 2010 the UK has set out our plans for the reduction of our nuclear warheads, missiles and overall nuclear weapons

stockpile. Amongst the nuclear weapons states (China, France, Russia, the UK and the US), all members of the NPT, stockpiles already

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/2012/05/01/nuclear-non-proliferation-treaty-at-heart-of-global-nuclear-debate/b0ns//MC

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/2012/05/01/nuclear-non-proliferation-treaty-at-heart-of-global-nuclear-debate/b0ns//MC

stand at their lowest since the Cold War, and we meet regularly to discuss how we will work together to make further progress towards our long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The UK has also been conducting groundbreaking work with Norway on the verification of nuclear warhead dismantlement, a crucial aspect of any future

disarmament regime, and [this month] hosted the first ever meeting of the five nuclear weapon states on this issue. We have also taken important steps towards preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We continue to support a universal, strengthened system of safeguards to verify that States comply with their international obligations to uphold the non-proliferation regime. The regime is also strengthened by Nuclear Weapons Free Zones which enhance regional and international security. In support of this, the UK, together with the other nuclear weapons states recognised under the NPT, reached an agreement with the Association of South East Asian Nations, underscoring that we will not to use, or threaten to use, nuclear

weapons against the 10 states party to the South East Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone. Credible, internationally binding commitments are vital to building the climate of trust between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons states. With this latest addition, such arrangements now cover almost 100 countries. Furthermore, since 2010 the UK has worked to support the safe expansion of civil-nuclear energy—and has recently completed agreements to share nuclear energy knowledge and capabilities with the UAE and Kuwait. Following the tragic events at Fukushima, the UK undertook comprehensive nuclear safety checks and reviewed our own nuclear energy future, including identifying eight potential sites for new nuclear power stations. At the Review Conference in 2010 I was struck

by the positive approach of all towards strengthening the NPT. This reflects the widespread belief that the NPT offers the best chance we have of getting the balance right on nuclear issues: with progress towards the long term goal of a world free of the threat of nuclear weapons, while allowing the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. It is a goal to which I am personally committed. If we fail, we risk the uncontrolled spread of nuclear weapons to rogue states and terrorist groups. It is a shared responsibility of us all to ensure we do not fail.

2NC Solvency – Spill Over

US key to solve the NPT.Curtis, ‘8 – Charles B. Curtis, president of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, “Reducing the Global Nuclear Danger: International Cooperation – the Indispensable Security Imperative;” Published 2008, speech given November 1st, 2007, From the Commission of the Better World Foundation, http://www.nti.org/c_press/speech_curtis_reducing1107.pdf

To do this, the United States must abandon its policy of disdain for international treaty regimes and institutions, and work instead to strengthen them. Underlying this effort must be a restored U.S. commitment to work through the United Nations and the structure of international regimes for counter-proliferation, counter-terrorism, arms reduction and control, and the instruments for promoting global economic wellbeing that the United States helped create but has recently failed to adequately support. Where international organizations and regimes have been weakened by our lack of support or by their own internal flaws, these weaknesses must be eliminated, and both political and financial support restored. Working through international institutions is critical to restoring faith in the United States as a global partner. That restored faith will allow more effective leadership. Central to gaining international cooperation from non-nuclear weapons states on nuclear proliferation matters would be a clear and unambiguous commitment by the U.S. and other weapons states to act purposefully to meet their responsibilities under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). This point was made in an opinion piece written in January in the Wall Street Journal by former U.S. Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry, and former Senator Sam Nunn. In their essay, “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons,” they argue that we are on the precipice of a new and dangerous nuclear era, with more nuclear-armed states and a real risk of nuclear terrorism. In such a world, the four warn that continued reliance on nuclear deterrence for maintaining international security “is becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective,” and that none of the nonproliferation steps being taken now “are adequate to the danger.” The veteran statesmen argue that the United States and other nations must both embrace the vision of a world free from the threat of nuclear weapons and pursue a balanced program of practical measures toward achieving that goal: “Without the bold vision, the actions will not be perceived as fair or urgent. Without the actions, the vision will not be perceived as realistic or possible.” As former Secretary General Kofi Annan noted as he left office, the world risks becoming mired in a sterile stand-off between those who care most about disarmament and those who care most about proliferation. Continued paralysis is a danger to us all. On our current path, in Annan’s words, the “world is sleepwalking toward nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism.” The United States has an opportunity to break this stalemate and re-establish its essential leadership in non-proliferation in a single, dramatic stroke. Selecting the forum of the United Nations annual meeting of the General Assembly attended by all world leaders, the United States should expressly and explicitly renew its NPT vows. The President should state the U.S. intention to engage all nuclear weapons states in a joint enterprise to work toward a safer world free from the threat of nuclear weapons and toward the establishment of a more secure global political context that would make that goal possible. The

http://www.nti.org/c_press/speech_curtis_reducing1107.pdf

President should acknowledge that the requisite security context for achieving that goal does not exist today – and admit that we are headed in the wrong direction and must change course. The President could emphasize this commitment by announcing a number of steps that would reduce the nuclear danger and underscore America’s bona fides.

2NC Prolif Bad– Stability

Proliferation destabilizes the globeClinton 10, Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, “No Greater Danger: Protecting our Nation and Allies from Nuclear Terrorism and Nuclear Proliferation;” April 9th, 2010, from the State Department, http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/04/139958.htm//MC

Secretary Clinton delivers remarks entitled “No Greater Danger: Protecting our Nation and Allies from Nuclear Terrorism and Nuclear Proliferation” at the University of Louisville as part of the McConnell Center's Spring Lecture Series. Secretary Clinton said: "I want to speak about why nuclear arms control, nonproliferation, and nuclear security matter to each of us, and how the initiatives and the acronyms that

make up our bipartisan work on these issues are coming together to make our nation safer. "There is a reason that presidents and foreign policy leaders in both parties are determined to address this danger. A nuclear attack

anywhere could destroy the foundations of global order. While the United States and old Soviet Union are no longer locked

in a nuclear standoff, nuclear proliferation is a leading source of insecurity in our world today. "And the United States benefits when the world is stable: our troops can spend more time at home, our companies can make better long-

term investments, our allies are free to work with us to address long-term challenges like poverty and disease. But nuclear proliferation, including the nuclear programs being pursued by North Korea and Iran, are in exact opposition to those goals. Proliferation endangers our forces, our allies, and our broader global interests. And to the extent it pushes other countries to develop nuclear weapons in response, it can threaten the entire international order."

North Korean proliferation causes nuclear warCNN 03, CNN, “N K. Warns of nuclear conflict,” February 26th, 2003, from CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/25/nkorea.missile/index.html//MC

Pyongyang cites upcoming U.S.-South Korean joint military exercises scheduled to begin on March 4, as "reckless war moves" designed to "unleash a total war on the Korean peninsula with a pre-emptive nuclear strike". "The situation of the Korean Peninsula is reaching the brink of a nuclear war," the statement, issued by the official Korean Central News Agency, says. The North also called on South Koreans to "wage a nationwide anti-U.S. and anti-war struggle to frustrate the U.S. moves for a nuclear war." The United States denies it has any plans to attack North Korea, consistently saying it is seeking a

diplomatic and political solution to the increasing tensions sparked by Pyongyang's decision to reactivate its nuclear program. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell on Tuesday wrapped up a four-day tour of Japan, China and South Korea during which he lobbied Asian leaders to support a multi-lateral approach to pressure North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions. Powell repeated the U.S. position that it had no intention of invading North Korea and had no plans to impose fresh economic sanctions on the impoverished communist nation. While Japan and South Korea indicated they might support a regional initiative to sway Pyongyang, China -- a key ally and aid donor to the North -- appeared to remain unconvinced. China says the United States must deal with Pyongyang equally on a one-to-one basis. "We believe diplomatic, political pressure still has a role to play. And there are

countries who have considerable influence with the North Koreans who will continue to apply pressure," Powell said Tuesday. "We also made it clear that if they begin reprocessing (nuclear material), it changes the entire political

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/04/139958.htm

landscape. And we're making sure that is communicated to them in a number of channels." Powell would not be drawn on how would

Washington react if Pyongyang did begin reprocessing but did say that the U.S. had "no intention of invading" North Korea. Tensions on the peninsula have been ratcheting up over the past few weeks with North Korea becoming increasingly provocative. On Monday, the North fired a short-range missile into the Sea of Japan, or East Sea, an act many believe was designed to upstage the inauguration of new South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun. (Roh sworn in) Last week, a North Korean MiG-19 fighter briefly flew into South Korean air space. (MiG incursion) The North has also threatened to abandon the 1953 armistice that ended the fighting of the Korean War.

Iranian proliferation causes warGold, 07 [Thomas J., Masters in Strategic Intelligence, Joint Military Intelligence College, Nuclear Conflict in the Middle East: An Analysis of

Future Events, p. 53-55]

If the political, ethnic, and military policies, and future nuclear weapons development in the Middle East continue in

their present directions, Iran or Iraq will eventually initiate a nuclear conflict , probably in the 2005-2015 time frame. Major focal events such as total arms control (resulting in a regional NWFZ), individual acceptance of the NPT, or changes in Middle East leadership will ultimately determine which future happens. FUTURE INDICATORS A constant watch is needed to assess the actions, intentions, and progress of the Middle East countries with their nuclear programs. As well as the status of each country’s nuclear program, its military capability and intentions must also be monitored to determine which future direction is most likely and if the first use of nuclear weapons is likely. ‘Future Indicators” verify the progress of each country toward the most likely

“Alternate Future”. Future No. 23 (most likely,): Israel, Iran, and Iraq have developed nuclear weapons. Israel and Iran have kept their weapons as a deterrent. Iraq is the first to use nuclear weapons, probably for aggression. Depending on which Middle East country is attacked by Iraq, either Israel or Iran will retaliate with a secondary nuclear strike. Actions by the U.S., Russia, or other countries will have little effect in deterring this retaliation. This future scenario also carries the risk of escalation into a regional or global nuclear conflict if the major nuclear powers become involved. This scenario can only take place if Iran chooses to retain its nuclear weapons for deterrence rather than be aggressive. Note that Iran has developed weapons approximately three years earlier than Iraq. Israel must also be complacent about Iraq’s program and not destroy the Iraqi reactors as it did in 1981. Transposition to

Future No. 20: Iran becomes democratic and does not develop nuclear weapons. However, without the appearance of having a potential nuclear capability, Iran will surely become the most probable target of Iraq’s attack. Transposition to Future No. 14: Israel or one of the major nuclear powers takes a major action which deters Iraq from nuclear aggression. This

scenario would result in a very unstable situation when all three countries have nuclear weapons. The potential would then exist for a regional dispute to escalate into nuclear conflict. Transposition to Future No. I: Prior to any conflict, all Middle East countries have agreed to a NWFZ, abandoned their nuclear development programs, and destroyed all nuclear weapons and related materials. Indicators for Future Scenario No. 23: A tier the development and assembly of a nuclear device, Iraq may test the weapon within Iraqi territory to verify its design, or politically move Iraq into being a nuclear power: this action would be a major step toward regional hegemony. After testing this weapon, Iraq may also begin a buildup of its nuclear capability for future deterrence or aggression. Future No. 17 (second most

likely): Israel and Iran have developed nuclear weapons. Iraq program is not complete, and Israel has kept its weapons as a deterrent. Iran is the first to use nuclear weapons, probably for aggression. As the status of

the Iraqi program is uncertain, the most probable target for an Iranian first strike using nuclear weapons is Israel. A nuclear retaliation by Israel would be certain. The potential now exists for the involvement of the major nuclear powers, the U.S. siding with Israel, and Russia siding with Iran. Escalation to regional or global nuclear war is now a possibility .

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/20/skorea.mig/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/24/skorea.inauguration.reut/index.html

2NC Prolif Bad– Miscalc

Proliferation increases the risk of miscalculation – it’s also a better internal link to nuclear terrorICNND 09, – International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, from Gareth Evans and Yoriko Kawaguchi, Co-Chairs of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament; “Eliminating Nuclear Threats: A Practical Agenda for Global Policymakers;” published 2009; http://www.icnnd.org/reference/reports/ent/pdf/ICNND_Report-EliminatingNuclearThreats.pdf//MC

3.1 Ensuring that no new states join the ranks of those already nuclear armed must continue to be one of the world’s top international security

priorities. Every new nuclear-armed state will add significantly to the inherent risks – of accident or miscalculation as well as deliberate use – involved in any possession of these weapons, and potentially encourage more states to acquire nuclear weapons to avoid being left behind. Any scramble for nuclear capabilities is bound to generate severe instability in bilateral, regional and international relations. The carefully worked checks and balances of interstate relations will come under severe stress. There will be enhanced fears of nuclear blackmail, and of irresponsible and unpredictable leadership behaviour. 3.2 In conditions of inadequate command

and control systems, absence of confidence building measures and multiple agencies in the nuclear weapons chain of authority, the possibility of an accidental or maverick usage of nuclear weapons will remain high. Unpredictable elements of risk and reward will impact on decision making processes. The dangers are compounded if the new and aspiring nuclear weapons states have, as is likely to be the case, ongoing inter-state disputes with ideological, territorial, historical – and for all those reasons, strongly emotive – dimensions. 3.3 The transitional period is likely to be most dangerous of all, with the arrival of nuclear weapons tending to be accompanied by sabre rattling and competitive nuclear chauvinism. For example, as between Pakistan and India a degree of stability might have now evolved, but 1998–2002 was a period of disturbingly fragile interstate relations. Command and control and risk management of nuclear weapons takes time to evolve. Military and

political leadership in new nuclear-armed states need time to learn and implement credible safety and security systems. The risks of nuclear accidents and the possibility of nuclear action through inadequate crisis control mechanisms are very high in such circumstances. If this is coupled with political instability in such states, the risks escalate again. Where such countries are beset with internal stresses and fundamentalist groups with trans-national agendas, the risk of nuclear weapons or fissile material coming into possession of non - state actors cannot be ignored . 3.4 The action–reaction cycle of nations on high alerts, of military deployments, threats and counter threats of military action, have all been

witnessed in the Korean peninsula with unpredictable behavioural patterns driving interstate relations. The impact of a proliferation breakout in the Middle East would be much wider in scope and make stability management extraordinarily difficult. Whatever the chances of “stable deterrence” prevailing in a Cold War or India–Pakistan setting, the prospects are significantly less in a regional setting with multiple nuclear power centres divided by multiple and cross-cutting sources of conflict.

Middle Eastern conflict would go nuclearPrimakov 09, Yevgeny Primakov, President of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation and Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences; member of the Editorial Board of Russia in Global Affairs, “The Middle East Problem in the Context of International Relations,” September 5, 2009,

http://www.icnnd.org/reference/reports/ent/pdf/ICNND_Report-EliminatingNuclearThreats.pdf

http://www.icnnd.org/reference/reports/ent/pdf/ICNND_Report-EliminatingNuclearThreats.pdf

from the scientific report for which the author was awarded the Lomonosov Gold Medal of the Russian Academy of Sciences in 2008, eng.globalaffairs.ru/number/n_13593//MC

The Middle East conflict is unparalleled in terms of its potential for spreading globally. During the Cold War, amid which the Arab-Israeli conflict evolved, the two opposing superpowers directly supported the conflicting parties: the Soviet Union supported Arab countries, while the United States supported Israel. On the one hand, the bipolar world order which existed at that time objectively played in favor of the escalation of the Middle East conflict into a global confrontation. On the other

hand, the Soviet Union and the United States were not interested in such developments and they managed to keep the situation under control. The behavior of both superpowers in the course of all the wars in the Middle East proves that. In 1956, during the Anglo-French-Israeli military invasion of Egypt (which followed Cairo’s decision to nationalize the Suez Canal Company) the United States – contrary to the widespread belief in various countries, including Russia – not only refrained from supporting its allies but insistently pressed – along with the Soviet Union – for the cessation of the armed action. Washington feared that the tripartite aggression would undermine the positions of the West in the Arab world and would result in a direct clash with the Soviet Union.

Fears that hostilities in the Middle East might acquire a global dimension could materialize also during the Six-Day War of 1967. On its eve, Moscow and Washington urged each other to cool down their “clients.” When the war began, both superpowers assured each other that they did not intend to get involved in the crisis militarily and that that they would make efforts at the United Nations to negotiate terms for a ceasefire. On July 5, the Chairman of the Soviet Government, Alexei Kosygin, who was authorized by the Politburo to conduct negotiations on behalf of the Soviet leadership, for the first time ever used a hot line for this purpose. After the USS Liberty was attacked by Israeli forces, which later claimed the attack was a case of mistaken identity, U.S. President Lyndon Johnson immediately notified Kosygin that the movement of the U.S. Navy in the Mediterranean Sea was only intended to help the crew of the attacked ship and to investigate the incident. The situation repeated itself during the hostilities of October 1973. Russian publications of those years argued that it was the Soviet Union that prevented U.S. military involvement in those events. In contrast, many U.S. authors claimed that a U.S. reaction thwarted Soviet plans to send troops to the Middle East. Neither statement is true. The atmosphere was really quite tense. Sentiments both in Washington and Moscow were in favor of interference, yet both capitals were far from taking real action. When U.S. troops were put on high alert, Henry Kissinger assured Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin that this was done largely for domestic considerations and should not be seen by Moscow as a hostile act. In a private conversation with Dobrynin, President Richard Nixon said the same, adding that he might have overreacted but that this had been done amidst a hostile campaign against him over Watergate. Meanwhile, Kosygin and Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko at a Politburo meeting in Moscow strongly rejected a proposal by Defense Minister Marshal Andrei Grechko to “demonstrate” Soviet military presence in Egypt in response to Israel’s refusal to comply with a UN Security Council resolution. Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev

took the side of Kosygin and Gromyko, saying that he was against any Soviet involvement in the conflict. The above suggests an unequivocal conclusion that control by the superpowers in the bipolar world did not allow the Middle East conflict to escalate into a global confrontation. After the end of the Cold War, some scholars and political

observers concluded that a real threat of the Arab-Israeli conflict going beyond regional frameworks ceased to exist. However, in the 21st century this conclusion no longer conforms to the reality. The U.S.

military operation in Iraq has changed the balance of forces in the Middle East. The disappearance of the Iraqi counterbalance has brought Iran to the fore as a regional power claiming a direct role in various Middle East processes. I do not belong to those who believe that the Iranian leadership has already made a political decision to create nuclear weapons of its own. Yet Tehran seems to have set itself the goal of achieving a technological level that would let it make such a decision (the “Japanese

model”) under unfavorable circumstances. Israel already possesses nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles. In such

circumstances, the absence of a Middle East settlement opens a dangerous prospect of a nuclear collision in the region, which would have catastrophic consequences for the whole world. The transition to a multipolar world has objectively strengthened the role of states and organizations that are directly involved in regional conflicts, which increases the latter’s danger and reduces the possibility of controlling them. This refers, above all, to the Middle East conflict. The coming of Barack Obama to the presidency has allayed fears that the United States could deliver a preventive strike against Iran (under George W. Bush, it was one of the most discussed topics in the United States). However, fears have increased that such a strike can be launched Yevgeny Primakov 1 3 2 RUSSIA IN GLOBAL

AFFAIRS VOL. 7 • No. 3 • JULY – SEPTEMBER• 2009 by Israel, which would have unpredictable consequences for the region and beyond. It seems that President Obama’s position does not completely rule out such a possibility.

Aff – NPT Fails

The NPT has structural flaws that states can take advantage of – North Korean provesClaussen 08, Bjørn Ragnar Claussen, fellow at the Folke Bernadotte Academy for Peace Studies, Masters from the Centre for Peace Studies at the University of Tromsø, “The Future of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy,” Autumn 2008, From the Centre for Peace Studies, http://www.ub.uit.no/munin/bitstream/handle/10037/2062/thesis.pdf?sequence=1//MC

Moreover, if states withdraw from the NPT, their number would arguably add to the “pressure from outside.” Although many states consider the right to withdraw from a treaty as a norm of international law, the abrupt termination of a multilateral arms control treaty such as the NPT

may directly affect the security of many or all parties.134 As noted in the previous chapter section (2.4.2), the NPT has structural flaws, which means that a state can move to the brink of nuclear weapons capacity, thereby giving it the option to develop nuclear weapons quickly if it should decide to withdraw, without violating the treaty. Although its formal nuclear status is still unclear, the utilisation of the withdrawal provision of Article X by the DPRK illustrates this point. This has led several scholars to argue that in order to ensure the survival of the NPT, no state should

be allowed to withdraw from the treaty.135 The case of the DPRK also illustrates that different types of pressure can form clusters. The DPRK constitutes both “pressure from within,” by having acquired nuclear weapons despite its obligation as a NNWS not to do so, and arguably “pressure from outside,” by utilising the withdrawal provision of the NPT.

The NPT is lame – states can just say it’s for civilian useClaussen 08, Bjørn Ragnar Claussen, fellow at the Folke Bernadotte Academy for Peace Studies, Masters from the Centre for Peace Studies at the University of Tromsø, “The Future of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy,” Autumn 2008, From the Centre for Peace Studies, http://www.ub.uit.no/munin/bitstream/handle/10037/2062/thesis.pdf?sequence=1//MC

“Pressure from within” refers to NNWSs parties to the NPT which deliberately violate their treaty obligation to forsake nuclear weapons. States

parties which have yet not concluded safeguards agreements also belong to this type of pressure.111 “Pressure from within” stems in part from a paradox embedded in the NPT: Under the NPT, the NNWSs agreed to give up their pursuit of nuclear weapons, but not their pursuit of peaceful uses of nuclear energy. According to Article IV,

it is the inalienable right of all states parties to develop and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

Moreover, Article IV guarantees NNWSs the right to full access to nuclear power technology, on condition that they submit their nuclear activities to international inspections. According to Jonathan Schell, this bargain was a “Trojan horse” written into the

text of the NPT.112 Nuclear technology is a dual-use technology with both civilian and military applications. Education, experience, materials and technology involved in making nuclear weapons can be drawn in large part by peaceful applications of

nuclear energy.113 The NPT clearly prohibits NNWSs from using nuclear technology to make nuclear weapons, but once they have it, they have taken a major step towards the development of nuclear weapons.114 For NNWSs which desire nuclear weapons, Article IV thus assures that they are be able to acquire most of the wherewithal to

http://www.ub.uit.no/munin/bitstream/handle/10037/2062/thesis.pdf?sequence=1

http://www.ub.uit.no/munin/bitstream/handle/10037/2062/thesis.pdf?sequence=1

fulfill their ambitions without violating the NPT.115 Hence, the number of states capable of building nuclear weapons has paradoxically

increased due to the NPT. According to David Santoro, this paradox can prove to be the Achilles heel of the NPT.116 NNWSs which work

within the NPT, but deliberately manipulate or violate the provisions of the treaty, such as Iran is suspected to do, may cause states parties, both NWSs and NNWSs, to loose confidence in the credibility of the NPT, and opt for other means to prevent proliferation.117

No risk of modeling – the US continually backs out of NPT commitments and the authority of the treaty regime is in declineWesley 05, Michael Wesley, Executive Director of the Lowy Institute for International Policy, professor at the University of Hong Kong, and PhD from the University of St Andrews, “It's time to scrap the NPT,” From the Australian Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 59, Issue 3, 2005//MC

Many countries regard the NPT as deeply unfair, because it effectively solidifies an inequality in international relations that accords some states the (albeit questionable) status and security conferred by nuclear weapons while denying it to others.1 Although the NPT commits nuclear weapons states to eradicating their nuclear arsenals, after over a quarter of a century they have made only partial moves towards fulfilling this undertaking.2 Some commentators have argued that the indefinite extension of the NPT in 1995 further underlined this breach of trust by depriving non-nuclear weapons states of the opportunities provided by periodic renewal (rather than just review) conferences to press the nuclear weapons states on nuclear disarmament or to pressure Israel over its covert nuclear weapons program (Ogilvie-White and Simpson

2003: 42). With little prospect of securing the nuclear disarmament of the nuclear weapons states, the continuation of the NPT has become farcical.3 Commenting on the 2000 NPT Review Conference, two observers noted that ‘agreement on the Final Document had been possible only because many of the provisions were capable of varying interpretations, and thus unlikely to be implemented in full’ (Ogilvie-White and Simpson

2003: 43). They also noted that evidence of backsliding on commitments, particularly by the US, was ‘greeted by most delegations with resignation and quiet cynicism, rather than forthright and persistent criticism’ (Ogilvie-White and Simpson 2003: 45). The unwillingness of states to expend diplomatic capital in taking on the US

over its commitments indicates that fewer and fewer states continue to regard the integrity of the NPT as a foreign policy priority. The unfairness of the NPT risks generating cynicism among states about their obligations under the treaty, and therefore impacts directly on its effectiveness. Friedrich Kratochwil (1989) has argued convincingly that states do not follow rules out of a sense of unreflective obligation or blind habit, but on the basis of explicitly developed justifications derived from socially shared conceptions of

rationality and justice. Because the NPT effectively enshrines an unequal distribution of the security and status conferred by nuclear weapons, it contravenes the principles of natural justice. This in turn detracts from its legitimacy and ultimately from its effectiveness. As Abram Chayes and Antonia Chayes have argued, ‘a system in which only the weak can be made to comply with their undertakings will not achieve the legitimacy needed for reliable enforcement of treaty obligations’ (1998: 3). Furthermore, by effectively making the prohibition of the spread of nuclear weapons a higher priority than the

eradication of the nuclear arsenals of the nuclear weapons states, the NPT regime implies that some states, and not others, can be trusted with nuclear weapons. The implicit judgement the regime makes about competence and

trustworthiness only further aggravates the status inequality issues that plague the NPT. By arguing that the NPT enshrines a system of ‘nuclear apartheid’, Indian leaders and diplomats rehearsed many of these issues in their defence of India's nuclear tests in 1998. The effectiveness of this line of argument, plus the fact that interests

deemed more important than non-proliferation soon brought an end to most states’ sanctions against India and Pakistan, have done a great deal of damage to the moral authority of the NPT.

http://www.tandfonline.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/doi/full/10.1080/10357710500231230#CIT0004




http://www.tandfonline.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/doi/full/10.1080/10357710500231230#NOTE0003




Lack of enforcement and structural flaws make NPT collapse inevitable Council on Foreign Relations 05, The Council on Foreign Relations, “Nonproliferation: Proliferation Threats;” April 27th, 2005, http://www.cfr.org/weapons-of-mass-destruction/nonproliferation-proliferation-threats/p7834?breadcrumb=%2Fpublication%2Fpublication_list%3Ftype%3Dbackgrounder%26page%3D30//MC

Does the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty need an overhaul? Many experts say it does. They concede that the, Nuclear Non-Proliferation

Treaty (NPT) which went into effect in 1970, has helped limit the number of nuclear-armed countries. But they say the NPT has structural flaws that undermine its effectiveness against states determined to acquire nuclear weapons or terrorist groups bent on using them. Critics of the treaty and supporters alike will get a chance to air their views at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) NPT review conference in New York, May 2-27. There, the 189 signatories to the NPT--and observers, including India and Pakistan--will

meet to discuss treaty reforms. Which articles do critics object to in the NPT? The main criticisms from member countries deal with the following articles: Article 4, which gives all parties to the treaty the "inalienable right" to the "research, production, and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes." This was intended to

allow all countries to share the benefits of nuclear power. But critics say Article 4 grants countries too much leeway to convert a lawful nuclear program into an illegal weapons program. The problem, says Jon Wolfstahl, a nuclear expert

at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, is that some countries now interpret Article 4 to mean they can legally build a civilian nuclear program and gain the knowledge they need to make nuclear weapons, then renounce the treaty to construct them. Article 2, which states that all non-nuclear weapons states that sign the NPT agree not to receive, manufacture, or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons. In addition, they agree "not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." The United States claims that Iran has already violated this article by acquiring nuclear technology from other countries, including Pakistan, and will push for it to

be interpreted more strictly. Article 6, which states that all parties to the NPT will pursue negotiations and other measures in good faith to stop the nuclear-arms race and seek nuclear disarmament "at an early date." Because the treaty does not specify a date, however, the goal of nuclear disarmament has not been reached nearly 40 years after the treaty's creation. Experts say many non-nuclear countries around the world accuse the nuclear-weapons states of dragging their feet on complete disarmament. Non-nuclear countries

may lobby to add a fixed deadline, perhaps 10 or 15 years from now, by which disarmament must be completed. Article 10, which gives each member state the right to withdraw from the treaty with only 90 days notice if its "supreme interests" are jeopardized. What's the treaty's biggest flaw? That there is limited power to enforce it, experts say. Most international inspections mandated by the NPT are voluntary, and countries largely control inspectors' movements.

There are no penalties for breaking the terms of the NPT--as North Korea did when it developed an illicit nuclear-weapons program--except being reported to the U.N. Security Council. Thus far, the Security Council has taken no

punitive action against North Korea. "The nonproliferation regime is like a pyramid scheme," says Joseph Cirincione,

director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "It works as long as everyone believes in it. As soon as they stop doing that, it collapses."

http://www.cfr.org/weapons-of-mass-destruction/nonproliferation-proliferation-threats/p7834?breadcrumb=%2Fpublication%2Fpublication_list%3Ftype%3Dbackgrounder%26page%3D30



Aff – No Impact

Proliferation doesn’t provide strategic benefits to states and the costs vastly outweigh the benefits. If anything, it makes conflict escalation less like and only encourages countries to foster their conventional forces in combat. Wesley 05, Michael Wesley, Executive Director of the Lowy Institute for International Policy, professor at the University of Hong Kong, and PhD from the University of St Andrews, “It's time to scrap the NPT,” From the Australian Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 59, Issue 3, 2005//MC

In considering whether states should scrap the NPT, two prominent questions need to be answered: what are the dangers associated with ending the NPT? And what would a new regime that confronts contemporary proliferation realities, while more

effectively ensuring the prevention of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, look like? The major concern of those who oppose scrapping the NPT is that it would result in a ‘proliferation break-out’. This suggests that without the constraints of the NPT, the number of nuclear weapons states would rise from the current nine

acknowledged and non-acknowledged holders of nuclear weapons to dozens. However, this assumes that the NPT has been the main reason for the limited spread of nuclear weapons over the past 60 years, an unlikely proposition for a regime whose shortcomings have been acknowledged since its inception. A more likely explanation for the relative lack of proliferation is that most states have experienced insufficient demand-side pressures to overcome the costs of acquiring nuclear arsenals. For most states, this is a condition that will persist past the ending of the NPT. Even though states have grown wealthier and proliferation costs

have fallen, it is important to recognise that developing a nuclear arsenal is not cost-free. Nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles programs are expensive, meaning that most states will need to divert substantial resources from their conventional armed forces or other policy programs during the weapons development phase.6 Costs can also be incurred through the international opprobrium that will likely attend proliferation, from diplomatic boycotts to cancellation of aid funding to sanctions by states such as Japan. And a nuclear program brings risks, both the danger of catastrophic environmental and social damage from accidents, as well as arising from the strategic uncertainties generated among

neighbouring states (Erickson 2001: 43). Potential proliferators must also confront the power of the nuclear taboo—

which long pre-dates the NPT—and shoulder the burden of justifying to domestic and international public opinion why they need the bomb. These factors will persist past the demise of the NPT, and in the absence of a sudden decline in the security of a large number of states, fears of a proliferation break-out are unfounded. Another concern is that by making it easier for some states to acquire nuclear weapons, scrapping the NPT will result in several states being willing to take greater risks in advancing their strategic interests. This would work either by emboldening aggressive states by reassuring them that they are able to deter retaliatory action or through a version of extended deterrence, in keeping outside powers out of regional conflicts (Dunn 1991: 26). Such misgivings, however, ignore past evidence of the effect of nuclear weapons on their possessors’ behaviour, and misunderstand the nature of nuclear weapons. In effect, they assume that nuclear weapons imbue their holders with ‘super-strategic’ properties. It has long been widely

acknowledged that nuclear weapons have no rational offensive value; by threatening a prospective opponent with catastrophic destruction, their only logical use is to deter others’ attacks (Schelling 1963). In

using nuclear threats offensively or as an explicit adjunct to a conventional attack, a state would incur unacceptable risks ‘because no state can expect to execute the threat without danger to [itself]’ (Waltz 1981: 13). As Saunders observes, ‘There is little empirical evidence to support claims that developing countries that acquire WMD and delivery systems will behave less cautiously than other nuclear weapons states’ (2001: 133). And there is little reason for nuclear-armed regional powers to believe with any certainty that extended deterrence will work to keep the US out of a regional conflict. Since

experiencing the frustration of being unable to use its nuclear arsenal to prevail in limited conflicts in Korea and Vietnam, the US has developed a truly awesome conventional military capability that provides it with the capacity to






prevail decisively in limited wars. In Iraq, it has also demonstrated its willingness to intervene and defeat an opponent armed with weapons of mass destruction with the relative confidence that if such an opponent were to use WMD against its forces or its allies, the US would retaliate with overwhelming force. William Perry, then US Secretary of Defence, said in 1996 that if the US was attacked by chemical weapons, ‘We could have a devastating response without the use of nuclear weapons, but we would not forswear that possibility’ (quoted in Feiveson and Hogendoorn

2003: 90). A third concern is that by making it easier to acquire nuclear weapons, the end of the NPT will give certain disgruntled states the confidence to defy global and regional norms of behaviour. However, this concern assumes that such states only comply with such norms due to a persisting sense of insecurity that possession of nuclear weapons would remove. As Chayes and Chayes have convincingly argued, states follow norms and agreements in international relations not out of the fear of coercion but due to a general ‘propensity to comply’ with agreements they have made or joined (1998). Even disgruntled states exhibit great concern for their international reputation, especially in an era of globalisation, where general reputation and confidence in a government is necessary to secure the requirements for economic development. Colonel Muammar Ghaddafi's extraordinary about-face in compensating the victims of Libyan-backed terrorist attacks and abandoning well-developed plans to develop a nuclear arsenal have only underlined the importance of reputation and co-operativeness in the age of globalisation. A fourth

concern is that scrapping the NPT will make it easier for extremist regimes to gain the ultimate guarantee that others will not intervene to topple them. There are certainly merits to this anxiety: it would be very difficult to justify and mount an intervention to topple a regime that possessed nuclear weapons. This in turn would take off the table the ultimate sanction against a genocidal government. But there are reasons to question the international dangers posed by

nuclear-armed ‘rogue states’. By enormously increasing the stakes involved in military adventures, possession of nuclear weapons is likely to strengthen the hand of moderates in any regime. And by ruling out the option of forceful intervention, a nuclear arsenal will probably, on balance, reduce the paranoid perceptions of a regime labelled a rogue state. In many ways, the case of Pakistan provides some evidence of these tendencies. As Gaurav Kampani observes, Pakistan fits the label of a rogue state better than most others: a state sponsor of terrorism with an active nuclear weapons program; a military dictatorship faced with an economy in terminal decline and a shrinking strategic space; and a set of societal, government and military institutions increasingly populated by extremist Islam (Kampani 2002: 107). Yet Pakistan has proved remarkably susceptible to international pressure to moderate its

internal and foreign policies.7 A fifth concern is that conflicts between regional powers will become more likely as the demise of the NPT results in more states with nuclear weapons. An increase in regional conflict in Asia may well be coming, mainly as a result of the newly intense patterns of competition among that continent's new great powers.

But possession of nuclear weapons will more likely have a positive (containing, de-escalating) effect on such conflicts, rather than a negative (escalating, broadening) effect. The most dangerous strategy one can choose in a war is to make a nuclear-armed state feel desperate; as a result, conflicts involving nuclear-armed states are more likely to be carefully limited and confined to stakes that are calculated to be well below the nuclear threshold of all parties (Waltz 1981: 20). Moreover, history shows that nuclear weapons have only been used or threatened to de-escalate or bring an end to conventional conflicts: the experience or prospect of catastrophic damage has tended to be a powerful motive forcing belligerents to modify their objectives. Further, the costs of nuclear war would be proportionately greater for new as opposed to the older nuclear states: the smallness of the territory and high rates of urbanisation of most aspiring nuclear states would ensure that a nuclear exchange would devastate a greater percentage of their populations and industry than projected exchanges between the superpowers were estimated to imperil during the height of the Cold War. The case of India and Pakistan offers some cautious hope that in some cases, after an unstable and dangerous period, acquisition of nuclear weapons will

cause opponents to begin to address the root causes of their antagonism and delimit spheres of interest. A final concern is that by allowing nuclear weapons to spread to more states, the end of the NPT raises the chances that nuclear or radiological materials will pass into the hands of terrorist groups. Once again, we need to be cautious about such

doomsday scenarios. Despite intense scrutiny, there is no evidence that even the most determined state sponsors of terrorism, such as Syria and Iran, have passed chemical or biological weapons to their terrorist clients. Having refused to pass on lower-stakes chemical and biological weapons, there is little reason to fear that they would hand over nuclear or radiological materials. Also, international advances in tracing the responsibility for terrorist attacks will have badly eroded such regimes’ confidence that they could allow a client group to carry out a nuclear or radiological attack and escape major retaliation. Such concerns have over time seen such regimes exercise tighter control over the groups they support, and to use





such groups more as a deterrent than an offensive foreign policy option.8 Further, if regimes such as Iran and Syria had decided to rely on terrorist groups to deliver their WMD threats against their targets, they would not have spent millions acquiring ballistic missile technology. Thus there seems to be little reason to believe that ending the NPT will increase the chance that nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of

terrorists. Indeed as I have argued above, the NPT's side effects of opaque and transnational proliferation represent a much more dangerous set of conditions for diagonal proliferation.


Russia Coop

NoteThe Elbe group was created after the Second World War to enhance the security relations between Russia and the United States. They mostly deal with nuclear issues such as proliferation, miscalculation, and terrorism.

Also, for impact stuff, there is a lot in the Bering Strait aff that I either didn’t include or didn’t cut. So, if you want to read a bunch of external impacts for the CP, go there.

1NC ShellText: The United States should cooperate with the Russian Federation in the fight against nuclear terrorism and articulate support of the Elbe Group.

The counterplan solves – coordinated efforts combat security threatsThe Elbe Group 3/20, The Elbe Group, providing a forum for Russian collaboration, General Eugene Habiger USAF (ret), former

Commander in Chief of Strategic Command; General of the Army (ret) Anatoliy S. Kulikov, former Minister of Interior Affairs; LTG Franklin Hagenbeck USA (ret), former Superintendent US Military Academy; General of the Army (ret) Valentin V. Korabelnikov, former Head of General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate, Russian Federation; LTG Michael Maples USA (ret), former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency; General Colonel (ret) Anatoliy E. Safonov, former First Deputy Director of FSB and former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs; Mr. Robert Dannenberg, former Chief of Operations for Counterterrorism, CIA; General Colonel (ret) Vladimir N. Verkhovtsev, former Head of 12th GUMO Nuclear Directorate; Mr. Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, former Director of Intelligence and Counterintelligence at DOE; Colonel (ret) Vladimir Y. Goltsov, former Ministry of Interior and MinAtom; Brigadier General Kevin Ryan USA (ret), former Defense Attache to Moscow, “US and Russia work together against threat of nuclear terrorism,” March 20th, 2012, from Global Post, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/commentary/us-and-russia-work-together-against-threat-nuclear-terrorism//MC

Ideas and trust are lacking. This is why in October 2010 a small group of senior, retired general officers from US and Russian military and

intelligence agencies formed the Elbe Group. The purpose of the Elbe Group, named after the river where American and Russian

forces met at the end of World War II, is to establish an open and continuous channel of communication on sensitive issues. The group is unique in that it brings together former leaders and members of the CIA and FSB, DIA and GRU (the military intelligence services), and the military and internal security forces. The first major issue tackled by the group has been preventing nuclear terrorism — a threat that combines the Cold War

peril of nuclear holocaust and the 21st century danger of international terrorism. In May 2011, the Elbe Group participated in creating a first-of-its-kind US-Russia Joint Threat Assessment on Nuclear Terrorism. The unclassified report, published by Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center and the Russian Academy of Science’s Institute for US and Canadian Studies, details the

growth of the threat that terrorist groups could obtain nuclear materials. The report is important because it is so far the only joint assessment of the threat from nuclear terrorism compiled by experts from the two leading nuclear powers. It represents a consensus among intelligence officers, scientists, and military leaders about how terrorists could obtain nuclear materials and use them. As the report concludes, “If current approaches toward eliminating the threat are not replaced with a sense of urgency and resolve, the question will become not if, but when, and on what scale the first act of nuclear terrorism occurs.” In the opinion of the Elbe Group, the nuclear security summit in Seoul provides an important opportunity to reaffirm US and Russian leadership

against the deadly menace of nuclear terrorism. We believe that, as the two leading nuclear powers in the world, Russia and the United States have a special responsibility to do everything in their power to deny weapons-useable nuclear materials to terrorists. Specifically, the governments of our countries should jointly take the following steps in cooperation with other responsible nations: • We encourage our governments to

develop an assessment of the threat from nuclear terrorism to provide a basis for a common understanding of the

threat and its component parts. • Our governments should establish a “domain” for combating nuclear terrorism — recognizing that nuclear terrorism, like nuclear security, should be understood as a cross-cutting issue requiring clearly responsible leaders in the government. Government efforts to prevent nuclear terrorism would benefit from clarification of the architectures for addressing this

domain. • We suggest that the US and Russia increase coordination between special services in the interest of providing better warning about terrorist threats, with priority given to preventing nuclear terrorism. • The catastrophe at

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/commentary/us-and-russia-work-together-against-threat-nuclear-terrorism

Fukushima, which was the result of an accident, could happen again as the result of intentional actions by terrorists. US and Russian relevant government agencies should lead international preparation for interdiction and consequence management of such acts. • US and Russian governments should continue to allocate resources to sustain and strengthen efforts to combat all forms of terrorism, in particular nuclear terrorism.

It bolsters sour relations and help prevents nuclear terrorism – modeling is keyThe Elbe Group 3/20, The Elbe Group, providing a forum for Russian collaboration, General Eugene Habiger USAF (ret), former

Commander in Chief of Strategic Command; General of the Army (ret) Anatoliy S. Kulikov, former Minister of Interior Affairs; LTG Franklin Hagenbeck USA (ret), former Superintendent US Military Academy; General of the Army (ret) Valentin V. Korabelnikov, former Head of General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate, Russian Federation; LTG Michael Maples USA (ret), former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency; General Colonel (ret) Anatoliy E. Safonov, former First Deputy Director of FSB and former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs; Mr. Robert Dannenberg, former Chief of Operations for Counterterrorism, CIA; General Colonel (ret) Vladimir N. Verkhovtsev, former Head of 12th GUMO Nuclear Directorate; Mr. Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, former Director of Intelligence and Counterintelligence at DOE; Colonel (ret) Vladimir Y. Goltsov, former Ministry of Interior and MinAtom; Brigadier General Kevin Ryan USA (ret), former Defense Attache to Moscow, “US and Russia work together against threat of nuclear terrorism,” March 20th, 2012, from Global Post, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/commentary/us-and-russia-work-together-against-threat-nuclear-terrorism//MC

It would seem that the relationship between the United States and Russia has once again settled into a sour state. Disagreements over missile defense in Europe are creating additional obstacles to a Russia-NATO summit planned for May. Russia and the US continue to disagree over policy toward Iran and Syria. But behind the front pages, there is significant cooperation happening between the US and Russia over an issue that both countries consider among the most serious facing them — nuclear terrorism. Next week, on March 26, Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev will meet in Seoul along with 50 other heads of state attending the second Nuclear Security Summit. One of the topics they will discuss is combating the threat from nuclear terrorism, a threat that Obama and Medvedev, and their predecessors, Presidents

Bush and Putin, have called one of the most dangerous of our time. Russia and the US have done much to raise awareness of the threat including forming a Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. But

identifying the next steps that countries can take against this new threat

has been difficult.

Relations solve conflict and opposition to U.S. hegemonyLevgold 03 (Robert, National Interest, Winter 02/03)

Moving the U.S.-Russian relationship to the level of a true alliance will not be easy, considering that the two countries have only allied three times in a century and a half, and then only briefly during wartime. Nor should the idea be embraced without eyes wide-open, weighing fully its implications and recognizing its

requirements. The changes under way in Russian foreign policy, however, make such a relationship thinkable, and think we should, for the stakes are high. Consider how different the world would be in twenty years if a democratic and economically revitalized Russia is a genuine partner of the United States, addressing side by side fundamental threats to international comity and welfare. Consider how much safer the world would be if no great power is locked in strategic rivalry with another, and no combination of them is lined up against one or more others. And consider how much more successful the United States would be if its ends and

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/commentary/us-and-russia-work-together-against-threat-nuclear-terrorism

methods are increasingly seen by other major players as wise and fair. Whether any or some of this comes to pass will depend in no small measure on what is made of the current historic opportunity in U.S.-Russian relations. So, we are brought back to the fundamental choices facing Russia and the United States. We are about to see how far Russia is prepared to go

toward a deep and lasting partnership with the United States, and how much the United States is prepared to do to make it possible.

Heg solves all conflictKagan 12 2/11, *Robert Kagan: Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and Europe for The New Republic, “Why the World Needs America,” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213262856669448.html,

History shows that world orders, including our own, are transient. They rise and fall, and the institutions they erect, the beliefs and "norms" that guide them, the economic systems they support—they rise and fall, too. The downfall of the Roman Empire brought an end not just to Roman rule but a and law and to an entire economic system stretching from Northern Europe to North Africa. Culture, the arts, even progress in science and technology, were set back for centuries.

Many of us take for granted how the world looks today. But it might look a lot different without America at the top. The Brookings Institution's Robert Kagan talks with Washington bureau chief Jerry Seib about his new book, "The

World America Made," and whether a U.S. decline is inevitable. Modern history has followed a similar pattern. After the Napoleonic Wars of the early 19th century, British control of the seas and the balance of great powers on the European continent

provided relative security and stability. Prosperity grew, personal freedoms expanded, and the world was knit more closely together by revolutions in commerce and communication. With the outbreak of World War I, the age of settled peace and advancing liberalism—of European civilization approaching its pinnacle—collapsed into an age of hyper-nationalism, despotism and

economic calamity. The once-promising spread of democracy and liberalism halted and then reversed course, leaving a handful of outnumbered and besieged democracies living nervously in the shadow of fascist and totalitarian neighbors. The collapse of the British and European orders in the 20th century did not produce a new dark age—though if Nazi Germany and imperial Japan had prevailed, it might have—but the horrific conflict that it produced was, in its own way, just as devastating. Would the end of the present American-dominated order have less dire consequences? A surprising number of American intellectuals, politicians and policy makers greet the prospect with equanimity. There is a general sense that the end of the era of American pre-eminence, if and when it comes, need not mean the end of the present international order, with its widespread freedom, unprecedented global prosperity (even amid the current economic crisis) and absence of war among the great powers. American power may diminish, the political scientist G. John Ikenberry argues, but "the underlying foundations of the liberal international order will survive and thrive." The commentator Fareed Zakaria believes that even as the balance shifts against the U.S., rising powers like China "will continue to live within the framework of the current international system." And there are elements across the political spectrum—Republicans who call for retrenchment, Democrats who put their faith in international law and institutions—who don't imagine that a "post-American world" would look very different from the

American world. If all of this sounds too good to be true, it is. The present world order was largely shaped by American power and reflects American interests and preferences. If the balance of power shifts in the direction of other

nations, the world order will change to suit their interests and preferences. Nor can we assume that all the great powers in a post-American world would agree on the benefits of preserving the present order, or have the capacity to preserve it, even if they wanted to. Take the issue of democracy. For several decades, the

balance of power in the world has favored democratic governments. In a genuinely post-American world, the balance would shift toward the great-power autocracies. Both Beijing and Moscow already protect dictators like Syria's Bashar

al-Assad. If they gain greater relative influence in the future, we will see fewer democratic transitions and more autocrats hanging on to power. The balance in a new, multipolar world might be more favorable to democracy if some of the rising democracies—Brazil, India, Turkey, South Africa—picked up the slack from a declining U.S. Yet not all of them have the desire or the capacity to

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213262856669448.html

do it. What about the economic order of free markets and free trade? People assume that China and other rising powers that have benefited so much from the present system would have a stake in preserving it. They wouldn't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. A Romney Adviser Read by Democrats Robert Kagan's new book, "The World America Made," is finding an eager readership in the nation's capital, among prominent members of both political parties. Around the time of President Barack Obama's Jan. 24 State of the Union Address, Washington was abuzz with reports that the president had discussed a portion of the book with a group of news anchors. Mr. Kagan serves on the Foreign Policy Advisory Board of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but more notably, in this election season, he is a foreign policy adviser to the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney. The president's speech touched upon the debate over

whether America is in decline, a central theme of Mr. Kagan's book. "America is back," he declared, referring to a range of recent U.S.

actions on the world stage. "Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn't know what they're talking about," he continued. "America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs—and as long as I'm president, I intend to keep it that way." Says Mr. Kagan: "No president wants to preside over American decline, and it's good to see him repudiate the idea that his policy is built on the idea that American influence must

fade." Unfortunately, they might not be able to help themselves. The creation and survival of a liberal economic order has depended, historically, on great powers that are both willing and able to support open trade and free markets, often with naval power. If a declining America is unable to maintain its long-standing hegemony on the high seas,

would other nations take on the burdens and the expense of sustaining navies to fill in the gaps? Even if they did, would

this produce an open global commons—or rising tension? China and India are building bigger navies, but the result so far has been greater competition, not greater security. As Mohan Malik has noted in this newspaper, their "maritime rivalry could spill into the open in a decade or two," when India deploys an aircraft carrier in the Pacific Ocean and China deploys one in the

Indian Ocean. The move from American-dominated oceans to collective policing by several great powers could be a recipe for competition and conflict rather than for a liberal economic order. And do the Chinese

really value an open economic system? The Chinese economy soon may become the largest in the world, but it will be far from the richest. Its size is a product of the country's enormous population, but in per capita terms, China remains relatively poor. The U.S., Germany and Japan have a per capita GDP of over $40,000. China's is a little over $4,000, putting it at the same level as Angola, Algeria and Belize. Even if optimistic forecasts are correct, China's per capita GDP by 2030 would still only be half that of the U.S., putting it roughly where Slovenia and Greece are today. As Arvind Subramanian and other economists have pointed out, this will make for a historically unique situation. In the past, the largest and most dominant economies in the world have also been the richest. Nations whose peoples are such obvious winners in a relatively unfettered economic system have less temptation to pursue protectionist measures and have more of an incentive to keep the

system open. China's leaders, presiding over a poorer and still developing country, may prove less willing to open their economy. They have already begun closing some sectors to foreign competition and are likely to close others in the future. Even optimists like Mr. Subramanian believe that the liberal economic order will require "some insurance" against a scenario in

which "China exercises its dominance by either reversing its previous policies or failing to open areas of the economy that are now highly protected." American economic dominance has been welcomed by much of the world because, like the mobster Hyman Roth in "The Godfather," the U.S. has always made money for its partners.

Chinese economic dominance may get a different reception. Another problem is that China's form of capitalism is heavily dominated by the state, [is] with the ultimate goal of preserving the rule of the Communist Party. Unlike the eras of British and American pre-eminence, when the leading economic powers were dominated largely by private individuals or

companies, China's system is more like the mercantilist arrangements of previous centuries. The government amasses wealth in order to secure its continued rule and to pay for armies and navies to compete with other great powers. Although the Chinese have been beneficiaries of an open international economic order, they could end up undermining it simply because, as an autocratic society, their priority is to preserve the state's control of wealth and the power that it brings. They might kill the goose that lays the golden eggs because they can't figure out how to keep both it and themselves alive. Finally, what about the long peace that has held among the great powers for the better part of six decades? Would it survive in a post-American world? Most commentators who welcome this scenario imagine that

American predominance would be replaced by some kind of multipolar harmony. But multipolar systems have historically been neither particularly stable nor particularly peaceful. Rough parity among powerful nations is a source of uncertainty that leads to miscalculation. Conflicts erupt as a result of fluctuations in the delicate power equation. War among the great powers was a common, if not constant, occurrence in the

long periods of multipolarity from the 16th to the 18th centuries, culminating in the series of enormously destructive Europe-wide wars that followed the French Revolution and ended with Napoleon's defeat in 1815. The 19th century was notable for two stretches of great-power peace of roughly four decades each, punctuated by major conflicts. The Crimean War (1853-1856) was a mini-world war involving well over a million Russian, French, British and Turkish troops, as well as forces from nine other nations; it produced almost a half-million dead combatants and many more wounded. In the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871), the

two nations together fielded close to two million troops, of whom nearly a half-million were killed or wounded. The peace that followed these conflicts was characterized by increasing tension and competition, numerous war scares and massive increases in armaments on both land and sea. Its climax was World War I, the most destructive

and deadly conflict that mankind had known up to that point. As the political scientist Robert W. Tucker has observed, "Such stability and moderation as the balance brought rested ultimately on the threat or use of force. War remained the essential means for maintaining the balance of power." There is little reason to believe that a return to multipolarity in the 21st century would bring greater peace and stability than it has in the past. The era of American predominance has shown that there is no better recipe for great-power peace than certainty about who holds the upper hand. President Bill Clinton left office believing that the key task for America was to "create the world we would like to live in when we are no longer the world's only superpower," to prepare for "a time when we would have to share the stage." It is an eminently sensible-sounding proposal. But can it be done? For particularly in matters of security, the rules and institutions of international order rarely survive the decline of the nations that erected them. They are like scaffolding around a building: They

don't hold the building up; the building holds them up. It will last only as long as those who favor it retain the will and capacity to defend it. Many foreign-policy experts see the present international order as the inevitable result of human progress, a combination of advancing science and technology, an increasingly global economy, strengthening international institutions, evolving "norms" of international behavior and the gradual but inevitable triumph of liberal democracy over other forms of government—forces of change that transcend the actions of men and nations. Americans certainly like to believe that our preferred order survives because it is right and just—not

only for us but for everyone. We assume that the triumph of democracy is the triumph of a better idea, and the victory of market capitalism is the victory of a better system, and that both are irreversible. That is why Francis Fukuyama's thesis about "the end of history" was so attractive at the end of the Cold War and retains its appeal even now, after it has been discredited by events. The idea of inevitable evolution means that there is no requirement to impose a decent order. It will merely happen. But

international order is not an evolution; it is an imposition. It is the domination of one vision over others—in America's case, the domination of free-market and democratic principles, together with an international system that supports

them. The present order will last only as long as those who favor it and benefit from it retain the will and capacity to defend it. There was nothing inevitable about the world that was created after World War II. No divine providence or unfolding Hegelian dialectic required the triumph of democracy and capitalism, and there is no guarantee that their success will outlast the powerful nations that have fought for them. Democratic progress and liberal economics have been and can be reversed and undone. The ancient democracies of Greece and the republics of Rome and Venice all fell to more powerful forces or through their own failings. The evolving

liberal economic order of Europe collapsed in the 1920s and 1930s. The better idea doesn't have to win just because it is a better idea. It requires great powers to champion it. If and when American power declines, the institutions and norms that American power has supported will decline, too. Or more likely, if history is a guide,

they may collapse altogether as we make a transition to another kind of world order, or to disorder. We may discover then that the U.S. was essential to keeping the present world order together and that the alternative to American power was not peace and harmony but chaos and catastrophe—which is what the world looked like right before the American order came into being.

2NC Solvency - Relations

Nuclear terrorism is key to relationsACA 11, Arms Control Association, “Missile Defense Cooperation: Seizing the Opportunity,” May 24th, 2011, volume 2, issue 5, http://www.armscontrol.org/issuebriefs/MissileDefenseCooperation//MC

U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev will meet at the G8 Summit in Deauville, France later this week, where

they are expected to talk about cooperation on ballistic missile defense. Cooperation with Russia would strengthen U.S. security by enhancing our capabilities to detect a potential missile launch from Iran. This issue is central to the future of U.S.-Russian relations and the prospects for another round of nuclear arms reductions after New START, including tactical weapons, and continued cooperation on Iran's nuclear program and preventing nuclear terrorism. The timing is critical; presidential elections are looming in both nations, and the window of opportunity is rapidly closing. Now is the time for an agreement on U.S.-Russian missile defense cooperation, and a bipartisan

solution is in the offing. It is in the national security interests of both countries to transform strategic missile defense from a topic of confrontation to cooperation. Doing so requires reinforcing existing assurances that future U.S. missile interceptor systems to bedeployed in Europe will not undermine Russia's security. Although the Cold War has been "over" for 20 years, the two sides have so far been unable to build the trust necessary to move beyond this challenge.

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Phasedadaptiveapproach

http://www.armscontrol.org/issuebriefs/MissileDefenseCooperation//MC

2NC Coop Good

Collaboration is essential to prevent nuclear terrorCohen 01, Stephen Cohen, Professor of Russian Studies at NYU, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, November 11th, 2001, lexis//MC

President Bush's meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin next week, in Washington and Texas, give the United States a second historic chance, after the squandered opportunity of the 1990s, to establish a truly cooperative relationship with post-communist Russia. Such a relationship is essential for coping with today's real security dangers, which exceed those of the Cold War and make the United States so vulnerable that even it can no longer meaningfully

be considered a "superpower." Indeed, both the decay of Moscow's systems of nuclear control and maintenance since 1992 and the "low-tech, high-concept" attacks on America on Sept. 11 may be omens of an unprecedented dark age of international security. None of its dangers can be dealt with effectively without Russia, the world's only other fully nuclearized country and its largest crossroad of civilizations.

Relations are key to prevent nuclear terror – loose nukesAllison 99, Graham T. Allison, Cambridge, MA: Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, "Russia's Domestic Political Future and U.S. National Interests," August 1999, Discussion Paper 99-15, http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/publication.cfm?ctype=paper&item_id=52//MC

Why is Russia not like Indonesia, or Brazil, or Nigeria? In former Prime Minister Stepashin''s quip: why is it not a banana republic--without bananas? Just the day before his dismissal as Prime Minister, on August 9, Sergei Stepashin noted that the government should obey the Constitution or face the prospect that Russia become "the world''s largest banana republic, only without bananas." In a sentence: because history has left a superpower arsenal of nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons, missiles, and know-how in the midst of a

revolution that is deconstructing every sinew of the totalitarian Soviet state. Why does Russia matter? Start with 7,000 active nuclear warheads: armed, mounted on missiles, capable of arriving at targets in the United States less than an hour after the decision to launch. Were a dozen or hundred of these weapons to be triggered--accidentally in a Y2K failure, by some unauthorized agent, as a consequence of misperception, or whatever--the United States would disappear from the map. Incredible, unimaginable, and a Cold War anachronism, yes--but a brute fact, hard to ignore. As surely as during the Cold War,

this superpower arsenal creates for the U.S. a highest-priority, enduring interest in Russia: namely, that

these weapons are not used against America or our allies. Add 5,000 tactical nuclear weapons, many lacking any locking device to prevent their unauthorized use, some stored at bases where a colonel with the cooperation of two lieutenants could "privatize" a dozen warheads and take them to world markets to monetize their value. Finally, remember an additional 12,000 nuclear weapons in various storage facilities in Russia, many with no mechanical protection beyond that of guards whose salaries are frequently delayed for months. One backpack nuclear weapon at Oklahoma City would have caused not just the Federal Office Building, but Oklahoma City itself, to disappear. One such nuclear device in the minivan that was used by terrorists to attack the World Trade Center would have caused lower Manhattan to disappear, including all of Wall Street up to

Gramercy Park. Beyond assembled weapons, there are approximately 70,000 nuclear weapons-equivalents in

stockpiles of highly enriched uranium and plutonium, a softball-sized chunk of which, if it found its way to Iran or to one of bin Laden''s terrorist groups, would provide the critical ingredient from which a crude nuclear device could be assembled. Beyond all this, there are biological weapons, chemical weapons, thousands of

ICBM''s, and, beyond physical items, know-how for producing additional missiles and other weapons without limit. In sum: the overriding reason Russia must matter for Americans appears vividly as one considers the clear and present danger of "loose nukes": the theft of one or a dozen weapons, sale to a rogue state or terrorist group,

and use of these weapons to attack American soldiers abroad or civilians at home. Nothing in the international arena poses so sure a threat to Americans'' survival and well-being for the next generation as the threat of theft of nuclear, biological, and other weapons from a collapsing Russia.

2NC Coop Good - AIDs

Relations solves the AIDS epidemic and saves millions of livesVershbow 04, Alexander Vershbow, US Ambassador to Russia, April 22nd, 2004, from the State Department, lexis//MC

Without intervention researchers predict that over 75 million people will be affected worldwide by the year 2010, with a loss of human life to AIDS totaling 100 million by the year 2020. Scientists predict that more than 2 million

Russians could be infected by 2005, next year, and millions more by 2010. In fact, the HIV virus is spreading more rapidly here than in almost any country on the planet. Unless decisive action is taken, and soon, Russia faces a humanitarian catastrophe rivaling that of World War II. Unfortunately, this represents an area that's tailor-made for bilateral cooperation as the AIDS epidemic began in the United States years before it struck Russia. We have considerable experience in treating the disease and controlling its spread. Russia has an educated population and an expanding sector of dedicated NGOs that provide hope that concerted efforts at prevention can succeed here. What these organizations lack is resources and, most crucially, high-level

political support. In addition, Russia is blessed with the large and talented medical and scientific community that can play an important role in international efforts to find a cure and develop a vaccine. Given our

complementary resources and our mutual interest in staving off disaster, the AIDS crisis provides an ideal opportunity to demonstrate the potential of our partnership for the betterment of Russia's own people and all of humanity.

AIDs will kill us all!Kerns 99, Tom Kerns, professor of philosophy and the University of Washington, “AIDS and Apocalyptics for Questioning Millennium Madness,” November 23rd, 1999, from his lectures on bioethics, http://bioethicscourse.info/aidsite/lec-millemad.html//MC

The worst threat to humankind AIDS is "the number one health problem on this planet." (C. Everett Koop,

former US Surgeon General) "AIDS is the single greatest threat to well-being facing the world's population today." (Marc Lappé) AIDS is "a messenger of apocalyptic change," as it is spread through "one of the most biologically urgent of human behaviors." - Dr June Osborn (former member of the US Presidential Commission on HIV/AIDS, & professor in U

Mich SPH) Economic costs are high "Although it is less than a decade since the virus that causes AIDS was discovered, it has become increasingly evident that this pandemic will have profound economic and social implications for both developed and developing countries. The importance of health as an input to the economic development and growth of a country is well established - a healthier population is more productive and has an increased capacity

for learning. The adverse impacts of the HIV/AIDS pandemic will undermine improvements in health

status and, in turn, reduce the potential for economic growth. AIDS is distinct from other diseases, and its impact can

be expected to be quite severe.... Its most critical feature, distinguishing AIDS from other life-threatening and fatal illnesses, such as diarrhea (among children in developing countries) or cancer (among the elderly in developed countries), is that it selectively affects adults in their sexually most active ages, which coincide with their prime productive and reproductive years . " - in AIDS in the World, 1992, p 195 (Jill Armstrong is an economist in the Eastern Africa Dept of the World Bank, Washington, DC. Eduard Bos is a demographer in the Population, Health, and Nutrition Division of the World Bank's

Population and Human Resources Department.) E. "Whatever else AIDS is, it's not just another disease ." (Dr June Osborne, former member of the US Presidential Commission on HIV/AIDS) Features that make AIDS unique: High morbidity & mortality Lifelong infectiousness lengthy asymptomatic stage highly mutable virus Joshua Lederberg considers the possibility of HIV "learning the tricks of

airborne transmission:" " We know that HIV is still evolving. Its global spread has meant there is far more HIV on earth today than ever before in history. What are the odds of its learning the tricks of airborne transmission? The short answer is "No one can be sure." ... [A]s time passes, and HIV seems settled in a certain groove, that is momentary reassurance in itself. However, given its other ugly attributes, it is hard to imagine a worse threat to humanity than an airborne variant of AIDS. No rule of nature contradicts such a possibility; the proliferation of AIDS cases with secondary pneumonia [and TB] multiplies the odds of such a mutant, as an analog to the emergence of pneumonic plague." effective modes of transmission destroys the immune system viral reservoir expanding

2NC Coop Good - Sino-Russia War

US-Russian relations prevent Russia-China warNewsweek 95, (5/15, lexis accessed 8/11/11)

"Russia," says Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, "is a big country." That it is; lop off the newly independent states born within the old Soviet husk and you've still got a lot left -- a highly educated work force sitting on top of some of the globe's most valuable resources. True, much of that vast territory has an awful climate (climate matters-for different reasons than Russia's, it explains why Australia will never be a great power). But unlike India and China, two other "giant" states, Russia will be able to husband its vast resources without the additional strain

of feeding -- and employing-more than a billion souls. It also, of course, is the only country that can launch a devastating nuclear attack on the United States. That kind of power demands respect. And sensitive handling. Stephen Sestanovich, head Russia watcher at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, argues that present U.S. policy is geared too much to "dismantling Russian military might" -- a policy that, since it breeds Russian resentment of Western meddling, is self-

defeating. "We have to reorient Russian power," says Sestanovich, "not eliminate it. Because we can't eliminate it." Indeed, Washington should prefer a strong Russia. A Russia so weak, for example, that it could not resist a Chinese land grab of its Far East without resorting to nuclear weapons is a 21st-century nightmare. All this implies a close U.S. -- Russian relationship stretching into the future. American

officials say it will be a "pragmatic" one, recognizing that Russian and U.S. national interests will sometimes collide. The danger, for the United States, is that a pragmatic relationship could be dominated by security issues. In Western Europe,

some futurists say that in the coming decades Russia will talk to the United States about nuclear weapons but to the European Union about everything else-trade, economic development and the rest.

That conflict would kill hundreds of millions without escalation, and risks extinctionSharavin 01, (Alexander, Director of the Institute for Military and Political Analysis, “What the Papers Say”, October, accessed 8/11/11)

Chinese propaganda has constantly been showing us skyscrapers in free trade zones in southeastern China. It should not be forgotten, however,

that some 250 to 300 million people live there, i.e. at most a quarter of China's population. A billion Chinese people are still living in misery. For them, even the living standards of a backwater Russian town remain inaccessibly high. They have absolutely nothing to lose. There is every prerequisite for "the final throw to the north." The strength of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (CPLA) has been growing quicker than the Chinese economy. A decade ago the CPLA was equipped with inferior copies of Russian arms from late 1950s to the early 1960s. However, through its own efforts Russia has nearly managed to liquidate its most significant technological advantage. Thanks to our zeal, from antique MiG-21 fighters of the earliest modifications and S-75 air defense missile systems the Chinese antiaircraft defense forces have adopted Su-27 fighters and S-300 air defense missile systems. China's air defense forces have received Tor systems instead of anti-aircraft guns which could have been used during World War II. The shock air force of our "eastern brethren" will in the near future replace antique Tu-16 and Il-28 airplanes with Su-30 fighters, which are not yet available to the

Russian Armed Forces! Russia may face the "wonderful" prospect of combating the Chinese army, which, if full mobilization is called, is comparable in size with Russia's entire population, which also has nuclear weapons (even tactical weapons become strategic if states have common borders) and would be absolutely insensitive to losses (even a loss of a few million of the servicemen would be acceptable for China). Such a war would be more horrible than the World War II. It would require from our state maximal tension, universal mobilization

and complete accumulation of the army military hardware, up to the last tank or a plane, in a single direction (we would have to forget such "trifles" like Talebs and Basaev, but this does not guarantee success either). Massive nuclear strikes on basic military forces and cities of China would finally be the only way out, what would exhaust Russia's armament completely. We have not got another set of intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-based missiles, whereas the general forces would be extremely exhausted in the border combats. In the long run, even if the aggression would be stopped after the

majority of the Chinese are killed, our country would be absolutely unprotected against the "Chechen" and the "Balkan"

variants both, and even against the first frost of a possible nuclear winter.

China

China Cooperation CP 1NC – solves china relations, warming, terror

Text: The United States federal government should purpose bilateral cooperation over counter-terrorism strategies to the People’s Republic of China.

China says yes – cooperation is desired and solves better than unilateral coordinationXinhua 2/16, Xinhua News, Chinese national news source, “Xi urges China-US cooperation in Asia-Pacific region,” February 16th, 2012, from Xinhua News, http://www.china.org.cn/world/Xijinping_visit/2012-02/16/content_24647385.htm//MC

Visiting Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping on Wednesday urged China and the United States to conduct positive interactions in the Asia-Pacific region. "As the interests of China and the United States converge more closely in the Asia-Pacific

than in anywhere else, this region should naturally become an important area where they engage in positive interactions and pursue mutually beneficial cooperation," Xi said at a luncheon hosted by friendly organizations in the United States. Xi, who arrived here Monday for a five-day visit, called on both countries to steadily enhance coordination and cooperation in

international affairs and on global issues. "Our world is undergoing complex and profound changes," Xi said. China and the United States should meet challenges together and share responsibilities in international affairs. "This is what China-U.S. cooperative partnership calls for and what the international community expects from us," he said. China and the United States should enhance coordination regarding the situation on the Korean Peninsula, the Iranian nuclear

issue and other hotspot issues through bilateral and multilateral mechanisms, Xi said. Both countries should increase cooperation on global issues such as climate change, counter-terrorism, cyber security, outer space security,

energy and resources, public health, food security and disaster prevention and mitigation, he added. "We should jointly promote global peace, stability and common development, and make the international system a more equitable, just, inclusive and orderly one," the vice president said. He said China welcomes a constructive role by the United States in promoting peace, stability and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region. "At the same time, we hope the United States will respect the interests and concerns of China and other countries in this region," Xi said.

Cooperation is key to security and fighting climate changeCohen 09, William S. Cohen, chairman and CEO of The Cohen Group and former U.S. secretary of defense, from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, “Smart Power in U.S.-China Relations,” 2009, pg online @ http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/090309_mcgiffert_uschinasmartpower_web.pdf

The evolution of Sino-U.S. relations over the next months, years, and decades has the potential to have a greater impact on global security and prosperity than any other bilateral or multilateral arrangement . In this

http://www.china.org.cn/world/Xijinping_visit/2012-02/16/content_24647385.htm//MC

sense, many analysts consider the US.-China diplomatic relationship to be the most influential in the world. Without question, strong and stable U.S. alliances provide the foundation for the protection and promotion of U.S. and global interests. Yet within that broad framework, the trajectory of U.S.-China relations will determine the success, or failure, of efforts to address the toughest global challenges: global financial stability, energy security and climate change, nonproliferation, and terrorism, among other pressing issues. Shepherding that trajectory in the most constructive direction possible must therefore be a priority for Washington and Beijing.

Virtually no major global challenge can be met without U.S.-China cooperation. The uncertainty of that future trajectory and the "strategic mistrust" between leaders in Washington and Beijing necessarily concerns many experts and policymakers in both countries. Although some U.S. analysts see China as a strategic competitor—deliberately vying with the United States for energy resources, military superiority, and international political influence alike— analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has generally found that China uses its soft power to pursue its own, largely economic, international agenda primarily to achieve its domestic objectives of economic growth and social stability.1 Although Beijing certainly has an eye on Washington, not all of its actions are undertaken as a counterpoint to the United States. In addition, CSIS research suggests that growing Chinese soft power in developing countries may have

influenced recent U.S. decisions to engage more actively and reinvest in soft-power tools that have atrophied during the past decade. To the extent that there exists a competition between the United States and China, therefore, it may be mobilizing both countries to strengthen their ability to solve global problems. To be sure, U.S. and Chinese policy decisions toward the respective other power will be determined in large part by the choices that leaders make about their own nations interests at home and overseas , which in turn are shaped by their respective domestic contexts. Both parties must recognize—and accept—that the other will pursue a foreign policy approach that is in

its own national interest. Yet, in a globalized world, challenges are increasingly transnational, and so too must be their solutions. As demonstrated by the rapid spread of SARS from China in 2003, pandemic flu can be spread rapidly through air and via international travel. Dust particulates from Asia settle in Lake Tahoe. An economic downturn in one country can and does trigger an economic slowdown in another. These challenges can no longer be addressed by either containment or isolation. What constitutes the national interest today necessarily encompasses a broader and more complex set of considerations than it did in the past As a general principle, the United States seeks to promote its national interest while it simultaneously pursues what the CSIS Commission on Smart Power called in its November 2007 report the "global good."3 This approach is not always practical or achievable, of course. But neither is it pure benevolence. Instead, a strategic pursuit of the global good accrues concrete benefits for the United States (and others) in the form of building confidence, legitimacy, and political influence in key countries and regions around the world in ways that enable the United States to better confront global and transnational challenges. In short, the global good comprises those things that all people and governments want but have traditionally not been able to attain in the absence of U.S. leadership. Despite historical, cultural, and

political differences between the United States and China, Beijing's newfound ability, owing to its recent economic successes, to contribute to the global good is a matter for common ground between the two countries. Today there is increasing recognition that no major global challenge can be addressed effectively, much less resolved, without the active engagement of—and cooperation between—the United States and China. The United States and China—the worlds first- and third-largest economies—are inextricably linked, a fact made ever more evident in the midst of the current global financial crisis. Weak demand in both the United States and China, previously the twin engines of global growth, has contributed to the global economic downturn and threatens to ignite simmering trade tensions between the two countries. Nowhere is the interconnectedness of the United States and China more clear than in international finance. China has $2 trillion worth of largely U.S. dollar-denominated foreign exchange reserves and is the world's largest holder—by far—of U.S. government debt. Former treasury secretary Henry M. Paulson and others have suggested that the structural imbalances created by this dynamic fueled the current economic crisis. Yet. China will almost certainly be called on to purchase the lion's share of new U.S. debt instruments issued in connection with the U.S. stimulus and recovery package. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's February 23.2009, reassurance to Beijing that U.S. markets remain safe and her call for continued Chinese investment in the U.S. bond market as a means to help both countries, and the world, emerge from global recession underscored the shared interest—and central role—that both countries have in turning around the global economy quickly. Although China's considerable holdings of

U.S. debt have been seen as a troubling problem, they are now being perceived as a necessary part of a global solution. Similarly, as the

world’s two largest emitters of greenhouse gases, China and the United States share not only the collateral damage of energy-inefficient economic growth, b ut a primary responsibility to shape any ultimate global solutions to climate change. To date, cooperation has been elusive, owing as much to Washington's reluctance as to Beijing's intransigence. Painting China as the environmental bogeyman as an excuse for foot-dragging in policymaking is no longer an

option; for its part, China, as the world's top polluter, must cease playing the developing-economy card. Yet energy security and climate change remain an area of genuine opportunity for joint achievement. Indeed, U.S.-China cooperation in this field is a sine qua non of any response to the energy and climate challenges. The sheer size of the Chinese economy means that collaboration with the United States could set the de facto global standards for etficiency and emissions in key economic sectors such as industry and transportation. Climate change also provides an area for cooperation in previously uncharted policy waters, as in emerging Arctic navigational and energy exploration opportunities. Washington and Beijing also share a deep and urgent interest in international peace and stability. The resumption of U.S.-China military contacts is a positive development. As two nuclear powers with worldwide economic and strategic interests, both countries want to minimize instability and enhance maritime security, as seen by parallel antipiracy missions in the waters otT Somalia. Joint efforts in support of United Nations peacekeeping, nonproliferation, and

counterterrorism offer critical areas for bilateral and multilateral cooperation. Certainly, regional and global security institutions such as the Six-Party Talks concerning North Korea or the UN Security Council require the active engagement of both Washington and Beijing . Even more broadly, crisis management in geographic regions of mutual strategic interest like the Korean peninsula, Iran, or Burma require much more Sino-U.S. communication if the two countries are to avoid miscalculation and maximize opportunities to minimize human sutfering. Increasing the number of mid-level military-to-military exchanges

would help in this regard. The United States and China could do more to cooperate on law enforcement to combat drug trafficking and organized crime in Western China. Afghanistan is competing with Burma as the main provider of narcotics to China; Washington could use its influence with the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul to develop a joint antinarcotics program. This could potentially build networks and joint capabilities that might be useful for U.S.-China cooperation on the issue of Pakistan. In addition, Washington should also encourage NATO-China cooperation along the Afghan border. Collaborating under the auspices of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) might provide an additional framework for Beijing and Washington to address Central Asian security issues in a cooperative manner. 1he SCO, which includes Pakistan as an observer and will convene a multinational conference on Afghanistan in March 2009, has long made curbing narcoterrorism in Afghanistan a priority. In addition, the VS. Drug Enforcement Agency and the Chinese Anti-Narcotics Bureau should expand cooperation on interdiction and prosecution of heroin and meth traffickers. To be sure, there are a number of areas of serious divergence between Washington and Beijing. This should surprise no one. The United States has disagreements with even its allies. Two large powers with vastly dilferent histories, cultures, and political systems are bound to have challenges.

History has shown, however, that the most effective way of addressing issues is for the U.S. and Chinese governments to engage in quiet diplomacy rather than public recrimination. In the U.S.-China context, there is often little to be gained—and much to be lost in terms of trust and respect—by a polarizing debate. Any differences, moreover, must not necessarily impede Sino-U.S. cooperation when both sides share strong mutual interests. I;. Scott Fitzgerald wrote that "the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."3 Effective policy toward China by the United States, and vice versa, will require this kind of dual-minded intelligence. Moreover, working together on areas of mutual and global interest will help promote strategic trust between China and the United States, facilitating possible cooperation in other areas. Even limited cooperation on specific areas will help construct additional mechanisms for bilateral communication on issues of irreconcilable disagreement. In fact, many of the toughest challenges in U.S.-China relations in recent years have been the result of unforeseen events, such as the accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in May 1999 and the EP-3 reconnaissance plane collision in April 2001. Building trust and finding workable solutions to tough problems is the premise behind the Obama administrations foreign policy of smart power, as articulated by Secretary of State Clinton. Smart power is based on, as Secretary Clinton outlined in her confirmation hearing, the fundamental belief that 'We must use... the full range of tools at our disposal—diplomatic, economic, military, political and cultural—picking the right tool, or combination of tools, for each situation."' As the CS1S Commission on Smart Power noted in November 2007, "Smart Power is neither hard nor soft—it is the skillful combination of bothIt is an approach that underscores the necessity of a strong military, but also invests heavily in alliances, partnerships and institutions at all levels... .°5 As such, smart power necessarily mandates a major investment in a U.S.-China partnership on key issues. 'The concept enjoys broad support among the Chinese and American people and, by promoting the global

good, it reaps concrete results around the world. There should be no expectation that Washington and Beijing will or should agree on all, or even most, questions. But the American and Chinese people should expect their leaders to come together on those vital issues that require their cooperation. U.S.-China partnership, though not inevitable, is indispensable.

Warming causes extinctionSIFY 2010 – Sydney newspaper citing Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, professor at University of Queensland and Director of the Global Change Institute, and John

Bruno, associate professor of Marine Science at UNC (Sify News, “Could unbridled climate changes lead to human extinction?”, http://www.sify.com/news/could-unbridled-climate-changes-lead-to-human-extinction-news-international-kgtrOhdaahc.html

The findings of the comprehensive report: 'The impact of climate change on the world's marine ecosystems' emerged from a synthesis of recent research on the world's oceans, carried out by two of the world's leading marine scientists. One of the authors of the report is Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, professor at The University of Queensland and the director of its Global

Change Institute (GCI). 'We may see sudden, unexpected changes that have serious ramifications for the overall

well-being of humans, including the capacity of the planet to support people. This is further evidence that we are well on the way to the next great extinction event,' says Hoegh-Guldberg. 'The findings have enormous implications for mankind,

particularly if the trend continues. The earth's ocean, which produces half of the oxygen we breathe and absorbs 30 per cent of human-generated carbon dioxide, is equivalent to its heart and lungs. This study shows worrying

signs of ill-health. It's as if the earth has been smoking two packs of cigarettes a day!,' he added. 'We are entering a period in which the ocean services upon which humanity depends are undergoing massive change and in some cases beginning to fail', he added. The 'fundamental

and comprehensive' changes to marine life identified in the report include rapidly warming and acidifying oceans, changes in water circulation and expansion of dead zones within the ocean depths. These are driving major changes in

marine ecosystems: less abundant coral reefs, sea grasses and mangroves (important fish nurseries); fewer, smaller fish; a

breakdown in food chains; changes in the distribution of marine life; and more frequent diseases and pests among marine

organisms. Study co-author John F Bruno, associate professor in marine science at The University of North Carolina, says greenhouse gas emissions are modifying many physical and geochemical aspects of the planet's oceans, in ways 'unprecedented in nearly a million years'. 'This is causing fundamental and comprehensive changes to the way marine ecosystems function,' Bruno warned, according to a GCI release. These findings were published in Science

http://www.sify.com/news/could-unbridled-climate-changes-lead-to-human-extinction-news-international-kgtrOhdaahc.html

http://www.sify.com/news/could-unbridled-climate-changes-lead-to-human-extinction-news-international-kgtrOhdaahc.html

2NC Solvency - Cooperation

Counter terrorist coordination fosters relationsCRS 05, Congressional Research Service, “US-China Counter Terrorism Cooperation: Issues for US Policy,” May 12th, 2005, From the CRS, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rs21995.pdf//MC

The counter-terrorism campaign helped to stabilize U.S.-PRC relations up to the highest level, which faced tensions early in the Bush Administration in April 2001 with the EP-3 aircraft collision crisis and U.S. approvals of arms sales to Taiwan.

According to the Final Report of the 9/11 Commission issued in July 2004, President Bush chaired a National Security Council meeting on the

night of September 11, 2001, in which he contended that the attacks provided a “great opportunity” to engage Russia and China. President Bush traveled to Shanghai in October 2001 for his first meeting with then PRC President Jiang Zemin at the

Leaders’ Meeting of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum. Bush called the PRC an important partner in the global coalition against terrorists but also warned Jiang that the “war on terrorism must never be an excuse to persecute minorities.” On February 21-22, 2002, the President visited Beijing (a trip postponed in October), after Tokyo

and Seoul. The President then hosted Jiang at Bush’s ranch in Crawford, TX, on October 25, 2002, and Bush said that the two countries were “allies” in fighting terrorism.

All other agreements were a “good start” but continued cooperation is neededKan 10, Shirley Kan, Specialist in Asian Studies at the Congressional Research Service, “US-China Terrorism Cooperation: Issues for US Policy,” July 15th, 2010, from the CRS, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RL33001.pdf//MC

The PRC’s concerns about domestic attacks and any links to foreign terrorist groups, U.S.-PRC relations, China’s international standing in a world dominated by U.S. power (particularly after the terrorist

attacks), and its image as a responsible world power helped explain China’s supportive stance. However,

Beijing also worried about U.S. military action near China, U.S.-led alliances, Japan’s active role in the war on terrorism, greater U.S.

influence in Central and South Asia, and U.S. support for Taiwan—all exacerbating long-standing fears of “encirclement.” China issued a Defense White Paper in December 2002, stating that major powers remained in competition but that since the September 2001 attacks against the United States, countries have increased cooperation. Although this policy paper contained veiled criticisms of the United States for its military buildup, stronger alliances in Asia, and increased arms sales to Taiwan, it did not criticize the United States by name as in the Defense White Paper of 2000. However, the Defense White Papers of 2004 and 2006 again criticized the United States by name. Since 2005,

U.S. concerns about China’s extent of cooperation in counterterrorism have increased. In September 2005,

Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick acknowledged that “China and the United States can do more together in the global fight against terrorism” after “a good start,” in his policy speech that called on China to be a “responsible

stakeholder” in the world. The summits of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in 2005 and 2006 raised U.S. concerns. Since the summer of 2007, U.S. officials have expressed more concern about China-origin arms that have been found in the conflict involving U.S. forces in Afghanistan, as part of the broader threat posed by Iran and its arms transfers.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RL33001.pdf

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rs21995.pdf//MC

Unilateral efforts will fail and undermine cooperation – Bush era provesBoyle and Schmid 10, Michael Boyle, PhD in international relations, and Alex Schmid, research fellow of the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence, “A Global Compact for Counter Terrorism: Towards a Robust Multilateral Counter Terrorism Regime,” November 12th, 2010, from New Ideas, http://www.newideasfund.org/proposals/NIF_Global%20Compact.pdf//MC

The Bush Administration’s unilateralism had another effect which undermined cooperation with other great powers, especially Russia and China, and acted as a brake on cooperation with states such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The

Manichean language of good and evil employed by the Bush Administration, and the presumption that unilateral action could reshape the international system and make other states come along to America’s point of view, even

grudgingly, contributed to global insecurity. It inadvertently increased the number of states who feared that they might be a

future object of U.S. power. This translated into greater concern over relative gains in security cooperation. In a world in which U.S. power is widely trusted to be directed towards more or less benign purposes, the problem of relative gains in security cooperation would be difficult but manageable. But in a world where U.S. unilateralism has had a corrosive effect on the perception of American goodwill, and in which states fear that unchecked American power is a threat to world peace, concerns over relative gains will

become more acute. The counter-balancing effects of American unilateralism would render even modest attempts at cooperation over security matters more difficult than it would have otherwise been. Unilateralism also affected the kind of coalition that the U.S. formed against terrorism and later for the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Shortly after the September 11th attacks, the U.S. set about a forming a global coalition against al Qaeda, and found that even some former enemies were willing to consider cooperation against this common foe. Yet the unilateralism of the Bush Administration led it to conclude that an ad hoc coalition – that is, one free of formal institutional constraints and comprised solely of

volunteers with minimal fixed obligations – would better suit American interests. Instead of institutionalizing the cooperation in

a way which made decentralized enforcement of agreed principles possible, the U.S. preferred a loosely bound ad hoc coalition which preserved the widest latitude of action for the United States. Yet these coalitions proved less durable than those relying on pre-existing institutional arrangements. When faced with significant opposition, ad hoc coalitions tend to fray or fall apart more quickly than those in which commitments are fixed and obligations are institutionalized (and therefore more costly to escape).

This can be clearly seen in the Bush Administration’s approach to the war in Afghanistan. Only after the costs of an ad hoc coalition were made apparent did the Bush Administration consent to a NATO mission in Afghanistan, which has proven to be more resilient against the serious security challenges faced in that country. The most costly unilateral move that the U.S. made in terms of counter-terrorism cooperation concerned the Iraq war. The war was overwhelmingly unpopular in the Middle East and in Europe, with majorities even in key allies like the United Kingdom opposing the war as one of choice. Moreover, the dismissal of European concerns as part of “Old Europe” inflamed anti-American sentiment and created pressures on European governments not to cooperate or appear to “give in” to American demands. As Jeffrey Record has pointed out, the linking of progress in the Iraq war to the wider battle against al Qaeda, conflated the threats and made a

subtle and nuanced approach to the varying problems of terrorism and rogue states difficult if not impossible.36 But the link between counterterrorism and the Iraq war had another unexpected consequences in terms of building a functioning regime. By linking the war on terror and the Iraq war together with the common thread of

unilateralism, the Bush Administration implied that dissent in one theatre meant dissent in another. By insisting that the global war on terror and the Iraq war were one of a piece, the U.S. made it hard for states to cooperate on functional counter-terrorism goals while still dissenting from an unpopular U.S. war.

http://www.newideasfund.org/proposals/NIF_Global%20Compact.pdf//MC

2NC Say Yes

Of course they’ll say yes, they are demanding more of the international community now! Collaborative efforts solve the root cause of terrorism. Xinhua 6/29, Xinhua, Chinese national news source, “China calls for balanced, comprehensive implementation of counter terrorism strategy,” June 29, 2012, from Xinhua News, http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/717894.shtml//MC

China called on international community Thursday to pay more attention to dealing with the root causes of terrorism and implement UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy in a balanced and comprehensive way. The statement came as Wang Min, China's deputy permanent representative to the UN, addressed the General Assembly where the UN

Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy was reviewed. "China supports the comprehensive implementation of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy," Wang said. "It is necessary to address both the symptoms and root causes of the terrorism and adopt a comprehensive approach," Wang said. " It is of vital importance to eliminate gaps between the rich and the poor and social injustice, properly settle regional conflicts, prevent the spread of separatism, extremism, violence, hatred and

intolerance in combating terrorism." "China hopes the international community to pay more attention to solving the root causes of terrorism and implement the strategy in a balanced and comprehensive manner,"

he said. Wang noted that combating terrorism should adhere to the UN Charter and basic norms of the international law, respect the independence, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of the member states. "The member states

should renounce the double standards in combating terrorism," he said. "No country should adopt different stands because of their self-interest or protect and tolerate terrorism based on political consideration." Wang also stressed that in combating terrorism, it is important to persist in dialogue between different civilizations, promote understanding and

tolerance. "The international cooperation on fighting terrorism should advocate dialogue, understanding and exchanges, mutual respect and harmony among civilizations, religions and ethnic groups." China will continue to firmly fight terrorism in any form ensuring the national security and safety of people's life and property as well as safeguarding the

human rights. "China is willing to enhance communications and cooperation with relevant countries in anti-terrorist legislation and law enforcement, information sharing, interception of financing terrorist activities, extradition and repatriation of terrorist suspects," he added.

The PRC will say yes – recent security council’s proveXinhua 5/11, Xinhua, Chinese national news source, “China supports efforts by 3 Security Council Committees,” May 11th, 2012, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-05/11/content_15264255.htm//MC

A Chinese envoy to the United Nations on Thursday expressed support for the efforts made by three Security Council subsidiary committees. Wang Min, China's deputy permanent representative to the UN, made the remarks at an open Security Council meeting, which heard regular briefings from chairmen of the Al Qaida Sanctions Committee, the Counter-Terrorism

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-05/11/content_15264255.htm

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/717894.shtml

Committee and the 1540 Committee. China supports the Al Qaida Sanctions Committee in carrying forward the periodic review of sanctions list as planned and enhancing communications with countries concerned,

Wang said. "We hope that the member states will actively cooperate with the committee in a joint effort to safeguard

the authority and effectiveness of the sanctions regime," he noted. China also supports the Counter-Terrorism Committee in taking measures such as holding regional symposium, facilitating technical assistance, in the hope that the committee will continue to maintain dialogue with the member states and help strengthen their anti-terrorism capacity building, the envoy added. As for the 1540 Committee which was established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1540 on non-proliferation of weapons of

mass destruction, Wang said China supports the committee in continuing its sound and steady work, promoting the realization of goals of the Resolution 1540 in a comprehensive, balanced and effective manner and in assisting countries in fulfilling their obligations under the resolution. The current priority is for the committee to officially establish a panel of experts, Wang said. China supports the chairman of the 1540 Committee in carrying on consultations with relevant parties and reach

agreement on pending issues as soon as possible. "China will continue to work with others, takes an active part in the work of the committee in a joint efforts to continue to make progress in the international non-proliferation process," he added.

2NC Relations Good

Empirically proven- US China cooperation solves international terrorism and piracy Christensen 11 Thomas J. Christensen, Professor of Politics and International Affairs and Director of the Princeton-Harvard China and

the World Program at Princeton University, “The Need to Pursue Mutual Interests in U.S.-PRC Relations” April 2001, from the United States Institute of Peace, http://www.usip.org/files/resources/SR269Christensen.pdf

As two of the world’s larger trading nations and the two largest importers of energy resources, China and the United States have a strong incentive to cooperate and coordinate their activities in fighting piracy and terrorist attacks on shipping. The Gulf of Aden operation, which China decided to join in the waning weeks of the Bush administration, is a good start. It demonstrates in concrete terms the common interests between the two sides, and it allows a level of military-to-military contact that cannot be replicated in defense ministry meeting rooms or classrooms at military academies. The existing cooperation in the Gulf of Aden mission could be enhanced further and could become a precedent for more frequent tactical-level meetings

between the two nations’ militaries. Such a constructive meeting took place aboard a Chinese navy flagship in the Gulf of Aden on November 1, 2009. The U.S. commander of Combined Task Force 151, Rear Admiral Scott Sanders, met with his

Chinese counterpart, Rear Admiral Wang Zhiguo. On that occasion, Admiral Sanders stated, “It is clear that China is a reliable partner and that our efforts are mutually beneficial.”11 Such concrete reminders of the two nations’ common interests provide a stronger foundation for the overall U.S.-China diplomatic relationship than abstract statements about mutual respect for allegedly fully distinct core national interests.

US China Cooperation solves warming, poverty, proliferation, disease, and the economy Hachigian 11 Nina Hachigian, Senior Fellow at American Progress, “Conduct Befitting a Great Power Responsibility and Sovereignty in

U.S.-China Relations” January 2011, from the Center for American Progress, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/01/pdf/china_policy.pdf

It is possible that American and Chinese conceptions of global responsibility and sovereignty will converge over time to meet the needs of the 21st century as China adjusts to its global role, assuming that the consensus in the United States holds for

America continuing to play the role of the responsible leader. If so, we can expect progress on rebalancing the global economy as well as tackling global warming, poverty, pandemics, and nuclear proliferation, among other global issues. But that convergence is hardly a sure thing, especially given the politically charged window of the next two years leading up to a power transition in China and a U.S. presidential election in 2012.

China relations key to the economy, disease control, and national security Christensen 11 Thomas J. Christensen, Professor of Politics and International Affairs and Director of the Princeton-Harvard China and

the World Program at Princeton University, “The Need to Pursue Mutual Interests in U.S.-PRC Relations” April 2001, from the United States

Institute of Peace, http://www.usip.org/files/resources/SR269Christensen.pdf

http://www.usip.org/files/resources/SR269Christensen.pdf

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/01/pdf/china_policy.pdf

http://www.usip.org/files/resources/SR269Christensen.pdf

There are many additional areas of potential U.S.-Chinese cooperation, including global financial stability, disease control, and product safety. This is why U.S. Embassy Beijing is and should be one of the busiest buildings in the entire U.S.

government system. The examples above are only illustrations of areas where cooperation has taken place and must be enhanced if the two nations’ national security interests are to be served. If we succeed in achieving real results together and

along with other concerned countries, we will have done a great deal toward building confidence and trust between the two governments. If,

instead, China and the United States start with issues on which they simply cannot fully agree now or for the

foreseeable future, such as Taiwan and Tibet, then they are likely to hit a wall with negative repercussions for their bilateral relationship and for their mutual ability to contribute to solutions to these global problems.

A2: High Now

Relations low now - arguments over the South China Sea prove. Both sides agree greater security cooperation is needed. VOA News ’11, “US Official: China's Military Expansion Raises Concerns in Asia-Pacific,” June 27, 2011, from Voice of America News, http://www.voanews.com/english/news/US-Official--Chinas-Military-Expansion-Raises-Concerns-in-Asia-Pacific-124578209.html)

A top U.S. official for East Asian and Pacific affairs says the U.S. government has conveyed to China that its military expansion is raising concerns in the region. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell spoke to reporters in Honolulu,

after a meeting with Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai. The two officials held their first round of consultations on the Asia-Pacific region in a closed-door meeting Saturday. Campbell described the discussions as "open, frank and

constructive" and said their goal was to obtain a better understanding of each other's intentions, policies, and actions toward the region. Campbell said the United States reiterated that it welcomes a strong, prosperous, and successful

China that plays a greater role in regional and world affairs. However, he also said greater transparency and more dialogue by China about its growing military capabilities would help ease regional concerns. Campbell said the bilateral

talks also included North Korea's nuclear weapons program, maritime security in the South China Sea and Burma. The two sides say that Saturday's consultations were an outcome of the third round of the China-U.S. strategic and economic dialogue held in May and that they reflect a consensus reached by U.S. President Barack Obama and his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao to build a positive, cooperative and comprehensive relationship Campbell said that upcoming multilateral sessions should highlight areas where the United States and China -- but other countries, as well -- are able to very clearly articulate areas of cooperation on issues such as disaster preparedness. On North Korea, he reiterated that the United States is looking for concrete progress in Pyongyang's relations with South Korea. He said the U.S. has urged China again to press North Korea to deal responsibly and appropriately with South Korea, and to refrain from any further provocations. On South China Sea tensions, he said the United States told China that it wants

an end to regional tensions and dialogue among all the key players. China last week warned the United States to stay out of the regional dispute over the South China Sea waters which are also claimed by the Philippines, Vietnam and Taiwan

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/US-Official--Chinas-Military-Expansion-Raises-Concerns-in-Asia-Pacific-124578209.html

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/US-Official--Chinas-Military-Expansion-Raises-Concerns-in-Asia-Pacific-124578209.html

Aff – Relations Resilient

The relationship is going hard – Chinese Foreign Minister comments proveJiechi 3/9, Yang Jiechi, Foreign Minister for the People’s Republic of China, speech, “Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi’s remarks to conference on China-US Relations by video link,” March 9th, 2012, from FM Jiechi’s speech, published on Xinhuanet, http://english.qstheory.cn/resources/speeches/201203/t20120309_144331.htm//MC

Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi on Wednesday evening delivered a video speech to a conference held in the United States on China-US Relations. The full text of his speech is as following: Dr. Kissinger, General Scowcroft, Ambassador Solomon, Ambassador Roy, Chairman Walker, Ambassador Zhang Yesui, Ladies and Gentlemen, Dear Friends, It is so good to see you through this video link. Modern technologies have brought us close to each other despite the vast distance between Beijing and Washington. I am honored to attend this conference on China-US relations hosted by the United States Institute of Peace, the Richard Nixon Foundation and the Kissinger Institute on China and the United States to mark the 40th anniversary of President Nixon's visit to China and the issuance of the Shanghai Communique. It is so nice to be in your

midst shortly after we saw each other during Vice President Xi Jinping's recent visit to the United States. I wish to express my heartfelt appreciation to you for your abiding commitment and long years of hard work to build up US-China relations. Forty years ago, President Nixon paid a historic visit to China, during which our two countries issued the epoch-

making Shanghai Communique. With extraordinary strategic vision and political wisdom, the Chinese and American leaders broke the ice of estrangement between China and the United States and opened a new chapter in our bilateral relations. I was in my early 20s and was about to go to Britain to study when I heard the news. And I was very excited. That historic event has changed so many things, from the overall international environment to the lives of many ordinary

people. Forty years have passed since President Nixon's visit to China. Thanks to concerted efforts of both sides, China-US relations have kept moving forward despite some ups and downs over these years. With strong vitality and great potential, our relationship has grown into one of the most important bilateral ties in the world today. Frequent high-level exchanges and growing dialogue mechanisms have become a regular feature of the bilateral ties.

Over the past 40 years and particularly the past few years, our leaders have maintained close contacts through mutual visits, meetings at multilateral occasions, telephone conversations, and letters. These high-level contacts have

played an irreplaceable part in steering the growth of our bilateral ties. There are now over 60 bilateral dialogue and consultation mechanisms, including the Strategic and Economic Dialogues and the High-Level Consultation on People-to-People

Exchange. These mechanisms cover political, economic, security, cultural and many other fields. Indeed,

few other two countries can claim to have so many high-level dialogue mechanisms that cover such diverse fields. Our trade and business ties are flourishing. At the time of the establishment of diplomatic relations, our two-way trade was only 2.45 billion US dollars. But it hit 446.6 billion US dollars last year, representing an increase of 182 times. Such strong business ties have brought real benefits to both sides. According to Chinese figures, the United States has invested a total of over 67 billion US dollars in China, bringing capital, technologies and expertise that serve China's needs in its economic development. The United States, too, has benefited from trade with China. Over the last decade, US exports to China have grown by 468 percent, creating over three million jobs. The quality yet inexpensive Chinese goods have saved more than 600 billion US dollars for American consumers. There are active people-to-people and local exchanges. Today, it is quite common for Chinese and Americans to visit each others' country. As a matter of fact, as many as over three million people travel across the Pacific each year. There are 38 sister provinces/states and 176 pairs of sister cities between the two countries. In 2011 alone, nearly 160,000 students from China's mainland went to study in the United States, making China the largest source of foreign students in the United States. Meanwhile, learning Chinese is becoming increasingly popular in the United States. Chinese is now the second largest foreign language in the United States, next only to Spanish. And the "100,000 Strong" Initiative announced by President Obama in 2009 is well

underway. The two countries have maintained close coordination on international issues. China-US consultation and cooperation cover a wide range of fields. They include the international fight against terrorism after 9/11,

response to the international financial crisis, regional hotspot issues such as the situation on the

http://english.qstheory.cn/resources/speeches/201203/t20120309_144331.htm

Korean Peninsula, the Iranian nuclear issue, the Middle East and South Asia, non-traditional security challenges in energy and resources security, public health and disaster prevention and mitigation. By

maintaining such close consultation and cooperation, our two countries have contributed much to upholding global peace, stability and prosperity. The dynamic growth of China-US relations over the last 40 years proves that our shared interests far outweigh differences, that cooperation has always been the dominant trend of our relations, and that a sound China-US relationship is in the best interest of both countries. Attending today's conference are both Democrats and Republicans, and both government officials and non-

government figures. This shows that to foster strong China-US relationship is the shared view of Democrats and Republicans and is the consensus of both the US government and the general public.

Interdependence, dialogues, social norms, and regional cooperation makes the relationship resilient Yesui 11, Ambassador for the People’s Republic of China to the United States, “China-US Relations and the Peaceful Development of China,” October 24th, 2011, from the Chinese Embassy in America, http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zmgx/t870002.htm//MC

This year marks the 40th anniversary of the reopening of relations between China and the United States. 40 years ago, the Chinese and American leaders, with great vision and political wisdom, made the decision to reach out to each other after 22 years of estrangement and hostility. It was a decision that opened a new page in China-US relations and brought about profound changes in international relations. 40

years later, despite ups and downs, with the shared commitment and joint efforts from the leadership, governments and people of all walks of life in both countries, China-US relationship has surged ahead and has come a long way. Today, China-US relationship has become one of the most important and dynamic relationships in the world. As I see it, China-US relationship has the following four distinctive features: Firstly, the economic interests of China and the United States have been closely interconnected. 40 years ago, our trade and economic activities were almost nonexistent. We are now each other's second largest trade partner. Last year, bilateral trade reached US$385 billion. China has been the US's fastest growing export market for the last 10 years, and US exports to China increased by 468% from 2000 to 2010, while its exports to other countries increased only by 55%. The US continues to be the No. 1 source of foreign direct investment for China, and China has become the biggest foreign creditor for the US.

Secondly, dialogue and consultation at various levels have increased and improved. There have been frequent high level visits and exchanges. Over 60 dialogue and consultation mechanisms have been established covering a wide range of areas, including the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, the Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade, the High-Level Consultation on People-to-People Exchanges, and the recently established Strategic Security Dialogue and

the Asia-Pacific Affairs Consultation. These mechanisms have provided unique and effective platforms for China and the US to build trust and expand cooperation. Thirdly, there have been extensive and growing social interactions between our two countries. Every year, more than three million visits are made between China and the US. About 9,000 people are traveling across the Pacific each and every single day. We have 38 pairs of sister province/state relationships and 169 sister city relationships. As we speak, about 130,000 Chinese are studying in the US, and over 20,000 Americans are studying in China. Currently, about three hundred million people in China are learning English, and more than two hundred thousand people in the US are

learning Chinese. Finally, the two countries have kept effective communication and cooperation on many important regional and global issues. China and the US are working closely in almost every field, from traditional security and development areas to newly emerged issues such as anti-terrorism, non-proliferation, climate change, energy and environmental protection; from addressing the global financial crisis and facilitating world economic recovery to the realization of the UN Millennium Development Goals. China-US cooperation is assuming an

http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zmgx/t870002.htm

increasing global implication. It is fair to say that China-US relationship has evolved to such a point that would surprise even the most imaginative person 40 years ago. The fundamental reason and driving force lie in the expanding common interests between the two countries and shared responsibilities in ensuring sustainable development and dealing with emerging global challenges. At the same time, China-US relationship is probably one of the most complex bilateral relationships in the world. China and the United States are different in political system, social value, historic and cultural traditions. There is a huge gap in the level of economic and social development, with China being the largest developing country and the US being the largest developed country. China is an emerging economy while the US is a strong established power. These differences have decided that we do not see eye to eye with each other on many issues. These differences can also lead to misunderstanding and mistrust in each other's strategic intentions. In the history of human civilization, there perhaps has never existed such a bilateral relationship as the China-US relationship before. Therefore there is no ready path to follow and no historical experience or model to copy.

How we finally choose to manage, shape and grow this relationship will determine its course in the next 40 years. In January this year, President Hu Jintao paid a successful state visit to the United States. Among the many results that came out of the visit, the most meaningful was the shared commitment that President Hu and President Barack Obama have made in the Joint Statement, that the two sides will work together to build a cooperative partnership based on mutual respect and mutual benefit. This has laid the groundwork, and it depends on how we work together to make it happen.

Competition

Teaching Suggestion Motivation CPText: The United States federal government should reinstate the "teaching-suggestion-motivation" test.

The expanded obviousness standard eliminates predictability in issuing patents—kills competitiveness.Robbins 6(Lawrence S Robbins, JD Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck & Untereiner LLP, 2006, BRIEF OF ALTITUDE CAPITAL PARTNERS, EXPANSE NETWORKS, INC., INFLEXION POINT STRATEGY, LLC, INTERDIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS CORP., IPOTENTIAL, LLC, OCEAN TOMO, LLC, AND ONSPEC ELECTRONIC INC. AS AMICI CURIAE INSUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS)

Innovation is the lifeblood of the American economy, and the patent system fosters it by creating incentives for the creation, disclosure, and ultimate commercialization of inventions. The protections afforded by the grant of property rights in inventions enable small entities like the undersigned amici to survive, compete, and innovate.

For the system to work properly, however, patentability at the procurement stage and patent validity after issuance must be predictable. If there is no clear understanding of what is and is not patentable, investment in innovation will be chilled, and the ready transfer of technology will be inhibited. In fact, the basic purpose of 35 U.S.C. § 103 was to create “uniformity and definiteness.” Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). To the chagrin of industry, that purpose was undermined by developments that followed this Court’s decision in Graham and

helped prompt the creation of the Federal Circuit in 1982. Also crucial to any regime of patentability is that the determination not be based on hindsight. The government and other amici downplay this phenomenon, but it is in the nature of many important technical advances to appear obvious and even inevitable in retrospect. The motivation-to-combine standard achieves these crucial goals, and does so by rendering the obviousness determination as objective as reasonably possible. The standard, which is consistent with international norms and rooted in decisions that long predate even Section 103, is precisely the sort of workable refinement that lower courts are supposed to develop in every area of the law. The standard, moreover, has never been as inflexible as petitioner and its amici suggest. And even if it were, the rational approach would be not to jettison the standard and start from scratch but rather to emphasize that implicit as well as explicit motivations satisfy the standard. If the existing standard were abandoned in favor of the proposals\ urged

by petitioner and its amici, then, to the detriment of American competitiveness, countless deserving inventions would never have been protected, and, in the future, will never be protected. Relatedly, petitioner’s amici’s proposals would wreak havoc in the business world by calling into question enormous numbers of issued patents and inviting endless litigation over patent validity.

More CP Solvency

The US is currently losing the race on patents—more patents need to be filed if we want to stay competitive.Sarathy 09(Rajiv Sarathy, Patent attorney and former Group Program Manager for Microsoft, June 22, 2009, Following The Money, http://www.patentlawinsights.com/tags/competitiveness/)

A question clients often ask is what the point is in filing patent applications in countries such as China, India, and Russia, where intellectual property rights can be difficult to enforce . China and India

are both members of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the Russian Federation is an "Observer government." According to the WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), governments are required to ensure that intellectual property rights can be enforced under their laws, and that the penalties for infringement are tough enough to deter further

violations. Over the last few years, these countries have made strides in improving their intellectual property enforcement activities. Moreover, as their domestic industries mature, these countries are even more likely to enforce the laws because domestic and foreign pressures to do so will mount. To remain competitive, U.S. companies will need to seriously consider increasing not only their R&D expenditures, but also their patenting activity -- both in the U.S. and abroad. As I wrote in this blog

approximately a month ago, a majority of patent applications filed last year were by inventors located abroad. If American companies fail to protect their inventions, they could lose both domestically and internationally.

TSM key to competitiveness—key to innovation and disclosureA&G IP 7(the Intellectual Property practice of Archer & Greiner, P.C., May 4th, 2007, Supreme Court Announces Tougher Patentability Standards, http://www.archerip.com/supreme-court-announces-tougher-patentability-standards/)

On April 30, 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a unanimous decision in a case that appears to raise the bar for establishing patentability of inventions in the U.S. The case, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., suggests that it is now more difficult to obtain patents from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and to enforce patents in federal courts. Prior to KSR,

patentability was premised upon the “Teaching-Suggestion-Motivation” or “TSM” test that has been used by the USPTO and federal courts for more than a quarter of a century. Under the TSM test, an invention was deemed unpatentable if the USPTO or a federal court found that there was an express or clearly implied teaching, suggestion or motivation in one printed publication which could be combined with information in another printed publication to produce the invention. In KSR, the U.S. Supreme Court made it easier for the USPTO and the courts to deny a patent. Under the new standard, a patent may be denied if the invention is derived by merely sensibly combining the inherent disclosures contained in

previously existing publications. The new standard does not require that the fact finder, when denying patentability, show any express or clearly implied teaching, suggestion or motivation in order to combine the inherent disclosures. It is far too early to predict the full fallout from the KSR case. The USPTO and lower federal courts will interpret its meaning and scope over the course of time. However, because of the unanimity of the decision, we believe it is likely that the case will be construed broadly — at least in the short term — to the detriment

of patent applicants and patent holders. The U.S. patent system was created to stimulate innovation by rewarding inventors with exclusive property rights in their inventions. If the practical impact of the KSR case is a stifling of innovation or a lessening of competitiveness of novel U.S. products and services in the marketplace, then we expect Congress will face concerted and forceful lobbying efforts to amend the Patent Act to a more patent-friendly “pre-KSR” state of affairs.

Without the TSM standard, corporations won’t innovate.Hoffman 6

(Richard W. Hoffmann, Counsel Of Record, Warn Hoffmann Miller & Lalone Pc. 2006 KSR INTERNATIONAL CO., Petitioner, v. TELEFLEX INC. and TECHNOLOGY HOLDING CO., Respondents. BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC., ARVINMERITOR, INC., AND NARTRON CORPORATION IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT)

The current approach assures that the same consistent application of the obviousness standard will be maintained. Companies will continue to invest in improving technology provided they can secure rights to their respective innovations. Changing the standard would

likely curtail further innovation. Companies will be less willing to invest in product development if it is unable to secure patent rights. It simply will not be economically feasible to spend resources on innovation that cannot be protected. Without protection manufacturers can outsource components developed by others to the cheapest bidder, wherever in the world they might be found in an effort to sell their products at the lowest price and maintain their significant market positions. Thus, although changing the current standard of patentability by

eliminating the teaching-suggestion-motivation approach to arriving at the ultimate conclusion of nonobviousness

would be beneficial to some amici on behalf of Petitioner, such a change would not be good for American industry as a whole. Changing the current level of patentability will impact the American economy in the future.

CP Popular

TSM is popular with congress- it wants to pass itSkelly 07 (James, Associate at Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP, Researcher at Center for Biological and Computational Learning – MIT,

TEACHING-SUGGESTION-MOTIVATION UNDER REVIEW: DEVELOPMENTS IN KSR INTERNATIONAL CO. V. TELEFLEX, INC., http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/scitech/volume131/documents/Skelley_WEB.pdf, Vol 13:1 , 2007)

Thus, supporters of TSM argue that any uncertainty accompanying a patent’s scope or validity will adversely affect negotiations.92 These supporters argue that because Congress intended section 103 to inject predictability into the patent analysis, removing TSM at this point would be contrary to Congressional intent.93 Patent validity must be predictable at every stage, and supporters feel that investment in innovation would be chilled if the status of current and prospective patent

holders were put at issue.94 TSM supporters would also rather defer to Congress than have courts apply their interpretation of a new obvious standard.95 Congress has not felt any need to modify the existing standard for decades.96 Further, Congress expressed a statutory intention that issued patents be presumed valid.97 If TSM were removed, supporters fear that “a capability to combine” rather than a “motivation to combine” would become the basis for denying patent protection, thus negating Congressional intent.98

http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/scitech/volume131/documents/Skelley_WEB.pdf

Corporate Tax Credit

1NC Shell

The United States federal government should eliminate the corporate income tax.

Eliminating corporate income tax solves job loss and makes the US economically competitiveHoeft 9 [JR Hoeft, “Gilmore: Eliminate corporate income taxes to fix the economy,” http://bearingdrift.com/2009/02/23/gilmore-eliminate-coporate-income-taxes-to-fix-the-economy/]

“No one really knows whether this massive new government spending will save the economy or merely increase the size and reach of the national government. “We do know that the “stimulus” spending is financed through borrowing — more public debt. As we print more money, inflation is a real danger. Sooner or later, the politicians will be back for more tax increases further hobbling families trying to cope during this economic

downturn. “I urge that the right approach is to reduce or even eliminate the corporate income tax. The loss of revenue

would be about $342 billion, less than half of the cost of the stimulus package. The result would be an explosion of new investment in the United States which would again become the best place in the world to start a business. “If the real goal is jobs, cutting the corporate income tax would create jobs and quickly. Government spending is only a temporary fix, creating in the long run more government programs to sustain through more taxation. Somehow, governor, I’m pretty sure your proposal will not be given serious consideration by Virginia’s U.S. Senators. However, many Virginians do appreciate you for saying it.

http://bearingdrift.com/2009/02/23/gilmore-eliminate-coporate-income-taxes-to-fix-the-economy/

http://bearingdrift.com/2009/02/23/gilmore-eliminate-coporate-income-taxes-to-fix-the-economy/

2NC Solvency

Reverses offshoringThomas A. Hemphill and Mark J. Perry 12, “A U.S. manufacturing strategy for the 21st century: what policies yield national sector competitiveness?”, April, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1094/is_2_47/ai_n58618168/pg_12/?tag=content;col1

* Tax Policy. According to a recent study undertaken by PriceWaterhouseCooper for the Business Roundtable [2011], the United States has the sixth highest taxes on business in the world (behind, respectively, Japan, Morocco, Italy, Indonesia, Germany). The study reported that U.S.-headquartered companies pay 27.7 percent of their income in taxes, compared with the world average of 19.5 percent, the other 28 advanced OECD countries' average of 22.6 percent, and 18 major European countries' average of 21.9 percent. (14) Reducing U.S. corporate income tax and payroll taxes and the cost of repatriating earnings will reduce the tax burden on U.S. manufacturers that locate capital investment and jobs in the United States. This will go a long way to reduce incentives to move U.S. manufacturing investment overseas for tax purposes. These major tax reforms will also accelerate the movement of overseas manufacturing facilities back to the United States, as the cost of labor rises in economically developing manufacturing-based countries, such as China [Coy 2011].

Solves competitivenessSamuel R. Allen et al 11, CEO and President of Deere & Co, “Ignite 1.0”, http://www.compete.org/images/uploads/File/PDF%20Files/Ignite_1-0_FINAL_02.14_.11_.pdf

Many of those interviewed indicated that if the overall corporate tax rate of the United States were closer to our largest trading partners, American companies would be more competitive. High corporate taxes result in a reduced ability to invest, and global competitors with lower rates are able to invest more. Many felt a tax rate comparable to other strong manufacturing countries would improve American corporations’ ability to invest, innovate, and be more competitive globally. A benchmarking study with other global manufacturing powers would be helpful in order to understand differences between corporate tax structures, and by extension, America’s competitiveness. Improving U.S. companies’ ability to repatriate cash from abroad was often cited as another means to boost the domestic economy and U.S. competitiveness. Many executives interviewed believe that, at a minimum, U.S. policy should designate a brief period in which cash could be repatriated at a lower tax rate. When similar policy measures were enacted several years ago, there was a dramatic influx of cash into the U.S., which was then funneled back into the economy. Long term, many participants felt that a territorial tax rate policy should be developed. This could allow American corporations to increase investment in

http://www.compete.org/images/uploads/File/PDF%20Files/Ignite_1-0_FINAL_02.14_.11_.pdf

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1094/is_2_47/ai_n58618168/pg_12/?tag=content;col1

the U.S. and shrink the current federal deficit. The federal deficit was repeatedly cited as a major concern in the long term, but executives also felt that immediate action was needed to reduce the deficit, and very importantly, the borrowing costs for the U.S. Moreover, the executives argued that excessive federal debt would be a drag on growth in the long term, and adversely impact current and future manufacturing product and process innovations and future productivity gains. Finally, a significant majority felt that the time was right to begin a major tax policy overhaul consistent with ideas advanced by the President’s Bipartisan Deficit Reduction Committee. Interviewees argued that this would have a dramatic, positive, and long lasting impact on America’s competitiveness across all industries. In particular, executives recommended the following actions be considered: 1. Institute widespread tax reform and provide long term clarity and stability on overall corporate tax policies to promote investment in the United States and strengthen U.S. competitiveness. 2. Enhance and make permanent R&D tax incentives. Our ability to innovate and develop technological advances is key to our competitive advantage in the future. Therefore, we must invest in long term basic and advanced research to stay ahead. 3. Decrease the cost of repatriating earnings – either by creating a territorial tax rate policy or by minimizing the payback difference between foreign and U.S. tax rates. The U.S. is the only G8 member that does not employ a territorial tax rate policy - a taxation policy where governments tax only the income earned inside their borders. We need to provide U.S. headquartered companies the same competitive advantages that our major trading partners provide for companies headquartered within their borders. 4. Develop more globally competitive corporate tax rates. Executives applauded the recent continuation of tax adjustments, but, as previously noted, felt that consistency over the long term would be even more beneficial in reducing uncertainty and increasing investment.

US tech leadership is key our competitiveness

Segal, 4 – Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (Adam, Foreign Affairs, "Is America Losing Its Edge?" November / December 2004, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101facomment83601/adam-segal/is-america-losing-its-edge.html

The United States' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new technologies and industries faster than anyone else. For the last five decades, U.S. scientific innovation and technological entrepreneurship have ensured the country's economic prosperity and military power. It was Americans who invented and commercialized the semiconductor, the personal computer, and the Internet; other countries merely followed the U.S. lead. Today,

however, this technological edge-so long taken for granted-may be slipping, and the most serious challenge is coming from Asia. Through competitive tax policies, increased investment in research and development (R&D), and preferential policies for science and

technology (S&T) personnel, Asian governments are improving the quality of their science and ensuring the exploitation of future innovations. The percentage of patents issued to and science journal articles published by scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is rising. Indian companies are quickly becoming the second-largest producers of application services in the world, developing, supplying, and managing database and other types of software for clients around the world. South Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U.S. advantage in the manufacture of computer chips and telecommunications software. And even China has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such as lasers, biotechnology, and advanced materials used in semiconductors, aerospace, and many other types of manufacturing. Although the United States' technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of research and development is exerting considerable pressures on the American system. Indeed, as the United States is learning, globalization cuts both ways: it is both a potent catalyst

of U.S. technological innovation and a significant threat to it. The United States will never be able to prevent rivals from developing new technologies; it can remain dominant only by continuing to innovate faster than everyone else. But this won't be easy; to keep its privileged position in the world, the United States must get better at fostering technological entrepreneurship at home.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101facomment83601/adam-segal/is-america-losing-its-edge.html

The US in not tax competitive and is the main cost burden to corporations and is the reason why they are moving overseas

Saxton 05 (Sen. Jim Saxton, Chairman of Joint Economic Committee, “Reforming the US Corporate Tax System to Increase Tax competitiveness” May 2005 )

Third, manufacturers contend that they are more adversely affected by the cost burdens imposed by the U.S. corporate tax system than other firms, as discussed throughout a January 2004 report issued by the U.S.

Department of Commerce titled, “Manufacturing in America: A Comprehensive Strategy to Address the Challenges to U.S. Manufacturers.” The

Commerce Department report states “there is a broad recognition of the advantage conferred on foreign manufacturers by the interrelationship between the current U.S. tax system and international trade rules.”23 The report further states: American manufacturers are well aware that most of their competitors are located in countries that

rely more heavily on consumption, rather than income, as the basis for taxation. In practical terms, foreign governments apply taxes solely to income earned on sales in their jurisdictions and will rebate any taxes that apply to exports. By relying more heavily on income as the basis for taxation, and in taxing U.S. manufacturers on their worldwide income, the U.S. system contains no simple means of ensuring that U.S. exporters receive comparable treatment.24 A 2003 white paper prepared for The Manufacturing Institute of the

National Association of Manufacturers also discusses some of the negative effects experienced by U.S. manufacturers.25 This white paper provides a useful summary of the important economic issues facing U.S. manufacturers. The report lists five primary structural costs that are harming U.S. manufacturers: (1) excessive corporate taxation; (2) escalating costs of health and pension benefits; (3) increasing tort litigation costs; (4) compliance costs for regulatory mandates; and (5) rising energy costs.26 Among the five structural costs listed, the report calculates

that the cost burden of the corporate income tax is the most severe on U.S. manufacturers, and calls for a reduction in the corporate tax burden and a reform to the treatment of foreign-source income. 27 It is important to keep in mind that although the corporate tax is a true burden on corporate activity, the economic incidence of the

tax falls on individuals in the form of reduced wages, a lower return to investment, or in the form of higher prices for goods and services.

Reforming tax policies are crucial to boosting competitiveness and growth.

Rahn 08 (Richard Rahn, Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth, August 2008 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/the-worst-tax/ Rank the following taxes from best to ... abolition of the corporate income tax. )

Rank the following taxes from best to worst: individual income taxes; payroll taxes, corporate income taxes, sales or consumption taxes, and residential property taxes. The vast majority of economists would rank the corporate income tax as being worst and the sales tax and residential property tax as the best. Unfortunately, the corporate income tax is often the favorite tax of fiscally irresponsible politicians because it is not easily seen. In fact, the corporate tax is paid by workers in lower wages and fewer new jobs, by consumers in higher prices and by savers and investors in lower rates of return. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), based in Paris and not known for favoring lower taxes, published a new study last month, "Tax and Economic Growth," which provides more evidence that the corporate income tax interferes most (as compared with other taxes) with proper resource allocation, productivity growth, and economic efficiency. Last week, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a study that showed 28 percent of large companies paid no corporate income tax in 2005 almost always because they had made no profit. Rather than thoughtfully considering whether the corporate income tax should be reduced or abolished, several bluster brains in the U.S. Congress used the report as an excuse to attack corporations. Sen. Byron Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat, who is a big supporter of agricultural subsidies to millionaire farmers and foolish corn ethanol mandates, which are neither cost-effective nor reduce total carbon emissions, demanded that big corporations pay "their fair share" of taxes. Mr. Dorgan, of course, ignored the fact that only people - again, workers, consumers, and/or savers and investors - pay taxes. He also did not explain how it is "fair" that U.S. companies are already more heavily taxed than their foreign competitors, even neighboring Canada. The United States' corporate income tax rate now is more than 50 percent higher than the OECD members (major industrial countries) average. Before the Reagan administration, the U.S. had a 50 percent corporate tax rate, and most other countries had similar high corporate tax rates. During the Reagan administration, the United States sharply reduced its corporate tax rate and other nations followed the lead. As the benefits of corporate tax reduction quickly became obvious, most countries kept cutting their corporate rates. The Irish cut their rate to 12.5 percent and went from being the poor man of Europe to the second-richest on a per capita income basis. The formerly communist countries of Eastern and Central Europe are now in the process of besting the Irish, by going to low flat-rate systems on both personal and corporate income. As the accompanying chart shows, the Bulgarians are the most recent to join the flat-rate club with a 10 percent rate on both corporate and personal income. There are a number of very high-growth countries, such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and financial centers, such as Cayman, that have no corporate or individual income tax at all. They rely primarily on sales or consumption taxes, property taxes and fees for government services. And for the most part they have done very well by their citizens. Assume you are a businessperson who has just developed a greatly improved electric car battery that you expect to sell in most countries around the world. Would you set up your business in the United States, which has the highest corporate tax rates in the world? What does it say about those U.S. politicians who rant about U.S. companies moving their businesses to other countries and U.S. citizens moving their capital elsewhere,

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/the-worst-tax/

when many of those same politicians oppose tax rate reductions and even advocate tax rate increases? Corporate leaders have a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders to maximize profits. If a country has tax and regulatory provisions that make its companies noncompetitive, the company has no choice but to move. Businesses will continue to flee the United States, and new companies that intend to sell globally will be less likely to establish their companies in the U.S. as long as the U.S. is less globally attractive because of high tax rates and excessive regulatory costs. The corporate tax should be abolished because it is the most destructive tax. In a typical year, it only produces about 10 percent of federal revenue. This static revenue loss would be quickly made up by the increase in shareholder dividends that should no longer have a tax preference (in the way that sole proprietorships, partnerships, and limited liability companies are now taxed), and through the additional productivity, international competitiveness and job growth that would result from abolition of the corporate income tax.

CP solves competitiveness and the economy Rahn 12/10/04 [Richard Rahn, Senior fellow of the Discovery and Cato Institutes, Chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth and Chairman of the Advisory Board of the European Center for Economic Growth, “Abolish the Corporate Income Tax?” http://www.discovery.org/a/2317

On Nov. 18, in a speech given at the Finance Ministry in Vienna, Austria, the very highly regarded European economist and first woman president of the Mont Pelerin Society, Professor Victoria Curzon Price, called for eliminating the corporate income tax. There, in the center of socialist Europe, was not only the call to get rid of this destructive tax, but almost everyone in an audience of economists, various government finance officials and public policy experts appeared to agree with her. The idea and practice of the corporate income tax has been dying slowly

for the last two decades. The corporate income tax is a highly destructive tax that greatly distorts proper economic decision-making, taxes the same income more than once, is endlessly complex, and provides a declining share of tax revenue in most countries. For instance, in the United States, corporate income tax revenues fell from 4.2

percent of gross domestic product in 1967 to only 1.2 percent of GDP in 2003, though there was minimal change in the tax rate. Good economists have long known the corporate income tax causes more problems than it solves. Many countries, seeking higher economic growth and employment, have sharply cut their tax rates. Ireland cut its corporate tax rate from 43 percent to only 12 1/2 percent, attracting investment from around the world and, in turn, becoming not only one of the fastest-growing but one of the wealthiest economies in Europe. The new market economies of Eastern Europe seeking high growth and rapid job creation have also been cutting their corporate tax rates. Slovakia, Lithuania and Poland have a 19 percent corporate rate; Hungary 16 percent; Slovenia and Latvia 15 percent; and Bulgaria just announced it will move to a 15 percent rate next year. Montenegro, not to be outdone, announced it will go to a 9 percent rate. Estonia has become the champion by going to a zero rate on reinvested profits. As a result of this competition, even France (34 percent) and Germany (38 percent) have been forced into modest corporate tax reductions, giving them lower rates than corporations face in the United States. American companies now have an average 40 percent rate (including state corporate taxes), and only very poorly performing Japan with its 42

percent rate is higher. Looking at these numbers, it is easy to understand why corporations doing business around the world elect not to have the United States as their legal home, because it makes them noncompetitive. When running for president, Sen. John Kerry proposed punishing companies for leaving the United States. The correct solution is for the U.S. to abolish the corporate income tax, thereby making it the most desired location on the planet for many companies to incorporate. Those who oppose eliminating the corporate tax will say we cannot afford the revenue loss. They say such things because they do not think beyond the first order. Think about it for a minute.

If you eliminate the corporate tax, corporate profits will increase, causing corporations to hire more workers and/or raise wages and invest more in new and better equipment, and/or increase their dividend payouts. All this will cause the price of corporate stock to rise and the government to receive more in capital-gains tax revenues. The government will also receive more tax revenue from the increase in dividends paid and workers hired. If we look at the experience of other countries who have greatly reduced corporate tax rates, like Ireland, it is clear the additional growth in jobs and profits ended up providing the government more, not less, tax revenue. The U.S. Treasury and Congress' Joint Tax Committee use very simple-minded static revenue models when estimating proposed tax changes. That is why they almost always get it wrong. I have no doubt a properly constructed dynamic model or, better yet, an actual experiment of

eliminating the corporate tax will prove we are better off without it. The corporate tax is enormously complex and hence extremely expensive to administer; tends to drive companies to se t up operations outside the United States; discourages foreign investment in the U.S., thereby driving down the dollar's value; taxes capital income more than once, thus reducing the U.S. saving rate, which also drives down the dollar's value; and makes us less competitive. The corporate rate is also unfair to businesses that need a corporate form as opposed to a single proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company and real estate investment trust (REIT). which are not burdened with the extra level of taxation.

http://www.discovery.org/a/2317

Solves long term stability- our evidence assumes your short term deficitsMiron 09[Jeffrey A. Miron, senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University, “Economic Change We Can Believe In,”

http://www.reason.com/news/show/131556.html, 2/6/09] .

President Barack Obama's stimulus proposal entails an awkward tradeoff between spending and efficiency. Fiscal stimulation suggests large, rapid increases in spending, while efficiency means cautious, modest increases. Similarly, Obama's plan favors tax cuts for low-income families, since they are most likely to spend rather than save, yet the drive for efficiency means cutting marginal tax rates on high-income consumers.

One policy change, however, can stimulate both the economy in the short-run and enhance efficiency in the long-run: repeal of the corporate income tax, which collects up to 35% of the difference between revenues and costs of incorporated businesses. From the efficiency perspective, the corporate income tax has never been sensible policy. Economic theory holds that an efficient tax system should not tax capital income, since this distorts the incentives to save and invest. Even if the tax base includes capital income, corporate income taxation is overkill. All income earned by corporations accrues to households as dividends or capital gains, and this income is then taxed by the personal income tax system. Proponents argue that the corporate income tax makes sense because high-income taxpayers own corporations at a disproportionate rate. This desire to redistribute income can still be achieved using the personal tax system. That approach is better targeted than taxing corporate income, since many low and moderate income households own

corporations via their pensions and 401(k)s. The true burden of corporation taxation falls not just on stockholders, but on employees through lower wages and on consumers through higher prices. Thus corporate taxation hits taxpayers across the income spectrum. Corporate income taxation has other negatives. It requires a complicated set of rules and regulations, over and above the personal income tax system, generating compliance costs. Special interests ensure that corporate tax systems favor specific industries or

activities, further distorting private investment decisions. Along those lines, corporation taxation reduces financial transparency, making it harder for investors to monitor corporate behavior. So repeal of the corporate income tax is good policy independent of the state of the economy and would provide short-run stimulus. Repeal means higher stock prices and improved cash flow. Corporations would respond to this change by investing in plant and equipment, and by hiring additional workers. These investments would be more productive than the ones funded by stimulus projects, since corporations respond to market forces, not to political influence. Since corporations could more easily

invest out of retained earnings, repeal would also circumvent many banks' reluctance to lend. The budgetary impact of a corporate income tax repeal—roughly $300-350 billion per year—might seem daunting, but this amount falls well short of the Obama fiscal package. The long-run impact will be less than what is implied by current revenues, since repeal will expand economic activity and therefore increase other kinds of tax revenue. The stimulus impact of a corporate income tax repeal is likely to be substantial. Recent estimates by Christina Romer, the head of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, suggest that tax cuts have a multiplier of three, meaning that repeal would increase GDP by roughly $1 trillion. By comparison, the administration's assumption that the government spending multiplier is about 1.5 suggests that the $500 billion in the Obama stimulus package would increase GDP by about $750 billion. Elimination of the corporate income tax is a no-brainer. It benefits the economy in both the short-run and the long-run, with modest implications on the government budget. The broader lesson here is that policymakers should attempt to improve the economy by eliminating currently existing bad policies, not just by adding new layers of government. By focusing equally on efficiency and stimulus, policymakers can set the stage for a sustained and healthy recovery.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/131556.html

CP Unpopular

Removing the corporate tax credit is unpopular in congressSahadi 12 (Jeanne, Writer and editor for CNN money, The corporate tax 'shell game',

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/23/news/economy/corporate_tax_rate_reduction/index.htm, 2/23/12)

"A lot of people in this town are playing a shell game," said Eric Toder, co--director of the Tax Policy Center. Indeed, to reduce the top rate of 35% to 28% in a way that is "revenue neutral" -- meaning it doesn't add to the deficit -- would require eliminating all major business tax credits and deductions, according to an analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation. And the JCT said even then it would not necessarily stay revenue neutral after the first 10 years. Another analysis by the Congressional Research Service estimates that eliminating all corporate tax breaks

would only let lawmakers reduce the top corporate rate by 5.6 percentage points -- in other words, to 29.4%. Either way, it's politically unrealistic to assume that anyone in Washington would ever agree to eliminate all business tax breaks, Toder said. Partly that's because there are some breaks that most people agree do encourage investment and innovation and therefore are good for the economy. Those include the two the most popular corporate breaks -- the credit companies get for money spent on research and experimentation and a deduction that lets them depreciate their capital investments more quickly.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/23/news/economy/corporate_tax_rate_reduction/index.htm

Patent box

1NC Shell

The United States Federal Government should establish a patent box system for taxing corporate income.

Solves competitiveness and spurs innovationRobert D. Atkinson and Scott Andes 11, Robert is founder and president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Scott is a Research Analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, “Patent Boxes: Innovation in Tax Policy and Tax Policy for Innovation”, October, http://www.itif.org/files/2011-patent-box.pdf

An effective corporate tax system reflects current economic realities. As such, the U.S. corporate tax system is in need of reform, for it reflects economic realities of a generation ago. Today, the U.S. economy faces intense global competition for economic advantage, particularly in innovation-based, higher wage industries. Moreover, the economy is based more on innovation and intellectual property (IP).1 IP is also more mobile, as companies can perform R&D and patent in countries around the world. Therefore, nations that hope to grow and attract innovation-based business establishments need tax policies that promote both the conduct of research and its commercialization. Toward that end, a number of countries recently have adopted or expanded R&D tax incentives as well as developed new tax incentives to spur the commercialization of that R&D. These incentives or “patent boxes” (so-called because there is a box to tick on the tax form) allow corporate income from the sale of patented products to be taxed at a lower rate than other income. Eight nations (seven in Europe) have enacted patent box regimes that incentivize firms to patent or produce other related innovations. And a ninth, the UK, is set to put in place the incentive in 2013. Proponents of patent boxes argue that they increase country competitiveness not only by spurring firms to invest more in innovation but also by providing a more competitive corporate tax climate for increasingly innovation-based firms. Skeptics claim that patent boxes do not actually address market failure because firms already have all the incentives they need to commercialize innovation in the marketplace. This report seeks to inform the debate on whether patent boxes can help promote R&D and commercialization and if a patent box is appropriate for the United States. It articulates two economic rationales for why the United States should follow our European and Asian competitors and institute a patent box system. First, a patent box reduces the financial risk involved in innovation, better matching firm rewards with societal benefits, including the creation of high-wage jobs. If a patent box is designed in a way that links the incentive to the conduct of R&D and production of the patented product in the United States, it would go even further in spurring the creation and location of more innovation-based jobs in the United States. Second, a patent box would lower the effective corporate tax rate for knowledge-based establishments located in the United States, making it easier for them to compete against establishments in nations providing robust innovation incentives. As such, Congress should establish a patent box regime modeled after those of other nations, allowing companies in the United States to pay a significantly lower rate on

http://www.itif.org/files/2011-patent-box.pdf

corporate income from patented products where the share of profits that are taxed at the lower rate depends on the extent to which related R&D and production is conducted within the United States.

Solvency Wall

The CP’s key to keep up with global tax policyRobert D. Atkinson and Scott Andes 11, Robert is founder and president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Scott is a Research Analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, “Patent Boxes: Innovation in Tax Policy and Tax Policy for Innovation”, October, http://www.itif.org/files/2011-patent-box.pdf

In response, most nations have established robust competitiveness policies, including putting in place more competitive corporate tax codes. Deveraux, Lockwood, and Redoano find that corporate tax rates for OECD nations have declined from nearly 50 percent in the early 1980s to less than 35 percent in 2001, and that international tax competition was the principle driver of those reductions.16 Indeed, many formerly high-tax nations have reduced their taxes dramatically. For example, the statutory corporate tax rate in Sweden in 1982 was 60 percent; by 1999, it had been reduced to 28 percent. In fact, by 2009, the non-U.S. OECD rate had declined even more, to just below 30 percent. Deveraux, Lockwood, and Redoano find that a 1 percentage point decline in the weighted average statutory corporate tax rate in other nations tends to reduce the corporate tax rate in the home country by about 0.7 percentage points.17 Countries are increasingly using their corporate tax code to become more attractive locations for internationally mobile investment and to reduce outflow of investment. Deveraux, Lockwood, and Redoano find that increases in corporate tax rates by low-tax European nations would lead to an increase in corporate investment in the United States and other nations. And this effect has grown over time. Altshuler finds that the elasticity of foreign direct investment to corporate tax rates has increased from 1.5 to 3 from 1984 to 1992, indicating that a 1 percentage point reduction in the host country tax rate now raises foreign direct investment by 3 percentage points.18 A decade later, the effect was even larger at 3.7.19 Not only have an increasing number of nations lowered their effective corporate tax rates; many have done so in ways that specifically target globally traded sectors. If taxes on firms in globally traded sectors (e.g., steel, pharmaceuticals, electronics, etc.) are raised, firms will act rationally by moving some production to nations that tax them less. Indeed, most IP-based industries are now highly tradable and have significant locational freedom. IT management systems have allowed firms to decentralize and separate research and the development of IP from manufacturing and other segments of the firm at distant locations.20 In this sense, the tax benefits of patent boxes accrue largely to internationally traded industries. Because of this, tax policy plays a growing role in influencing the global allocation of economic activity. One study of European multinational corporations between 1995 and 2005 found that the lower the statutory corporate tax rate of a subsidiary relative to all other affiliates of the multinational group, the higher the level of intangible assets at its location. Specifically, a 1 percent increase in the tax differential between a low-tax subsidiary and all other group affiliates increases its stock of intangible assets by 1.4 percent, on average.21 For these reasons, patent boxes have been the most rapidly growing new tax incentive around the globe. The regimes seek to encourage firms to do more innovation and to do more of it at


home. And in doing so, firms are able to lower their effective corporate tax rate, especially on mobile factors of production. The Mirrlees review from the London-based Institute for Fiscal Studies noted that, in principle, it would be efficient to tax mobile activities (e.g., an R&D laboratory or semiconductor plant) at a lower rate than relatively immobile ones (e.g., grocery stores and railroads). It states: This would allow a higher rate of corporation tax to be supported on less mobile (location-specific) economic profits, while using a lower rate to reduce the deterrence to mobile income. Explicitly setting a different rate for mobile income carries considerable implementation difficulties, has been rare in practice, and is explicitly discouraged by international agreements (including OECD initiatives on harmful tax competition). However, seen in this light, patent boxes may allow governments to maintain a higher tax rate and therefore collect more revenue from other, less mobile, forms of corporate income than would otherwise be the case.22 Adopting a patent box that requires R&D and/or production associated with qualifying IP to be done in the United States in order to qualify for the patent box rate would “kill two birds with one stone.” It would incentivize backend R&D while at the same time tie R&D to commercial outcomes through patent revenues. And it would make the United States more attractive from a tax basis for the commercialization of innovation, leading to more robust job creation.

Solves onshoring and investmentRobert D. Atkinson and Scott Andes 11, Robert is founder and president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Scott is a Research Analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, “Patent Boxes: Innovation in Tax Policy and Tax Policy for Innovation”, October, http://www.itif.org/files/2011-patent-box.pdf

So, if designed appropriately, patent boxes would likely complement R&D tax credits by promoting commercialized innovation, which would foster economic growth. On the other hand, if designed inappropriately, firms, may adopt legal but not innovation-promoting strategies. However, even if the outcome of patent boxes is simply to lower taxes on innovative firms without directly impacting their decision to invest more in R&D, this would still help the economy, particularly in the United States. The United States has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, putting it at a significant competitive disadvantage.37 Higher corporate taxes reduce investments, new business start-ups, and inward foreign direct investment. Even if a U.S. patent box did not alter a U.S. firm’s behavior, it would at minimum still constitute a reduced corporate tax rate on mobile, innovative firms. As mentioned above, corporate tax rates should be designed such that the tax burden is shifted from traded to non-traded sectors and away from innovation-driving firms. From a tax competition perspective, there is little reason to reduce the corporate tax rate on firms in non-traded sectors like groceries or electric utilities because they are geographically tied to the areas where their customers are located. But high-tech firms have a large and increasing number of global options with respect to location. Lowering corporate taxes on these firms would help countries like the United States become more globally competitive.


It’s try or die – we’re falling behind as other countries adopt patent box systemsRobert D. Atkinson and Scott Andes 11, Robert is founder and president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Scott is a Research Analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, “Patent Boxes: Innovation in Tax Policy and Tax Policy for Innovation”, October, http://www.itif.org/files/2011-patent-box.pdf

Countries interested in winning the race for global innovation advantage need to shift the debate over domestic tax policy from one of revenue enhancement to one of global competitiveness. And most countries are doing just that. However, over the last quarter century the U.S. tax code has seen little change. More countries are entering the global race and others are running faster to keep the lead. If the United States’ pace remains constant, we will slowly but surely fall further behind. Implementing a patent box is an opportunity for the United States to develop a tax code that more effectively drives innovation, competitiveness, and family-wage jobs. Many countries have patent boxes but most have significant shortcomings in design. The U.S. patent box wouldn’t be the world’s first, but it could be the world’s best. By tying together R&D, high-tech manufacturing, and commercialization of U.S. IP, a well-formulated patent box would create a powerful incentive for firms to develop and produce innovation within the United States.


Vs. Innovation

R&D fails without commercializationRobert D. Atkinson and Scott Andes 11, Robert is founder and president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Scott is a Research Analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, “Patent Boxes: Innovation in Tax Policy and Tax Policy for Innovation”, October, http://www.itif.org/files/2011-patent-box.pdf

Not exactly. First, even after patenting and successfully commercializing an innovation, firms are still unlikely to capture all the benefits of their patent in the form of profits. Apple’s recent iPad offers a good example. The iPad is protected by patents both in the United States and Europe, and Apple undertook an aggressive marketing and product design strategy to distinguish the iPad as a unique product. All of which are elements of commercialization that allow Apple to gain the maximum returns from the company’s innovation. However, there are now dozens of other companies selling similar tablet computers in competition with the iPad (in fact, the 2011 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas saw eighty new tablet computers introduced by a variety of vendors), suggesting that Apple was not able to capture anywhere near all the returns from its innovation.14 Second, before investing in R&D, firms estimate the likely returns and an acceptable risk tolerance for failure. R&D tax credits work because they reduce the cost of R&D so that in the event of failure firms do not lose as much. Patent boxes can work in a similar manner; instead of reducing the cost of R&D, they increase the benefits of success. In doing so, patent boxes can make investments in innovation, including early-stage R&D, more attractive compared to other investments. For example, if a firm believes it could make one million dollars investing in either a new innovation or in an existing product, the firm should be indifferent as to which it pursues. However, if the profit from a new innovation is taxed at half the rate as the profits from the conventional product the firm would choose to invest more in innovation. In this sense, patent boxes could help overcome the market failure of too little private-sector innovation relative to the societally optimal rate. Just as economies can get caught in “poverty traps” where too little technology and too few skilled workers lead to the creation of low-skilled firms, (which in turn decreases demand for skills and technology), firms can get caught in low-innovation equilibriums.15 Patent boxes can incentivize firms to shift production from low- to high-value products and services. Finally, R&D is necessary but insufficient in order for nations to be globally competitive. Commercialization is the link between R&D and economic growth, but commercial activity does not necessarily follow from successful R&D. Firms often face barriers to bringing ideas to market in the form of coordination failures, lack of proof of concept funding, and other “valley of death” challenges. Obviously the market creates incentives for firms to commercialize; however, market failures, particularly coordination and collective action problems, reduce the rate of commercial R&D. A patent box regime can help correct this.


Comparatively outweighs their internal linkRobert D. Atkinson and Scott Andes 11, Robert is founder and president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Scott is a Research Analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, “Patent Boxes: Innovation in Tax Policy and Tax Policy for Innovation”, October, http://www.itif.org/files/2011-patent-box.pdf

Patent boxes tax qualifying profits (those derived from patents or in some nations additional kinds of IP) at a lower rate in order to incentivize innovation. Patent boxes differ from R&D tax credits in that they provide firms with an incentive for commercialization of innovation, rather than for just the conduct of research. Commercialization of innovation, rather than the simple conduct of R&D, is a key driver of economic growth. Thus, proponents of patent boxes argue that creating tax incentives linked to success at commercializing innovation is an important strategy for growth, competitiveness, and job creation.


Aff – Links to Deficit DA

Patent boxes are deficit-negativeRobert D. Atkinson and Scott Andes 11, Robert is founder and president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Scott is a Research Analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, “Patent Boxes: Innovation in Tax Policy and Tax Policy for Innovation”, October, http://www.itif.org/files/2011-patent-box.pdf

The reason for this finding is twofold. Even though companies in nations with patent boxes have more patent income, the lower rate they now pay is not enough to make up for the loss in revenue. There is no “Laffer curve” here in the sense of lower rates leading to fully compensating higher revenues, at least in the short term. Second, other nations lose patent tax revenue because of firms’ choice to relocate patent based activities to countries with patent boxes.


R&D tax credit

1NC Shell

The United States Federal Government should make the research and development tax credit permanent and expand the applied rate to 20%.

Solves competitiveness and high tech jobsRobert D. Atkinson 9, founder and president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, “Effective Corporate Tax Reform in the Global Innovation Economy”, July, http://www.itif.org/files/090723_CorpTax.pdf

Research and development (R&D) is the principal way industry creates knowledge that can be commercialized into economically valuable products and services, and the R&D tax credit is one of the main ways the federal government supports private sector R&D activities.53 The R&D credit is available for qualified expenditures in the United States, which primarily include the wages paid to employees engaging in qualified research activities, 65% of the fees paid to external contractors for the performance of qualified research, and supplies used in conducting qualified research (but not equipment used in research). Firms can choose from two main credits: a credit equal to 20 percent of all qualified R&D expenditures above a firm-specific base level of R&D expenses, or the Alternative Simplified Credit, which provides a credit of 14 percent on qualified R&D expenses above 50 percent of average research expenses for the preceding three years. At its current level, the R&D credit is a less important source of competitive advantage than it once was. As nations have sought to compete in the innovation economy many have put in place or expanded R&D tax incentives. In 1992, the United States had the most generous tax treatment of research expenditures among 30 OECD nations. By 2007, the United States had fallen to 17th for large firms (18th for small-medium enterprises), in large part because other nations increased their R&D tax incentives. In some Canadian provinces, for example, firms can obtain a 40 percent credit on all their R&D expenditures. Australia recently proposed a flat 40 percent credit on all business R&D. These levels are more than 5 times as generous as U.S. levels. Boosting the R&D tax credit will not only increase the amount of R&D conducted by firms in the United States, it will make America a more competitive location internationally for R&D-based economic activities, boosting exports and in turn creating more high-paying production jobs.54 To accomplish this, Congress should take several steps: 1) Make the R&D tax credit permanent. R&D tax incentives in virtually all nations except the United States are permanent features of the tax code. Since its enactment in 1981, the R&D tax credit has been extended 12 times and expired twice, including in 2006.55 The uncertainty over the credit’s existence adds risk to the already risky research investments made by companies and reduces its effectiveness. An OECD study found that the less stability and greater uncertainty of the credit, the less likely it is to have a positive effect on stimulating R&D.56 One reason Congress has not made the credit permanent is because the expenditures must be scored for five years, raising the budgeted cost. Yet, extending the credit each year does not lower its actual cost

http://www.itif.org/files/090723_CorpTax.pdf

significantly, but it does allow the costs to be passed on to next year’s budget.57 2) Expand the Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC). Permanence is useful, but expansion is critical. Therefore, Congress should expand the ASC by enacting a three-tier credit. Firms would continue to receive a credit of 14 percent of the amount of qualified expenses greater than 50 percent and below or equal to 75 percent of the average qualified research expenses. For qualified expenses greater than 75 percent and below or equal to 100 percent firms would receive a credit of 20 percent, and for qualified research exceeding 100 percent of the base the credit would increase to 40 percent. 3) Make it clear that process R&D is a qualifying R&D expenditure. A large share of innovation is process innovation—the development of new ways of producing a product or service. Much of this is science and technology-intensive, but under the interpretation of current law, it is extremely difficult for companies qualify for the credit on process R&D.58 One result is that traditional manufacturing firms get less benefit from the credit than high-tech firms engaged in product development. If Congress made it clear that the intent of the credit was to allow a broad range of process R&D to qualify, it would make it easier for firms to qualify for the credit, which in turn would not only encourage firms to conduct more R&D, thereby leading to higher productivity, it would also reduce the cost differential between manufacturing located in the United States and other nations. 4) Broaden the credit for collaborative energy-related research to any area of collaborative research and expand the rate from 20 percent to 40 percent. As part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress created an energy research credit that allowed companies to claim a credit equal to 20 percent of the payments to qualified research consortia (of five or more firms), universities, or federal laboratories for energy research. Congress should go further and allow firms to take a flat credit of 40 percent for any collaborative research conducted at universities, federal laboratories, and research consortia. There are several reasons to treat collaborative research more generously. First, participation in research consortia has a positive impact on firms’ own R&D expenditures and research productivity.59 Second, most collaborative research is more basic and exploratory than research typically conducted by a single company. Moreover, the research results are often shared, often through scientific publications. As a result, firms are less able to capture the benefits of collaborative research, leading them to under invest in such research relative to socially optimal levels.60 Other countries, including Denmark, Hungary, Japan, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom, provide firms more generous tax incentives for collaborative R&D.61

Solvency Wall

R&D is the cornerstone of growth differentials – the U.S. is falling behind nowMatthew Stepp and Robert D. Atkinson 11, Matt is Senior Analyst with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Robert is founder and president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, “Creating a Collaborative R&D Tax Credit”, June, http://www.itif.org/files/2011-creating-r&d-credit.pdf

President Obama’s call to increase the R&D tax credit from 14 to 17 percent is an important first step in restoring America’s global innovation-based competitiveness. But if our nation is to really address the challenge—the “Sputnik moment” in the President’s words—17 percent is not enough. Increasing the Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC) from 14 to 17 percent will move the United States from 17th place amongst OECD nations to 13th—an improvement to be sure—but one that will leave the United States far behind the global frontrunners in terms of R&D tax incentives. We urge Congress to take up the President’s call to expand the credit, but expand it to at least 20 percent, as some in Congress have proposed. The United States was first nation to realize the importance of spurring R&D through the tax code, putting in place the R&D credit in 1981. As a result, throughout the 1980s the United States had the most generous R&D tax incentive in the world. However, other nations learned from our success and began to not just copy us, but go beyond us. By 1996 the United States had fallen to seventh in R&D tax generosity among the 30 OECD nations, behind Spain, Australia, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, and France. And the slide continued. By 2004 we had fallen to 17th.1 Even with the recent expansion of the ASC from 12 to 14 percent the United States was only able to hold position at 17th (and 19th for small businesses R&D incentives), as other nations also expanded their R&D tax incentives.2 However it is not just OECD nations that have overtaken the United States, a number of other nations, including China, India, Brazil, and Singapore, provide more generous tax treatment for R&D expenditures. This is one key reason why ITIF found that the United States ranked 30th of 40 nations in the rate of growth in corporate R&D from 1999 to 2006.3 Other nations are simply outcompeting us for research and development investments, and the jobs and economic activity that flow from them. If the United States is to be more competitive for global R&D investment it needs expand the R&D tax credit beyond the President’s proposal. Expanding the Alternative Simplified Credit as from 14 to 17 percent for would only move the United States from 17th in the OECD to 13th. If the United States increased the ASC to 20 percent it would move to 10th place. If we wanted to move to 5th place we would need a credit of 31 percent, to be number one, we’d need an ASC of 47 percent. R&D tax incentives have become a linchpin of tax policy throughout the world because they have proven to be an effective tool to increasing private sector innovation and boosting economic growth. As ITIF has shown, increasing the R&D credit is not only an effective strategy for growing the U.S. economy it will also lead to more tax revenue, patents and jobs. 4 There have been a wide range of studies by independent academic economists on the effect of R&D tax incentives on private sector research. For example, Bloom, Griffith and Van Reenen found that the credit stimulates an additional $1.10 of research in the United States for

http://www.itif.org/files/2011-creating-r&d-credit.pdf


every dollar of lost tax revenue.5 Moreover, as ITIF has estimated that expanding the Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC) from 14 percent to 20 percent would spur the creation of 162,000 jobs in the short run (and an additional, but unspecified, number of jobs in the longer run), increase GDP by $66 billion annually and the number of patents filed by an estimated 3,800.6 Moreover, ITIF estimates that the credit would actually pay for itself in increased tax revenues over the course of 15 years. With the stakes so high, and the benefits so clear, now is the time to put in a place an R&D credit whose size matches the size of the challenge we face.

Key to spur collaborative researchMatthew Stepp and Robert D. Atkinson 11, Matt is Senior Analyst with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Robert is founder and president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, “Creating a Collaborative R&D Tax Credit”, June, http://www.itif.org/files/2011-creating-r&d-credit.pdf

Other nations are also offering more generous R&D tax incentives (Figure 2). The United States ranks 17th among 30 OECD nations in the generosity of its R&D tax incentive, a rank that has continued to decline since the early 1990s. But competing countries have also recognized the importance of boosting collaborative R&D.29 Many countries are now offer more generous incentives for firms to partner with universities, government labs, non-profits, and research consortia (Table 1). For example, Hungary reduces a company’s taxable income by up to 400 percent of the amount invested in collaborating with a university or research institution. Japan and Italy offer flat tax credits for collaborating with a university of research institution of up to 14 percent and 40 percent respectively. And in France firms can receive a 60 percent flat credit on R&D investments at universities and federal labs. For many of these countries, collaborative tax credits play an important part of an overall competitiveness and innovation policy that encourages businesses to invest more than twice as much in collaborative research than in the United States.30 This puts the United States at a significant disadvantage. The United States R&D tax credit – the principle way the United States incentivizes the private sector to invest in more R&D – doesn’t effectively provide a strong incentive for firms to collaborate. Specifically, the credit offered to firms that collaborate with universities, federal labs, research consortia, and other research institutions is both less generous and more restrictive than competing nations’. Businesses have less of an incentive to forge R&D partnerships in the United States than elsewhere. In addition, the credit restricts firms from taking a slightly more generous credit for collaborating with universities for only those projects that do not have a commercial objective. A similar more generous credit for collaborating with research consortia is restricted to only those conducting energy R&D. Simply put, if the United States is serious about revving up its innovation and competitiveness engine, policymakers need to expand the R&D tax credit and create strong incentives for collaborative R&D.



No downside to expansionRobert D. Atkinson 10, founder and president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, “Create Jobs by Expanding the R&D Tax Credit”, January 26, http://www.itif.org/files/2010-01-26-RandD.pdf

One final question is if expanding the R&D credit leads to even more federal revenues, wouldn’t it make sense to expand the credit even more. The short answer is yes. Because as numerous academic studies have shown that companies under-invest in research relative to what is societally optimal, more research funding would in fact be a good societal investment of scarce resources. However, this does not mean that there is no limit to this bounty. Clearly at some point diminishing marginal returns set in and more money on research would not produce a positive rate of return to society. But it is fairly clear that we are long way from that point, and that considerable increases in the R&D credit would continue to produce very positive societal returns. CONCLUSION The research and experimentation tax credit has been shown to be effective at spurring research, and research has been shown to be a key to boosting economic growth. Increasing the R&D tax credit will spur companies to perform more R&D in the United States, reducing layoffs of scientific and technical personnel, and in many cases enabling companies to expand research employment. In addition, by maintaining or expanding research investments, companies will be better positioned to innovate and compete successfully in international markets.

The CP engages research institutions in commercial developmentsMatthew Stepp and Robert D. Atkinson 11, Matt is Senior Analyst with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Robert is founder and president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, “Creating a Collaborative R&D Tax Credit”, June, http://www.itif.org/files/2011-creating-r&d-credit.pdf

Restoring America’s leadership in innovation-based competitiveness is one of our greatest challenges. But to do so is going to require significant changes to the U.S. innovation system. One way is to reform how the federal government incentivizes the private sector to invest more in the building blocks of innovation, specifically collaborative research and development (R&D). Many sectors of the economy increasingly rely on collaborative research (e.g. research funded by businesses but performed at a university, federal lab, or industry consortium). Yet, the R&D tax credit – the principle way government incentivizes the private sector to invest in more R&D – falls short of effectively incentivizing research collaborations.1 This is in contrast to a growing number of competing nations which provide a more generous tax incentive for collaborative R&D. To make the R&D tax credit more competitive, Congress has a range of options including: 1. Expand the definition of basic research. Congress should eliminate language in the tax code that restricts the definition of basic research to projects “not having a specific



http://www.itif.org/files/2010-01-26-RandD.pdf


commercial objective.” 2. Double the rate for energy research consortia. In order to spur the expansion of more energy research consortia, Congress should boost the flat energy research consortia tax credit from 20 percent to 40 percent. 3. Create a Collaborative R&D Tax Credit. If Congress is serious about making the United States the premier destination for innovation, it should make all collaborations between a business and a university, federal lab, or any research consortia eligible for a 40 percent flat tax credit.

2nc – jobs

The CP leads to a massive short term job boostRobert D. Atkinson 10, founder and president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, “Create Jobs by Expanding the R&D Tax Credit”, January 26, http://www.itif.org/files/2010-01-26-RandD.pdf

With the unemployment rate around 10 percent, job creation tops the policy agenda in Washington. One of the best ways to spur job creation is to expand the federal R&D tax credit to encourage more research and development.1 ITIF estimates that expanding the Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC) from 14 percent to 20 percent would spur the creation of 162,000 jobs in the short run and an additional, but unspecified, number of jobs in the longer run. The advantage of including an increase in the credit in any jobs package passed by Congress is that it would not only give a quick shot in the arm to job creation, but it would also boost innovation and U.S. economic competiveness, thus laying the groundwork for longer-term prosperity. ITIF estimates that this expansion of the credit would lead to an increase in annual GDP by $66 billion, an increase in the number of patents issued to American inventors by 3,850, and by year 15 produces net revenue gains for the Federal treasury. Other nations have taken similar steps during the current downturn. For example, the Dutch government increased its R&D tax credit by 33 percent for fiscal years 2009 and 2010. It is time for the United States to do the same. THE UNITED STATES LAGS OTHER NATIONS IN R&D TAX INCENTIVES The United States was one of the first countries to realize the importance of spurring R&D through the tax code, putting in place the R&D credit in 1981. As a result, throughout the 1980s the United States had the most generous R&D tax incentive in the world, and there is a broad consensus among academic economists that the credit was and is an effective tool to spur more private sector research.2 However, other nations soon learned from the United States’ success with the credit and began to not just copy us, but go beyond us. As a result, by 1996 the United States had fallen to seventh in R&D tax generosity among the 30 OECD nations, behind Spain, Australia, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, and France. And the slide has continued. By 2004 we had fallen ten more spots to 17th. Even the recent expansion of the credit by Congress with the creation of the ASC merely allowed the United States to hold its position–in 2008 the United States continued to be ranked 17th overall (and 19th for R&D tax generosity towards small businesses) amongst OECD nations.3 (see Figure 1) One reason why the United States has fallen behind is that in the last decade every country that has an R&D tax incentive has increased the generosity of those incentives. For example, France recently put in place an extremely generous credit in an attempt to attract more global R&D investment. Using the ASC as the base (the ASC provides a 14 percent credit on R&D expenditures in excess of 50 percent of base period expenditures), the United States would have to increase the ASC to 20 percent to move to 10th place, 31 percent to move to 5th place, and 47 percent to be the most generous of the OECD nations.4 The bottom-line concern is that as the other nations have strengthened fiscal and other incentives for their domestic industries to invest in R&D, the R&D intensity of the United States—once the highest—has been steadily slipping to it’s current 8th position. SPURRING PRIVATE SECTOR RESEARCH WILL CREATE NEEDED JOBS Recessions negatively



impact corporate R&D and research employment. During the last two decades economic downturns have impacted public and private organizations conducting research. After the last two downturns (1990-91 and 2001) total investment in R&D fell by over 2 percent, with industry funding declining even more. And the current recession will likely see even more significant declines. Not surprisingly these declines in research funding lead to job losses for researchers and others employed in related fields. In the 1991-92 recession, unemployment of scientists and engineers went up significantly. For example, the unemployment rate for electrical engineers tripled, while the rate for computer scientists more than doubled. In the recession of 2001-02 the unemployment rate for electrical engineers increased to more than 5 times its rate of the late 1990s, while the unemployment rate for computer scientists increased by 3 times.5 And while normally the increased unemployment rate for researchers in a recession is still lower than the overall unemployment rate, in the last recession this was not true for electrical engineers. This suggests that efforts to increase research spending, even on a temporary basis, can reduce the number of researchers who become unemployed, and even spur hiring of additional researchers and research-related employees (e.g., technicians), leading to faster overall national recovery.

Our internal link is fasterRobert D. Atkinson 10, founder and president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, “Create Jobs by Expanding the R&D Tax Credit”, January 26, http://www.itif.org/files/2010-01-26-RandD.pdf

One issue to consider is that of timeliness of effects. There are no studies that we are aware of estimating the time impacts of these effects. However, it is possi ble to roughly estimate when these benefits will occur. One major benefit of an increase to the R&D credit, especially in comparison to direct government spending, is that the effect is felt much sooner. Essentially, once an increase in the credit is enacted into law, companies should fairly quickly (within a matter of weeks) adjust their investment behavior to respond, and begin to hire additional staff (or cancel planned layoffs). This is in part because most companies that currently take the credit have a fairly large backlog of research projects they are working on and challenges they are seeking to solve. The limiting factor for most companies is a financial one – which an expanded credit helps reduce – in terms of either being able to allocate the financial resources or justifying them on an ROI basis. While the R&D and jobs impacts of a change in the credit could be expected to occur fairly quickly, most of the productivity, innovation, and GDP impacts (and by extension, the tax revenue impacts) will take longer to be realized. This is in part because research efforts take some time before they show results in the form of new products (or processes). However, the fact that the overall process from research to commercialization has generally gotten shorter over the last two decades, suggests that these macroeconomic impacts would begin to be felt in a matter of a few years.



Pollution

Fossil Fuels CP

1NC Shell

The United States federal government should endorse an oil reform agenda that regulates the oil industry and moves away from our dependence on oil.

Solves pollutionHendricks, Gordon, and Kenworthy 10 (Bracken, Kate, Tom, Senior Fellows at American Progress, Obama’s campaign

advisor, founder of the Apollo Alliance, Senior associate of Center on Wisconsin Strategy, Reporter of Washington Post and USA Today, 6/15/10, Center for American Progress, “Fix the Real Problem: End America’s Energy Vulnerability

A Framework for Responding to the Gulf Coast Oil Crisis,” http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/06/energy_framework.html, woojae)

If we are to turn the BP oil disaster into economic opportunity and reduce our strategic vulnerability to fossil fuel dependence, the president and Congress must see this crisis in its true light. It is not a crisis caused only by BP or even by our oil dependence alone. It is a disaster borne

from an economic strategy that is based on dwindling and dangerous fossil fuels. There is a path out of this mess: We must better regulate oil while moving the country beyond our dependence on oil. We must aggressively invest in alternative energy technologies, including energy efficiency programs. And we must finally cap and price carbon pollution, meeting the global commitment to bring carbon emissions down to at least 17 percent below 2005 emissions by 2020. These efforts, taken together, can propel the United States along the path

to ending oil dependence, rebuilding our economy on a low-carbon foundation, and meeting the climate pollution reduction targets outlined in House and Senate legislation, even in the absence of a congressionally authorized

carbon trading system. And it will preserve and enhance clean air and clean water for our children and their children. We are at a time unlike any other in history. The president, Congress, and the American people must think big and realize that the 21st century

economy will not be powered by the same 20th century engines. We need a strategy that will get us back to work, wean us off dirty energy from hostile nations, bring health and economic benefits to countless Americans, and drive the long-term American prosperity and strength to which we are accustomed. We need a clean energy future, and we need to start building it now. Moving away from our dependence on oil. The path forward to a new energy econom y must begin with a direct response to the current crisis. That means it must begin with oil. We must stop risking workers’ lives and putting taxpayers on the hook to pay for our country’s oil dependence. We need comprehensive oil reform legislation that protects us from future production disasters, reduces our oil use, promotes the transition to less polluting fuels and a new generation of vehicles, cuts oil industry subsidies, and generates revenue to help us reduce our

consumption of oil. The Center for American Progress has proposed an oil reform agenda that regulates the oil industry while also moving the country away from our utter dependence on that industry. We propose: Eliminating the liability limit for offshore oil disasters, which currently caps oil spill liability at $75 million

Requiring BP to put $5 billion—its first quarter 2010 profits—into an escrow fund to ensure prompt payments for cleanup and compensation Requiring all oil companies active in the region to invest in a long-term economic development fund to reverse the decades of damage that the oil and gas industry has done to wetlands and the overall economy Adopting the recommendations for offshore oil-well safety in the Interior Department’s “Increased Safety Measures for Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf” report, including better back-up systems and more complete inspections Implementing fuel economy and alternatively fueled vehicle measures that will produce a 7 million barrel-per-day reduction in oil use by 2030 with interim

reductions, and empowering the president to implement these measures to reach that goal Significantly reducing oil use from vehicles by establishing 40 mile-per-gallon fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks by 2020, and

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/06/energy_framework.html

establishing the first fuel economy standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks Powering trucks and buses with natural gas by enacting the NAT GAS Act Powering cars with electricity by enacting the Electric Vehicle Deployment Act Eliminating taxpayer subsides that benefit big oil companies Invoking the

Trade Expansion Act to levy a fee on imported oil and use the revenue from this fee to invest in public transit, high-speed rail, and infrastructure for electric and natural gas vehicles Bringing clean energy and efficiency to

scale The United States will continue to be dependent on fossil fuels such as oil and coal until we invest in energy and fuel alternatives. And oil and coal are dirty energy sources that are increasingly harder and more dangerous to find. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act jumpstarted these investments by putting over $80 billion into renewable and efficient energy programs. But ARRA funds are coming to an end this year, and we must come up with a strategy to prevent clean energy companies from moving out of the United States to other countries with more

competitive positions in the growing global clean energy economy. The Obama administration and Congress must provide long-term, stable incentives for investments so businesses and entrepreneurs see the United States as a good place to invent, commercialize, manufacture, and deploy clean energy and energy efficient technologies. We can get off oil and turn instead to the efficient use of domestically produced renewable alternatives to fossil fuels. It will involve retooling our automotive fleet to rely on clean, domestic forms of fuel and increasingly relying on electricity. This will require rebuilding our energy grid, reconfiguring our factories, and rewiring communities for smarter energy use. Simply put, a national agenda that spurs investments in clean

energy on a mass scale is a smart, profitable, economic move that will create jobs and make America more competitive and secure. To get off fossil fuels and rely instead on smart, clean, domestic energy choices, we must: Create a “green bank” to bring clean energy to consumers by increasing access to financing for entrepreneurs that have invented new clean energy technologies, helping get these technologies through the “valley of death” and to commercial scale in the market.

Solvency Wall

Eliminating fossil fuel dependency solves air pollutionColumbia Encyclopedia 07 (Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 2007, Infoplease, “Solutions to air pollution,”

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0856527.html, woojae)

To combat pollution in the United States, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 gave the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to establish and enforce air pollution standards and to set emission standards for new factories and extremely hazardous industrial pollutants. The states were required to meet “ambient air quality standards” by regulating the emissions of various pollutants from existing stationary sources, such as power plants and incinerators, in part by the installation of smokestack scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators, and other filters. Auto manufacturers were

mandated to install exhaust controls or develop less polluting engines. The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977, authorized the EPA to impose stricter pollution standards and higher penalties for failure to comply with air quality standards. In 1990 when the act was reauthorized it required most cities to meet existing smog reduction regulations by the year 2005. The 1990 amendments also expanded the scope and strength of the regulations for controlling industrial pollution. The result has been limited progress in reducing the quantities of sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, ozone, particulate matter, and lead in the air. The EPA also regulated hazardous air pollutants, which in 1992 included mercury, beryllium, asbestos, vinylchloride,

benzene, radioactive substances, and inorganic arsenic. The most satisfactory long-term solutions to air pollution may

well be the elimination of fossil fuels and the ultimate replacement of the internal-combustion engine. To these ends efforts have begun in the United States, Japan, and Europe to develop alternative energy sources (see energy, sources of), as well as different kinds of transportation engines, perhaps powered by electricity or steam.

Fossil fuel dependency is the root cause of water pollutionAdams 04 (Mike, 7/18/04, Editor of Natural News, “Burning of fossil fuels is polluting oceans with carbon dioxide, says research,”

http://www.naturalnews.com/001398.html, woojae)

Half the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels is actually winding up the oceans, says new research published in the journal Science. And that's threatening the health of the oceans and the diverse organisms living there, say researchers. This research presents a new twist in the argument over global warming and the burning of fossil fuels. Traditionally, governments and industry have only argued over air quality, but now

we're learning that oceans, too, are heavily impacted by the release of carbon dioxide. Presently, oceans are serving as a kind of carbon dioxide buffer, allowing humanity to get away with emitting far more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere without triggering runaway global warming than would otherwise be possible. But there is genuine concern over whether the oceans can continue to absorb as much carbon dioxide as they did in the past. As ocean temperatures rise, less carbon dioxide can be absorbed, which means more stays in the atmosphere. It's a self-reinforcing cycle that could initiate an explosion in global warming if human beings keep

on dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at present rates. The solution, of course, is to switch to a hydrogen economy where hydrogen and fuel cells, not fossil fuels, supply the fuel for automobiles, homes and cities. Solar power can also play an important role here, since solar is clean and renewable. Wind energy, tidal energy and hydroelectric power can all help nations reduce their emission of carbon dioxxide. But only if nations are interested in preventing global warming in the first place. And right now, the

http://www.naturalnews.com/001398.html

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0856527.html

U.S. doesn't seem interested in protecting the environment at all. In the U.S., it's all about profits and power, and paying for expensive systems that reduce carbon dioxide emissions isn't looked upon favorably by private industry.

Economy NB

Solving our oil dependency key to the economyHendricks, Gordon, and Kenworthy 10 (Bracken, Kate, Tom, Senior Fellows at American Progress, Obama’s campaign

advisor, founder of the Apollo Alliance, Senior associate of Center on Wisconsin Strategy, Reporter of Washington Post and USA Today, 6/15/10, Center for American Progress, “Fix the Real Problem: End America’s Energy Vulnerability

A Framework for Responding to the Gulf Coast Oil Crisis,” http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/06/energy_framework.html, woojae)

The ongoing oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has taken an enormous toll on the region’s economy. BP’s Deepwater

Horizon rig gushes as much oil every five to 10 days as the Exxon Valdez released overall—and there’s no end in sight. The economies of

Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, and Florida will be devastated for decades to come. Some oil companies, such as

Chevron, claim that this is an isolated incident caused by a sloppy company, with its damages confined to the gulf states. But it is a symptom of true national crisis—a crisis caused by our oil dependence and our unwillingness to release a national economy held hostage by fossil fuels. This manmade disaster underscores the harsh consequences of delay in addressing our currently unsustainable energy and economic development path. The current crisis demands that we do far more than protect communities in the Gulf of Mexico. As President Barack Obama himself has said, we must “make certain a spill like this never happens again.” Our national response must drive a sustained effort to reduce our

dependence on fossil fuels. We must target the structural causes of our vulnerability to oil in an effort to rebuild and strengthen our national economy while restoring the economic health of oil-dependent regions. The debate about the BP oil disaster has so far focused largely on how to keep drilling more safely—as if oil is the oxygen in the very

air we breathe. But there are alternatives: alternatives to oil, and alternatives to the stranglehold that fossil fuels have on the American economy. Public support for these alternatives grows with each new barrel of oil flowing into the gulf. It is high time for Congress and the Obama administration to step up and heed this call to action. The Obama administration’s efforts to manage the oil spill have so far been pragmatic and transparent.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/06/energy_framework.html

Helium 3 CP

1NC Shell

He3 solves fossil fuel dependency and can provide energy worldwideSouza, Otalvaro, and Singh 06 (Marsha, Diana, Deep Arjun, 2/17/06, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, “Harvesting Helium 3

from the Moon,” http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-031306-122626/unrestricted/IQP.pdf, woojae)

Helium-3 has been recognized as a useful energy source because it can be used in a nuclear fusion reaction to generate vast amounts of energy. The abundant He-3 in the Moon needs to be mined and extracted before using it. There is about one million metric tons of He-3 in the lunar regolith that has been deposited over time due to solar winds (Lewis, 1990). The production of 1kg of He-3 would require the mining of about 120,000 metric tons of the lunar soil (Lewis, 1990). Other valuable elements like He-4,

nitrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and hydrogen could also be extracted that are of commercial value. The hydrogen can be used to generate electricity in fuel cells, which can be used to sustain the working of various machines and modules on the Moon. Furthermore, by combining with oxygen found in lunar rocks the hydrogen could also be used to make water, and also as rocket propellant. The nitrogen could be used to grow 19 plants in pressurized greenhouses, the carbon could be used in manufacturing,

and the He-4 could be used as a ‘power plant working fluid’ and for pressurization (Lewis, 1990). The idea of mining and getting the He-3 to Earth is very attractive, as has been recognized by the scientists at the University of Wisconsin,

because of its efficiency and potential. He-3 is considered to have a value of about $1 billion a ton on Earth, and its energy potential is considered to be 10 times more than what is contained in all the known recoverable fossil fuels on Earth, and about twice that is contained in the uranium which is used in fast breeder reactors (Lewis, 1990). Another fascinating estimation is that 25 metric tons of He-3 reacted with deuterium would have provided all the electricity used in the

United States in 1986. The following is an example of how advantageous it is to use He-3 as a fuel source compared to fossil fuels like oil: One ton of He-3 burned with 0.67 ton of Deuterium can produce 10,00MW of energy. If the same amount of energy were to be produced from oil it would require 130,000,000 barrels of oil. At 20$ per barrel, this would cost $2.6 Billion totally. Thus the energy from one ton of Helium is worth ~ 2.6 billion dollars (Kulcinski, 2004). 25 metric tons of He-3 would fit into the cargo bay of a space transport the size of a shuttle (Lewis, 1990). This information was estimated around the 1990s and the feasibility of mining and transporting the He-3 to

Earth was very positive. One of the possible uses of He-3 does not even massive scale energy production, but instead makes use of the relative portability of inertial electrostatic confinement reactors (IEC), which will be described in greater detail in a later section of this document.

http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-031306-122626/unrestricted/IQP.pdf

http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-031306-122626/unrestricted/IQP.pdf

Air Pollution CP

1NC Shell

Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should implement the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS).

The bill reduces air pollutionPeeples 11 (Lynne staff writer for the Huffington Post “EPA’s Air Pollution Rule A “Great Victory,” Say Public Health and Environmental Advocates” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/21/epa-air-toxics-mercury-rule-power-plants_n_1163770.html)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency unveiled historic new rules on Wednesday that would limit the mercury, arsenic and other toxic pollutants in America's air, water and food. Standing with pediatricians, public health experts and industry representatives at Children's National Medical Center in Washington, D.C., EPA administrator Lisa Jackson called the first-ever Mercury and Air

Toxics Standards, or MATS, for power plant emissions a "great victory for public health, especially the health of our children." In addition to preventing up to 11,000 premature deaths and 130,000 cases of aggravated asthma among children annually by 2016, as well as other health benefits estimated by the EPA, Jackson noted the rule would provide a net increase in American jobs with no risk to the country's power supply. "The lights will stay on and we will have cleaner air," said Jackson. For the more than 20 years since the EPA was first tasked with considering toxic air pollutants under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, a battle has waged between public health advocates, who have touted the benefits of stricter standards, and industry lobbyists, who have argued that such standards would threaten jobs and raise energy prices for Americans. Meanwhile, the EPA has issued over 110 standards to cut toxic air pollution from other sources, including oil refineries and steel

plants. Power plants remained a "notable and notorious exception," said John Walke, director of the clean air program

for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The electric power sector is far and away the largest emitter of toxic air pollution in America," he told The Huffington Post. "Yet it's escaped responsibility to clean up while far smaller sources like dry cleaners in your neighborhood have already cleaned up their toxic air emissions." The EPA's

own analysis estimates that the newly finalized rules would put the industry out about $10 billion a year and save the country $90 billion in health care costs. In other words, for every dollar spent under the rule, said Jackson, there would be "up to

$9 of health benefits." The EPA's estimates are actually a small fraction of what could be gained under the new rules, according to

experts. The agency could only account for reductions in asthma attacks, heart attacks and strokes, among other health problems associated with soot (or particulates). The prevention of cognitive disorders, kidney disease and cancers caused by mercury, dioxins, arsenic, lead and other toxins was omitted due to limited data. Part of the problem, according to Jim Pew, a staff attorney for the nonprofit Earthjustice, is that industry has "done their best to stall or block" the kind of research needed to

quantify these benefits. "Both mercury and particulates can be controlled if power plants put proper scrubbers on," said Dr. Philip Landrigan, chairman of the department of preventative medicine at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City.

"The scrubbers cost money. But the loss of IQ caused by mercury and respiratory disorders caused by fine particles is also very expensive." In fact, Dr. Landrigan's own research has put a price tag on at least one of the EPA's missing pieces: the loss of IQ due to mercury. Between 300,000 and 600,000 of the 4 million babies born in the U.S. each year are exposed to significant

amounts of the neurotoxin while in the womb, he said. "These babies all suffer losses of IQ," Dr. Landrigan told HuffPost. "Each IQ

point is worth money." Dr. Landrigan and his team calculated that every IQ point is worth $10,000 in lifetime earnings.

Overall, they attributed $1.3 billion every year to mercury emissions from power plants, based just on IQ losses. "That's why any action that the EPA takes to reduce mercury emissions is so incredibly important," he said. Up to three-quarters of

the mercury that goes into the atmosphere comes out of smokestacks of coal-fired power plants. Because the particles are heavier than air, the mercury eventually falls back down and is deposited in rivers, lakes and oceans, where it is converted into a more toxic form called methylmercury. This then builds up in the food chain, meaning that fish at the top, such as blue fin tuna and shark, carry the highest levels of the toxin. "The developing brain of a fetus is

exquisitely sensitive to methylmercury," said Dr. Landrigan. "At the end of the day, you have a one-time expense for the power industry or a continuing erosion of the brain power of a whole generation of American children."

Still, many representatives of the power industry maintain that even this one-time cost is too much, too soon. Power companies will have three years to install equipment or shut down old plants, with the possibility of an extension into a fourth year. "It takes time to get environmental permits and approval from regulators. They can't comply with regulations within three years," said Melissa McHenry, spokesperson for American Electric Power, one of the nation's largest generators of electricity. "We don't have an issue with limits they want to get to, just the time frame." "There's no way that this rule can be implemented the way it came out," added Jeff Holmstead, a former EPA official now at law firm Bracewell and Giuliani, which represents energy industry clients. "Everyone is going to be rushing at the same time to get control tech in, and they can't do that while operating. There will be localized reliability issues." Industry will have 60 days once the rule is published to file a legal challenge. Susan Tierney, managing principal at the Analysis Group in Boston and former assistant secretary for policy at

the U.S. Department of Energy, refuted these arguments. About 1,100 coal-fired units are covered by the MATS rule, of which about 40 percent don't use modern pollution controls. Many of the power plants most affected, she said, were built before these technological advances. She also pointed to the 17 states that already have mercury controls, noting that the plants in those states are already compliant. "The technology is well known," Tierney told HuffPost. Constellation Energy, for example, invested $885 million to add environmental controls and a new scrubber to its Brandon Shores facility in Maryland. This resulted in a 90 percent cut to mercury emissions,

1,385 jobs during peak construction, and many more jobs manufacturing the clean air technologies. "Power plants that are old and dirty should've ended their useful life already and gone out of commission," added Michael Livermore, executive

director of the Institute for Policy Integrity and adjunct professor at New York University. "We live in the 21st century. We shouldn't be using plants from 1950s." "The benefits of this rule outweigh the costs by a huge factor," he said. "In fact, given the huge ratio of benefits to costs, we could make the rule even more strict and still generate even greater net benefits."

2NC Solvency – Generic The bill would reduce 91% of mercury--- solves pollutionMarrapodi 11 (Eric staff writer for CNN “EPA proposes new mercury standards for power plants” http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/03/16/us.epa.mercury/index.html)

The Environmental Protection Agency proposed new national guidelines on Wednesday for mercury and air toxics released from power plants. The move came in response to a court-ordered deadline and would require many power plants to install pollution control technologies. "Today we're taking an important step forward in EPA's efforts to safeguard the health of millions of Americans," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said at a press conference to sign

the new order. "Under the Clean Air Act these standards will require American power plants to put in place proven and widely available pollution technologies to control and cut harmful emissions like mercury, arsenic, chromium, nickel and acid gases," Jackson said. Jackson said the new standards would "prevent 91% of mercury in coal from being released in the air." The D.C. Court of Appeals ordered the EPA to make the rules final by November. Companies have

three years to comply, but some could get a one-year extension if the technology cannot be installed in time. The Power Plant Mercury and Air Toxics Standards are expected to have broad health benefits, according to the EPA. The pollution control methods are expected to prevent 17,000 premature deaths and 11,000 heart attacks. The EPA said it would also help eliminate 10,000 cases of childhood asthma. The announcement was hailed by the American Lung Association and several groups of doctors who spoke at the press event. A group of second-graders from Amidon-Bowen Elementary School in Washington, D.C., joined EPA Administration Lisa Jackson as she signed the new guidelines. Dr. Marian Burton, the president of the American Academy of

Pediatrics, told the students, "I think you already know this rule is for you and for all the children in the America who will follow you. "Dirty air makes people sick. That's the long and short of it," Burton continued. "If you think it's expensive to put a scrubber on a smokestack you should see how much it costs to treat a preventable birth defect."

Jackson said the instillation and maintenance of the pollution controls would provide jobs as well as health benefits. "These are good labor-intensive jobs that cannot be shipped overseas," she said. Jackson emphasized these new measures would come at a financial cost for utility companies but said it would level the playing field for utility companies once they are all operating from the same clean air standard. Consumers will see a bump in their bills while utility companies put the new technology in place, she said. "We estimate impact on utility bills that are pretty minor, three to four dollars a month," Jackson said. Those costs to companies and consumers she said would be far outweighed by the benefits.

The counterplan reduces the amount of all pollutantsEPA 11 (United States Environmental Protection Agency “Benefits and Costs of Cleaning Up Toxic Air Pollution From Power Plants” http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/pdfs/20111221MATSimpactsfs.pdf)

On December 16, 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized the first national Clean Air Act standards to reduce mercury and other toxic air pollution from coal and oil‐fired power plants. The science shows that mercury and toxic air pollution is a threat to public health and has real impacts on people’s lives. This fact sheet provides an overview of the benefits and highlights key impacts. • Protect public

health—The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) will save thousands of lives and prevent more than 100,000 heart and asthma attacks each year while providing important health protections to the most

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/pdfs/20111221MATSimpactsfs.pdf

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/03/16/us.epa.mercury/index.html

vulnerable, such as children and older Americans. • Overdue reductions lead to vital health benefits—Until now there were no national limits on emissions of mercury and other air toxics from power plants. Uncontrolled releases of toxic air pollutants like mercury – a neurotoxin – can impair children’s ability to learn. • Practical, cost‐effective and protective standards—More than 20 years ago, a bipartisan Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments and

required EPA to control mercury and toxic air pollution. These standards will end 20 years of industry uncertainty while leveling the playing field for power plants, ensuring that modern pollution controls are installed. • Jobs for American workers—The updated standards will create thousands of good jobs for American workers who will be hired to build, install, and operate the equipment to reduce health‐threatening emissions of mercury, acid gases, and other toxic air pollutants. • Reliable, affordable

energy—The standards clean the air and keep the lights on. IMPROVE AIR QUALITY, PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH • The standards will provide significant benefits to neighborhoods near power plants as well as communities hundreds of miles away. • In addition to reducing emissions of mercury and other toxic air pollutants, the

controls needed to meet the standards will result in reduced emissions of sulfur dioxide and fine particles, which will lower airborne soot levels throughout the United States. • The value of the air quality improvements for human health alone totals $37 billion to $90 billion each year. • 540,000 missed work or “sick” days will be avoided each year, enhancing productivity and lowering health care costs. The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Will Prevent: Once Implemented (cases each year) Premature Death Up to 11,000 Chronic Bronchitis 2,800 Heart Attacks 4,700 Asthma Attacks 130,000 Hospital and Emergency Room Visits 5,700 Restricted Activity Days 3,200,000 This chart shows the health benefits of the final standards to reduce mercury and other air toxics emissions

from power plants Uncontrolled releases of mercury from power plants can damage children’s developing nervous systems, reducing their ability to think and learn. Releases of other toxic air pollutants from power plants can cause a range of

dangerous health problems in adults, from cancer to respiratory illnesses. • Fish consumption advisories have been issued across the United States as a result of widespread mercury contamination in rivers, lakes, and streams. • The benefits are especially important to minority, low income and other populations who are disproportionately impacted by asthma, other debilitating health conditions, or because mercury contamination prevents them from fully relying on fish as a food source. OVERDUE

REDUCTIONS LEAD TO VITAL HEALTH BENEFITS • The final rule establishes power plant emission standards for mercury, acid gases, and non ‐ mercury metallic toxic pollutants that will: prevent 90 percent of the mercury in coal burned in power plants from being emitted to the air; reduce 88 percent of acid gas emissions from power plants; and cut 41 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants beyond the reductions expected

from the Cross State Air Pollution Rule. • Together, MATS and the Cross‐State Air Pollution Rule are estimated to provide annual benefits of $150‐ $380 billion and prevent 18,000 – 46,000 premature deaths, 540,000 asthma attacks, 13,000 emergency room visits

and 2 million missed work or school days each year. PRACTICAL, COST‐EFFECTIVE AND PROTECTIVE STANDARDS • EPA’s MATS standards are practical, cost ‐ effective, and protective . After proposal, EPA received more than 900,000 comments. Based on this input and data, the agency has finalized standards that follow the law, maintain vital and significant health benefits and can be implemented for $9.6 billion, about a billion dollars less than the proposed standards. That means that for every dollar spent to reduce pollution, Americans get $3‐9 in health benefits in return. • There are also benefits to the economy. To meet the MATS standards, many power plants will upgrade their operations with modern and widely available pollution control technology, helping to modernize an aging fleet of power plants, most of which are over 30 years old and many of which are over 50 years old. JOBS FOR AMERICAN WORKERS • EPA expects most facilities will comply with MATS through a range of strategies, including the use of existing emission controls, upgrades to existing emission controls, installation of new pollution controls, and fuel switching. Many facilities will need workers to build, install, operate and maintain these pollution controls. 3 • EPA estimates that implementing this rule will provide employment for tens of thousands of Americans, by supporting 46,000 short‐term construction jobs and 8,000 long‐term utility jobs. RELIABLE, AFFORDABLE ENERGY • For 40 years, we have been able to both implement the Clean Air Act and keep the lights on. MATS will not change that. • EPA and Department of Energy analyses indicate that there will be more than enough electric generating capacity to meet the nation’s needs. EPA’s analysis projects 4.7 gigawatts will retire out of the more than 1000 gigawatts that make up the nation’s electric generating capacity. That’s less than one half of one percent. • Facilities generally have up to four years to meet the standards, providing enough time for them to install pollution controls to protect Americans’ health, while continuing to meet the nation’s needs for reliable, affordable energy. • In the event that a localized reliability issue arises, EPA has also issued an enforcement policy under its Clean Air Act authority that provides a well‐defined pathway for generating units that are shown to be necessary

to maintain electric reliability and units could, on a case‐by‐case basis, obtain a schedule of up to an additional year to achieve compliance. • Electricity rates are projected to stay well within normal historical fluctuations. EPA modeling indicates that these standards will result in relatively small changes in the average retail price of electricity (approximately 3 percent), primarily due to increased demand for natural gas, keeping electricity prices below 1990 levels. BACKGROUND • There are about 1,400 coal‐ and oil‐fired electric generating units (EGUs) at 600 power plants that emit harmful pollutants including mercury, non‐mercury metallic toxics, acid gases, and organic air toxics including dioxin. • Power plants are currently the dominant emitters of mercury (50 percent), acid gases (over 75 percent) and many toxic metals (20‐60 percent) in the United States.

2NC Shields Elections NB

Majority of democrats, independents, and republicans support reduction in air pollutionALA, PI, and GQR 12 (American Lung Association organization, Perception Insight opinion research and consulting for campaigns, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, public polling “New Poll Shows the Public Wants EPA to do More to Reduce Air Pollution” http://www.lung.org/press-room/press-releases/new-poll-shows-the-public.html)

As big polluters and their allies in Congress continue attacks on the Clean Air Act, the American Lung Association released a new bipartisan survey examining public views of the Clean Air Act and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) efforts to update and enforce lifesaving clean air standards, including carbon and mercury emissions from power plants. The bipartisan survey, conducted by Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and Republican firm Perception Insight, finds that nearly three-quarters of likely voters (73 percent) nationwide support the view that it is possible to protect public health through stronger air quality standards while achieving a healthy economy, over the notion that we must choose between public health or a strong economy. This overwhelming support includes 78 percent of independents, 60 percent of Republicans and 62 percent of conservatives, as well as significant support in Maine, Pennsylvania and Ohio. The Obama Administration will soon release updated clean air standards for carbon pollution emitted by power plants, and a substantial majority of voters support the EPA implementing these standards, even after hearing opposing arguments that stricter standards will damage the economic recovery. Initially, 72 percent of voters nationwide support the new protections on carbon emissions from power plants, including overwhelming majorities of both Democrats and independents and a majority of Republicans. After listening to a balanced debate with messages both for and against setting new carbon standards, support still remained robust with a near 2-to-1 margin (63 percent in favor and 33 percent opposed). Support remained especially robust in Maine and Pennsylvania (64 percent in each state). The majority of Ohio voters (52 percent) also favored new carbon standards, which is notable since the poll was conducted during a period of heavy media attention concerning statewide electricity rate increases and potential power plant shutdowns. “This bipartisan poll affirms that clean air protections have broad support across the political spectrum,” said Peter Iwanowicz, Assistant Vice President, National Policy and Advocacy with the American Lung Association. “Big polluters and their allies in Congress cannot ignore the facts; more air pollution means more childhood asthma attacks, more illness and more people dying prematurely. It’s time polluters and their Congressional allies drop their attempts to weaken, block or delay clean air protections and listen to the public who overwhelmingly wants the EPA to do more to protect the air we breathe.” Voters also voiced strong support for stricter standards to control industrial and power sector mercury and toxic air pollution. When asked about setting stricter limits on the amount of mercury that power plants and other facilities emit, 78 percent of likely voters were in favor of the EPA updating these standards. Strong

http://www.lung.org/press-room/press-releases/new-poll-shows-the-public.html

http://www.lung.org/press-room/press-releases/new-poll-shows-the-public.html

support was also seen for stricter standards on industrial boilers. Initially, 69 percent of voters supported the EPA implementing stricter standards on boiler emissions. After hearing messaging from both sides of the issue, voters continued to support these standards by nearly a 20-point margin (56 percent favor, 37 percent oppose). Key poll findings include: Nearly three quarters (73 percent) of voters, say that we do not have to choose between air quality and a strong economy – we can achieve both; A 2-to-1 majority (60 to 31 percent) believe that strengthening safeguards against pollution will create, rather than destroy, jobs by encouraging innovation; About two-thirds of voters (66 percent) favor EPA updating air pollution standards by setting stricter limits; 72 percent of voters support new standards for carbon pollution from power plants and support is strong (63 percent) after hearing arguments from both sides of the issue; 60 percent of voters support stricter standards for gasoline and limits on the amount of tailpipe emissions from cars and SUVs (particularly strong given all the recent attention to high gasoline prices). Despite more than a year’s worth of continued attacks on clean air protections from big corporate polluters and their allies in Congress, voters across the political spectrum view the Clean Air Act very positively; with a 2-to-1 favorable to unfavorable ratio. At the same time, feelings toward Congress continue to drop, especially among Democrats and independents. Just 18 percent of voters nationally give Congress a favorable rating, while 56 percent rate Congress unfavorable. The unfavorable rating of Congress is up 9 percent since the American Lung Association’s last survey released in June 2011. “The survey clearly indicates that voters reject the notion that we have to choose between strong safeguards against air pollution and economic growth,” said Andrew Bauman, Vice President at Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research. “In fact, voters overwhelmingly believe that stronger safeguards against air pollution will create jobs in America.” “The poll does show there is broad support across partisan lines for new carbon regulations on power plants,” said Marc DelSignore, President of Perception Insight. “However, there is a significant difference in the views regarding the impact regulations may have on the economy, with Republicans expressing higher concern for possible job loss and rising energy prices than Democrats or independents.”

77% of voters support MATSDPC 12 (Democratc policy and Communications center “Fact Sheet: EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxic Standards (MATS)” http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-112-2-121.pdf)

The public strongly supports EPA action on clean air standards. According to a bipartisan poll sponsored by Ceres, 77% of voters support the MATS safeguard. In addition, 88% of Democrats, 85% of independents, and 58% of Republicans oppose Congress stopping the EPA from enacting new limits on air pollution from electric power plants. [Ceres, 10/12/11] ? Americans reject the false choice between a clean environment and a strong economy. Nearly three quarters (73%) of voters, say that we do not have to choose between air quality and a strong economy – we can achieve both. A 2-to-1 majority (60% to 31%) believe that strengthening safeguards against pollution will create, rather than destroy, jobs by encouraging innovation.

http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-112-2-121.pdf


The counterplan is extremely unpopular---It was just voted down in congressYoung 6/20/12 (Saundra cnn medical senior producer “Senate votes in favor of clean air protections” http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/20/senate-votes-in-favor-of-clean-air-protections/)

Senate Joint Resolution 37, the Senate bill that would overturn the Environmental Protection Agency's controversial Mercury and Air Toxics Standards or MATS, was voted down Wednesday by a margin of 46 to 53. Introduced by Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) in February, the resolution was a challenge to the country's first national protections rule designed to limit the amount of heavy metals like mercury, arsenic, chromium, nickel and other toxic air pollutants released by power plants that burn coal and oil - toxins many suspect cause cancer and other

health problems. But Inhofe said the bill was specifically designed to kill the coal industry and the good paying jobs it provides. He led the charge to repeal the protections and vowed to keep fighting what he called the Obama administration's "damaging regulatory regime." "Our momentum continues to build, as a growing chorus is rising up against the Obama-EPA's radical green agenda," Inhofe said. "Whether it's EPA regulations hurting farmers, a 'crucify them' philosophy against American energy producers, or an admission from EPA officials that their rules, designed to kill coal will be 'painful every step of the way,' this much is clear: EPA is earning a reputation for abuse. During the course of this debate, we exposed the economic pain of EPA's rules, gaining the strong bipartisan support of business groups and labor unions, of Democrats and Republicans from states that will feel the heavy hand of the federal government as it puts them out of business."

Air Control/Congestion CPSolves airport affs

1NC Shell

(net benefit – politics/spending)

Text: The United States federal government should switch to a user fee system based on how far a plane flies.

cp solves air traffic congestion/control

Business Week 2006 (June 4, “Snarl in the Sky”, www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_23/b3987036.htm)

But if private jet travel gives its participants a warm glow, it has airport managers and the Federal Aviation Administration wondering if the nation's creaky air traffic control system can handle all those extra aircraft. More than 10,000 U.S. companies now own private planes, both prop- and jet-driven -- nearly double the number a decade ago. Yes, many private jets land at small airports rather than the larger ones frequented by the majors. But not always. Private traffic at McCarran, for example, is up by

about a third since 2001. And private plane travel is expected to take off even more dramatically as a new generation of so-called very light jets, also known as microjets, arrives later this year. The FAA estimates that 5,000 of these tiny planes will be flying by 2017. With the skies getting more crowded, a dogfight has broken out between commercial and private aviation. The big carriers point out that it costs the system exactly the same to land a Boeing 737 with 180 passengers as it does to land Donald Trump's plane. And yet private aviation, despite having many more jets in the sky, pays a fraction of the annual tab required to keep order in the skies. With a pricey modernization of the air traffic control system planned, the carriers are lobbying to ensure that private fliers pay their share. The battle will come to a head next

year as the FAA looks to change how it funds the traffic control system. One option: ditching taxes on air fares and fuel and instead charging user fees based on how far a plane flies, be it private or commercial. "We're trying to figure out a way to make sure this scarce resource is serving the public good," says US Airways Group Inc. Chairman and CEO W. Douglas Parker. "Right now, that doesn't seem to be the case when one small plane is paying dramatically less than one large plane." It used to be that only the extremely wealthy could afford to jet around in a private plane. Doing so began to get more affordable in the 1980s, when NetJets Inc., now part of Warren E. Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc., introduced fractional jet ownership. Instead of shelling out $7.1 million for a new eight-passenger, 500 mph Hawker 400XP, a 1/16th share can now be had for about $400,000. And even when they buy the whole plane, many executives figure it's still worth it. One is Ronald Duncan. The president and CEO of GCI, which provides cable TV and phone service in Alaska, figures he saves as many as 24 working days a year by piloting his own Gulfstream.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_23/b3987036.htm


it solves and is popularSmarter Traveler 2007 (Molly Feltner, June 5th, “Commercial Flyers Paying for Corporate Jet Travel”, http://www.smartertravel.com/blogs/today-in-travel/commercial-fliers-paying-for-corporate-jet-travel-in-more-ways-than-one.html?id=2390156)

In a recent radio interview, Air Transport Association (ATA) President and CEO James May noted that every time you fly a commercial plane, about $5 to $10 of the taxes you pay goes to the FAA in the form of a "passenger facility charges." This money funds various aviation systems,

including facilities used by corporate jets. May said that although commercial aircraft uses about 74 percent of these facilities, the passengers on those flights pay about 94 percent of taxes used to maintain the system. Corporate-jet traffic pays only six percent. Corporate jets may also be contributing significantly to what May calls air "gridlock." There are now 18,000 corporate jets in the U.S., or two corporate jets for every one commercial aircraft. As the

demand for private jets grows, some have begun to call for limits on private jet flights. Over the 4th of July, the ATA asked the FAA to temporarily limit the activity of corporate jets in New York area airports to help relieve delays in the region, which often cause ripple

affects around the country. No word yet on whether the FAA actually approved the idea. The airlines and other groups have been pushing Congress to overhaul the current system, including upgrades to air traffic control and a balanced taxes-and-fees structure. Advocates for the corporate jet industry have, of course, balked at the idea paying more taxes. It's hard to predict what will actually happen, but for once I'm glad the Hill is overrun with airline lobbyists.

Cp is popular Jenkins 2005 - is one of the best-known authorities on aviation in the world, was a member of the Executive Committee of the White House Conference on Aviation Safety and Security (Darryl, December 7th, “Turbulence Ahead: how user fees could ground the FAA” http://www.aviationacrossamerica.org/uploadedFiles/Issues/Studies_and_Reports/Darryl_Jenkins_-_Turbulence_Ahead_-_How_User_Fees_Could_Ground_the_FAA_-_12_07_05.pdf)

Since then, the idea has been flying under the radar. But, supported by some heavy hitters and in tune with the pro-privatization orientation of the White House, it’s coming back. “The political winds appear to be blowing in favor of user fees – with airlines, Congress, Wall Street, the Federal Aviation Administration and U.S. Chamber of Commerce exploring the benefits of this funding mechanism,” Airline Business magazine reported in the spring of 2005. “User fees will likely be challenged by general aviation and business aviation groups, depending on how the charges are

structured. But the key power centers appear to be sympathetic to user fees, primarily because of a belief the FAA is facing a multibillion dollar deficit and that airport congestion will be a major problem as a result.” 4

http://www.aviationacrossamerica.org/uploadedFiles/Issues/Studies_and_Reports/Darryl_Jenkins_-_Turbulence_Ahead_-_How_User_Fees_Could_Ground_the_FAA_-_12_07_05.pdf



Solves current inefficiencies Jenkins 2005 - is one of the best-known authorities on aviation in the world, was a member of the Executive Committee of the White House Conference on Aviation Safety and Security (Darryl, December 7th, “Turbulence Ahead: how user fees could ground the FAA” http://www.aviationacrossamerica.org/uploadedFiles/Issues/Studies_and_Reports/Darryl_Jenkins_-_Turbulence_Ahead_-_How_User_Fees_Could_Ground_the_FAA_-_12_07_05.pdf)

The legacy airlines believe a system of user fees would benefit them in two ways: Reducing the amount they pay to the federal government. This would let them keep prices the same and increase their revenues at no increased cost. Improving their competitive prospects by having their low-fare competitors pay more to the government. That would prompt the discount carriers to raise their ticket prices – or at least to stop lowering them. Ken Button, an economics professor at George Mason University, discussed aviation taxes and user fees in a paper published earlier in 2005. He supports user fees from different perspectives, including government responsiveness and efficiency. “A genuine user fee … relates the cost of an activity to the fees that are collected,

irrespective of who does the collection” (emphasis added). The existing system of taxing American aviation fails most of the criteria applying to an appropriate user fee, namely: influence the user in such a way the facility is used efficiently, providing guidance as to where capacity changes are needed, and generate revenue to finance additional capacity.

cp key to balanced funding systemInstitute for Policy Studies 2008 (June 24th, “How private jet travel is straining the system, warming the planet, and costing you money.” http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/high_flyers)

Currently, users of the National Airspace System – everyone from the rumpled passenger in coach to the corporate honcho in a

Gulfstream to the student pilot in a single-engine Cessna – pay to run the system via an array of 10 different excise taxes

on airfares, fuel, and cargo. Due to this fragmented funding system, wildly different amounts of money are collected from airspace users, depending mostly on whether a plane is being flown as a scheduled commercial flight, or as a charter,

or as a non-commercial private flight (such as a flight of a corporate-owned plane). This funding formula fails to accurately assess fees to users based on the costs they actually impose on the system. For example, corporate and private jets are exempt from the array of taxes levied on every commercial plane ticket: the 7.5 percent ticket tax, the $3.40 segment fee, the $3.00 passenger facility charge, and the $2.50 TSA security fee (users of charter and fractional jets do pay the 7.5 percent ticket tax and the segment

fee). Instead, corporate and private jets pay only a 21.9-cent-per-gallon fuel tax. The result, according to the FAA, is that commercial aviation foots 95 percent of the bill, even though they use only 73 percent of the FAA’s services.

Meanwhile, general aviation – the segment of the industry that includes corporate jets, charters, air taxis, and recreational pilots – uses 16 percent of the services, but pays just three percent of the cost. 35 In dollar terms, a 2007 Associated Press

investigation found that while it cost $2.4 billion to provide air traffic control for private and corporate planes in 2005, those users paid only $516 million in fuel taxes that year. 36



Fixing the funding system solvesInstitute for Policy Studies 2008 (June 24th, “How private jet travel is straining the system, warming the planet, and costing you money.” http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/high_flyers)

Fix the FAA’s funding structure to charge users of the National Airspace System based on costs imposed.

The most straightforward way to do this is probably to revive the FAA’s original February 2007 proposal for a combination of higher general aviation fuel taxes and user fees.

2NC Solvency – Empirics

No solvency deficits – empirics prove it’ll be effective Aero News Network 2007 (April 24th, “FAA Rebuts User Fees Opponent Claims in “Fact Sheet”” http://69.63.138.17/subsite.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=35cb2dd3-e3c7-4fd7-8c0b-51a482569afe)

Myth: User fees have been ineffective and have damaged aviation around the world. Facts: There are numerous examples of successful user fee implementation throughout the rest of the developed world, and it is clear that user fees have not damaged aviation. A January 2006 report by mbs Ottawa in conjunction with three universities (“Air Traffic Control Commercialization Policy: Has It Been Effective?”) evaluated ten countries that have established user fees for

air traffic control services: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. The study found that the impact on “safety was neutral or enhanced; modernization was greatly improved; and, service quality was improved.” It also found that “costs were generally reduced, significantly in some models, while financial stability was maintained, and most areas of public interest remained neutral or positive when commercialized elements were introduced.” In Canada, the fees NAV CANADA charges are more than 20 percent lower than the taxes they replaced nearly a decade ago, and rates are

proposed to decrease by another 3 percent this year. In Europe, a recent discussion paper by the European Commission notes that business aviation in Europe has grown twice as quickly as the rest of air traffic since 2001, and the European fleet of business aircraft is projected to grow by 50 percent over the next ten years.

http://69.63.138.17/subsite.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=35cb2dd3-e3c7-4fd7-8c0b-51a482569afe

2NC Solvency – Congestion

User fees limit private jet travel- solves congestionInstitute for Policy Studies 2008 (June 24th, “How private jet travel is straining the system, warming the planet, and costing you money.” http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/high_flyers)

Congress and shareholders should act to restore fairness to the system and limit the burdens of private jet travel on the environment, taxpayers, shareholders, and other travelers. • Private jet users should pay their fair share of the National Airspace System with a combination of higher general aviation fuel taxes and user fees. •

2NC Solvency – Air Traffic

Solves air traffic control Herald-Tribune 2007 (Kathleen McLaughlin, January 29th, “FAA Causes uproar over tax” http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20070129/BUSINESS/701290449?p=1&tc=pg)

Poole advocates a system similar to the one he worked on for Canada in the 1980s, where airlines and business jets pay fees based on a combination of the weight of the plane and the distance traveled. Poole recently studied how those

fees would affect the bottom lines of business jets, based on typical planes and flying habits. A Lear 60 that pays $22,000 a year in fuel taxes would pay $47,000 in fees under the Canadian model. The change would whack the bottom lines of corporate jets, but it wouldn't mean much to jets that are in charter or fractional ownership programs. The same jet that's part of a fractional service already collects $63,000 per year in ticket taxes, Poole said.

The same jet in a charter program pays $98,000 per year. The business aviation group, which represents everyone from piston-engine to Lear jet fliers, has not exactly embraced Poole and his recommendations. Poole, who said he gets no money from the airlines, said the Air Transport Association might not have realized when it began its campaign that some jets were already collecting the ticket tax.

The main benefit to the airlines is to eliminate its unintended subsidy of the regional carriers while generating more money for upgrading air traffic control. "They see that as a big, big advantage," Poole said of the airlines.

"And they're right. That's why all these other countries have done it." Don't think the 7.5 percent line item would disappear

from airline ticket receipts: The cost of any new fees would be built into fares, Poole said.

2NC Solvency – Cheap/Efficient

Its cheap and efficient Aero News Network 2007 (April 24th, “FAA Rebuts User Fees Opponent Claims in “Fact Sheet”” http://69.63.138.17/subsite.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=35cb2dd3-e3c7-4fd7-8c0b-51a482569afe)

Myth: Administering the new user fee system will require a large new bureaucracy and billions of dollars in costs. Facts: FAA is confident that we can collect fees at minimal administrative cost to the FAA and the users of the

system. Not only is this the case with service providers around the world, but the FAA has a good track record in this area; the administrative billing and collection processes for overflight fees have gone extremely smoothly. Based on

best practices from the US and around the world, the administrative cost would be significantly less than 1 percent of the anticipated revenue. The fact that fewer than 500 users would account for 95 percent of the billable flights presents opportunities for significant efficiencies in the billing and collection process. GA pilots will see no air traffic user fee bills if they do not use the 30 large hub airports.

http://69.63.138.17/subsite.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=35cb2dd3-e3c7-4fd7-8c0b-51a482569afe


Cp links to politics General Aviation News 3/4/12 (“195 Members of the House tell President: no $100 fee” http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2012/03/04/congress-sends-strong-message-to-white-house-on-user-fees/)

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The president’s 2013 budget plan to charge $100 per flight to aircraft using controlled airspace was never expected to be adopted and it got another major setback when 195 bipartisan members of the House of Representatives sent Obama a letter opposing the fee. “The letter is another clear example that user fees are a non-starter in Congress ,” said Rep. Jerry Costello (D-Ill.), ranking member of the House aviation subcommittee. “Particularly given that the FAA Reauthorization bill has been signed into law, there is no need to continue to discuss this bad idea.” Washington watchers cannot understand how the president could sign the reauthorization bill and at the

same time propose a new and unpopular fee. Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wis.), chairman of the subcommittee, noted that “almost half of the House members signed the bill and there would be no difficulty getting a majority if Obama’s proposal was ever advanced to the full House, which it won’t.” Costello, Petri, and Reps. Sam Graves (R-Mo.) and John Barrow (D-Ga.), co-chairs of the House General Aviation Caucus, wrote the letter. The House has been active on budgets but no

action has been taken by the Senate. Aviation groups aided in developing support for the letter by getting their members to contact members of Congress and express why the fee is an impractical and costly idea. On

this subject general aviation groups and the scheduled airlines are on the same page.

Empirics prove the cp is unpopular Pacific Flyer 2/14/12 (“User Fees are back” http://www.pacificflyer.com/2012/02/user-fees-are-back/)

The White House budget released Feb. 13 would impose a $100-per-flight fee on turbine and jet powered aircraft for air traffic services, the Obama administration announced in releasing its proposed budget. Specifically, page 30 of the budget states: " ... the Administration proposes to create a $100 per flight fee, payable to the Federal Aviation Administration, by aviation operators who fly in controlled airspace." The new fee-per-flight proposal would exempt all piston aircraft, military aircraft, public aircraft, air ambulances, aircraft operating outside of controlled

airspace, and Canada-to-Canada flights. It only took a couple of hours for AOPA, EAA and NBAA to issue press releases denouncing the proposal and promising a coordinated battle to oppose it. Although the $100 fee came as no surprise to the aviation groups, which watched it appear in deficit-reduction negotiations in late 2011 and again in a recent statement from the White House, it was somewhat of a shock to see it in print. Between the proposal, aimed at turbine aircraft, and a plan to eliminate depreciation rules that serve as an incentive to purchase business aircraft, business aviation fared poorly in the proposed budget. "Regrettably,

the Obama administration has chosen to impose fees on the use of private aircraft, which the majority of Congress on a bipartisan basis has consistently rejected , " said AOPA President Craig Fuller. "Pay at the pump has

worked since the dawn of powered flight and it still works. "The last thing we need right now is to create an expensive new bureaucracy to fix what isn't broken." IF IT AIN'T BROKE ... "Ideally, the president would work with general aviation to acknowledge not only this contribution, but also the industry's value in generating jobs, helping companies compete and succeed, and providing a lifeline to communities across the

http://www.pacificflyer.com/2012/02/user-fees-are-back/

http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2012/03/04/congress-sends-strong-message-to-white-house-on-user-fees/

http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2012/03/04/congress-sends-strong-message-to-white-house-on-user-fees/

country," NBAA President Ed Bolen said. "Instead, he's repeatedly proposed anti-general aviation initiatives like this one." EAA said it was already in touch with GA Caucus leadership in both houses of Congress encouraging opposition to the user fee proposal. Congress has repeatedly dismissed GA user fees in a bipartisan manner and reiterated its stance recently last month with the passage of the FAA Reauthorization Bill now awaiting the president's signature. "The administration continues to paint this added tax on general aviation as an 'equal sharing' of the expense burden but, simply put, it is not that at all," said Doug Macnair, EAA vice president of government relations. "It is an additional tax onus on GA aircraft owners and pilots, who already pay their fair share of the small percentage of air traffic services they use through fuel taxes. "Even pilots who never use ATC services pay for the system through the use of aviation gasoline and jet fuel." In a response to a petition, signed by close to 9,000 people, that urged the president to take user fees off the table, the Office of Management and Budget presaged the budget release by reaffirming the White House's commitment to pursuing the fee. "While claiming to desire economic growth and more jobs, the Obama administration singles out one of the most respected industries and their highly skilled workers for punitive fees," noted AOPA President Craig Fuller. "For inexplicable reasons, the administration singles out the business use of private aircraft as the one asset for which operating fees should be required. "This is an odd approach for policy makers who elect to fly in Boeing 747s on business and personal travel." Bolen said NBAA Members can make their voices heard with their representatives in Congress through www.nbaa.org/advocacy/contact/?ISSUE=nbaa0048, NBAA's online Contact Congress resource, which has a letter that can be sent to lawmakers opposing user fees. "NBAA will continue to advocate for the industry's priorities as Congress considers the president's latest budget proposal, and our efforts will be most effective if the people in business aviation echo our message with their elected representatives," Bolen said. "I encourage everyone in general aviation to contact their elected officials today."

Biodiversity

Biodiversity CP

1NC Shell

The United States federal government should institute and fund a Quadrennial Ecosystems Services Trends Assessment.

Solves biodiversityPCAST ’11 ( President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT SUSTAINING ENVIRONMENTAL CA PITA L : PROTECTING SOC IETY AND THE ECONOMY , White House, July 2011, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast_sustaining_environmental_capital_report.pdf)

In the report we transmit here, PCAST’s Working Group on Biodiversity Preservation and Ecosystem Sustainability addressed the needs and opportunities in relation to both of these dimensions of the capacity of governments—and especially the U.S. Federal government—to fulfill more effectively their responsibility in relation to the protection of environmental capital and ecosystem services. The Working Group’s recommendations, which we endorse, involve a threepronged effort encompassing ways to make better use of existing knowledge, to

support the generation of essential new knowledge, and to expand the use of informatics. We here boil down those recommendations to the following six key points. 1. The U.S. government should institute and fund a Quadrennial Ecosystems Services Trends (QuEST) Assessment. QuEST should provide an integrated, comprehensive assessment of the condition of U.S. ecosystems; predictions concerning trends in ecosystem change; syntheses of research findings on how ecosystem structure and condition are linked to the ecosystem functions that contribute to societally important ecosystem services; and characterization of challenges to the sustainability of benefit flows from ecosystems, together with ways to make policy responses to these challenges more effective. The QuEST assessment should draw and build upon the wide variety of ongoing monitoring programs, previously conducted and ongo ing assessments of narrower scope, and the expanded monitoring and species discovery efforts for which we also call in this Report. And, it should be closely coordinated with the quadrennial National Climate Assessment mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990.

2NC Solvency - Monitoring

QUEST resolves data gaps – allows policy response to bio-d problems PCAST ’11 ( President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT SUSTAINING ENVIRONMENTAL CA PITA L : PROTECTING SOC IETY AND THE ECONOMY , White House, July 2011, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast_sustaining_environmental_capital_report.pdf)

The U.S. government should institute and fund a Quadrennial Ecosystems Services Trends (QuEST) Assessment, that will provide: − Up - to date syntheses of research findings on how ecosystem structure and condition are linked to the ecosystem functions that contribute to societally important ecosystem ser vices, as well as research findings on the characterization and valuation of those services; − Integrated Information on the condition of U.S. ecosystems, including but not limited to their biodiversity, as well as on measures of ecosystem services flowing from them and the contributions of these to human health, economies, and other aspects of well being ; − Assessment of trends in these factors and scenarios of their evolution going forward under a range of assumptions about driving forces and management strategies and policies; and −

Application of the foregoing information to identify and characterize challenges to the sustainability of the benefit flows from U.S. ecosystems, together with ways to make the policy responses to these challenges more effective.

QUEST would enhance status quo monitoring programs PCAST ’11 ( President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT SUSTAINING ENVIRONMENTAL CA PITA L : PROTECTING SOC IETY AND THE ECONOMY , White House, July 2011, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast_sustaining_environmental_capital_report.pdf)

The QuEST assessment should draw and build upon the wide variety of ongoing monitoring programs, as well as on the expanded monitoring and species discovery efforts we call for elsewhere here. It should draw as well on previously conducted and ongoing assessments of narrower scope and should be closely coordinated with the quadrennial National Climate Assessment mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990. Federal agencies collectively currently spend more than $10 billion annually on restoration activities, land and easement purchases, and incentive payments aimed primarily at conserving biodiversity or protecting and restoring ecosystem services within the United States. Notable examples of such con servation investments are annual expenditures of nearly $6 billion under the Farm Bill to improve water quality, reduce soil erosion, and protect wildlife habitat; $3.8 billion in mitigation costs under major federal regulatory programs; nearly $1 billion for endangered species recovery; and up to $900 million under the Land and Water Conservation Fund to acquire land and water and conservation

easements (although this has been funded at less than $200 million annually in recent years). While additional funding for these conservation investments is warranted, more careful targeting could achieve greater environmental benefits at the same level of expenditures. The allocation of much Federal conservation funding currently is based on factors other than an expected conservation benefit. In many cases, in fact, federal legislation explicitly mandates distribution of conservation funding not to achieve maximum conservation benefits, but rather by sector or geographic distribution. In other cases, agencies have the discretion to target resources based on expected effectiveness of the investment, but lack the expertise or the mandate to do so.

QUEST solves data integration and policy response Rassam ’11 – Executive Director, American Fisheries Society: World Council of Fisheries Societies (Gus, Presidential Science Advisors Recommend Accounting of Ecosystem Services, AIBS Public Policy Report, Volume 12, Issue 16, August 2, 2011, https://groups.google.com/group/afs-fisheries/tree/browse_frm/month/2011-08/3fa7510590ee74f6?rnum=1&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fafs-fisheries%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fmonth%2F2011-08%3F)

A new report by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) urges the federal government to periodically assess the condition and value of the nation’s ecosystem services. A Quadrennial Ecosystems Services Trends Assessment could build upon existing monitoring efforts, and could be conducted in conjunction with the quadrennial National Climate Assessment. “It is common wisdom in business that economic growth depends on regular inventories of capital and assets, along with assessments of risks. Given that so much of our Nation’s economy is underpinned by our ecosystems, it is only sensible to periodically take an accounting of our environmental capital and assess the risks to it,” said Rosina Bierbaum, Dean of the School of Natural Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan, and co-chair of the

working group that led the study. “Such assessments will greatly inform public policy concerning these assets.” The report recommends that the government improve online accessibility of biological diversity data that federal agencies already collect. One way to achieve this would be for the government to enforce existing requirements that federal agencies publish data related to biodiversity preservation and ecosystem services within one year of collection. The data.gov website could be an appropriate venue for hosting the data. A coordinating entity should also be established to “interact with international biodiversity and ecosystem information systems in the development of globally accepted biodiversity and ecosystem information standards, and should seek out and encourage partnerships with the private and academic sectors to develop innovative tools for data integration, analysis, visualization, and decision making,” states the report. PCAST also called for the development of more sophisticated methodologies, such as remote sensing, to value ecosystem services for better prioritization of the $10 billion spent annually by federal agencies on ecological restoration and biodiversity-preservation activities.

2NC Solvency – Data

QUEST allows for greater data integration for policy response Houston ’11 – writer for ESA (Terence, “ESA Policy News: August 4” Ecological Society of America, ECotone, August 4th, 2011, http://www.esa.org/esablog/ecology-in-policy/esa-policy-news-august-4/)

The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) has released a report recommending that the federal government work to improve its efforts to assess ecosystems and the social and economic value they provide. The report, entitled “Sustaining Environmental

Capital: Protecting Society and the Economy,” recommends that the federal government, in accordance with its responsibility to strengthen the economy, institute and fund a Quadrennial Ecosystems Services Trends (QuEST)

Assessment, to identify trends related to ecosystem sustainability and potential policy responses. The report’s

executive summary explains that “even as the government is rightly focused on the direct threats to the economic aspects of wellbeing in the form of recession, unemployment, and the stagnation of the standard of living of the middle class, it must not fail to address the threats to both the environmental and the economic aspects of wellbeing that derive from the accelerating degradation of the environmental capital—the nation’s ecosystems and the biodiversity they contain—from which flow ‘ecosystem services’ underpinning much economic activity as well as public health, safety, and environmental quality.” The report calls for the development of more sophisticated methods to evaluate ecosystem services, such as satellite-based remote sensing of natural resource changes to improve the quality of information available. The report updates a 1998 Clinton administration PCAST report, “Teaming with Life: Investing in

Science to Understand and Use America’s Living Capital.” The report also expresses concern that few of the 55 federal environmental monitoring programs surveyed by PCAST make their data publicly available online. PCAST asserts that the money the federal government has spent to gather environmental data does little good if it is not readily available or shared with other agencies.

2NC Solvency – International Efforts

CP spurs international cooperation in IPBES ENB ’12 (Earth Negotiations Bulletin, “ IPBES-2 HIGHLIGHTS” Volume 16 Number 99 - Tuesday, 17 April 2012, IISD Reporting Services, http://www.iisd.ca/vol16/enb1699e.html)

Republic of Korea, for ASIA-PACIFIC, reported on recommendations from the Asia-Pacific regional meeting on IPBES held in March 2012, including that IPBES have a small bureau with a separate science panel and a centralized secretariat with regional hubs. Bosnia and Herzegovina, for EASTERN EUROPE, supported an integrated paper on rules of procedure. Mexico, for GRULAC, said capacity building should be clearly defined in the work programme, and called for a related working group. Denmark, for the EU, said that IPBES should attract policy-relevant

contributions from scientists on ecosystem services. South Africa, for the G-77/CHINA, said IPBES should maintain scientific independence, and collaborate with existing multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). NORWAY urged delegates to prioritize elements required to establish and operationalize IPBES. The US said that they could contribute to IPBES via the Quadrennial Ecosystem Services Trends (QuEST).

That’s key to broader biodiversity effortsPCAST ’11 ( President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT SUSTAINING ENVIRONMENTAL CA PITA L : PROTECTING SOC IETY AND THE ECONOMY , White House, July 2011, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast_sustaining_environmental_capital_report.pdf)

Assessment mechanisms. Current international assessments include the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Follow up67 and the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)68 that is now in development. The latter was effectively approved by the United Nations General Assembly in December 2010 through a resolution that invites UNEP to host an intergovernmental conference to “determine modalities and institutional arrangements” of the new body. Functions of IPBES will include (a) identifying and prioritizing key scientific information needed for policymakers at appropriate scales, (b) performing regular and timely assessments of knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem services and their inter linkages, which should include comprehensive global, regional, and, as necessary, sub regional assessments and thematic issues at appropriate scales and new topics identified by science, (c) supporting policy formulation and implementation, and (d) prioritizing key capacity - building needs to improve the science policy interfac e.69,70 Relative to other major assessments, IPBES should provide more direct support to policy makers at many levels. IPBES assessments should provide conditional predictions of the consequences of specific policy options at well defined spatial and temporal scales.71 There are a large number of other international environmental assessments that are relevant to bio diversity and ecosystem services. These include the Dryland Land Degradation Assessment (FAO); the Forest Resources Assessment (FAO); the State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources (FAO); State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources (FAO); the Global International Waters Assessment (UNEP); the Global Environment Outlook (UNEP); the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); the World Resources Report (WRI);

the World Water Assessment (UNESCO); the State of the World’s Traditional Knowledge on Biodiversity (CBD); and the International

Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD).72 However, it is likely that IPBES will become the body pri marily responsible for assessing the relation between biodiversity change and the benefits that people get from ecosystems


Biodiversity efforts have bipartisan support Gunningham & Young ’97 - Director of National Research Centre for OHS Regulation, Professor Australian Centre for Environmental Law (Neil and Mike, Toward Optimal Environmental Policy: The Case of Biodiversity Conservation, Ecology Law Quarterly 1997, Hein Online)

In assessing guidelines for mixing instruments and mechanisms for conserving biodiversity, various authors have developed lists of evaluation criteria." Our preferred list includes: Â° Dependability or Certainty-the instrument delivers the desired biodiversity target, even when knowledge about likely responses is uncertain; Â° Precaution-the instrument avoids the chance of serious or irreversible consequences, especially when there is scientific uncertainty about the outcome; 0 Equity-the instrument operates without advantage or favor with respect to all groups of people, including future generations; Â° Economic Efficiency-with regard to implied and actual values, the chosen trade-off between production and conservation is achieved at the least cost (productive efficiency), and no reassignment or reallocation of property rights will improve production or biodiversity objectives without

making someone worse off (productive efficiency);52 0 Dynamic and Continuing Incentive-the mechanism continues to encourage technical innovation as well as improvement of biodiversity beyond the official policy target, and automatically adapts to changing technology, prices and climatic conditions; Administrative Feasibility and Cost-monitoring and information costs are minimal (low information cost),'3 government enforcement is cost-effective and can be financed from available revenue while self- enforcement is encouraged (low administrative cost), the instruments requirements are simply explained (communicative simplicity),5"˜ and the decisionmaking processes associated with the instrument are easily understood (transparency); and Community and Political Acceptability-the community is motivated to ensure that biodiversity conservation objectives are achieved, are perceived as being legitimately formulated and delivered, add to social harmony, are consistent with government commitments, and attract bipartisan support.

CP is bipartisan – GCA proves Oliva ’10 - Chief, Compliance and Enforcement at District Department of the Environment (Manuel, U.S. Policy: Bipartisan Leaders Make Bold Proposal for Conservation, Conservation International, March 26th, 2010, http://blog.conservation.org/2010/03/us-policy-bold-proposal-conservation/)

Here in the U.S., a lot of news has focused lately on how partisan politics have taken over Washington, DC.

However, today a bipartisan effort highlights the ability of both parties to come together in agreement on a critical issue and the proper plan to solve it: the introduction of the Global Conservation Act of 2010.

Forests, fish stocks, fresh water sources, healthy soils, coral reefs and wildlife species around the world are vanishing rapidly. The protection of these natural resources has long been an important aspect of U.S. foreign policy; however, there has never been a cohesive strategy to fully address the scope of this loss. The Global Conservation Act of 2010 provides this strategy. Introduced on Capitol Hill today, the bill asks the administration

to develop a national strategy for global conservation, with quantitative benchmarks to monitor progress and a national security assessment of the threats from resource scarcities. In addition, the bill proposes that a specific coordinator work to implement this strategy in collaboration with other government agencies–as well as with partner countries–to effectively deliver conservation assistance. Essentially, the bill offers a vision for U.S. conservation efforts and a roadmap to achieve this vision.

Bipartisan support for environmental efforts – farm bill provesHelgen 6/21/12 – Press Secretary for Senator Amy Klobuchar (Brigit, Klobuchar: Farm Bill Passes Senate with Bipartisan Support, Senator Amy Klobuchar: News Releases, http://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/newsreleases_detail.cfm?id=337084&)

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar announced today that the 2012 Farm Bill has passed the Senate with bipartisan support. Klobuchar is a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, which is responsible for crafting the Farm Bill, and she worked to help secure Senate passage. The bill includes Klobuchar’s provisions helping beginning farmers and ranchers access crop insurance and land for cattle grazing, addressing captive shipping

issues, and helping pork and poultry producers reduce catastrophic losses. “Today’s bipartisan vote is a victory for this critical legislation that will help preserve and strengthen the farm safety net, conserve our natural resources, and boost homegrown energy,” Klobuchar said.“I worked hard to ensure the legislation supported our beginning farmers and ranchers as well as our pork and poultry producers, and I will continue to work to move this legislation forward and help strengthen Minnesota’s rural communities and ensure our farmers have the support they need to thrive and succeed.” The 2012 Farm Bill includes Klobuchar’s provisions that would help beginning farmers and ranchers access crop insurance by reducing the cost of insurance by 10 percent and eliminating administrative fees for these producers in their first five years. The provision also helps beginning farmers get more coverage from the crop insurance program by changing the formula used to determine a producer’s expected production yield when they don’t have a complete established production history for a crop. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (UDSA), only 7 percent of beginning farmers and ranchers participate in the program. Crop insurance premiums are based on a farmer or rancher’s previous production history, putting beginning producers at a disadvantage and discouraging them from participating in the program altogether, leaving them more vulnerable to disasters. Klobuchar’s second provision, which was cosponsored by Senators Mike Johanns (R-NE), John Hoeven (R-ND), and Max Baucus (D-MT), would allow beginning producers to graze cattle on Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) acres without a reduction in payments for the

CRP landowner. Managed grazing can be beneficial for wildlife, encourage biodiversity, and help control invasive nonnative species and quality of vegetative cover. Waiving the penalty for allowing beginning farmers and ranchers to graze on CRP acres will help beginning producers get a start while providing valuable ecological benefits on CRP land. The nation’s farm population is aging rapidly. In the last five years the number of farmers over the age of 75 has increased by 30 percent and the number of farmers under the age of 25 has decreased by 20 percent.

Providing a path for young men and women who want to start a farm or ranch is critical to the continued viability of the agricultural sector and the vitality of rural America.

Aff - Links to Politics

GOP opposition to biodiversity regulations Guerrerio ’11 – energy examiner for the examiner (John, GOP continue fight against clean energy, biodiversity, and Science, examiner, march 8th, 2011, http://www.examiner.com/article/gop-continue-fight-against-clean-energy-biodiversity-and-science)

The Earth has gone through five major extinction events in the past, all of which were caused by natural processes. The sixth one has been underway for some time now and is beginning to pick up speed. There may be time to avert such a calamity, but with local, state, federal, regional, and global government strapped just trying to keep the lights on and paychecks being signed, there is no hope that any real action will take place to safeguard the planet's rich biodiversity. The sixth extinction is being caused by a multitude of factors that all have one common thread, namely, human actions. Deforestation, overfishing, pollution, and climate change have reached such massive levels of impact on a planetary scale that animals are falling from the sky, dying in the sea, being born with deformities, and disappearing at such an alarming rate that maintaining our current global population trajectory seems unlikely; the extinction of species is bound to affect human population figures in the near future. In light of this concern, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services has been set up through the United Nations Environment Progam. The panel will be set up and run in a similar fashion to the IPCC, but it will focus singularly on maintaining biological diversity on the planet. Hopefully, the IPBES can learn from the IPCC's mistakes.

Forty years of progress on environmental protections and safeguards are in jeopardy of being rolled back. GOP representatives are moving to dismantle environmental and health regulations relating to fossil fuels, all in the hope of receiving larger campaign contributions in the future. Fossil fuel companies have been fighting against regulations for some time now; their plan to undermine climate science through subversive denial mechanisms using media propaganda has shifted its focus to rewriting laws through direct bribery of the American Congress. The EPA and climate science are no longer their only targets; it appears as though Republicans dislike Science in general, and are working toward setting up a government in America that based more on their religion rather than one based on rational thought and Science [it would appear as though the Taliban has usurped the GOP]. 170 organizations and universities have signed a letter to Republicans asking them to cease and disist their outright attack on Science; included signatories include AAAS and AGU, as well as numerous colleges and universities.

Biodiversity policy is unpopular with Democrats and republicans – reluctance Walsh ’11 – writer for Time Magazine (Bryan, Politics: It’s Not Just Republicans Who Anger Greens. Obama Can Do It Too, Time, February 11th, http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/02/11/politics-its-not-just-republicans-who-anger-greens-obama-can-do-it-too/)

I’ve written more than a few posts recently highlighting Republican opposition to action on climate change and the party’s efforts to dismantle

environmental regulations. But while the GOP has been out front targeting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Obama Administration hasn’t escaped blame from environmentalists for some of its policies. The White House is still fielding criticism for botching the politics of last year’s carbon cap-and-trade bill, and more recently for virtually surrendering on climate change. (See The New Yorker‘s Hendrik

Hertzberg’s recent piece on Obama’s State of the Union speech, which conspicuously lacked any mention of climate change or global warming.) Climate policy is largely beyond the White House’s control now—other than defending the EPA’s regulatory powers—but that’s not the only

area where Obama has irked greens. To wit: On February 8, the Obama Administration announced that it would not list the Pacific walrus under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Even though the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) determined that the species is in some danger—due in part to shrinking sea ice from climate change eroding its habitat—the agency put the walrus into the”warranted but precluded” category, a kind of waiting list allowed under the ESA if FWS believes other species deserve more protection. That wait could be indefinite, however, and the Center for Biological Diversity called it a “black hole.” The move continues the White House’s general reluctance to use the ESA as a means to address climate change—something groups like the Center have been pushing for in lawsuits for years.

Deforestation CPs

---Plank CP

1NC Shell

Counterplan text: The United States federal government should increase efforts to

Halve deforestation within one decade by incentivizing forest conservation investments

Permit regulated U.S. companies to “offset” a substantial portion of domestic emissions through investments in tropical forests

Support tropical forest nations in their efforts to develop transparent and credible procedures for making land-use decisions

Establish a coordinating council and designate a lead office or agency to oversee tropical forest conservation programs

Promote a comprehensive system of terrestrial carbon management that accounts for greenhouse gas emissions from forests, rangelands, agriculture and other major land-use categories.

Counterplan solves deforestation abroadCCTF in 9 <Commission on Climate and Tropical Forests. “Major bipartisan Commission calls for U.S. leadership to protect ‘climate forests’” October 7, 2009. http://www.climateforestscommission.org/news/major-bipartisan-commission-calls-for-us-leadership-to-protect-climate-forests.html>/CS

The Commission on Climate and Tropical Forests, co-chaired by John Podesta and Senator Lincoln Chafee, is a bipartisan group of leaders from business, government, advocacy, conservation, global development, science and national security

that has developed recommendations on the inclusion of tropical forest conservation in broader U.S. climate change policies. Tropical deforestation accounts for 17 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and protecting tropical

forests is integral to combating climate change. The Commission’s recommendations are designed to help ensure U.S. climate policies provide the most effective response to this issue and are aligned with global solutions. Report Recommendations Halve deforestation within a decade. The United States should lead a global partnership

to cut tropical deforestation in half within a decade and achieve zero net emissions from the forest sector by no later than 2030. Create the financial incentives for forest protection. With the right policy mechanisms, the U.S. could alter the financial incentives that lead to tropical deforestation. To unlock cost savings, the United States should invest at least $1 billion by 2012, and U.S. policy should mobilize $5 billion annually by 2020 in public funding and $9 billion annually from the private sector. Lead by example. The United States should adopt strong domestic climate change laws that reduce U.S. emissions 80% by 2050 and contain interim goals consistent with climate science. These domestic, timely and significant reductions are essential to galvanizing ambitious international action on tropical deforestation. Leverage permit revenue. 5% of the value of tradable emission permits in a cap-and-trade program should be allocated to new international forest conservation programs. This is vital to engage key nations that may not be able to attract private capital and engage nations where the

deforestation threat is growing. Allow significant offsets. To mobilize private capital, the United States should

permit regulated U.S. companies to “offset” a substantial portion of domestic emissions through investments in tropical forests. Maintain a large-enough strategic reserve of permits. The pool of emission permits set aside to help control the cost of a new cap-and-trade program should be large enough to manage the risk that the supply of forest carbon “offsets” may prove insufficient to stabilize prices and avoid price spikes. Explore U.S. “aggregator”. The United States should explore and consider establishing a financial intermediary to aggregate forest carbon offset demand and supply as a means to reduce U.S. costs and increase the climate benefits of every dollar invested in tropical forest conservation. Forge ambitious forest protection goals in international agreements. The United States should work to ensure that international agreements with tropical forest nations secure actions by those

nations that support global emission reduction goals for forests. Incentivize national-scale action. As a means of encouraging nations to move swiftly to national scale actions, the U.S. should focus financial incentives to reward nations that are taking ambitious action, encourage nations to pursue large-scale policies and prevent the shifting of deforestation from one place to another. Ensure transparency and

local participation. The United States should support tropical forest nations in their efforts to develop transparent and credible procedures for making land-use decisions, consulting local communities, and reporting on the impacts of forest conservation programs. Focus international forest conservation efforts on key areas. Not all forests are equally important to the United States and climate policy should reflect that reality. New forest conservation investments should be channeled to high priority areas for national security, poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation. Guarantee responsible

management. The United States should establish a coordinating council and designate a lead office or agency to oversee tropical forest conservation programs. Work towards full terrestrial greenhouse gas emission

accounting. The United States should promote a comprehensive system of terrestrial carbon management that accounts for greenhouse gas emissions from forests, rangelands, agriculture and other major land-use categories.

2NC Solvency – Warming Counterplan solves warming – deforestation amounts to massive levels of emissionsChiono in 12 – Policy Analyst at Pacific Forest Trust <Anton. “New Federal Report Spotlights Global Deforestation, Importance of Domestic Action” January 18, 2012. http://pacificforest.org/news_story10205.html>/CS

Forest conversion and loss hasn’t rated very high on the U.S. political agenda since federal climate legislation stalled in 2010. But that doesn’t mean deforestation—nor its climate damage—has stopped. We’re still losing about 90,000 acres of forestland, along with its capacity to safely absorb and store greenhouse gases, every day around the world (Source: FAO). Here at home, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates more than 57 million acres of U.S. forests will be converted to other uses by 2030 (Source:

USDA). Which is why it’s encouraging to see that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has released a report detailing the potential of forests to combat global climate change. Entitled Deforestation and Greenhouse Gases, the report assesses the climate role of forests and identifies the challenges facing policymakers in more fully harnessing forests in the fight against global climate change. The report was compiled at the request of Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and a co-author of the last attempt at a federal climate bill in 2010. He should be applauded for his commitment to this issue, says Pacific Forest Trust Board Secretary Andrea Tuttle, Ph.D., the former director of the California Department of Forestry. A global forest and climate consultant, Tuttle attends the negotiating sessions of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change as an observer for PFT. “It’s great to see this issue back in the Congressional spotlight,” Tuttle said. “One of the bright spots

in the UN climate negotiations has been the progress in setting the standards for measuring and slowing the global rate of deforestation. There’s a key role for the U.S. and other developed countries to play by incentivizing forest protection through well-designed markets for the climate benefits of forests.” Unlike most other sectors, forests are unique in their capacity to act as either a net source of carbon sequestration OR a net source of the carbon emissions fueling climate change. When conserved and healthy, forests are a climate defense, absorbing and storing far more carbon dioxide than they emit. When cleared or degraded, forests become net emitters of greenhouse gases. Currently, forests hold about 760 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide globally—or more than 100 times all U.S. emissions in 2009. Despite the impressive magnitude of this carbon storage, however, deforestation and degradation continue to undermine global forest carbon sinks at an alarming rate. During

the 1990s, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated that forest loss was responsible for 20% of global GHG emissions in terms of warming impact. While this number fell to about 12% during 2000 to 2005, this decline was due to drastic increases in fossil fuel consumption—not any great reductions in deforestation.

Incentivization

1NC ShellCounterplan text: The United States federal government should provide incentives for public and private sector forest conservation investments.

Counterplan solvesLyutse in 10 – Policy Analyst for the National Resources Defense Council - <Sasha. “Securing U.S. Agricultural Competitiveness by Stopping Deforestation: New Report Shows How Protecting Forests Abroad Will Keep Ag State Economies Strong” May 26, 2010. switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/slyutse/securing_us_agricultural_compe.html>/CS

The benefits are clear, but do we have the tools to end deforestation and keep farm state economies strong?

Yes, key provisions in a comprehensive climate and clean energy bill would create significant financial incentives to protect tropical forests and level the playing field for American farmers, ranchers, and foresters. These policies, coupled with international cooperation, would help to quickly slow and stop deforestation by 2030. If these goals are met, tropical forests will be valued for their environmental benefits and kept intact, and the land will not be used to produce artificially cheap agricultural commodities that undercut producers in states like Iowa, Illinois, Texas and Pennsylvania. These state economies and rural communities depend on strong markets for U.S. agricultural and forestry exports. Unfortunately, as my colleague discussed here, while the Senate bill includes most of the key tools to aid the world in addressing global warming, it lacks adequate funding to reduce

deforestation. The Senate bill must be strengthened by adding key incentives for public and private sector investment in tropical forests. By valuing tropical forests for the carbon they store and cracking down on illegal logging, this

investment will not only address a major source of global warming pollution but help secure markets for U.S. farm exports, paying dividends for America’s farm state economies.

2NC Solvency – Spills Over

Counterplan spills over internationallyCCTF in 9 <Commission on Climate and Tropical Forests. “Major bipartisan Commission calls for U.S. leadership to protect ‘climate forests’” October 7, 2009. http://www.climateforestscommission.org/news/major-bipartisan-commission-calls-for-us-leadership-to-protect-climate-forests.html>/CS

“The destruction of tropical forests is at the crossroads of our two greatest environmental challenges: reducing greenhouse gas emissions and protecting the biological integrity of our planet,” noted Cristián Samper, Director of the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, “international and domestic climate policy cannot ignore this necessity and still succeed.” The report uses Brazil as a case study to stress both the problem posed by tropical deforestation and a model for moving forward. Emissions from deforestation alone in Brazil account for 2.5-5.0 percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions, helping to make the country the fourth largest emitter in the world. Brazil represents a major opportunity, however, for a test ground for the Commission’s recommendations. Unlike many tropical forest countries, Brazil is already well positioned to monitor and verify emissions reductions and has set an ambitious national target of reducing deforestation in the Amazon by 80 percent by 2020. U.S. Leadership is Vital to International Action The Commission’s report calls on the United States to galvanize bold international action by enacting strong domestic policies and guiding international agreements and incentives to anchor a new push to conserve the planet’s climate forests. Former Ambassador to the United Nations Thomas Pickering reiterated the importance of the United States to this mission. “Tropical forests offer a chance for developed nations,

led by the U.S., to work hand-in-hand with developing nations to address climate change. The U.S. is the nation best suited to answer that call – and we must, not only to prevent catastrophe, but to restore our position as the leading global diplomat.” Highlighting how including forests could help bring the world closer to consensus on global climate policy, former Chief U.S. climate change negotiator, Frank Loy, said, “Industrialized and developing countries see the problem differently. Reducing tropical deforestation addresses exactly these barriers. It puts developing and industrialized countries more on the same side, and dramatically lowers the cost of what we must do.” Taken together, the Commission’s recommendations describe a pragmatic mix of market mechanisms,

government incentives and international collaboration that would enable the United States to work with other nations to make dramatic and quick gains against deforestation.

2NC Solvency – Ag Competitiveness

Ending deforestation for foreign agricultural land is key to US agricultural competitivenessLyutse in 10 – Policy Analyst for the National Resources Defense Council - <Sasha. “Securing U.S. Agricultural Competitiveness by Stopping Deforestation: New Report Shows How Protecting Forests Abroad Will Keep Ag State Economies Strong” May 26, 2010. switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/slyutse/securing_us_agricultural_compe.html>//CS

Earlier today, the National Farmers Union (NFU) and Avoided Deforestation Partners (ADP) released a report linking the protection of tropical rainforests to stronger U.S. competitiveness in global agricultural and timber markets. TitledFarms Here, Forests There; Tropical Deforestation and U.S. Competitiveness in Agriculture and Timber, the report details

how illegal and unsustainable overseas agriculture and logging operations are rapidly deforesting the world’s rainforests, flooding the market with cheap commodities, and driving down commodity prices, thereby costing American farmers, ranchers and timber producers hundreds of billions of dollars. The report does three important things: First, it highlights how tropical deforestation has historically hurt American farmers, ranchers and foresters and estimates the revenue losses American agricultural and forestry commodity producers will suffer over the next 20

years if deforestation continues unchecked (my colleague discusses this here). Second, the report details how dedicated funds and incentives for investing in protecting tropical forests in U.S. climate and clean energy legislation will directly benefit U.S. agricultural and timber producers, as discussed here. Finally, it breaks down these revenue gains by U.S. state, showing how global efforts to protect tropical forests will give a big boost to our farm state economies and local rural communities.

So how does deforestation in Brazil and Indonesia affect soybean farmers in Iowa and cattle ranchers in Texas? In many countries, timber, farming, and ranching operations clear tropical forests, usually through the destructive practice known as “slash and burn”, without having to pay for the enormous loss of carbon associated with such practices. This has given foreign producers what amounts to a subsidy in cheap land and timber that allows them to undercut U.S. producers in global markets. More than 300 million acres have been deforested worldwide since 1997–land cleared for timber, cattle, and other agricultural commodities like soybeans and palm oil, which the NFU-ADP report examines. These commodities compete directly with products from farms in states like Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota and Indiana, cattle ranches in states like Texas, Kansas and Oklahoma, and timber operations in states like Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Florida, significantly impacting farm state competitiveness in these global markets. How big a difference can stopping deforestation make to U.S. farm state

economies? To take one example, deforestation has enabled such as swell in South American soybean production that, according to the USDA, the increased supply has put downward pressure on U.S. soybean production (see here and here). For top soybean producing states like Indiana, this translates into major revenue losses. Soybeans are Indiana’s second largest agricultural commodity and, according to USDA, represent nearly 25% of the state’s total farm receipts and 8.4% of U.S. soybean production by value as of 2008. Indiana also ranks 4th in the U.S. in soybean exports, with 2008 export revenues of nearly $1.6 billion. The NFU-ADP report estimates that stopping tropical deforestation would bring cumulative revenue gains of $2.7-$4.2 billion for Indiana soybean farmers from 2012-2030, dollars the state would lose if deforestation is allowed to

continue unchecked. For states like Missouri and Ohio, soybeans represent the top state agricultural export, with annual export values of over $1 billion each. According to the report, stopping deforestation would bring both states additional soybean revenues equal to roughly 2-3 times this amount over the period 2012-2030. This table provides a great summary snapshot of the revenue gains other soybean-producing states in the South and Midwest could see if deforestation is stopped by 2030: The USDA estimates that over 60% of deforestation in Brazil is attributable to cattle ranching. According to the report, stopping deforestation would boost

total revenues for the top 5 beef-producing states by $25.5-$31.6 billion from 2012-2030: The report tells a similar story when it comes to the potential revenue increases top U.S. oilseed and timber-producing states could see from a strong global effort to conserve tropical forests:

CP solves Ag competitiveness and reduces CO2 emissionsMaron in 10 - <Dina. “Earning Billions for U.S. Farmers by Stopping Global Deforestation” Scientific American. May 27, 2010. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=earning-billions-for-us-farmers-by-stopping-deforestation&print=true>//CS

As forests in tropical nations are cleared to make way for large-scale agricultural plots, U.S. farmers may be taking a hit to their wallets. A new report issued by the National Farmers Union and Avoided Deforestation Partners yesterday finds that hundreds of billions of dollars are lost when forestlands are converted into croplands or cattle feeding grounds. The foreign timber, beef, soy and grain that flood the U.S. market

from those fields undercut domestic goods, leading to price hikes, the report warns. Staving off this rainforest destruction -- and subsequent revival of forestlands -- through conservation efforts like the United Nations' Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest

Degradation (REDD) program would be a big win for U.S. farmers, ranchers and loggers, according to the report. The findings underscore what a cadre of environmental and utility groups have been saying as they lobby for the inclusion of tropical rainforest offset funding in U.S. climate legislation. Though they say the forest preservation measures included in the draft bill put forth by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) fell short of needed levels, these groups remain hopeful that strengthened provisions to

safeguard existing forest carbon stocks might still be included in final legislation. "We hope to demonstrate the powerful benefits to the U.S. agriculture and timber industry of protecting tropical rainforests," Glenn Hurowitz, Washington director for Avoided Deforestation Partners and director of the Tropical Forest and Climate Coalition, said of the motivation behind

the report, which comes just as senators will be heading to their home states for the Memorial Day weekend. Globally, about 32 million acres of forest is destroyed each year, mostly in the tropics and, because trees absorb carbon dioxide, deforestation is responsible for some 15 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. Curbing tropical deforestation, the report finds, would yield as much as $221 billion in additional revenue for U.S. soybean, oilseed, beef and timber producers by 2030. That figure rises to as much as $270 billion when accounting for potential increased market needs from U.S. producers, estimated cost savings from complying with climate regulations due to lower energy and

fertilizer costs, and also projected offsets. But getting loggers to put down their axes will not be possible without policies that ensure U.S. financial support for forest preservation, Hurowitz cautions. Trees worth more dead than alive Unlike the House version of the climate bill, which set aside 5 percent of all pollution allowances to pay for tropical forest conservation, the Kerry-Lieberman legislation aspires to the same goal of conserving forests but devotes no specific funding to the effort. That leaves the financing of such programs tied to annual appropriations, which forest advocates say would ultimately be a fatal blow to international forest conservation efforts. Forest advocates are also pushing for offset standards in the Senate bill to be relaxed, since they say the restrictions around what type of credits could be counted for companies' investment will effectively block company investment in forest conservation. The Senate bill would not allow rainforest offset credits to be counted unless tropical nations already have a national or state-level deforestation

cap in place -- systems which would likely take years to develop. With the current Kerry-Lieberman language, Hurowitz said, "There is no chance we would meet the target of stopping deforestation by 2030, because there won't be enough incentives for individuals or countries to meet them." Currently, the trees are worth more dead than alive, he said.

Offset programs could be poised to change that: A 2007 World Bank report estimated that each hectare of rainforest land could bring in $1,500 to $10,000 as a carbon storage asset. That same hectare only brings in $200 to $500 as pastureland. Yesterday's deforestation report details the cost savings for states that stand to benefit if there were a decline in deforestation and a subsequent drop in competition for their crops, timber or cattle. U.S. timber producers, for example, could see increases in revenue of $36 billion to $60 billion in the next 20 years, with the biggest gains in Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Florida, Virginia and North Carolina.

Deforestation allows foreign competitors to flood the market with cheap goods – kills agricultural prices. The counterplan is key to solve.Hurowitz and Cunningham in 10 <Glenn and Ryan. “U.S. Farmers, Timber Producers Call for an End to Tropical Deforestation” May 26, 2010. http://adpartners.org/pressrelease260510/>

Leading U.S. farm and forest products groups today called on Congress and the administration to help end tropical deforestation. The groups cited a new report showing that overseas agriculture and logging operations are expanding production by cutting down the world’s rainforests, allowing them to flood the world market with cheap commodities that undercut American goods. The report estimates that ending deforestation will boost revenue for U.S. producers by between $196-$267 billion by 2030 – approximately equivalent to the entire amount projected to be spent by farmers on energy during that time. At a teleconference to release the report, The National Farmers Union, the American Forest & Paper Association, the United Steelworkers (representing forest products workers), and the Ohio Corn Growers Association called for the protection of tropical forests as part of comprehensive energy and climate legislation and other

policies. They noted that the clearing and burning of tropical forests by unsustainable overseas agriculture industries produces more greenhouse gases than all the cars, trucks, tractors and farm

equipment in the world combined. “Saving rainforests isn’t just for treehuggers anymore,” said Fred Yoder of the Ohio

Corn Growers Association, immediate past president of the National Corn Growers Association. “It is in all of our best interests to protect forests.” The report, entitled “Farms Here, Forests There: Tropical Deforestation and U.S. Competitiveness in Agriculture and Timber” was authored by Shari Friedman of David Gardiner & Associates on behalf of the National Farmers Union and Avoided Deforestation Partners. It is available at www.adpartners.org/agriculture, along with state-by-state and industry-by-industry data on the effect of tropical deforestation on U.S. agriculture and timber producers. “American farmers and ranchers know the importance of being good stewards of the land,” said National Farmers Union president Roger Johnson, who recently returned from a weeklong trip to Brazil where he studied the interaction between

agriculture and deforestation. “With family farmers fighting to hold onto their land, we’ve got to make sure we’re not being undercut by irresponsible practices like deforestation.” The report’s section on the timber industry highlights the billions of dollars per year lost to U.S. producers because of illegal logging. The report comes just two days after top enforcement officials in Brazil’s Mato Grosso state were arrested for involvement in illegal logging rings. “Continued rampant illegal logging in tropical countries shows we need to strengthen law enforcement efforts to allow Americans to compete on a level playing field,” said Donna

Harman, President of the American Forest & Paper Association. “At the same time, protecting tropical forests through offsets can provide an affordable way for the forest products industry and other manufacturers to keep energy costs affordable as we address climate change.” According to the report, tropical forest offsets cut the cost of climate legislation by a quarter to a half. However, although the recently introduced American Power Act

includes important provisions aimed at protecting tropical forests, it reduces both public funding and private incentives for tropical forest conservation. “America is losing many thousands of jobs because of illegal logging

and tropical deforestation at a time when instead we should be growing jobs here at home,” said Keith Romig, Strategic Issues Representative for the United Steelworkers. “Any climate policy that aims to protect American jobs also has to protect tropical forests.”

Incentives would generate massive amounts of revenue for the agricultural sector Hurowitz and Cunningham in 10 <Glenn and Ryan. “U.S. Farmers, Timber Producers Call for an End to Tropical Deforestation” May 26, 2010. http://adpartners.org/pressrelease260510/>

Ending deforestation through incentives in US and international climate policy would boost U.S. agricultural revenue by $190 to $270 billion between 2012 and 2030. This increase includes $141 to $221 billion in

http://adpartners.org/pressrelease260510/

http://adpartners.org/pressrelease260510/

direct benefits from increased production of soybeans, beef, timber, palm oil and palm oil substitutes. Including affordable tropical forest offsets in U.S. climate legislation would save US agriculture and related industries an estimated $49 billion in compliance costs due to lower energy and fertilizer costs. U.S. timber producers would see increases in revenue of $36 billion to $60 billion by 2030, with the biggest gains in Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Florida, Virginia and North Carolina.

Soybean-producing states like Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana and Nebraska each stand to gain

between $2.6 and $6.8 billion in increased revenue if tropical deforestation is halted by 2030. Oilseed-producing states across the US (including Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota and the Dakotas) stand to gain a total of $18-40 billion by 2030 if deforestation is halted. The U.S. beef industry would gain between $53 and $68 billion by 2030 if deforestation is halted, with the largest increases in revenue going to Texas, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma.

2NC Solvency – Warming

The counterplan solves warming– accounts for more emissions than the global transportation sector.CCTF in 9 <Commission on Climate and Tropical Forests. “Major bipartisan Commission calls for U.S. leadership to protect ‘climate forests’” October 7, 2009. http://www.climateforestscommission.org/news/major-bipartisan-commission-calls-for-us-leadership-to-protect-climate-forests.html>/CS

Reminding readers that tropical deforestation is responsible for 17 percent of global carbon dioxide

emissions, more than the entire global transportation sector , the report underscores the

need to incorporate international action on deforestation into both U.S. and global climate solutions. The report, “Protecting the Climate Forests: Why reducing tropical deforestation is in America's vital national interest," presents a blueprint for U.S. leadership on arresting tropical deforestation in advance of the December UN climate talks in Copenhagen and further debate on climate legislation in the Senate. The report notes that a well-designed cap-and-trade program would provide an effective mechanism for financing and implementing the Commission’s recommendations. Four of the Commission’s thirteen recommendations deal directly with how to reduce emissions from tropical forests through a cap-and-trade system. The report notes that while prospects for Senate approval of a national, economy-wide cap-and-trade bill are uncertain, U.S. leadership in stemming deforestation must

not be. Former Rhode Island Senator and Commission co-chair Lincoln Chafee said, “It is truly time for America to launch a comprehensive response to this manageable threat. Protecting the planet’s climate forests and fighting climate change can be the defining bipartisan issue of our time, but so far that bipartisanship has been largely absent. The Commission strongly urges our elected leaders to recognize the obligation we have and embrace this opportunity for collaboration. Time is running out, and our actions now will have implications for generations to come.” Fellow Commission co-chair and Center

for American Progress President and CEO John Podesta also stressed the urgency of action. “Climate change is a challenge unlike any we’ve ever seen, demanding strong domestic policies and vigorous global leadership from the United States. That means effective near-term solutions at both the national and international levels that fundamentally change our environment’s dangerous trajectory. The Commission strongly urges the U.S. to enact strong domestic climate policy and lead an international effort to provide sufficient resources to ensure tropical deforestation is addressed. We must accomplish this goal. Our common future depends on it.”

CP solves warming and is financially sustainableCCTF in 9 <Commission on Climate and Tropical Forests. “Major bipartisan Commission calls for U.S. leadership to protect ‘climate forests’” October 7, 2009. http://www.climateforestscommission.org/news/major-bipartisan-commission-calls-for-us-leadership-to-protect-climate-forests.html>/CS

The Commission’s report lays out thirteen recommendations for addressing tropical deforestation through U.S. policy. Chief among them is an investment of $1 billion in public funding by 2012; by 2020 the Commission recommends mobilizing $9 billion annually in private-sector forest conservation investments and increasing the annual public

contribution to $5 billion. Although the sums are substantial, these investments would actually help save U.S. consumers and companies $50 billion by 2020 compared to the cost of pursuing comparable domestic

climate strategies alone. “We must find solutions to address global warming in an economically viable way,” emphasized Michael G. Morris, Chairman, President, and CEO of American Electric Power, the largest electric utility in the United

States. “Preventing deforestation and degradation in tropical regions is an important part of the answer

– it is one of the most effective and inexpensive tool for addressing climate change, and provides an excellent way to mitigate the costs of other climate solutions.” Sam Allen, President and CEO of Deere & Company agreed and offered a unique perspective on the importance of tropical forests. “A robust global economy is critical to expanding the agricultural output necessary to meet the increasing needs of a growing and increasingly affluent population,” said Allen. “Rational, market-based protections that control the cost of carbon reductions offer the best approach to enabling farmers around the world to meet the food production challenge in a sustainable manner.

Halting that destruction makes business sense as a cost-containment measure and as a long-term investment in healthy cropland and forest economies.” “A low-carbon economy holds tremendous potential for

American job creation – but we have to get there first,” said former Secretary of Labor Alexis Herman. “A smart climate policy would address the near-term costs of transitioning to clean energy, and protecting tropical forests as part of that policy provides a solution. Not only can we reduce a major source of CO2 – we can also lay a solid foundation for a new economy built on energy efficiency, advanced renewable power, smart grids and beyond. ” Among other recommendations, the report endorses U.S. companies investing in forest protection through strong and verifiable “offset” programs. The report recommends a detailed policy framework to ensure transparency and achieve the greatest return on investment from forest financing projects. “Reducing deforestation and creating new forests are the quickest and most cost-effective ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. But it must be done the right way. Proper monitoring, reporting and verification are essential to the success of any program we create. We have a choice – to act now and launch an effective global system, or to watch our broader efforts on climate fail. I think the choice is clear,” added Commissioner D. James Baker of the Clinton Global Initiative and former Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “With other nations, the United States has an opportunity to shape a strong international response that takes advantage of the multiple co-benefits to economic growth and social change of reducing deforestation in developing countries,” said Nancy Birdsall, President of the Center on Global Development. She continued, “The plain and simple economic reality is that doing so is among the cheapest and most effective single vehicles for reducing emissions on the table for the next decade and beyond.” The

Solution to Multiple Problems According to the report, slowing climate change would be one of many benefits from dramatically reducing tropical deforestation. A global effort to conserve tropical forests would strengthen U.S. national security by reducing international instability, help alleviate global poverty and conserve the priceless biodiversity found in the planet’s most productive ecosystems.

2NC Solvency – National Security

Counterplan is key to US National SecurityCCTF in 9 <Commission on Climate and Tropical Forests. “Major bipartisan Commission calls for U.S. leadership to protect ‘climate forests’” October 7, 2009. http://www.climateforestscommission.org/news/major-bipartisan-commission-calls-for-us-leadership-to-protect-climate-forests.html>/CS

Former U.S. Army Chief of Staff and chair of the Military Advisory Board Gen. Gordon Sullivan noted the importance of tropical forests to maintaining stability and security in key regions around the globe. “We know unequivocally that climate change, left unaddressed, will become

a threat multiplier in dangerously unstable regions of the world – and tropical deforestation is a threat multiplier for climate change. Deforestation not only accelerates that change, but it causes soil degradation, loss of fresh water and reduced access to natural resources – all of which displace populations and intensify security issues. Sherri Goodman, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Environmental Security, added, “Our national security leaders have wisely recognized the threat posed by climate change, and the unavoidable next step is to address its causes – of which tropical deforestation is a major one. Many forest-abundant nations are central to U.S. interests, and are located in regions where fragile states, extremists and political unrest are already a serious concern. Swiftly and effectively stopping deforestation and slowing climate change must therefore be a national security priority.” “Tropical forests serve as the lungs of the Earth: they manage the world’s carbon dioxide levels, are home to the world’s most diverse species and provide essential services – such as food, water and shelter – to millions of people across the globe,” underlined The Nature Conservancy’s President and CEO Mark Tercek. “The good news is preserving these forests requires no new technologies – just a truly collaborative effort that provides incentives to protect forests long-term. Successful on-the-ground projects prove we can achieve carbon emission reductions while working with local stakeholders to incentivize forest preservation.” “Seeing firsthand the devastating effects of tropical deforestation is humbling. Many local communities, through conservation partnerships, are

conserving tropical forests, but only U.S. policy leadership can galvanize global action with the speed, scope, and scale necessary to prevent catastrophic forest losses,” said Commissioner and former Deputy Secretary of the Interior Lynn Scarlett.’’’


The counterplan could be pushed by the CCTF, doesn’t link to politicsCCTF in 9 <Commission on Climate and Tropical Forests. “Major bipartisan Commission calls for U.S. leadership to protect ‘climate forests’” October 7, 2009. http://www.climateforestscommission.org/news/major-bipartisan-commission-calls-for-us-leadership-to-protect-climate-forests.html>/CS

Washington, D.C. – With momentum building in the United States for cost-effective action on climate change, the bipartisan, multi-sector Commission on Climate and Tropical Forests released its report today calling on the United States to lead a global effort to halve emissions from tropical forest destruction within a decade. The report identifies tropical deforestation as a threat to vital national interests and

recommends that U.S. policymakers and the international community move rapidly to scale-up a global effort to protect tropical forests as the most cost-effective way to achieve fast, large-scale reductions in CO2 emissions.

CP is bipartisanCCTF in 9 <Commission on Climate and Tropical Forests. “Major bipartisan Commission calls for U.S. leadership to protect ‘climate forests’” October 7, 2009. http://www.climateforestscommission.org/news/major-bipartisan-commission-calls-for-us-leadership-to-protect-climate-forests.html>/CS

Reflecting the broad appeal of this approach, the Commission on Climate and Tropical Forests includes Democrats and Republicans; former elected and Cabinet officials; former high-level U.S. diplomats and military leaders; scientists and climate experts; business leaders in manufacturing and energy production; and environmental and development experts and advocates. A complete list of Commissioners and their bios, along with the complete report text, are available here. Former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel noted, “Tropical deforestation is a major element of the climate threat and requires our immediate attention, as any other global crisis would. It is clearly in our national interest –

economic, foreign policy, national security and beyond – to confront this threat. As the world’s largest economy and most powerful nation, we must work closely with our allies in both the developed and developing worlds to cut emissions from tropical deforestation in half within a decade. We have helped the world face potentially

catastrophic threats before. We must heed the call to do so again. Saving forests is a climate strategy that makes sense regardless of one’s political views.”

Aff – No SolvencyCounterplan fails – can’t be effectively implementedChiono in 12 – Policy Analyst at Pacific Forest Trust <Anton. “New Federal Report Spotlights Global Deforestation, Importance of Domestic Action” January 18, 2012. http://pacificforest.org/news_story10205.html>/CS

The considerable carbon storage capacity of forests and the emissions associated with their loss make forests a central concern in addressing

global climate change. In its assessment, the CBO recognizes the great potential of forests in climate change, but identifies several challenges that first must be overcome before this potential can be more fully realized. For instance, unlike many other emissions sources—where GHGs can be tracked at the end of a smokestack—quantifying emissions and sequestration from forests is much more challenging. Generally, this requires monitoring changes in forest carbon storage from year to year, and converting gains and losses in wood volumes to GHG equivalents. However, with 95% of forest-based emissions arising from only 25 countries, most of which are developing nations in the tropics, existing forest inventory data are often inaccurate at best—or nonexistent at worst. Further, the

CBO notes that designing policies to reduce emissions through avoided deforestation can pose substantial challenges. For instance, when deforestation is halted in one location, demand for the goods that would have been produced may simply displace deforestation to another location. As a result, unless policies can find

ways to prevent this demand-driven “leakage,” avoiding deforestation in one location may, in actuality, do little to reduce atmospheric GHG concentrations. Finally, even if these challenges can be overcome, governance issues in developing countries may complicate the implementation of policies to reduce forest loss.

Aff – No Implementation

Counterplan fails – can’t be effectively implementedChiono in 12 – Policy Analyst at Pacific Forest Trust <Anton. “New Federal Report Spotlights Global Deforestation, Importance of Domestic Action” January 18, 2012. http://pacificforest.org/news_story10205.html>/CS

The considerable carbon storage capacity of forests and the emissions associated with their loss make forests a central concern in addressing

global climate change. In its assessment, the CBO recognizes the great potential of forests in climate change, but identifies several challenges that first must be overcome before this potential can be more fully realized. For instance, unlike many other emissions sources—where GHGs can be tracked at the end of a smokestack—quantifying emissions and sequestration from forests is much more challenging. Generally, this requires monitoring changes in forest carbon storage from year to year, and converting gains and losses in wood volumes to GHG equivalents. However, with 95% of forest-based emissions arising from only 25 countries, most of which are developing nations in the tropics, existing forest inventory data are often inaccurate at best—or nonexistent at worst. Further, the

CBO notes that designing policies to reduce emissions through avoided deforestation can pose substantial challenges. For instance, when deforestation is halted in one location, demand for the goods that would have been produced may simply displace deforestation to another location. As a result, unless policies can find

ways to prevent this demand-driven “leakage,” avoiding deforestation in one location may, in actuality, do little to reduce atmospheric GHG concentrations. Finally, even if these challenges can be overcome, governance issues in developing countries may complicate the implementation of policies to reduce forest loss.

Aff – US Action Fails - Drugs

US Can’t stop deforestation – driven by drug demand, government intervention now is failingPeters in 11 <Joey. “Illegal Drug Drives Deforestation in Colombia” April 29, 2011. Scientific American. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=illegal-drug-drives-deforestation-columbia>

A recent study published in Environmental Science & Technology shows the linkage between the illegal production of coca and the continuing destruction of Colombia's rainforest. New plots of coca between 2002 and 2007 accounted for the direct destruction of 890 square kilometers of rainforest. That's roughly 6 percent of total rainforest lost in that period, which totaled to 14,000 square kilometers, or an area slightly larger than Jamaica. Most of the loss is linked to agriculture. But the study, led by Liliana Dávalos, an assistant professor of evolution and ecology at the State University of New York, Stony Brook, concludes that

the closer the jungle is to newly developed coca plots, the more susceptible it is to destruction. It also found that the more land is protected by the government, the less likely it is that coca growers will use it. It wasn't exactly what the researchers were expecting they would find. With coca may come troublesome neighbors "We were expecting the more coca you had, the more migration you had, and the more migration you had, the more deforestation you had," Dávalos said. "But having new coca didn't necessarily lead to a gain in the number of people." What's going on is more complex and has to do with lack of development on land near new coca production, Dávalos said. "When you take into account the people there, it's not just the coca itself." The coca plots are located in remote areas that attract other entrepreneurs. An example could be a person setting up a beer stand close to where a new coca plot is, Dávalos said. She speculates that activities like these, along with the region's ongoing armed conflicts, could be indirectly leading to a larger pattern of deforestation. Dávalos said the most encouraging part of the findings was the level of protection that government can provide on land to curb deforestation. The research also suggests land that should be protected. The study analyzed land cover change in Colombia's rainforests in the northern Andes,

Chocó and the Amazon. Colombia, Bolivia and Peru are the three commercial producers of coca. World market for cocaine grows While cocaine use has declined minimally in the United States in recent years, it's on a global rise, particularly in places like Argentina, Brazil, Eastern Europe and the United Kingdom, Dávalos said. "People wouldn't be going out of their way to plant this if there wasn't an eager market," she added. The three big producing countries have been making efforts to stop coca production. In a separate 2009 study,

Dávalos measured the effectiveness of the strategies governments followed to curb coca production. The study found spraying herbicide

to kill the coca bushes, a path that Colombia followed, to be very ineffective. The amount of hectares sprayed outnumbered the

amount of coca eradicated by a 30-to-1 ratio, she said. Bolivia and Peru responded to the crisis differently through measures like attempting to provide alternative work to coca farmers. U.N. data from 2010 show Peru leading the world in global coca production, with 45 percent of the market. Colombia accounted for almost 40 percent, while Bolivia produced just over 15 percent.

Aff – US Action Fails - Profit

Agricultural companies won’t respond to intervention, want to make a profitMendaz in 10 <Steven. “Why Can’t We Stop Deforestation?” September 10, 2010. http://globalwarming-articles.org/deforestation/stop-deforestation/>

Beyond humanity’s unfortunate sense of entitlement over nature, there’s also the profit motive, which

makes things much more complicated. In Brazil, for example, despite widespread efforts to check the

destruction of the rainforests, major logging and agricultural companies continue to clear out large expanses of formerly virgin forest merely because it means profit for them. And while it’s good for governments to have a business-friendly attitude, some businesses go too far, which is why regulations need to be in place. As long as we allow companies to

pursue profits at the expense of all else, nothing is going to stop them from destroying our natural world, and if we’re not careful this destruction is going to be the suicide of the human race. It’s not too late to save ourselves, but time is running out. To save our

planet from global warming, we have to stop deforestation within years, not decades.

Natural Disasters

---FEMA CP

FEMA 1NC Shell

Counterplan text: The United States Federal Government should ensure that there will be federal reimbursements when a disaster is predicted.

That ensures prepositioned resources and solves disaster reliefMener 7 (Andrew professor at the university of pnnsylvania “Disaster Response in the United States of America: An analysisis of the Bureaucratic and Political History of a failing system” http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1068&context=curej)JC

In particular, FEMA did not have the administrative capacity nor the authority within the federal bureaucracy to effectively coordinate the implementation of the National Response Plan. Just as it had been in the past, strong presidential leadership was necessary to promote the needed interagency cooperation. Additionally, although FEMA did preposition supplies and personnel for Hurricane Katrina, this was not explicitly authorized by the Stafford Act before an official disaster declaration. Furthermore, although FEMA prepositioned supplies, other federal, state, and local agencies may not have prepositioned supplies since federal reimbursements are not guaranteed until an official disaster declaration is issued. For that reason, it is widely held that this law ought to be revised to ensure that appropriate resources are prepositioned when a disaster is predicted. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, there was no adequate system in place during Hurricane Katrina to provide rapid and accurate damage assessment. For that reason, key decision makers were forced to proceed without critical information. In the National Response Plan, state and local authorities are charged with providing these assessments. However, there is no adequate provision to obtain this information when state and local resources are completely overwhelmed as was the case during Hurricane Katrina.

STATIM CP

1NC ShellCounterplan Text: The United States federal government should invest in and deploy the STATIM Shelter.

That solves natural disasters

PR Newswire 12 (premier global provider of multimedia platforms that enable marketers to key audiences “Tsunami Shelter Developer, Brahman Industries, Announces Collaboration with Martinez Marine Design and Creative Systems” http://www.bizjournals.com/prnewswire/press_releases/2012/03/08/MM66718)

ST. THOMAS, U.S. Virgin Islands, March 8, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Brahman Industries, LLC, developer of an innovative tsunami and flood shelter system that promises to revolutionize how governments and communities address these natural threats, announces collaboration with Martinez Marine Design, Inc and Creative Systems, Inc. Through this collaboration Brahman aims to refine and validate the STATIM shelter's

design and capabilities as a floating structure, looking forward to production and testing of the initial full scale prototypes. The STATIM (acronym for Storm, Tornado And Tsunami Interconnected Modules) Shelter consists of an enclosable hull comprised of a series of precast, lightweight concrete modules, similar to large diameter concrete pipes. Once assembled, it provides a water-tight environment with buoyancy and self-righting capability. Inside, the shelters are equipped with secure seating for occupants, ventilation, and options of survival supplies capable of sustaining the occupants during and after a disaster. It is the equivalent of an "inland life boat." This cost-effective technology, capable of being produced in mass, has been issued a U.S. patent, with 14 international

patents pending. "There are thousands of islands, communities and coastal resorts around the world where topography, proximity faults, remoteness, or lack of vertical evacuation alternatives make them extremely vulnerable to the devastation of tsunamis and floods," explained Miguel Serrano, CEO of Brahman. "The STATIM Shelter is a straightforward approach which already represents a major breakthrough in natural disaster preparedness."

2NC Solvency – Generic Only the counterplan solves disaster relief

Gupta 11 (Sujata staff writer for NewScientist “Building Shelters that can withstand a tsuanami” http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20253-tsunami-survival-emergency-shelters-needed.html)

Building towers and berms - artificial embankments - that can provide high ground for residents of low-lying areas is difficult and expensive. Brahman Developments of San Juan, Puerto Rico, has proposed an innovative and affordable alternative: a submarine-shaped reinforced concrete structure that would literally ride the waves, keeping up to 80 people safe inside. Known as the STATIM Shelter System , the tubular structures would be tethered, but could float freely. They are designed to survive temporary submersion and to be self-righting. Built from reinforced concrete, they should also be sturdy enough to survive being battered with debris in a major tsunami. It's like "an inland lifeboat", says inventor Miguel Serrano of Brahman. "It's not a fun ride, but you would survive." The company projects that each shelter would cost about $100,000 and could be equipped with communications systems, GPS and enough food and water for inhabitants to survive for up to a week without aid. They could be deployed every few blocks in densely populated areas. That's an appealing prospect, given that many of those who perished in Japan were elderly people who lacked the mobility to flee to higher ground. Japan already has some permanent structures designed as tsunami escape havens. Nishiki Tower in Mie prefecture, for instance, is five storeys tall and doubles as a public toilet, museum and storage space. While more such structures are needed, Japan is well ahead of the rest of the world. In the US's Pacific northwest, for instance, city leaders are just starting to plan for a tsunami that could be generated by a rupture of the Cascadia fault - which threatens an earthquake of magnitude 9.0 or greater. Cannon Beach, Oregon, has an ageing city hall that it hopes to tear down and rebuild as a state-of-the-art tsunami refuge. The building would have sea walls to the front and rear, says Yumei Wang, a geotechnical engineer for the state, and sit upon concrete pillars reinforced with tension steel cables. These would allow water and debris from a tsunami to pass underneath while local residents take refuge on the upper floor and roof. Long Beach, Washington, meanwhile, is considering building a berm next to the town's elementary school. It would normally provide a grassy slope for spectators to watch school sports, but provide shelter for up to 1000 people should a tsunami strike

AmeriCorps

1NC Shell

Counterplan Text: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase funding for AmeriCorps

That solves natural disastersWarfield 12 (Samantha Jo, department of the chief executive officer-immediate office strategic coordinator “More AmeriCorps Members

Deploy in Response to Midwest Tornadoes” http://www.americorps.gov/about/newsroom/releases_detail.asp?tbl_pr_id=2080)

Washington D.C. – Additional AmeriCorps members have deployed to provide disaster relief in the areas of five states that saw significant destruction during the recent storms. An AmeriCorps NCCC team of 12 members began work in West Liberty, KY, after traveling to the area from the campus in Vicksburg, MS over the weekend. Three AmeriCorps VISTAs have opened a Volunteer Reception Center (VRC) in the same city and seven additional VISTAs are supporting a state-run call center in Frankfort, KY on a rotating basis. Kentucky saw considerable damage, as it was struck by tornadoes and serve storms on both February 29 and March 2. Areas of the state received an official federal disaster declaration on March 6 and Robert Velasco, II, Acting CEO for the Corporation for National and Community Service called Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear to brief him on the national service response. A 10-member AmeriCorps NCCC team

based out of the Denver campus has deployed to Missouri to contribute to relief efforts in Branson and Kimberling City. They arrived on Saturday March 3 and immediately started work coordinating volunteers in the field, removing debris, and conducting assessments on the needs of affected homeowners. The AmeriCorps NCCC members joined the AmeriCorps St. Louis Emergency Response Team, which arrived in Taney and Stone counties less than 24 hours after the storms hit and established two Volunteer Reception Centers (VRCs) in Branson and Kimberling City. “It is an honor to work alongside AmeriCorps St. Louis to

serve the people of Missouri,” said Nick Connolly, Team Leader with AmeriCorps NCCC Sun 3 Team. “Through volunteers, robust disaster relief and recovery efforts are able to help those affected get back on their feet.” To date, the AmeriCorps St. Louis Emergency Response Team has registered more than 550 volunteers to assist with disaster relief efforts, and more than 30

affected homeowners have received assistance with debris removal, tarping, and other services. In Indiana, ten Senior Corps members with the Interfaith Council Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) of New Albany are administering a VRC in Clark County, home of the seriously damaged communities of Henryville, Marysville, and Borden. This week, ten AmeriCorps members with Lutheran Social Services of Illinois will partner with the 1st Baptist Church of Harrisburg and Williamson County Emergency Management to assist with clean-up and supply distribution. Four members with the AmeriCorps Red Cross AmeriCorps program are currently stationed in Cincinnati, OH to assist the American Red Cross with client intake, casework, and sheltering. Last week, AmeriCorps members met with senior leaders from the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), the agency which oversees AmeriCorps programs. Kelly DeGraff, Senior Advisor for Disaster Services, and Idara Nickelson, Chief of Programs Operations, toured Branson and Kimberling City to survey national service efforts in response to the Leap Day tornadoes and spoke with stakeholders on additional opportunities for AmeriCorps members to help affected communities. In the coming weeks, DeGraff will travel to Kentucky to survey the disaster response work of AmeriCorps programs and speak

with those involved. “The work being done by AmeriCorps in Missouri and others states speaks to the critical role that national service plays in disaster relief efforts,” said DeGraff. “Affected communities can count on AmeriCorps to get things done.”


NCCC is key to protection against natural disastersSTATES NEWS SERVICE 4-4-2006 ( “Mikulski Calls for Restoration of President’s Massive AmeriCorps Cut”

http://www.mikulski.senate.gov/media/record.cfm?id=253416)

The NCCC is a full-time residential program for 18 to 24 year olds designed to strengthen communities and develop leaders through team-based service projects. Each year, approximately 1,100 participants reside in its five

campuses nationwide. The Perry Point campus houses 200 AmeriCorps members every year, and since 1994 its residents have logged more than 350,000 service hours.

NCCC teams are well trained and deployed throughout the country to build homes, clear thousands of acres of burned trees created by wildfires, and tutor children. Most recently, they have provided more than 250,000 service hours valued at $3.8 million to projects in the Gulf Coast region, which reflects their critical service during every American natural disaster since the program started .

AmeriCorps are critical in responding to Natural DisastersSTATES NEWS SERVICE 2006 FROM THE OFFICE OF MD SENATOR MIKULSKI

Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) has joined several of her Senate colleagues to urge Subcomittee on Labor, HHS, Education and Related Agencies Chairman Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Ranking Member Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) to restore an essential AmeriCorps program that President Bush cut in his FY 2007 budget proposal. The President's budget would eliminate the National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC) and close its five campuses, including one in Perry Point, Md.

AmeriCorps volunteers tutor teens, start neighborhood crime watches, turn vacant lots into neighborhoods and help communities clean up and rebuild after natural disasters . These volunteers are needed now more than ever, said Senator Mikulski. As a founder of AmeriCorps, I have been its chief advocate in the Senate. I fought to create AmeriCorps, I fought to strengthen AmeriCorps, and I will fight to save AmeriCorps.

The NCCC is a full-time residential program for 18 to 24 year olds designed to strengthen communities and develop leaders through team-based service projects. Each year, approximately 1,100 participants reside in its five campuses nationwide. The Perry Point campus houses 200 AmeriCorps members every year, and since 1994 its residents have logged more than 350,000 service hours.

Teams are well trained and deployed throughout the country to build homes, clear thousands of acres of burned trees created by wildfires, and tutor children. Most recently, they have provided more than 250,000

service hours valued at $3.8 million to projects in the Gulf Coast region, which reflects their critical service during every American natural disaster since the program started.

AmeriCorps solve natural disaster reliefMCCAIN 2001 – “PUTTING THE ‘NATIONAL’ IN NATIONAL SERVICE” WASHINGTON MONTHLY OCTOBER 2001

Another example is AmeriCorps' National Civilian Community Corps, a service program consciously structured along military lines. NCCC members not only wear uniforms and work in teams, as City Year members do, but actually live together in barracks on former military bases, and are deployed to service projects far from their home base. This "24/7" experience fosters group

cohesion and a sense of mission. AmeriCorps' NCCC members know they are part of a national effort to serve their country. The communities they serve know that, too. In April of last year, when the Mississippi's flood waters threatened the town of

Camanche, Iowa, an AmeriCorps NCCC team was brought in to coordinate volunteers and help plug leaks in the town's levee. "This AmeriCorps crew has probably single-handedly saved $1 million to $1.5 million worth of property damage since they've been here," Camanche Public Works Director Dave Rickertsen told the St. Louis Post Dispatch. NCCC teams also helped out last year after floods in Ohio and Florida, a hurricane in North Carolina, and forest fires in six western states, providing disaster

relief to an estimated 33,500 people. This year they've been dispatched to help combat nine floods and dozens of forest fires. When not providing disaster relief, NCCC teams often work in national parks, clearing overgrown trails and rebuilding cabins. In the spring, they help Habitat for Humanity run its Collegiate Challenge, a program that convinces thousands of college students each year to spend their spring breaks not in bars in Ft. Lauderdale but building homes for low-income families. In May of last year, one NCCC crew descended on the home of Stella Knab, an 80-year-old former cleaning lady, now confined to a wheelchair. Knab lived with her handicapped son in New Orleans' Bywater district, in a decrepit house with cracked plumbing and rotted wood floors with holes big enough for neighborhood rats to pay visits. The NCCC team moved Knab and her son into a motel for two weeks, and in partnership with a local nonprofit group, the Preservation Resource Center, completely gutted and rebuilt the interior of her house. "It was pretty scary. I really can't imagine someone living like this," Paula Dora, 23, one the AmeriCorps members, told The New Orleans Times-Picayune. "It felt more like the Third World than it did the ŒLand of the Free.' It feels so good to be able to make such a difference." Only about 1,000 of AmeriCorps' 50,000 members are a part of NCCC. City Year accounts for another 1,200. Congress should expand these two programs dramatically, and spread their group-cohesion techniques to other AmeriCorps programs. Indeed, the whole national service enterprise should be expanded, with the

ultimate goal of ensuring that every young person who wants to serve can serve. Though this will require significantly more funding, the benefits to our nation will be well worth the investment. At the same time, we must encourage the corporate sector and the philanthropic community to provide funding for national service, with federal challenge grants and other incentives.


AmeriCorps has bipartisan supportWaldman 9 (Steven staff writer at the wall street journal “The Real Sotry of How AmeriCorps Became Bipartisan”

http://blogs.wsj.com/capitaljournal/2009/03/27/the-real-story-of-how-americorps-became-bipartisan/)

On my wall I have a copy of an old fashioned Senate roll call sheet – the handwritten tally from the clerk recording the passage of the original

law creating AmeriCorps in 1993. There were hash marks next to just seven Republicans. Yesterday the Senate approved a bill authorizing a tripling of AmeriCorps. It passed 79-19 – with 21 Republican votes. That’s right, more Republicans voted for the measure than against it. In 1993 those Republicans who did support it were mostly moderates.

This time supporters included conservatives like Roger Wicker and Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Michael Enzi of Wyoming and John McCain of Arizona. I’m thrilled. It’s a great bill that will do more for the country than many things the Congress has done in years. Having been (unfairly) criticized for his failure to engender bipartisanship in other areas, Obama may

(unfairly) get credit for creating it in this case. He does deserve some credit. He used his quasi State of the Union address to urge Congress to act – and then Congress did in record speed. More important, the White House made a shrewd decision to piggyback onto an existing (very bipartisan) legislative process rather than writing a brand new bill. Early in 2008 Senator Edward Kennedy began talking to his good friend Orrin Hatch, the conservative Senator from Utah, about collaborating on legislation promoting service. Hatch had voted against the original service bill in 1993 and was skeptical about big government anything. Yet they came to agreement, in part proving how personal relationships still matter in politics. It’s not that Hatch agreed

to this because he likes Kennedy; it’s that he agreed to take months looking for common ground, because he likes Kennedy. (In honor of the ailing Kennedy, they renamed the act after him). But ultimately, the reasons AmeriCorps became bipartisan go much deeper than one relationship. A half million people have served through AmeriCorps now – a voting constituency – and every member of Congress has shaken their hands and heard their stories of how they’ve worked in schools, nursing homes, crime-ridden neighborhoods to help communities. More important, lawmakers have met with the heads of the local non profit groups that run the AmeriCorps programs, often popular and influential leaders in any congressional district.

Advocates for AmeriCorps now include not just national service fetishists like myself (wrote a book on the subject) but the entire non-profit and charitable sector. AmeriCorps members, you see, don’t work for the government. The feds offer the money for a small stipend and scholarship but most of the corps members are recruited and

managed by non-profits. For charities, AmeriCorps has become a valuable form of in kind subsidy. Indeed, it’s often a way to increase a charity’s ability to use unpaid volunteers – a key reason it’s won over hardcore conservative like Hatch. “National service programs [have] a multiplying effect,” he declared during the debate. Based on past patterns, the 250,000

AmeriCorps members will help recruit or manage seven million unpaid volunteers. “This is a conservative program in many respects,” Hatch said. Some of the seeds of AmeriCorps’s ultimate political success were sewed in the original legislation. Money is distributed through state commissions, appointed by the governors, to local non profit programs. This has created substantive problems. It’s very hard for the federal government to maintain quality around the country, and there’s no sense of one big national service effort the way there was for the CCC or the Peace Corps. But the structure gave Republican governors (and their allies in DC) a stake in the program.

Key leaders support AmeriCorpsShmitz 12 (Paul CEO of Public Allies “Leave no young adult behind”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-schmitz/leave-no-young-adult-behind_b_1578716.html)

There is one recommendation that I especially believe the President and Congress should act on immediately. Sixty-nine percent of these young people want to make a difference improving the lives of others and few are connected to volunteer opportunities where they can give back.

The bi-partisan Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act that passed in 2009 can put these young people to good work. The bill was supported by over three-quarters of Congress with many prominent Republican co-sponsors. Mitt Romney, while Governor of Massachusetts, led his fellow governors in supporting AmeriCorps funding at the federal level. National service programs help young people gain skills, experience, and become better citizens while they help strengthen our schools, health centers, and neighborhoods that need all the help they

can get. During the 2008 Presidential campaign, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama came together and agreed on this which resulted in the 2009 act. Our nation would be heartened amid all the partisan rancor if this year's candidates could come together again on something they agree on that is good for our communities and our economy.

NCCC has continued bipartisan supportEtienee 10 (Ashley and AmeriCorps spokeswoman “National Service Board Elects Bipartisan Leaders”

http://www.americorps.gov/about/newsroom/releases_detail.asp?tbl_pr_id=1740)

The Board of Directors of the Corporation for National and Community Service has elected Mark Gearan to serve as Chair and Eric Tanenblatt to serve as Vice Chair, continuing a tradition of bipartisanship that has been a hallmark of the board since its creation. The bipartisan leadership team has extensive experience in the service movement, both having worked at the Peace Corps and served on the Corporation’s board. They bring a keen understanding of the American political process, having served in senior government positions under four Presidents. “Mark and Eric are bipartisan leaders with decades of high-level experience who will continue to provide critical insight as we increase the impact of service in tackling our most pressing problems,” said Corporation CEO Patrick Corvington, who made the announcements at today’s spring board meeting, his first since taking office. Tanenblatt assumed his duties immediately, and Gearan will become Chair on June 1, replacing Stephen Goldsmith, who was recently named Deputy Mayor of New York City. Goldsmith, former Mayor of Indianapolis and a top adviser to President George W. Bush, served as board chair for most of the past nine years, overseeing significant management reforms, the strengthening of programs, and an increase in bipartisan support. Goldsmith will leave the

board at the end of the month. The board sets overall policy and direction for the Corporation and its programs. The Corporation is the nation’s largest grant maker for volunteering and service, engaging more than five million Americans of all ages and backgrounds in service each year through its Senior Corps, AmeriCorps, and Learn and Serve America programs, and leading the President’s United We Serve initiative. Gearan, President of Hobart and William Smith Colleges in Geneva, New York, was first appointed to the board by President Clinton in 2000, was reappointed by President Bush in 2004, and began serving his current term in 2007. “I’m excited to take on this role at a time of growing need and momentum for service in America,” said Gearan. “I want to

thank Stephen Goldsmith for his decade of leadership that strengthened our agency and programs. With the leadership of President Obama, the bipartisan support of Congress, and a renewed ethic of service across the country, we are entering an exciting era of innovation, expansion, and impact for service.”


AmeriCorps lacks congressional supportCooper 11 (Ryan, business manager of the Washington monthly “Obama, Americorps, and Jobs” http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2011/11/obama_americorps_and_jobs033206.php)

It was the National and Community Service Trust Act, signed by President Clinton in 1993, that technically created AmeriCorps, though the first President Bush laid the foundation with the National Service Act of 1990. Its objectives—providing a lot of the grunt work for Habitat for Humanity, for instance—are so unobjectionable it is one of a vanishingly few programs that still enjoy some bipartisan support—more Senate Republicans voted for Obama’s expansion than against. George W. Bush, though his funding of the program was somewhat uneven, consistently supported the ideal of volunteerism, and held an event at the White House celebrating the 500,000th AmeriCorps volunteer.

However, now the Tea Party holds the House, AmeriCorps is suspended over the garbage disposal for the third time this year. House Republicans don’t just want to cut the program—they want to eliminate it entirely. House Republicans, in their latest draft budget, have completely eliminated its funding. In

support, Senator Jim DeMint says the program is “the federal government reaching further into the world of civil society.”Given the previous Republican support, this seems odd. But a descent into the fever swamps could help explain the new GOP

position. . One facet of opposition involves former AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin, who was fired back in 2009. It’s a long story, butsee here for a list of reasons the AmeriCorps board (who asked for him to be removed) had for sending him off. On that list was a complaint from a US Attorney that in an investigation of Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson (an Obama ally),

Walpin was behaving unprofessionally: trying “to act as the investigator, advocate, judge, jury and town crier.” Walpin’s sued to get his job back; his suit was thrown out and he lost the appeal. But the conservative media uses Walpin as an example of a clearly politically-motivated firing, and cites his unproved allegations cited as obvious fact. It goes on in this vein. Michelle Malkin calls AmeriCorps “FoodStampCorps,” claiming it is “essentially a special taxpayer-funded pipeline for radical liberal groups backed by billionaire George Soros that masquerade as public-interest do-gooders.” Glenn Beck compared the program to the SS, the Nazi paramilitary organization. Ed Morrissey insists that volunteers should not be paid. (Leave it to the 1 percent, then?)

Documents

Advantage CP File Amalgam