Wolkie 1nc

FIRST IS THE O-SPEC. The A. point is the interpretation- The Affirmative must use normal means as funding. B.) Violation- … He names his funding source. 'ELLO. C.)Why they should lose 1. Ground loss- When he specifies that we're going to cut the Rock N' Roll Hall of Fame, et cetera, the Negative loses key disadvantage and counterplan ground. We can no longer run spending DA's, fiscal responsibility K's, budget tradeoff DA's, or use them as competition for agent counterplans. This is clear and present loss of ground, and an independent voting issue for abuse. 2. Extra-topicality- When asked in cross-ex, he said that the plan doesn't happen without a funding source. Okay. That means that all of his advantages stem from a part of the plan that isn't in the resolution. Don't let him access any offense (advantages) or defense (spiking disadvantages, et cetera) that he gets through extra-topical action. This is a 100% gut on his solvency.

Now, let's go down to Topicality. A. Interpretation- we think the resolution means... “Reform” requires the REMOVAL of an abuse in the current system. In order for environmental policy to be “reformed,” an policy in the current system must be REMOVED. Reform: To abolish abuse or malpractice in [The American Heritage® Concise Dictionary (1994). Retrieved 28 August 2006, from xreferplus. http://www.xreferplus.com/entry/714462] Environmental Policy: The official rules or regulations concerning the environment adopted, implemented, and enforced by some governmental agency. [William P. Cunningham (University of Minnesota), Mary Ann Cunningham (Vassar College), Barbara Woodworth Saigo (St. Cloud State University), The Text Book “Environmental Science: A Global Concern”, McRawHill (Online Learning Center) Glossary Page, Copyright 2003, http://highered.mcgrawhill.com/sites/0070294267/student_view0/glossary_e-l.html] B. Violation- They don't meet the interpretation, because they don’t REMOVE a bad/abusive environmental policy, the plan is creating a new regulation. C. Standards- we think you should accept this interpretation because of... 1.Limits: The only way to limit the number of cases possible under this resolution is to have REMOVAL of an abuse policy be the standard. There are an infinite number of policies that could be created, increased, amended, ratified, etc., and this creates an unsustainable burden for the negative. By holding them to REMOVING EXISTING POLICIES, you make debate fair for the negative and more educational because we can do deeper research. D. Voting Issues 1.Fairness: If they’re allowed to run wildly unpredictable plans, the negative will never win a round. It’s impossible to block punches you don’t see coming. 2.A priori Topicality is an issue that is evaluated before any other contention is addressed. Impacts that happen in the real world should take precedence over imaginary policies. If they aren’t topical, you should vote negative without considering anything else.

This brings us to the Kritik- Deep Ecology. The A. point is the Framework- Mindset matters. Fiat is imaginary- no matter who you vote for, the plan doesn't happen. But if we promote a bad mindset in this round, that's a real life impact which makes the K a priori. The B. point is the Link1.)His admission- Look at his value and the ensuing cross-ex exchange. He doesn't give a Spotted Owl pellet about the environment or the biosphere- If dirty water didn't hurt people and only killed fish, he wouldn't care. This is basically the perfect link to shallow ecology- only valuing the environment as far as people go. 2.) The plan is reflective of the shallow ecology approach.. Naess, 1995 (Arne, Professor Emeritus Philosophy, Deep Ecology for the 21

st

Century. Ed. George Sessions, pg. 72)

“Shallow Approach: Technology seeks to purify the air and water and to spread pollution more evenly. Laws limit permissible pollution. Polluting industries are preferably exported to developing countries. Deep Approach: Pollution is evaluated from a biospheric point of view, not focusing exclusively on its effects on human health, but rather on life as a whole, including the life conditions of every species and system. The shallow reaction to acid rain, for example, is to tend to avoid action by demanding more research, and the attempt to find species of trees which will tolerate high acidity, etc. The deep approach concentrates on what is going on in the total ecosystem and calls for a high priority fight against the economic conditions and the technology responsible for producing the acid rain. The long-range concerns are one hundred years, at least. The priority is to fight the deep causes of pollution, not merely the superficial, short-range effects. The Third and Fourth World countries cannot afford to pay the total costs of the war against pollution in their regions; consequently they require the assistance of the First and Second World countries. Exporting pollution is not only a crime against humanity, it is a crime against life in general. “ The C. point is the impactInstrumentalizing nature for human purposes inevitably leads to an ecological holocaust Alf 3 (Alf, holds a masters degree in Philosophy from the University of Utah http://www.hum.utah.edu/hgc/papers/seegert.pdf The Problem of Painlessness: Why Deep Ecology Won’t Work Without a Willingness to Feel)

Proponents of deep ecology, for instance, argue that a truncated sense of self goes hand in hand with ecological devastation. They contend that our present environmental crisis is fundamentally a crisis not of ethics but of perception, where we narrowly and mistakenly identify ourselves with our particle-like egos. Doing so introduces a subject/object split between the human and the more-than-human world that is not only illusory, but also dangerous. By conceiving nature as “radically other” and separate, we instrumentalize it and consign it to “thinghood,” thereby reducing the more-than-human-world to the status of raw material valuable only in terms of its use. The perhaps unsurprising consequence of such an isolated, dualistic sense of self is an ecological holocaust unrivaled by anything that the planet has seen for over 65 million years.

2.) The anthropocentric view ultimately leads to humanity's self-destruction Gemeinhardt and Schmidt 2007 (Max and Lars [http://www.soundofsirens.net/index.php/definitions] Sounds of Sirens/ 2007) “Anthropocentrism (greek:anthropos, human being / kentron, center) is the idea that, for humans, humans must be the central concern, and that humanity must judge all things accordingly: Human beings must be considered, looked after and cared for, above all other real or imaginary beings.” (via Wikipedia) One alternative to this way of perceiving offers the Gaia Hypothesis, which understands the earth as one living organism, thus the human being as an integral part of the whole system, being embedded in it and dependent on it. You find this understanding also in many indigeneous cultures and you could say that it is embedded in our collective unconscious. The anthropocentric way of perceiving must ultimately lead to selfdestruction, since it results in separation and isolation from nature / the earth, and the earth forms the very basis of our existence. The D. point is the alternative. 1.)Reject- Reject the Aff's shallow ecological mindset at first glance, and rethink, accepting responsibility within environmental ethics. This solves the root of environmental destruction. Ambrosius 5 (Wendy, Dept of Philosophy, “Deep Ecology: A Debate on the Role of Humans in the Environment”. UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research VIII http://www.uwlax.edu/urc/juronline/pdf/2005/ambrosius.pdf.) “Bill Devall wrote many articles on deep ecology, one being his book Simple in Means, Rich in Ends, and it is essentially about living practically by the deep ecology principles. Devall particularly gets into the ecological self, which is one of the best explanations of the deep ecologists’ view on the role of humans in their environment. The ecological self is that which is beyond, mature, aware, sensitive, and caring towards the environment and nature. We all have the potential to reach our ecological self, but we are dis-encouraged by the surrounding institutions of society to pursue such a self. The self is furthermore not about being independent from the “other”, in reference to nature. By calling nature the other, we allow ourselves, free from guilt, to manipulate, use, and control nature for our own benefits, because basically, no one is able to identify with the other. Deep ecology suggests that humans need to start seeing the relation of themselves to the environment. Devall quotes Frances Vaughn in saying that the healthy self is “an open living system in an intricate web of mutually conditioned relationships (Devall, 41).” By realizing our relationships with nature, we realize our dependence on nature, and thus our responsibility as humans to care for nature and to treat it for its true worth is created. Devall agrees, when he says that “as we reach our ecological self we will joyfully defend and interact with that with which we identify; and instead of imposing environmental ethics on people, we will naturally respect, love, honor, and protect that which is of our self (Devall, 43).” In our realization of nature as a part of humans, but humans will reach a higher level of self as well. “

The last issue before we get into some actual case stuff is an argument under the criterion.

A. No specific criteria- we should weigh impacts through rebuttal calculus. B. Their criterion of public health is a specific criterion. C. Prefer our interpretation: 1. Fairest debate – their "standard" exists only to exclude disadvantages that don't specifically link-turn their advantages, which is no fair. 2. Best policy-making – ignoring disadvantages that don't correspond to the intent of the legislation guarantees the law of unintended consequences, which sucks for everyone.

Now that we've got all that sticky-icky a priori stuff out of the way, let's go to the counterplan.

First is the Counterplan text: “The United States Federal Government shall 1.) legalize the growing of industrial hemp, and 2.) redirect all ethanol subsidies and the 'special interest grants' in the affirmative's funding to subsidize energy from industrial hemp on a portion of the “soil bank” and . Funding is the same as the Affirmative plan. The Counterplan takes place immediately upon a Negative ballot. We’ll clarify as needed.” A note on the counterplan: It's conditional, just like the K.

First observation: WE COMPETE. Since we use the same funding source as them, you can't do

both the plan and the counterplan. Second observation: WE SOLVE THE CASE. If we can prove that we can make coal be replaced by hemp, then we get 100% of their case offense. So, here's that evidence: Hemp biomass can replace every type of fossil fuel energy product. Jack Herer, [author and political activist], 1999, The Emperor Wears no Clothes, http://www.hemp4fuel.com/Jack_Herer__The_Emperor_Wears_No_Clothes_%5BHow_Hemp_Can_Save_The_World%5D.en.pdf Our current fossil energy sources also supply about 80% of the solid and airborne pollution which is quickly poisoning the environment of the planet. (See US EPA report 1983-96 on the coming world catastrophe from carbon dioxide imbalance caused by burning fossil fuels). The best and cheapest substitute for these expensive and wasteful energy methods is not wind or solar panels, nuclear, geothermal and the like, but the evenly distributed light of the sun for growing biomass. On a global scale, the plant that produces the most net biomass is hemp. It's the only annually renewable plant on Earth able to replace all fossil fuels. In the Twenties, the early oil barons such as Rockefeller of Standard Oil, Rothschild of Shell, etc., became paranoically aware of the possibilities of Henry Ford's vision of cheap methanol fuel,* and they kept oil prices incredibly low - between one dollar and four dollars per barrel (there are 42 gallons in an oil barrel) until 1970 - almost 50 years! Prices were so low, in fact, that no other energy source could compete with it. Then, once they were finally sure of the lack of competition, the price of oil jumped to almost $40 per barrel over the next 10 years. * Henry Ford grew marijuana on his estate after 1937, possibly to prove the cheapness of methanol production at Iron Mountain. He made plastic cars with wheat straw, hemp and sisal. (Popular Mechanics, Dec. 1941, "Pinch Hitters for Defense.") In 1892, Rudolph Diesel invented the diesel engine, which he intended to fuel "by a variety of fuels, especially vegetable and seed oils." By the year 2000, the U.S. will have burned 80% of its petroleum resources, while our coal reserves may last 100-300 years longer. But the decision to continue burning coal has serious drawbacks. This high-sulfur coal is responsible for our acid rain, which already kills 50,000 Americans and 5,000-10,000 Canadians annually. In addition, the acid rains destroy the forests, rivers, and animals. (Brookhaven National Laboratory, 1986.)

Conversion to biomass fuels should begin immediately to stop both planetary pollution and lemming-life genocide, and to make us naturally energy independent. Clean, Renewable Fuel Source Fuel is not synonymous with petroleum and coal. Biomass energy systems can supply a sustainable source of fuel and will create millions of new clean jobs. Hemp biomass derived fuels and oils can replace every type of fossil fuel energy product. B.) I'm not carding this argument, but because coal also kills people and devastates the environment when it is mined, the counterplan is better because it replaces coal completely. This is the equivalent of firing Tom Cruise because he has the IQ of a V'lasic pickle and replacing him with the far-hunkier Daniel Craig rather than just getting the crazy couchjumping Scientologist acting lessons and prolonging the suck. A-wop-bop-aloobop, shoobidydoowop.

Third observation: Solvency! The CP leads to hemp production.

With federal approval, industrial hemp production can be stimulated. Holly Jessen. Biodeisel Magazine Staff Writer. 2/07. Hemp Biodiesel: When the Smoke Clears. http://biodieselmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=1434 Today, high demand within the food market, limited production and low yields per acre make industrial hemp unattractive as a viable option for biodiesel production. That could change, however, if states like North Dakota can overcome federal road blocks to produce industrial hemp in the United States. Paul Bobbee, a Canadian hemp grower, knows firsthand that under current market conditions, using industrial hemp as a biodiesel feedstock just wouldn’t pay. Hemp farming has been legal in Canada for about six years, while in the United States farmers are having difficulty getting the proper approval from the federal government to produce hemp. Because only limited acres of hemp are being grown at this time, it’s considered a niche crop and garners premium prices for use in products for the human health food market. “Every pound that’s being produced goes into the food chain,” Bobbee tells Biodiesel Magazine.

Fourth observation: We have more benefits! These be the counterplan advantages, yo.

CP ADVANTAGE 1: Energy independence A.) Dependence =energy insecurity and national security threats Lakshman D. Guruswamy [Lakshman D. Guruswam is the Nicholas Doman Professor of International Environmental Law at the University of Colorado- Boulder & is the Director of the Center for Energy & Environmental Security. He teaches International Law, International Environmental Law, and US Environmental Law at CU, and is widely published in these subjects in legal and scientific journals. Prior to joining the University of Colorado in 2001, he taught in Sri Lanka, the UK, and the Universities of Iowa and Arizona. Guruswamy is a frequent speaker at scholarly meetings around the country and the world , and was among 20 distinguished international law scholars (and 3 Americans) specially chosen by the International Court of Justice to speak at the symposium celebrating the 50th anniversary of the ICJ or the World Court.] “INTERNATIONAL LAW SYMPOSIUM: ARTICLE: Energy, Environment & Sustainable Development”, published in the Chapman Law Review, Spring, 2005 [8 Chap. L. Rev. 77] “The fourth reason for new energy treaties is based on national security. Traditionally, national security has been associated with armed aggression and the ability to thwart military invasions or subversion. However, more contemporary concepts of security include critical threats to vital national and international support systems, such as the economy, energy and the environment. In this context, the increasing reliance on hydrocarbons has created energy, environmental and economic insecurity. The concept of energy security is based on three pillars. n18 The first seeks to limit energy vulnerability by reducing dependence on oil use from unstable parts of the world. n19 The second attempts to offer access to adequate supplies at reasonable prices. n20 The third endeavors to prevent international sabotage of oil pipelines and cables, tankers, offshore and onshore installations. n21 Some of these are of particular relevance to this article. Because the demand for oil and gas far exceeds the supply of those countries that rely most heavily upon them, these countries are compelled to import oil and gas from politically volatile parts of the world. For example, the Middle East, which contains half of the world's remaining conventional oil reserves, is projected to meet almost two-thirds of the increase in global oil demand between 2003 and 2030. n22 The International Energy Agency (IEA) reports that through the year 2010, nearly 80 percent of the expected increase in the world's demand for oil is likely to be supplied by Kuwait, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirate, and the Caspian Region, leaving Venezuela as the only major, low-cost, non-Middle Eastern petroleum producer. n23 According to an assessment by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, by 2020, half of the world's oil demand will be met from countries that have a high risk of internal instability. n24 This phenomenon exposes many developed countries, including the United States, the European Union, and Japan, to [*83] shortages of vital energy sources and threats to national security. According to the present U.S. administration, this country faces the most serious energy shortage since the oil embargoes of the 1970s. n25 Estimates indicate that over the next 20 years, U.S. oil consumption will increase by 33 percent, natural gas consumption by as much as 50 percent, and demand for electricity will rise by 45 percent. n26 The implications of such increases in energy consumption are ominous.” B.) Hemp can make the US energy independent Jack Herer, [author and political activist], 1999, The Emperor Wears no Clothes, http://www.hemp4fuel.com/Jack_Herer__The_Emperor_Wears_No_Clothes_%5BHow_Hemp_Can_Save_The_World%5D.en.pdf Biomass for Energy Abundance Hemp stems are 80% hurds (pulp byproduct after the hemp fiber is removed from the plant). Hemp hurds are 77% cellulose - a primary chemical feed stock

(industrial raw material) used in the production of chemicals, plastics and fibers. Depending on which U.S. agricultural report is correct, an acre of full grown hemp plants can sustainably provide from four to 50 or even 100 times the cellulose found in cornstalks, kenaf, or sugar cane - the planet's next highest annual cellulose plants. In most places, hemp can be harvested twice a year and, in warmer areas such as Southern California, Texas, Florida and the like, it could be a year-round crop. Hemp has a short growing season and can be planted after food crops have been harvested. An independent, semi-rural network of efficient and autonomous farmers should become the key economic player in the production of energy in this country. The United States government pays (in cash or in "kind") for farmers to refrain from growing on approximately 90 million acres of farmland each year, called the "soil bank." And 10-90 million acres of hemp or other woody annual biomass planted on this restricted, unplanted fallow farmland (our Soil Bank) would make energy a whole new ball game and be a real attempt at doing something to save the Earth. There are another 500 million marginal unplanted acres of farmland in America. Each acre of hemp would yield 1,000 gallons of methanol. Fuels from hemp, along with the recycling of paper, etc., would be enough to run America virtually without oil.

CP ADVANTAGE 2 is the economy.

Hemp would create millions of jobs in America – stimulating the economy Jack Herer, author and two time Presidential candidate, 1999, The Emperor Wears no Clothes, http://www.hemp4fuel.com/Jack_Herer__The_Emperor_Wears_No_Clothes_%5BHow_Hemp_Can_Save_The_World%5D.en.pdf “Free Enterprise and High Profit There are many other areas of the economy that would benefit from ending hemp prohibition and the resulting stimulation of commerce in rediscovered hemp products, according to the Hempstead Company, Ecolution, The Body Shop, Hanf Haus, etc. Legal hemp will return billions of dollars worth of natural resource potential back to the farmers and bring millions of good jobs in energy production to America's heartland. Hemp energy farmers will become our nation's largest producers of raw materials. Family farms will be saved. Crops can be tailored to the needs of the nation. Hemp can be grown for BDF (biomass derived fuels) resources at about $30 per ton. Hempseed crops will again supply the paint and varnish industries with a superior organic and life-sustaining alternative to petrochemicals. Hempseed oil has chemical properties similar to linseed oil. And oil has chemical properties similar to linseed oil. And the market is wide open for highly nutritious and delicious foods made from hempseed with its health-giving essential fatty acids and proteins. Hemp grown for fiber will take the paper and textile industry out of the hands of the multinational corporations, and back to the local communities. Research by various hemp business associations indicate there are around 50,000 non-smoking commercial uses of hemp that are economically viable and market competitive. “

Now that we've gone through all that, it's time for some on-case.

1.)Quantification Judge, if he wants to access his harms, he needs to provide us with some quantification. Specifically, we need: a. Water poisoning- his evidence says that ash CAN leach toxic substances that CAN cause xyz diseases, but we need to see that they have, and how many, in order for him to access this impact. b. Particulate matter- he claims to solve for particulate matter, but you'll note that his point 1 under the advantage doesn't say particulates- it mentions specific pollutants that, notably, aren't called “particulates”. The next card he reads mentions particulates, but not multi-pollution controls (his plan). We're going to need to see cards directly linking his plan and particulate matter for him to access this impact. 2.)Implementation a. Enforcement- What's the enforcement mechanism for utilities only disposing of coal ash in lined pits? There's none in the plan, so we're basically forced to assume that there is none, which kills solvency. b. Existing vs. future- Does the plan cover only future ash pits, or existing ones too? If they have to line existing plants, that's going to be mad rough. We don't know if that's even possible, and more importantly, we need to see it carded rather than just his assertions. c. Wrong agency- in his plan, the EPA retrofits the plants with the new pollution controls. But under his DOE 2009 card (first point on the advantage), you'll note that it was a DOE project that pwned polluting faces, not the EPA. The EPA is made of fail and bureaucracy, we need to see evidence that they're as neato-mosquito as the DOE at pwning pollution. Also note that if he loses any one of these points, that means that the counterplan instantly solves for more of his case than the plan does, because we replace coal completely. Hurrah! OVERVIEW: So, the over-specification, non-topicality and shallow ecology of the Affirmative mean that you should reject the Affirmative at first glance. But even at second glance, we should be taking the funding that they allocate toward giving Tom Cruise acting lessons (improving coal) and putting it toward something that fires Tom Cruise and replaces him with Daniel Craig . Finally, all the defense on the case amounts to several solvency deficits/takeouts. All of this means that you should vote Negative at the end of this round. Kthxbai.