Você está na página 1de 9

Same order as 1NC

1. Fail alert – Will has no interpretation of what environmental policy is – that makes
the T violation meaningless because he has nothing to compare the plan text to.

2. I meet – Baumert indicates that both carbon tax and cap-and-trade are
"environmental policy instruments," they're just different kinds.

3. Counter-interpretation – Wikipedia 12/2/2009

Environmental policy is any [course of] action deliberately taken [or not taken] to manage
human activities with a view to prevent, reduce, or mitigate harmful effects on nature and natural resources,
and ensuring that man-made changes to the environment do not have harmful effects on humans.[1]

a. I meet – carbon tax creates incentives to modify human activities and stop

b. Prefer my interp -
1) I have one – means you can actually evaluate questions of topicality.
2) Literature base – climate change is central to any environment topic
– key to predictability for both sides.
3) Accessibility – anyone can go to Wikipedia – good for
competitive equity.

4. I meet his standard – I define both words as a phrase – means he has no offense
on the T debate.

5. No voter – his a priori argument is incoherent – means you have no basis for
voting on T.

6. No voter – theory is always a question of fairness in the round – means negative

has to prove in-round abuse for you to vote – any other impact calculus
necessitates judge intervention because "potential" is inherently relativistic.
Timeline spec

1. Counter-interpretation – plan timeline always defaults to immediate.

a. I meet – 1AC assumes immediate passage.

b. Prefer my interp -
1) Ground – immediate passage assumes current political climate –
guarantees both teams fair ground.
2) Research quality – immediate passage privileges recent evidence
because the evidence is descriptive of the world at the time of the plan
– any other timeframe removes the incentive to cut high-quality recent

2. He has no argument for why the 1AC needs to specify – he says shifting is bad,
but I'm not a colossal jerk and won't shift from the 1AC.

3. CX checks – he can't even make time tradeoff arguments because CX is open-

ended in this format, meaning that he could always ask the question and expect an

4. No voter – he fails to demonstrate that timeline is key to PF – I say PF is

inherency, harms, plan, and solvency.

5. Cross-apply "no potential abuse" from above.

6. Infinitely regressive – he can always claim more need to specify – makes it

impossible to write plans – reject his argument for fairness and competitive equity.

1. I meet – extend the first 1AC solvency card – carbon tax is easy to implement
because it uses the existing framework for collecting taxes.

2. I meet – his interp only says that the USFG includes delegation for enforcement,
which means that "normal means" in the USFG includes all the enforcement I need.

3. Fail interp is fail – he doesn't specify how much detail is required to specify
enforcement – means affs can't write plans, which creates problems for him.

4. Cross-apply infinite regression from above.

5. CX checks – if he wanted enforcement I'd tell him "IRS."

6. Counter-interpretation - aff can specify normal means and use evidence in case to
explain—solves back 100% of their offense while preserving aff speech time.

7. Neg concedes counter-interpretation – says cards are enough – means zero risk
of impacts.

8. Zero risk of unpredictability – cross-apply "no potential abuse" from above.

9. Zero risk of ground loss – cross-apply "no potential abuse".

10. No internal link to Elmore – Elmore is talking about new regulations that require
a new framework for implementation – applies to cap-and-trade but not to carbon
tax – that's Avi-Yonah and Uhlmann's first card on solvency.

11. No voter – at worst he justifies a minor solvency deficit to plan, which is

answered by the 1AC evidence.

12. Game over – there is no new enforcement needed to pass the plan. Avi-Yonah
and Uhlmann '9
[Reuven S. and David M., University of Michigan Law School, "Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax is a Better
Response to Global Warming than Cap and Trade," Stanford Environmental Law Journal 2009]
Cap and trade is also relatively untried: we have never had an economy-wide cap and trade system, while we
have extensive
experience with economy-wide excise taxes on a wide variety of products, including gasoline. This is why
Congressman Larson’s carbon tax bill can simply envisage adding three new relatively short
sections to the existing excise tax part of the Internal Revenue Code.

13. Yes, the card above references HR 1337.

14. Turn – specifying USFG is more binding because the affirmative can't get out of
specific links to disads – deeper specification in plan texts makes it harder for
negatives to access ground.

1. His Bast evidence is awful – 2003 is postdated by the IPCC projections in 2007
and by masses of empirical data showing severe warming trends.

2. His Robinson et al. evidence is even worse -

a. They say there's no experimental data to prove anthropogenic climate
change, but that's stupid because you can't experiment with something the
size of the earth – there's tons of empirical data referenced in my cards.
b. There is no warrant anywhere in this evidence to answer the scientific
arguments from the 1AC.
c. Extend the AP evidence, which is empirical data showing that people are
dying right now from climate change – invalidates both of his cards.

3. Evaluate empirical data first – the AP evidence explains exactly how people
are dying because of climate change – his evidence has no warrants and is
massively postdated by my empirics.

4. Extend Will's Matheny evidence from the NASA disad – his author indicates that
climate change is a probable scenario for extinction.

5. His answers to extinction don't assume the other human activities leading to the
current mass extinction event, like deforestation – humans weren't destroying the
world in past warming cycles – means feedback loops are more likely.

6. Warming trends are worse than we thought a couple years ago. Risbey '8
[Dr. James S. Risbey, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research and School of Mathematical Sciences, Monash University, 2008 (“The
new climate discourse: Alarmist or alarming?” Global Environmental Change 18:1 February 2008 pp. 26-37)]
Heightened concerns that dynamical processes could drive much more rapid breakdown of the
ice sheets than simple surface melting are bolstered by recent observations. Luthcke et al. (2006)
present results to suggest that loss processes associated with glacier acceleration and melting of
Greenland's ice now exceed the gains due to increased snowfall over the interior. Though this
result is not unexpected, it was not expected this early in the warming process (Alley et al., 2005). Similarly,
paleo-research on sea level rises associated with past warming periods shows some rates of
change that are much faster than current projections (Overpeck et al., 2006). Finally, projections of
sea level rise based on empirical sea-level/temperature relationships also project faster
rates of rise for the 21st century than IPCC estimates (Rahmstorf, 2007).
7. Bast is a liar – urbanization doesn't affect warming and satellite data proves.
Parker '6
[David E. Parker, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research at The Meteorological Office in the United Kingdom, fellow of the
Royal meteorological Society and contributor to IPCC Assessments, 2006 (“A Demonstration That Large-Scale Warming Is Not Urban”
Journal of Climate 19:12 June 2006 pp. 2882-2895)]
There have been several attempts in recent years to estimate the urban warming influence
on the large-scale land surface air temperature record. Jones et al. (1990) found that the urban
warming influence on widely used hemispheric datasets is likely to be an order of magnitude smaller than
the observed century-time-scale warming. Easterling et al. (1997) found that global urban
warming influences were little more than 0.05°C century 1 over the period 1950–93. Hansen et al.
(1999) concluded that the anthropogenic urban contribution to their global temperature curve
for the past century did not exceed approximately 0.1°C. Furthermore, they estimated the
global average effect of their urban adjustment during 1950–98 as only 0.01°C (see their Plate
A2), though their adjustment procedure removed an urban influence of nearly 0.1°C in the contiguous United States in this period.
Peterson et al. (1999) compared global temperature trends from the full Global Historical Climatology Network
with a subset based on rural stations, defined as such both by map metadata and by nighttime lighting as
detected by satellites. They found that the rural subset and the full set had very similar trends
since the late nineteenth century, and inferred that the urban influence on the full set was
therefore insignificant. Accordingly, only small systematic errors were ascribed to
urbanization in the global warming trend estimates made by Folland et al. (2001a) and in the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report (IPCC TAR; Folland et al. 2001b).

8. None of Will's evidence is offensive in nature – means that at worst there's a risk
of the harms happening.

9. Extend the AP evidence – means there's a systemic harm of hundreds of

thousands of deaths every year – outweighs the disad on probability.

10. Extend both pieces of Avi-Yonah and Uhlmann evidence from the solvency flow
– Will concedes a 100% risk of solvency, so you always vote aff.

11. Extend the conceded Smith and Vivekenanda evidence – water wars equal
massive conflicts between nuclear powers – outweighs the disad on timeframe.

12. Extend the conceded Diner evidence – you always vote to minimize species loss
because the threshold for extinction is unknown – outweighs the disad on
timeframe and magnitude.

1. Big mistake here – Malson concedes literally every card on this advantage –
means I access a 100% risk of solving nuclear war, prolif, and terrorism. Extend
every card.

2. Extend specifically the Martino evidence – the plan solves for competitiveness
and heg regardless of who gets in the way.

3. Extend the first piece of Bloomberg evidence from the 1AC – China is already on
board with climate action – postdates his Spencer and Foster evidence and also his
Drifte evidence.

4. His Spencer and Foster evidence says the opposite of what he wants it to – China
and India are opposed to the US making climate change action contingent on their
compliance – they'll respond positively to the US acting unilaterally, then

5. His Drifte evidence is specific to Japan. Japan is not the US – thank goodness,
being a nerd involves way too much anime as it is.

6. Extend his Global Warming News evidence from the disad – US leadership is key
to acting on climate change.

7. Heg outweighs the disad – the conceded 100% risk of solving nuclear war
outweighs NASA on timeframe and probability – means you vote aff.

1. No internal link to econ – Will's evidence says space currently gives $100 billion,
there's nothing about how much new spending would take place.

2. Uniqueness overwhelms the econ argument – the stimulus package(s) represent

way more spending than anything Obama would do for NASA.

3. No impact and turn – Mead's empirically denied – when the global economy
started to crash last year, we saw an increase in great-power cooperation.

4. Case solves the economy – don't concede a whole advantage next time.

5. Case solves great-power wars – don't concede Khalilzad next time.

6. Case outweighs – saving Florida's economy at best prevents one potential war,
the plan keeps the US dominant for decades which prevents lots of wars.

7. No internal link – the CGCC evidence doesn't say NASA is key to space
colonization, it says that Canada and 13 other countries are key and that NASA
thinks their efforts are really shiny.

8. No internal link – Will has no evidence at all saying NASA is key to space

9. No link – the second piece of Matheny indicates space colonization is inevitable

within the next century.

10. Case solves the impact – Matheny indicates the most probable extinction
scenarios are climate change and bioterrorism – Will concedes 100% solvency for
both of them (<3 Khalilzad).
11. TURN!!!!!!

a. Extend the Powell link evidence – Obama wants to continue Bush's NASA

b. Bush's NASA plans guarantee space militarization and a destructive,

destabilizing arms race. Shah '7
[Anup, writer for GlobalIssues.org, "US Seeks Militarization of Space," 1/21/07
http://www.globalissues.org/article/69/militarization-and-weaponization-of-outer-space ]
However, the Bush Administration in the United States has long made it clear that the US wishes to
expand its military capabilities and have weapons in space and therfore also be dominant in this fourth
military arena (the other three being sea, land and air). This new “ultimate high ground” would provide further superior military
While it would provide additional important defense mechanisms, many worry about the other benefit it would bring—capabilities for
offensive purposes to push America’s “national interests” even if they are not in the interests of the international community.
Furthermore, together with its pursuit of missile defense, (which goes against the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty, an important part of global
arms control mechanisms), the USA risks starting a wasteful expenditure of an arms race in space.
Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, and the resulting “War on Terror” military-based policies and
spending has increased. So too have the policies looking into space-based weapons. The Washington D.C.-based Center for Defence
Information (CDI) provides a detailed report suggesting that this should not be a rushed decision:
Unlike in Star Trek, the “final frontier” has yet to become a battlefield. But if the current trends continue, that will change—not in the
distance future of science fiction, but within the next several decades. Emerging
Bush administration plans and
policies are clearly aimed at making the United States the first nation to deploy space-
based weapons. There are several drivers behind this goal, including the very real concern about the vulnerability of space
assets that are increasingly important to how the US military operates, and the administration’s decision to pursue missile defense.
Unfortunately, the
administration has done little thinking—at least publicly—about the potential for far-
reaching military, political and economic ramifications of a US move to break the taboo
against weaponizing space. There is reason for concern that doing so could actually undermine, rather than
enhance, the national security of the United States, as well as global stability. Thus it behooves the
administration, as well as Congress, to undertake an in-depth and public policy review of the pros and cons of weaponizing space. Such
a review would look seriously at the threat, both short-term and long-term, as well as measures to prevent, deter or counter any future
threat using all the tools in the US policy toolbox: diplomatic, including arms control treaties; economic; and military, including defensive
measures short of offensive weapons. There
is nothing to be gained, and potentially much to be lost, by rushing
such a momentous change in US space policy.

c. As Bugs Bunny reminds us, "This means war!" Zhang '5

[Hui, research associate in the Project on Managing the Atom at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, "US
Space Weaponization and China," December 2005 http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_12/Dec-cvr ]
One major Chinese concern about U.S. space weaponization plans, as addressed frequently in statements at the UN
Conference on Disarmament (CD), is that the deployment of space weapons “will disrupt strategic balance and
stability, undermine international and national security and do harm to the existing arms control
instruments, in particular those related to nuclear weapons and missiles, thus triggering new
arms races.”[14]
Because space weapons are at once threatening and vulnerable, it is reasonable to assume that
other countries would attempt to block such a move by political and, if necessary, military
means. One possible response, for example, would be the development of anti-satellite weapons to target space-based weapon
systems. It is widely believed that space weapons and sensor satellites would themselves become prime high-value targets and the
most vulnerable elements for defense suppression attacks.[15] It is reasonable to believe that other countries could resort to a number
of low-cost and relatively low-technology anti-satellite devices to counter those critical and vulnerable U.S. space-based weapons.
Eventually, China
fears that the U.S. space weaponization plan would lead to an arms race in
outer space and turn outer space into a battlefield.
d. Space weaponization means escalation of Sino-US conflicts. MacDonald '8
[Bruce W., independent consultant in technology and national security policy management. From 1995 to 1999, he was assistant
director for national security at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy as well as senior director for science and
technology on the National Security Council staff. Earlier, Mr. MacDonald was a professional staff member on the House Armed
Services Committee and was defense and foreign policy adviser to Senator Dale Bumpers (D-AK). He also worked for the State
Department as a nuclear weapons and technology specialist in the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, where he led the Interagency
START Policy Working Group, served on the U.S. START delegation in Geneva, and dealt with space and missile defense issues. He
also supported the OSD SALT Task Force as staff scientist at System Planning Corporation. He is a member of the Council on Foreign
Relations and a senior director of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States. Mr. MacDonald holds a
BSE from Princeton in aerospace engineering and two master’s degrees, also from Princeton—one in aerospace engineering,
specializing in rocket propulsion, and a second in public and international affairs from the Woodrow Wilson School. He has authored a
number of technical and policy papers and reports. "China, Space Weapons, and US Security," Council on Foreign Relations,
September 2008 http://www.cfr.org/publication/16707/ see, I can copypasta huge blocks of quals like Will can!]
War between China and the United States seems unlikely, given their increasing economic
interdependence and ongoing efforts in both countries to improve relations. Looming in the background, however, is
the possibility of war over Taiwan, a plausible if unlikely scenario that could bring the United States and China into
conflict. China might then be tempted to attack U.S. military satellites as a casualty-free way to signal
resolve, dissuade Washington from further involvement in a Taiwan conflict, and significantly compromise U.S. military capabilities if
such dissuasion failed. Such
Chinese actions could well escalate any conflict between the United
States and China. As a result, both countries have interests in avoiding the actual use of
counterspace weapons and shaping a more stable and secure space environment for
themselves and other spacefaring nations, which could easily be caught in the undertow of
a more militarily competitive space domain.