Download 2NC Impact Calc

2NC Impact Calc
Warming outweighs even full risk of nuclear war –
1. Guaranteed extinction – destroys the entire globe – that’s Tickell.
2. Nuclear war won’t cause extinction.
J.R. Nyquist, WorldNetDaily contributing editor and author of ‘Origins of the Fourth World War,’ May 20, 1999, Antipas, “Is Nuclear War Survivable?”
http://www.antipas.org/news/world/nuclear_war.html
I patiently reply to these correspondents that nuclear war would not be the end of the world. I then point to studies showing that “nuclear winter” has no
scientific basis, that fallout from a nuclear war would not kill all life on earth. Surprisingly, few of my correspondents are convinced. They prefer apocalyptic myths
created by pop scientists, movie producers and journalists. If Dr. Carl Sagan once said “nuclear winter” would follow a nuclear war, then it must be true. If radiation
wipes out mankind in a movie, then that’s what we can expect in real life. But Carl Sagan was wrong about nuclear winter. And the movie “On the Beach” misled
American filmgoers about the effects of fallout. It is time, once and for all, to lay these myths to rest. Nuclear war would not bring about the end of the world, though it
would be horribly destructive. The truth is, many prominent physicists have condemned the nuclear winter hypothesis. Nobel laureate Freeman
Dyson once said of nuclear winter research, “It’s an absolutely atrocious piece of science, but I quite despair of setting the public record straight.” Professor
Michael McElroy, a Harvard physics professor, also criticized the nuclear winter hypothesis. McElroy said that nuclear winter researchers “stacked the
deck” in their study, which was titled “Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions” (Science, December 1983). Nuclear winter is the theory
that the mass use of nuclear weapons would create enough smoke and dust to blot out the sun, causing a catastrophic drop in global temperatures. According to Carl
Sagan, in this situation the earth would freeze. No crops could be grown. Humanity would die of cold and starvation. In truth, natural disasters have frequently
produced smoke and dust far greater than those expected from a nuclear war. In 1883 Krakatoa exploded with a blast equivalent to
10,000 one-megaton bombs, a detonation greater than the combined nuclear arsenals of planet earth. The Krakatoa explosion had negligible
weather effects. Even more disastrous, going back many thousands of years, a meteor struck Quebec with the force of 17.5 million one-megaton
bombs, creating a crater 63 kilometers in diameter. But the world did not freeze. Life on earth was not extinguished. Consider the views of Professor
George Rathjens of MIT, a known antinuclear activist, who said, “Nuclear winter is the worst example of misrepresentation of science to the public in my memory.”
Also consider Professor Russell Seitz, at Harvard University’s Center for International Affairs, who says that the nuclear winter hypothesis has been discredited. Two
researchers, Starley Thompson and Stephen Schneider, debunked the nuclear winter hypothesis in the summer 1986 issue of Foreign Affairs. Thompson and Schneider
stated: “the global apocalyptic conclusions of the initial nuclear winter hypothesis can now be relegated to a vanishingly low level of
probability.” OK, so nuclear winter isn’t going to happen. What about nuclear fallout? Wouldn’t the radiation from a nuclear war contaminate the whole
earth, killing everyone? The short answer is: absolutely not. Nuclear fallout is a problem, but we should not exaggerate its effects. As it happens, there are two
types of fallout produced by nuclear detonations. These are: 1) delayed fallout; and 2) short-term fallout. According to researcher Peter V. Pry, “Delayed fallout
will not, contrary to popular belief, gradually kill billions of people everywhere in the world.” Of course, delayed fallout would increase the number of people
dying of lymphatic cancer, leukemia, and cancer of the thyroid. “However,” says Pry, “these deaths would probably be far fewer than deaths now
resulting from ... smoking, or from automobile accidents.” The real hazard in a nuclear war is the short-term fallout. This is a type of fallout created when
a nuclear weapon is detonated at ground level. This type of fallout could kill millions of people, depending on the targeting strategy of the attacking country. But
short-term fallout rapidly subsides to safe levels in 13 to 18 days. It is not permanent. People who live outside of the affected areas will be fine.
Those in affected areas can survive if they have access to underground shelters. In some areas, staying indoors may even suffice. Contrary to popular misconception,
there were no documented deaths from short-term or delayed fallout at either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. These blasts were low airbursts, which
produced minimal fallout effects. Today’s thermonuclear weapons are even “cleaner.” If used in airburst mode, these weapons would produce
few (if any) fallout casualties. On their side, Russian military experts believe that the next world war will be a nuclear missile war. They know that nuclear
weapons cannot cause the end of the world. According to the Russian military writer, A. S. Milovidov, “There is profound error and harm in the disoriented claims of
bourgeois ideologues that there will be no victor in a thermonuclear world war.” Milovidov explains that Western objections to the mass use of nuclear weapons are
based on “a subjective judgment. It expresses mere protest against nuclear war.” Another Russian theorist, Captain First Rank V. Kulakov, believes that a mass nuclear
strike may not be enough to defeat “a strong enemy, with extensive territory enabling him to use space and time for the organizations of active and passive defense. ...”
Russian military theory regards nuclear war as highly destructive, but nonetheless winnable. Russian generals do not exaggerate the effects of mass destruction
weapons. Although nuclear war would be unprecedented in its death-dealing potential, Russian strategists believe that a well-prepared system of tunnels and
underground bunkers could save many millions of lives. That is why Russia has built a comprehensive shelter system for its urban populace. On the American side as
well, there have been studies which suggest that nuclear war is survivable. The famous 1960 Rand Corporation study, “On Thermonuclear War,” says, “Even
if 100 metropolitan areas [in the USA] are destroyed, there would be more wealth in this country than there is in all of Russia today and more skills than were available
to that country in the forties. The United States is a very wealthy and well-educated country.” The Rand study states that even if half the U.S. population
were killed, “the survivors would not just lie down and die. Nor would they necessarily suffer a disastrous social disorganization.”
3.
Extinction comes first, even at a low probability.
Bostrom, professor of philosophy at Oxford,
July 2005 (Nick, Transcribed from by Packer, 4:38-6:12 of the talk at
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/44, accessed 10/20/07)
Now if we think about what just reducing the probability of human extinction by just one percentage point. Not very much. So that’s
equivalent to 60 million lives saved, if we just count currently living people. The current generation. One percent of six billion people is equivalent
to 60 million. So that’s a large number. If we were to take into account future generations that will never come into existence if we blow
ourselves up then the figure becomes astronomical. If we could you know eventually colonize a chunk of the universe the virgo supercluster maybe it will take
us a hundred million years to get there but if we go extinct we never will. Then even a one percentage point reduction in the extinction risk could be
equivalent to this astronomical number 10 to the power of 32 so if you take into account future generations as much as our own every other moral
imperative or philanthropic cause just becomes irrelevant. The only thing you should focus on would be to reduce existential risk,
because even the tiniest decrease in existential risk would just overwhelm any other benefit you could hope to achieve. Even if you just
look at the current people and ignore the potential that would be lost if we went extinct it should still be a high priority.
4.
Warming makes nuclear war inevitable.
Kurt Campbell, CEO and co-founder of the Center for a New American Security and former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Asia and the Pacific, et
al., Jay Gulledge, J.R. McNeill, John Podesta, Peter Ogden, Leon Fuerth, R. James Woolsey, Alexander T.J. Lennon, Julianne Smith, Richard Weitz, and Derek Mix,
Center for Strategic and International Studies, “The Age of Consequences: The Foreign Policy and National Security Implications of Global Climate Change,”
November 2007, http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/071105_ageofconsequences.pdf
In the case of severe climate change, corresponding to an average increase in global temperature of 2.6°C by 2040, massive nonlinear events in the
global environment give rise to massive nonlinear societal events. In this scenario, addressed in Chapter IV, nations around the world will be
overwhelmed by the scale of change and pernicious challenges, such as pandemic disease. The internal cohesion of nations will be under great stress,
including in the United States, both as a result of a dramatic rise in migration and changes in agricultural patterns and water
availability. The flooding of coastal communities around the world, especially in the Netherlands, the United States, South Asia, and China, has the potential to
challenge regional and even national identities. Armed conflict between nations over resources, such as the Nile and its tributaries, is likely and
nuclear war is possible. The social consequences range from increased religious fervor to outright chaos. In this scenario, climate change
provokes a permanent shift in the relationship of humankind to nature.
5.
Nuclear war doesn’t cause warming.
Rhett Butler, Mongabay, “Nuclear war could cause global cooling (i.e. block global warming),” 12/11/ 2006, http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1211nuclear.html
Nuclear war would disrupt global climate for at least a decade according to new research presented Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of American
Geophysical Union in San Francisco. The research, based on findings from historic volcano eruptions, found that a small-scale, regional
nuclear war could produce millions of tons of "soot" particles that could block solar radiation, in effect, cooling the planet. "We
examined the climatic effects of the smoke produced in a regional conflict in the subtropics between two opposing nations, each using 50
Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons to attack the other's most populated urban areas," said Alan Robock, a professor in the department of
environmental sciences at Rutgers University. "A cooling of several degrees would occur over large areas of North America and Eurasia,
including most of the grain-growing regions. As in the case with earlier nuclear winter calculations, large climatic effects would occur in regions far removed
from the target areas or the countries involved in the conflict." The team, also including scientists from the University of Colorado at Boulder (CU-Boulder) and UCLA,
say the global impact of nuclear would be akin to climate disruptions caused by volcanic eruptions which cool the planet by releasing tons of particulate matter into the
atmosphere. They cite the 1815 eruption of Tambora in Indonesia as an example. "The 1815 eruption of Tambora in Indonesia — the largest in the last 500 years —
was followed by killing frosts throughout New England in 1816, during what has become known as 'the year without a summer,'" said a statement from Rutgers. "The
weather in Europe was reported to be so cold and wet that the harvest failed and people starved. This historical event, according to Robock, perhaps foreshadows the
kind of climate disruptions that would follow a regional nuclear conflict." "With the exchange of 100 15-kiloton weapons as posed in this scenario,
the estimated quantities of smoke generated could lead to global climate anomalies exceeding any changes experienced in recorded
history," Robock said. "And that's just 0.03 percent of the total explosive power of the current world nuclear arsenal." The climate effects of particulate
matter are of increasing interest to climate scientists. Some researchers have postulated that a similar release of sulfate aerosols into
the atmosphere could be used in a worst-case scenario to block global warming.
2NC Solves Warming
And, US adoption causes global adoption and expands cooperation with China.
Daniel Kammen, Prof. Public Policy @ UC Berkeley, 9/25/’7 (http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/eeworkshop/CPUC-new/summit/docs/Kammen_Senate_EPW-9-26.pdf)
In addition to supporting domestic job creation, clean energy is an important and fastest growing international sector, and one where overseas policy
can be used to support poor developing regions – such as Africa (Jacobsen and Kammen, 2007) and Central America – as well as regaining market share in solar, fuel
cell and wind technologies, where European nations and Japan have invested heavily and are reaping the benefits of month to year backlogs in clean energy orders.
Some of those orders are for U. S. installations, but many more could be if we choose to make clean and green energy a national priority for
both domestic installation and overseas export. Technology exports have impacts well beyond domestic job creation. In fact, if properly managed, the development
of a thriving ‘cleantech’ sector can address a vital global issues, namely the emissions trajectories of major developing nations. China and
India are often singled out for attention as major, emerging global emitters. China, in fact, will become the world’s largest greenhouse emitter in the
near future, if it has not already. This fact, is often used – mistakenly in my view – to argue against unilateral climate protection efforts by nations such as the United
States. This view is shortsighted in two vital respects. First, China is demonstrably already suffering from the impacts of fossil fuel use. Crop yields in many parts of
China are significantly lower than they would be without the significant sulfur and particulate burden that results from domestic coal combustion. (In fact, coal
combustions emissions from China have significant air quality impacts on Japan, and can be measured in the U. S. as well.) Crop losses of over 20% have been reported
in part of China, with the decrease unambiguously linked to air pollution. China also experiences significant human health impacts from this pollution burden as well.
Second, China has committed, on paper, to a ‘circular economy’ where waste is reduced and overall productivity is enhanced. If the United States were to
become a major exporter, or even a partner, in the production of low-emissions technologies – from truly carbon-capture coal-fired power plants, to
increased numbers of solar, wind, and biofuel technologies – China would be an eager trading partner, so that they could install increasing
numbers of low-emissions technologies. This would directly help the Chinese economy and their environmental and public health situation. On
both of these grounds, U. S. domestic expansion of the clean
number of emerging economies to ‘go green’.
energy sector will likely positively impact the ability and the actions of a
US-China cooperation spurs global deals.
Jessica Matthews, Maria Cantwell, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman of China’s National Development and
Reform Commission and China’s top climate negotiator, “U.S.-China Climate Change Cooperation,” 3/18/2009,
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/events/?fa=eventDetail&id=1281
The U.S. and China, the world’s two largest emitters of greenhouse gases, must both take decisive action to reduce emissions in the
next five years—before it is too late to avoid the most catastrophic effects of global warming. Cooperation on climate change is in
both countries’ interests, and groundbreaking dialogues between China and the United States have already begun to identify areas of
consensus and mutual interest.
Minister Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission and China’s top climate change negotiator, and Senator Maria Cantwell of
Washington State discussed U.S.-China climate cooperation. Moderated by Jessica Mathews, the event was co-hosted by Carnegie and the Global Environmental
Institute (GEI) of Beijing.
U.S.-China Track II Climate Dialogue
Mathews opened the discussion by revealing for the first time that Carnegie and GEI together facilitated a year of off-the-record talks between Chinese and American
energy experts and political leaders. Bill Chandler, director of Carnegie’s Energy and Climate program, and Jin Jiaman, executive director of GEI China, launched the
talks in 2007 with the goal of moving beyond discussing what the two countries could do to address climate change and beginning to discuss how to do it. According to
Chandler, helping to facilitate the political agreement to begin the dialogue seemed to be the best service the non-government sector could provide.
The resulting U.S.-China Climate Track II Dialogue afforded leaders from each country the opportunity to speak frankly and discuss the types of collaboration likely to
produce results. Both teams agreed global emissions must be cut by 60 percent by the year 2050, and that both China and the United States must take action.
Mathews explained that the dialogue reached broad agreement on two main priorities for future cooperation:
1. Building human capacity to accelerate market deployment of existing energy efficiency technologies.
2. Joint development of key energy technologies, specifically carbon capture and storage and automobile fuel economy.
China’s Perspective: Minister Xie
Throughout his remarks, Minister Xie stressed the importance of cooperation and dialogue on multiple levels—not only between China and the U.S. but also
domestically within each country. He thanked Carnegie and GEI for arranging the event, saying that he appreciated the opportunity to meet with people from a range of
sectors, from government officials to business and NGO leaders. He also highlighted the far-reaching impacts of China-U.S. climate cooperation:
"Taking active measures to address climate change is in the interest of all mankind, and it requires the cooperation of all countries. As the largest developing country
and the largest developed country in the world, respectively, China and the United States having a dialogue and strengthening cooperation on the issue of climate
change are inevitable in history. China and the U.S. conducting dialogue and pragmatic cooperation on climate change will benefit not only the relations of the two
countries, but also international cooperation and actions to address climate change."
Minister Xie went on to say that his visit to Washington was very productive and met its three primary goals of promoting greater understanding, discussing future
cooperation, and preparing for the G20 meeting in April. While differing perspectives and a poor understanding of each others’ circumstances can sometimes present a
barrier to cooperation, Xie noted that his meetings this week with members of Congress and the Obama administration had already revealed many areas of consensus.
Yet Xie also drew attention to the fact that China and the United States are in very different circumstances with regards to their economic development, and these
circumstances inevitably affect each country’s potential to address climate change. The United States, he said, should establish a domestic cap-and-trade system and
should provide financial and technological support for developing countries as they strive to find an environmentally sustainable path toward economic development.
But despite the environmental and development challenges facing the country, and contrary to common misconception, China is already taking
important steps to increase energy efficiency and curb emissions growth. Xie listed a number of initiatives that China has implemented or augmented
in recent years, including an ambitious goal to cut energy intensity (per unit of GDP) by 20 percent by 2010, with a complementary goal of increasing the share of
renewable energy to 10 percent by 2010 and 15 percent by 2020. Xie noted that China aims to use market mechanisms to promote clean technology as much as
possible; indeed, thanks in part to a set of economic policies that prioritize renewable energy, China already ranks 5th in the world in installed wind power capacity, and
it is the world leader by far in installed solar thermal capacity.
Regarding multilateral cooperation, Xie was adamant that all countries should adhere to the Bali roadmap and should strive to attain
productive results in Copenhagen in December. The financial crisis must not be used as an excuse for countries to lessen their existing commitments
under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. U.S.-China dialogue and cooperation benefits both countries and benefits
the world, he said, and this bilateral cooperation may ultimately make a global deal possible .
EPA regulation is both necessary and sufficient – achieves adequate emissions reductions while giving the US global
credibility.
Christian Parenti, editor of The Nation, “The Nation: The Case for EPA Action,” 4/20/ 2010, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126129216
On April 1 the Environmental Protection Agency established rules restricting greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, starting in 2012. This is the first of what
could become a sweeping series of regulations stemming from the agency's conclusion that greenhouse gases harm human health. If the EPA were to act
robustly, it could achieve significant and immediate greenhouse gas emissions reductions using nothing more than existing laws and
current technology. Doing so would signal to a waiting world that America is serious about addressing climate change .
But a dangerous assault on the agency is gathering momentum in Congress, corporate boardrooms, the media and the courts. The swarm of counterattacks all seek to
strip the EPA of its power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources like coal-fired power plants. Some legislative proposals would even undo the
EPA's finding that greenhouse gases are hazardous, taking the EPA out of the climate fight altogether.
Wonkish at first glance, the fight over EPA rulemaking may be the most important environmental battle in a generation. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change says rich countries like the United States must cut emissions 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 —only ten years
away—and thereafter make precipitous cuts to almost zero emissions. If we don't act now, average global temperatures will likely
increase by more than 2 degrees Celsius and trigger self-compounding runaway climate change, resulting in a massive rise in sea
levels, devastated agriculture and attendant social chaos. Not one of the climate change bills up for discussion meets this threshold, and it is looking
increasingly unlikely that Congress will be able to pass any comprehensive climate change legislation this session. The failures of Congress and the harrowing facts of
climate science mean that aggressive and immediate EPA action is essential.
From a legal perspective, the EPA has all the tools it needs to respond adequately to the climate crisis. In fact, "the United States has the strongest
environmental laws in the world," says Kassie Siegel, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity. The center specializes in suing the government when it
violates green laws. "We don't need new
gas emissions over 1990 levels by 2020."
legislation. The Clean Air Act can achieve everything we need : a 40 percent reduction of greenhouse
Credibility is key to meeting global targets and preventing the collapse of multilateralism.
Lisa Friedman, NYT, “Overseas Frustration Grows Over U.S. Domestic Impasse on Climate Policy,” 8/3/ 2010,
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/08/03/03climatewire-overseas-frustration-grows-over-us-domestic-61456.html?pagewanted=all
Top climate change leaders from Europe to Africa are wondering if it's time to give up on the United States.
Frustrated by the U.S. Senate's recent abandonment of climate legislation and baffled by Congress' seeming inability to cut emissions, several officials
told ClimateWire that countries are uncertain about America's role in upcoming treaty negotiations .
"Why is it that for the last 20 years the United States is unable to have a bill on climate change? What's happening? What's going on? It's very complicated to
understand," said Brice Lalonde, France's top negotiator.
"For a lot of us, we cannot wait for the United States. We have to go on. It's like Kyoto,; we just go on" Lalonde said, referring to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol
treaty that the U.S. joined but never ratified, leaving European countries to largely carry the weight of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Added Pa Ousman Jarju, lead negotiator for the small West African nation of Gambia, "We cannot rely on the U.S., because everything the U.S. is supposed
to do depends on domestic policy. So we're not going to get anything from the U.S. in terms of tangible commitment."
He charged that the international community is "no longer hopeful" that America, the world's biggest historic emitter of global warming
pollution, will ever pass a bill to cut emissions. That, he said, leaves the global community with two options: "Either the rest of the
world continues to do what they were doing before, or the whole multilateral system will collapse."
Yesterday a mid-year session aimed at crafting a new global treaty to either extend or replace the Kyoto Protocol opened in Bonn, Germany. United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Secretariat Christiana Figueres pressed representatives from the 190 countries present to "take the next central step in the
battle against climate change."
Specifically, she called on countries to build on promises they made as part of the Copenhagen Accord in Denmark last year to both cut carbon and deliver billions of
dollars for vulnerable nations. Cancun, Mexico -- the December site for the next U.N. mega-summit on climate change, "the job of governments is to turn the politically
possible into the politically irreversible," she said.
President Obama promised in Copenhagen that America would cut emissions about 17 percent below 2005 levels in the coming decade and about 83
percent by mid-century. Asked how to move forward when other countries -- unable to see how the United States can keep its pledge in the absence of domestic
legislation -- are unwilling to set their own promises in motion, Figueres downplayed the importance of a U.S. bill.
"Whether the United States meets the pledge that it put on the Copenhagen Accord via legislation or whether it meets it via regulation
is an internal domestic affair of the United States and one that they need to solve ," she said. "What is clear is that at an international
level the United States needs to participate in a meaningful way, and in a way that is commensurate with its responsibility ."
Independently, multilat solves extinction.
Gwynne Dyer, former senior lecturer in war studies at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, 12/30/2004, The End of War, The Toronto Star, p. lexis
The "firebreak" against nuclear weapons use that we began building after Hiroshima and Nagasaki has held for well over half a century now. But the
proliferation of nuclear weapons to new powers is a major challenge to the stability of the system. So are the coming crises, mostly
environmental in origin, which will hit some countries much harder than others, and may drive some to desperation. Add in the huge impending shifts in the
great-power system as China and India grow to rival the United States in GDP over the next 30 or 40 years and it will be hard to keep things
from spinning out of control. With good luck and good management, we may be able to ride out the next half-century without the firstmagnitude catastrophe of a global nuclear war, but the potential certainly exists for a major die-back of human population. We cannot command the good luck,
but good management is something we can choose to provide. It depends, above all, on preserving and extending the multilateral system that
we have been building since the end of World War II. The rising powers must be absorbed into a system that emphasizes co-operation and
makes room for them, rather than one that deals in confrontation and raw military power. If they are obliged to play the traditional great-power
game of winners and losers, then history will repeat itself and everybody loses.
Uniqueness Wall
GOP will try to block regulations and are close to being able to override a veto.
Ben Geman, The Hill, “Top Republican eyes Congressional Review Act challenge to EPA rules,” 1/2/2011, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/135595upton-eyes-congressional-review-act-challenge-to-epa-climate-rules
The incoming chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee indicated Sunday that Republicans
will seek to employ a rarely-used
statute to block Environmental Protection Agency greenhouse gas rules.
“We are not going let this administration regulate what they have been unable to legislate,” Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said on "Fox News
Sunday."
Upton said the
Congressional Review Act – a mid-1990s law that was part of then-Speaker Newt Gingrich’s (R-Ga.) “Contract with America” – provides an
opening to kill emissions regulations.
The Act allows Congress to overturn federal rules but has been used successfully just once, and an attempt to kill EPA rules with it
sputtered in the Senate last year. But ascendant Republicans plan to dust it off in the new Congress .
Resolutions under the Act have an easy path to the Senate floor and cannot be filibustered.
An attempt to outright kill EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions would face a near-certain veto. But Upton noted that
some Democrats oppose EPA rules as well.
“It can be vetoed by the President, but already we have seen a number of powerful Democrats indicate that they have real,
real qualms what the EPA is intending to do ,” Upton said.
The GOP is gaining momentum – Obama needs to hold the line.
Russell Berman, The Hill, “Healthcare repeal tops list of Obama’s pending showdowns with Republicans,” 12/28/2010,
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/135231-healthcare-repeal-tops-list-of-obamas-pending-showdowns-with-gop-
One area where Republicans might have an upper hand is in their fight against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). With the Democrats’
cap-and-trade plan dead in Congress for the foreseeable future, the Obama administration has turned to executive rule-writing to try to reduce carbon
emissions and combat climate change.
The EPA took a big step toward expanded carbon regulations by announcing a timetable earlier this month for phasing in emissions standards for power plants and
refineries. While the agency cites a Supreme Court ruling granting it the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emission, its aggressiveness has drawn the ire of coal-state
senators like Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), who has pushed for legislation to roll back the EPA’s power.
In addition to a GOP House largely opposed to climate change regulation, Rockefeller now has six more Republicans in the Senate,
along with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), his Mountaineer State colleague who famously shot a hole through the cap-and-trade bill in a campaign ad.
Obama will face pressure to fight these efforts from environmental advocates in his liberal base already disappointed by the failure to
pass a broad climate change bill. Yet as gas prices rise with the recovering economy, public opinion could sway heavily against
increased regulation and its associated short-term costs.
The GOP won’t succeed in the squo.
Ben Geman and Andrew Restuccia, The Hill, “EPA sets the stage for expanded climate rules,” 12/23/2010, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2wire/134969-epa-sets-stage-for-expanded-climate-rules
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unveiled a schedule Thursday for setting greenhouse gas standards for power plants and oil refineries.
While EPA is pledging a “common-sense” approach, the move is likely to escalate a battle between the Obama administration and Republicans, who argue climate
regulations will hurt the economy. Members of the GOP are pledging to block the rules on Capitol Hill next year.
The Clean Air Act standards will address two industry sectors that together account for almost 40 percent of U.S. emissions, EPA said.
The agency plans to propose so-called performance standards for oil- and coal-fired power plants in July of 2011, and for refineries in December of 2011. The agency
plans to finalize the power plant rules in May of 2012 and complete the refiner rules in November of 2012.
“We are following through on our commitment to proceed in a measured and careful way to reduce [greenhouse gas] pollution that
threatens the health and welfare of Americans, and contributes to climate change,” EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in a statement.
EPA has already completed rules that will begin to include carbon emissions in Clean Air Act permitting programs early next year. But those initial rules will only
cover new and overhauled industrial plants with large emissions, and are applied on a case-by-case basis.
The rules slated for completion in 2012, in contrast, set a national, industry-specific standard for power plants and refineries which could be applied to existing facilities
in some cases.
“These standards will help American companies attract private investment to the clean energy upgrades that make our companies more
competitive and create good jobs here at home,” Jackson said.
But EPA’s schedule came under attack from an industry representative, who called the schedule "unrealistic."
"By singling out the energy sector, the agency puts the nation's fragile economic recovery at risk and stifles job creation. Small businesses, schools, hospitals and
energy-intensive manufacturers are particularly at risk from high energy prices,” said Scott Segal, an attorney with the firm Bracewell & Giuliani who represents
utilities and refiners, in a statement.
The agreement on the schedule for the rules stems from a lawsuit brought by states and environmental groups seeking controls on heat-trapping emissions.
EPA’s regulations have become the focal point of political battles over climate change after emissions-capping legislation collapsed on Capitol
Hill.
Senior Republicans, including Rep. Fred Upton (Mich.), the incoming chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, have pledged efforts to
block EPA when they take control of the House next year.
But current House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) — who is about to hand the gavel to Republicans — doesn’t think
the GOP can topple EPA greenhouse gas rules.
“They are not going to succeed in stopping EPA from acting under existing law, and I think the Republicans underestimate the support
of the American people for environmental legislation,” Waxman told reporters in the Capitol on Wednesday.
“I don’t think they are going to get any bills passed to stop EPA. ... You need to pass it through both houses and get a signature by the
president. I don’t think it is going to happen,” Waxman said.
Obama is ready for the fight now but must follow through to protect the EPA.
Coral Davenport, National Journal, “Administration Pushes for New Climate Change Rules,” 12/23/2010, http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/administrationpushes-for-new-climate-change-rules-20101223
The fiery exchange is just a preview of the explosive battle to come in the new year and the new Congress, as emboldened
Republicans prepare to attack EPA’s new regulatory authority on climate as a prime symbol of what they view as government overreach.
The agency’s moves seem to signal that the Obama administration is ready for the fight -- and hopes to score political points of its own.
“They EPA moves -- they are flexing their muscles,” said Kevin Book, managing director of the consulting firm Clearview Energy Partners. “EPA has become
an activist on the Texas refining sector. It’s one of the safest political moves the Obama administration could make. They were never going to win Texas in 2012
anyway. The base of the Democratic party will only reward the administration for this decision.”
The climate rules have been among the most politically difficult moves for the administration. Obama came into office with a sweeping energy
and climate change agenda, which he hoped to move through Congress. But as the legislation stalled, EPA released a finding that greenhouse gases endanger human
health, triggering a requirement of new regulations under the Clean Air Act, with or without legislation -- a nightmare scenario for many industries
and Republicans in Congress. The strategy had been to prod Congress to act before the rules kicked in -- an effort that failed spectacularly this summer when a
Senate climate bill went down in flames.
Now the White House must follow through on what administration officials always conceded was a plan B -- and has become a
ripe political target for Republicans.
The GOP doesn’t have enough votes to prevent a veto yet.
Jesse Jenkins, director of Energy and Climate Policy at the Breakthrough Institute, “Obama Facing Tough Balancing Act as EPA Advances Greenhouse Gas
Regulations,” 12/23/2010, http://theenergycollective.com/jessejenkins/48969/obama-facing-tough-balancing-act-epa-advances-greenhouse-gas-regulations
The EPA announced plans to apply regulatory tools under the Clean Air Act to set performance standards for emissions at both new and existing
power plants and refineries, two major sources of climate pollution responsible for roughly 40 percent of all U.S. GHG emissions. The rules for power plants [pdf]
would be proposed by July 26, 2011 and finalized by May 26, 2012, while refinery rules [pdf] will be released December 20, 2011 and finalized by November 10, 2012.
This sets up the Obama Administration and EPA for a protracted fight as new rules are developed and both political and legal
challenges ensue.
The EPA is obligated by court rulings to promulgate rules to limit greenhouse gas emissions at the nation's largest emitters, including power plants, industry, and
refineries. The agency has previously issued emissions standards for cars and trucks (in the form of new fuel economy standards) and large new industrial emitters.
Environmental groups have pressed EPA in courts to apply the Clean Air Act as broadly as possible to tackle climate pollution, however, including suing to require
EPA to apply regulations to power plants, refineries, and other large stationary emissions sources. Meanwhile, with cap and trade legislation stymied in Congress, the
Administration is likely to turn to the EPA to continue making progress on climate change, which President Obama rightly considers a threat to the public.
However, the EPA route will encounter stiff resistance from both industry and ascendent Republicans in Congress.
Both the incoming chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Republican Rep. Darrell Issa of California, and Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan, the new chairman of
the House Energy and Commerce Committee have vowed to fight EPA's efforts to regulate greenhouse gases, and are likely to repeatedly haul Administrator
Lisa Jackson in front of their committees to defend the EPA's efforts.
Support has also grown since November in both the House and the Senate to pass legislation blocking EPA from regulating GHGs.
While opponents of EPA regulation may not have enough votes to overcome a presidential veto, they do have enough support -- and
now the right committee chairmanships -- to provoke a very public fight, one the Obama Administration may be reluctant to engage in.
Internal Link Wall
Political capital is key to insure regulations –
Prevents the GOP from rallying enough support to defund it and/or override a veto – 1NC Cohen ev.
Obama will veto a measure if the political atmosphere is right.
Elizabeth McGowan, Reuters, “EPA and Congress Headed for Showdowns over Carbon Regulations in 2011,” 12/29/2010,
1.
2.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS102671518720101229?pageNumber=3
Sen. Jay Rockefeller’s single-handed effort to stall the tailoring rule faded away in December when fellow Democrat and Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid of Nevada opted not to shoe-horn the measure into a jam-packed lame-duck session. Democratic Rep. Nick Rahall, who will no longer chair the Natural
Resources Committee next year, had introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives.
However, that doesn’t mean the resolve of the two West Virginians has disappeared. Parenteau, the law school professor, predicts legislators from
coal states are intent on crafting a two-year delay, at the very least.
“Odds are that some sort of moratorium is what Congress is going to come up with,” he said, adding that an attempt at an indefinite
delay is possible. “The question is, will the president make good on his threat to veto it ?
will but it will be an atmospheric decision . A lot of people are ready to write President Obama off and say he doesn’t have
a backbone. If the economy looks better, if the tax package starts to reinvigorate it, he will wage a fight to win with the Republicans.”
“I think he
And, the plan pisses off labor unions.
Jagdish N. Bhagwati, Senior Fellow for International Economics at the Council on Foreign Relations, “Stricter Rules for Skilled-Worker Visas Are a Mistake,”
11/12/2009, http://www.cfr.org/publication/20732/stricter_rules_for_skilledworker_visas_are_a_mistake.html
Much of the debate over U.S. immigration policy has focused on illegal immigration, but visas for skilled workers also are under attack, from Congress
and from nativist and union lobbies. Recent congressional efforts to create stricter rules for skilled-worker visas are "particularly inappropriate," says Jagdish
N. Bhagwati, CFR's senior fellow for International Economics and a professor at Columbia University, who also recently coedited the book Skilled Immigration Today:
Prospects, Problems and Policies. The current attitude, fueled in part by the recession, is based on a fallacy, says Bhagwati, because it fails to account for the quality of
skilled-worker visa holders. He points out that many of these hires are from world-class technological and management institutions in India, Seoul, and China, which
the United States has often helped to set up.
"Intel, Microsoft--they are looking for the best people they can get," Bhagwati says, and "the Americans who do not get the jobs in competition with the foreign hires
tend to be graduates who are at the bottom of the class." Any openness policy is going to be a tough sell for lawmakers right now, but he argues that
openness benefits the country economically.
Much of the debate at the end of the Bush administration was focused on illegal immigration from Mexico, though it also included the issue of expanding visas for
skilled workers, such as the H-1B Visa. With a new Congress and a financial crisis, however, the politics has shifted to restricting these quotas,
not increasing them. Why do you feel the United States needs to hire skilled foreign workers and why aren't there enough workers in the United States to do these jobs?
The recent immigration [bill], which failed, focused for the most part on illegal immigration. U.S. legislation typically addresses refugees, legal immigrants, and illegal
immigrants separately, so the issue of hiring skilled foreign workers belongs to legislation addressed to legal immigration. But it got included in the current reform
legislation addressing illegal immigration, to increase lobbying support for a failing bill. The calculation was that, by adding this issue, the proponents
of the bill would galvanize the support of influential firms such as Intel and Microsoft, which use a lot of the foreign skilled workers.
But this strategy didn't work.
In some areas of negotiations like trade, the more issues you open up, the more tradeoffs are possible and you can make progress by
making concessions in one area and "collecting" in another. This does not work with immigration, however. Within each area of
immigration, there are lobbies on both sides. Thus, adding skilled immigration to the illegal immigration bill drew in the support of Intel,
Microsoft etc.; but it also drew in opposition from the lobbies representing the native engineers who opposed the use of skilled
foreigners who would "take jobs away from them." They said: We're not getting employed, why should we have more [visas]? So, in fact, instead of
winning the war for the bill, you simply added another battle ground! I firmly believe that the native opposition to skilled foreigners
coming into the United States is harmful to us.
Labor lobbies are key to an effective rollout of regulations.
Brendan Smith, Co-founder of the labor network for sustainability, “5 Reasons Why EPA Regulation of Greenhouse Gasses Is Good for Labor,” 11/30/2010,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-smith/5-reasons-why-epa-regulat_b_789737.html
5. Climate-destroying greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced to the level climate science says is acceptable - the consequences of not doing so are just too
devastating. With labor-supported climate legislation defeated, EPA regulation is the primary means available now to get started. While the cuts mandated by the EPA
are far less than those in labor-supported climate legislation, and far below targets established by climate scientists as necessary to avoid the worst effects of climate
change, they do provide an opportunity to start moving in the right direction. For the sake of its members, their communities, and their children, organized labor
must help take the lead.
Of course, the fossil fuel lobby, climate change deniers, and right-wing ideologues are trying to scare American workers that climate protection will mean vast loss of
jobs. But most studies indicate exactly the opposite: money invested in the transition to clean energy will produce far more jobs than continuing to expand the use of
fossil fuels. For example, a research group at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst estimates that $150 billion in clean-energy spending will generate 1.7 million
new jobs.
With so much to gain from effective climate protection, American labor should strongly support EPA regulation of greenhouse gasses . We should be
insisting that EPA regulation maximize the creation of new green jobs. And we should be taking the lead in recommending ways to protect any
specific groups of workers from being inadvertently harmed along the way. Labor should insist that every worker who may be adversely affected by
climate change policies receive a package like the "GI Bill of Rights" that provides guaranteed income during transition, pensions, health care, and education and
financial support for new careers. And we should insist that communities dependent on fossil fuel-related jobs in regions like Appalachia, the
Midwest, and the Gulf Coast be targeted for massive community and regional development programs focused on new, renewable
forms of energy.
Only if organized labor constructively engages with the EPA regulation process are we likely to have a result that protects both
workers' jobs and the health and welfare of workers, our children, and our communities.
Pc now
Obama has replenished capital
Collinson, 12/31/2010 (Obama, republicans face new washington battles, Agence France Presse, p.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gu4m_B9l3Tre_hKWxPxB9fXEumA?docId=CNG.9205da04450c60fdfee82a0a332188cf.451)
Barack Obama returns to a transformed Washington next week, with empowered Republicans bristling for a defining budget fight and the calendar
relentlessly pointing to the 2012 election. President Obama will swap the peace of his Hawaii vacation for a stormy new political season,
looking more resilient and self-confident than many thought possible with his political stock replenished by year-end victories.
More links
1nc – shales ev – labor lobbies as well as terrorists fear prove that it drains pc
Plan angers key lobbies.
USA Today, 8 (“Giving visas to skilled workers bolsters economy,” 3/25, lexis)
It's impossible to look at these numbers and not see a problem. President Bush and all three major presidential contenders see one and have expressed a desire to
increase the number of H-1Bs awarded. And yet the
efforts to raise the H-1B cap, as well as to provide more permanent visas to highly
skilled workers, is being thwarted in Washington by labor and anti-immigration groups. What's needed is obvious. The H-1B program should be
both expanded and overhauled. Its critics rightly point out that it does not differentiate well between truly high-skilled workers and those
who are merely in high demand. Valuable H-1B slots have gone to nurses' assistants, even chefs and models. Beyond the H-1B program, more permanent visas
need to be steered to highly skilled people. The obvious place to start is the 30,000 on temporary visas who get masters degrees, and 16,000 who get Ph.D.s, in science
and engineering each year from American universities. These are some of the most desirable hires on the planet, and many have been financially supported by
government and private foundations. And yet once they get their degrees, they are told to go home. Some of the most ardent opposition comes from labor
groups. Building on a hostility to immigration and globalization, they argue that employment-based immigration displaces U.S.
workers and depresses wages.
Stand alone bills can’t garner support.
Ali, 10 – reports for Congress.org covered the White House for Bloomberg, and holds graduate degree from the Medill School of Journalism (5/26/10, Ambreen,
“Why activists prefer coalitions; Immigrant rights groups strengthen numbers by working together,”
http://www.congress.org/news/2010/05/26/why_activists_prefer_coalitions)
The immigration debate has become primarily about the 12 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S., overshadowing less contentious parts
of the bill. Aman Kapoor and his colleagues at Immigration Voice want to change the nation's immigration laws, but they are not concerned with the illegal
immigration issue. What they want is less politically charged: an easier path to permanent residency for well-educated foreigners who
come to the U.S. on work visas. So why doesn't Kapoor go it alone, rather than tying his cause to the larger call for a comprehensive immigration overhaul?
"Nobody has the political capital to push their political agenda by themselves . And if they do that, everybody else pushes them
down," he said. Kapoor's group is part of a coalition called Reform Immigration for America that wants Congress to pass a bill that changes immigration laws
comprehensively — tying together issues from visas for same-sex couples to the handling of illegal immigrants by police. Hundreds of groups make up this
pro-overhaul flank of the immigration movement. By working together, they can pool resources to outnumber opponents, bring out
large numbers at protest rallies, and be effective in lobbying campaigns . There's an extra advantage for Kapoor, an Indian citizen, and his fellow H1-B
visa holders. As non-citizens, they don't have a vote like others in the coalition do. Congress is structured so that lawmakers are most interested in the
concerns of their constituents, which is where allies and coalitions come into play. "I think the system works for those who are willing
to speak up. What we are doing is in the best of American traditions. We are speaking up in a peaceful manner ," the 38-year-old database
administrator said. Kapoor, a green-card holder, doesn't have a dog in the fight over illegal immigration. His fellow activists are H1-B visa holders who want Congress
to do something about the 25-year backlog on their green cards. They have the backing of major corporations who also lobby on the issue, though the companies are
more interested in increasing the number of H1-B visas issued than in easing the path to green cards. Immigration Voice has tried standalone bills
before, without success. "Frankly none of us has the majority that is required to get something done ," he said. "If you look at the bigger
picture, things would not happen in a vacuum. We would be debating and arguing against our own agenda ." That doesn't mean all is rosy in
the coalition. Kapoor said most groups are looking out for themselves. "Everybody is clinging on to their set of provisions that they would rather see
through in the bigger deal. But if any two categories don't compete with each other, then no group has any issues with what the other
group is proposing," he said, adding that there haven't been any points of conflict yet.
AT – No Spillover
Immigration reform causes backlash that spills over to Obama’s broader agenda
Tichenor, 2009 (Daniel - the Philip H. Knight Professor of Social Science at the University of Oregon and Senior Faculty Fellow
at the Wayne Morse Center for Law and Politics, Navigating an American Minefield, The Forum, Vol. 7, Iss. 13, p. 21)
Significantly, the Obama administration is almost certain to have far fewer degrees of freedom on immigration than its recent
predecessors. “If a fight starts, watch the crowd,” E.E. Schattschneider advised us nearly fifty years ago. He was reflecting on how political
conflicts are profoundly shaped by their scope, and bystanders may enter the fray and alter the power dynamics among those
politically engaged on an issue.63 The scope of conflict in American politics over illegal immigration and the future of undocumented aliens is greater now than it
has been for decades, if not ever. Against this backdrop, Obama certainly will not have the luxury of being as cautious or defensively opportunistic as Clinton was.
Illegal immigration has emerged as one of the nation’s most formidable modern policy dilemmas. How Obama navigates this political minefield will
have profound implications for his broader reform agenda and his party’s future.
AT – Winners Win
Fights bleed momentum not generate capital
Harris and Lee, Jan. 20, 2010 (John and Carol, Obama’s first year, Politico, p.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=4DF829C9-18FE-70B2-A8381A971FA3FFC9)
Obama believed that early success would be self-reinforcing, building a powerful momentum for bold government action. This belief
was the essence of the White House’s theory of the “big bang” — that success in passing a big stimulus package would lead to success in passing
health care, which in turn would clear the way for major cap-and-trade environmental legislation and “re-regulation” of the financial services sector — all in the
first year. This proved to be a radical misreading of the dynamics of power. The massive cost of the stimulus package and industry bailouts —
combined with the inconvenient fact that unemployment went up after their passage — meant that Obama spent the year bleeding momentum
rather than steadily increasing public confidence in his larger governing vision. That vision was further obscured for many
Americans by the smoke from the bitter and seemingly endless legislative battle on Capitol Hill over health care.
Health care and energy prove winners don’t win – capital is finite
Dan Lashof, director of the National Resource Defense Council's climate center, Ph.D. from the Energy and Resources Group at
UC-Berkeley, 7-28-2010, NRDC Switchboard Blog, "Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda: Lessons from Senate Climate Fail,"
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dlashof/coulda_shoulda_woulda_lessons.html
Lesson 2: Political capital is not necessarily a renewable resource. Perhaps the most fateful decision the Obama administration made early on was to
move healthcare reform before energy and climate legislation. I’m sure this seemed like a good idea at the time. Healthcare reform was popular, was
seen as an issue that the public cared about on a personal level, and was expected to unite Democrats from all regions. White House officials and Congressional
leaders reassured environmentalists with their theory that success breeds success. A quick victory on healthcare reform would renew Obama’s political capital,
some of which had to be spent early on to push the economic stimulus bill through Congress with no Republican help. Healthcare reform was eventually
enacted, but only after an exhausting battle that eroded public support, drained political capital and created the Tea Party movement.
Public support for healthcare reform is slowly rebounding as some of the early benefits kick in and people realize that the forecasted Armageddon is not
this is occurring too slowly to rebuild Obama’s political capital in time to help push climate legislation across
the finish line.
happening. But