Ww(j)d - 2ac Blocks

SDI 2008 Arjun Vellayappan WW(J)D LV Max Lesser

2AC Blocks 2AC Blocks..................................................................................................................................................................................................1 States CP 2AC (1/2).....................................................................................................................................................................................2 States CP 2AC (2/2).....................................................................................................................................................................................4 Elections 2AC (1/2).....................................................................................................................................................................................5 Elections 2AC (2/2).....................................................................................................................................................................................7 2AC Solvency Blocks..................................................................................................................................................................................8 AT: T-Incentives Can’t Be Mandatory.........................................................................................................................................................9 India Deal Bad 2AC (1/2)..........................................................................................................................................................................10 India Deal Bad 2AC (2/2)..........................................................................................................................................................................11 Federalism 2AC (1/2)................................................................................................................................................................................12 Federalism 2AC (2/2)................................................................................................................................................................................13 Lopez CP 2AC (1/2) .................................................................................................................................................................................14 Lopez CP 2AC (2/2)..................................................................................................................................................................................15 Russian Oil 2AC........................................................................................................................................................................................16 OPEC Flood 2AC......................................................................................................................................................................................17 Capitalism 2AC (1/2).................................................................................................................................................................................18 Capitalism 2AC (2/2).................................................................................................................................................................................19 DA SLAYER..............................................................................................................................................................................................20

1

SDI 2008 Arjun Vellayappan WW(J)D LV Max Lesser

States CP 2AC (1/2) 1. Perm do both 2. Multi-Actor Fiat Bad A) Reciprocity – as affirmative we can only advocate the USFG, so the neg should be held to a single advocacy B) Not real world – policies are never implemented in unison and uniformly in the real world C) Justifies Intrinsic Perms – in a world where the neg can use any agent and fiat multiple actors, intrinsic perms are key to check abuse D) Vote them down - its not about what you say, but what you justify 3. Perm – have the states and the federal government cooperate to solve It solves alternative energy best Sanya Carleyolsen, PhD candidate Public Policy @ UNC, Summer 2006, “Tangled in the Wires”, 46 Nat. Resouces J. 759, lexis A transition to wide-scale RE development will require continued government efforts to develop feasible and consistent economic incentives, comprehensive national- and state-level energy plans, and a stronger regulatory environment. State governments need to enhance their energy plans with tighter environmental targets and more extensive initiatives. Local governments need to expand the scope of planning initiatives to include policies that protect, legitimize, and advance RE development. All levels of government and public actors need to coordinate RE efforts in order to advance a more effective, cohesive movement.

4. States won’t get modeled internationally – they aren’t perceived and are unconstitutional under the Compacts Clause 5. CP can’t solve A) Federal action is key to avert state patchwork regulations that create uncertainty for the auto industry Business Week 02 (“Clean-Air Standards: An End Run around Washington”, http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_20/b3783047.htm) Detroit was blindsided. Expecting an assault of environmental legislation from Washington this spring, the auto industry dispatched troops of lobbyists to the banks of the Potomac to make a stand, successfully defeating a

After environmental lobbyists worked their own contacts in California, the state senate approved a bill on May 2 that would force auto makers to sell cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars in the state by 2008. "I was elated," push for stricter national fuel-economy standards. But the real threat came from the other coast.

says Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope. "This was such a sharp contrast from how Congress has reacted to environmental legislation." The California battle isn't over yet: The state assembly still needs to approve a final version of the measure, and Governor Gray Davis hasn't indicated whether he'll sign it. But if--as expected--the environmental lobby wins this skirmish, it may ultimately prove just as significant as a victory in Washington would have. Why? California is the only state that can create clean-air standards, since its laws predate federal regulations.

other states have the option of adopting California's rules. So the environmentalists plan to take the same legislation to like-minded Northeastern states and then deeper into the heartland, ultimately It's a strategy that could work--and that has Detroit hopping mad. But

targeting key states such as Texas and Florida. "We have accepted the fact that environmental leadership is not coming from Washington," Pope says. "We will focus on consumers and the states."

After defeating the federal measure that would have required auto makers to boost fuel efficiency in March, the industry thought it had wrapped up the issue. Now, though, Detroit may have to wrestle with the environmentalists in state capitals. In the past, California's clean-air and low-emissions laws have gotten a warm reception in New York and New England, where legislators have adopted California's existing limits on carbon monoxide, smog-causing nitrous oxide, and soot from cars. "Our biggest fear is that this becomes the battle we already fought and won at the federal level,"

Since the auto industry doesn't want the stricter California standards adopted state by state, it might agree to somewhat tougher federal fuel economy and emissions laws. Says one General Motors Corp. insider: "We can't have 50 different states telling us how to build cars. That would be chaos." And that's exactly what the says Gregory J. Dana, vice-president of environmental affairs for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers in Washington. That's likely to happen, which could ultimately bring the battle right back to Washington.

environmental lobby is counting on.

2

SDI 2008 Arjun Vellayappan WW(J)D LV Max Lesser

3

SDI 2008 Arjun Vellayappan WW(J)D LV Max Lesser

States CP 2AC (2/2) B) Regulatory uncertainty undermines investment in alcohol fuels Parker and Smith 08 (Geoffrey and Eric, Freeman School of Business, The Impact of Carbon Emissions Policy and Transportation Costs on Alternative Transportation Fuel Supply Chain Economics,” engineering.academickeys.com/seeker_job_attachments.php?dothis=download&job_file%5BIDX%5D=32)

As nations search for methods to reduce green house gas emissions, there is a renewed focus on alternate fuels, such as ethanol, biodiesel, and butanol. Although several of these fuels have a long history of production, they have not been widely adopted in the absence of significant government mandates or subsidies. For an alternate transportation fuel to displace conventional oil derivatives such as gasoline and diesel, there must be a reasonable probability that the fuel can become competitive in total costs, including production, distribution, and consumption. To date, no alternative fuels have passed this test in the United States. However, one cost that has long been absent in energy prices is the cost of environmental emissions. Quantifying the exact cost of any emission is likely to remain impossible, but incorporating some non-zero cost has the potential to significantly change the economics of the transportation fuel industry. The move to institute markets for carbon dioxide emissions makes it possible that some previously omitted costs will be included in future energy prices in the U.S. as has been true in European markets for several years. A key issue, however, is the timeline in which such markets are implemented and the resulting CO2 prices.

Given the regulatory uncertainty, it is difficult to justify major capital investments to reduce CO2 until a clearer picture of costs and benefits emerges.

6. Conditionality/Dispositionality Bad A) Not Reciprocal – The aff can’t just kick their plan, so the negative should not be able to kick their CP – stick them to a stable advocacy B) Kills Education and Fairness – with conditionality we only learn the surface of a variety of things instead of learning in-depth about key issues on the topic and the neg wins every round since they can kick out of our best arguments. C) Destroys Argument Responsibility – it causes negatives to solely go for undercovered flows which is both terrible for in-depth education and independently skews 2AC strategy. 7. Empirically proven - Federal courts will strike down state attempts to regulate ANYTHING related to fuel Carlson 03 (Ann, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law, UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy, 12/23, lexis) Carlson: As I said in my introductory remarks, California every year has gotten a waiver from federal emissions standards to establish its own emissions standards. One of the things California has done that differs from other states is to force auto manufacturers to develop a certain percentage of zero emission vehicles. There have been a lot of problems with that program, but there have also been a lot of advances. The California Air Resources Board has responded to that problem in part by changing the mix of what can meet the zero emissions vehicle [(ZEV)]

regulatory choices has been struck down by a federal district court on grounds that an entirely different federal statute--the one that controls fuel economy standards--preempts California from engaging in anything that relates to fuel efficiency. So requirements. One of its

if they are regulating emissions in a way that relates to fuel efficiency--according to this court--that is preempted by federal law. One of the regulations in the ZEV regulatory scheme briefly discusses fuel efficiency, which is the issue that the court struck down. This decision by federal district court judge is now being appealed. Why do I tell you all this? It has bearing on California's regulatory alternatives under AB 1493. California has to be

one potential legal challenge to anything that CARB does is federal preemption by federal statutes regulating fuel economy standards. But careful not to directly regulate fuel economy, even though direct regulation of fuel economy would dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions. So California has to take different regulatory approaches, since

there is another question. California historically has been allowed to regulate emissions that are related to air pollution; however, there is a question under the Clean Air Act about whether California will receive a waiver for trying to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. That may be a different question, and auto manufacturers are going to argue first that EPA should not grant California the waiver--that California doesn't have the legal authority to do it. Secondly, even if the waiver is granted, [the manufacturers will argue,] "Look, the Clean Air Act is about regulating air pollution emissions, not greenhouse gas emissions."

4

SDI 2008 Arjun Vellayappan WW(J)D LV Max Lesser

Elections 2AC (1/2) 1. Your DA is non-unique – federal government already giving incentives for FFVs Car Talk 07 (“Flex-fuel vehicles and E85”, http://www.cartalk.com/content/features/alternativefuels/flexfuel.html) Here's one reason: the federal government has started giving manufacturers a financial incentive to produce flex-fuel vehicles. By selling flex-fuel vehicles, they earn credits towards their mandatory CAFE fuel economy requirements. So by making vehicles that accept flex-fuel, they can sell more gas guzzling, but higher-profit SUVs without incurring penalties.

2. Non-Unique: A) McCain will win election – independents, Hillary defectors, Latinos and red states prove Perce 7/4/08 (Joseph, editor for the 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,

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. 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)."

B) Obama will lose – Iraq Telegraph 7/4/08, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2243536/US-election-Barack-Obama-wobbles-on-withdrawing-Iraq-troops.html 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.

3. No Links – A) Extend our Zubrin Fall 07 card from the 1AC which says that Bush opposes FFV mandates now, so he wouldn’t get credit for the plan, especially with a Democratic Congress.

5

SDI 2008 Arjun Vellayappan WW(J)D LV Max Lesser

B) The election is still 5 months away; one environmental policy won’t completely change the political spectrum and Bush’s popularity.

6

SDI 2008 Arjun Vellayappan WW(J)D LV Max Lesser

Elections 2AC (2/2) C) Alternative energy isn’t a key issue – voters perceive candidates as too similar National Journal 07 (10/6/07, http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/071012nj1.htm) 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 Oil prices are soaring and a procession of studies is calling for immediate action to prevent the most catastrophic effects of climate change.

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 in their 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

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." 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

4. No internal link: A) No coat-tails – Bush is super unpopular now so he can’t gain enough popularity to help McCain B) 2000 race proves – Bush ran against McCain in 2000 and they weren’t buddies then, so they won’t be now 5. <> 6. <> 7. The DA is not intrinsic – there is no reason why a policy maker can’t do the plan and also not (insert impact).

7

SDI 2008 Arjun Vellayappan WW(J)D LV Max Lesser

2AC Solvency Blocks 1. They say no oil pumps, but: extend our Zubrin in 6 card that says after a flex fuel mandate is passed, flex fuel pumps will jump up across the nation. There are not a lot of flex fuel pumps now because there are not a lot of flex fuel cars. After the plan, the incentive will be to make more pumps because every car will be flex fuel compatible. 2. They say not enough ethanol, but: After the mandate there will be an international market for flex fuels. More of our crops will be used to make flex fuel, and other countries will be able to make ethanol, and we will be able to buy from them. 3. They say hybrid seeds, but: There is no internal link between increased use of hybrid seeds and the destruction of the biosphere. Hybrid seeds are being used now, and none of your impacts have happened. Plus, there is still diversity in the wild: the crops grown by farmers are not the ones in nature, so it doesn’t matter if they are monoculture.

8

SDI 2008 Arjun Vellayappan WW(J)D LV Max Lesser

AT: T-Incentives Can’t Be Mandatory A. We Meet - Auto makers benefit from our plan meaning we are a positive incentive since they can avoid penalties and gain regulatory certainty about the auto industry from flex-fuel vehicles. B. Counter interpretation – Incentives can be positive or negative and we’re both a positive and negative incentive – we’re positive because we promote regulatory uncertainty and negative because we use regulations

Jones, Wright and Ternes 99 (Timothy, Walter and Mary Ellen, Assistant Regional Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI, Chairman, Environmental and Natural Resources Practice Group, Winter, 21 U. Arkansas, Little Rock L. Rev. 191, lexis)

Economic incentives 197 can be either positive or negative. 198 They are analogous to the proverbial “carrot and stick”. Positive incentives such as free compliance advice and technical assistance, may save-or provide additional money, or produce other kinds of tangible benefit and government subsidy, an incentive to implement these policies is achieved. 200 In contrast,

negative incentives might be viewed as penalties or costs associated with a given activity. Enforcement of environmental regulation is a negative incentive. It makes non-compliance more expensive for a business which therefore works to avoid the threat. One author states: “In the purest form, negative incentives include avoiding liability for cleanup costs or private damages, escaping punitive enforcement actions, and keeping a company’s image from becoming tarnished in the public eye.” 201

C. Reasons to Prefer: 1. Our definition intends to define whereas their interpretation is taken out of context. 2. The un-underlined section of their Toomey definition concedes that incentives can be both positive and negative. This agrees with out counter interpretation. 3. We will concede that contextual definitions are best. Our evidence is in the context of economic incentives for environmental regulation, whereas theirs talks about alcohol retail establishments. D. Our Standards are Best 1. Limits- they limit our half of the affirmative cases including cases core to the topic like cap-and-trade and carbon tax. 2. Ground- we increase both the affirmative and negative ground because they get new DA’s based of regulatory action and we get more plans that are core to the topic. 3. Not FX T – all plans include steps and we don’t spike any of your alternative energy links, so its not a voter for fairness or ground. 4. Reasonability- if we are anywhere close to being topical, don’t vote on T since it is a no-risk position for the neg and the death penalty for us. E. Topicality is not a voter for fairness and education

9

SDI 2008 Arjun Vellayappan WW(J)D LV Max Lesser

India Deal Bad 2AC (1/2) 1. Non-Unique: A) Your DA is non-unique  the federal government is already giving incentives for FFV’s Car Talk 07 (“Flex-fuel vehicles and E85”, http://www.cartalk.com/content/features/alternativefuels/flexfuel.html) Here's one reason: the federal government has started giving manufacturers a financial incentive to produce flex-fuel vehicles. By selling flex-fuel vehicles, they earn credits towards their mandatory CAFE fuel economy requirements. So by making vehicles that accept flex-fuel, they can sell more gas guzzling, but higher-profit SUVs without incurring penalties.

B) India Deal won’t pass C) Bush has political capital now – FISA passage Feller 7/10/08 (Ben, Associated Press, “On National Security, Bush Still Has Juice”, http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151ap_bush_still_has_juice.html) For an unpopular guy on his way out of his office, President Bush still has some juice. When Bush signed a law Thursday to broaden the government's eavesdropping power, he served notice of how much sway he still holds on matters of national security. Yes, he is relevant in the twilight of his second term, even with anemic public approval ratings and much of the country tuning him out. Bush got the anti-terrorism spying legislation largely on his terms. He also has won fight after fight to keep the Iraq war going without a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops. He vetoed a bill that would have banned waterboarding for terror suspects, then watched as Democrats failed to override him. Contrast this to Bush's domestic agenda, which is all but ignored by the Democratic-controlled Congress. He keeps pushing for items that seem to be going nowhere, from offshore drilling to tax cuts to a trade deal with Colombia. Lawmakers blew right by him in approving a massive farm bill. Why the difference on security? …[continued 21 paragraphs later]…. The message: I'm still in charge here. "Being a lame duck means you have less clout," Ornstein said. "But

you're still the president of the United States."

2. Link Turn: A) The auto industry opposes the plan Machacek 06 (John, Staff of Gannet News Service, “Demand for fuel-efficient cars puts pressure on Congress,” http://www.lohas.com/articles/81996.html) For example, lawmakers from Michigan, home to the U.S. auto industry, oppose a tax credit for accelerating production of flex-fuel cars or gas-electric hybrids. They fear it would increase the lead that Toyota and other foreign companies already have over American companies in alternative fuel cars. The Big Three automakers -- General Motors, Ford and DaimlerChrysler -- announced in late June plans to double their production of flex-fuel vehicles that can use E-85 ethanol or biodiesel by 2010. That would mean that 20 percent of cars built by them that year would be capable of running on alternative fuels. To do more in a short period of time, as required by the fuel choices bills, could prevent

"We cannot support mandates that are not founded on sound science because they can have a catastrophic economic effect on industry," said Greg Martin, director of policy and communications in GM's Washington office. domestic automakers from picking the right technology for alternative fuel cars, GM officials said.

B) The auto industry has a strong influence on Congress Living on Earth 07 (“Fuel Economy Fight”, http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=07-P13-00023&segmentID=1) After decades of idling in neutral,

U.S. auto fuel efficiency standards could soon kick into high gear. Congress appears poised to raise requirements forcing automakers to offer But Detroit is betting on powerful allies on Capitol Hill to put up some roadblocks.

more high-mileage cars and trucks. Living on Earth's Jeff Young reports from Washington. GELLERMAN: From the Jennifer and Ted Stanley Studios in Somerville, Massachusetts—this is Living on Earth. I'm Bruce Gellerman, in for Steve Curwood. After sitting in neutral for two

US automakers have effectively resisted attempts in Congress to increase standards for what's called CAFE, short for corporate average fuel economy. Now, concerns about high gas prices and global warming are pushing Congress to act. But automakers and their Democratic allies are pushing back. Living on Earth's Jeff Young tells us some powerful decades, fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks could soon get a jump-start. For years

motor city lawmakers want to weaken mileage standards and prevent states from regulating the greenhouse gases coming out of cars.

10

SDI 2008 Arjun Vellayappan WW(J)D LV Max Lesser

India Deal Bad 2AC (2/2) C) Plan would be a flip-flop for Bush – extend our Zubrin Fall 07 evidence from the 1AC which says that Bush currently hates mandates 3. No Link: A) No spillover – there is no reason why one domestic alternative energy policy will cause Democrats to change their mind on the India Deal because it is still bad 4. No Impact: A) India deal isn’t key to US-China relations  alternative causalities like Taiwan and Olympics B) India won’t contain China – it has strategic interests in Chinese relations Tellis 05 (Ashley, A Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “US-India Partnership”, 11/16/05) advancing the growth of Indian power, as the Administration currently intends, is not directed, as many critics have alleged, at "containing" China. I do not believe that a policy of containing China is either feasible or necessary at this point in time. (India too, currently, has no interest in becoming part of any coalition aimed at containing China.) Rather, the Administration's strategy of assisting India to become a major world power in the twenty-first century is directed, first and foremost, towards constructing a stable geopolitical order in Asia that is conducive to peace and If I am permitted to digress a bit, let me say parenthetically, that

prosperity. There is little doubt today that the Asian continent is poised to become the new center of gravity in international politics. Although lower growth in the labor force, reduced export performance, diminishing returns to capital, changes in demographic structure, and the maturation of the economy all suggest that national growth rates in several key Asian states in particular Japan, South Korea, and possibly China are likely to decline in comparison to the latter half of the Cold War period, the spurt in Indian growth rates, coupled with the relatively high though still marginally declining growth rates in China, will propel Asia's share of the global economy to some 43% by 2025, thus making the continent the largest single locus of economic power worldwide.

5. DA is non-intrinsic – we can do the plan and still reject containment of China

11

SDI 2008 Arjun Vellayappan WW(J)D LV Max Lesser

Federalism 2AC (1/2) 1. Your DA is non-unique – feds already giving incentives for FFVs Car Talk 07 (“Flex-fuel vehicles and E85”, http://www.cartalk.com/content/features/alternativefuels/flexfuel.html) Here's one reason: the federal government has started giving manufacturers a financial incentive to produce flex-fuel vehicles. By selling flex-fuel vehicles, they earn credits towards their mandatory CAFE fuel economy requirements. So by making vehicles that accept flex-fuel, they can sell more gas guzzling, but higher-profit SUVs without incurring penalties.

2. Non-Unique - Despite high state action and activity, states are still in need of more power. Dinan 08 (John Dinan, Executive director of the National Governers Association, 6/22/2008, Publius, “The state of American Federalism 2007-2008: resurgent state influence in the national policy processes and continued states policy innovations,” lexis)

States have long been the primary policy innovators in the US federal system, and as Dale Krane has noted, state policy activism "appears to be increasing at an accelerating pace" during the Bush presidency (Krane 2007, 462). State officials continued to take the lead on a number of issues in 2007-2008, at times acting when federal policy was not forthcoming, at times expressing disagreement with federal policy, and at times proceeding independently of federal policy-makers (Greenblatt 2007b; Tubbesing 2008). In fact, as John Kincaid and Richard Cole suggest in their article for this issue, public awareness andsupport for continued state policy innovation may well account for the post-2005 uptick in public support for state governments recorded in their annual opinion surveys. As Kincaid and Cole

2007 survey saw a continued drop in the percentage of individuals responding that state governments "gave them the least for their money" and a notable increase in the percentage of survey respondents saying that state governments "need more power." report, their

3. No Link - FFV’s not key to Federalism  we don’t change RPS or anything that is uniquely key to fism. 4. Impact Turns – A) Federalism sparks ethnic conflict Willy Mutanga, Executive Director of the Kenya Human Rights Commission, The Nation, May 20, 2001. Federalism promotes localism, ethnic and racial xenophobia and undermines the sense of nationhood. Unsurprising the United States and Nigeria are living survivors of debilitating separatist wars between their regions; India, despite its federal miracle still bleeds from secessionist movements. The introduction of ethnic-based 'quasi-regionalism' in post-Mengistu Ethiopia has fuelled the conflict over the proposed Oromia state by members of the Oromo ethnic population. Majimboism in the early 1960s had let off the lid of secessionist movements, particularly by Kenyan Somalis in North Eastern Province and the clamour for an autonomous "Mwambao" on the Coast. There is no guarantee that this time around, majimboism will not trigger ethnic recidivism and separatist movements, especially in North Eastern, Coast and Eastern province where the Oromo population may lean towards the movement for an Oromia state.

Federalism's main weakness is that it is a very expensive system that duplicates services and office holders at the regional and federal levels. It lacks uniform policies on such issues of national concern as laws regulating marriages, divorce, abortions, liquor, voting rights and public education. Rather than ensuring economic equity, as many proponents of majimboism assume, it sets those regions, states or cantons with a weak market-base, capital, and resources down the spiral of economic decline. It subjects local governments to double subordination-by the central and regional governments-and the citizens to triple taxation. At a time when the country's economy is on its knees, the feasibility of a well-financed transition is highly doubtful.

12

SDI 2008 Arjun Vellayappan WW(J)D LV Max Lesser

Federalism 2AC (2/2) B) Russian Federalism Bad- Russian devolution will lead to secession and civil war Stephen R. David, Professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University, Foreign Affairs Jan 1999 Divining the military's allegiance is crucial, however, since the structure of the Russian Federation makes it virtually certain that regional conflicts will continue to erupt. Russia's 89 republics, krais, and oblasts grow ever more independent in a system that does little to

As the central government finds itself unable to force its will beyond Moscow (if even that far), power devolves to the periphery. With the economy collapsing, republics feel less and less incentive to pay taxes to Moscow when they receive so little in return. Three-quarters of them already have their own constitutions, nearly all of which make some claim to sovereignty. Strong ethnic bonds promoted by shortsighted Soviet policies may motivate non-Russians to secede from the Federation. Chechnya's successful revolt against Russian control inspired similar movements for autonomy and independence throughout the country. If these rebellions spread and Moscow responds with force, civil war is likely. keep them together.

5. No Internal Link – One issue is not key to overall state balance of power 6. No Impact: American federalism isn’t modeled – multinational states prove <>

13

SDI 2008 Arjun Vellayappan WW(J)D LV Max Lesser

Lopez CP 2AC (1/2) On the net benefit: 1. Federalism is high now – states are winning court battles over rights Somin 08 (Ilya Somin, George Mason University- School of Law, 6/23/08, Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, “A Floor, Not a Ceiling: Federalissm and Remedies for Violations of Constitutional Rights in Danforth V. Minnesota.”) Few doubt that states can provide greater protection for individual rights under state constitutions than is available under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Federal Constitution. More difficult issues arise, however, when state courts seek to provide greater protection than the Court requires for federal constitutional rights. Can state courts impose remedies for violations of federal constitutional rights that are more generous than those

the Federal Supreme Court? That is the issue raised by the Court’s recent decision in Danforth v. Minnesota. In a 7-2 decision joined by an unusual coalition of liberal and conservative justices, the Court decided that state courts could indeed provide victims of constitutional rights violations broader remedies than those mandated by federal Supreme Court decisions. I required by

contend that this outcome is correct, despite the seeming incongruity of allowing state courts to deviate from the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Federal Constitution. The Supreme Court should establish a floor for remedies below which states cannot fall. But there is no reason for it to also mandate a ceiling. Part I briefly describes the facts and

It makes sense to allow state courts to provide more generous remedies than those mandated by the federal courts in cases where restrictions on the scope of remedies are not imposed by the Constitution itself, but are instead based on policy grounds. State courts can legitimately conclude that these policy background to Danforth. In Part II, I provide a doctrinal justification for the Supreme Court’s decision.

grounds are absent or outweighed by other considerations within their state systems, even if they are compelling justifications for restricting the scope of remedies available in federal courts.

State courts are in a better position to weigh the relevant tradeoffs in a state legal system than federal courts

are.

Part III explains the potential policy advantages of allowing interstate diversity in remedies, most importantly inter-jurisdictional competition and an increased ability to provide for diverse citizen preferences and local conditions across different parts of the country. The optimal remedy for a constitutional rights violation in New York may well be different from the optimal remedy for one that occurs in Mississippi.

2. Link Turn – <>

3. The plan is not the issue that is uniquely key to federalism. Russia isn’t just going to model our federalism just because we passed a FFV mandate. 14

SDI 2008 Arjun Vellayappan WW(J)D LV Max Lesser

Lopez CP 2AC (2/2) ON THE CP: 1. Perm do the plan and all mutually exclusive parts of the CP. 2. A) Federal action is key to avert state patchwork regulations that create uncertainty for the auto industry Business Week 02 (“Clean-Air Standards: An End Run around Washington”, http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_20/b3783047.htm) Detroit was blindsided. Expecting an assault of environmental legislation from Washington this spring, the auto industry dispatched troops of lobbyists to the banks of the Potomac to make a stand, successfully defeating a

After environmental lobbyists worked their own contacts in California, the state senate approved a bill on May 2 that would force auto makers to sell cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars in the state by 2008. "I was elated," says push for stricter national fuel-economy standards. But the real threat came from the other coast.

Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope. "This was such a sharp contrast from how Congress has reacted to environmental legislation." The California battle isn't over yet: The state assembly still needs to approve a final version of the measure, and Governor Gray Davis hasn't indicated whether he'll sign it. But if--as expected--the environmental lobby wins this skirmish, it may ultimately prove just as significant as a victory in Washington

other states have the option of adopting California's rules.

would have. Why? California is the only state that can create clean-air standards, since its laws predate federal regulations. But So the environmentalists plan to take the same legislation to like-minded Northeastern states and then deeper into the heartland, ultimately targeting key states such as Texas and Florida. "We have accepted the fact that

It's a strategy that could work--and that has Detroit hopping mad. After defeating the federal measure that would have required auto makers to boost fuel efficiency in March, the industry thought it had wrapped up the issue. Now, though, Detroit may have to wrestle with the environmentalists in state capitals. In the past, environmental leadership is not coming from Washington," Pope says. "We will focus on consumers and the states."

California's clean-air and low-emissions laws have gotten a warm reception in New York and New England, where legislators have adopted California's existing limits on carbon monoxide, smog-causing nitrous oxide, and soot from cars. "Our biggest fear is that this becomes the battle we already fought and won at the federal level," says Gregory J. Dana, vice-president of environmental affairs for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers in Washington. That's likely to happen, which could ultimately bring the battle right back to

Since the auto industry doesn't want the stricter California standards adopted state by state, it might agree to somewhat tougher federal fuel economy and emissions laws. Says one General Motors Corp. insider: "We can't have 50 different states telling us how to build cars. That would be chaos." And that's exactly what the environmental lobby is counting on. Washington.

B) Regulatory uncertainty undermines investment in alcohol fuels Parker and Smith 08 (Geoffrey and Eric, Freeman School of Business, The Impact of Carbon Emissions Policy and Transportation Costs on Alternative Transportation Fuel Supply Chain Economics,” engineering.academickeys.com/seeker_job_attachments.php?dothis=download&job_file%5BIDX%5D=32)

As nations search for methods to reduce green house gas emissions, there is a renewed focus on alternate fuels, such as ethanol, biodiesel, and butanol. Although several of these fuels have a long history of production, they have not been widely adopted in the absence of significant government mandates or subsidies. For an alternate transportation fuel to displace conventional oil derivatives such as gasoline and diesel, there must be a reasonable probability that the fuel can become competitive in total costs, including production, distribution, and consumption. To date, no alternative fuels have passed this test in the United States. However, one cost that has long been absent in energy prices is the cost of environmental emissions. Quantifying the exact cost of any emission is likely to remain impossible, but incorporating some non-zero cost has the potential to significantly change the economics of the transportation fuel industry. The move to institute markets for carbon dioxide emissions makes it possible that some previously omitted costs will be included in future energy prices in the U.S. as has been true in European markets for several years. A key issue, however, is the timeline in which such markets are implemented and the resulting CO2 prices. Given the regulatory uncertainty, it is difficult to justify major capital investments to reduce CO2 until a clearer picture of costs and benefits emerges.

3. Perm do the plan and have the Supreme Court strike down another unrelated federal legislation on federalism grounds based on the Lopez precedent. 4. Lopez CP Bad for Debate: A) Reciprocity – as the affirmative we can only advocate USFG, so the neg should be held to a single advocacy B) Not Real World – policies are never implemented uniformly between the 50 states and the courts C) Artificial Competition - The counterplan gains artificial competition through banning the plan, which destroys fairness and doesn’t test the opportunity costs of the plan D) Vote them down – it not about what they say, but what they justify 15

SDI 2008 Arjun Vellayappan WW(J)D LV Max Lesser

Russian Oil 2AC 1. <> 2. Non-Unique – Russian economy tubing now <> 3. Link Turn – low oil prices are key to the Russian economy Illarionov 04 (Andrei, Presidential Economic Adviser, lexis) A: The impact of high oil prices on the rate of economic growth is twofold. On the one hand, high prices do ensure an inflow of financial resources into the sector of the Russian economy engaged in production, transportation

a fall of world oil prices suspends the growth of the real exchange rate of the ruble. As a result, other sectors of the Russian economy which employ about 98 percent of the working-age population and produce 80 percent of GDP become more competitive. So, the high growth rate begins to spread to sectors other than oil. The whole economy begins to grow at two-digit rates. Because growth is spread more evenly through the economy, the average growth rates ends up being higher. This is what is happening in many CIS countries that are not oil exporters: their growth rates are 1.5-2 times higher than in Russia. and export of oil and petroleum products. That sector generates about 20 percent of the GDP and employs 1.7 percent of the working population (2.1 percent if one counts in the pipelines). On the other hand,

4. In order for them to win a link to this DA, they need to win that we decrease oil prices substantially meaning that at the least they spot us our oil prices advantage which independently outweighs the DA. 5. No Link – A) US oil consumption is not the key to the Russian economy. Other importers will check US withdrawal from the oil market, no unique reason why FFV’s destroy Russian economy. B) Oil is not key to the Russian economy Russia & CIS Finance Weekly 6/20 (June 20, 2008, “Russia does not fear drop in oil prices”) Russia would be able to withstand a drop in oil prices to $55 per barrel without any serious consequences, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin said. "Russia is prepared for oil prices to drop to $55 per barrel," he told journalists in St. Petersburg on June 7. The Russian government has devoted a great deal of work to preparing the country for such a reduction in oil prices, he said. "Such a reduction would have a small effect on economic growth, but it wouldn't be very significant," he said. Russian GDP is currently growing on the back of other industries besides oil and gas, he said.

6. Impact Defense A) Russian economy is resilient Stokes 08 (Barry, “Don’t Ignore the Russian Bear”, Council of Foreign Relations, http://www.cfr.org/publication/3225/dont_ignore_the_russian_bear.html) A little less than a year ago, August 17 to be precise, the post-Cold War Russian economic experiment imploded. The ruble collapsed and debt payments to foreigners were frozen. Wall Street lost billions of dollars. Long Term Capital Management, one of the world's biggest hedge funds, had to be taken over by its bankers. Once burned, international investors yanked their capital out of all emerging markets— from Latin America to East Asia

. The global economy teetered on the edge of depression. But, much to the surprise of most economic pundits, international markets quickly righted themselves. The Russian economy proved far more resilient than anticipated. And, in retrospect, the events of August, 1998 were little more than a very large bump in the road. The lessons of this "crisis that wasn't" are now clear: Russia is not too big to fail (the volume of its debts do not dictate special treatment by its creditors); the financial world can cope with such failure; and the Russian economy can bounce back without much overt help from the West. But the impending $4.5 — causing world interest rates to spike

billion loan to Russia by the International Monetary Fund— reflecting Washington's gratitude for Moscow's help in Kosovo, continued fear of Russian nuclear proliferation and concern about Russia's internal political stability— demonstrates that

Russia still remains too important for the world to ignore.

B) Their impact is empirically denied – oil prices have been low in the past, yet they haven’t used their nuclear weapons. 16

SDI 2008 Arjun Vellayappan WW(J)D LV Max Lesser

OPEC Flood 2AC 1. Your DA is non-unique – feds already giving incentives for FFVs Car Talk 07 (“Flex-fuel vehicles and E85”, http://www.cartalk.com/content/features/alternativefuels/flexfuel.html) Here's one reason: the federal government has started giving manufacturers a financial incentive to produce flex-fuel vehicles. By selling flex-fuel vehicles, they earn credits towards their mandatory CAFE fuel economy requirements. So by making vehicles that accept flex-fuel, they can sell more gas guzzling, but higher-profit SUVs without incurring penalties.

2. Non-Unique: A) Spare production capacity is tight and that capacity is largely unusable Melbourne Herald Sun 6/7/08 (“Global demand sees oil on fire,” THE recent oil price jump is due to rising demand in developing countries and the lack of spare supply capacity. That means that even small disruptions to oil output drive prices higher. Given the slow growth in oil supply, in prospect, only a world recession that cuts demand will bring oil prices down sharply. Unfortunately, a world recession is looking increasingly likely. The oil price is

There is very little spare capacity, with only around two million barrels a day of available, while demand is around 86 million barrels a day. Most of this spare capacity is heavy crudes and refiners want lighter crudes to produce diesel where demand is

not just being driven by speculators. The underlying demand and supply balance is tight. spare capacity booming.

B) Refinery capacity is low now and can’t expand fast enough if OPEC floods the market Zhou 6/6/08 (Moming, Writer at Marketwatch, “Saudi Arabia plans royal treatment for heavy crude”, The kingdom's plans to increase its refining capacity won't necessarily alleviate high oil and gasoline prices. It will take years before new refineries start operating. World oil demand growth, including rising consumption in Saudi Arabia itself, could easily outstrip additional capacity, analysts say. "The refineries [in Saudi Arabia] won't be ready in five years, and we are expecting delays on all fronts," said A.F. Alhajji, an energy economist at Ohio Northern University and a long-time observer of Saudi Arabia. Demand is too lofty to be accommodated by the planned increase in capacity, he said.

3. Doesn’t turn case – there is no way that OPEC has the capacity or the refinery ability to drop oil prices below 50 dollars a barrel which would be necessary to compete with our plan.

17

SDI 2008 Arjun Vellayappan WW(J)D LV Max Lesser

Capitalism 2AC (1/2) 1. Perm: Do the plan and withdraw from the ideologies of capitalism that aren’t competitive with the plan 2. Perm: do the plan and reject Capitalism in all other instances 3. No link – their link evidence assumes climate change legislation and renewable like wind, not biofuels 4. No link – the plan is a regulation, not a “market mechanism” like a subsidy which is what their links assume, meaning we don’t entrench the ideology of capitalism 5. Imperial wars pre-date capitalism by centuries – Capitalism stops wars MacKenzie 03 (D.W. MacKenzie grad student in economics at George Mason University Does Capitalism Require War? Monday, April 07, 2003 http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1201)

proponents appeal so often to historical examples. They often claim that history shows how capitalism is imperialistic and warlike or at least benefits from war. Capitalism supposedly needs a boost from some war Perhaps the oddest aspect of these various, but similar, claims is that their

spending from time to time, and history shows this. Robert Higgs demonstrated that the wartime prosperity during the Second World War was illusory[i]. This should come to no surprise to those who lived through the deprivations of wartime rationing. We do not need wars for prosperity, but does capitalism breed war and imperialism anyway?

History is rife with examples of imperialism. The Romans, Alexander, and many others of the ancient world waged imperialistic wars. The Incan Empire and the empire of Ancient China stand as examples of the universal character of imperialism. Who could possibly claim that imperialism grew out of the prosperity of these ancient

Imperialism precedes modern industrial capitalism by many centuries. Uneven wealth distribution or underconsumption under capitalism obviously did not cause these instances of imperialism. Of course, this fact does not prove that modern capitalism lacks its own imperialistic tendencies. The notion civilizations?

that income gets underspent or maldistributed lies at the heart of most claims that capitalism either needs or produces imperialistic wars. As J.B. Say argued, supply creates its own demand through payments to factors of production. Demand Side economists Hobson and Keynes argued that there would be too little consumption and too little investment for continuous full employment. We save too much to have peace and prosperity. The difficulty we face is not in oversaving, but in underestimating the workings of markets and the desires of consumers. Doomsayers have been downplaying consumer demand for ages. As demand side economist J.K. Galbraith claimed, we live in an affluent society, where most private demands have been met. Of course, Hobson made the same claim much earlier. Earlier and stranger still, mercantilists claimed that 'wasteful acts' such as tea drinking, gathering at alehouses, taking snuff, and the wearing of ribbons were unnecessary luxuries that detracted from productive endeavors. The prognostications of esteemed opponents of capitalism have consistently failed to predict consumer demand. Today, consumers consume at levels that few long ago could have imagined possible. There is no reason to doubt that consumers will continue to press for ever higher levels of consumption. Though it is only a movie, Brewster's Millions illustrates how creative people can be at spending money. People who do actually inherit, win, or earn large sums of money have little trouble spending it. Indeed, wealthy individuals usually have more trouble holding on to their fortunes than in finding ways to spend them. We are never going to run out of ways to spend money. Many of the complaints about capitalism center on how people save too much. One should remember that there really is no such thing as saving. Consumers defer consumption to the future only. As economist Eugen Böhm-Bawerk demonstrated, people save according to time preference. Savings diverts resources into capital formation. This increases future production. Interest enhanced savings then can purchase these goods as some consumers cease to defer their consumption. Keynes' claim that animal spirits drive investment has no rational basis. Consumer preferences are the basis for investment. Investors forecast future consumer demand. Interest rates convey knowledge of these demands. The intertemporal coordination of production through capital markets and interest rates is not a simple matter. But Keynes' marginal propensities to save and Hobson's concentration of wealth arguments fail to account for the real determinants of production through time. Say's Law of Markets holds precisely because people always want a better life for themselves and those close to them. Falling interest rates deter saving and increase investment. Rising interest rates induce saving and deter investment. This simple logic of supply and demand derives from a quite basic notion of self interest. Keynes denied that the world worked this way. Instead, he claimed that bond holders hoard money outside of the banking system, investment periodically collapses from 'the dark forces of time and uncertainty, and consumers save income in a mechanical fashion according to marginal propensities to save. None of these propositions hold up to scrutiny, either deductive or empirical. Speculators do not hoard cash outside of banks. To do this means a loss of interest on assets. People do move assets from one part of the financial system to another. This does not cause deficient aggregate demand. Most money exists in the banking system, and is always available for lending. In fact, the advent of e-banking makes such a practice even less sensible. Why hoard cash when you can move money around with your computer? It is common knowledge that people save for homes, education, and other expensive items, not because they have some innate urge to squirrel some portion of their income away. This renders half of the market for credit rational. Investors do in fact calculate rates of return on investment. This is not a simple matter. Investment entails some speculation. Long term investment projects entail some uncertainty, but investors who want to actually reap profits will estimate the returns on investment using the best available data. Keynes feared that the dark forces of time and uncertainty could scare investors. This possibility, he thought, called for government intervention. However, government intervention (especially warfare) generally serves to increase uncertainty. Private markets have enough uncertainties without throwing politics into the fray. The vagaries of political intervention serve only to darken an already uncertain future. Capital markets are best left to capitalists. Nor is capital not extracted surplus value. It comes not from exploitation. It is simply a matter of people valuing their future wellbeing. Capitalists will hire workers up to the point where the discounted marginal product of their labor equals the wage rate. To do otherwise would mean a loss of potential profit. Since workers earn the marginal product of labor and capital derives from deferred consumption, Marxist arguments about reserve armies of the unemployed and surplus extraction fail. It is quite odd to worry about capitalists oversaving when many complain about how the savings rate in the U.S. is too low. Why does the U.S., as the world's 'greatest capitalist/imperialist power', attract so much foreign investment? Many Americans worry about America's international accounts. Fears about foreigners buying up America are unfounded, but not because this does not happen. America does have a relatively low national savings rate. It does attract much foreign investment, precisely because it has relatively secure property rights. Indeed, much of the third world suffers from too little investment. The claims of Marxists, and Hobson, directly contradict the historical record. Sound theory tells us that it should. The Marxist claim that capitalists must find investments overseas fails miserably. Larry Kudlow has put his own spin on the false connection between capitalism and war. We need the War as shock therapy to get the economy on its feet. Kudlow also endorses massive airline subsidies as a means of restoring economic prosperity. Kudlow and Krugman both endorse the alleged destructive creation of warfare and terrorism. Kudlow has rechristened the Broken Window fallacy the Broken Window principle. Kudlow claims that may lose money and wealth in one way, but we gain it back many time over when the rebuilding is done. Kudlow and Krugman have quite an affinity for deficits. Krugman sees debt as a sponge to absorb excess saving. Kudlow see debt as a short term nuisance that we can dispel by maximizing growth. One would think that such famous economists would realize that competition does work to achieve the goal of optimum growth based on time preference, but this is not the case. While these economists have expressed their belief in writing, they could do more. If the destruction of assets leads to increased prosperity, then they should teach this principle by example. Kudlow and Krugman could, for instance, help build the economy by demolishing their own private homes. This would have the immediate effect of stimulating demand for demolition experts, and the longer term affect of stimulating the demand for construction workers. They can create additional wealth by financing the reconstruction of their homes through debt. By borrowing funds, they draw idle resources into use and stimulate financial activity. Of course, they would both initially lose wealth

their beliefs are fallacious

in one way. But if their thinking is sound, they will gain it back many times over as they rebuild. The truth is that . Bastiat demonstrated the absurdity of destructive creation in his original explanation of the opportunity costs from repairing broken windows. Kudlow is quite clear about his intentions. He wants to grow the economy to finance the war. As Kudlow told some students, "The trick here is to grow the economy and let the economic growth raise the revenue for the war effort"[ii]. Kudlow also praises the Reagan Administration for growing the economy to fund national defense. Here Kudlow's attempts to give economic advice cease completely. His argument here is not that capitalism needs a shot in the arm. It is that resources should be redirected towards ends that he sees fit. Kudlow is a war hawk who, obviously, cannot fund this or any war personally. He instead favors using the state to tax others to fund what he wants, but cannot afford. He seems to think that his values matter more than any other's. Why should anyone else agree with this? Kudlow tarnishes the image of laissez faire economics by parading his faulty reasoning and his claims that his wants should reign supreme as a pro-market stance. Unfortunately, it is sometimes necessary

Capitalism neither requires nor promotes imperialist expansion. Capitalism did not create imperialism or warfare. Warlike societies predate societies with secure private property. The idea that inequity or underspending give rise to militarism lacks any rational basis. Imperialistic to defend capitalism from alleged advocates of liberty, who employ false dogmas in pursuit of their own militaristic desires.

tendencies exist due to ethnic and nationalistic bigotries, and the want for power. Prosperity depends upon our ability to prevent destructive acts. The dogma of destructive creation fails as a silver lining to the cloud of warfare. Destructive acts entail real costs that diminish available opportunities. The idea that we need to find work for idle hands in capitalism at best leads to a kind of Sisyphus economy where unproductive industries garner subsidies from productive people. At worst, it serves as a supporting argument for war. The more recent versions of the false charges against capitalism do nothing to invalidate two simple facts. Capitalism generates prosperity by creating new products.

War inflicts poverty by destroying existing

wealth. There is no sound reason to think otherwise. 18

SDI 2008 Arjun Vellayappan WW(J)D LV Max Lesser

Capitalism 2AC (2/2) 6. Vague alternatives are a voting issue: a. Makes the neg a constant moving target that skew 2AC strategy and destroys clash b. Destroys our ability to formulate offense like turns and legitimate perms c. Effective progressive action requires specific alternatives – they destroy the ability to compare competing strategies for social change 7. They have a really long timeframe for their impact to occur 8. Alternative fails – merely changing our orientation to capitalism utterly DOES NOTHING to challenge it – their Johnson evidence is merely rhetoric 9. The Kritik doesn’t turn the case – capitalism isn’t the root cause of the case harms which means the specific case impacts outweigh their vague impact claims 10. Consequentialism is the most ethical act – their ethic allows for infinite violence <>

19

SDI 2008 Arjun Vellayappan WW(J)D LV Max Lesser

DA SLAYER All your DA’s are non-unique – the federal government is already giving incentives for FFVs Car Talk 07 (“Flex-fuel vehicles and E85”, http://www.cartalk.com/content/features/alternativefuels/flexfuel.html) Here's one reason: the federal government has started giving manufacturers a financial incentive to produce flex-fuel vehicles. By selling flex-fuel vehicles, they earn credits towards their mandatory CAFE fuel economy requirements. So by making vehicles that accept flex-fuel, they can sell more gas guzzling, but higher-profit SUVs without incurring penalties.

20