CNDI 2008 CAMP STARTER SET

INCENTIVES TOPICALITY

TOPICALITY INCENTIVES – CNDI

TOPICALITY INCENTIVES – CNDI ...............................................................................1

__________________________..........................................................................................2
***TOPICALITY – INCENTIVES ....................................................................................2
TOPICALITY – INCENTIVE – 1NC ................................................................................3
DEFINITION – REWARD NOT REQUIREMENT ..........................................................4
VIOLATION – CAP AND TRADE.....................................................................................5
STANDARDS – GROUND ................................................................................................6
_______________________________________................................................................7
***AFFIRMATIVE – TOPICALITY – INCENTIVES .....................................................7
AFF – WM – PERMITS .....................................................................................................8
AFF – WM / CI – PERMITS ARE INCENTIVES..............................................................9
AFF – CI – PUNISHMENT..............................................................................................10

1
CNDI 2008 CAMP STARTER SET
INCENTIVES TOPICALITY

__________________________
***TOPICALITY – INCENTIVES

2
CNDI 2008 CAMP STARTER SET
INCENTIVES TOPICALITY

TOPICALITY – INCENTIVE – 1NC

A – INTERPRETATION

ENERGY INCENTIVES ARE BENEFITS DELIVERED IN RETURD FOR SPECIFIC ACTION

TO PURSUE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY no date – www.sustainable.doe.gov/iutil2.htm

A benefit or consideration, financial or otherwise, given to induce specific
action.

B – VIOLATION

CAP AND TRADE SYSTEMS ARE A HARD REQUIREMENT ON ENERGY EMISSIONS, NOT
AN INCENTIVE FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY PRODUCTION.

C – STANDARDS

1 – GROUND. AFFIRMATIVE’S MUST BE LIMITED TO INCENTIVES TO ENSURE NEGATIVE

COMMAND AND CONTROL COUNTERPLAN GROUND. DIVISION OF THE TOPIC REQUIRES A
DEBATE BETWEEN BENEFITS FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY AND REQUIREMENTS FOR
FOSSIL FUEL REDUCTION. ALLOWING CAP AND TRADE REVERSES THE DIRECTION OF
CORE POLITICS, ECONOMY, AND CRITICAL MARKET GROUND.

2 – LIMITS. ALLOWING REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS BENEFITS MORE THAN DOUBLES THE

TOPIC. FIATING THE GOAL OF AN INCENTIVE POLICY WITH REGULATION IS AN OPTION
FOR EVERY TAX BENEFIT OR SUBSIDY POLICY THAT SHOULD BE EXCLUSIVELY
AFFIRMATIVE PLANS. A TOPIC INCLUDING INCENTIVES AND REQUIREMENTS LEAVES
NOTHING OUT, AND ANY POLICY EVEN TANGENTIALLY CONNECTED TO ENERGY WILL
COME INTO PLAY.

D – VOTING ISSUE – FAIRNESS AND EDUCATION

3
CNDI 2008 CAMP STARTER SET
INCENTIVES TOPICALITY

DEFINITION – REWARD NOT REQUIREMENT

DEFINITION: INCENTIVES MUST BE A REWARD FOR ACTION

RANDOM HOUSE 2006
something that incites or tends to incite to action or greater effort, as a reward
offered for increased productivity.

4
CNDI 2008 CAMP STARTER SET
INCENTIVES TOPICALITY

VIOLATION – CAP AND TRADE

VIOLATION – CAP AND TRADE IS A POLICY TO ACHIEVE EMISSIONS REQUIREMENTS,

NOT AN INCENTIVE FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
EEI 2005 – EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE
http://www.eei.org/newsroom/press_releases/050412.htm
Last month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR),
requiring the electric power sector to reduce emissions of mercury 70 percent by 2018. These
reductions will occur under two phases, mandating that the industry cut emissions from roughly 48 tons per
year currently, to 38 tons in 2010 and 15 tons in 2018. New Hampshire's obligations under the rule-
meeting a 126-pound cap in 2010 and a 50-pound cap in 2018-comprise just 0.16 percent of the
requirements imposed on the entire sector, reflecting the extremely small amount of mercury emitted by the
state's electricity generators.The new EPA regulation allows electric companies to meet the new
requirements through an emissions "cap-and-trade" program of the type that has long been used
successfully to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions linked to acid rain. Under such a plan, utilities for
whom meeting the new standard would otherwise be infeasible or uneconomic could purchase emission
"allowances" from facilities able to cut emissions more than required. This helps ensure that air quality
goals are achieved in a way that maintains a reliable and affordable supply of electricity.

5
CNDI 2008 CAMP STARTER SET
INCENTIVES TOPICALITY

STANDARDS – GROUND

NEG – GROUND – ENERGY INCENTIVE AND COMMAND AND CONTROL

REGULATION ARE DISTINCT FOR RESEARCH AND POLICY DEBATE PURPOSES –
PERMITS ARE VIEWED AS COMMAND AND CONTROL REGULATION
HARRINGTON AND MORGENSTERN 2004 –
http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF_Resources_152_ecoincentives.pdf
RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE, FALL/WINTER
Now, decades after the first environmental laws were passed in this country, policymakers face many
choices when seeking to solve environmental problems. Will taxing polluters for their discharges be more
effective than fining them for not meeting certain emissions standards? Will a regulatory agency find it less
costly to enforce a ban or oversee a system of tradable permits? Which strategy will reduce a pollutant the
quickest? Clearly, there are no “one-size-fits-all” answers. Many factors enter into the decision to favor
either policies that lean more toward economic incentives (EI) and toward direct regulation, commonly
referred to as command-and-control (CAC) policy. Underlying determinants include a
country’s governmental and regulatory infrastructure, along with the nature of the environmental problem
itself. Even with these contextual factors to consider, we thought it would be useful to compare EI and
CAC policies and their outcomes in a real-world setting. To do this, we looked at six environmental
problems that the United States and at least one European country dealt with differently (see box on page
14.) For each problem, one approach was more of an EI measure, while the other relied more on CAC. For
example, to reduce point-source industrial water pollution, the Netherlands implemented a system of fees
for organic pollutants (EI), while the United States established a system of guidelines and permits (CAC).
It turned out, in fact, that most policies had at least some elements of both approaches, but we
categorized them as EI or CAC based on their dominant features. We then asked researchers who had
previously studied these policies on either side of the Atlantic to update or prepare new case studies. We
analyzed the 12 case studies (two for each of the six environmental problems) against a list of hypotheses
frequently made for or against EI and CAC, such as which instrument is more effective or imposes less
administrative burden.

6
CNDI 2008 CAMP STARTER SET
INCENTIVES TOPICALITY

_______________________________________
***AFFIRMATIVE – TOPICALITY – INCENTIVES

7
CNDI 2008 CAMP STARTER SET
INCENTIVES TOPICALITY

AFF – WM – PERMITS

WM – PERMIT TRADING IS AN ENERGY INCENTIVE ALTERNATIVE APPROACH

TO COMMAND AND CONTROL DIRECT REGULATION
HARRINGTON AND MORGENSTERN 2004 –
http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF_Resources_152_ecoincentives.pdf
RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE, FALL/WINTER
Another possibility is the emergence of tradable emissions
permits in the late 1970s. Before then, the main EI alternative
to the regulatory policies being implemented was a perunit
tax on pollution (sometimes referred to as an effluent
fee). By the 1980s the policy community was generally aware
of a “quantity-based” EI alternative—tradable emission permits—
that seemed to provide the same assurances of the
achievement of environmental goals that were offered by
CAC approaches.

8
CNDI 2008 CAMP STARTER SET
INCENTIVES TOPICALITY

AFF – WM / CI – PERMITS ARE INCENTIVES

MARKET INCENTIVES INCLUDE EMISSIONS TRADING POLICIES

INTENDED TO DIRECTLY AFFECT PRICES OF CLIMATE FRIENDLY
TECHNOLOGIES
EVOMARKETS NO DATE – www.evomarkets.com/ghg_glossary.html
In the context of climate change, this refers to measures (such as subsidies, taxes,
emissions trading) intended to directly change relative prices of "climate --
friendly" technologies in order to overcome market barriers.

9
CNDI 2008 CAMP STARTER SET
INCENTIVES TOPICALITY

AFF – CI – PUNISHMENT

AFF – CI: INCENTIVE CAN INCLUDE FEAR OF PUNISHMENT

AMERICAN HERITAGE 2006
Something, such as the fear of punishment or the expectation of reward, that induces action or motivates
effort.

10
CNDI 2008 CAMP STARTER SET
INCENTIVES TOPICALITY

11