Agenda DA

Background Knowledge: Congress

Congress has 2 branches: House + Senate the politics DA can

concern either of the two branches
Each party elects a party leadership:
Speaker of the House: leader of the party depending on
who has the most votes
Minority leader
Polarization has made congress more difficult to come to decisions
about bills
What is political capital?
o President can use influence to get senators/representatives to
vote different ways
How a bill becomes a law
o Bill begins in House/Senate and is referred to a committee (90%
of bills DIE in committee)
o Committee = smaller setting (20-30 ppl) discuss the bill make
amendments, edit bill
Committee chairs are lead by the majority party, and
parties can change the makeup of the party to change the
type of legislation passed
Ranking member: leader of the minority party
o Committee then votes to send bill to the floor or subcommittees
(which takes a vote, then sends it back up for markup)
o Bill is reported out, then it is put anywhere on the calendar,
doesnt have to go to the back of the line
Floor debate
Giving speeches for constituents not other
senators, otherwise it would happen in offices not
on camera
In Senate, someone can decide a filibuster: people can
continue talking about the bill as long as they want unless
there is a cloture vote (60 votes)
o Floor vote, if it gets a majority out of the house/senate and
into the other branch of congress (Conference committee)
Creates similar language for both branches to agree
If Senate and House are dominated by different parties,
bill most likely will die in conference committee
o Goes to the president to sign
President can also veto it, or he can not sign it (after a
certain number of days, itll become law), or if the
congressional session is about to run out it is pocket
vetoed
o If vetoed, if congress can get 2/3 in both houses, they can
override the veto
Otherwise the bill fails
o Politics DA can happen at any stage of this process

Sample identify the arguments

Climate funding is under attack Obama is key to

sustaining the compromise to allow it
Cama 3/31 (Timothy, staff @ The Hill, Coalition seeks $750 million for climate
change fund, http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/274846-coalition-seeks750-million-us-payment-to-climate-fund)

A group of religious, environmental, civil rights and other interest groups is pushing
Congress to allocate hundreds of millions of dollars for a United Nations
climate change fund. Dozens of groups wrote to the heads of the House and Senate Appropriations
committees asking them to set aside $750 million this year for the Green Climate Fund, which gives poor

Theyre fighting
against efforts led by congressional Republicans and conservatives, who want
to block any potential money going to the fund that the Obama administrations critics see as a
countries money to cut greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change.

wasteful international slush fund. But the Thursday letter argues that its in the United States best interest
to pay into the fund, and the money will lead to a cleaner, more stable world. This

funding is a

core aspect of assisting developing countries adapt to the unavoidable impacts of

climate change and move toward a healthier, cleaner, more stable and sustainable world, they
wrote. This funding represents a sound investment to mitigate not only the future economic and human
costs of climate change but also the threats to U.S. and international security. The coalition includes the
Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Friends Committee on National
Legislation and the BlueGreen Alliance. President Obama has pledged that the United States will pay $3
billion into the Green Climate Fund by 2020, and the State Department made the first $500 million
payment this month.

Some Republicans wanted last year to prevent the State

Department from making any such payments. In a compromise with
Democrats, last years government funding bill did not set aside any Green
Climate Fund money, but it didnt prohibit the State Department from moving
money from elsewhere to make a contribution. But the GOP has vowed to
keep up its fight. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and some colleagues wrote to
appropriators earlier in March to say that theyd oppose any efforts to allow
payments to the fund.

Congress opposes gun control

Zurcher 10/4 (Anthony, staff @ BBC, Why Obama is powerless to reform gun laws,
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34429918)
A mid-July survey by the Pew Research Center seems to support his claim. Almost 80% of respondents
backed laws preventing the mentally ill from purchasing firearms, and 70% were in favour of a national
gun-sale database. So the public support it, why doesn't it happen? Those numbers don't really mean
much, however. What does matter is the opinion of members of the US Congress - and that legislative

This disposition of Congress is a

reflection of the disproportionate power of less-populated states in the
Senate, the conservative-leaning composition of the current House
congressional map and a Republican primary process that makes
officeholders more sensitive to vehemently pro-gun-rights voters within their
party. Congress doesn't have to represent the views of the majority of
Americans, at least as expressed in opinion surveys . It represents the views
of Americans who go at the polls on Election Day and the simple majorities in
the voting districts in which they cast their ballots.
body is overwhelmingly against further gun regulation.

Roll back undermines the Paris agreement, critical to

preventing climate impacts
Carolan 12/21 (Patrick, executive director of the Franciscan Action Network and cofounder of the Global Catholic Climate Movement, The Paris accord is a moral triumph, but
theres still work to be done, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energyenvironment/263778-the-paris-accord-is-a-moral-triumph-but-theres-still)

The Paris agreement marks a turning point in our climatic trajectory.

According to an analysis from Climate Interactive and the MIT Sloan School of
Management, if countries continue to offer more ambitious pledges, as the
Paris agreement demands, we may keep warming to less than 2 C, the
stated objective of the accord. Its difficult to imagine what this means
because the dangers of climate change often feel abstract and any avoided
catastrophe all the more so. But, even in the most pessimistic scenario, the
Paris accord will save countless lives and avert untold hardship. If this
agreement achieves what it sets out to do, it will prevent a cataclysm. There
would not be enough marble in the world to memorialize the tragedy that
might have been. Our success, however, is not guaranteed. The Paris
agreement is merely the starting line. It is our duty as a nation to continue to
tackle climate change, to do whats needed to protect the poor and
vulnerable. Given our historical contribution to carbon pollution, the United
States has a special charge to lead on this issue. That means our elected
representatives, Republicans included, must assume the mantle of
responsibility. They must support the Paris accord, and they must put forward
sound policies, like the Clean Power Plan, that will reduce carbon pollution
and hasten the shift to clean energy, slowing climate change and
strengthening our health.

Credible commitment is key to warming solutions

Tamura 5 (Kentaro, Researcher, Climate Policy Project, Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies, Climate Change and the Credibility of International
Commitments: What is Necessary for the U.S. to Deliver on Such Commitments?,
http://enviroscope.iges.or.jp/modules/envirolib/upload/137/attach/CP-04-005.pdf)

The nature of global climate change demands international cooperation

in
reducing GHG emissions over the current century. The ultimate goal of the U.N. Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) is to stabilise "GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would
prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system". If the world pursues a path to
stabilising at, for example, 550 parts per million (ppm) of atmospheric carbon dioxide (WRE 550), the
required peak of net GHG emissions by 2030 and substantial reduction of emissions is necessary over
centuries (IPCC 2001). Tackling global climate

change essentially requires long-lasting,

credible commitments by major actors to reduce their GHG emissions.
Credible commitments pose a political challenge. The nature of global climate change
demands some form of international cooperation. Cooperation is not a situation where the common
interests of individuals or organisations outweigh conflicting ones, but rather a process of mutual
adjustment. In other words, while cooperation is contrasted with discord, it is also distinguished from
harmony. Cooperation, as compared to harmony, requires active attempts to adjust policies to meet the
demands of others. That is, not only does it depend on shared interests, but also it emerges from a pattern
of discord or potential discord. Without discord, there would be no cooperation, only harmony (Keohane
1984: 51-54). This distinction means that common interests, such as the prevention of global climate
change, do not automatically lead to cooperation. Any form of international

definition, requires participating states to

cooperation, by

adjust their policies according to consensus and

make such commitments credible. International efforts against climate

change are typically mixed with conflicts over prescriptions of policy solutions,

partly
because costs of abating GHG emissions and vulnerability to climate change vary considerably across

For international climate cooperation to be more stable and 6 deeper, it

should ensure credible and continuous commitments by participating states.
Without such commitments, mutual distrust is likely to bring cooperative
behaviour to an end or leave it very weak at best. At the heart of international cooperation
is whether international agreements actually lead to the mutual adjustment of state policies . Domestic
politics affect the degree of the credibility of international commitments: While domestic
nations.

groups may override or subvert an agreement apparently supported by a state negotiator in some cases,

domestic groups may provide the bedrock of stable commitments to

international agreements in others (Underdal 1998; Martin 2000). There is a
wide array of interests that influence the climate policy-making process. Such interests
may well be pulling in different directions, since climate policy not only provides public
goods, but also constructs institutional arrangements that can potentially confer asymmetric advantages
upon some and costs upon others.

Warming causes extinction

Mazo 10 PhD in Paleoclimatology from UCLA
Jeffrey Mazo, Managing Editor, Survival and Research Fellow for Environmental Security and Science Policy
at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, 3-2010, Climate Conflict: How global
warming threatens security and what to do about it, pg. 122
The best estimates for global warming to the end of the century range from 2.5-4.~C above pre-industrial levels, depending on the scenario. Even in the best-case scenario, the low end of the likely range is 1.goC,
and in the worst 'business as usual' projections, which actual emissions have been matching, the range of likely warming runs from 3.1--7.1C. Even keeping emissions at constant 2000 levels (which have already

Without early and

severe reductions in emissions the effects of climate change
are likely to be catastrophic for the stability and security of countries
not to mention the associated human tragedy Climate change could
undermine
emerging and advanced economies beyond the
effects
of
state failure
unmitigated climate change
could pose an existential
threat
even in the best case
adaptation
would mean profound social, cultural and political changes.
been exceeded), global temperature would still be expected to reach 1.2C (O'9""1.5C)above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century."
,

in the second half of the twenty-first

century

in the

developing world -

the strength and stability of

on security

widespread

observers believe that

knock-on

and collapse in developing countries.' And although they have been condemned as melodramatic and alarmist, many informed
beyond the end of the century

to civilisation." What is certain is that there is no precedent in human experience for such rapid change or such climatic conditions, and
to these extremes

even

Basic form

UQ: a piece of legislation will pass now

Link: plan is unpopular
o Bipartisanship
o Constituents
o Focus/Crowd-out
o Lobby
o X group
o Who needs to be convinced? Ex. TTIP vs. CIR
Internal link: PC key to passing legislation
Impact: What the legislation solves
Politics is definitely applicable to the real world, but it mostly relies on
strategy

Aff analytical responses

What is the strategic advantage of making these arguments?

Logical policymaker can do both
Fiat solves the link
President doesnt have to push the plan
Plan isnt at the top of the docket

Aff carded responses

No Issue Specific UQ: legislation wont pass now

No Link UQ: thumper, another bill is already going to drain political
capital
No Impact UQ: another piece of legislation already solves the
impact/another event already triggers the impact
No Link: plan does not cause Obama to lose PC
Link turn: Winners win
Link turn: plan popular
No I/L: PC not key
No Impact: legislation doesnt solve the impact
Which one of these are defense? Which arguments are offense?

Elections DA

Sample: Identify the arguments

Obamas rising popularity ensures Clinton wins in 2016
attempts to distance from plan or stick obama with the
blame only undermine her coattails strategy
Stanage 16 --- Niall, Contributor @ The Hill, "Clinton's ace in the hole:
Obama," 5/29, http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/281575-hillaryclintons-ace-in-the-hole-obama)
Clinton will have a not-so-secret weapon in her quest for the White
House: President Obama. Obamas approval ratings have been marching
upward since the start of the year. He retains immense popularity with the
Democratic base, including vital groups such as young people, with whom
Clinton has struggled. And experts also say that there is no one better
positioned to unify the party behind the former secretary of State as her long and sometimes
Hillary

bitter struggle with primary rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) draws to a close. If Obama could run for a
third-term, hed be reelected in a walk, said New York-based Democratic strategist Jonathan Rosen. He

can play a huge role in bringing the Democratic base and independents,
together to unite behind her candidacy. That could be particularly
important given evidence from the primary season that suggests Clinton has failed to
thrill some parts of the Obama coalition, even while she has drawn strong
support from other blocs. She has struggled mightily among younger voters, for example, even
while beating Sanders by huge margins among African-American Democrats. The political
relationship between Obama and Clinton is a long and knotty one. Distrust
still festers among some of the aides who worked for each candidate during their titanic 2008 primary
struggle. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton rallied support for Obama in the general election that year,
even coming to the Democratic National Convention floor to move a motion for the then-Illinois senator to
become the nominee. In 2012, former President Bill Clinton whose role in the 2008 primary was

Before Hillary
Clinton began her quest for the presidency this time around, she seemed to
distance herself from the man whom she served as secretary of State . Back in
August 2014, she critiqued a foreign-policy view synonymous with Obama
contentious gave a famously effective speech lauding Obamas economic record.

saying, Great nations need organizing principles and Dont do stupid stuff is not an organizing principle.

That attitude carried through into the early months of the campaign. Last fall ,
according to NPR, she told voters in Davenport, Iowa, I am not running for my husbands
third term of President Obamas third term. I am running for my first term .
Clintons rhetoric shifted as the challenge from Sanders became
more serious, however. On healthcare, she cast herself as the protector of Obamas signature
domestic achievement, the Affordable Care Act. A Clinton ad on gun control featured the
candidate saying, of the president, Im with him. Part of Clintons pivot was
clearly aimed at stopping the Sanders insurgency in its tracks. But Clintons
political proximity to Obama could pay dividends in the general election,
too. Gallups daily tracking poll at the end of last week showed 52 percent of
adults approving of Obamas job performance and 44 percent disapproving. At the
beginning of the year, Obama won approval from just 45 percent of adults in the equivalent poll, while 51
percent disapproved. Some independent experts believe that the feverish tone of the primary season in
both parties has fueled Obamas climb. As the conflicts got more into the gutter during the primary
season, President Obama looks much better by comparison , said Grant Reeher, a
professor of political science at Syracuse University. I think that he personally has been helped by what

has happened in both primaries but particularly the Republican one which reminded people why they
liked the guy eight years ago. Experts like Reeher noted that traditionally it has been difficult for a
candidate to win the White House after his or her party has held the presidency for the preceding eight
years. Only once since 1948 has someone pulled off that feat. President George H.W. Bush succeeded his
fellow Republican President Reagan by winning the 1988 election. But 2016 could be exceptional.
The polarizing nature of the presumptive Republican nominee could leave some voters seeking a safe

That dynamic could be enough to

counteract Clintons own lowly favorability numbers, as well as the traditional
reluctance to give a party three successive White House terms. It is obviously a challenge to
win the White House for three straight elections and as a candidate, as a front-runner,
everyone takes shots at you. But that challenge can be overcome when you
have a popular sitting president, said Democratic strategist Evan Stavisky.
haven with a known quantity such as Clinton, experts say.

Its not a rational issue - Plan has unique symbolic

importance in voters psyche inevitably gets tied to deep
seated sense of overall frustration and anxiety felt on all
issues now is key and link alone turns case
He, 16 --- He Yafei is former vice minister of the Overseas Chinese Affairs
Office of the State Council, and former vice minister at the Chinese Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, China US Focus, U.S. Election and Its Impact on China, 1/25,
http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/u-s-election-and-its-impact-onchina/
presidential election is now in full swing,
with both parties going all out in a feverish effort to gain the upper hand.
The 2016 vote is watched very closely all over the world, because whoever occupies the
U.S. Election and Its Impact on China The United States

White House next January is going to face a fast-changing world with multiple challenges crying out for active American
involvement and a more isolationist and inward-looking America unwilling to take on the role of world policeman. Before

there is a
need to offer a brief analysis of what insight this election process has brought us
into the American phyche. First and foremost, it has laid bare the rising
populist sentiments that are oozing out every pore of American
politics both domestic and international. One example is the Republican candidate Donald
Trump whose fiery words on immigration and Muslims has won him high approval ratings
even though those words are obviously on the extreme end of populism . Three
we delve deeper into the impact of the election on China and US-China relations for the coming years,

Republican candidates, Trump, Cruz and Carlson, are considered politically extreme but have consistently won as a group
over 50% support among Republican voters based on recent polls. It shows that voters are rejecting traditional
candidates. What it reveals is that men-on-the-street in America are simply tired of traditional politics and politicians. The

Populist sentiments reflect the

unhappiness ordinary people have harbored against status quo where
American economy is still under the shadow of financial crisis and slow recovery as
well as enfeebled responses of the American government in the face of global
challenges. To put it in perspective, they represent the frustration and anxiety of
American people feel about the changed and still fast changing
world they live in. The American supremacy and sense of safety both
physical and economic is threatened. Thats the essence of what
people fear. Here comes China, whose economic growth and military
fact that Jeb Bush falls behind Trump therefore comes as no surprise.

modernization in recent years

represents, to American

people, a world that undergoes rapid changes and evolves to a

multipolar one where the US is no longer being able to call shot on

everything. The resentment against globalization is on the rise. Overall strategic

emphatic shift to focus more on China are

taking place simultaneously. Scapegoating China is inevitable. China
retrenchment and

an

has taken jobs away from American workers. China is manipulating its
currency to gain advantage in trade. China is being aggressive in the South
China Sea and trying to drive the US out of the Western Pacific. The list of
complaints can go on and on. It doesnt matter whether those
accusations and complaints are true or not to American politicians and
voters as long as they have election value. For instance, the renminbi has appreciated against the
US dollar to the tune of 30% since 2008, but voices are still strong in America calling for the RMB to appreciate further.

We all know from experience that China-bashing is common and costfree in US elections. This time around is no different. What is different is that while
without agreeing to the concept of G2, there is a broad recognition that the US and China are the two major powers in
todays world. It is no hyperbole to say that nothing gets done without close cooperation between the two nations, be it

In this connection the US election

does have an impact on China and US-China relations as noted by Robert Manning,
who said the US-China relationship enters dangerous waters in 2016.
climate change, energy security, non-proliferation of WMD, etc.

Republican are dead set in their opposition to

government-based health care systems
Chait 15 (Jonathan Chait, 3/12/15, University of Michigan, Senior Editor for
The New Republic, Why Republicans Will Never, Ever Have a Real Health-Care
Plan, in 7 Charts, New York Magazine,
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/03/republicans-wont-have-a-realhealth-care-plan.html)
In an obvious attempt to persuade the Supreme Court that the latest Obamacare lawsuit would not sow
massive disruption, three Republican Senators recently wrote an op-ed headlined, We have a plan for
fixing health care. The text that follows is a refutation of the headline. It runs a mere 508 words, unusually
short for an op-ed, and only a few sentences of which even purport to describe an actual plan. They will
give states the freedom and flexibility to create better, more competitive health insurance markets offering
more options and different choices, but they dont say what those choices would be, or how any of it
would be funded. Their plan would not be designed for the benefit of the bureaucrats in Washington,
which is a shame for the bureaucrats. They go on to assure the justices or other readers, Many of our
colleagues have good ideas, and we look forward to working together, which sounds like the opposite of a

The Republicans have had six years to develop an

alternative to Obamacare. Before that, they had three previous presidential administrations
situation where you have a plan.

(Reagan and both Bushes) since the conservative movement rose to power with which to develop a
response to the decades-long American health-care crisis.

They are no closer today than they

were when the health-care debate began

in Congress. And the reason for the absence of a

specific, partywide alternative is that Republicans dont just have different goals than Democrats, they
have different kinds of goals. Obamacare was designed to reduce the physical, mental, and financial stress
that comes with lacking access to health insurance, while also slowing down the long-term growth of
medical costs. Those are specific, measurable goals. Republicans have insisted the law would fail to meet
its objectives costs would run higher than expected, workers would be forced into part-time jobs, the law
would even fail to reduce the number of uninsured. None of those things have happened. All the
Republican predictions have failed. Just this week, the Congressional Budget Office once again revised
down its cost projections for the law, which is now projected to cost 20 percent less than originally
estimated. Given conservative certainty that the opposite would occur, you might expect some revision.

But conservatives have not abandoned or even reduced their fervent

opposition to Obamacare. This is because the rights specific, measurable
predictions about the law are subordinate to deeper, philosophical beliefs .

They oppose the laws methods (more taxes, spending, and regulation) on principle.
They believe those methods will fail to achieve their stated goals, but even if
they succeed, they oppose them anyway . Republicans cannot design a
partywide health-care alternative because they cannot reconcile the specific
things most Americans want from the health-care system (access to
affordable insurance, protection from discrimination against preexisting
conditions) with their ideological commitments. ** This is not to say that the Democratic
way of thinking about health care is right and the Republican way is wrong, though I personally agree with
the former and not the latter. You dont need to care that health-care reform works if you oppose it
philosophically, and philosophical preferences are neither right nor wrong. The point, rather, is that the two
parties are not mirror images of each other. They are asymmetrical. One is organized around practical
objectives, the other ideological ones. Practical objectives lend themselves more easily to compromise.
They can be measured in empirical terms. Ideological objectives defy compromise and practical
assessment. The asymmetry between the two parties is a longtime fascination of mine, and in recent years
has drawn the attention of political scientists like Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, and analysts like Norman
Ornstein and Thomas Mann. Political scientists Matt Grossmann and David Hopkins have written a new
paper exploring the asymmetry in beliefs between the two parties. They find a great deal of data to
support the case that Republican Party is simply more ideologically oriented than the Democrats.

Clinton is linked to Obama shell get the blame.

Kilgore 5-25-16. [Ed, political analyst, "How Running for Obamas 3rd Term Became a Political
Asset for Hillary Clinton" New York Magazine -- nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/05/obama-turning-intonovember-asset-for-clinton.html]
[T]he

attack against Clinton that has emerged the earliest is her obvious ties
to the president and her tortured attempts to create daylight between herself and her former boss.
There isnt a dimes worth of difference between Barack Obama and Hillary
Clinton. She will continue foursquare and put forward Barack Obamas policy in a third and fourth term,
is how Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), a 2012 also-ran positioning herself as the Anti-Hillary, put it to

The general-election risk of Clinton being perceived as

running for "Barack Obama's third term" rose when she suddenly faced a
serious challenge from Bernie Sanders and chose to associate herself closely
with the incumbent strictly because it made sense in the dynamics of Democratic primaries where
Politico in early October.

constituencies (e.g., African-Americans) particularly fond of Obama became critical to her ability to win.
Much as she'd need to "pivot to the center" after Sanders generated left-bent pressure during the
nomination contest, would she also need to pivot away from the controversial incumbent and once again
become her "own woman"?

That flips the election for the GOP our link prices in
other factors and we dont need to win that Hillary gets
the blame
Needham 16 (Vicki, The Hill, 1/21, Moodys model gives Dem candidate
advantage in 2016, http://thehill.com/policy/finance/266668-moodys-modelgives-dem-candidate-advantage-in-2016)
the election is shaping
up as historically tight, according to a political model. Less than 11 months from Election
Day, Moodys Analytics is predicting that whomever lands the Democratic nomination
will capture the White House with 326 electoral votes to the Republican nominees 212. Those results
are heavily dependent on how swing states vote. The latest model from Moodys reflects
razor-thin margins in the five most important swing states Florida,
Ohio, Colorado, New Hampshire and Virginia. In each of those states, the
The Democratic presidential nominee will win the race for the presidency, but

Democratic advantage is less than 1 percentage point , well within the margin of error.
The election model weighs political and economic strength in each state and
determines the share of the vote that the incumbent party will win. The most
important economic variable in the model is the growth in incomes in the two years leading up to the election. That
factor captures the strength of the job market in each state, including job growth,
hours worked, wage growth and the quality of the jobs being created. The model also factors in home and gasoline prices.

But the
trajectory of the presidents approval rating also makes a difference
in who could win the White House. If President Obamas approval rating
shifts only a little more than 4 percentage points, a bit more than the
margin of error for many presidential opinion polls, the move could further cut into
Democratic hopes to retain the White House. Growing concern about
terrorism and other issues could dent Obamas approval rating further .
Usually, if the sitting presidents approval rating is improving in the year leading
up the election, the incumbent party receives a boost . But in most elections, the presidents
So far, the strength of the economy has kept the model on track for the Democratic nominee.

rating has declined in the lead-up to the election, favoring the challenger party.

extinction climate change, global wars, and turns case

Nisbet 16 (Matthew, Associate Professor of Communication Studies and
Affiliate Associate Professor of Public Policy and Urban Affairs at Northeastern
University who studies the role of communication, media, and public opinion
in debates over science, technology, and the environment, New Scientist,
5/27, "Trump would deliver fatal blow to fight against climate change,"
http://www.northeastern.edu/camd/commstudies/people/matthewnisbet/#sthash.Zoq2zrjr.dpuf)
Trump would deliver fatal blow to fight against climate change A Donald
Trump presidency would disrupt the fight against climate change in a way that threatens to snuff out all
hope, warns Matthew Nisbet Trump on a podium, with his hilarious hair Bad for the environment Robyn

Trump has just promised to cancel the

Paris climate agreement, end US funding for United Nations climate change
programmes, and roll back the stupid Obama administration regulations to cut
power plant emissions. The Republican presidential candidate has often defied party orthodoxy on
Beck/AFP/Getty Images By Matthew Nisbet Donald

major issues, shocking conservatives with his off-the-cuff remarks. But his scripted speech yesterday to an
oil industry meeting directly echoed the partys line on climate change and energy. Trump trails Hillary
Clinton, the likely Democratic rival for the White House, in fundraising, and his speech was a clear sign that
he seeks to capitalise on financial support from the powerful fossil fuel industry. His call to roll back
industry regulations also deepens his appeal to voters in oil, gas and coal-producing states. Obama has
done everything he can to get in the way of American energy, for whatever reason, Trump said, in an
attack sure to be a centrepiece of his campaign. If crooked Hillary Clinton is in charge, things will get

a Trump presidency poses an

existential threat qualitatively different from past Republican candidates
who have doubted climate change. It could set in motion a wave of
political and economic crises, creating global turmoil that would fatally
disrupt efforts to tackle this issue in the US and abroad. Alarmed by the possibility of
much worse, believe me. Climate incoherence Yet

a Trump victory in November, international negotiators are urgently working to finalise the UN Paris
agreement, in the hope that it can become legally binding before President Obama leaves office. Yet even

To meet
the aggressive targets set at Paris, countries will have to substantially ratchet
up efforts to end reliance on fossil fuels over the next few years. At the very
moment when the world needs American leadership on this, Trumps
if the gambit is successful, a Trump victory could cripple international progress in other ways.

incoherence on climate and energy policy and his outright disgust for global
collaboration would have a severe chilling effect on progress. In past
comments, he has said he is not a believer in man-made global warming,
declaring that climate change is a total hoax and bullshit, created by and for the
Chinese to hurt US manufacturing. On energy policy, he has appeared befuddled when asked about
specifics, even fumbling the name of the Environmental Protection Agency, which he has promised to
abolish. Civil unrest The broader disruption of a Trump presidency would do even greater damage,
weakening efforts to create a sense of urgency over climate change. Trumps candidacy has brought public
discourse in the US to its ugliest level, as he trades in trash talk and outrageous insults, spreading
falsehood and innuendo, fomenting bigotry and prejudice. He has threatened the censure of critics in the
media, even condoning violence against protesters, calling them thugs and criminals. His success
emboldens far right and ultra-nationalist movements in the US and across Europe, risking further
destabilisation. At home, Trumps promise to ban Muslims from entering the US, to erect a wall at the
Mexican border, and to deport millions of immigrants will provoke widespread protest and civil unrest.

Trumps bravado and reckless unpredictability , his vow to renegotiate trade deals
will generate deep tensions with China, Russia
and Europe, risking financial collapse and military conflict. In the midst of
Abroad,

and to walk away from security alliances

such dysfunction and upheaval, the glimmer of hope offered by the historic climate change pact agreed to
in Paris last year may forever fade.

never been higher.

The stakes riding on a US presidential election have

Basic form

Good timing because Trump

UQ: X candidate from current party will win
Link: plan is unpopular, hurts the party
o Swing voters
o Turnout
o Specific groups
o Electoral college
Internal link: Opposite party will win
Impact: Causes X bad impact

Aff responses

Polls are unreliable

Its too early to tell
Non UQ: opposing candidate already will win
Plan issue not salient
Plan is popular
No internal link
Impact defense