Independent E-waste Reduction Con

Will Malson

Neg file: Independent E-waste Reduction

Page 1 of 16

Index (1/2) Index (1/2)..........................................................................................................................1 Topicality: Reform =/= Create...........................................................................................3 A. Interp..........................................................................................................................................3 First, our definition of reform:............................................................................................................3 Second, our definition of exist:.............................................................................................................3 Third, substitution:...............................................................................................................................3

Topicality: Reform =/= Create...........................................................................................4 B. Violation....................................................................................................................................4 There’s no national E-waste legislation; states are even shifting the burden to manufacturers.....4

Topicality: Reform =/= Create...........................................................................................5 C. Impacts and Voters....................................................................................................................5 1. Jurisdiction........................................................................................................................................5 2. A priori issue.....................................................................................................................................5 3. Prima facie burden...........................................................................................................................5 4. Destroys debate.................................................................................................................................5 5. Sets a bad precedent.........................................................................................................................5

Vocation/Death DA............................................................................................................6 A. Link & Internal Links (1/2).......................................................................................................6 Link: AFF attempts to decrease impoverished civilians’ access to e-waste......................................6 Internal Link 1: People will pay for e-waste.......................................................................................6

Vocation/Death DA............................................................................................................7 A. Link & Internal Links (2/2).......................................................................................................7 Internal Link 2: Impoverished civilians have two choices: reduced quality of life recycling e-waste or death by starvation; given the choice, they choose decreased quality of life....................................7

Vocation/Death DA............................................................................................................8 B. Brinks.........................................................................................................................................8 Brink 1: Salvage yards are increasing.................................................................................................8 Brink 2: The US is the only source of “non-banned” E-waste...........................................................8

Vocation/Death DA............................................................................................................9 C. Impacts.......................................................................................................................................9 Impact 1: Man has the intrinsic right to work: Aff abuses human rights by effectively eliminating other options for e-waste recyclers................................................................................................................9 Impact 2: Death.....................................................................................................................................9

Landfills DA....................................................................................................................10 A. Link and Brink.........................................................................................................................10 Link and Brink: U.S. citizens to send “millions of pounds of e-waste to landfills”........................10

Landfills DA....................................................................................................................11 B. Impact......................................................................................................................................11 Impact: E-waste in landfills can seep into the water supply or escape into the atmosphere, poisoning the

Will Malson

Neg file: Independent E-waste Reduction

Page 2 of 16

surrounding plants, animals, and humans........................................................................................11

Vocation CP.....................................................................................................................12 Contention 1 is Vocation/Death DA (above)...............................................................................12 Contention 2 is Landfills DA (above)..........................................................................................12 Contention 3 is value-based alternative-action.............................................................................12 Plan Text..............................................................................................................................................12

Vocation CP.....................................................................................................................13 Contention 4 is counterplan advantages.......................................................................................13 Advantage 1: Vocation unperturbed.................................................................................................13 Advantage 2: Life................................................................................................................................13

Vocation CP.....................................................................................................................14 Contention 5 is reason to prefer....................................................................................................14 Reason one is we don’t link to the Vocation or Death DA...............................................................14 Reason two is it’s competitive............................................................................................................14 Reason three is it’s net beneficial.......................................................................................................14

Vocation CP.....................................................................................................................15 AT: Theory...................................................................................................................................15 AT: Perm.............................................................................................................................................15 AT: Partial perm.................................................................................................................................15

Vocation CP.....................................................................................................................16 AT: Inherency (minimal safety procedures).................................................................................16 UQ – E-waste is sent to countries with minimal worker safety protections...................................16

Will Malson

Neg file: Independent E-waste Reduction

Page 3 of 16

Topicality: Reform =/= Create A. Interp Our interp is quite simple: in order to be topical, the affirmative team must present us with a plan to reform an environmental policy. However, we’re going to focus specifically on the word “reform” in the resolution and showing you how the affirmative does not actually have a topical case. First, our definition of reform: “make changes in (something, typically a social, political, or economic institution or practice) in order to improve it” (Oxford American Dictionaries) Second, our definition of exist: “have objective reality or being” (Oxford American Dictionaries) Third, substitution: In order to have a topical case, the affirmative team must make changes in some environmental policy. However, that environmental policy has to exist before it can be reformed – look at our definition of exist: to have objective reality or being. This leads us to the next point:

Will Malson

Neg file: Independent E-waste Reduction

Page 4 of 16

Topicality: Reform =/= Create B. Violation They don’t reform an existing environmental policy at all: they’re creating one. There’s no national E-waste legislation; states are even shifting the burden to manufacturers Stephen Leahy [An independent environmental journalist for 15 years; his writing has been published in dozens of publications around the world including New Scientist, The London Sunday Times, Maclean’s Magazine, Earth Island Journal, The Toronto Star, Wired News, Audubon, BBC Wildlife, and Canadian Geographic. He is the international science and environment correspondent for the Romeheadquartered Inter Press Service News Agency (IPS), the world’s 6th largest global news agency. His IPS articles are published in over 500 newspapers and magazines all over the world reaching an estimated 200 million readers in up to 20 languages. He is a professional member of The Society of Environmental Journalists (the only North-American membership association of professional journalists dedicated to more and better coverage of environment-related issues. SEJ is an independent, nonpartisan grassroots educational group dedicated to the highest standards of public service journalism. By long-standing board policy, SEJ does not accept gifts or grants from non-media corporations, government agencies or environmental advocacy groups. SEJ’s 2008 operating budget of $1,012,213 (audited figure) was underwritten by foundations, universities, earned income, media company contributions and individual gifts. SEJ’s membership now includes more than 1,500 highly qualified journalists, editors, educators and students working in print, broadcast and online news media throughout the U.S., Canada, Mexico and 27 other countries. Members and others who use SEJ services report environmental news and information to millions of readers, listeners and viewers worldwide, on a daily basis)], "ENVIRONMENT-US: An E-Waste Free-for-All", Published by IPS (Inter Press Service) [a non-profit, international non-governmental organisation (INGO), registered in Rome (Italy), where IPS’ headquarters are based. Inter Press Service (IPS) is the world’s leading news agency on issues such as development, environment, human rights and civil society], November 21, 2007, http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40163 (HEG) Despite the high value of some of this waste and its known toxicity, the main reason it isn't recycled is that the United States does not have any national e-waste legislation. Only nine states have e-waste recycling programmes, and five of those just started this year. Since it is very expensive and dangerous for states to handle e-waste at traditional landfills, many more states are expected to shift the burden to the manufacturers in the coming year.

Will Malson

Neg file: Independent E-waste Reduction

Page 5 of 16

Topicality: Reform =/= Create C. Impacts and Voters 1. Jurisdiction. The judge has the option to vote for or against the resolution. If the case does not fall within the boundaries of the resolution, the judge does not have the jurisdiction to vote for it. 2. A priori issue. Topicality is an issue that is evaluated before any other contention is addressed. If they aren’t topical, you should vote negative without considering any other issue. 3. Prima facie burden. The Affirmative team’s obligation is to present a case on its face that defends the truth of the resolution. Regardless of whether their plan is a good or bad idea, they have failed to uphold their prima facie burden if it does not mirror the terms of resolution. 4. Destroys debate. If non-topical cases are allowed, the entire foundation for academic debate is destroyed. The most important thing to consider in academic debate is the resolution. If the resolution does not matter, why debate? If non-topical cases are the norm, people will stop debating, because what’s the point? 5. Sets a bad precedent. Voting in favor of a blatantly non-topical case sets a precedent. It says to our league, “This practice is okay.” As the judge, it is your job to vote against cases that set a bad precedent of non-topical cases being okay. A negative ballot based on topicality sends a message discouraging teams from running non-topical cases.

Will Malson

Neg file: Independent E-waste Reduction

Page 6 of 16

Vocation/Death DA A. Link & Internal Links (1/2) Link: AFF attempts to decrease impoverished civilians’ access to e-waste No evidence, it’s just what they’re doing. Get a CX consensus first though, to avoid conflict Internal Link 1: People will pay for e-waste 60 Minutes, "Following The Trail Of Toxic E-Waste", 60 Minutes Follows America's Toxic Electronic Waste As It Is Illegally Shipped To Become China's Dirty Secret, [page 4], Nov. 9, 2008, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/06/60minutes/main4579229.shtml, brackets not in original (HEG) (CBS) Back in Denver, there's no threat of it drying up. In fact, it was a flood. And Brandon Richter, CEO of Executive Recycling, was still warning of the dangers of shipping waste to China. "I just heard actually a child actually died over there breaking this material down, just getting all these toxins," he said. Then Pelley told him we'd tracked his container to Hong Kong. "This is a photograph from your yard, the Executive Recycling yard,” Pelley told Richter, showing him a photo we’d taken of a shipping container in his yard. “We followed this container to Hong Kong." "Okay," Richter replied. "And I wonder why that would be?" Pelley asked. "Hmm. I have no clue," Richter said. "The Hong Kong customs people opened the container…and found it full of CRT screens which, as you probably know, is illegal to export to Hong Kong," Pelley said. "Yeah, yep," Richter replied. "I don't know if that container was filled with glass. I doubt it was. We don't fill glass, CRT glass in those containers." "This container was in your yard, filled with CRT screens, and exported to Hong Kong, which probably wouldn't be legal," Pelley said. "No, absolutely not. Yeah," Richter said. "Can you explain that?" Pelley asked. "Yeah, it's not - it was not filled in our facility," Richter said. But that's where 60 Minutes filmed it. And we weren't the only ones asking questions. It turns out Hong Kong customs intercepted the container and sent it back to Executive Recycling, Englewood, Colorado, the contents listed as "waste: cathode ray tubes." U.S. customs x-rayed the container and found the same thing. 60 Minutes showed Richter this evidence, and later his lawyer told us the CRTs were exported under Executive Recycling's name, but without the company's permission. "I know this is your job," Richter told Pelley. "But, unfortunately, you know, when you attack small business owners like this and you don't have all your facts straight, it's unfortunate, you know?" But here's one more fact: the federal Government Accountability Office set up a sting in which U.S. investigators posed as foreign importers. Executive Recycling offered to sell 1,500 CRT computer monitors and 1,200 CRT televisions to the GAO's fictitious broker in Hong Kong. But Executive Recycling was not alone. The GAO report found that another 42 American companies were willing to do the same.

Will Malson

Neg file: Independent E-waste Reduction

Page 7 of 16

Vocation/Death DA A. Link & Internal Links (2/2) Internal Link 2: Impoverished civilians have two choices: reduced quality of life recycling e-waste or death by starvation; given the choice, they choose decreased quality of life 60 Minutes, "Following The Trail Of Toxic E-Waste", 60 Minutes Follows America's Toxic Electronic Waste As It Is Illegally Shipped To Become China's Dirty Secret, [page 2 & 3], Nov. 9, 2008, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/06/60minutes/main4579229.shtml, brackets not in original (HEG) [page 2] (CBS) 60 Minutes followed the trail to a place Puckett discovered in southern China - a sort of Chernobyl of electronic waste - the town of Guiyu. But we weren't there very long before we were picked up by the cops and taken to City Hall. We told the mayor we wanted to see recycling. So he personally drove us to a shop. "Let me explain what's happening here," Pelley remarked while in Guiyu. "We were brought into the mayor's office. The mayor told us that we're essentially not welcome here, but he would show us one place where computers are being dismantled and this is that place. A pretty tidy shop. The mayor told us that we would be welcome to see the rest of the town, but that the town wouldn't be prepared for our visit for another year. "So we were allowed to shoot at that location for about five minutes,” Pelley explained further. “And we're back in the mayor's car headed back to City Hall, where I suspect we'll be given another cup of tea and sent on our way out of town with a police escort no doubt." And we were. But the next day, in a different car and on a different road, we got in. "This is really the dirty little secret of the electronic age," Jim Puckett said. Greenpeace has been filming around Guiyu and caught the recycling work. Women were heating circuit boards over a coal fire, pulling out chips and pouring off the lead solder. Men were using what is literally a medieval acid recipe to extract gold. Pollution has ruined the town. Drinking water is trucked in. Scientists have studied the area and discovered that Guiyu has the highest levels of cancer-causing dioxins in the world. They found pregnancies are six times more likely to end in miscarriage, and that seven out of ten kids have too much lead in their blood. "These people are not just working with these materials, they're living with them. They're all around their homes," Pelley told Allen Hershkowitz. "The situation in Guiyu is actually pre-capitalist. It's mercantile. It reverts back to a time when people lived where they worked, lived at their shop. Open, uncontrolled burning of plastics. Chlorinated and brominated plastics is known worldwide to cause the emission of polychlorinated and polybrominated dioxins. These are among the most toxic compounds known on earth," Hershkowitz explained. "We have a situation where we have 21st century toxics being managed in a 17th century environment." [page 3] (CBS) The recyclers are peasant farmers who couldn't make a living on the land.

Destitute, they've come by the thousands to get $8 a day. Greenpeace introduced us to some of them. They were afraid and didn't want to be seen, but theirs are the hands that are breaking down America's computers. "The air I breathe in every day is so pungent I can definitely feel it in my windpipe and affecting my lungs. It makes me cough all the time," one worker told Pelley, with the help of a translator. "If you're worried about your lungs and you're burning your hands, do you ever think about giving this up?" Pelley asked. "Yes, I have thought of it," the worker said. Asked why he doesn't give it up, the worker told him, "Because the money’s good." "You know, it struck me, talking to those workers the other day, that they were destitute and they're happy to have this work," Pelley told Puckett. "Well, desperate people will do desperate things," Puckett replied. “But we should never put them in that situation. You know, it's a hell of a choice between poverty and poison. We should never make people make that choice.” Pelley, Puckett, and the 60 Minutes team passed by a riverbed that had been blackened by the ash of burned e-waste. "Oh, man, this is - it's unbelievably acrid and choking," Pelley said, coughing. "This is an ash river. This is detritus from burning all this material and this is what the kids get to play in," Puckett explained. After a few minutes in the real recycling area, we were jumped. Several men struggled for our cameras. The mayor hadn't wanted us to see this place, and neither did the businessmen who were profiting from it. They got a soil sample that we'd taken for testing, but we managed to wrestle the cameras back. What

Will Malson

Neg file: Independent E-waste Reduction

Page 8 of 16

were they afraid of? "They're afraid of being found out," Puckett said. "This is smuggling. This is illegal. A lot of people are turning a blind eye here. And if somebody makes enough noise, they're afraid this is all gonna dry up."

Vocation/Death DA B. Brinks Brink 1: Salvage yards are increasing G. Jeffrey MacDonald [independent journalist specializing in religion, ethics and ideas. His articles have appeared in TIME magazine, USA Today, MS. magazine, American Executive, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post and The Christian Science Monitor among others. In 2002, he received religion journalism’s top award, the Templeton Reporter of the Year prize from the Religion Newswriters Association. The American Academy of Religion has also honored him in successive years for in-depth reporting on religion. Jeffrey holds a Master of Divinity degree from Yale University and Bachelor of Arts in American history from Brown University], “Don't recycle 'e-waste' with haste, activists warn”, July 6, 2008, http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/environment/2008-07-06-ewaste-recycling_N.htm (HEG) Meanwhile, salvage yards, once concentrated primarily in Guiyu, China, are proliferating. Last month, Consumers International, a London-based advocacy group, reported that Ghana and Nigeria are now receiving hundreds of tons of e-waste from the developed world each month. According to the Basel Action Network, a Seattle-based non-profit, much of the e-waste generated in the USA also ends up in Pakistan and India, where children often do the sorting and toxic circuit boards are burned in residential neighborhoods. Brink 2: The US is the only source of “non-banned” E-waste Senator Sherrod Brown [D-Ohio; Senator Brown sits on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee; the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee and is Chairman of its Subcommittee on Economic Policy; the Veterans Affairs Committee; and the Ethics Committee. He's the first Ohio Senator in 40 years to sit on the Agriculture and Nutrition Committee and is the Chairman of its Subcommittee on Hunger, Nutrition, and Family Farms] quoting the U.S. Commerce Department, "Brown Calls For National E-Waste Export Ban: Critical GAO Report Reveals Health Threats From EWaste Exports", September 17, 2008, http://brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press_releases/release/? id=496c4f64-3b24-41b8-8a74-a718767bf6d7 (HEG) WASHINGTON – Senator Sherrod Brown today introduced legislation that would call for a ban on the export of toxic electronic waste to developing nations. The Senate resolution was introduced on the heels of a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that shows U.S. hazardous waste regulations fail to consider e-waste despite serious concerns about the re-importation of toxic products back to the U.S. and implications for international health problems. Similar legislation was introduced in the House by Texas Congressman Gene Green (D-Houston). “Instead of reacting to a crisis, our nation should prevent it,” Brown said. “We need to ensure that toxic e-waste is not being exported, much less re-imported as a child’s toy or jewelry. We must ban this practice immediately.” According to the Commerce Department, as much as 80 percent of e-waste collected for recycling is sent overseas. E-waste is sent to developing countries that lack disposal regulations and few – if any – environmental or worker safety protections. Materials from the e-waste is used in the production of toys and jewelry for children and shipped back to U.S. stores. “News stories over the past two years have highlighted recall after recall of Chinese-made imports for lead contamination,” said Dr. Jeffrey Weidenhamer, a professor of chemistry at Ashland University in Ohio. “Yet at the same time, the US has continued to export large quantities of toxic electronic wastes which contain high levels of lead, cadmium and other toxic metals. This e-waste is shipped to China and other nations, where it is recycled in very crude ways that exact a huge environmental and human toll. Evidence suggests that some of this recycled material may come back to haunt us in the form of contaminated products such as children's jewelry. We have exported e-waste for the same reasons that we have exported jobs – because it is cheaper to dump e-waste overseas than to make sure it is recycled properly. It is long overdue for the United States to join other developed nations in banning the export of hazardous electronic waste.” “Current e-waste policy amounts to a revolving door of toxic trade,” Brown said. “In addition to banning this practice, Congress should examine domestic recycling possibilities. Recycling our own e-

Will Malson

Neg file: Independent E-waste Reduction

Page 9 of 16

waste can create U.S. jobs and prevent contamination at home and abroad.” In 1989, countries began to sign the Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, designed to prevent hazardous waste from moving from rich to poor nations. Today 170 countries are party to the Convention. The United States is the only industrial country

to that has failed to ratify the Basel Convention.

Vocation/Death DA C. Impacts Impact 1: Man has the intrinsic right to work: Aff abuses human rights by effectively eliminating other options for e-waste recyclers Reverend J. Elliot Ross [Ph.D., D.D. (Doctor of Divinity - an advanced academic degree in divinity. Historically, it identified one who had been licensed by a university to teach Christian theology or related religious subjects.), lecturer in Ethics at Newman Club, University of Texas], “Christian Ethics: A Textbook of Right Living”, “Labor”, Pages 336-337, Publisher: Devin-Adair; 1ST edition (1919), ASIN: B000I5OXJQ (HEG) 716. Right to Work Inheres in the Individual. While there is no doubt that unemployment is often so widespread as to cause serious danger to the community, yes as a matter of precision it is well to insist that the right to support himself is inherent in each man, and that even if there were only one citizen who could not find this opportunity to work, the State would be obliged in distributive justice to furnish him the chance. 717. Leo XIII and the Right to Work. This is a perfectly legitimate conclusion from the words of Leo XIII, and that learned Pontiff would probably have drawn it himself had his attention been called to it: "The preservation of Life," he writes in his Encyclical "The Condition of Labor," "is the bounden duty of each and all, and to fail therein is a crime. It follows that each one has a right to procure what is required in order to live; and the poor can procure it in no other way than by work and wages." The great social reform Pope concluded with inexorable logic that this right to live implies a right to a living wage. Does it not at the same time imply a right to work for this wage? If a man has a right to live, and can live only by work, there seems no escape from the conclusion that he has a right to work. For the right to a living wage without the right to work is as profitable to an unemployed laborer as is the water of a mirage to a thirsty traveller. Impact 2: Death. Refer back to Internal Link 2: “Impoverished civilians have two choices: reduced quality of life recycling e-waste or death by starvation; given the choice, they choose decreased quality of life”. By taking away the option of decreased quality of life, AFF is basically subjecting them to inevitable starvation and an agonizing death – wheras in the squo, they only have increased risks of developing cancer, etc. The squo may lead to death, but post-AFF does lead to death.

Will Malson

Neg file: Independent E-waste Reduction

Page 10 of 16

Landfills DA A. Link and Brink Link and Brink: U.S. citizens to send “millions of pounds of e-waste to landfills” Stephen Leahy [An independent environmental journalist for 15 years; his writing has been published in dozens of publications around the world including New Scientist, The London Sunday Times, Maclean’s Magazine, Earth Island Journal, The Toronto Star, Wired News, Audubon, BBC Wildlife, and Canadian Geographic. He is the international science and environment correspondent for the Romeheadquartered Inter Press Service News Agency (IPS), the world’s 6th largest global news agency. His IPS articles are published in over 500 newspapers and magazines all over the world reaching an estimated 200 million readers in up to 20 languages. He is a professional member of The Society of Environmental Journalists (the only North-American membership association of professional journalists dedicated to more and better coverage of environment-related issues. SEJ is an independent, nonpartisan grassroots educational group dedicated to the highest standards of public service journalism. By long-standing board policy, SEJ does not accept gifts or grants from non-media corporations, government agencies or environmental advocacy groups. SEJ’s 2008 operating budget of $1,012,213 (audited figure) was underwritten by foundations, universities, earned income, media company contributions and individual gifts. SEJ’s membership now includes more than 1,500 highly qualified journalists, editors, educators and students working in print, broadcast and online news media throughout the U.S., Canada, Mexico and 27 other countries. Members and others who use SEJ services report environmental news and information to millions of readers, listeners and viewers worldwide, on a daily basis)], "ENVIRONMENT-US: An E-Waste Free-for-All", Published by IPS (Inter Press Service) [a non-profit, international non-governmental organisation (INGO), registered in Rome (Italy), where IPS’ headquarters are based. Inter Press Service (IPS) is the world’s leading news agency on issues such as development, environment, human rights and civil society], November 21, 2007, http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40163 BROOKLIN, Canada, Nov 21 (IPS) - U.S. citizens will buy 30 million new digital televisions this year alone, sending their old lead-laden TVs to the dump, or more likely, overseas to China or India. "It's an astonishing number that will send millions of pounds of lead to landfills or overseas," said Barbara Kyle, national coordinator of the Electronics TakeBack Coalition.

Will Malson

Neg file: Independent E-waste Reduction

Page 11 of 16

Landfills DA B. Impact Impact: E-waste in landfills can seep into the water supply or escape into the atmosphere, poisoning the surrounding plants, animals, and humans Jessika Toothman [double major from Georgia State University, earning a B.A. in journalism and a B.A. in Spanish with a concentration in international business], “How E-waste Works: E-waste Dangers”, Published by HowStuffWorks [a wholly owned subsidiary of Discovery Communications; an award-winning source of credible, unbiased, and easy-to-understand explanations of how the world actually works. Founded by North Carolina State University Professor Marshall Brain in 1998. HowStuffWorks has won multiple Webby awards, was among Time Magazine's "25 Web Sites We Can't Live Without" in 2006 and 2007, and has been one of PC Magazine's "Top 100 Web Sites" four times, including in 2007], June 4, 2008, http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/e-waste1.htm (HEG) E-waste Dangers In many instances, the only visible part of an electronic product is its outer shell. Unless that casing is broken, we rarely see the myriad circuit boards, wiring and electrical connections that make the device actually function. But it's those inner mechanical organs that are so valuable and so toxic. A whole bouquet of heavy metals, semimetals and other chemical compounds lurk inside your seemingly innocent laptop or TV. E-waste dangers stem from ingredients such as lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, copper, beryllium, barium, chromium, nickel, zinc, silver and gold. Many of these elements are used in circuit boards and comprise electrical parts such as computer chips, monitors and wiring. Also, many electrical products include various flame-retardant chemicals that might pose potential health risks. To learn more about the dangers of a common toxic component like lead, read Why do CRTs contain lead? When these elements are safely encased in our refrigerators and laptops, e-waste dangers aren't much of an issue. Problems can occur when devices break -- intentionally or accidentally. Then they can leak and contaminate their immediate environment, whether that's in a landfill or on the streets within a region full of struggling laborers. Over time, the toxic chemicals of a landfill's e-waste can seep into the ground (possibly entering the water supply) or escape into the atmosphere, affecting the health of nearby communities. As we discussed on the previous page, the jury is still out on the danger level of this e-waste contamination, but it's safe to assume that the results are probably not good. People are beginning to discuss the serious aspects of this pollution in terms of bioaccumulation and biomagnification. Bioaccumulation occurs when people, plants and animals build up levels of toxic substances in their bodies faster than they can get rid of them. Biomagnification occurs when toxin levels accumulate within the food chain. For example, plankton might absorb low levels of mercury. Then fish that eat large amounts of plankton ingest an even larger, unhealthier dose. The problem continues as birds or humans eat the mercury-tainted fish.

Will Malson

Neg file: Independent E-waste Reduction

Page 12 of 16

Vocation CP Contention 1 is Vocation/Death DA (above) Contention 2 is Landfills DA (above) Contention 3 is value-based alternative-action Plan Text Agency & Enforcement: The USFG. Mandates: 1. The USFG will not attempt any further reduction in exportation of e-waste (stick with squo) 2. The USFG will encourage countries, private companies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to extend social services and instruments that mitigate toxic impacts of ewaste to people engaged in recycling of e-waste. No Funding is necessary. Timeline: Work to achieve the mandates will begin immediately. All Negative speeches may clarify the plan as needed.

Will Malson

Neg file: Independent E-waste Reduction

Page 13 of 16

Vocation CP Contention 4 is counterplan advantages Advantage 1: Vocation unperturbed This flows from simply logic: instead of forcing them to cease in their course of action, we allow them to continue in the avenue that is best for them. Advantage 2: Life This also flows from logic: instead of forcing them to cease in their course of action yielding almost guaranteed-death, we allow them to continue and sustain themselves.

Will Malson

Neg file: Independent E-waste Reduction

Page 14 of 16

Vocation CP Contention 5 is reason to prefer Three reasons why you should vote NEG and pass our counter-plan over AFF’s plan: Reason one is we don’t link to the Vocation or Death DA. AFF’s plan uniquely links to this disadvantage – af causes loss of life and violates a basic human right. Neg’s counter-plan does not link – we uphold human life and human rights. Vote neg on this contention. Reason two is it’s competitive. You can’t pass both the aff plan and the neg counterplan at the same time – you can’t work to decrease exports and do nothing about exports. Reason three is it’s net beneficial. Look back at the disadvantage – it links to aff but not to neg. Additionally, we claim unique advantages that AFF cannot claim. In light of this, our counterplan achieves a net benefit over the affirmative plan and should be voted for at the end of this round.

Will Malson

Neg file: Independent E-waste Reduction

Page 15 of 16

Vocation CP AT: Theory AT: Perm AFF perm would violate their premise and their advantages of reducing hazardous exports. Such a violation can only be viewed as an advocacy shift – changing what they originally endorse (the 1AC) into something else (2AC – Perm). Advocacy shifts destroy negative ground, create a moving target and render the affirmative team and the negatives argumentation completely moot. This is an independent voting issue – vote negative on educational and in-round abuse. AT: Partial perm AFF’s partial perm on mandate 2 still doesn’t have a net benefit over neg counterplan – they still work to reduce e-waste exports; doing so still links to both of our disadvantage impacts.

Will Malson

Neg file: Independent E-waste Reduction

Page 16 of 16

Vocation CP AT: Inherency (minimal safety procedures) UQ – E-waste is sent to countries with minimal worker safety protections Senator Sherrod Brown [D-Ohio; Senator Brown sits on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee; the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee and is Chairman of its Subcommittee on Economic Policy; the Veterans Affairs Committee; and the Ethics Committee. He's the first Ohio Senator in 40 years to sit on the Agriculture and Nutrition Committee and is the Chairman of its Subcommittee on Hunger, Nutrition, and Family Farms] quoting the U.S. Commerce Department, "Brown Calls For National E-Waste Export Ban: Critical GAO Report Reveals Health Threats From EWaste Exports", September 17, 2008, http://brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press_releases/release/? id=496c4f64-3b24-41b8-8a74-a718767bf6d7 (HEG) WASHINGTON – Senator Sherrod Brown today introduced legislation that would call for a ban on the export of toxic electronic waste to developing nations. The Senate resolution was introduced on the heels of a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that shows U.S. hazardous waste regulations fail to consider ewaste despite serious concerns about the re-importation of toxic products back to the U.S. and implications for international health problems. Similar legislation was introduced in the House by Texas Congressman Gene Green (D-Houston). “Instead of reacting to a crisis, our nation should prevent it,” Brown said. “We need to ensure that toxic e-waste is not being exported, much less re-imported as a child’s toy or jewelry. We must ban this practice immediately.” According to the Commerce Department, as much as 80 percent of e-waste collected for recycling is sent overseas. E-waste is sent to developing countries that lack disposal regulations and few – if any – environmental or worker safety protections. Materials from the e-waste is used in the production of toys and jewelry for children and shipped back to U.S. stores. “News stories over the past two years have highlighted recall after recall of Chinese-made imports for lead contamination,” said Dr. Jeffrey Weidenhamer, a professor of chemistry at Ashland University in Ohio. “Yet at the same time, the US has continued to export large quantities of toxic electronic wastes which contain high levels of lead, cadmium and other toxic metals. This e-waste is shipped to China and other nations, where it is recycled in very crude ways that exact a huge environmental and human toll. Evidence suggests that some of this recycled material may come back to haunt us in the form of contaminated products such as children's jewelry. We have exported e-waste for the same reasons that we have exported jobs – because it is cheaper to dump e-waste overseas than to make sure it is recycled properly. It is long overdue for the United States to join other developed nations in banning the export of hazardous electronic waste.” “Current e-waste policy amounts to a revolving door of toxic trade,” Brown said. “In addition to banning this practice, Congress should examine domestic recycling possibilities. Recycling our own e-waste can create U.S. jobs and prevent contamination at home and abroad.” In 1989, countries began to sign the Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, designed to prevent hazardous waste from moving from rich to poor nations. Today 170 countries are party to the Convention. The United States is the only industrial country to that has failed to ratify the Basel Convention.