CNDI - Cap and Trade Updates

CNDI 2008 Huston/Rekhi/Langle Lab
PERMITS AFF
CAP AND TRADE AFFIRMATIVE UPDATES

CAP AND TRADE AFFIRMATIVE UPDATES................................................................1
__________..........................................................................................................................3
**Inherency .........................................................................................................................3
Inherency—iCap Act .........................................................................................................4
iCap Act—Plan ...................................................................................................................5
_________............................................................................................................................6
**Solvency ..........................................................................................................................6
iCap Solves..........................................................................................................................7
iCap Solves..........................................................................................................................8
iCap Solvency—CO2/Alternative Energy...........................................................................9
iCap Solvency—Competitiveness/Emissions ...................................................................10
iCap Solvency—Energy Needs..........................................................................................11
Solvency—Community Support .......................................................................................12
Solvency—Federal Action Key ........................................................................................13
Solvency—Incentives .......................................................................................................14
Solvency—Environment ...................................................................................................15
_________..........................................................................................................................16
**Warming.........................................................................................................................16
Warming Advantage—Timeframe ....................................................................................17
Warming Impact—National Security ................................................................................20
Warming Impact—SSA.....................................................................................................21
Warming Impact—Food/Water .........................................................................................22
Warming Impact—Soil .....................................................................................................23
Warming Impact—Europe ................................................................................................24
Warming Impact—Latin America .....................................................................................25
Warming Impact—Middle East.........................................................................................26
Warming Impact—Refugees..............................................................................................27
Warming Impact—Sino Relations.....................................................................................28
Warming Impact—Terrorism ............................................................................................29
Warming Advantage—Environment .................................................................................30
Warming Advantage—Environment .................................................................................31
Warming Advantage—Environment—Snowballs ............................................................32
Warming Advantage—Rapid Warming Impact ................................................................33
_____..................................................................................................................................34
**Oil .................................................................................................................................34
Oil Dependence Bad—National Security..........................................................................35
Oil Dependence Bad—Prolif.............................................................................................36
Oil Dependence Bad—Iran................................................................................................37
Oil Advantage—Peak Impact ...........................................................................................38
Oil Advantage—Resource War Brink ...............................................................................39
Oil Advantage—Peak Uniqueness ....................................................................................40
__________........................................................................................................................41
-1-
PERMITS AFF
**AT Disads.......................................................................................................................41
AT Economy DA................................................................................................................42
AT Economy DA................................................................................................................43
AT Economy DA................................................................................................................44
AT Economy DA................................................................................................................45
AT Fuel DAs......................................................................................................................46
Price Increases Good..........................................................................................................47
AT Cap and Trade Hurts Businesses ................................................................................48
________________............................................................................................................49
**AT Counterplans............................................................................................................49
AT Free Market CP............................................................................................................50
AT International Actor CP.................................................................................................51
AT International Actor CP—Perm ....................................................................................52
AT States CP .....................................................................................................................53
AT Allowances CP.............................................................................................................54
______________________................................................................................................55
**AT Negative Arguments ................................................................................................55
AT Off Shore Companies...................................................................................................56
International Allowances Bad............................................................................................57
___________......................................................................................................................58
**AT Kritiks ......................................................................................................................58
Inaction Bad.......................................................................................................................59
__________........................................................................................................................60
**Negative.........................................................................................................................60
No Rapid Warming............................................................................................................61
Unilateral Action Fails.......................................................................................................62
Solvency—No Technology ...............................................................................................63
Solvency—No Technology ...............................................................................................64
AT Schwartz & Randall Study...........................................................................................65
Biofuels Bad.......................................................................................................................66
No Rapid Warming............................................................................................................67
Neg—No Oil Peak.............................................................................................................68
_______..............................................................................................................................69
**Disads ............................................................................................................................69
Politics Link—Unions ......................................................................................................70
Politics Link—Partisanship ..............................................................................................71
____________....................................................................................................................72
**Counterplans..................................................................................................................72
Study CP............................................................................................................................73
-2-
PERMITS AFF
__________
**Inherency
-3-
PERMITS AFF
Inherency—iCap Act
New cap and trade legislation changes focus of past proposals; requires investment in
alternative energy development
Markey 08 (Cong. Ed; Why Won't the Speaker Bring the Markey Bill to the Floor? Congressional Documents and
Publications, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DOCUMENTS June 5, 2008, l/n)
Representative Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) officially introduced global warming legislation late
yesterday that would reduce global warming pollution according to scientific targets, reinvest any revenue
back to American consumers and to clean technology, and re-establish America as the leader in solving the
globe's greatest challenge, climate change. "This legislation sets out an American path to save the planet,
create jobs, and transition our economy away from the ideas of the past and towards the clean energy
solutions of today and tomorrow," said Rep. Markey. "We must cap pollution, we must invest in consumers,
jobs and the technology of tomorrow, and America must lead the world in the fight against global warming,
and we must start now." Rep. Markey is Chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence
and Global Warming, and a senior member of the Energy and Commerce and Natural Resources
Committees. His legislation reflects his adherence to science-based targets, belief in technology-driven
solutions, faith in fair markets, and focus on protections for consumers. Rep. Markey announced the
legislation last week at a speech at the Center for American Progress, a Washington-based think tank. The
bill is called the Investing in Climate Action and Protection Act (HR 6186), or iCAP for short. The bill
proffers a new paradigm in global warming legislation: the Cap-and-Invest system. The legislation caps
pollution at 85 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. It then uses an auction system that sets a price on carbon,
and allows companies to compete for reductions, or buy or trade credits within the system. It then takes the
expected $8 trillion in revenues expected from polluters over the length of the bill, and reinvests that money
back to American families and workers and into promoting a clean energy economy. More than half of the
funds from the bill goes directly back to low- and middle-income American families to offset any increases
in energy costs from the transition of the economy to low- or zero-carbon energy. iCAP also invests in green
collar job training for workers in a clean energy economy, mass transit and smart growth, energy efficiency
programs, adaptation measures here in the United States and around the world, and many other programs
that will benefit both the economy and the environment.
-4-
PERMITS AFF
iCap Act—Plan
Three principles of science, investment and US leadership will be followed; possible
plan text is given as well
MARKEY 08 (HON. EDWARD J.; INTRODUCTION OF THE INVESTING IN CLIMATE ACTION AND
PROTECTION (iCAP) ACT; CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – EXTENSIONS; 154 Cong Rec E 1136; 110th
Congress, 2nd Session June 4, 2008, l/n)
Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the "Investing in Climate Action and Protection Act"-or "iCAP
Act"-a bill to reduce global warming pollution to levels sufficient to avoid catastrophic climate change and
to invest in America's transition to a secure and prosperous low-carbon future. The iCAP Act is founded on
three fundamental principles:
First, science solves problems. The scientific consensus is now unequivocal that global warming is
happening, that manmade greenhouse gas emissions are largely responsible, and that we must reduce those
emissions substantially over the coming decades if we are to avert a climate catastrophe. We have a moral
obligation to listen to that scientific consensus and act upon it, by starting today to reduce global warming
pollution to levels that will keep our planet safe for generations to come.
Second, investing solves problems. We must invest in the American economy and in American workers,
and launch an energy technology renaissance that will rival the information technology revolution of the
past decade. We all benefited from the Industrial Age, and we have watched the dawn of the Information
Age. Today, we must start the Clean Energy Age. This bill will provide a market-based push that will
trigger an explosion of energy technology development that will give us the same "Wow" feeling that we
get from our information technology-bringing robust economic growth while meeting our climate goals.
Third, American leadership solves problems. We must ensure America is the world leader in confronting
our climate crisis, giving us the credibility and the technology to bring China, India, and the rest of the
developing world under one large, climate-saving tent. In so doing, America will help protect vulnerable
communities around the world from the dangers of global warming, including drought, famine, and flood.
We will meet our international responsibilities while at the same time gaining global good will and
protecting our national security interests.
The iCAP bill implements these principles by establishing a "cap-and-invest" system, which caps
pollution, requires polluters to buy 100 percent of the tradable pollution allowances at auction, and invests
the auction proceeds in American consumers and in technologies and practices that save the climate while
also saving costs.
The core title of the bill amends the Clean Air Act to establish an EPA- administered cap-auction-
and-trade program that covers 87 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. This program will begin
to cut these emissions immediately and will reduce them to 85 percent below 2005 levels by 2050-the
U.S. contribution necessary to protect the global climate against dangerous warming.
-5-
PERMITS AFF
_________
**Solvency
-6-
PERMITS AFF
iCap Solves
HR 6186 takes into account what Senate legislation does not; most comprehensive of
legislation offered; provides differences from Senate legislation
Goo 08 (Michael, Climate Legislative Director, Natural Resources Defense Council; Legislative Proposals to
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions: An Overview; Hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the
House Energy and Commerce Committee June 19, 2008 http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq-
hrg.061908.Goo-testimony.pdf )
The Investing in Climate Action and Protection Act, H.R. 6186 (Congressman Markey).
H.R. 6186, the Investing in Climate Action and Protection Act (iCAP) builds off the basic structure of S.
2191 and S. 3036. The bill includes many of the same features as the Lieberman-Warner bill, as reported,
and the Boxer substitute bill, but also calls for steeper emission cuts and returns significantly smaller
amounts of the allowance revenue to emitters. Other features of the Lieberman-Warner Bill and the Boxer
substitute are also adjusted under iCAP as discussed below.
H.R. 6186 covers approximately 86 percent of U.S emissions and uses the same definition of “covered”
entities as S. 2191 and S. 3036, however the point of regulation for natural gas is the local gas distribution
companies. The iCAP bill also covers emissions from geological sequestration sites, which represents a
different approach to dealing with any potential leakage from geological sequestration sites than the
Lieberman-Warner bill H.R. 6186 requires covered sectors to reduce by 85 percent by 2050 from current
levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Covered sectors must reduce emissions by 20 percent from current
levels by 2020. In addition mandatory performance standards are included in the bill for coal mines,
landfills, wastewater treatment operations, and large animal feeding operations. Together with voluntary
incentives for agricultural and forest sequestration, these additional measures are estimated by the bills
sponsors to achieve an additional 7 percent reduction from source that are not covered entities. The iCAP
also establishes mandatory performance standards for any new coal-fired power plant, requiring all plants
on which construction begins after January 1, 2009, to achieve capture and geological sequestration of 85
percent of their CO2 emissions, by either 2016 or within 4 years of commencing operation. The bill also
statutorily grants the California Wavier for greenhouse gas emission standards for motor vehicles, which
EPA has denied.
The iCAP Act auctions 94 percent of allowances in 2012 and transitions to a 100 percent auction in 2020.
The 6 percent of allowances that are not initially auctioned are distributed to U.S. industries that are
energy-intensive and exposed to international trade competition (e.g., iron and steel, aluminum, cement,
glass, and paper).
The iCAP Act allows banking, borrowing and trading of permits. Borrowed allowances must be repaid
within five years with interest. Covered entities can meet up to 15 percent of their annual obligations with
EPA-approved domestic offset credits and up to an additional 15 percent with EPA-approved international
emission allowances or offset credits. However, domestic and international offset credits are subject to
rigorous standards to ensure reductions in emissions or increases in sequestration are real, verifiable,
additional, permanent, and enforceable. Only 4 categories of domestic offsets are allowed as follows:
• Reductions in (outside-the-cap) fugitive greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas systems;
• Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from livestock operations that are not covered by performance
standards,
• Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from abandoned coal mines; and
• Increases in biological carbon sequestration through afforestation and reforestation.
The iCAP Act directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to oversee the carbon market to prevent
fraud and market manipulation.
-7-
PERMITS AFF
iCap Solves
HR 6186 uses auction proceeds to offset rising energy costs; would implement
policies to incorporate alternative energy investment
Among the most prominent features of the iCAP act is the creation of a fund for low and middle income
households under which more than half of auction proceeds would be returned to low- and middle-income
households through rebates and tax credits. The fund is designed to compensate all increased energy costs
due to climate legislation for all households earning under $70,000 (66 percent of U.S. households), and
will provide benefits to all households earning up to $110,000 (over 80 percent of U.S. households).
Under iCAP the remaining auction proceeds are invested in a number of programs aimed at further
reducing the costs of reductions, spurring technology development and mitigating unavoidable impacts of
climate change. Funds are included for:
• clean energy technology research, development, demonstration and deployment
• energy efficiency policies
• incentives to U.S. farmers and foresters
• carbon storage in agricultural soils and forests
• green jobs training and assistance
• reduction of deforestation and deployment of clean technologies in developing countries
• programs to increase resilience to domestic and foreign climate change impacts
• climate change education
HR 6186 includes provisions to assist with international cooperation and compliance

The iCAP Act includes provisions to address international competition and engagement in fighting climate
change. Under the iCAP Act, developing countries that take comparable action to reduce global warming
pollution will have access to funding from the International Clean Technology Fund and will be allowed to
sell “offset credits” into the U.S. market. Developing countries that carry out programs to reduce emissions
from deforestation will be eligible for assistance from an International Forest Protection Fund. For
countries failing to take comparable action by 2020, importers of energy-intensive primary goods (e.g., iron
and steel, aluminum, cement, glass, and paper) from that country will have to purchase special reserve
allowances to account for pollution generated in the production of such goods. Also, until 2020, U.S.
manufacturers of competing primary goods will be given free allowances to prevent loss of jobs or
“leakage” of emissions due to international competition.
The iCAP bill provides a strong basis for global warming legislation with emissions reductions that fall
within the range of reductions science tells us are needed to avoid dangerous climate change. NRDC
supports the decision to provide a very small amount of free allowances to emitters and to use a substantial
amount of the proceeds from the auction for rebates and tax credits for low and middle income consumers.
NRDC also supports the decision to limit offsets to 15%, subject such offsets to stringent criteria and to
only allow domestic offsets from a well-defined set of sources. Similarly, NRDC supports the decision to
use the set-aside approach, rather than an offset based approach for soil sequestration reductions from
agriculture. NRDC believes the iCAP Act makes a very substantial contribution to further progress in the
global warming debate and urges this committee to consider some or all of its provisions carefully as a
basis for future action.
-8-
PERMITS AFF
iCap Solvency—CO2/Alternative Energy
iCAP will change current provisions and focus of energy legislation; it will not only
reduce carbon emissions, but also provide funds to individuals to go green
The cap covers all the major sources of greenhouse gases. These include the nearly 10,000 power plants
and large industrial facilities that produce the majority of global warming pollution-facilities that are
already regulated for other pollutants. Other covered entities include companies that produce or import
petroleum- or coal-based liquid or gaseous fuels (like gasoline), companies that produce fluorinated gases
(found) in everything from air conditioners and refrigerators to the electronics industry), and companies
that distribute natural gas to consumers.
The iCAP bill creates the market-based incentive to reduce global warming pollution by establishing a
gradually declining budget of tradable pollution allowances for each year from 2012 through 2050, and by
requiring polluters to surrender a sufficient number of allowances to cover their heat trapping emissions
each year. Under iCAP, EPA will auction virtually all of these
allowances, instead of giving them away for free to polluters. This approach reflects what we have learned
over the past two decades.
For many years, our environmental laws were based on performance standards.
Every polluter was told how much or how little they could pollute. Everyone was
given a standard and they all had to meet it. That approach can work for some pollutants, but it also can be
very expensive.
In 1990, Congress came up with a novel approach to address the acid rain problem caused by sulfur
dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions. This idea, sometimes called "cap and trade," embraces the notion
that all reductions are helpful but that some parties can achieve those reductions for much less. So if one
party can reduce pollution relatively cheaply, then another party that finds it more expensive can trade
money for the extra pollution reduction achieved by the more efficient party.
The European Union adopted this approach in enacting their carbon dioxide emission reduction program,
but it made some mistakes along the way from which the world has learned. One of those mistakes was to
give the pollution allowances away to polluters for free. Economic theory and the EU experience have
shown that only by implementing full 100 percent auctions can we ensure that polluters do not receive
windfall profits and that all energy sources are competing on a level playing field.
-9-
PERMITS AFF
iCap Solvency—Competitiveness/Emissions
iCAP provisions take into account industry competitiveness; establishes standards
to assist with carbon emission reduction and compliance in a variety of industries
The iCAP bill begins by auctioning 94 percent of the emission allowances from 2012 to 2019, and
transitions to 100 percent auctions in 2020. Recognizing that some American industries-such as iron and
steel, aluminum, cement, glass, and paper-face intense international trade competition, the bill provides
transitional assistance to these industries. U.S. manufacturers in these
industries will receive six percent of emission allowances from 2012 to 2019 before they, too, have to hid at
auction for allowances. But note that, in order to stay competitive, these industries will need to begin
innovating on day one.
To reduce program costs, the iCAP bill permits unlimited trading of pollution allowances and banking of
allowances for future use. It also allows a regulated party to satisfy up to 15 percent of its yearly
compliance obligation with allowances "borrowed" from future years, provided the loan is repaid with
interest within 5 years. A regulated entity can meet up to 15 percent of its yearly obligations using EPA-
approved domestic offset credits, based on greenhouse gas reductions achieved outside the cap. A regulated
entity also may satisfy up to 15 percent of its yearly obligations using foreign allowances or offset credits
that meet rigorous EPA standards.
The cap-auction-and-trade system established by the bill will give rise to a large and vigorous new
"carbon market," on which pollution allowances, offset credits, and derivatives such as futures and option
contracts are traded. To ensure fairness, transparency, and stability in this new market, the bill establishes
an Office of Carbon Market oversight within the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which is charged
with prevention of fraud or market manipulation.
Alongside the cap-auction-and-trade system, the iCAP bill adopts mandatory performance standards for
certain other sources that cannot easily be included in the cap-such as coal mines, landfills, wastewater
treatments, and large animal feeding operations. It also provides financial incentives to farmers and forest
managers to adoption of practices that will further reduce global warming pollution and sequester carbon.
Together with the cap, these measures will cover over 94 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions-as
much of the economy as is practicable to reach.
The bill also establishes measures to encourage the coal industry to invest in new technology to adapt to
the new low-carbon future. The International Energy Agency recently warned that, for the coal industry, "a
huge amount of investment and unprecedented technological breakthroughs such as in carbon capture and
storage" will be needed to meet the greenhouse gas reduction targets that scientists believe we most achieve
by 2050. The iCAP bill will help us meet this challenge by requiring that any new coal-fired power plant
use carbon capture and sequestration technology, and we give companies assistance to use this technology
until 2020. To the extent that the coal industry, with plenty of support from the Federal Government, can
make carbon capture and sequestration work, then it will be part of the energy portfolio in the future.
- 10 -
PERMITS AFF
iCap Solvency—Energy Needs

iCAP will invest funds collected to improve alternative energy; will solve for US
energy needs
Pollution allowance auctions under iCAP will generate a substantial amount of money. How should it be
invested?
The first investment is back into the pockets of working- and middle-class Americans. Under this bill, half
of the proceeds from polluter auctions flow directly back to consumers in the form of refundable tax credits
and rebates, protecting 80 percent of America's families from increased energy costs while our economy
transitions. In fact, over 60 percent of U.S. households-those earning under $70,000-will be fully
compensated, while benefits will be extended up to those making $110,000. In addition, substantial funds
will go to job training for the hundreds of thousands of green collar jobs that our country will need filled,
and to adjustment assistance to any workers who need help transitioning from carbon-intensive industries
to the new low-carbon economy.
The iCAP bill also invests heavily in technologies that will drive that low-carbon economy. The best,
brightest, and cheapest source of clean energy is efficiency. That is why the iCAP bill devotes tens of
billions of dollars each year-in partnership with State and local governments-to making our homes,
buildings, and transportation systems more efficient. The bill invests tens of billions more in research,
development, and deployment of the cutting-edge low-carbon energy technologies that will power
America's future-including renewable energy, cellulosic ethanol, advanced hybrid vehicles, and carbon
capture and sequestration.
Unfortunately, even if we act now to avert catastrophic global warming, some climate change is already
inevitable. Accordingly, the iCAP bill devotes substantial funding to increasing resilience-both here in the
United States and in the most vulnerable developing countries-to those impacts.
Finally, the bill sets up a system of carrots and sticks to encourage other countries to take action to combat
global warming. The bill establishes an international forest protection fund to reduce heat trapping
emissions from tropical deforestation. It also gives major developing countries that take "comparable
action" to reduce global warming pollution access to an international clean technology fund, to promote
deployment of low-carbon energy technologies. Only countries that take comparable action-or those that
are among the least developed countries or that have very low emissions-will be able to sell offset credits
into the U.S. market. And countries that fail to take comparable action by 2020 will have to buy special
reserve allowances to cover the emissions generated by any covered primary goods-like iron and steel,
aluminum, cement, glass, or paper-that they import into the United States. These incentives will help to
ensure that all countries band together to combat global warming-as we must if we are to preserve our
precious planet.
Climate change represents the single greatest threat now facing humanity, but it also presents an
unprecedented opportunity. The iCAP Act represents a bold and comprehensive response to that challenge
and opportunity. I urge my colleagues to support this bill-to take action now to avert a climate catastrophe,
to protect our national security, and to unleash a green energy revolution that will bring prosperity and
robust economic growth to America. I am confident that after this bill reaches its goal in 2050-long after
many of us have shuffled off our mortal coils-historians will look back on the beginning of this new
millennium and say that it was an era of technological development that in the course of a generation
changed the course of the planet.
- 11 -
PERMITS AFF
Solvency—Community Support
Legislation must also include “green” education and community support
Baugh 08 (Robert C, Executive Director AFL-CIO Industrial Union Council and Co-chair AFL-CIO Energy Task
Force, Legislative Proposals to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions: An Overview; Hearing before the Subcommittee
on Energy and Air Quality of the House Energy and Commerce Committee June 19, 2008
http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq-hrg.061908.Baugh-testimony.pdf)
The Bingaman-Specter, Boxer-Lieberman –Warner and Markey legislation all identified worker and
community transition and worker training as critical investments. The Boxer-Lieberman–Warner identified
major areas of worker investment, one of which corresponds with previous House legislation on green jobs.
The worker and community transition is modeled after the best elements of TAA legislation and previous
displaced worker legislation over the past 25 years. In addition to strong training, education and counseling
benefits it provides for wage replacement, health care, retirement bridges, and other forms of economic and
social assistance. It also recognizes the burdens that may fall on communities heavily dependent upon an
affected industry and offers community planning and other forms of economic development assistance. The
green jobs training program is modeled after House legislation that encourages collaborative community
.and labor-management initiatives
- 12 -
PERMITS AFF
Solvency—Federal Action Key

Federal government standards are key to development; must have program which
uses generated funds to promote alternative energy sources
Figdor 08 (Emily, MPH Federal Global Warming Program Director Environment America; Legislative Proposals to
hrg.061908.Figdor-testimony.pdf )
America is on the cusp of a clean energy revolution – a revolution that will transform our economy from
one dependent on dirty, dangerous, and unstable sources of energy to one that is clean and energy efficient.
This clean energy revolution is happening all across America. Texas has added 4,000 megawatts of wind
power to its grid in the last decade alone. New Jersey has doubled the amount of solar power on its rooftops in just the last two
years. More than 4,000 megawatts of solar thermal power are scheduled to be built in the deserts of the American southwest over the next
several years. And states like Vermont are using energy efficiency to meet an ever-growing share of their
electricity needs – indeed, last year, Vermont used energy efficiency to completely offset the growth of electricity demand in the state and did so at
a quarter of the cost of buying power.x Yesterday, Environment America released Global Warming Solutions that Work, a report detailing more than 20
examples of cutting-edge policies and practices that communities, states, and countries are using to reduce global warming pollution. Innovative
and common sense practices like these, and many more like them, are being replicated across the country.
But much more needs to be done. America has enormous potential to save energy through improved
efficiency and to tap the vast resources of the sun and wind to power our economy. For example, a 2006
Environment America report found that by achieving five technologically feasible targets for energy
efficiency and renewable energy development (along with keeping emissions of non-carbon dioxide global
warming pollutants constant), the United States could reduce its total global warming emissions by 19
percent below 2004 levels by 2020 (see Table 1).xi The long-term goal of achieving an 80 percent
reduction in total U.S. global warming emissions also is feasible, given an aggressive push to improve energy efficiency and
expand the production of renewable energy in the United States.xiii The only thing we need to fuel this clean energy revolution
is a clear and consistent signal from the federal government. Adoption of a strong cap on global warming
pollution will unleash the creativity of American scientists and entrepreneurs to develop new technologies
to reduce emissions. At the same time, however, the architecture of a carbon cap must accelerate, rather
than hinder, the transition to a clean energy economy. By investing the revenues from auctioning emission
allowances under a cap-and-trade program in energy efficiency programs and research, development, and
deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies, we can accelerate our transition to a
new energy future. On the other hand, distributing allowances to polluting industries will hinder that
transition and make it more difficult and more costly for America to achieve the required levels of emission
reductions. We also need additional policies to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy. Those
policies include:
• Strong energy efficiency standards for vehicles and appliances.
• Strong building energy codes designed to improve the efficiency of homes and businesses. The federal
government also should encourage the construction of green buildings and zero-energy buildings that go “beyond code” and should adopt measures to
encourage or require the use of small-scale renewable energy technologies like solar water heaters, geothermal heat pumps, or solar panels on new
residential and commercial buildings.
• Renewable electricity standards that will ensure that America gets at least 25 percent of its electricity
from renewable sources by 2025.
• Energy efficiency resource standards for electric and gas utilities that require that energy efficiency
improvements play an important role in meeting future energy needs.
• Transportation and land-use policies that provide Americans with viable alternatives to driving by encouraging
the development of compact, walkable neighborhoods where automobile use is an option, not a requirement.
• Policies to reduce global warming pollution and promote sustainable practices in other parts of the economy, including policies to encourage
recycling, efficient use of water, sustainable agriculture, more energy efficient industrial practices, and to
reduce emissions of global warming pollutants other than carbon dioxide.
- 13 -
PERMITS AFF
Solvency—Incentives
Incentives allow for greater flexibility; trading would lead to cost savings over
command and control approach
Orszag 08 (Peter R., Director Congressional Budget Office; Implications of a Cap-and-Trade Program for Carbon
Dioxide Emissions; Hring before the Committee on Finance United States Senate; April 24;
http://finance.senate.gov/hearings/testimony/2008test/042408potest.pdf)
Flexibility in the Timing of Emission Reductions
Incentive-based approaches, which create financial incentives for firms and households to cut their
greenhouse-gas emissions, are a lower-cost approach to reducing emissions than more restrictive
command-and-control approaches, which would mandate how much such entities could emit or what
emission-reduction technologies they should use. The lower cost of incentive-based approaches stems from
the flexibility they provide as to where and how emission reductions are to be achieved. Either a tax or a
cap-and-trade program would offer such flexibility at a given point in time:
Under a tax, policymakers would levy a fee for each ton of CO2 emitted or for each ton of carbon
contained in fossil fuels. The tax would motivate entities to cut back on their emissions if the cost of doing
so was less than the cost of paying the tax. As a result, the tax would place an upper limit on the cost of
reducing emissions, but the total amount of CO2 that would be emitted in any given year would be
uncertain.
Under a cap-and-trade program, policymakers would set a limit on total emissions during some period
and would require regulated entities to hold rights, or allowances, to the emissions permitted under that cap.
(Each allowance would entitle companies to emit one ton of CO2 or to have one ton of carbon in the fuel
that they sold.) After the allowances for a given period were distributed, entities would be free to buy and
sell the allowances. The trading aspect of the program could lead to substantial cost savings relative to
command-and-control approaches: Firms that were able to reduce emissions most cheaply could profit from
selling allowances to firms that had relatively high abatement costs.
Cap-and-trade programs can vary substantially in the amount of leeway that they provide regulated entities
in the timing of emission reductions. Designs that allow for more timing flexibility are generally more cost-
effective.
- 14 -
PERMITS AFF
Solvency—Environment
CAP AND TRADE SYSTEMS ARE KEY TO SOLVING ENVIORNMENTAL

DAMAGE DONE BY GLOBAL WARMING.
The Toronto Star, 3/16/07, “Hot Air, Cool Trees”, page A17, ln, sma
Canadians are talking a lot about carbon emissions trading, carbon offsets and other things that few people
had even heard about just a few short years ago. These measures, done properly, could all be legitimate
solutions to the fight against climate change.
The purchase of international carbon credits through the Kyoto Protocol, in particular, can be an effective,
legitimate use of Canadian funds to address the critical challenges of climate change while delivering other
significant environmental and economic benefits.
But in all this talk, we are missing one of our most important allies in the global warming battle: Trees.
Nature Canada and other conservation organizations believe that forests should play a bigger role in our
strategy to stop climate change. Their role in the regulation of climate is both important and unique - trees
are victims of global warming, contributors to global warming, and a crucial part of the solution to global
warming.
Most of the increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations come from the use of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and
natural gas) for energy, but few realize that about 25 per cent of all global emissions come from
deforestation and changes in land use, like the clearing of forests and the cultivation of soils for food
production.
The carbon stored in trees and soils is released to the atmosphere when forests are cleared and cultivated.
When forests regrow, they take back carbon from the atmosphere and store it again in trees and soils.
Canada can use Kyoto and other mechanisms to encourage the removal of carbon from the atmosphere and
sequester it in forests, forest products, and soils. Even further, by protecting existing forests and making
better land management decisions we can conserve and enhance existing carbon stores and prevent future
GHG emissions.
This path to reducing GHG emissions has other significant benefits. Forests, grasslands, wetlands and other
natural ecosystems provide billions of dollars in ecological goods and services - clean air and water,
productive soils, forests and oceans, genetic resources for food and pharmaceuticals, pest and disease
control, to name just a few.
Forested ecosystems around the world are home to 70 per cent of the world's plants and animals, more than
13 million distinct species. According to the Canadian Boreal Initiative, Canada's boreal forest alone
provides ecosystem services estimated at $93.2 billion annually.
Researchers at the University of Saskatchewan determined that our national parks have sequestered more
than 4.4 gigatonnes of carbon worth $72 billion to $78 billion.
Most of the world's biodiversity is found in tropical forests.
Roughly 7.3 million hectares of forest are being lost annually to deforestation according to the 2007 "State
of the World's Forests" report, exacerbating global warming and speeding the extinction rates of countless
species.
At present, neither the Climate Change Convention nor the Kyoto Protocol currently sets limits to tropical
deforestation. However, in 2005 a group of developing countries, called the Coalition for Rainforest
Nations, propsosed that developing countries commit to limiting tropical deforestation. Nature Canada
welcomes their proposal.
Climate change is the most dramatic symptom of our unsustainable approach to development. As
Canadians, we have a unique opportunity to address climate change by protecting forests.
We should complete the national system of protected areas. We should support the establishment of
protected areas in developing countries where most of the world's biodiversity is found.
We can also improve land and forest management, and develop land-use plans that recognize the huge
contribution these forests make to global carbon cycles and the many other benefits they provide.
- 15 -
PERMITS AFF
_________
**Warming
- 16 -
PERMITS AFF
Warming Advantage—Timeframe
Global warming is problem now; US must take leadership role

Thank you for the opportunity to share my views regarding the various global warming legislative
proposals currently pending before the Congress. My name is Emily Figdor, and I am the director of the
Federal Global Warming Program at Environment America. Environment America is the new home of
U.S. PIRG’s environmental work. We are a federation of state-based, citizen-funded environmental
advocacy organizations.
Twenty years ago this summer, NASA scientist James Hansen appeared before Congress to warn the
American people of the dangers posed by global warming. Today, thousands of families in the Midwest are
struggling to recover from devastating floods. The extreme rainstorms that caused those floods have
become more common over the last 60 years, i and scientists predict they will become even more common
in a warming world.ii
The juxtaposition of those two events reminds us that inaction has consequences. It is vital, therefore, that
we listen to what scientists, including James Hansen, are telling us today. They say that the United States
and the world must begin reducing global warming pollution now, and achieve steep reductions soon, if we
hope to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of global warming.
Achieving those emission reductions will be an historic challenge. But America has what it takes to rise to
that challenge. We have the resources, the ingenuity, and the creativity to lead the world in the effort to
combat global warming – while at the same time making America more energy independent, reinvigorating
our economy, and creating good new jobs here at home.
To get there, however, we need a roadmap. The global warming legislation that Congress ultimately adopts
must be that roadmap, showing how America can achieve the deep reductions in global warming pollution
that will be needed to prevent catastrophic impacts from global warming.
Global warming is a threat; now is the key time to act

Global warming poses a profound threat to our future. The science is clear that we must begin reducing
global warming pollution now, and achieve steep reductions soon, if we hope to prevent catastrophic effects
of global warming. In the United States, we must cut domestic emissions by at least 15 to 20 percent by
2020 and by 80 percent by 2050.
Achieving those emission reductions will be an historic challenge. However, in responding to this
challenge, there is also opportunity – if we act quickly and sensibly – including reduced dependence on
fossil fuels, cleaner air and healthier communities, and new jobs. Congress should develop legislation that
embodies the principles I discussed today to accomplish these goals.
- 17 -
PERMITS AFF
Levels are high now; only adopting a plan for reduction now will solve
The United States has already committed, as a signatory to the 1992 United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, to the goal of “[s]tabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”iii
Many scientists and policymakers have identified a 2° C rise in global average temperature over pre-
industrial levels (which is equivalent to 3.6° F or about 2° F over today’s levels) as a rough threshold
between damaging and catastrophic global warming.iv
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to have a reasonable chance of
keeping global temperatures from rising by more than 2°C, the atmospheric concentration of global
warming pollutants (in carbon dioxide equivalent) must not rise higher than 450 parts per million (ppm).v
Leading climate scientists, such as James Hansen, believe that even this level of pollution may be too
much. They argue for a target of returning concentrations of global warming pollutants to 350 ppm.vi
Given that the concentration of global warming pollutants is already 375 ppm and rising every year, the
need for strong action is immediate.vii
To stabilize carbon dioxide levels between 445 and 490 ppm (carbon dioxide equivalent), global emissions
must peak no later than 2015 and decline by 50 to 85 percent below 2000 levels by 2050.viii The United
States must:
• stabilize total U.S. emissions at or below today’s levels immediately;
• reduce total U.S. emissions by at least 15 to 20 percent below today’s levels by
2020; and
• reduce total U.S. emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050.ix
Of course, the United States cannot solve global warming on its own. But let’s be clear: these emission
reduction targets – 15 to 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 – presume similarly strong action by
other developed countries and action by developing nations such as China and India. In other words, these
emission reductions represent the level of cuts that must be made right here at home.
We also need to help kick-start emission reductions in other countries through mechanisms such as
international forest protection. But none of these efforts minimize the need for immediate and ultimately
deep cuts in domestic global warming emissions.
- 18 -
PERMITS AFF
Current trends indicate that global warming is having an impact now; must act to
stop such trends
The time for action on global warming has already been delayed too long. Every day we learn more about
the ways in which global warming is already affecting our planet. Recent satellite pictures show that
summertime arctic ice has declined by 40 percent since 1979 (Figure 1). The UN Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) found that 11 of the past 12 years are among the 12 hottest years on record. The
Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass at accelerating rates. Rising sea surface
temperatures correlate strongly with increases in the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes. Increases in
wildfires, floods and droughts are predicted to occur as global warming continues unabated. Our oceans are
warming and becoming more acidic. Everywhere one looks, the impacts of a disrupted climate are
confronting us.
Climate scientists warn us that we must act now to begin making serious emission reductions if we are to
avoid truly dangerous global warming pollution concentrations. Because carbon dioxide and some other
global warming pollutants can remain in the atmosphere for many decades, centuries, or even longer, the
climate change impacts from pollution released today will continue throughout the 21st century and
beyond. Failure to pursue significant reductions in global warming pollution now will make the job much
harder in the future—both the job of stabilizing atmospheric pollution concentrations and the job of
avoiding the worst impacts of a climate gone haywire.
Since the start of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide concentrations have risen from about 280 parts
per million (ppm) to more than 380 ppm today, and global average temperatures have risen by more than
one degree Fahrenheit over the last century. A growing body of scientific opinion has formed that we face
extreme dangers if global average temperatures are allowed to increase by more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit
from today’s levels. We may be able to stay within this envelope if atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and
other global warming gases are kept from exceeding 450 ppm CO2- equivalent and then rapidly reduced.
However, this will require us to halt U.S. emissions growth within the next few years and then cut
emissions by approximately 80 percent over the next 50 years.
This goal is ambitious, but achievable. It can be done through an annual rate of emissions reductions that
ramps up to about a 4 percent reduction per year (see Figure 2.) But if we delay and emissions continue to
grow at or near the business-as-usual trajectory for another 10 years, the job will become much harder. In
such a case, the annual emission reduction rate needed to stay on the 450 ppm path would double to 8
percent per year. In short, a slow start means a crash finish, with steeper and more disruptive cuts in
emissions required for each year of delay.
- 19 -
PERMITS AFF
Warming Impact—National Security

Even if the US isn’t directly affected by climate change; the impacts in other
countries, however, will draw the US into conflicts threatening its national security
Fingar 08 (DR. THOMAS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE FOR ANALYSIS AND CHAIRMAN OF
THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COUNCIL; Hring before the PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
AND THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND GLOBAL WARMING, HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES; June 25, 2008;
http://globalwarming.house.gov/tools/2q08materials/files/0069.pdf)
global climate change will have wide-
Allow me to provide a summary of our key observations. We judge
ranging implications for US national security interests over the next 20 years. Although
the United States will be less affected and is better equipped than most nations to deal
with climate change, and may even see a benefit owing to increases in agriculture productivity, infrastructure repair and
replacement will be costly. We judge that the most significant impact for the United States will be
indirect and result from climate-driven effects on many other countries and their potential
to seriously affect US national security interests. We assess that climate change alone is
unlikely to trigger state failure in any state out to 2030, but the impacts will worsen
existing problems—such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation,
ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions. Climate change could threaten
domestic stability in some states, potentially contributing to intra- or, less likely, interstate
conflict, particularly over access to increasingly scarce water resources. We judge that
economic migrants will perceive additional reasons to migrate because of harsh climates,
both within nations and from disadvantaged to richer countries.
- 20 -
PERMITS AFF
Warming Impact—SSA
Climate change exacerbates problems in SSA
Climate-induced tensions are a main contributor to instability in several areas of Africa.
We judge that sub-Saharan Africa will continue to be the most vulnerable region to climate
change because of multiple environmental, economic, political, and social stresses. Observed
temperatures have become warmer since the 1960s. This has been true across the varied climates of Africa. In addition, from
1961-2000 the number of warm spells increased over southern and western Africa.
Rainfall varies a good deal over most of Africa, but increased seasonal variability has
been observed since 1970, with higher rainfall anomalies and more intense and
widespread droughts. Scientific studies indicate that climate change is likely to cause agricultural losses, possibly severe in
the Sahel, West Africa, and southern Africa. Agricultural yields from some rainfall dependant crops
could be reduced by up to 50 percent by 2020.
Many African countries already challenged by persistent poverty, frequent natural
disasters, weak governance, and high dependence on agriculture probably will face a
significantly higher exposure to water stress owing to climate change.
- 21 -
PERMITS AFF
Warming Impact—Food/Water
Climate change will affect food production and water shortages in Asia
In Asia,
despite future climate change that is expected to produce increased precipitation,
research indicates that South, Southeast, and East Asia will face risks of reduced
current
agricultural productivity as large parts of the region face increased risk of floods and
droughts. By 2025, cereal crop yields will decrease 2.5-10 percent, according to some calculations.
(This assumes no CO2 fertilization. Most plants growing in normal atmospheric CO2 exhibit higher rates of photosynthesis and
elevated CO2 alone tends to increase growth and yield of most agriculture plants.) Most of the studies have been conducted either
under controlled environmental conditions (chambers), or under optimal field conditions. Potential CO2 effects on plant biomass
depend on the nutrient and water
Observed increases in surface air temperature in recent decades range from less than 1 to 3
degrees C per decade, with the most pronounced warming in north Asia. Annual average
rainfall has decreased in Russia, northeast and north China, coastal belts and arid plains of Pakistan, parts of
northeast India, Indonesia, Philippines, and some areas of Japan; it has increased in western
and southeastern coastal China, Bangladesh, and the western coasts of the Philippines. In
parts of Asia extreme weather events are more frequent and severe and intense rains and
floods come more often. Droughts have intensified and/or affected more areas in Central,
South and Southeast Asia. Tropical storms are more frequent in the South China Sea, and the Bay of Bengal is
experiencing fewer but more intense storms. Some projections indicate as many as 50 million additional people
could be at risk of hunger by 2020, although climate change may moderate water stress in some regions of Asia. By
the 2020s increases in precipitation and glacier run-off will relieve some of the water stress
in Asia, but increasing consumption patterns and growing populations indicate that 120
million to 1.2 billion people will continue to experience some water stress.
- 22 -
PERMITS AFF
Warming Impact—Soil
Climate change will lead to land slides and erosion
Australia and New Zealand will likely see increased temperature by 2030 and continued changes in
precipitation patterns. Since 1950 there has been a 0.3 to 0.7 degrees C warming in the region, with more
heat waves, fewer frosts, and an increase in the intensity of Australian droughts. Recent reports indicate
more rain in northwestern Australia and southwestern New Zealand, and less rain in southern and eastern
Australia and northeastern New Zealand.
According to scientific research, floods, landslides, droughts and storm surges are likely to become more
frequent and intense, and snow and frost are likely to become less frequent. Infrastructure design criteria
for extreme events, here as elsewhere, are likely to be exceeded more frequently.
- 23 -
PERMITS AFF
Warming Impact—Europe
Climate change will increase temperatures and flooding in Europe

In the coming years, Europe will likely become hotter—with more frequent and severe heat
waves—and there will be greater differences in regional precipitation. Europe warmed 0.90
degrees C between 1901 and 2005. However, the rate of warming has accelerated since 1979. During this
latter period, the rate was higher in central and northeastern Europe and in mountainous
regions but lower in the Mediterranean regions.
Precipitation change varies in different areas of Europe. Average winter precipitation is increasing in most of Atlantic and northern
Most parts of the continent
Europe, while yearly precipitation trends are decreasing in eastern Mediterranean regions.
are receiving more precipitation per wet day, even in some areas that are becoming drier.
By the 2020s, increases in winter floods are likely in maritime regions and more flash
floods are likely throughout Europe.
- 24 -
PERMITS AFF
Warming Impact—Latin America

Global warming has caused severe weather in Latin America; trend will continue
By 2020, temperature increases in Latin America will vary across the region, with the
highest temperatures projected to occur over tropical South America. Temperature increases are
likely to increase from 0.4 to 1.8degrees C over the 1980-1999 period. Highly unusual extreme weather events
have occurred in some areas of South America including intense rainfall, flooding,
drought, hailstorms, and the unprecedented Hurricane Catarina in the South Atlantic. In
addition, the Caribbean Basin experienced a record hurricane season in 2005. Increases in
rainfall in selected regions of South America have affected land use and crop yields, and increased
flood frequency and intensity. Precipitation has decreased in other regions including western Central America. Latin
America may experience increased precipitation by the 2020s;by some estimates tens of
millions of people could be removed from water stress in considering only the effects of
climate change. However, despite the greater water availability from climate change, an
estimated 7-77 million people are likely to remain stressed due to growing populations
and increasing water consumption.
- 25 -
PERMITS AFF
Warming Impact—Middle East

Current and future climate changes will affect use of water in the region
Prospects for the Middle East are harder to anticipate because of limited climate research.
By 2020 the region is expected to see an increased temperature of slightly over one
degree C. Precipitation is expected to decrease between 3 and 8 percent in winter and
spring, and increase 5 to 18 percent in summer and fall. From 1951 to 2003, several stations in different
climatological zones of Iran reported significant decreases in frost days due to a rise in surface temperatures.
Surface water availability from major rivers like the Euphrates and Tigris may be affected
by future alterations in river flows. River flows are likely to increase in winter and
decrease in spring, which could negatively affect existing uses of river water.
- 26 -
PERMITS AFF
Warming Impact—Refugees
Victims of global warming will move to more economically advanced countries; will
strain resources
economic refugees will perceive additional reasons to flee their homes because
We judge that
of harsher climates. Besides movement within countries, especially to urban areas, many
displaced persons will move into neighboring developing countries, sometimes as a
staging ground for subsequent movement onward to more developed and richer countries
with greater economic opportunities. Many likely receiving nations will have neither the
resources nor interest to host these climate migrants. Receiving nations probably will
have increased concern about migrants who may be exposed to or are carrying infectious
diseases that may put host nation populations at higher risk.
- 27 -
PERMITS AFF
Warming Impact—Sino Relations

How US copes with China will be uniquely impacted by climate change; must take
steps now to plan for that inevitability
Butts 08 (Dr. Kent Hughes, former co-chair of the NATO Environmental Security Pilot Study Meetings, Hrings
before the Joint Public Hearing of the Select Committee of Energy Independence and Global Warming and the
Intelligence CommunityManagement Subcommittee of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; US
House of Representatives; June 25, 2008;
The US relationship with China is the subject of intense debate in both the United States and in China.
Much of the discussion centers on the implications of China’s economic growth. China is no longer
autarkic and must increasingly import large quantities of industrial minerals and materials and energy
resources to sustain an economy that is growing at approximately 10 percent annually. So too, the United
States is import dependent and finds itself competing with China for influence and minerals access in two
critical regions where the effects of global climate change are increasingly apparent, the Middle East and
Africa. Military planners have no choice but to concern themselves with the competition for increasingly
scarce resources and the effects of climate change on that competition.
There is no wall to protect China from global climate change. Domestically, China is already feeling the
effects of climate change on its economic growth. China is water stressed in many critical areas; large areas
around Beijing have been removed from irrigation due to over pumping of water resources and subsidence.
Increasingly powerful storms bring devastating flooding to coastal areas and southern China. The health
effects of pollution from coal-fired power plants on the workforce are increasingly problematic. However,
the international effects of climate change may have a more direct impact on China’s economic growth.
The impacts of climate change create common interests among countries as well as competition. The
Middle East and Africa are two climate stressed regions that provide the essential resources for the Chinese
economy. Ariel Sharon, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, and Yitzhak Rabin have all spoken forcefully about the
potential for water scarcity and conflict in the Middle East. Africa, where the effects of climate change are
most profound and which leads the world in extra deaths from climate change, has the world’s largest
reserves of the strategic minerals chromium, cobalt, platinum and manganese, and already supplies 30
percent of China’s oil imports. Because the United States is similarly dependent upon these two regions for
its mineral imports, the two countries share a common interest in maintaining stability and ensuring
dependable access at reasonable prices. Cooperation between the United States and China on mitigating the
effects of climate change and encouraging the development of adaptation capabilities in mineral producing
regions are significant areas that could serve as confidence building measures between the two powers.
This could also ensure a stable supply of mineral resources to an already tight world market and promote
regional stability.
- 28 -
PERMITS AFF
Warming Impact—Terrorism
Terrorists use climate change impacts to recruit disenchanted individuals and
continue instability; addressing issues helps mitigate those efforts
Butts 08 (Dr. Kent Hughes, former co-chair of the NATO Environmental Security Pilot Study Meetings, Hrings
before the Joint Public Hearing of the Select Committee of Energy Independence and Global Warming and the
Intelligence CommunityManagement Subcommittee of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; US
House of Representatives; June 25, 2008;
The United States has done well at attacking and disrupting terrorists and their organizations, and defending
the homeland. It has done less well in a struggle against terrorist ideology that threatens moderate Muslim
regimes. Many countries that face a terrorist threat suggest that the United States must place more emphasis
on winning the ideological struggle if it is to succeed in the struggle against terror. State political systems
unable to meet the demands placed upon them by the population struggle to maintain legitimacy and power,
and invite the introduction of alternative or extremist ideology. Global climate change places additional
demands upon the political system that many developing states cannot meet. Scarcities of resources, lack of
safe water, reduced agricultural capacity; widespread disease and poverty create underlying conditions that
terrorists seek to exploit. According to the World Bank, intrastate conflict is 15 times more likely to occur
in poor countries than in the industrialized countries. Food riots in Cairo at a time when members of the
Muslim Brotherhood are running for election demonstrate the problem.
Climate change fans the fires of regional instability and creates opportunities for terrorists. According to the
9/11 Report, “When people lose hope, when societies break down, when countries fragment, the breeding
grounds for terrorism are created.” United States interests turn on regional stability. Climate change issues
are now recognized as a multiplier for regional instability and conflict, exacerbating tensions resulting from
religious, ethnic, and other local differences such as socio-economic disparities between rural and urban
areas, rapid economic development, and border disputes.
Military planners are responding to the demands of their leaders for proactive approaches to issues such as
competition with China and the underlying conditions of terror. The costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars
are encouraging fresh thinking about preventive defense in addressing issues that could destabilize regions
and lead to conflict. The NIA and the Center for Naval Analysis Climate Change and Security Report are
not alone in addressing the climate change and security link. DOD Directive 3000.05 has prioritized
stability operations by US military forces and increased the number of military planners and developers of
doctrine in this emerging area, thus creating an attentive audience for these products. What is needed is
increased priority on identifying and addressing the security effects of global climate change, to include
increasing funding for such integral agencies as the Department of State and USAID, and a strong mandate
for interagency cooperation that would further encourage military leaders to develop the capacities of host
nation militaries for supporting civil authority in addressing climate change issues.
- 29 -
PERMITS AFF
Warming Advantage—Environment
MANY SPECIES ARE RISKING EXTINCTION DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING,

DAMAGING THE ECOSYSTEM THEY LIVE IN.
Herald Sun Newspaper, 4/2/07, ln, sma
A NEW report says one-third of species will vanish or move away from their habitats if temperatures rise 1
to 2 degrees Celsius more. Global warming is changing life on every continent, the UN's network of 2000
scientists and more than 100 governments will report. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's
report is to be released on Friday. In February, the panel declared it very likely most global warming has
been caused by man-made emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases. Animal and plant life in the Arctic
and Antarctic is undergoing substantial change, scientists say, and rising sea levels are hurting coastal
wetlands. Warmer waters are bleaching and killing coral reefs, pushing marine species toward the poles,
and reducing fish populations in African lakes. ''Hundreds of species have already changed ranges, and
ecosystems are being disrupted,'' said University of Michigan ecologist Rosina Bierbaum, a former head of
the US IPCC delegation. ''It is clear a number of species are going to be lost.'' The report says: REEFS
around the world, including the Great Barrier Reef, are at risk from warmer seas which cause coral
bleaching. Oceans are also absorbing more carbon dioxide, eroding coral's ability to build reef skeletons.
Just a 1C shift can trigger major bleaching. ''We've got about 20 years to turn (greenhouse gas emissions)
around or it's going to cost the world a lot environmentally but also economically,'' leading Australian coral
specialist Terry Hughes said. PUERTO Rican experts believe three of 17 species of frog are extinct and up
to eight are declining. Similar reports are coming worldwide, particularly from Central and South America.
POLAR BEARS have been seen moving north as the ice cap recedes, or south in search of food. They give
birth and hunt on ice floes, but the summer cap is 20 per cent smaller than in 1978. TICKS are spreading
north along Sweden's shorelines, spreading diseases to humans
THE GLOBAL WARMING THAT HUMANS HAVE CAUSED IS EFFECTING

SPECIES OF ANIMALS WHO CAN’T ADAPT TO CLIMATE CHANGES.
China Daily, 4/7/07, ln, sma
Scientists first identified human behaviour as the cause of global warming. Now they are offering stark
warnings for the future. Scientists and officials from more than 100 countries yesterday approved the second part of the climate
change report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A better picture of the impact of climate change is gradually
appearing. Scientists warned that major climate disruptions will happen in the coming decades, with glaciers melting, the Arctic ice
cap shrinking, the oceans heating up and sea levels rising. There is wide agreement now that the impacts will be diverse, with winners
and losers. Some effects may be positive in some regions, such as in parts of North America and northern Europe as a result of longer
growing seasons and milder winters. For the majority of people, however, the consequences of climate change will be negative. For
some regions, they could be disastrous. Climate change poses risks to all of us, but by far the largest risks to poor countries. Within 25
years, hunger and death from diarrhea will threaten poor countries where crops fail and water becomes increasingly scarce. The IPCC
document is supposed to serve as a guideline for governments to shape policies. Action is needed to mitigate the worst
impacts of global warming, such as water shortages for billions of people or the extinction of almost half of
Amazonian tree species. The details of the localized effects of global warming are not yet available. But
scientists have predicted with certainty that man-made global warming over the past three decades has had
a discernible influence on many physical and biological systems. The effects of this situation may be
catastrophic and irreversible. The impacts of global warming threaten nearly every aspect of society. Many
physical effects, such as rising sea levels, effects on agriculture and forests, and impacts on human health,
will translate into huge economic costs. The loss of life, the extinction of species, the destruction of
ecosystems and numerous other effects will place additional burdens on our and our children's quality of
life. We need a sense of urgency as well as recognition of the long-term nature of both the climate change
and its ultimate solutions. It is time to try to figure out how best to adapt to climate change in the years and
decades ahead.
- 30 -
PERMITS AFF
Warming Advantage—Environment
GLOBAL WARMING RUINS ECOSYSTEMS THAT ARE VITAL TO OUR

SURVIVAL.
Sample 5/18/08 (science Correspondent; The Irish Times newspaper; pg 16; “Effect on Global Warming
Already Evident - Scientists; ln, sma)
ENVIRONMENT:GLOBAL WARMING is disrupting wildlife and the environment on every continent,
according to an unprecedented study that reveals the extent to which climate change is already affecting the
world's ecosystems.
Scientists examined published reports dating back to 1970 and found that at least 90 per cent of
environmental damage and disruption around the world could be explained by rising temperatures driven
by human activity.
Big falls in Antarctic penguin populations, fewer fish in African lakes, shifts in American river flows and
earlier flowering and bird migrations in Europe are all likely to be driven by global warming, the study
found.
The team of experts, including members of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
from America, Europe, Australia and China, is the first formally to link some of the most dramatic changes
to the world's wildlife and habitats with human-induced climate change.
In the study, which appears in the journal Nature, researchers analysed reports highlighting changes in
populations or behaviour of 28,800 animal and plant species. They examined a further 829 reports that
focused on different environmental effects, including surging rivers, retreating glaciers and shifting forests,
across the seven continents.
To work out how much global warming played a role, the scientists checked historical records to see what
impact natural variations in local climate, deforestation and changes in land use might have on ecosystems
and species. In 90 per cent of cases, the shifts in wildlife behaviour and populations could only be
explained by global warming, while 95 per cent of environmental changes, such as melting permafrost,
retreating glaciers and changes in river flows were consistent with rising temperatures.
"When we look at all these impacts together, it is clear they are across continents and endemic. We're
getting a sense that climate change is already changing the way the world works," said lead author Cynthia
Rosenzweig, head of the climate impacts group at Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.
Most of the reports examined by the team were published between 1970 and 2004, during which time
global average temperatures rose by around 0.6 degrees. The latest report from the IPCC suggests the world
is likely to warm up between two and six degrees by the end of the century.
"When you look at a map of the world and see where these changes are already happening, and how many
species and systems are already responding to climate change after only a 0.6 degree rise, it just heightens
our concerns for the future," Ms Rosenzweig said. "It's clear we have to adapt to climate change as well as
try to mitigate it. It's real and it's happening now."
In many regions, snow and ice melts earlier in the year, driving up spring water levels in rivers and lakes,
with droughts following in the summer. Understanding shifts in water availability will have a big impact on
water management, the scientists say.
Disruption to one part of the environment has knock-on effects elsewhere. In one study rising temperatures
caused sea ice in Antarctica to vanish, prompting an 85 per cent fall in the krill population. A separate study
found that the population of Emperor penguins, which feed on krill in the same region, had also fallen by
50 per cent during one warm winter.
A loss of krill, also a dietary staple for whales and seals, was cited as a factor in recent accounts of
cannibalism among polar bears in the Arctic.
- 31 -
PERMITS AFF
Warming Advantage—Environment—Snowballs
SOME SPECIES ARE RISKING EXTINCTION WHICH WILL LEAD TO A

DOMINO EFFECT IN OUR ECOSYSTEMS.
Mittelstaedt 4/4/07 (Environment Reporter; The Globe and Mail Newspaper; “Effects of warming
could inundate planet; climate change already harming many species, draft report says”; ln, sma)
Global warming could hit the entire world like a tsunami, wiping out thousands of species unable to adapt
to a hotter climate and making billions of people vulnerable to water shortages and the inundation of coastal cities, says a draft summary of an
authoritative UN sponsored report on climate change scheduled for release on Friday. The summary also says there is a 90-per-cent
likelihood that global warming is already beginning to change the world's rich biological heritage of fauna
and flora, typified by such recently observed phenomena as the northward march of many animal and plant
species. It says these types of changes are occurring almost everywhere scientists care to look, and are
being caused by human activity. "Many natural systems, on all continents and in some oceans, are being
affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increase," the draft concluded. It also
forecasts a massive upheaval in the world's ecosystems, with as much as half the Arctic tundra being
replaced by forest if warming reaches 4 degrees, a level of extreme heating that also has the potential to
wipe out about 45 per cent of the Amazon's tree species. The report, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is the
second instalment in a series of three widely anticipated studies on global warming to be issued this year by the body. The report is the collective work of
more than 1,000 of the world's scientists, including many from Canada, and has a measured and cautious tone, despite its many dramatic conclusions.
This new instalment outlines the far-reaching impact that global warming is already having and expected to have over the
next few centuries on the world's environment, ranging from freshwater fish to mangroves and boreal
forests. It also highlights the urgent need for countries to develop strategies for protecting their citizens against the adverse effects of living on a
warmer planet, ranging from the instability a hotter world introduces to agriculture to having to deal with nuclear power plants built on coastlines that
may end up underwater. But it also concludes that some of the most dire potential results of climate change, such as an abrupt halt to the current
responsible for the Gulf Stream that gives Northern Europe its temperate weather, are unlikely to occur during this century. The draft is being reviewed
this week in Brussels by policy makers from more than 100 countries, and a summary of its findings will be issued on Friday morning, followed early
next week by details on changes scientists expect to see in major regions of the world. In February, the IPCC issued the first instalment, a review of the
science supporting global warming. It concluded that the evidence indicating climate change is occurring, and due to human
activity, has become so strong it is "unequivocal." One of the most striking findings in the summary, a compendium of all of the
significant scientific research on global warming's possible impacts conducted over the past five years, is the
sheer magnitude of the
number of people estimated to be negatively affected. Sea level rise, for instance, is likely to turn into a
slow-moving human disaster if nothing is done to protect islands and coastal areas from flooding, and could
be a major problem lasting for centuries that affects hundreds of millions of people. Although most climate-change
models predict that sea level won't increase by more than 0.6 metres this century, the summary warned that the rise could be anywhere from four to six
metres over the following centuries and millennia if global warming destabilizes the ice cap on Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheet. It said there is
about a 50-per-cent chance that there would be a partial meltdown of ice in the two areas if temperatures rise anywhere from 1.1 degree to 3.8 degrees. It
termed this melting as leading to "the worst case scenario of abrupt sea level rise." "Very large sea level rises that would result from widespread
deglaciation of Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets imply major changes in coastlines and inundation of low-lying areas. . . . Relocating populations,
economic activity and infrastructure would be costly and challenging," it said. The summary said that by
the end of this century,
ecosystems are very likely to be exposed to the highest atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past
650,000 years and global average temperatures that are at least as high as any experienced in the past
740,000 years. By 2100, such a significant amount of the carbon dioxide that humans have added to the
atmosphere is likely to have been dissolved into the oceans that they'll be the most acidic they've been in
the past 20 million years, threatening sea life, such as animals whose shells would dissolve in this harsher
environment, the report states. Although many changes due to climate change are unambiguously bad, the summary presented a number of
outcomes for agriculture and forestry that are more ambiguous. For instance, there is about a 50-per-cent chance that in temperate regions, including
Canada, moderate warming will benefit cereal crops and pasture yields, but even slight warming decreases yields in tropical and dry areas. "This will
increase hunger, malnutrition and consequent disorders, including child growth and development, in particular in those regions that are already most
vulnerable to food insecurity, notably Africa," it said. Satellite observations since the 1980s have found that one of the benefits of global warming for
agriculture in northern regions is that there has been an earlier greening in spring, leading to a longer growing season. The summary said there is
uncertainty over what will happen to the world's forest industry because of global warming. Depending on the amount of warming this century, the report
predicted that anywherefrom 20 per cent to 30 per cent of the world's species will be at high risk of dying out
with as little as a 1.5-degree increase, and "major extinctions around the globe" will occur if the
temperature rise surpasses about 3 degrees. "The resilience of many ecosystems [their ability to adapt
naturally] is likely to be exceeded by 2100," it said, attributing this to "an unprecedented" combination of
change in climate and disruptions warmer temperatures cause, such as increasing the number of insect pests
and wildfires.
- 32 -
PERMITS AFF
Warming Advantage—Rapid Warming Impact
Rapid warming causes mass extinction

Nigel Williams, November 2007, Warming Worries for Species Numbers, Current Biology, Vol 17,
R941, 20
Unsurprisingly, humans are increasingly concerned about their possible impact on climate change and its
wider effects on the environment. But climate is well known to have varied in the past, so what has been
the impact of these variations on the species of the time?
Most attempts to look at this issue have focused on relatively short geological periods, limited geographical
ranges or few taxonomic groups.
But in a new study researchers at the University of York and the University of Leeds have examined the
relationship between climate and biodiversity over the past 520 million years — almost the entire fossil
record — and uncover an association between the two for the first time. They find that the record suggests
rising global temperatures caused by climate change could trigger a huge extinction of plants and
animals.
The researchers looked at the fossil record against estimates of the low-latitude sea-surface temperature
over geological time. When the Earth's temperatures were in the ‘greenhouse’ climate phase, they found
that extinctions were relatively high. Conversely, during cooler ‘icehouse’ conditions, biodiversity
increased.
The results, reported in the Proceedings of the Royal Society series B (published online), suggest that the
predictions of a rapid rise in the Earth's temperature due to man-made climate change could have a similar
effect on current biodiversity.
Peter Mayhew, one of the authors, said; “Our results provide the first clear evidence that global climate
change may explain substantial variation in the fossil record in a simple and consistent manner. If our
results hold for current warming - the magnitude of which is comparable with long-term fluctuations in the
Earth's climate, they suggest that extinctions will increase.”
The team found that of the mass extinction events in the earth's history, four were linked to greenhouse
climates when the Earth's atmosphere was rich in carbon dioxide and methane.
The largest ever extinction appears to have occurred 251 million years ago when fossil remains suggest 95
per cent of animal and plant species were killed off. The most likely cause of this extinction was floods
of lava from the central Atlantic region, an event which created the ocean.
“The risk of future extinction through rapid global warming is primarily expected to occur through
mismatches between the climates to which organisms are adapted in their current range and the future
distribution of those climates, a mechanism that has doubtless also been relevant in the past,” the authors
write.
- 33 -
PERMITS AFF
_____
**Oil
- 34 -
PERMITS AFF
Oil Dependence Bad—National Security
US Dependency on Oil Compromises National Security

Salazar, Ken. March 07. Democrat, Colorado Senator; US Senate Congressional Record
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_record&page=S3733&position=all]
DZ
I submit that things have changed because the drivers today are not only the economic drivers of our time.
Today when we look at the energy issues we face in our world, it is not just about the volatility of the
energy markets we see around the world and here in the United States, there are two other drivers that are
equally as important. The first of those drivers has to be our national security. When you think about the
fact that today we are importing about 60 percent of our oil from foreign countries, in the next 10 to 15
years, if projections continue the way they are, and growth continues the way it is expected to continue, we
will be importing 70 percent of our oil from foreign countries.
If that occurs, then we will continue to compromise the foreign policy, the national security of this Nation
in a manner none of us should ever allow to happen. In fact, it would be a dereliction of duty for this
Congress, for the Senate, and for this country to allow that to happen.
In the latest skirmish with Israel and Lebanon, one has to ask the question about where that money was
coming from that was funding the militia group of Hezbollah in its firing of nearly 10,000 rockets into the
northern city of Haifa in northern Israel. One has to ask that question, where was the money coming from
that would fund the 10,000 members of that militia group called Hezbollah in Lebanon and other places
around the world?
Well, we do not need to look very far for the answer to that question. You and I know--you as the Presiding
Officer are well aware of the security interests here in our country--very well that the money creating and
funding the terrorist groups in places such as Lebanon is coming from oil. It is coming from oil we are
paying $60 and $70 a barrel for today.
So the very national security of our country requires us, it demands of us, and we can do no less than to
move forward with an agenda that grasps the imperative of energy independence in our world. That energy
independence will come about with great opportunities as we look at a clean energy future for America. We
will be able to derive jobs and create the kind of national economic security we need in the United States of
America.
Dependency on Foreign Oil Puts National Security into the Hands of Other Nations
Mica, John; June 26 2008 Republican, Florida Representative; US Senate Congressional Record
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2008_record&page=H6122&position=all]
DZ
On that day when he announced it he said, ‘‘If we fail to act, our country will become more reliant on
foreign crude oil, putting our national energy security into the hands of foreign nations, some of whom do
not share our interests.’’ On that same day when he announced his plan, he said regarding part of his plan,
‘‘We will underwrite research and development into energy-saving technology. It’ll require manufacturers
to build more energy-efficient appliances. We will review and remove obstacles that prevent business from
investing in energy-efficient technologies.’’ Furthermore, President Bush said, ‘‘The second part of our
energy plan will be to expand and diversify our Nation’s energy supplies. America today imports,’’ and now
this is May of 2001, ‘‘America today imports 52 percent of all of our oil. If we don’t take action, those
imports will only grow.
- 35 -
PERMITS AFF
Oil Dependence Bad—Prolif
US Oil Dependency Funds Nuclear Weapons

Cornyn, John; June 17 2008 Republican, Texas Senator; US Senate Congressional Record
[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r110:4:./temp/~r1108qdGbn::] DZ
As this chart shows, restricted domestic production in the United States sends billions of dollars to the
Middle East, where we purchase that oil, and to countries such as Venezuela in South America. When one
of my constituents back in Texas goes to the gas station and fills their pickup truck, and it costs him $75 to
$100, he is wondering perhaps where the money goes. Our colleagues would suggest it just goes to big oil
companies. But the fact of the matter is, it is more complicated than that. I think the picture needs to be
painted and the story needs to be told of exactly what our refusal to depend more on our own domestic
resources, rather than depending, as we do increasingly, on foreign sources of oil, means to our national
security.
While taxes, refining, shipping, and marketing add to the cost of retail gasoline, 70 percent of the cost of a
gallon of gasoline is related to the cost of oil –crude oil. When the United States imports roughly 60 percent
of the oil it consumes, the real profiteers of our dependence are the foreign nations from which we import.
In 2007, the U.S. fuel bill on oil imports was about $330 billion, and some anticipate that figure will go to
$400 billion this year. We should be investing more money in America to increase our domestic energy
production and creating jobs right here in America as we work to diversify our energy mix and pursue
alternative energy sources. Unfortunately, we send American dollars to foreign nations and energy cartels,
such as Venezuela and Iran--nations that openly condemn the United States and the principles for which we
stand and seek to undermine our national interests at every turn.
Last year, in Venezuela alone, U.S. consumers spent an estimated $30 billion on oil imports. We are all
familiar with President Hugo Chavez and his thinly veiled threats and outlandish attacks on our country.
But the money that is sent to Venezuela does not just empower the absurd talk of one man, it is helping him
to assemble a substantial military arsenal. As we know, President Mahmud Ahmadinejad in Iran is enjoying
all the money America is sending to him and other countries when they purchase oil, with a price tag now
of $135 a barrel. We can't afford to forget that oil is a global commodity used by every country throughout
the world, so money spent on oil imports from the Middle East or anywhere benefits Iran. Iran is
continuing its effort to develop nuclear technology, depicted at these compounds in Bushehr and Natanz,
depicted on these maps.
It is clear that Iran has nuclear ambitions to build nuclear weapons to dominate the Middle East and,
frankly, represents a threat to world peace. So money spent on oil imports from the Middle East or
anywhere actually benefits Iran, and they use that money to pursue their nuclear ambitions.
Foreign Oil Revenues Fund Foreign Arsenals

The short version of this story is that our dependence on foreign oil is bankrolling deadly weapons that are
being used against our troops and even more advanced weapons systems that could one day be turned on us
or our allies— countries such as Colombia. Soaring gas prices are not just a problem for the American
consumer, they are a problem for the American soldier, sailor, airman, and marine. They are a problem for
our national security. The longer we sit idle and do nothing to increase our domestic energy production, the
more money we ship overseas and the more likely it is to empower the threatening actions of some of
America’s staunchest enemies.
- 36 -
PERMITS AFF
Oil Dependence Bad—Iran
US Foreign Oil Funds Iran Nuclear Program

It doesn’t just stop there. As we know, President Mahmud Ahmadinejad in Iran is enjoying all the money
America is sending to him and other countries when they purchase oil, with a price tag now of $135 a
barrel. We can’t afford to forget that oil is a global commodity used by every country throughout the world,
so money spent on oil imports from the Middle East or anywhere benefits Iran. Iran is continuing its effort
to develop nuclear technology, depicted at these compounds in Bushehr and Natanz, depicted on these
maps. It is clear that Iran has nuclear ambitions to build nuclear weapons to dominate the Middle East and,
frankly, represents a threat to world peace. So money spent on oil imports from the Middle East or
anywhere actually benefits Iran, and they use that money to pursue their nuclear ambitions.
Iran is continuing its efforts to develop nuclear technology with the obvious goal of producing nuclear
weapons. The last thing we need to do is to provide a steady stream of money to a man who openly pledges
to ‘‘wipe Israel off the map’’ and promises that the United States, along with Israel, ‘‘will soon be
destroyed.’’ Aside from Iran’s very troubling nuclear ambitions, U.S. military commanders have seen very
clear evidence of Iranian involvement of Iraq. We have heard from General Petraeus and Ambassador
Crocker about Iran’s attempts to destabilize Iraq. What is worse, we have heard reports of the Iranians
training militias and ‘‘special groups’’ in Iraq, both of whom have been a major source of violence and
instability there. Even more concerning, we have seen reports that Iran has been providing advanced
improvised explosive devices called explosively formed penetrators that have been and continue to be used
to kill and injure American soldiers in Iraq. As I have said, Iran has been linked to explosively formed
penetrators used to kill American troops, and while these penetrators make up only a small percentage of
the overall number of IEDs in Iraq, they generate a disproportionate share of American casualties.
- 37 -
PERMITS AFF
Oil Advantage—Peak Impact
Oil peak causes global conflict and economic decline

The Globe and Mail (Canada), 4/8/2008
Matt Simmons sounds the alarm like the Cassandra of the oil industry, warning that crude production has
peaked and that looming energy shortages could derail global growth and even spark armed conflict.
As a prominent "peak oil" theorist, the veteran oil industry financier paints a grim picture of a world facing
resource scarcity. Still, it doesn't take a "peak-ist" to conclude that the global oil producers will find it
increasingly difficult to keep up with growing demand.
He squared off yesterday against other experts who argue that the world has yet to reach the physical limits
of oil production. But while they disagreed on the extent of the problem, the panelists at a U.S. Department
of Energy conference in Washington concurred that future crude production will be constrained by
physical, economic and political factors that add up to tight markets and higher oil prices.
Despite oil prices that have topped $100 (U.S.) a barrel, there was little sense at yesterday's conference, put
on by the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, that high prices would spark either a
boost in oil output or a sharp fall in global demand.
Record pump prices - and a sharply slowing economy - have cut into U.S. demand, which represents 25 per
cent of the world's total. But analysts who follow the emerging economies said there is no sign yet that
triple-digit crude prices have seriously dented demand in China or India.
Global demand for oil will continue to grow, analysts forecast, even as the developed world reduces
consumption in the face of high prices and environmental concerns. Economic growth and rising living
standards in developing countries like China, India and the Middle East will more than offset reduced
energy consumption in the mature economies of North America and Europe.
The views of Mr. Simmons, who runs Houston-based Simmons & Assoc. investment bank, bordered on
apocalyptic.
Oil shortages "could lead to social chaos and war," he warned. "The issue is the most serious risk to
sustaining the 21st century. Peak oil is real, and we have to take it seriously." He argued that production
of conventional crude peaked in May, 2005, at 74 million barrels a day.
- 38 -
PERMITS AFF
Oil Advantage—Resource War Brink
World in severe oil crisis

China daily 6/10/08
As the price of oil exceeds $135 a barrel, Goldman Sachs, the New York investment bank, predicts that
the oil price will reach $200 a barrel in the next year. Mamdouh Salameh, advisor to the World Bank and
UN Industrial Development Organization, said that if not for the Iraq War, the oil price would be $40 a
barrel today. It is the United States' and Britain's invasion that led to the current oil crisis. Iraq apart,
although speculation must play a part, there are two fundamental reasons why the world is in a severe oil
crisis. First, there are many signs that oil is "peaking" - that is the amount one can extract from the
ground is getting less and less, so it is becoming difficult to increase production. Second, unlike the oil
crisis of the 1970s, when politics was involved, the present crisis is much more severe and in so far as
there is a shortage of oil in the ground and the world being unprepared for alternative fuel to replace it,
the problem is basically insoluble.
World will enter resource wars in near future

China daily 6/10/08
Effectively there is oil in everything we use. Plastics and pharmaceuticals are all oil based. About 10
calories of oil are burned to produce each calorie of food in the US and farming a single cow and getting
it to market uses as much oil as driving 4600 km by car. More food will have to be produced locally
rather than transported from far away. Oil is a key component in fertilizers. Expect a great rise in food
prices. Poor countries will be hit by both high fuel and food prices. China and India may have to slow
down their industrial growth rates as the whole world's growth rate slows down. Whenever there is a
scarcity of a raw material, like oil or water, expect conflict, starting from verbal skirmishes eventually
growing into military conflicts. It is a rule that big nations try to gobble up small nations which have
more resources. Back we go to Iraq. The future is not pretty.
- 39 -
PERMITS AFF
Oil Advantage—Peak Uniqueness
Oil outlook ominous

The Toronto Star 6/27/08 LexisNexis CN
There are many in the oil industry, including noted industry veterans like Matthew Simmons and Boone
Pickens, who believe we are now at peak oil. Consumers need to understand that oil prices are not set by
oil companies; oil prices are set by traders on world commodity markets. The fat bottom lines in the oil
industry are because the price has increased 600 per cent in the past decade. It's no different than buying
a house for $50,000 in 1999 and selling it for $350,000 in 2008. Is that greed, smart investing or just
good luck? Rather than boycotting gas stations or writing letters to the newspaper, our society needs to
take aggressive action to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, and that must happen now. We've built our
entire societies around easy access to cheap energy, and that era is ending. If we fail to recognize the
severity of this problem immediately, the global economy will face a recession of unparalleled
proportions.
Many countries already begun to hit peak

Christan Science Monitor 5/28/08 LexisNexis CN
The Kremlin often touts Russia's image as an "energy superpower," but now the country's oil production
is declining. Some say Russia may have already reached peak oil output. Underscoring the urgency of
the issue, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's new cabinet made its first order of business on Monday the
approval of a package of measures to relieve the oil-production crisis. "It's a good first step," says
Natalia Milchakova, an oil and gas analyst for Otkritiye, a Moscow-based brokerage firm. But she adds
that "rapidly slowing" oil production, which was growing by more than 10 percent five years ago, isn't
"something that can be quickly fixed with political declarations."As the world's second-largest oil
exporter, Russia joins a growing number of top oil suppliers wrestling with how to address declining or
peaking production. Like Venezuela and Mexico, Russia is heavily dependent on oil, which accounts for
more than two-thirds of government revenue and 30 percent of the country's gross domestic product.
Now, Moscow is trying to remedy a situation caused in part by outdated technology, heavy taxation of
oil profits, and lack of investment in oil infrastructure.
Oil crisis spreading around the world

Herald Sun 5/29/08
European leaders are calling for greater international action to halt spiralling oil prices amid an outbreak
of furious public protests. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown called for a cut in oil taxes across
Europe. The comments came as fishermen and truck drivers across the continent demonstrated against
the soaring cost of fuel. In London on Tuesday, hundreds of truck drivers parked along one of Britain's
busiest roads, the A40, leaving vehicles nose to tail for 3km. Nothing got past the blockade unless it was
on foot. Organisers warned hauliers could re-create the kind of stoppages that brought chaos to Britain
eight years ago, as the industry faces an increasingly desperate crisis. British truck drivers are paying
1.61 euros ($A2.64) a litre for diesel, compared with 0.74 euros ($A1.21) a litre in the US. French riot
police cleared fishermen from a key oil depot in the south of the country, as Spanish fishermen extended
a strike and Spanish truck drivers threatened to join in. Italian and Greek fishermen may also start strikes
this week. In a radio interview, Mr Sarkozy said: ``I want to ask the question to our European partners --
if oil continues to increase, should we not suspend the VAT (value added tax) on the price of oil?'' The
effect of rising fuel prices on fishermen and transport companies has steadily gained attention in the
continent. French consumers pay about 19.6 per cent VAT on the price of fuel. Mr Sarkozy said he could
not take a unilateral decision to suspend or cap the fuel tax but he warned the price of oil, already at
record highs of more than $US130 a barrel, ``is going to continue to increase''. French Prime Minister
Francois Fillon said the country had to increase its nuclear power to address the problem, adding: ``We
are dealing with a long-term increase of the price of oil.''
- 40 -
PERMITS AFF
__________
**AT Disads
- 41 -
PERMITS AFF
AT Economy DA
Cost may be expensive now but will only increase in the future; must address
climate issues now to avoid future harms; ,multiple studies indicate
Costs of Inaction
The claim that climate protection is “too expensive” treats it like a discretionary expense – perhaps like a
luxury car or exotic vacation that is beyond this year’s budget. No harm is done by walking away from a
high-end purchase that you can’t quite afford.
But if we walk away from climate protection, we will be walking into danger. Unless we act now, the
climate disruption will continue to worsen, with health, economic, and environmental costs far greater than
the price of protection. Scholars and economists have only begun a serious assessment of the costs of
inaction but it is clear from their work that it is climate disruption, not climate protection programs, which
will wreck the economy.
The Stern Review, sponsored by the British government and directed by Sir Nicholas Stern, formerly the
chief economist at the World Bank, estimated that 5 percent of world economic output would be lost, given
a narrowly defined estimate of economic damages. Add in an estimate for environmental damage and for
the increased chance of an abrupt climate change catastrophe, and Stern’s estimates of losses from climate
disruption climb to 11 percent or more of world economic output.
A recent report released by researchers at Tufts University, commissioned by NRDC, builds on the Stern
Review and presents two ways of estimating the costs of inaction to the United States, both leading to
staggering bottom lines. A comprehensive estimate, based on state-of-the-art computer modeling, finds that
doing nothing on global warming will cost the United States economy more than 3.6 percent of GDP - or
$3.8 trillion annually (in today’s dollars) - by 2100.
In addition, a detailed, bottom-up analysis finds that just four categories of global warming impacts --
hurricane damage, real estate losses, increased energy costs and water costs -- will add up to a price tag of
1.8 percent of U.S. GDP, or almost $1.9 trillion annually (in today’s dollars) by 2100. Costs and damages
for the four detailed categories cited in the report if global warming continues include:
Hurricane damages: $422 billion
Real estate losses: $360 billion
Increased energy costs: $141 billion
Water costs: $950 billion
Global warming is already melting sea ice and glaciers that will contribute significantly to sea level rise.
Sea level is expected to rise 23 inches in 2050 and 45 inches by 2100, with grave impacts expected for the
Southeastern U.S. By 2100, an estimated $360 billion per year will be spent on damaged or destroyed
residential real estate in the United States as a result of the rising sea levels inundating low-lying coastal
properties. The effects of climate change will also be felt in the form of more severe heat waves,
hurricanes, droughts, fires, and other erratic weather events—and in their impact on our economy’s bottom
line.
- 42 -
PERMITS AFF
AT Economy DA
Action now is seen as necessary; plan would actually assist economic growth if
implemented now
Costs and Benefits of Action
The debate on global warming in Washington has turned decisively from "Is it a problem?" to "What
are we going to do about it and how much is it going to cost?" In fact, we can't afford not to
solve global warming. Economic analyses of the cost of reducing global warming pollution do not attempt to tally the
benefits of preventing global warming. As the studies just discussed make clear, the costs of inaction are likely to
swamp the costs of reducing emissions.
Even considering only the direct economic implications, it is clear that action to reduce global warming pollution
presents opportunities as well as costs, as recognized by the business and environmental leaders that have formed
the US Climate Action Partnership. We need only look to California as a prime example of how
aggressive implementation of climate friendly energy efficiency measures has been
accompanied by strong economic growth.
Due to these measures, California’s per capita electricity consumption has been level over the last
30 years while that of the US as a whole has steadily increased. Per capita electricity consumption in
California is now more than 40 percent lower than in the rest of the country. Meanwhile,
from 1990 to 2005 the California economy grew by more than 50 percent in real terms, an
average annual growth rate of 2.9 percent3. And from 2003-2006 California has had an average annual real growth rate of 4 percent,
while nationally the growth rate was 3.1 percent per year.
The results of recent economic studies analyzing the costs of global warming cap and
trade bills have shown that we can cut our global warming pollution substantially in a
manner that is affordable for consumers and the US economy as a whole. A number of
agencies and organizations have made forecasts of the economic impacts of the
Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (CSA), which was reported from the Environment and Public Works
Committee on December 5, 2007 and considered on the floor of the Senate during the week of June 2, 2008.
The most important result from these studies of that particular bill is that, regardless of whether
the study is a peer-reviewed academic or government analysis, or a non-peer reviewed industry-backed forecast, one prediction is the
same:per capita household income (as measured by per capita gross domestic product, or GDP) will not
decrease from today’s levels. In fact, all of the projections forecast robust economic growth
and increasing household incomes, despite the limits on global warming pollution contained
in the CSA6. The most pessimistic GDP projection, from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), predicts GDP increasing by
about 73.5 to 74.4 percent between 2007 and 2030. The business-as-usual projection (i.e. growth without climate policy) for this study
is growth of 74.9 percent.
Thus, macroeconomic cost analyses of the Lieberman-Warner bill suggest that climate
change regulation can be enacted at little cost. Even the most pessimistic studies predict
only modest decreases in GDP growth (as opposed to decreases in current GDP levels), and all the studies
exclude the costs of inaction, which will likely greatly exceed these costs. Further, when
provisions in recently enacted energy legislation (EISA) and proposed climate legislation are
included in cost analyses, reductions in GDP growth are almost imperceptible.
- 43 -
PERMITS AFF
AT Economy DA
Job shifting would allow for no net loss in jobs; new technologies would create
employment and energy cost opportunities
With regard to employment, high cost studies forecast dire consequences. Again, unrealistic assumptions
are needed to reach these results:
High-cost studies ignore the jobs that will be retained and created in producing and installing low-carbon
technologies, despite the provisions in EISA and CSA discussed above. Again, history serves as a guide:
prior to SO2 regulation, millions of lost jobs were forecasted by industry that never materialized.
High cost studies also predict dire consequences for household energy costs. To arrive at this result, high-
cost studies assume energy efficiency measures that are currently cost-competitive with fossil fuels will not
be increasingly adopted. This assumption is based on the premise that consumers, firms, and the
government are currently using all available cost-effective energy efficiency measures, i.e., there is no
waste in energy consumption patterns. But experts in energy efficiency find significant opportunities for
energy efficiency improvements that are not now widely used due to various market barriers. A recent
report by McKinsey & Company, supported by several major energy companies and others, found that
almost 40 percent of the abatement required by 2030 could be achieved at “‘negative’ marginal cost.” These
costs are shown in Figure 4 below. All of the reduction strategies that are below the line represent strategies
like energy efficiency that actually save money.
Other problematic assumptions in cost studies with higher estimates include:
High-cost studies assume firms have very little flexibility in finding ways to reduce emissions. Compared
to the SO2 trading program, which proved highly flexible in meeting its reduction target without special
provisions increasing firms’ compliance options, proposed CO2 regulation gives firms numerous ways to
satisfy their requirements, such as international trading, offsets, and borrowing. Further, because so many
more sectors are covered under CO2 regulation than was the case for SO2 regulation, the possibilities for
creativity are likely to be substantially higher in a CO2 trading program.
High-cost studies assume rising energy costs will put U.S. products at a competitive disadvantage relative
to other countries’ goods, causing U.S. firms to suffer losses, despite the fact that in the Lieberman-Warner
bill there are generous provisions in the bill to offset higher costs in energy-intensive industries. In addition,
with the exception of a handful of industries, for more than 30 years economists have found no evidence of
firms moving to developing countries for their weaker environmental regulations. The explanation is
simple: labor cost differences overwhelm any potential regulatory cost differences for nearly all firms. For
example, labor accounts for roughly 70 percent of production costs in the United States, sometimes
dwarfing wages in China by a factor of 20 to 1.
- 44 -
PERMITS AFF
AT Economy DA
Caps would generate revenue from allowances; price increases would act as
incentives for companies and consumers to comply; selling allowances would be
better for the economy
A cap-and-trade program, like a tax on CO2 emissions, could raise a significant amount of revenue because
the value of the allowances created under such a program would probably be substantial. For example, in
2012, the value of the emission allowances that would be issued under S. 2191 would be roughly $145
billion, CBO estimates. As the cap that is included in that legislation became more stringent over time, the
value of the allowances would grow. A key decision for policymakers is whether to sell emission
allowances, thereby capturing their value in the form of federal revenue, or give them away.
Under a cap-and-trade program, firms would not ultimately bear most of the costs of the allowances but
instead would pass them along to their customers in the form of higher prices. Such price increases would
stem from the restriction on emissions and would occur regardless of whether the government sold
emission allowances or gave them away. Indeed, the price increases would be essential to the success of a
cap-and-trade program because they would be the most important mechanism through which businesses
and households would be encouraged to make investments and behavioral changes that reduced CO2
emissions.
Policymakers’ decisions about whether to sell or give away the allowances could significantly affect the
overall economic cost of capping CO2 emissions and the way gains and losses from such a program were
distributed among U.S. households. A policy of giving away rather than selling a large share of the
allowances could be more costly to the economy and impose disproportionately large burdens on low-
income households.
• Evidence suggests that the cost to the economy of a 15 percent cut in U.S. emissions (not counting any
benefits from mitigating climate change) might be more than twice as large if policymakers gave
allowances away than if they sold them and used the revenue to lower current taxes on capital that
discourage economic activity.
• In addition, providing allowances free of charge to energy producers and energy-intensive firms could
create “windfall profits” for relatively high income shareholders of those companies, even though the
emission cap would be likely to cause price increases that would disproportionately affect people at the
lower end of the income scale. Further, allocating allowances without charge would not prevent the loss of
jobs in affected industries because such firms would probably reduce their output in response to higher
prices for carbon-intensive goods and services. Those job losses, in turn, would impose concentrated
income losses in some households and communities.
In contrast, if the government chose to sell emission allowances, it could use some of the revenue from
those sales to offset the disproportionate economic burden that higher prices would impose on low-income
households and to provide transitional assistance to dislocated workers.
CBO has concluded that the federal budget should record the value of allowances that are given away by
the government if the recipients of the allowances could readily convert them into cash. In particular, the
budget should record the value of those allowances, when they are distributed, as both revenues and
outlays. That procedure, which CBO has already applied in its estimates for S. 2191, underscores that
giving away allowances is economically equivalent to auctioning the allowances and then dedicating the
proceeds to the recipients.
- 45 -
PERMITS AFF
AT Fuel DAs
Cap and trade would decrease imports; fuel switching would not take place
One important and interesting finding is that oil imports drop to 35 percent of total oil supply in the middle
years of the period under study due to both lower demand and the use of CCS for Enhanced Oil Recovery
(EOR) that greatly expands domestic production from existing fields. Oil imports rise again between 2035
and 2050 as the EOR resource (estimated at 50 billion barrels) begins to deplete, although they remain
under 60 percent of total oil supply, as compared to more than 80 percent by 2050 in the BAU case.
The analysis also shows that use of domestic offsets and international credits within the limits in the
Lieberman-Warner legislation would significantly reduce compliance costs, while expanded access to
offsets would be of little additional benefit in terms of reducing costs.
This analysis demonstrates that the impact of strong global warming legislation on energy costs is relatively
modest and manageable, particularly if some of the value of emission allowances is invested to spur
deployment of increased energy efficiency, renewable energy and CCS technology.
Finally, refuting industry claims that major fuel switching would occur with enactment of climate
protection legislation a recent report by M.J. Bradley & Associates shows that the emission reductions
required by the Climate Security Act can be achieved in the electric power sector without fuel switching
from coal to natural gas. The study outlines a realistic scenario where increased reliance on efficiency,
renewable resources like wind, solar, and biomass, and carbon dioxide capture from coal power plants can
achieve the near and mid-term reduction goals of the Climate Security Act without significant changes in
reliance on coal, natural gas or nuclear energy to meet U.S. power needs. The analysis assumes:
* efficiency measures that reduce electricity demand by 10 percent below business-as-usual in 2025,
• renewable sources are deployed at approximately twice the current rates, and
• 65GW of coal with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is built by 2025, or about 6 GW a year from
2015-2025.14
A cap combined with focused incentives for these three activities would ensure that the Climate Security
Act's emission reduction requirements can be met with no switching from coal to natural gas.
- 46 -
PERMITS AFF
Price Increases Good

Prices would increase with cap and trade regardless of means of distribution;
increases are necessary to induce changes
Market ForcesWould Determine Who Bore the Costs of a Cap

Obtaining allowances—or taking steps to cut emissions to avoid the need for such allowances—would
become a cost of doing business for firms that were subject to the CO2 cap. However, those
firms would not ultimately bear most of the costs of the allowances. Instead, they would
pass them along to their customers (and their customers’ customers) in the form of higher prices. By
attaching a cost to CO2 emissions, a cap-and-trade program would thus lead to price increases for
energy and energy-intensive goods and services, the production of which contributes the most to those
emissions. Such price increases would stem from the restriction on emissions and would occur regardless of
whether the government sold emission allowances or gave them away. Indeed, the price
increases would be essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program because they
would be the most important mechanism through which businesses and households
would be encouraged to make investments and behavioral changes that reduced CO2
emissions.
The rise in prices for energy and energy-intensive goods and services would impose a
larger burden, relative to income, on low-income households than on high-income households. For example,
without incorporating any benefits to households from lessening climate change, CBO estimated that the price
increases resulting from a 15 percent cut in CO2 emissions would cost the average
household in the lowest one-fifth (quintile) of all households arrayed by income slightly more
than 3 percent of its income; such increases would cost the average household in the top
quintile just under 2 percent of its income (see Table 1). The higher prices that would result from a cap on CO2
emissions would reduce demand for energy and energy-intensive goods and services and
thus create losses for some current investors and workers in the sectors of the economy
that supply such products. Investors might see the value of their stock decline, and workers could face the risk of
unemployment as jobs in those sectors were cut. Stock losses would tend to be widely dispersed among investors, because
shareholders typically diversify their portfolios. In contrast, the costs borne by existing workers would probably be concentrated
among relatively few households and, by extension, their communities.
- 47 -
PERMITS AFF
AT Cap and Trade Hurts Businesses

Selling the allowances would produce revenue to offset economic impact; could be
used to reduce federal deficit; lead to a reduction in taxes
Reducing the Overall Economic Impact of a CO2 Cap

The ways in which lawmakers could allocate the revenue from selling emission
allowances would affect not only the distributional consequences of a cap-and- trade policy but also its total
economic cost. For instance, the government could use the revenue from auctioning
allowances to reduce existing taxes that tend to dampen economic activity—primarily,
taxes on labor, capital, or personal income. As research indicates, a CO2 cap would
exacerbate the economic effects of such taxes: The higher prices caused by the cap would lower real (inflation-
adjusted) wages and real returns on capital, which would be equivalent to raising marginal tax rates on those sources of income.
Using the value of the allowances to reduce such taxes could help mitigate that adverse
effect of the cap. Alternatively, policymakers could choose to use the revenue from
auctioning allowances to reduce the federal deficit. If that reduction lessened the need for future tax
increases, the end result could be similar to dedicating the revenue to cuts in existing taxes.
The decision about whether or not to sell the allowances and use the proceeds in ways
that would benefit the economy could have a significant impact. For example, researchers have
estimated that the efficiency cost (discussed below) of a 15 percent cut in emissions could be
reduced by more than half if the government sold allowances and used the revenue to
lower corporate income taxes, rather than devoting the revenue to providing lump-sum
rebates to households or giving the allowances away (see the bottom panel of Figure 1). The efficiency cost
of a policy reflects the economic losses that occur because prices in the economy are distorted so that they do not reflect the
(nonenvironmental) resources used in their production. That cost includes decreases in the productive use of labor and capital as well
as costs (both monetary and nonmonetary) associated with reducing emissions. To provide perspective on the magnitude of such
efficiency costs, they are depicted as a share of gross domestic product.
- 48 -
PERMITS AFF
________________
**AT Counterplans
- 49 -
PERMITS AFF
AT Free Market CP
Free market approach not good for cap and trade
The Stern Commission cited climate change as the greatest market failure in history. Today, open and
unregulated markets have left the Nation in a housing crisis, soaring food costs, world capital markets in
turmoil, and still dealing with the fallout of Enron. Even as this testimony is being delivered Congress is
looking into the role speculation and futures contracts are playing in oil, grain and commodities markets.
Thus, we remain deeply troubled with a simple market-only approach that is open to speculation and
windfall profits by individuals and entities that have nothing to do with carbon emissions.
The open and “unlimited trading” initially proposed in legislation means that anyone, can buy allowances
from a limited and declining pool. With well over 10,000 firms needing allowances, we reject the notion
that letting additional speculators (those not needing to use carbon emission credit) into the market to create
more liquidity is neither necessary nor desired. However, letting these speculators in will create windfall
profits and drive prices higher leaving consumers and industry to pay the price.
In addition, the ability of purchasers to bank these allowances in perpetuity creates additional risks. While
some would argue that unlimited banking might help business decision making, it also may lend itself to
uncompetitive behavior in search of windfall profits or market advantage.
Open access and unlimited banking leaves the system open to predatory and speculative trading practices,
the hoarding of allowances and windfall profits that will fuel volatile pricing in the market. This will have a
direct and detrimental pricing impact on the public, utilities sector, and energy-intensive industries.
The AFL-CIO believes that the goal of any climate change legislation with a cap and trade program is to
move industries and consumers to change behavior and lower carbon emissions.
The Federation recommends a regulated and restricted approach to the trading of allowances. We believe
that:
• Market participation (as purchasers not sellers) should be limited to firms that intend to use the
allowances. With an accurate carbon footprint and a declining pool of allowances, available prices will rise
but not be artificially inflated by speculators.
• The banking of allowances should be limited and regulated to avoid non-competitive and speculative
behavior. There needs to be a limit on the amount of allowances any particular firm can bank related to its
actual needs. In addition, there should be a "time certain" by which a firm must use the allowances or revert
back to the auction pool. A firm would always be able to reenter the market and bank a limited amount for a
limited duration. These steps will help create a more certain, less speculative, trading environment.
• The allowances and market will be created for buyers and sellers who need to use them. Purchasing and
retirement of allowances should be limited to entities regulated by state performance or efficiency standards
in any sectors covered under the federal cap-and trade program seeking to meet state standards more
stringent than any comparable federal standards, by purchasing and retiring federal allowances.
- 50 -
PERMITS AFF
AT International Actor CP
US must play key role in reduction of CO2 emissions
Chairman Boucher, on behalf of the 9 million members of the AFL-CIO, I want to thank you and the members of the Subcommittee
on Energy and Air Quality of the House Energy and Commerce Committee for the opportunity to testify this afternoon on this
important subject. Our comments will focus on the Federations climate change initiatives in relation to the Climate Security Act of
2008 (S. 3036). Sponsored by Senators Boxer, Lieberman and Warner; the Investing In Climate Action and Protection Act (H.R. 6186)
sponsored by Representative Markey; the Safe Climate Act (H.R. 1590) sponsored by Representative Waxman; and the Low Carbon
Economy Act (S. 1766) sponsored by Senators Bingaman and Specter.
it is time for our nation to take bold steps to meet the 21st Century
The AFL-CIO believes
challenges related to climate change. Scientific evidence has confirmed that human use of
fossil fuels is undisputedly contributing to global warming, causing rising sea levels,
changes in climate patterns and threats to coastal areas. Unrestrained growth in
greenhouse gas emissions poses critical economic and environmental issues. This
challenge is an opportunity to enact an energy policy that will result in a cleaner planet,
greater energy efficiency and the revitalization of our manufacturing base.
The world is looking to the United States for leadership because we are the most energy
intensive nation in the world and one of its leading emitters of greenhouse gas. Our
nation can lead a new technological revolution in the way energy is generated and used
that can be of benefit to the world as a whole and serve as a foundation for the revival of
the middle class in the United States. But to accomplish this, we need a strategic
approach centered on domestic investment in new technologies and good jobs. And we
need to lead in fostering a shared international response to this issue.
- 51 -
PERMITS AFF
AT International Actor CP—Perm

Carbon emissions standards must be international as well as domestic; must
demand same standards from other countries and trading partners
The inclusion of an international section in the Boxer- Lieberman-Warner, Bingaman-Specter, and Markey
bills to assure that our industries and workers are not put at a competitive disadvantage with our trading
partners is an important step forward. The Waxman bill does not address this concern. It has been a critical
issue for our support of any legislation. The AFL-CIO believes that having a dynamic and healthy industrial
base is in the best interest of the Nation and we must do our best to cut our carbon emissions. However, this
cannot be a go it alone proposition.
The participation of developing nations is critical to solving this problem, while assuring the
competitiveness of U.S.-based manufacturing. Mexico and Brazil account for more than half the emissions
from Central and South America. Deforestation is estimated to account for 20-30 percent of carbon
emissions with the burning of forests in the Amazon basin acting as a major contributor.
In 2007 China passed the United States in carbon emissions. They have a new "1950’s technology" coal
plant coming online every week with 500 plants being planned. They are dirty but cheap to build.
Unabated, by 2030 China’s emission will grow 139 percent and make up 26 percent of the world’s total.
They and other major developing nations must be part of the solution or everything we the EU and other
nations do to cut carbon emissions will be for naught.
There is a second economic implication of the non-participation of these nations. China and other rapidly
developing countries are already a magnet for manufacturers seeking to avoid labor, environmental,
currency and other standards. Seventy percent of China’s foreign direct investment is in manufacturing,
with heavy concentration in export-oriented companies and advanced technology sectors. Much of this
energy resource will be dedicated to China’s manufacturing export platforms, which already account for
nearly 40 percent of Chinese GDP.
To put it bluntly, it is not in our national interest to see our efforts to reduce carbon emissions become yet
another advantage that a developing nation uses to attract business. However, it is in our interest and the
worlds interest to have developing nations become part of the solution because the problem cannot be
solved without them.
While we applaud the inclusion of international language in the Senate and Markey bills there is more that
can be done to strengthen them. For example, the coverage should include more finished products. The
AFL-CIO stands ready to work with Congress to address the critical issue of international competitiveness.
- 52 -
PERMITS AFF
AT States CP
USFG legislation should supercede any conflicting state legislation
Many states have enacted or are considering measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This includes
state or regional cap-and-trade programs, performance or efficiency standards relating to autos, utilities,
fuels and other sectors covered under the cap in the federal legislation, as well as, initiatives in areas
outside of the cap (e.g. building codes, conservation, transportation planning).
The Boxer-Lieberman-Warner, Markey and Waxman bills all preserve existing state authority to regulate
greenhouse gases. However, the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner and Markey bills also supersede pending
litigation over the scope of that authority, and make it clear that California and other states may regulate
auto CO2 tailpipe emissions. In addition, the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner, Markey and Waxman bills all fail
to deal with the important issue of how state climate change measures - whatever their scope - will
interface with the federal cap-and-trade program
In exchange for the establishment of the federal cap-and-trade program, the states should be preempted
from having state or regional cap-and-trade programs affecting the sectors covered under federal
legislation. This would prohibit state programs that cap emissions from the electric power, transportation or
industrial sectors, or require the purchase, sale or retirement of allowances in these sectors. This is
necessary to prevent regulated entities from having to submit duplicative allowances for the same ton of
carbon, and to establish a level national playing field for an economy-wide emissions trading program.
The federal cap-and-trade program should be the exclusive federal authority for dealing with greenhouse
gas emissions from those sectors covered under the cap. This is necessary to prevent EPA from issuing
regulations that impact these sectors and have the effect of overriding the decisions made by Congress in
the cap-and-trade program concerning the stringency of the federal cap, the point of regulation, and the
distribution of economic burdens. EPA should retain any existing authority it may now have under the
Clean Air Act to regulate in sectors that are outside the cap.
Conclusion
The AFL-CIO believes climate change is both a crisis and an opportunity for our nation. By taking the right
legislative steps – timelines, standards and a safety valve sensitive to the economic impacts on business,
workers and communities, assuring that our investments capture the intellectual property of cutting edge
technology, by producing these new technologies and goods domestically, and engaging the developing
world in the solution -- we can have a cleaner planet, greater energy efficiency and a revitalized
manufacturing base. The Federation looks forward to working with Congress to achieve these goals.
- 53 -
PERMITS AFF
AT Allowances CP
Cap and trade prevents windfall profits; generates funds that could be used for
energy efficiency and development; places greater controls on large corporations
Any response to global warming will have an impact on American families. All Americans will benefit
from a cleaner and more efficient economy that is less dependent on foreign oil. But some families may
also experience increased burdens.
It is important, therefore, that any climate policy is designed to maximize the benefits American families
will reap in terms of cleaner air, improved energy efficiency, and greater energy independence, and
minimize the costs they experience in terms of higher energy bills.
To use our resources most effectively, any emission trading program used to comply with a global warming
emission cap must auction, rather than give away, emission allowances, and use the proceeds of that
auction to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy and reduce the cost of the program to
consumers.
Economic research shows that auctioning allowances (along with “recycling” some or all of the revenue
from the auction back to the public) is a less expensive way to achieve emission reductions through cap-and
trade than a free distribution system. For example:
• A study by Resources for the Future estimated that an auction and revenue recycling approach was
roughly half as expensive to society as an allocation system based on “grandfathering” of existing emitters.
Total savings under the auction approach increase as emission-reduction targets become more stringent.xiv
• These results are supported by evidence from other economic modeling efforts suggesting that allowance
auctions, combined with recycling of auction revenues, can allow for emission reductions at lower overall
cost and possibly promote more innovation and better investments in technology.xv
The conclusion that auctioning allowances is less costly to society than giving them away seems to defy
common sense. After all, consumers will mainly see the impact of a cap-and-trade system in higher prices
for energy and some products. If polluters are given allowances for free, one might think that they would
not need to pass the cost of compliance down to consumers, thus saving consumers money.
However, economic research and practical experience show that giving away allowances to polluters
represents the worst of both worlds. Consumers pay more for energy or products as the cost of those
products comes to reflect the cost of global warming pollution – just as they would under a system in which
allowances are auctioned. But instead of the government gaining revenues from allowance auctions, which
could then be used in a variety of ways to reduce the cost of the program, polluters could benefit by
receiving unjustified “windfall” profits – even if they take no action at all to reduce their global warming
emissions.
Windfall profits are a real and significant concern. In the United Kingdom, for example, power producers
have netted an estimated £1 billion (about $1.9 billion) in windfall profits through participation in the
European Union’s Emission Trading Scheme.xvi
By auctioning allowances, we can ensure that precious dollars are not siphoned away to unjustly pad the
profits of Big Oil and other fossil fuel industries. At the same time, we can redirect those dollars toward the
achievement of two important goals: helping Americans make the transition to a clean energy economy, and
making that transition easier by returning some of the money to those who face the greatest burden from
energy costs, particularly low-income consumers.
- 54 -
PERMITS AFF
______________________
**AT Negative Arguments
- 55 -
PERMITS AFF
AT Off Shore Companies

Credits wouldn’t be given to companies moving off shore
Another important investment policy incorporated in the Senate legislation was to impede the ability of
manufacturing firms to game the system simply for financial gain or to drive them offshore. Firms cannot
collect credits for reductions achieved through closures, cutbacks or outsourcing work. Only actively
operating manufacturing facilities (including new facilities) receive allowances, and their allocation is
based on the number of production employees at those U.S. facilities. The point of the system was to
encourage a positive change in the domestic behavior of energy producers and manufacturers while
retaining jobs and our technical capability to produce goods.
- 56 -
PERMITS AFF
International Allowances Bad
Must avoid international allowances; EU proves harm in that philosophy

The use of offsets and international allowances as tools for cost containment needs to be
approached with caution so that the outcomes sought for the long run, a cleaner planet and
viable competitive domestic industries, are achieved. It is in our interest to assure that
domestic industry makes the needed investments in transformational technology. Our concern
is that these investments will be deferred with the easy availability of less expensive offsets
and allowances.
This would be a formula for business closure in future years. In recent meetings with EU officials and
European traders, the AFL-CIO has learned that the EU had the same concerns in mind
with their recently implemented phase II reform. Under their system, offsets are limited on average
to 15% because they fear that too many easily obtained offsets will undermine efforts to
assure that domestic investments for mitigation are made. They want viable competitive clean industries
in their countries. The EU does not have domestic offsets only international offsets. To date
their experience with international offsets has been problematical and filled with concerns
over the validity of these offsets.
The AFL-CIO remains concerned about the ability to monitor the legitimacy of domestic
and foreign offsets. The Boxer-Lieberman-Warner legislation recognized these concerns
and took steps to assure their legitimacy. However, this bears further examination. Project based
international offsets may interfere with the adoption of a systematic carbon emission
regime in the nation selling the offsets. Additionally, offsets must be both verifiable and there
must be enforcement mechanisms in place to assure that investments into allowable
offsets actually result in the reductions of green house gasses.
The idea should be to use these tools to help a firm balance that transition, but not to avoid making needed industry investments.
The need for flexibility in the use of offsets and international allowances should be
tempered with requirements that the purchasers must also be making progress with
domestic investments to improve carbon emission performance. This needs to be made
explicit in the legislation.
- 57 -
PERMITS AFF
___________
**AT Kritiks
- 58 -
PERMITS AFF
Inaction Bad
Inaction will lead to catastrophes; persons will need to be prepared for them
Inaction on climate change also increases the chance of an abrupt, irreversible catastrophe, which would be
much worse than the predictable costs of inaction discussed above. This point is emphasized in the Stern
Review, and the economic analysis behind it is supported by recent research by Harvard University
economist Martin Weitzman. The collapse and complete melting of either the Greenland or West Antarctic
ice sheets would cause sea levels to rise by 20 feet or more, causing devastation of coastal cities and
regions where a large fraction of the American population lives. No one can say for certain at what
temperature this will occur, but it becomes more likely as the world warms. We are taking a gamble, where
the stakes are unbelievably high and the odds get worse the longer we stay on our current course.
In the future, global warming will cause drastic changes to the planet’s climate, with average likely
temperature increases of as much as 13 degrees Fahrenheit in most of the United States and 18 degrees
Fahrenheit in Alaska over the next 100 years. This will change the nature of where Americans live. By
2100, New York City will feel like Las Vegas does today and San Francisco will have a climate comparable
to that in New Orleans. In 2100, Boston will have average temperatures similar to those in Memphis,
Tennessee today.
No sensible person bets his or her home on a spin of the roulette wheel. But inaction on climate change is
betting the only home humanity has. Who knows, we might get lucky and win the bet; a few scientists still
doubt that hurricanes are getting worse. But the consequences of a bad bet are enormous. Without arguing
that Katrina was “caused” by global warming, the misery it caused the people of Louisiana and Mississippi
and the continuing economic turmoil it produced are wake-up calls that show how much harm a disrupted
climate can produce.
A catastrophe, such as 20 feet or more of sea level rise, is not certain to occur; we don’t know enough today
to say how quickly we may lock in these catastrophic events with current emission paths. But homeowners
buy fire insurance, although they are not likely to have a fire next year; healthy young parents buy life
insurance to protect their children, although they are not likely to die next year. The most catastrophic
dangers from climate change are so immense that even if we believe the chance of catastrophe is small, it is
irresponsible to ignore them. Taking action against climate change is life insurance for our home planet,
needed to protect everyone’s children.
- 59 -
PERMITS AFF
__________
**Negative
- 60 -
PERMITS AFF
No Rapid Warming
National security concerns heighten with rapid change; such change not likely
Lane 08 (Lee, Resident Fellow American Enterprise Institute; National Security Implications of Climate Change;
Hearing of The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Select Committee on Energy Independence
and Global Warming; June 25, 2008
The above discussion focuses on gradual and continuous climate change. Faster change cannot, however, be entirely ruled out. In the
past, climate has sometimes shifted in the course of a few decades. This has led to at least
one effort to identify the national security effects of hypothetical abrupt high impact
climate change. The problem with such exercises is that the science is too uncertain to allow for much
useful analysis or policy planning. The experience of the 2003 report commissioned by the Pentagon’s
Office of Net Assessment illustrates the point. In this report, the authors asserted: “Rather than
decades or even centuries of gradual warming, recent evidence suggests that a more dire climate
scenario may actually be unfolding.”
The report proceeded to sketch a series of Dantesque consequences. Of these, perhaps the most
startling was that North America and Europe would be plunged into a climatic arid deep freeze.
These predictions of imminent doom, however, drew scathing comments from the scientific
experts, and the latest IPCC report finds that the consensus of the models is that Europe,
far from freezing, is likely to continue warming throughout the 21st Century. It is hard to
see how repeating the experience of the 2003 report is going to provide a more useful
guide to future policy than emerged from that effort.
- 61 -
PERMITS AFF
Unilateral Action Fails
US won’t be able to coerce countries into greenhouse gas reductions; unilateral

efforts not good enough
As Scott Barrett of Johns Hopkins has commented, the task of forging an international agreement to curtail
GHG emissions requires costly affirmative efforts by many nations, an especially difficult challenge for the
international system. Yet international cooperation is essential for GHG controls to be effective. While the
United States is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, it is not the biggest. China is. China is also the
fastest growing source. China, however, flatly refuses to curb emissions in any way that would slow its
economic growth. So do other poor, but fast growing, nations. Emissions from China, India, and similar
countries are rising so rapidly that their growth is likely to swamp the effects of whatever America does.
Thus, without the active cooperation of the Asian and South American nations, the U.S. and Europe cannot
even prevent the continued growth of annual emissions. Yet the fast growing Asian countries have refused
to accept the costs of controlling emissions, and at least some economic analysis suggests that they are
being economically rational to continue doing so.
Problems raised by attempts to reduce emissions
This impasse has brought some in Congress to the point of considering trade sanctions as part of legislation
to control domestic GHG emissions. Such provisions would clamp sanctions on China, India, and other
countries that refuse to adopt GHG curbs. Clearly, this step would affect America’s relations with the
countries it sought to coerce. Whether the resulting conflicts would rise to the level of a national security
concern is, I suppose, a matter of judgment. It would certainly put additional strains on the international
trade regime. These implications of coercive climate diplomacy are worthy of consideration as part of the
larger question.
Similarly, some of the technologies likely to become part of a GHG reduction strategy pose risks of their
own. Nuclear power has certainly raised various security concerns. Biofuels now stand accused of
worsening the global food crisis. In both cases, attempting to greatly expand the use of these technologies
would encounter serious resource constraints. Future technological progress may erase these problems, or
at least ease them. That such progress will occur and when is, however, unclear.
My point is not either anti-nuclear or anti-biofuels. I hope that both can play a part in the solution. Many
other technologies will also be needed. Both technologies involve some risk. Climate policy is about
balancing these risks against those of climate change whether or not we call the risks matters of national
security.
- 62 -
PERMITS AFF
Solvency—No Technology
Technologies not advanced enough yet to solve for warming; lag times will take
decades
Without new technologies that lower the costs of cutting emissions, it seems hard to
believe that a global consensus on reducing emissions is likely to form. Fortunately, the long
run outlook for new technology is fairly bright. Past funding for research in sciences that are potentially
relevant to greenhouse gas reductions may mean that many new discoveries are already, “in the pipeline.” And analysis done
for the U.S. Department of Energy has shown that speculative, but plausible, progress on
some key technologies could reduce the costs of stabilizing greenhouse gas
concentrations by, literally, trillions of dollars.
A closer look, though, also suggests caution and patience. The technological solutions to climbing
levels of greenhouse gases may be slower than we would hope and less than perfect when
they arrive. It is worth examining four important reasons for believing that patience will be required.
First, solutions will require new scientific knowledge, not just new gadgets. The widely cited
Hoffert et al 2002 Science article, observed that existing technologies and the expected extensions of
them were wholly inadequate to the task of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations. The
article also argued that nothing less than multiple large breakthroughs in basic science could
create the revolutionary new technologies that were needed. However, ex ante, the outcome of R&D is
notoriously uncertain. Will the progress envisioned by Edmonds materialize? If it does, when? There is far more doubt than would be
the case were we considering the simple extension of existing technologies.
Second, a long lag often occurs between the discovery of new scientific knowledge and its
first use in new processes or products. Another lag is common before the latter succeed in an engineering and
economic sense. And the perfected innovation may take a long while to diffuse through the
economy. Economist Nathan Rosenberg has explained very clearly why the process is so time consuming, but the upshot is that
the full economic payoff of discoveries in basic science is often realized only after
several decades.
Third, in the case of climate, the lags are likely to be especially long because the
innovations must diffuse across most of the globe. Innovations made in America or Japan
may not fit market and institutional conditions in China and India until they have been adapted
to local conditions. Those conditions may differ widely from those prevailing where the invention originated. In climate
technology, therefore, we might expect the diffusion process to be unusually long. An approach like
carbon capture and storage, the use of which depends completely on government policy, may have an especially hard time in countries
like China and India, where governments are most unlikely to foster it.
- 63 -
PERMITS AFF
Solvency—No Technology
Incentive for R&D is not as good as it could be; don’t know where the technology
needs to go
Fourth, at this point, we do not know what technologies are likely to meet the need. It may be space-
it
based solar power. It may be nuclear with fuel recycling. It may be microbes that produce fuel. Or, to cite Jae Edmonds again,
may be something of which we cannot conceive until a future breakthrough in basic
science opens our eyes to its possibility. One implication is that the problem here is quite
different from that involved in the Apollo or Manhattan Projects. There, the scientists had
a relatively clear concept of what they were looking for. Here, our vision of the goal is
much cloudier.
However, many of the innovations needed to solve the climate problem depend on new
discoveries in basic science. The economic rewards of such discoveries, although they can be very
large for society as a whole, are notoriously difficult to capture for the organization that makes the
discovery. As a result, a large gap develops between the level of private R&D investments
and the level that would be optimal for society as a whole. Patents, tax credits, and
subsidies are designed to remedy the resulting R&D shortfall, but apparently they are
only partly successful. The gap between actual R&D investment and the optimal level
appears to be large. In the U.S., for example, R&D investment is, according to some estimates, only about a quarter
of the optimal level.
- 64 -
PERMITS AFF
AT Schwartz & Randall Study

Schwartz & Randall didn’t take factors into account when they published their
speculative study; climate change policies may hurt military readiness
Lewis 08 (Marlo, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute; National Security Implications of Climate
Change; Hearing of The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Select Committee on Energy
Independence and Global Warming; June 25, 2008;
http://globalwarming.house.gov/tools/2q08materials/files/0068.pdf
An egregious example of this one-sided approach was the October 2003 study for the Defense Department
by Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall, entitled, “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications
for United States National Security.” The study hypothesizes what might happen to the global economy and
international stability if the Atlantic thermohaline circulation shuts down and the climate rapidly
deteriorates into ice age-like conditions. In page after pulse-pounding page, the authors describe a world
convulsed by famine, food riots, water shortages, energy shortages, trade wars, mass environmental refugee
migrations, and armed conflict within and among nations.
Schwartz and Randall even hint that abrupt climate change would make nuclear war more likely:
In this world of warring states, nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable. As cooling drives up demand,
existing hydrocarbon supplies are stretched thin. With a scarcity of energy supply—and a growing need for
access—nuclear energy will become a critical source of power, and this will accelerate nuclear proliferation
as countries develop enrichment and reprocessing capabilities to ensure their national security.
The authors predictably recommend that DOD invest in modeling capabilities to forecast how and where
abrupt climate change could occur, the impacts on global food, water, and energy supplies, and the
implications for national security.
Notice what they leave out. The report does not consider whether climate change policy could adversely
affect the U.S. industrial base, the combat readiness of U.S. armed forces, global food and energy supplies,
or international stability. Nor does it advise DOD to assess these risks in future studies.
So let’s consider some of the geopolitical risks global warming policies may create.
“Money,” an old adage declares, “is the sinews of war.” If we learned anything from the Cold War, it is that
economic power is the foundation of military power. The Soviet Union imploded because it lacked the
economic base to support its military and geopolitical empire. U.S. economic might was critical to winning
the Cold War—as it was to winning World War I and World War II.
At the risk of belaboring the obvious, there is always in democratic politics a tradeoff between guns and
butter. It is harder in tough economic times than in prosperous times to raise the funds required to recruit,
train, and equip the armed forces. It is harder to sustain public support for military interventions abroad
when unemployment and malaise are rising on the home front. So to the extent that climate policies pose a
risk to U.S. economic growth, they also pose a risk to U.S. military strength and defense preparedness.
- 65 -
PERMITS AFF
Biofuels Bad
Biofuels take away potential food crops; forces choices by farmers in other countries
as well as the US; exacerbates problems it is supposed to solve
Today’s food price inflation has several causes including a weak dollar, high oil prices, drought, and
surging demand in India and China. But one factor fueling this crisis is a global warming policy—
government subsidies and mandates for corn ethanol production. Biofuels provide only about 1.5 percent of
total motor fuel liquids, yet they accounted for almost half the increase in global consumption of major
food crops in 2006-07, according to the World Bank. More aggressive efforts to replace petroleum with
biofuels could literally starve the hungry, creating chaos and conflict.
Schwartz and Randall warn that abrupt climate change will create millions of environmental refugees
fleeing across borders to escape from hunger and water shortages. Millions of illegal migrants already cross
the U.S. southern border from Mexico. Poor Mexicans obtain 40 percent of their daily calories from
tortillas, and the U.S. ethanol program, by inflating the price of corn, contributed to a “tortilla crisis” in
Mexico. Burning food in gas tanks exacerbates the poverty that is a root cause of illegal migration. Expect
biofuel refugees as the mandates ramp up. Schwartz and Randall warn that abrupt climate change, by
intensifying winter storms and expanding sea ice, could reduce the availability of gas and oil, leading to
conflict over dwindling resources. Well, this implies that non-abrupt climate change, which is far more
likely, could make gas and oil more available by opening up the long-sought Northwest Passage.
More importantly, since Kyoto-style policies aim to restrict access to fossil fuels, they too have the
potential to engender conflicts over energy. Cap-and-trade programs force participants to compete over
diminishing shares of a shrinking pie. That is how cap-andtrade is supposed to work. When it doesn’t work
that way—as in phase one of the European Emissions Trading System—it is because companies and/or
governments are cheating.
As noted earlier, Schwartz and Randall warn that abrupt climate change could expand the use of nuclear
power and endanger peace via proliferation. My guess is that a 50-percent global emission reduction target
and a global ban on new coal plants would grow the nuclear industry faster than would abrupt climate
change. I’m not fearful of nuclear power, but most environmental groups remain staunchly anti-nuke. Do
they really suppose that poor nations will consent to ban coal as an electricity fuel and not demand access
to nuclear power?
- 66 -
PERMITS AFF
No Rapid Warming
Abrupt climate change scenarios overestimate impact of current condition; US
would leadership is continue to advocate global change policies
The likely response to the foregoing is that even the most aggressive Kyoto-style policies would not
endanger world peace and global stability as much as would abrupt climate change. I frankly do not know.
Mandating 80- and even 90-percent reductions in U.S. emissions by 2050, as Vice President Gore
advocates, mandating a 50-percent cut in emissions worldwide, banning new coal plants around the world,
and attempting to enforce these policies through trade sanctions would, in my judgment, would create
endless conflicts and destroy America’s leadership in the world.
But let’s stipulate for the sake of argument that abrupt climate change is potentially a greater security threat.
Nonetheless, if the Schwartz-Randall scenario is implausible, we would be unwise to adopt geo-politically
risky policies in the hope of averting it. Schwartz and Randall postulate that global warming increases the
amount of fresh water entering the North Atlantic from glaciers, the Greenland ice sheet, rainfall, and river
discharges. In their scenario, as the surface of the North Atlantic becomes fresher, it also becomes less
dense. The less dense it becomes, the more slowly it sinks. Eventually—Schwartz and Randall postulate as
soon as 2010—it sinks too slowly to pull warm water up behind it from the tropics. The Atlantic branch of
the thermohaline circulation, or THC,21 popularly known as the oceanic “conveyor belt,” shuts down.
Average annual temperatures fall by 5 degrees Fahrenheit over Asia and North America and up to 6 degrees
Fahrenheit in Europe.”
How likely is this? Schwartz and Randall say this scenario is “plausible” because rapid cooling happened
twice before in our current inter-glacial period, the Holocene. Some scientists believe that a sudden
infusion of fresh water may have disrupted the conveyor belt and caused cooling events 12,800 years ago
and 8,200 years ago. But in both cases, this happened when giant ice dams—relics of the previous ice age
—burst, allowing huge fresh water lakes to drain swiftly into the North Atlantic. An estimated 9,500 cubic
kilometers of fresh water poured into the North Atlantic 12,800 years ago, and more than 100,000 cubic
kilometers 8,200 years ago. The amount of ice melt from Greenland today is a comparative trickle—about
220 cubic kilometers a year.
Is the THC slowing down? In 2005, Harry Bryden and two colleagues at the UK’s National Oceanography
Center reported a 30 percent decline in the THC’s northward flow—only to announce one year later, after
more data came in, that this was a false alarm.
In 2006, Christopher Meinen and two colleagues at the Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological
Laboratory in Miami found no change in the strength of the THC since the late 1980s. Similarly, a team of
German scientists headed by Friedrich Schott found no change over the past decade.28 Another group of
mostly German scientists found an actual strengthening of the THC since 1980.
In its Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summarized the
scientific literature thusly: “Over the last 50 years, no coherent evidence of a trend in the strength of the
meridional overturning circulation [THC] has been found.”
Finally, I would note that not all scientists believe that a shutdown of the Atlantic THC would have the
catastrophic effects on Northern Hemisphere temperatures that Schwartz and Randall postulate. Richard
Seager of Columbia University’s Lamont- Doherty Earth Observatory argues that the key factor sustaining
Europe’s mild winters is a difference in the warmth of the prevailing winds that blow across northeastern
North America and Western Europe. During the winter, “South-westerlies bring warm maritime air into
Europe and north-westerlies bring frigid continental air into north-eastern North America.” If this finding is
correct, then Europe should continue to enjoy mild winters even if global warming weakens the THC.32
- 67 -
PERMITS AFF
Neg—No Oil Peak

Oil peak is a myth
The Independent, 6/9/08. LexisNexis CN
There is more than twice as much oil in the ground as major producers say, according to a former
industry adviser who claims there is widespread misunderstanding of the way proven reserves are
calculated. Although it is widely assumed that the world has reached a point where oil production has
peaked and proven reserves have sunk to roughly half of original amounts, this idea is based on flawed
thinking, said Richard Pike, a former oil industry man who is now chief executive of the Royal Society
of Chemistry. Current estimates suggest there are 1,200 billion barrels of proven global reserves, but the
industry's internal figures suggest this amounts to less than half of what actually exists. The
misconception has helped boost oil prices to an all-time high, sending jitters through the market and
prompting calls for oil-producing nations to increase supply to push down costs. Flying into Japan for a
summit two days after prices reached a record $139 a barrel, energy ministers from the G8 countries
yesterday discussed an action plan to ease the crisis. Explaining why the published estimates of proven
global reserves are less than half the true amount, Dr Pike said there was anecdotal evidence that big oil
producers were glad to go along with under-reporting of proven reserves to help maintain oil's high
price. "Part of the oil industry is perfectly familiar with the way oil reserves are underestimated, but the
decision makers in both the companies and the countries are not exposed to the reasons why proven oil
reserves are bigger than they are said to be," he said. Dr Pike's assessment does not include unexplored
oilfields, those yet to be discovered or those deemed too uneconomic to exploit. The environmental
implications of his analysis, based on more than 30 years inside the industry, will alarm
environmentalists who have exploited the concept of peak oil to press the urgency of the need to find
greener alternatives.
- 68 -
PERMITS AFF
_______
**Disads
- 69 -
PERMITS AFF
Politics Link—Unions
Union task force identifies and supports cap and trade
Over the past 18 months, our interaction with Congress and many other businesses, industry, environmental
and international labor organizations, has helped evolve and sharpen the thinking of the AFL-CIO Energy
Task Force. The February 2007 report by the AFL-CIO Energy Task Force recognized that “reliable and
affordable electrical energy, is the lifeblood of the manufacturing, transportation, construction and service
industries;” …and that we must “maintain diversity in the electric utility industry, by retaining all current
generating options, including fossil fuels, nuclear, hydro and renewables, to ensure a stable, reliable and
low-cost supply of electricity for the United States.”
That report was also driven by our belief that a strong and diverse manufacturing base is in the national
interest. This sector is in a deep and ongoing crisis. Since 1998, some 3.9 million manufacturing jobs were
lost and 35,000 manufacturing facilities closed while the nation amassed trillion of dollars in trade deficits.
The offshoring of skilled work, R&D, design, engineering and more continues to erode our innovative and
technical capacities. Solving the climate change crisis is an opportunity to address the manufacturing crisis
The AFL-CIO supports a new industrial policy, and an environmental economic development policy, which
places manufacturing and trade at the center of a green economy program. New investment in a sustainable
energy infrastructure must be structured to create good jobs and ensure stable energy prices. These must be
supported by effective trade policies. Without these key elements, there is a serious risk of driving good
jobs offshore into nations without emission regimes and far less carbon efficient production.
A set of environmental economic development principles has helped guide the Federation’s efforts:
1) Our Nation should embrace a balanced approach that ensures diverse, abundant, affordable energy
supplies, creates good jobs for America’s workers and improves the environment.
2) Our Nation should adopt an economy-wide cap-and-trade program that is transparent and requires all
sectors to come to the table to reduce their carbon emissions. It should have timetables and standards that
allow for the development and deployment of new technology and should help finance the new
technologies that can provide clean energy at prices close to conventional sources.
3) Energy incentives and investments by the Federal Government must be based on a set of economic
development principles that clean the environment and create jobs but will not encourage offshoring of
manufacturing jobs.
4) Investments must be used to identify, develop and capture cutting-edge technologies and to manufacture
and build these technologies here for domestic use and export.
5) The international component of any climate change cap-and-trade program must provide both incentives
and a border mechanism enforced through a trade regime, to ensure that major developing nations, such as
China and India, participate.
6) There must be adequate resources to both address the transition needs of workers and communities
adversely affected by legislation, as well as, financial assistance to assist low and moderate income
families.
The AFL-CIO is here today to reinforce these principles with the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee,
just as we have in every discussion held with staff and members of Congress.
- 70 -
PERMITS AFF
Politics Link—Partisanship
Markey legislation (iCAP) has led for call to bring issue to table; issue is seen as key
issue of disagreement between Republicans and Democrats
Samuelsohn 6/5/08 (Darren, Greenwire senior reporter, House GOP spoiling for a cap-and-trade floor fight,
SPOTLIGHT Vol. 10 No. 9, L/N
House Minority Leader John Boehner dared Democrats yesterday to begin a global warming floor debate to
help spotlight differences between the parties headed into Election Day. Capitalizing on a chaotic week in
the Senate on the same issue, the Ohio Republican wrote House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) urging her
to move before the Fourth of July recess to consider a major global warming bill introduced by Rep. Ed
Markey (D-Mass.)."While I disagree fervently with the logic of raising energy costs while consumers
already face astronomical prices for gasoline, I respect your prerogative as Speaker to follow through on
your promise and schedule a vote on the bill," Boehner wrote, citing Pelosi's 2007 pledge to consider cap-
and-trade legislation in the 110th Congress. "And frankly, I welcome the debate," Boehner added. "At a
time when families are reconsidering their summer travel plans because of the record-high gas prices, I
believe there is no clearer distinction between the two parties in Congress than on this issue." Pelosi
spokesman Drew Hammill did not respond directly to the Republican leader's call for a summertime
climate debate. Instead, he cited the ongoing legislative process led by House Energy and Commerce
Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) that has so far amounted to a series of hearings and white papers over the
last 17 months on the obstacles behind crafting a cap-and-trade plan. The committee is "taking the lead in
developing climate change legislation in the House," Hammill said. "This is an extremely complicated
issue, and we will continue to move forward as quickly as possible, regardless of the outcome of the current
Senate debate." Senate action on a climate bill disintegrated this week after Republicans placed procedural
hurdles in front of Democrats. The legislation is likely to fall from the chamber's floor agenda by next
week. Cap-and-trade plan eludes Pelosi Pelosi came to power in January 2007 with a cap-and-trade plan
on top of her agenda. But the energy bill that President Bush signed into law last December did not include
it, instead focusing on the first increase in decades to the nation's automobile fuel efficiency standards. In
recent weeks, Dingell and House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher (D-Va.)
have tried to engage GOP panel members on cap-and-trade legislation. But they said they have gained little
ground, pinning the blame on Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), the committee's ranking member and a longtime
skeptic about science linking humans to global warming. "There still is not a full commitment to write the
cap-and-trade bill on the Republican side," Boucher said in an April interview. "That's candidly what we
need if we're going to act this year. We don't have that. I'm working to try to achieve it." Barton has
countered that he is in the minority and has no control over the agenda. If Dingell and Boucher wanted to
move a bill, they could, he said."I think what Dingell and Boucher both are looking at is the economy and
how shaky things are and high energy prices," Barton said in an April interview. "If you were them, would
you put a cap-and-trade bill together right now? I mean, I don't think they believe in political suicide. I
think the steam has gone out of this issue for this Congress." Coincidentally, Markey introduced his bill
yesterday calling for an 80 percent cut in heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions, a measure he has dubbed
"iCAP." "America has been waiting for years for the Republicans to finally come to the table and discuss
global warming," Markey spokesman Eben Burnham-Snyder said. "Before the discussion starts, hopefully
the Republicans will read iCAP so they can discover that 80 percent of all American households are
protected against rate hikes by the energy industry and that free market principles are used to reduce
emissions."
- 71 -
PERMITS AFF
____________
**Counterplans
- 72 -
PERMITS AFF
Study CP
Further study needed to examine impact on energy intensive industries
There is far too little known about the impact of a cap and trade program on energy intensive industries
such as steel, aluminum, paper, chemicals, airlines and others. The AFL-CIO has raised this issue
consistently through the stakeholder process on the Senate bills. The Federation encouraged a set of
economic impact studies that the National Commission on Energy Policy has commissioned for the steel,
aluminum, paper and chemical industries. These will be finished within the next few weeks. The Boxer-
Lieberman-Warner legislation recognized this concern by making additional free allocations of allowances
available for these sectors. The NCEP studies will be a valuable source of data to help inform future
decision-making. There needs to be additional analysis of the economic impact on other sectors such as the
aviation industry. The Airline Pilots Association points out the acute situation of this sector and its price
sensitivity. Record fuel prices have wreaked havoc on the airline sector with four air carriers having ceased
operations and more than 9,000 airline employees having lost their jobs this year and thousands more
facing furlough this fall. The industry like others has a record of accomplishments in reducing GHG and
conserving fuel, but fuel costs, industry consolidation and a weakening economy will continue to threaten
our national aviation system for the foreseeable future. Congress needs to be better informed on the impact
of cap and trade and performance of energy intensive industries so that these factors can be taken into
consideration when crafting legislation.
- 73 -

CNDI - Cap and Trade Updates

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CNDI - Cap and Trade Updates

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CNDI 2008 Huston/Rekhi/Langle Lab

CAP AND TRADE AFFIRMATIVE UPDATES

HR 6186 includes provisions to assist with international cooperation and compliance

iCap Solvency—CO2/Alternative Energy

iCap Solvency—Energy Needs

Solvency—Federal Action Key

CAP AND TRADE SYSTEMS ARE KEY TO SOLVING ENVIORNMENTAL

Global warming is problem now; US must take leadership role

Global warming is a threat; now is the key time to act

Warming Impact—National Security

Climate change will increase temperatures and flooding in Europe

Warming Impact—Latin America

Warming Impact—Middle East

Warming Impact—Sino Relations

MANY SPECIES ARE RISKING EXTINCTION DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING,

THE GLOBAL WARMING THAT HUMANS HAVE CAUSED IS EFFECTING

GLOBAL WARMING RUINS ECOSYSTEMS THAT ARE VITAL TO OUR

SOME SPECIES ARE RISKING EXTINCTION WHICH WILL LEAD TO A

Warming Advantage—Rapid Warming Impact

Rapid warming causes mass extinction

Oil Dependence Bad—National Security

US Dependency on Oil Compromises National Security

Oil Dependence Bad—Prolif

US Oil Dependency Funds Nuclear Weapons

Foreign Oil Revenues Fund Foreign Arsenals

Oil Dependence Bad—Iran

US Foreign Oil Funds Iran Nuclear Program

Oil Advantage—Peak Impact

Oil peak causes global conflict and economic decline

Oil Advantage—Resource War Brink

World in severe oil crisis

World will enter resource wars in near future

Oil Advantage—Peak Uniqueness

Oil outlook ominous

Many countries already begun to hit peak

Oil crisis spreading around the world

Price Increases Good

Market ForcesWould Determine Who Bore the Costs of a Cap

AT Cap and Trade Hurts Businesses

Reducing the Overall Economic Impact of a CO2 Cap

AT International Actor CP—Perm

**AT Negative Arguments

AT Off Shore Companies

International Allowances Bad

Must avoid international allowances; EU proves harm in that philosophy

Unilateral Action Fails

US won’t be able to coerce countries into greenhouse gas reductions; unilateral

AT Schwartz & Randall Study

Neg—No Oil Peak

You might also like