2ac

2AC First off, we drop the criterion. Go with net benefits. We win there too.

Roadmap: 1. T 2. Kritik 3. O-Spec 4. CP 5. On-case

Topi-flipping-cality 1. I accept the neg definitions and interpretations. Neg claims we need to remove a problem in the status quo. Loopholes are clearly problems, and as we see in 2. The lack of upgrades stems from a legal loophole NPR news, “U.S. Power Plants Slow to Clean Up Their Act” August 20, 2006 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5673484

A loophole in the 1970 Clean Air Act allows older plants to avoid installing advanced pollution controls that would slash these deadly emissions. In addition, 1AC evidence shows that the problem with ash disposal is based on loopholes in current regulations.

3. Under their definition of reform (abolishing malpractice) we see aff topicality. Malpractice means a wrongdoing that causes harm (Miriam Webster’s) so abolishing a legal loophole that allows massive pollution abolishes malpractice or abuse in the law and therefore meets the neg definition of reform.

Kritk 1. Link response 1: Shipsey claims I gave him the link in CX. He asked me if I value human life over environment when they conflict. I’m all for saving rainforests, I merely value human life more. Neg hasn’t shown any harm to the environment by the plan, so there is no conflict. Hence, his “link” from CX is nonexistent. I haven’t displayed any “nuke the whale” attitude, I merely said that human life is more important than beetle life. Surely that is not unreasonable. Neg agrees with this. My statement “stupid tree” was obviously made in jest. 2. Link response 2: Neg admits that it is fine to solve problems that only effect humans. The status quo has distinctly negative effects on human life, and the aff plan solves. According to neg, this is reasonable. 3. Link response 3: His card talks about “spreading pollution evenly blah blah blah.” Not the plan. The plan prevents pollution, and I don’t think the deer can be upset that there is less lead in the air. 4. Link Response 4: The aff plan will benefit the environment. I have never heard of a time when less pollution hurts the environment. 5. My COUNTER-KRITIK: • •

Link: Neg runs Kritiks for no reason. Obviously this is not a winning argument. He ran it for the heck of it. Impact: Debate hurt. Debate is hurt by his lack of win.

O-Spec I refuse to respond to this, on the simple grounds that he proceeds to specify his counterplan funding. This is hypocrisy on his part, and represents a huge credibility loss on the part of the negative. He even admits that this is potentially a wash. News flash: it is.

CP GOOD LORD, WHERE TO START? 1. Subsidies: Neg provides no evidence that hemp needs subsidies. This leads to fiscal irresponsibility when we hand out money for stuff that may or may not need it.

0

2. Solvency: He has proof that hemp will replace coal. He says it can, not that it will. Coal is cheap, readily available, and already in place. Companies have no incentive to spend the money to replace all their coal plants with hemp biomass. They can, but they won’t. 3. Exclusivity: The plan is artificially exclusive. You can have legalized hemp, and coal at the same time. They stole our funding, and are subsidizing hemp when we don’t even know that it needs it. This is not only irresponsible fiscally. 4. O-Spec: He claims specifying funding is bad. Then he does it. 5. The advantage about energy independence is bogus. We are not dependant on foreign nations for coal. The evidence talks about oil and gasoline. 6. Timeline: It could take decades to replace coal with hemp, if we do it at all. 30,000 deaths will occur each of those years. 7. Infrastructure: Legalizing the growing of hemp doesn’t address the fact that there is no infrastructure present to turn this hemp into energy. 8. Irresponsibility: By subsidizing hemp when we don’t know that it needs it, the neg promotes fiscal irresponsibility by simply funding random programs that may or may not need it. 9. Evidence date: As best I know, there was no recession in 99. People are going to be a lot less willing to invest in the hemp energy industry in a recession, given that everyone and their dog’s fleas are cutting spending.

On-case 1. Quantification on water contamination: 63 cities across America with confirmed lead ash poisoning New York Times, January 7, 2009,

“Hundreds of Coal Ash Dumps Lack Regulation,”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/us/07sludge.html

As the E.P.A. has studied whether to regulate coal ash waste, the cases of drinking wells and surface water contaminated by leaching from the dumps or the use of the ash has swelled. In 2007, an E.P.A. report identified 63 sites in 26 states where the water was contaminated by heavy metals from such dumps, including three other Tennessee Valley Authority dumps. Environmental advocacy groups have submitted at least 17 additional cases that they say should be added to that list.

2. List of Multi pollutant controls: • Electrostatic Precipitator – removes air particles • Wet limestone flue gas desulphurization system – filters sulfur • Hybrid selective noncatalytic reduction/selective catalytic reduction system – filters Nitrogen oxide • Circulating fluidizing bed dry-scrubbing system – controls sulfur, mercury, acid gas, and particles The first item on the list is the same that is supported in our 99.8% particle solvency piece. 3. Enforcement: EPA enforces the ash laws. You don’t shape up; they slap you with a hefty fine. The blue book is full of cases all about how mean the EPA is. 4. Existing vs Future: Plan clearly means all ash dumps. If your dump aint lined, you move the ash to one that is lined. It can be done. An EPA study from several years ago tried to enact this plan, but they backpedaled under industry pressure. 5. Agency: The DOE does the retrofits. Obviously, we aren’t having the EPA do the retrofits. All our evidence about the retrofits clearly shows its DOE job. Now I would like to point out a couple of things:

1. 30,000 annual death harm = dropped He made a huge stink about it during CX, and then never mentioned it. SQ represents 30,000 deaths each year. That’s depressing.

2. 99.8% pollution removal Once again, not addressed. We can removal almost 100% of the pollution from coal emissions. What a WIN!

3. NEG FAILS TO ADRESS THE MERITS OF THE CASE!!! Points that he concedes: • 30,000 deaths each year • Plants require upgrades • Coal ash is improperly handled • Coal ash is toxic stuff that kills babies • Coal pollution is linked to cancer, heart disease, lung disease, etc • Plan reduces particle pollution by 99.8% • Plan reduces all proven coal pollutants by around 95% • Aff plan represents not only the safest for humans, but also the most ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY way of treating ash.