Elections Aff

SDI ‘08 Elections Aff

Elections Aff Elections Aff................................................................................................................................................................................... .............1 McCain Will Win.............................................................................................................................................................................. ...........2 McCain will Win....................................................................................................................................................................................... ...3 Emission Cap Unpopular – GOP Base............................................................................................................................................. ............4 Emissions Cap Unpopular – Energy Costs........................................................................................................................................... ........5 Emissions Cap Unpopular – Energy Costs........................................................................................................................................... ........6 Permits Unpopular......................................................................................................................................................................... ..............7 Link Defense - General...................................................................................................................................................................... ..........8 A2: Energy Link...................................................................................................................................................................... ...................9 A2: Warming Link................................................................................................................................................................... .................10 A2: Independents link............................................................................................................................................................... ................11 A2: Aids Impact............................................................................................................................................................................. ...........12 A2: Overpop Impact........................................................................................................................................................... ......................13 A2: Overpop Impact........................................................................................................................................................... ......................14 A2: Soft Power.................................................................................................................................................................. .......................15 Lost Bad – Econ/Heg..................................................................................................................................................................... ............16 LOST Bad – Heg – Environment Restrictions....................................................................................................................... ....................17 A2: Military Exemptions Solve............................................................................................................................................................... ..18 LOST Bad – Heg/Terrorism/Prolif – Freedom of Action..................................................................................................... ......................19 A2: Arctic/Oil........................................................................................................................................................................ ...................20 A2: Environment...................................................................................................................................................................................... .21 A2: PSI.................................................................................................................................................................................. ...................22 A2: Lost Impacts – All................................................................................................................................................................... ...........23 A2: Turns Not Unique.......................................................................................................................................................................... .....24

1

SDI ‘08 Elections Aff

McCain Will Win McCain will win – several reasons CBS News, 6/4/08 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/04/opinion/polls/main4154051.shtml?source=mostpop_story) The poll contains troubling signs for Obama as he looks to mobilize the Democratic Party behind him following his long and sometimes bitter battle with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, however. Twelve percent of Democrats say they will support McCain in the general election. That's higher than the 8 percent of Democrats who defected to President Bush in 2004. Nearly a quarter of Clinton supporters say they will back McCain instead of Obama in the general election. McCain leads Obama by 8 points among registered independent voters, considered a key voting block in November. The Arizona senator leads Obama 46 percent to 38 percent, with 11 percent of respondents undecided. Sixty-three percent of all voters - including more than half of Democratic primary voters - say the length of the Democratic primary battle has hurt the Democratic nominee's chances. Just 27 percent say it has helped the nominee's cause. cont… McCain is seen as "very likely" to be an effective Commander-in-Chief by more registered voters than either Obama or Clinton. Thirtynine percent of those surveyed said McCain is "very likely" to be effective, versus 25 percent for Obama and 22 percent for Clinton. However, a majority says it is at least "somewhat likely" any of the three candidates would be effective.

Mccain will win – hillary defectors, independents, red states and latin voters Perce, 7/3/08 (Joseph, Editor @ Political Bull, http://www.politicalbull.net/why_i_believe_mccain_will_win_the_election.html) Help for McCain will come from former Clinton supporters that will come to his side during the November Election. According to a recent article on CBS News, "Twelve percent of Democrats say they will support McCain in the general election. That's higher than the 8 percent of Democrats who defected to President Bush in 2004. Nearly a quarter of Clinton supporters say they will back McCain instead of Obama in the general election". The same article goes on to point out that McCain leads Obama by 8 votes among registered Independent voters. Two other important factors to consider in November are the Latino vote and the vote from the so-called "Red States". Despite claims that Obama is making in-roads in the Red States, the numbers seem to prove otherwise. Obama has won 14 red states and over half of them have not voted for a Democrat to be president in the general election in over 40 years, according to an article on the Washington Post. The article states, "Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 campaign was the last Democrat who won Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Utah and Virginia. Meanwhile, five states have backed a Democratic presidential candidate sometime in the past 20 years: Colorado (1992), Georgia (1992), Missouri (1996), Louisiana (1996) and Iowa (2000)." Obama will certainly have a tough time getting a majority of the Latino vote as well, as the Florida primary exemplifies (Despite the fact that it was not counted). Ultimately, it is my opinion for the reasons stated above, that McCain will win the 2008 election.

Polls are wrong – electoral votes favor McCain MONTOPOLI 6/25/06 [BRIAN political correspondent, CBS NEWS http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/25/politics/horserace/entry4207063.shtml] Obama is no Dukakis: The Illinois senator is a far more charismatic campaigner, and will not take the sort of time off from running for president that Dukakis disastrously did in 1988. And as Power Line points out, June polls have become far more predictive of final results since Dukakis’ failed run. But even now, McCain’s chances may be better than

these early national polls suggest: CBS News chief political consultant Marc Ambinder examined the general election map Friday and found that between base states and those leaning towards McCain, the Arizona senator could claim 220 electoral votes. Obama could claim 212.

2

SDI ‘08 Elections Aff

McCain will Win Obama Will lose – Iraq flip flop dooms him – 3 reasons Telegraph, 7/4/08 Senator Barack Obama has rushed to clarify his position on the Iraq War after he appeared to wobble on a commitment to withdraw US ground troops within 16 months, a central plank of his candidacy. The Democratic presidential nominee used a press conference to say that the timetable was not set in stone and that he would adjust his plans based on conditions on the ground when he visits Iraq later this month. On his website, Mr Obama promises he "will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months". But he told journalists in North Dakota that those policies could be "refined" in the light of what he finds in Iraq. "I've always said the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability," he said. "When I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies." The comments were immediately seized upon by his rival, Republican Senator John McCain, a supporter of the Iraq War who has taunted Mr Obama over his failure to visit Iraq for more than two years. Brian Rogers, a spokesman for Mr McCain, said: “Since announcing his campaign in 2007, the central premise of Barack Obama’s candidacy was his commitment to begin withdrawing American troops from Iraq immediately. Today, Barack Obama reversed that position proving once again that his words do not matter. "Now that Barack Obama has changed course and proven his past positions to be just empty words, we would like to congratulate him for accepting John McCain’s principled stand on this critical national security issue. "If he had visited Iraq sooner or actually had a one-on-one meeting with General (David) Petraeus, he would have changed his position long ago.” The charge stung Mr Obama into a swift response. He held a second press conference just a few hours later to clarify his comments. He accused the McCain camp of suggesting "we were changing our policy when we haven't". "I've given no indication of a change in policy. I intend to end this war. That position has not changed. I have not equivocated on that position. I am not searching for manoeuvering room with respect to that position," Mr Obama said. The charge that he is changing his mind is toxic for three reasons. It allows Mr McCain to argue that he, not Mr Obama, has a better understanding of what now needs to be done in Iraq. Secondly, it gives Republicans evidence to use to depict Mr Obama as just another cynical politician prepared to change his position to win votes. Finally, any shift on Iraq risks alienating the left-wing of his own party, who have grown uneasy at some more moderate positions he has struck in recent weeks.

MCCAIN WILL WIN – INDEPENDENTS AND CLINTON SUPPORTERS. BALZ 6/9/08 [Dan, staff writer, “Campaigns seek to shake up electoral map” Washingtonpost.com http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/08/politics/washingtonpost/main4162291.shtml] McCain's advisers expressed equal confidence that their candidate can hit the 270 mark, despite a political environment that Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, called "a major hurdle

for us."

McCain's team thinks that his potential appeal to independents and some Democrats makes it

possible to prevail in what otherwise looks to be a very tough year. "We understand how to do this," said Mike DuHaime, a senior adviser to both the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee. "We have operatives who understand how to do this. . . . It's going to give us a tremendous opportunity to turn out voters who wouldn't normally be Republicans." McCain hopes to tap potential divisions within the Democratic Party by aggressively targeting disaffected Clinton supporters. "I would not have said that we would have targeted Democratic voters in the numbers we're looking at six months ago or four months ago," Davis said, adding: "We've seen significant movement in our direction." McCain hopes those voters will help him hold on to Ohio, which has been critical to Republican success in the last two elections, and convert Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to the GOP column.

3

SDI ‘08 Elections Aff

Emission Cap Unpopular – GOP Base Warming Regulations alienate GOP Base Greenwire, 5/1/07 There are several reasons for Republicans' lack of attention to global warming, analysts say: There is little apparent interest in the issue among core Republican voters, and there is concern that an aggressive stance on climate might be perceived as tilting too far to the left. But environmentalists say GOP candidates will eventually address the issue as they realize its importance to independent voters and some Republicans. At least, they say, Republican candidates have not denied the reality of climate change. "I just think the Republican candidates haven't developed their positions yet," said Jim O'Brien, a New Hampshire Republican and a member of the Carbon Coalition, a group pressing candidates to address climate change. "They all think there is a problem, they just haven't rolled out any plans." The League of Conservation Voters' Navin Nayak said Republicans are going to be forced to prepare climate plans. "All the Republicans are in a very different position than President Bush, they're going to need to engage on this issue," said Nayak, director of the LCV Education Fund's Global Warming Project. "I don't think any of them are going to be in the same place that President Bush was six years ago or where he is today." Only McCain has given a speech focused largely on climate change. In the speech in Washington last week, McCain largely endorsed legislation he has been promoting for several years, calling for the imposition of a mandatory cap-and-trade system for carbon dioxide emissions. Emphasis on incentives Other major candidates, when asked about the issue, have said that it could best be addressed through incentives and technological development aimed at curbing emissions, rather than through government mandates. The Republican front-runners -- former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney -- have several times touted the importances of weaning the country off foreign oil. Others -- Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson and potential candidate Newt Gingrich -- have taken a similar position. "What they're talking about is solutions to global warming, just phrased differently," O'Brien said. Brownback, in an interview with Greenwire, said he did not know if an aggressive stance on climate change could hurt a GOP candidate, but said Republican voters oppose the use of regulations to deal with the problem. "People are really questioning the use of hard caps and carbon taxes," Brownback said. Asked whether he thought McCain's aggressive stance on climate would hurt him, Brownback replied, "I don't know if you could say that. I know people who are commenting and talking who are more against that than for it." McCain himself told reporters he was unsure how the issue would play in the primaries. But University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato said he has no doubt the issue will play poorly. "Republican activists, for the most part, don't believe in global warming," Sabato said. "They identify it with Al Gore -- whom they hate -with liberals, with Hollywood."

4

SDI ‘08 Elections Aff

Emissions Cap Unpopular – Energy Costs Public Opposes Cap and trade – recent vote proves times have changed Human Events Online, 6/12/08 Four and a half years ago, the U.S. Senate rejected a global-warming bill sponsored by Sens. John McCain and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) by a decisive 43-55 vote. After the vote, McCain said, "We've lost a battle today, but we'll win over time because climate change is real. And we will overcome the influence of the special interests over time. You can only win by marshaling public opinion." But if the recent Senate vote on the Lieberman-Warner global-warming bill is any indication, public opinion is moving away from McCain's 2003 effort and Al Gore's current cadre of climate-change alarmists. After the vote last week, Lieberman claimed 54 senators had supported the bill (although only 48 bothered to actually vote to move the bill forward). A close examination of post-debate statements reveals that support for the cap-and-tax bill was the virtually unchanged from 2003. Of those 54 senators who Lieberman cited, 11 released statements indicating that they could not vote for the bill on final passage. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Mark Pryor (DArk.), John Rockefeller (D-W.V.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and James Webb (D-Va.) sent a letter to the Democrat leadership saying they could not "support final passage" of the bill "in its current form." Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) released a statement saying, "It is clear by the result that serious modifications to this bill are necessary for it to clear the legislative hurdles before it." Even McCain, who has promised to implement an economically devastating cap-and-tax regime as president, issued a statement clarifying that he "could not support the legislation's final passage." With no measurable progress on the "most important issues we face in the world today," as Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is fond of saying, one is left wondering what happened. The simple answer is that the debate is no longer one-sided. The soaring rhetoric of radical environmentalists, liberals and some moderates is no longer gospel. It can and should be challenged with facts about the economy and the immense pain Americans would feel if such a bill were enacted. Despite the resounding defeat, proponents predict success in 2009. Fortunately the American people are becoming aware that job losses, rising prices and falling incomes are not something Congress should be mandating.

Times Have Changed – Permits Unpopular – Energy Costs Chemical News, 6/6/08 US popular support for climate control legislation pending in Congress has begun to wane, and passage of a draconian cap-and-trade emissions limits bill is less likely, a top chemical industry official said on Thursday. Jack Gerard, president of the [1]American Chemistry Council (ACC), told a press conference that "we're beginning to see temporizing in Congress on the cap-and-trade legislation because more and more people are beginning to see the economic impact that the bill would have". The US Senate is this week considering a massive climate control bill, [2]S-3036, the America's Climate Security Act, that would put an immediate cap or limit on the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases by US manufacturers, electric utilities, the transportation sector, refiners and natural gas producers. The emissions caps would be lowered annually until the US reach a level 75% below its 2005 emission by 2050. The bill would provide for the auction of emissions permits that companies would purchase to cover their release of greenhouse gases in excess of cap amounts. It is estimated that, if passed, the bill would raise some $7,000bn (€4,550bn) in federal taxes. Most [3]chemical producers and a wide spectrum of other US manufacturers oppose the bill because of the tax burden and because the measure would put further demand and price pressure on natural gas as a cleaner burning utility fuel. Gerard said that as the economic impact of a cap-and-trade bill becomes more apparent to voters, support for the proposed bill in the US Senate is slipping. "Just six months ago it seemed that proponents of the climate bill were within just one or two votes of the 60 votes needed to ensure its passage in the Senate, but now it looks like they have only 50 votes or less," Gerard said. Gerard said the council has been working at state level to help educate voters and their representatives about the economic costs of the climate bill, noting that Senator [4]Sherrod Brown (Democrat-Ohio), once a solid supporter of cap-and-trade "is now not convinced that this is the way the nation should go" to deal with emissions. "The public are starting to wake up to the fact that this climate bill will have energy and job costs," Gerard said. "When they're asked if they think emissions controls are important, they say yes - but when they learn the costs, they say `but don't raise our energy costs or taxes'," he said. Those concerns are being conveyed to members of Congress and have resulted in diminishing support for the climate bill, Gerard said.

Political pressures make cap and trade unpopular – energy costs Oil Daily, 6/23/08 Kreutzer says it will be hard for McCain to back away from any of his positions at this point, but he notes that McCain has not voiced support for any of the specific cap-and-trade bills offered up in Congress, and that political pressure to lower energy costs is mounting in Congress. "The strongest feedback I'm getting from the Hill is that we need to find a solution to $4 gasoline," Kreutzer said.

5

SDI ‘08 Elections Aff

Emissions Cap Unpopular – Energy Costs Opponents spin cap and trade as massive hike in energy costs Washington Week, 5/21/08 Gasoline-Price Concerns May Undermine Lieberman-Warner Debate Some Republican lawmakers and industry segments are maneuvering to use high gasoline and diesel prices as a foil to undercut CO2 capand-trade legislation that they say would drive up the cost of transportation fuels. Industry sources suggest that political pressure may be increasing as the lines between energy and climate legislation begin to blur because of high fuel prices. Cost concerns are not new in pointing out the shortcomings of a carbon mitigation plan put forth by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA). But new energy legislation principally focused on lowering energy costs provides opponents of major climate change measures an opportunity to position climate change legislation as a detriment to efforts to lower energy prices.

6

SDI ‘08 Elections Aff

Permits Unpopular Even if emission cuts have support - Cap and trade unpopular Kull, ’04 (Stephen, Director, PIPA, http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt.pdf) Because this subject is somewhat complex, respondents were taken through a series of questions. First they were introduced to the subject with the following statement: If this bill (McCain-Lieberman legislation) were to pass, each large company would be allowed to emit a limited amount of greenhouse gasses. A controversial aspect of the bill is that it allows companies to buy and sell their allowances to each other. The idea is that it will cost some companies much more than other companies to change business practices to lower their emissions. If companies with low costs could reduce their emissions further, they could sell their emission allowances to other companies who would save money by buying those allowances. Here are some arguments on these issues. Please select whether you find them convincing or not. They were then presented a series of pro and con arguments. The con arguments were found convincing by large majorities. Seventy-seven percent found convincing (45% very convincing) the argument that “It is just not right for companies to buy the right to emit greenhouse gases. All companies should have to reduce their emissions.” Seventy-seven percent also found convincing (22% very) the argument, “Requiring all companies to lower their emission levels the same amount will force them to adopt new technologies that may be expensive in the short run but will be economically beneficial in the long run.” This is consistent with the popular view (discussed above) that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will ultimately benefit the economy. At the same time though, majorities--albeit much more modest ones--found the pro arguments convincing. Fifty-five percent found convincing (14% very) that “If companies are not allowed to buy and sell their emission allowances, the costs of lowering emissions will be substantially higher than presently estimated for the average American household.” Similarly, 53% found convincing (11% very) the argument that “If we do not let companies buy and sell emission allowances, this would be unfair to companies for whom it is more expensive to lower their emissions, and overall would make it more costly to reduce emissions.” Finally, asked, “Now, having considered these arguments, do you favor or oppose permitting companies to buy and sell their allowances to emit greenhouse gases?” 62% said they opposed the idea while 34% said they favored it.

Permit scheme unpopular with public – support alternative strategies instead Kull, ’04 (Stephen, Director, PIPA, http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/jun04/ClimateChange_June04_rpt.pdf) 3. Strategies for Reducing Emissions Very large majorities support strategies that provide tax incentives to utility companies that sell environmentally clean energy and to individuals who purchase energy-efficient appliances. Very large majorities support major efforts to reduce automobile emissions by requiring higher fuel efficiency standards in automobiles (even if this means higher costs), requiring half of all new automobiles to be hybrid-electric or similarly high-mileage by 2010, renewing the tax incentives for hybrids, and eliminating the tax incentives for large SUVs and Hummers. The strategy for reducing emissions through a system in which companies trade emissions allowances is not popular with the public, though arguments that it would reduce costs are convincing to a modest majority

7

SDI ‘08 Elections Aff

Link Defense - General Public opinion changing – support for alternate energy and emission limits are declining Chemical News and Intelligence, 4/10/08 The tide may be changing on US climate change issues By Joe Kamalick WASHINGTON (ICIS news)--Recent US news reports have challenged popular and congressional wisdom about global warming but the reports were significant more for their venue than content - and they suggest a small but telling shift in public opinion. Citing various scholars and scientists, the news reports said that biofuels might not be the panacea for US energy and environmental problems and that emissions caps might damage the US economy without any effect on climate change. None of this is very new stuff, really, and has been reported here and elsewhere on ICIS news, other focused media and government studies for considerable time. However, these new challenging reports appeared in recent issues of Time magazine and The New York Times, two news outlets that are hip-deep in the US mainstream. The fact that those grand dames of US media are questioning basic tenets of climate change philosophy indicates that a sea change in opinion may be under way. Perhaps most surprising and damning was the Time magazine story of 27 March titled "The Clean Energy Myth" on the newsstand magazine's cover and [1]"The Clean Energy Scam" on its Web site. In its 6 April edition, The New York Times said in a story headlined "[2]A Shift in the Debate Over Global Warming" that the popular policy goal of imposing caps on greenhouse gas emissions to force energy conservation and spur non-polluting technologies is now doubtful. "Now, with recent data showing an unexpected rise in global emissions and a decline in energy efficiency, a growing chorus of economists, scientists and students of energy policy are saying that whatever benefits the cap approach yields, it will be too little and come too late," the Times said.

Permits and emission restrictions declining in popularity – warming no longer key issue Chemical News and Intelligence, 4/10/08 These arguments against the environmental value of biofuels and the efficacy of mandatory emissions control measures are not new and they face counter-challenges from environmental circles but the fact that they are beginning to percolate in the mainstream US media is noteworthy. In addition, a new survey by the [7]John Brademas Center for the Study of Congress at New York University suggested popular concern about global warming was beginning to ebb. According to the centre, the number of people who said they were "very worried" or "somewhat worried" about climate change fell from 70% in 2006 to 67% this year. As reported by Environment & Energy Daily, the centre's survey also found that the percentage of Americans who believe global warming requires immediate legislative action also declined over the same two-year period, from 77% to 69%. To be sure, these are not major shifts in public sentiment, but the survey results and mainstream media challenges to what once were sacred cows of US environmental policy suggest that the issue may have peaked.

8

SDI ‘08 Elections Aff

A2: Energy Link Energy and Environment aren’t key election issues despite rhetoric – and voters perceive candidates as too similar anyway National Journal, 10/6/07 Oil prices are soaring and a procession of studies is calling for immediate action to prevent the most catastrophic effects of climate change. Few of the presidential candidates, however, are using energy and environmental issues to catch voters' attention. The top Democratic and Republican contenders pepper their campaign speeches and ads with promises to promote new energy technologies and lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil. But political analysts say that energy and climate change are not defining issues in the 2008 presidential primaries. "It's not yet a voting issue because, frankly, on the Democratic side and on the Republican side, the candidates are all clearly similar," said Cathy Duvall, national political director at the Sierra Club. "They're clustering around the same bottom line." The Democratic candidates generally agree that the United States should dramatically reduce national greenhouse-gas emissions, and they espouse a menu of environmental controls. Some of the contenders occasionally target climate change intheir speeches. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., recently warned the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation that global warming could have a disproportionately high impact on minority communities. Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., has run ads in New Hampshire touting his proposal to tackle global warming with a tax on corporate carbon dioxide emissions. The GOP contenders are playing to the party's conservative wing, voters who are generally not motivated by environmental issues. "The issue agenda plate is very full from the perspective of the voters," Republican pollster Steve Lombardo said. The Republicans rarely go beyond promises of energy security and the advanced energy technologies. Only Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has criticized President Bush for failing to do more to curb global warming. Political analysts debate whether energy and the environment will emerge as hot issues in the general election .GOP pollster Bob Moore argues that voters have other things on their minds. "If you ask people what's the major problem facing the country today, environment is pretty low on the list," he said. "Compared to health care, it's a nonissue."

9

SDI ‘08 Elections Aff

A2: Warming Link Warming not a key issue – its declining in public importance Environment and Energy Daily, 4/2/08 The percentage of Americans who said global warming requires immediate attention also declined over the two-year period, from 77 to 69 percent, raising a potential public opinion barrier for Congress as it considers major climate change legislation. "Something's not getting through to the public" about climate change, said study author Paul Light, a professor at NYU's Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service. "You almost need a Ph.D. to understand the cap-and-trade proposals floating around. Most Americans would guess that the term is about baseball, not climate change," Light said. Still, the poll found that the number of Americans who were "very worried" about global warming jumped seven points to 39 percent in 2008. Those that called the issue only "somewhat" worrying sent the overall global warming numbers in decline, however. Light emphasized that the rise in the "very worrying" percentage still was the lowest rate of increase of the four issues studied, indicating the issue has much less traction than the others.

Not a key issue Kenneth W. Chilton is director of the Institute for Study of Economics and the Environment at Lindenwood University Washington Times, 2/1/08 Voter polls show the environment (including global warming) is very low on the list of Americans' concerns. For example, a survey for the St. Louis Post Dispatch showed 23 percent of Missouri voters believe "economy/jobs" is the most important issue for determining their vote for president. The Iraq war topped the list of concerns for 13 percent of these heartlanders; followed by immigration (12 percent); and homeland security and health care (tied at 11 percent). Environment/global warming was tied with six other issues for ninth place, registering as the most important issue with only 2 percent of these swing-state voters.

Partisan spin means public will divide – prefer our evidence – it assumes how debate influences opinion Global Public Opinion.org ‘07 (http://americansworld.org/digest/global_issues/global_warming/gw1.cfm The lowest level of support for taking action was found in a September 2005 Washington Post poll which asked, ““Do you think global warming is an urgent problem that requires immediate government action, or a longer-term problem that requires more study before government action is taken?” Only 41% chose the postion that global warming is an urgent problem that requires immediate government action, while 47% chose the position that “a longer-term problem that requires more study before government action is taken.” [28] However the question forced the respondent to choose between two statements consisting of two assertions one about the level of urgency and the other about the nature of the response. An assessment that the problem is “urgent” is coupled with “immediate action,” while the assessment that the problem is “longer-term” is coupled with “study before government action is taken.” Based on other responses it appears likely that the more salient assertions for respondents were likely about the level of urgency, not the response. Other polls do suggest that most Americans do not perceive the problem as “urgent,” but a majority does favor taking some action and actually rejects the notion of only doing research at this point. However it should be noted that in the current environment Americans may often be confronted by parties that are presented the kind of polarized views presented in the poll question and that in this context the public tends to divide.

Warming and environment aren’t key issues National Journal, 10/6/07 Environmentalists concede that global warming has never been a high-profile issue on the presidential campaign trail."In 2000, Al Gore totally understood this issue and was told not to talk about it, so he didn't," said Gene Karpinski, presidentof the League of Conservation Voters. "In 2004, John Kerry say he talked about environmental issues all the time -- but,frankly, nobody heard it."

10

SDI ‘08 Elections Aff

A2: Independents link Energy Independence can’t unite swing voters – top priorities are too diverse PR Newswire, 5/3/07 Quite the contrary appears to be true. The candidates at U4prez.com are asked to answer a few questions before building their platforms. One of those questions is, "What is the most important issue to you?" What we find is that no single issue, or group of related issues, defines the group. The top issue is Illegal immigration, with just eleven percent responding that this was the most important issue. In second place is a tie between education reform and the war in Iraq, with both garnering just seven percent. Contrasting this, thirty-six percent of Democrats declare either the Iraq war or Health care as top issues. While Republicans appear to side with a small minority of independents, with twelve percent declaring illegal immigration their top issue, national security was at the top with thirty percent citing the war on terror, or national security as the number one issue. The breakdown in issues of importance is so diverse that no single strategy would appear to have a chance at gathering widespread support among these voters. Issues of important to independent voters: Illegal immigration 11% Education 7% War in Iraq 7% Health Care 5% Bi-partisanship 3 % Energy independence 3%

11

SDI ‘08 Elections Aff

A2: Aids Impact 1. Gag rule isn’t applied to HIV/AIDS initiatives Newsday 03. (“Going global in AIDS battle”, April 30, lexis) Fleischer said the White House would insist on a provision prohibiting groups and governments from using AIDS grants to perform or promote abortion. But he said it would not demand tougher language barring such entities from receiving grants even if they promise not to use the money for abortions. This tougher language - known as the "Mexico City" rule for the city in which it was first promulgated by President Ronald Reagan - generally guides the distribution of U.S. family planning funds under the Bush administration. But Fleischer said the administration is "not expanding the Mexico City policy to cover this HIV-AIDS program." Bush originally unveiled his AIDS initiative in his State of the Union speech in January. It calls for spending $15 billion over the next five years on treatment and prevention programs in 12 African and two Caribbean nations where the disease is rampant. Much of the money would be spent on effective but expensive anti-retroviral drug therapy.

2. Despite Gag Rule, contraception use in Africa is on the upswing The Nation (Kenya) 6-9-07. (“Necessary Evil that Modern World Cannot Wish Away”, lexis) Thousands of reproductive health clinics in developing countries especially in Asia and Africa were forced to close down due to lack of support. Kenya suffered the same fate. Clinics in Nairobi, Embu, Kisii, Meru and other parts of the country were forced to close down, needs of women who were using them notwithstanding. The crisis emanating from this is anybody's guess. With current efforts though, the reproductive health service sector is struggling to meet the needs of the population albeit with minimal government help. The outcry from the medics is that the government should do more. Society too, should look into these issues with open mind. "Let the people have all the information they need on reproductive health then let them be accessible and affordable to them. When this is effected a woman will have control of her reproductive rights and may not be in a position of wanting to procure an abortion," says Prof Joseph Karanja of the University of Nairobi. While critics of contraceptives have been busy preaching against their use, figures on the ground present a different picture. It is for this reason that gynaecologists, in touch with the reality of the problem, are upbeat about society re-thinking the contraception and abortion debate.

3. Africa is solving AIDS now – testing new vaccine DisasterRelief.org 2004. ("AIDS Vaccine Could Combat Virus in Africa", October 8, http://www.disasterrelief.org/Disasters/010316AIDSvaccine/) The first AIDS vaccine to fight the deadly virus plaguing Sub-Saharan Africa was tested on humans in Kenya this month. Although scientists warn that it will take years to determine its effectiveness in slowing the spread of the disease, the tests mark an exciting first step for a population that faces extinction if something isn't done. Of all the vaccines being tested worldwide, only one is designed to combat the virus strain most common in eastern Africa, which suffers the highest AIDS rates in the world. About 20 other vaccines are being tested around the globe, but most target strains prevalent in industrialized nations.

12

SDI ‘08 Elections Aff

A2: Overpop Impact internationally, women won’t choose abortion – they prefer large numbers of children for subsistence and health care Margaret in 6 Non-Profit teacher and Social Worker, September 17, Living Economies, google Shiva also explains that overpopulation is the direct result of the scarcity of resources. This is another common misconception that I hear, that if people could only get affordable access to birth control, overpopulation would be solved. Access to family planning services is a human right, I agree. However, in many cases, impoverished "Third World" families are actually engaging in family planning, just with different goals and results. In some cases, in order for a family to survive they must "plan" for a certain number of children to contribute labor. In addition, with the absence of adequate health care and social security, "an Indian woman has to produce six children to ensure at least one son will survive to take care of her and her husband when she is 60." This is not unique to India.

family planning already exists – attempts to prevent population growth only worsen the problem Urban in 1 Jessica Leann, Constructing Blame: Overpopulation, Environmental Security and International Relations, http://www.wid.msu.edu/resources/papers/pdf/WP273.pdf Analysis through the lens of intersectionality suggests that whether or not reproductive technologies are regarded as liberating or oppressive depends upon one’s class, race, sexual preference, religion and national origin (Tong 1998:231). In many cases, technologies considered liberating among middle and upper class white women in the US have been used as tools of social control among “other” populations. Access to safe and voluntary abortion, sterilization and contraceptive services must be part of broader, culturally sensitive health service programs for women and their families – women’s health must be the priority, not population control. Moreover, policies attempting to halt overpopulation through fertility control have not solved environmental problems. In fact, despite the millions of dollars spent on fertility-reduction based family-planning services, ecological damage, poverty and even population growth continues because “false perceptions of the problem lead to false solutions” (Shiva 1993:2).

fertility is low now Lindsay in 5 Jeff, Is Human Population Really the Problem?, Corporate Patent Strategist, PhD in Chemical Engineering, http://www.jefflindsay.com/Overpop.shtml A remarkable phenomenon has been observed in the past two centuries: a sustained decline in fertility, yielding long-term reductions in family size in many countries, particularly in Europe. But in the past few decades the trend has also been seen on other countries like Japan, Cyprus, Puerto Rico and Costa Rica (Nicholas Eberstadt, "Population, Food, and Income: Global Trends in the Twentieth Century," in The True State of the Planet, ed. Ronald Bailey, New York: The Free Press, 1995, pp. 7-47, esp. pp. 15-16). Total fertility rate (TFR), the average number of births per woman during childbearing years, has been tracked by the United Nations and shows a consistent decline in the past few decades for both developed and less developed countries. Around 1950 TFR was around 5, but by 1995 dropped to about 3 -- a 40% decline (Eberstadt, pp. 18-19). Some countries have TFR rates below the replacement level of 2.1, so that the population of those countries is currently shrinking (this is true of sixty-one countries according to the article "Total Fertility Rates" at Overpopulation.com). In fact, officials at the Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs in the United Nations have expressed concern over the implications of the low fertility rates, as discussed by Austin Russe in the online article, "United Nations Warns About Declining Population." The UN report can be found at http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/migration.htm. See also "U.N. Study Ends Overpopulation Fears."

population is declining now Brand in 5 Environmental Heresies, Stewart, http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/14406/page1/ Take population growth. For 50 years, the demographers in charge of human population projections for the United Nations released hard numbers that substantiated environmentalists' greatest fears about indefinite exponential population increase. For a while, those projections proved fairly accurate. However, in the 1990s, the U.N. started taking a closer look at fertility patterns, and in 2002, it adopted a new theory that shocked many demographers: human population is leveling off rapidly, even precipitously, in developed countries, with the rest of the world soon to follow. Most environmentalists still haven't got the word. Worldwide, birthrates are in free fall. Around one-third of countries now have birthrates below replacement level (2.1 children per woman) and sinking. Nowhere does the downward trend show signs of leveling off. Nations already in a birth dearth crisis include Japan, Italy, Spain, Germany, and Russia -- whose population is now in absolute decline and is expected to be 30 percent lower by 2050. On every part of every continent and in every culture (even Mormon), birthrates are headed down. They reach replacement level and keep on dropping. It turns out that population decrease accelerates downward just as fiercely as population increase accelerated upward, for the same reason. Any variation from the 2.1 rate compounds over time.

13

SDI ‘08 Elections Aff

A2: Overpop Impact Gag rule is toothless – pro-abortion groups can still receive funding via huge loopholes Freddoso 03. (David, political reporter for Evans and Novak Inside Report and Capital Hill commentator, “Abortion Groups Can Circumvent Mexico City Policy”, Human Events Online, April 17, lexis) International family planning groups have discovered a huge loophole in the policy that is supposed to prevent them from getting U.S. tax dollars. The "Mexico City" policy-a Reagan directive revived by President Bush to keep foreign aid out of the hands of abortion providers and promoters-has developed such enormous loopholes it is now practically meaningless, say congressional pro-lifers. Last October, ten conservative congressmen, including Reps. Chris Smith (R.-N.J.) and Roscoe Bartlett (R.-Md.), decried the ineffectual policy. The congressmen signed a letter to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) citing a grant of $65 million to a program run by the Population Council, the group that holds the patent on the abortion drug RU-486. A spokesman for USAID-the government's main foreign aid arm-agreed that abortion groups, while following the strict letter of the Mexico City rule, can continue to collect government money without substantially changing their activities. The Mexico City policy forbids U.S. foreign aid designated for "family planning" from going to groups that provide or promote abortions. However, the policy does not prevent abortion groups from collecting other kinds of federal grants. Population Action International (PAI) has published a 16-page booklet instructing groups on how to circumvent the Mexico City policy (it is available on that PAI's website). PAI, which says it does not receive government funding, seeks to promote international family-planning NGOs-helping them to help themselves to federal money. Their booklet, "What You Need to Know about the Global Gag Rule Restrictions: the Unofficial Guide,"

if a group says it does "birth spacing" instead of "family planning," or if it refers to condom distribution as "HIV prevention," it ceases to be a "family planning" operation and falls outside the Mexico City policy. Reagan's Original Intent The booklet also notes that while groups that receive family planning funds cannot lobby foreign governments for certain abortion laws, "eligibility for USAID support is not jeopardized merely by participating in research that others may use in advancing abortion law reform." Thus abortion groups can continue to receive federal funds while advocating, referring and performing abortions overseas. "I think that you're saying is very true. It's all about how you package it," PAI spokeswoman Kimberly Cline told HUMAN EVENTS when asked about her group's booklet. USAID spokesman Alfonso Aguilar agreed with PAI's analysis, telling HUMAN EVENTS that these groups can continue to collect tax dollars by repackaging their family planning activities as "AIDS prevention" or "child health" activities. "Yes, I would say that's right," he said. "The Mexico City policy applies only to family planning funding." Last week, conservatives called on the Bush administration to correct the situation by strengthening the Mexico City rules. They are especially worried that funds from the President's planned $15 billion program to alleviate AIDS in Africa might go to abortion groups. "If they want to effectively implement the aid needed in Africa, then they're going to have to close the gap on the Mexico City language and extend it to explains that simply by altering its stated mission from "family planning" to other terms that cover the same activities a group can get U.S. tax dollars. For example,

include all humanitarian aid," said Connie Mackey of the Family Research Council. President Reagan first implemented the Mexico City policy in a 1984. President Clinton cancelled it. President Bush reinstated it in 2001. Meanwhile, social conservatives in the Senate scored a major victory when legislation to fund the new Africa AIDS/HIV program-sponsored by Senators Joseph Biden (D.-Del.) and Dick Lugar (R.-Ind.)-was sent back to the drawing board, instead winning a committee vote. As proposed, it would have overridden not only the Mexico City policy, but also a law authored by Sen. Jesse Helms (R.N.C.) that forbids the use of tax dollars to directly fund abortions abroad.

Alternate causality: Studies show that Africans do not go to clinics for family planning because of social stigma. Caldwell and Caldwell 2002. (John, Emeritus Prof. of Demography and Visiting Fellow, and Pat, Centre Visitor, Health Transition Centre, National Center for Epidemiology and Population Health, the Australian National University. Studies in Family Planning, Vol. 33, No. 1, Family Planning Programs Century. Mar., 2002, pp. 76-86. JSTOR.)

One solution to the problems of service density and motivation has been identified as social marketing, although an assessment of such programs concluded that it was difficult to determine whether they had been successful (Phillips et al. 1998). Beegle (1994) concluded from her study of the situation in Tanzania that levels of contraceptive use could be raised if pharmacies dispensed pills and injectables. Caldwell et al. (1992) reported of Nigeria that the availability of pills, injectables, condoms, and foams at pharmacies and simple medical stores had raised levels of contraceptive practice substantially even though the costs were three to five times those charged by the clinics. The anonymous nature of the market, the fact that one could purchase a method privately, and the “no-questions-asked” approach resulted in the supplying of a much wider clientele. The client usually took the injectables to a private nurse to administer. The situation in Ado-Ekiti was fortuitous, and the small distributors did not have to bother about dealing with wholesalers, let alone imports. The same effect could be achieved, however, were the national family planning program to provide contraceptive supplies to such outlets. Whether the contraceptives are available through clinics or medical stores, higher levels of use can be attained by having a wide range of contraceptives available and having them always in stock (compare with lain 1989, generally; Caldwell and Caidwell 1992, on Bangladesh). By 1994, 15 percent of contraceptives in Zambia were being obtained privately (Marindo et al. 1998).

14

SDI ‘08 Elections Aff

A2: Soft Power Squo solves – USFG is already endorsing safe abortions internationally through the WHO Packer 05. (Sarah, IPAS Policy Coordinator, “Danger Ahead”, http://www.ipas.org/publications/en/DANGER_E05_en.pdf) Countries also implicitly endorse the right to health when they provide financial resources to international and national agencies that promote or provide health care. The United States is one of the largest funders of WHO, which recognizes the right to health as part of its organizational constitution (WHO, no date). Adolescent health is a major focus for WHO and their guidelines on provision of safe, legal abortions state that attention should be given to the special needs of adolescents (WHO, 2003).

2. Alt Cause -- U.S. image of women’s rights permanently jacked a) CEDAW rejection University Wire 06. (“U.S. hindering women's rights”, May 26, lexis) Bush's international war on women can also be seen in his refusal to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, or CEDAW - a treaty to which over 90 percent of the members of the United Nations were party. Despite efforts by some members of Congress and groups such as The Feminist Majority Foundation, Congress continues to reject CEDAW ratification.

b) CSW resolution rejection Choike.Org 06. (“Bush Administration launches new battle in the war on women”, http://www.choike.org/nuevo_eng/informes/1757.html) "I was disappointed to watch the United States reverse itself on the historic Beijing agreement," added Charlotte Bunch, Executive Director of the Center for Women's Global Leadership at Rutgers University. "Many of us have devoted decades of our lives working with women around the world on this and other issues. Until the Bush Administration, the United States has provided leadership on many women's rights issues. Fortunately, not one country supported the direction of this isolationist move," she added. Yesterday in New York, the United States was the only one of 42 countries at the UN Commission on the Status of Women meeting to reject a resolution on the release of women and children hostages because it contained language on reaffirming the Beijing Platform. The resolution condemned violent acts as the consequences of hostage taking, in particular, torture, murder, rape, slavery, and trafficking in women and children. It calls for the immediate release of women and children taken hostage in armed conflict.

Countries don’t model poor U.S. women’s rights policies – CSW proves CWGL 05. (“Beijing + 10”, Center for Women’s Global Leadership, March 11, http://www.cwgl.rutgers.edu/globalcenter/policy/b10/index.html) Although the US delegation did not have the public support of any member state, they had refused to join the consensus that had formed in support of the Draft as it had been issued by the Bureau of the Commission on the Status of Women. In a remarkable show of solidarity, countries across all regions have resisted US pressure to break consensus, and have stood together in support of the full range of women’s human rights as laid out in the Beijing Platform.

15

SDI ‘08 Elections Aff

Lost Bad – Econ/Heg LOST Crushes Economy and Power Projection – Status Quo solves all your offense– undermines Innovation in multiple high tech fields – doesn’t promote freedom of navigation or power projection – only Naval force solves – which is limited by law of the sea Smith, 10/4/07 (Fred, Head Competitive Enterprise Institute, CQ Congressional Testimony) Some treaty advocates argue that it would help ensure passage for American shipping. This point is moot. Irrespective of any treaty text, only the U.S. Navy can guarantee free ocean transit in situations where nations have both the incentive and ability to interfere. That remains true under the U.S.'s status as a non- party to the treaty. Were we to ratify LOST, the Law of the Sea Tribunal might declare such action unlawful. As noted, the treaty's best provisions those covering navigation largely codify existing customary international law. Its worst provisions those creating the seabed regulatory regime would discourage future minerals production as well as punish entrepreneurship in related fields involving technology, software, and intellectual property that have an ocean application. Since technology often has multiple uses, it would also slow innovation generally.

Ratification Causes Hostile Foreign Rulings – Undermining US Economy and Power Projection – Status Quo Solves Your Offense CTFP, 10/27/07 (Chatanooga Times Free Press, Copley News) The Bush administration argues that the United States needs the treaty to protect U.S. interests in the world's oceans and to ensure that the U.S. Navy can go where it needs to go. The problem with that argument is that if the United States signs and ratifies the treaty, America will be bound to abide by its decisions. Based on U.S. experience in other international organizations such as the World Trade Organization, decisions will usually be contrary to U.S. security and economic interests. The U.S. Navy can already go wherever it needs to go, and it should remain that way.

LOST Collapses Economy – Undermines Innovation and competition, Overregulates, Codifies Precautionary Principle, Forces Redistribution Smith, 10/4/07 (Fred, Head Competitive Enterprise Institute, CQ Congressional Testimony) An analogous separation of the ocean resource into navigational rights and ocean floor rights poses no serious difficulties. This would allow us to achieve the useful, if redundant, gains promised in the navigational area, without hindering the creative and ongoing institutional innovations. Innovation is rare when resources are relegated to "common property" status. Indeed, as the materials supplied to this Committee make clear, the development goals of this treaty could far more effectively be advanced - without the risks of overregulation and over- litigation - by simply creating a claims office to allow ocean floor rights to be catalogued and titled. Private property would do far more than UN bureaucracies to encourage the development of the ocean's resources in mankind's interest. The Law of the Sea Treaty mandates global redistribution of resources and technology, creates a monopolistic public mining entity, and restricts competition just the sort of statist panaceas that were discredited by the collapse of Soviet communism and that have been largely abandoned everywhere. Far from being a market-oriented system, as claimed by some conservatives who have been co-opted by treaty enthusiasts on this issue, the treaty will forever discourage widespread exploration and production. The treaty's purported benefits are illusory; the treaty's features would impose heavy costs on America and the world. LOST is a heavily regulatory bill, creating a body charged with protecting the seas. But, everything eventually flows into the seas. Thus, the UN gains the power to look upstream and into the skies to ensure that everything that has - or might have - impact on the seas be scrutinized and disciplined. The unintended consequences of this regulatory overreach cannot be under-estimated; its potential for damage is massive. This Committee has not done "due diligence" on this topic. And, for the complacent, note that the proponents of this bill - environmental alarmists and legal enthusiasts - are adept at converting hortatory language into legal prohibitions. Did anyone expect the Endangered Species Act to become a national land use planning act? Did anyone expect Superfund to become one of the most costly green pork barrel measures in history or that the Clean Water Act would compel the Corps of Engineers to ban development throughout any area that might have been or might become at some time a "wetland?" The treaty's regulatory approach would be guided by the precautionary principle, the serious application of which would halt economic development, since it is impossible to prove a negative that a new process or technology involves no risk Indeed, it is the precautionary principle that has burdened Europe with a regulatory yoke only a bureaucrat could love. As The Economist noted last week: The European model rests more on the "precautionary principle", which underpins most environmental and health directives. This calls for pre-emptive action if scientists spot a credible hazard, even before the level of risk can be measured. Such a principle sparks many transatlantic disputes: over genetically modified organisms or climate change, for example. . . Some Eurocrats suggest that the philosophical gap reflects the American constitutional tradition that everything is allowed unless it is forbidden, against the Napoleonic tradition codifying what the state allows and banning everything else. Regulatory Bonapartism may appeal to some Europeans, but it is not a model to which America should ever subject itself.

16

SDI ‘08 Elections Aff

LOST Bad – Heg – Environment Restrictions LOST Environmental Restrictions Crush Naval Effectiveness Gaffney, 10/9/07 (Frank, President, Center Security Policy, Washington Times) Fortunately, a necessary corrective was offered the next day by another distinguished retired four-star, Adm. James "Ace" Lyons. In an article in The Washington Times' Commentary pages, the former Pacific Fleet commander in chief declared: "It is inconceivable to this naval officer why the Senate would willingly want to forfeit its responsibility for America's freedom of the seas to the unelected and unaccountable international agency that would be created by ratification of LOST." Adm. Lyons appreciates a reality apparently overlooked by those promoting the Navy's official line on LOST: The treaty entails obligations that are at odds with the U.S. sea services' routine operations; involve sweeping commitments to protect the "marine environment" the Navy will almost certainly contravene; and institute several tribunals to prosecute complaints that arise in these or other areas. Of all institutions, the Navy should be alive to the dangers that such a treaty entails. After all, the service's civilian leader, Secretary Donald Winter, for one has expressed grave concerns about the impact domestic environmentalists and their litigiousness currently have on Navy and Marine Corps' operations. Such challenges are likely to pale by comparison with the edicts handed down by multilateral tribunals whose deciding votes are, in every instance, selected by international bureaucrats (in the case of one arbitral panel, by the U.N. secretary-general himself). A recent paper written by Dr. Jeremy Rabkin for the American Enterprise Institute under the provocative title, "Do We Really Want to Place the U.S. Navy Under International Judicial Supervision?" makes clear that, by so doing, we would open ourselves to expanded attacks via "Lawfare" - the technique of using treaties, courts and international law as an asymmetric weapon against us: "It is estimated that the United States has more practicing lawyers than all other countries put together. Separation of powers and an active, independent judiciary invite challenges to decisions of officials in the executive branch, just as we scrutinize and challenge so many other institutions in our society. What that means is that it is much harder for the United States to shrug off international legal claims than it may be for more centralized or repressive countries such as China."

Arbitrators will apply environmental restrictions to navy despite military activities exemption – and independently they will enforce on civilian contractors – causing the same effect – this crushes power projections and will force inevitable withdrawal from the treaty later – turning all the negs offense Gaffney, 10/9/07 (Frank, President, Center Security Policy, Washington Times) Faced with this worrisome prospect, the Navy's lawyers blithely contend the Law of the Sea Treaty permits "military activities" to be exempted from the mandatory dispute resolution mechanisms. On this basis, they believe the U.S. can continue with impunity practices flatly prohibited by various treaty provisions. (These include, for example, requirements that the seas be used and marine research be performed exclusively for peaceful purposes; submarines transit territorial waters on the surface; and no collection of intelligence take place within those waters). What would happen if, despite our protests, the treaty's arbitral panels wind up being used as other LOST enthusiasts clearly intend, as a means of interfering with the Navy's activities? How about if the arbitrators assert their jurisdiction and judge the Navy - or perhaps, as Adm. Lyons suggested, civilian contractors essential to equipping its forces or their logistics - to be violating one or more provisions of the accord? A uniformed lawyer recently had a remarkable, if wholly impracticable, answer: "We'll abrogate the treaty." Could it be that the Navy's official stance on LOST is less an accurate indication of the merits of that treaty than a measure of the increasingly parlous state of the nation's sea service? In a characteristically insightful Sept. 21 New York Times op-ed, best-selling author and visiting professor at Annapolis, Robert Kaplan wrote: "China['s]... production and acquisition of submarines is now 5 times that of America's Many military analysts feel it is mounting a quantitative advantage in naval technology that could erode our qualitative one. Yet the Chinese have been buying smart rather than across-the-board. In addition to submarines, Beijing has focused on naval mines, ballistic missiles that can hit moving objects at sea, and technology that blocks G.P.S. satellites. The goal is 'sea denial': dissuading American carrier strike groups from closing in on the Asian mainland wherever and whenever we like." The fact Adm. Ace Lyons felt compelled to do the almost unthinkable - break ranks with Navy colleagues of decades duration - is a shot across the proverbial bow: Those in the Senate tempted to justify their inattention to the details of the Law of the Sea Treaty on the grounds that the military "wants" it now must fulfill their constitutional responsibility to provide rigorous quality control on this accord. If they do so, they are bound to act as Ronald Reagan did and reject this defective treaty, sparing both the Navy and the nation its negative repercussions.

17

SDI ‘08 Elections Aff

A2: Military Exemptions Solve Military Activities Exemption Doesn’t Solve a) Not Defined Lyons, 10/5/07 (Retired Admiral, James, Commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations, and deputy chief of naval operations, Washington Times) Regardless of what is promised by LOST's proponents, the Clinton administration did not fix the treaty's objectionable clauses. For example, ratification of LOST would subsequently require the United States to submit to mandatory dispute resolution with respect to the ability of the U.S. Navy to conduct its customary maritime operations unfettered. Further, although LOST allows a party to exempt itself from disputes concerning "military activities," the Treaty does not define such activities, and it is therefore far from certain any U.S. decision to exempt itself from such dispute resolution will be honored by the other parties or dispute resolution bodies - particularly in light of the fact any supposedly exempt "military activity" can be framed as an "environmental activity" by those hostile to the United States.

b) still undermines supply chain Lyons, 10/5/07 (Retired Admiral, James, Commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations, and deputy chief of naval operations, Washington Times) The military's supply chain is also vulnerable to compulsory dispute resolution in this regard. The military can also be adversely affected by the LOST requirement that all state parties take all measures necessary to "prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from any source" (Article 194). This requirement could also adversely affect the military's civilian supply chain and the industrial processes involved with supplying the military.

Military Activities Exemption Doesn’t Solve North, 10/12/07 (Oliver, Criminal Mastermind, Total Fucker, Yet Strangely Qualified, Fox News, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301279,00.html) LOST’s proponents discount these concerns by claiming the U.S. will simply exempt “military activities” from the treaty’s compulsory dispute resolution requirements. However, the “opt out” clause in Article 298 fails to define such operations. In our own Congress, intelligence functions are not considered to be military activities, so there is far from certainty that the U.N. would accept the U.S. position that intelligence operations over, on or under the seas are indeed military activities. If there is a dispute as to what is or isn’t a military activity, LOST requires the matter to be resolved by international arbitration. In 2003, Navy Admiral Michael Mullen, now the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that rulings from these arbitration panels “could have an impact on operational planning and activities, and our security.” Last week, in response to questions from Senator David Vitter (R-La.) during a Committee hearing, Professor Bernard Oxman, a witness supporting LOST, admitted that if the parties to a dispute can’t agree on the arbitration panel, the U.N. Secretary General will chose the arbitrators. Lawyers in Pyongyang, Havana and Tehran: call Turtle Bay.

18

SDI ‘08 Elections Aff

LOST Bad – Heg/Terrorism/Prolif – Freedom of Action LOST Crushes Naval Power Projection and Interdiction – Causing WMD Spread and Undermining War on Terror Lyons, 10/5/07 (Retired Admiral, James, Commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations, and deputy chief of naval operations, Washington Times) The power of the U.S. Navy, not some anonymous bureaucracy, has been this nation's guarantee of our access to and freedom of the seas. I can site many maritime operations - from our blockade of Cuba in 1962, to the reflagging of ships in the Persian Gulf, to our submarine intelligence-gathering programs - that have been critical to maintaining our freedom of the seas and protecting our waters from encroachment. All those examples would likely have to be submitted to an international tribunal for approval if we become a signatory to this treaty. In a word, this is incomprehensible. Given the current war on terror, we cannot deny our Navy the ability to carry out legitimate naval intercept operations against vessels carrying possible nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. But such actions would be subject to LOST's arbitration deliberations - a process that in most cases would be decided unfavorably against the United States.

US Ratification Crushes Power Projection and WMD Interdiction – Status Quo Solves Your Offense Buchanon, 10/13/07 (Pat, Hes pretty fucking famous, Pitt Tribune Review) While the treaty assures the right of peaceful passage on the high seas and through narrows that are territorial waters, we already have that right under international law. "It is inconceivable to this naval officer," writes Adm. James Lyons, former commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, "why the Senate would willingly want to forfeit its responsibility for America's freedom of the seas to the unelected and unaccountable international agency that would be created by the ratification of LOST. U.S. warships today inspect vessels suspected of carrying nuclear contraband. To do this, post-LOST, the Navy would have to get permission from an authority composed of states most of which have an almost unbroken record of voting against us in the United Nations.

LOST Crushes Intelligence Gathering and Naval Freedom of Action Boston Herald, 10/7 The Bush administration wants the Senate to ratify a new incarnation of the Law of the Sea Treaty. No matter how dressed up, though, the treaty should be rejected. The treaty would effectively abolish the freedom of the United States to use force at sea on the rare occasions when the national interest requires it. Instead, there would be compulsory arbitration. Can you imagine President Ford sending to arbitration the Cambodian seizure of the Mayaguez in 1975? He sent the Marines. Or President Reagan arbitrating Libya's claim of the Gulf of Sidra as territorial waters? He sent two aircraft carriers in 1986, which sank or damaged four Libyan patrol boats and knocked out a missile battery that disputed the carriers' passage. Suppose it had fallen to a U.S. warship, instead of Israeli forces, to intercept the Karine A carrying 50 tons of weapons from Iran to Gaza in 2002. President Bush would have been insane to call for arbitration. The treaty purports to uphold the long-established right of ``innocent passage'' through territorial waters. But it says ships on such passage may not commit ``any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defense or security of the coastal state'' and ``submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag.'' That would shut down a major source of intelligence, eavesdropping on telecommunications of potential enemies by submarines lurking out of sight close to shore. It's a good bet that the Navy's subs have been brushing up against whatever China and Iran use for lobster pots. One wonders if the Pentagon officials who endorse the treaty have even read it. The treaty went into effect for 120 nations in 1994. President Clinton sought ratification then, but the Senate refused to take it up. There is now an International Seabed Authority to regulate mining on the ocean floor, an unneeded job-creating machine for international bureaucrats. U.S. companies are not likely to prospect at sea without ratification, but that's a small price to pay for retaining the Navy's freedom of action.

19

SDI ‘08 Elections Aff

A2: Arctic/Oil Status Quo Solves US Arctic Claims – Ratification Causes US to Lose CTFP, 10/27/07 (Chatanooga Times Free Press, Copley News) One of the silliest arguments is that the United States needs the treaty to guard against Russian claims to the North Pole and its oil riches. If the United States ratifies the treaty, America would have to accept the treaty tribunal's decision. Even though the United States already has valid claims to the North Pole region under the Doctrine of Discovery, the chances of the treaty bureaucrats ruling for the United States against Russia are about 1 in 155.

Gains in Energy Reserves Swamped by Lawsuit Liabilities – Prefer our comparative evidence Ridenour, 10/4/07 (David, National Center for Public Policy Research, http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/10/04/sea_law) But opponents of the treaty say signing on to international laws means you also have to abide by them -- and can be sued if you don't. David Ridenour is with the National Center for Public Policy Research. DAVID RIDENOUR: If we are not viewed as complying with some of the environmental standards that are laid out in the Law of the Sea treaty, environmental activists can actually take it to U.S. domestic court. Ridenour says any gains in energy reserves would quickly be swamped by liabilities. The U.S. accounts for the majority of the world's greenhouse gas emissions -- he says that makes it the obvious target for lawsuits claiming damages to the ocean ecosystem.

20

SDI ‘08 Elections Aff

A2: Environment US Ratification Undermines Environment – Causes Drilling rights to go to other nations with worse environmental standards Scally, 9/24/07 (William, Congressional Quarterly, http://public.cq.com/docs/gs/greensheets110-000002591199.html) “Environmental implications could be exacerbated by the ISA’s authority to apportion drilling and mining rights to other nations who may be less scrupulous than American companies in complying with environmental standards and practices this country holds dear,” Gaffney testified.

LOST Ratification Undermines Global Ocean Resources – Tragedy of Commons Smith, 10/4/07 (Fred, Head Competitive Enterprise Institute, CQ Congressional Testimony) This treaty would relegate two-thirds of the world's potential resources to perpetual status as common property resources "the common heritage of all mankind." But as Garrett Hardin noted long ago in his article, The Tragedy of the Commons, policies that relegate resources to be managed by all, are all too likely to have tragic results. Some nation states - the United States, the United Kingdom and Norway, even China - have made dramatic steps in moving land-based technology down to the sea. Other nations like New Zealand and Iceland have done much to extend property rights into the fisheries area. These pioneering efforts to extend the institutions that have made so much of the earth's land productive and beneficial to mankind to this most complex and costly world have been encouraged by the hope that they will profit, that the knowledge they acquire will be theirs to make future steps more efficient, that any profits they make will be retained. These positive trends will be weakened or destroyed if LOST is ratified. Note that the United States has long recognized that ownership of the surface can - and in fact should sometimes - be severed from ownership of subsurface resources. That creative extension and adaptation of traditional private property encouraged exploration and development of the resources beneath the earth's surface. This creative extension of property rights made possible the rapid development of oil, coal and other mineral resources in the US.

21

SDI ‘08 Elections Aff

A2: PSI Getting More Countries on Board PSI Not Key – GICNT solves Richardson, 10/11/07 (Michael, New Zealand Herald, Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies) Nor does China's non-involvement in the security initiative signify that it is unconcerned about the spread of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. Such weapons include chemical and biological as well as nuclear weapons. China has twice joined the other four permanent members of the UN Security Council in imposing sanctions on Iran and demanding that it halt uranium enrichment and other sensitive nuclear activities, despite Tehran's insistence that its work is peaceful. Beijing also condemned the nuclear explosion carried out by its nominal ally North Korea last October. Indeed, not long after this test China joined Russia, the US and 10 other countries in signing a statement of principles that commits them to a series of individual and collective actions to prevent nuclear terrorism. Unlike the PSI, a US-led project launched by President George W. Bush in 2003, the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism (GICNT) was proposed jointly by Russia and the US in July last year. Beijing is a founding member, able to help shape its evolution as more countries (at least 60 so far) join.

Law of the Sea isn’t the Vital Internal Link – Fears of Undermining North Korea Talks Prevent Joining PSI Richardson, 10/11/07 (Michael, New Zealand Herald, Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies) According to the US, more than 80 countries now participate in the security initiative in one way or another. But China, India, Indonesia and Malaysia remain wary of joining, partly because the US has not yet ratified the UN law of the sea treaty. This raises concerns that the initiative may be used in ways that are contrary to international law, although there is no evidence of any such breach so far. Moreover, the initiative is a voluntary association. Participating countries are not obliged to halt a weapons of mass destruction shipment even if asked to do so by another member. The main reason China will not join the PSI is that it fears this would prompt a North Korean walkout from the six-party talks to defuse the North Korean nuclear crisis. The talks are chaired by China but South Korea, too, has shied away from joining the PSI for the same reason as Beijing.

22

SDI ‘08 Elections Aff

A2: Lost Impacts – All Customary International Law Already Solves All The Benefits of LOS Ratification Goldsmith and Rabkin, 7/2/07 (Jack, Law Prof @ Harvard, Jeremy, Law Prof @ George Mason, Washington Post) Supporters note that many of the treaty's "freedom of the seas" provisions favor U.S. interests. But the United States already receives the benefits of these provisions because, as Negroponte and England acknowledged, they are "already widely accepted in practice." They maintain that ratifying the convention would nonetheless provide "welcome legal certainty." In recent years, however, the United States has not received much legal certainty from international tribunals dominated by non-American judges, and what it has received has not been very welcome. There is little reason to expect different results from these tribunals. President Bush invokes a different rationale for ratifying the convention, arguing that it would "give the United States a seat at the table when the rights that are vital to our interests are debated and interpreted." What this really means is that American views of the law of the sea, even on issues related to national security, could be outvoted by a majority in an international forum. How can this make us safer?

Your Impacts Are Empirically False – Supporters Have Been Crying Wolf for 20 Years Bandow, 7/31/07 (Doug, Fellow at the American Conservative Defense Alliance, American Spectator) The LOST lobby issued a profusion of hysterical warnings of impending chaos and violence on the high seas, but nothing happened. Life went on as usual. No one other than the transies noticed the absence of a ratified LOST. However, internationalist goo-goos never rest and State Department employees act like moths around a light when they near a treaty. So President George H.W. Bush began negotiations to "fix" LOST, a process completed by the usual suspects in the Clinton administration. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright proclaimed success in producing a new and improved variant of LOST, and the rush began: Washington signed as a cascade of ratifications brought the treaty into effect, leading to demands for formal American assent.

23

SDI ‘08 Elections Aff

A2: Turns Not Unique Our Turns are Unique – US Ratification is Key Gaffney, 10/2/07 (Frank, Washington Times, President Center Security Policy) To date, the full malevolent potential of the Law of the Sea Treaty has been more in prospect than in evidence. If the United States accedes to LOST, however, it is predictable that the treaty's agencies will: wield their powers in ways that will prove very harmful to American interests; intensify the web of sovereignty-sapping obligations and regulations promulgated by this and other U.N. entities; and advance inexorably the emergence of supranational world government. Twenty-five years ago, President Ronald Reagan declined to submit our sovereignty to the United Nations and rejected the Law of the Sea Treaty. If anything, there are even more compelling reasons today to prevent the U.N.'s big power grab.

24