Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
1. Fail alert – Will has no interpretation of what environmental policy is – that makes
the T violation meaningless because he has nothing to compare the plan text to.
2. I meet – Baumert indicates that both carbon tax and cap-and-trade are
"environmental policy instruments," they're just different kinds.
a. I meet – carbon tax creates incentives to modify human activities and stop
warming.
b. Prefer my interp -
1) I have one – means you can actually evaluate questions of topicality.
2) Literature base – climate change is central to any environment topic
– key to predictability for both sides.
3) Accessibility – anyone can go to Wikipedia – good for
competitive equity.
4. I meet his standard – I define both words as a phrase – means he has no offense
on the T debate.
5. No voter – his a priori argument is incoherent – means you have no basis for
voting on T.
b. Prefer my interp -
1) Ground – immediate passage assumes current political climate –
guarantees both teams fair ground.
2) Research quality – immediate passage privileges recent evidence
because the evidence is descriptive of the world at the time of the plan
– any other timeframe removes the incentive to cut high-quality recent
evidence.
2. He has no argument for why the 1AC needs to specify – he says shifting is bad,
but I'm not a colossal jerk and won't shift from the 1AC.
1. I meet – extend the first 1AC solvency card – carbon tax is easy to implement
because it uses the existing framework for collecting taxes.
2. I meet – his interp only says that the USFG includes delegation for enforcement,
which means that "normal means" in the USFG includes all the enforcement I need.
3. Fail interp is fail – he doesn't specify how much detail is required to specify
enforcement – means affs can't write plans, which creates problems for him.
6. Counter-interpretation - aff can specify normal means and use evidence in case to
explain—solves back 100% of their offense while preserving aff speech time.
7. Neg concedes counter-interpretation – says cards are enough – means zero risk
of impacts.
10. No internal link to Elmore – Elmore is talking about new regulations that require
a new framework for implementation – applies to cap-and-trade but not to carbon
tax – that's Avi-Yonah and Uhlmann's first card on solvency.
12. Game over – there is no new enforcement needed to pass the plan. Avi-Yonah
and Uhlmann '9
[Reuven S. and David M., University of Michigan Law School, "Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax is a Better
Response to Global Warming than Cap and Trade," Stanford Environmental Law Journal 2009]
Cap and trade is also relatively untried: we have never had an economy-wide cap and trade system, while we
have extensive
experience with economy-wide excise taxes on a wide variety of products, including gasoline. This is why
Congressman Larson’s carbon tax bill can simply envisage adding three new relatively short
sections to the existing excise tax part of the Internal Revenue Code.
14. Turn – specifying USFG is more binding because the affirmative can't get out of
specific links to disads – deeper specification in plan texts makes it harder for
negatives to access ground.
Warming
1. His Bast evidence is awful – 2003 is postdated by the IPCC projections in 2007
and by masses of empirical data showing severe warming trends.
3. Evaluate empirical data first – the AP evidence explains exactly how people
are dying because of climate change – his evidence has no warrants and is
massively postdated by my empirics.
4. Extend Will's Matheny evidence from the NASA disad – his author indicates that
climate change is a probable scenario for extinction.
5. His answers to extinction don't assume the other human activities leading to the
current mass extinction event, like deforestation – humans weren't destroying the
world in past warming cycles – means feedback loops are more likely.
6. Warming trends are worse than we thought a couple years ago. Risbey '8
[Dr. James S. Risbey, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research and School of Mathematical Sciences, Monash University, 2008 (“The
new climate discourse: Alarmist or alarming?” Global Environmental Change 18:1 February 2008 pp. 26-37)]
Heightened concerns that dynamical processes could drive much more rapid breakdown of the
ice sheets than simple surface melting are bolstered by recent observations. Luthcke et al. (2006)
present results to suggest that loss processes associated with glacier acceleration and melting of
Greenland's ice now exceed the gains due to increased snowfall over the interior. Though this
result is not unexpected, it was not expected this early in the warming process (Alley et al., 2005). Similarly,
paleo-research on sea level rises associated with past warming periods shows some rates of
change that are much faster than current projections (Overpeck et al., 2006). Finally, projections of
sea level rise based on empirical sea-level/temperature relationships also project faster
rates of rise for the 21st century than IPCC estimates (Rahmstorf, 2007).
7. Bast is a liar – urbanization doesn't affect warming and satellite data proves.
Parker '6
[David E. Parker, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research at The Meteorological Office in the United Kingdom, fellow of the
Royal meteorological Society and contributor to IPCC Assessments, 2006 (“A Demonstration That Large-Scale Warming Is Not Urban”
Journal of Climate 19:12 June 2006 pp. 2882-2895)]
There have been several attempts in recent years to estimate the urban warming influence
on the large-scale land surface air temperature record. Jones et al. (1990) found that the urban
warming influence on widely used hemispheric datasets is likely to be an order of magnitude smaller than
the observed century-time-scale warming. Easterling et al. (1997) found that global urban
warming influences were little more than 0.05°C century 1 over the period 1950–93. Hansen et al.
(1999) concluded that the anthropogenic urban contribution to their global temperature curve
for the past century did not exceed approximately 0.1°C. Furthermore, they estimated the
global average effect of their urban adjustment during 1950–98 as only 0.01°C (see their Plate
A2), though their adjustment procedure removed an urban influence of nearly 0.1°C in the contiguous United States in this period.
Peterson et al. (1999) compared global temperature trends from the full Global Historical Climatology Network
with a subset based on rural stations, defined as such both by map metadata and by nighttime lighting as
detected by satellites. They found that the rural subset and the full set had very similar trends
since the late nineteenth century, and inferred that the urban influence on the full set was
therefore insignificant. Accordingly, only small systematic errors were ascribed to
urbanization in the global warming trend estimates made by Folland et al. (2001a) and in the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report (IPCC TAR; Folland et al. 2001b).
8. None of Will's evidence is offensive in nature – means that at worst there's a risk
of the harms happening.
10. Extend both pieces of Avi-Yonah and Uhlmann evidence from the solvency flow
– Will concedes a 100% risk of solvency, so you always vote aff.
11. Extend the conceded Smith and Vivekenanda evidence – water wars equal
massive conflicts between nuclear powers – outweighs the disad on timeframe.
12. Extend the conceded Diner evidence – you always vote to minimize species loss
because the threshold for extinction is unknown – outweighs the disad on
timeframe and magnitude.
Hegemony
1. Big mistake here – Malson concedes literally every card on this advantage –
means I access a 100% risk of solving nuclear war, prolif, and terrorism. Extend
every card.
2. Extend specifically the Martino evidence – the plan solves for competitiveness
and heg regardless of who gets in the way.
3. Extend the first piece of Bloomberg evidence from the 1AC – China is already on
board with climate action – postdates his Spencer and Foster evidence and also his
Drifte evidence.
4. His Spencer and Foster evidence says the opposite of what he wants it to – China
and India are opposed to the US making climate change action contingent on their
compliance – they'll respond positively to the US acting unilaterally, then
negotiating.
5. His Drifte evidence is specific to Japan. Japan is not the US – thank goodness,
being a nerd involves way too much anime as it is.
6. Extend his Global Warming News evidence from the disad – US leadership is key
to acting on climate change.
7. Heg outweighs the disad – the conceded 100% risk of solving nuclear war
outweighs NASA on timeframe and probability – means you vote aff.
NASA
1. No internal link to econ – Will's evidence says space currently gives $100 billion,
there's nothing about how much new spending would take place.
3. No impact and turn – Mead's empirically denied – when the global economy
started to crash last year, we saw an increase in great-power cooperation.
4. Case solves the economy – don't concede a whole advantage next time.
6. Case outweighs – saving Florida's economy at best prevents one potential war,
the plan keeps the US dominant for decades which prevents lots of wars.
7. No internal link – the CGCC evidence doesn't say NASA is key to space
colonization, it says that Canada and 13 other countries are key and that NASA
thinks their efforts are really shiny.
8. No internal link – Will has no evidence at all saying NASA is key to space
colonization.
10. Case solves the impact – Matheny indicates the most probable extinction
scenarios are climate change and bioterrorism – Will concedes 100% solvency for
both of them (<3 Khalilzad).
11. TURN!!!!!!
a. Extend the Powell link evidence – Obama wants to continue Bush's NASA
plans.