DA Neg Spending 37

8/14/2019 DA Neg Spending 37

1/39

WNDI 2008 1Spending DA Neg

Spending DA Neg

Spending DA Neg.......................................................................................................................................................1

Spending DA Neg ...........................................................................................................................1

1NC 1/2.......................................................................................................................................................................4

1NC 1/2 ............................................................................................................................................4

1NC 2/2.......................................................................................................................................................................5

1NC 2/2 ............................................................................................................................................5

Uniqueness Yes Econ (General)...............................................................................................................................6

Uniqueness Yes Econ (General) .................................................................................................6

Uniqueness Yes Econ (Prices)..................................................................................................................................7

Uniqueness Yes Econ (Prices) .....................................................................................................7

Uniqueness Yes Econ (AT: Dollar)..........................................................................................................................8

Uniqueness Yes Econ (AT: Dollar) .............................................................................................8

Link Policy-Decisions..............................................................................................................................................9

Link Policy-Decisions ..................................................................................................................9

Link Clean Energy.................................................................................................................................................10

Link Clean Energy ....................................................................................................................10

Link Regulations (Exports)....................................................................................................................................11

Link Regulations (Exports) ......................................................................................................11

Link Oil..................................................................................................................................................................12

Link Oil ......................................................................................................................................12Link Energy Prices (Steel).....................................................................................................................................13

Link Energy Prices (Steel) ........................................................................................................13

Link RPS................................................................................................................................................................14

Link RPS ....................................................................................................................................14

Link Nuclear Power...............................................................................................................................................15

Link Nuclear Power ..................................................................................................................15

Link Nuclear Power...............................................................................................................................................16

Link Nuclear Power ..................................................................................................................16Link Nuclear Power (AT: Yucca)...........................................................................................................................17

Link Nuclear Power (AT: Yucca) .............................................................................................17

Link Renewables....................................................................................................................................................18

Link Renewables .......................................................................................................................18

Link Renewables....................................................................................................................................................19

Link Renewables .......................................................................................................................19


2/39


Link Renewables (AT: New Market).....................................................................................................................20

Link Renewables (AT: New Market) .......................................................................................20

Link Solar Power...................................................................................................................................................21

Link Solar Power ......................................................................................................................21

Link CAFE.............................................................................................................................................................22Link CAFE ................................................................................................................................22

Link CAFE (Auto).................................................................................................................................................23

Link CAFE (Auto) ....................................................................................................................23

Link Hybrids..........................................................................................................................................................24

Link Hybrids .............................................................................................................................24

Link Carbon Tax.....................................................................................................................................................25

Link Carbon Tax .......................................................................................................................25

Link Carbon Tax.....................................................................................................................................................26Link Carbon Tax .......................................................................................................................26

AT: Dollar Link Turn.................................................................................................................................................27

AT: Dollar Link Turn ...................................................................................................................27

Internal Link Exports (Agriculture).......................................................................................................................28

Internal Link Exports (Agriculture) .......................................................................................28

Internal Link Energy Prices (Forests)....................................................................................................................29

Internal Link Energy Prices (Forests) ....................................................................................29

2NC Impact Module China....................................................................................................................................30

2NC Impact Module China ......................................................................................................30

2NC Impact Module China (Asia).........................................................................................................................31

2NC Impact Module China (Asia) ...........................................................................................31

2NC Impact Module China (Competitiveness)......................................................................................................32

2NC Impact Module China (Competitiveness) ......................................................................32

2NC Impact Module China (Terrorism).................................................................................................................33

2NC Impact Module China (Terrorism) .................................................................................33

Impact General.......................................................................................................................................................34

Impact General ..........................................................................................................................34

Impact R&D Warming...........................................................................................................................................35

Impact R&D Warming .............................................................................................................35

Impact Environment...............................................................................................................................................36

Impact Environment .................................................................................................................36

Impact AT: Economy Resilient..............................................................................................................................37

Impact AT: Economy Resilient ................................................................................................37


3/39


Dollar Collapse Bad..................................................................................................................................................38

Dollar Collapse Bad .....................................................................................................................38

Dollar Collapse Good................................................................................................................................................39

Dollar Collapse Good ...................................................................................................................39


4/39


1NC 1/2

Ignore all market-based uniqueness claims the economy is growing due to employment,confidence, trade figures and GDP exports are key to future growthAnatole Kaletsky, The Times, July 14, 2008, We have financial, not economic, problems

Sometimes the markets just get things wrong. It doesn't happen very often. Usually the market's collective wisdom is

more perceptive than the individual opinions of the investors who comprise it. But every now and then - about twice every decade -markets make spectacular blunders, completely losing touch with the real economy of consumption, investment, employment and worldtrade. The markets' behaviour last week suggested that such a time has arrived. On Friday, share prices around the worldcollapsed as Wall Street was gripped by rumours about the bankruptcy of the two largest financial institutions in the world: the USGovernment-backed mortgage insurers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose combined debts are almost $6 trillion, equivalent toroughly double Britain's entire GDP. Yet what has been happening in the world of real economic activity to explain such extrememarket action? While Wall Street has gone into meltdown since the beginning of June, conditions in the realeconomy have been unambiguously improving. The latest employment figures, published two weeks ago,confirmed that economic conditions had stabilised after their sharp deterioration in the winter, while purchasingmanagers' surveys, the most reliable indicator of very recent economic trends, suggested acontinuation of the modest but clear improvement that began in April. Sales figures from leading retailerswere much stronger than expected, showing that tax rebates designed to provide a shot of financial adrenaline to all

but the richest US households were doing exactly what the doctor ordered - offsetting the depressing effect on

consumption of the credit crunch and the housing slump. As a result, consumer confidence, although an unreliableand lagging indicator, showed its first improvement for six months. Even the figures on home sales have now beennear-stable for four consecutive months, after almost a year of vertiginous falls. Most important of all, the monthlytrade figures, published on Friday in the midst of the Wall Street meltdown, proved that the remarkably adaptable USeconomy was responding to the credit crunch exactly as the optimists had hoped - by undertaking animmense structural shift from consumer and housing-led growth to growth powered by exports. RelatedLinks The narrowing of the US trade deficit, despite the biggest monthly increase on record in the cost of oil imports, almostguarantees that the second-quarter GDP figures, due to be published two weeks from now, will show the USeconomy accelerating from the stagnant conditions of the past two quarters to a near-normal rate of 2.5 or even 3 per cent growth.Why, then, are share prices collapsing and the dollar hitting new lows? There are three possible explanations. First, financial marketsmay know something dreadful about America's economic prospects that is not yet apparent in any statistics. Secondly, investors may

be reacting to specifically financial problems that have relatively little impact on the non-financial economy outside Wall Street. Thirdly,the markets may simply be wrong about the economic outlookand about the value of financial assets, as they have

been many times in the past. Hence the adage that Wall Street is a great economic forecaster - it has predicted six of the

last three recessions. The first explanation - the skeleton in the cupboard - is the one naturally favoured on Wall Street itself. Thefinancial community's self-regarding faith in the foresight of financial analysts and investors seems never to be shaken by the total lackof foresight revealed by these same analysts and investors in the past. For example, one of the events that triggered last week'scollapse of confidence was a privately circulated paper from a leading hedge fund group, which estimated that total losses in the globalcredit crunch might be as high as $1.6 trillion, rather than the $400 billion recently suggested by the IMF, the Bank of England and otherserious researchers. These new estimates contained no new information, apart from some simple extrapolations of the losses alreadysuffered by the hardest-hit segments of the credit markets on to other parts of the economy that so far had shown few signs of trouble.This was, in other words, a perfect example of the self-justifying reflexivity identified by George Soros as the main cause of boom-

bust cycles in financial markets. But how much impact on the real economy are these self-justifying expectationslikely to have? Thus far, it seems that the answer is mercifully little, which raises the second possible reason for thedivergence between financial and economic realities these days. It is perfectly possible for financial conditions to keepdeteriorating and for bank shareholders to keep losing money, while real economic activity stabilisesand then improves. Even if institutions such as Fannie Mae are technically insolvent, as suggested last week by Bill Poole, afamously outspoken former governor of the Federal Reserve, this does not necessarily mean that the real economy will suffer or thatthese insolvent institutions either need to or ought to stop lending money, a point that Mr Poole himself made.


5/39


1NC 2/2

Cleaner energy policies will derail the economyThe Energy Journal, 1/1/04

The possibility that R & D aimed at increasing energy efficiency diverts funds from economic growth isconsistent with the causal relations identifiedby the VECM. The elements of [alpha] indicate that the third cointegratingrelation loads into the [DELTA]GDP equation (Table 7). This result indicates that energy prices "Granger cause" GDP (Granger, 1969).That is, higher energy prices slow GDP. This result is consistent with those generated by Hamilton (1983), who finds thatsharp increases in real oil prices "Granger cause" recessions in the US economy during the post war period. A causal relation thatruns from energy prices to GDP implies that carbon taxes and/or tradable permits will slow economicactivity. The negative macroeconomic effects of higher energy prices are reinforced by lower energyuse. The elements of [alpha] indicate that the second cointegrating relation loads into the [DELTA]GDP equation (Table 6). Thisindicates that energy use "Grangercauses" GDP. This result is consistent with analyses of the causal relation between USeconomic activity and energy use that account for energy quality (Stern, 2000). A causal relation that runs from energyuse to GDP indicates that efforts to reduce carbon emissions by reducing energy use will slow economicactivity.

A collapse in the US economy collapses the world economy.Walter Russell Mead, Kissinger Senior Fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations, Foreign Policy. 3/1/04

Similarly, in the last 60 years, as foreigners have acquired a greater value in the United States--governmentand private bonds, direct and portfolio private investments--more and more of them have acquired an interestin maintaining the strength of the U.S.-led system. A collapse of the U.S. economy and the ruin of thedollar would do more than dent the prosperity of the United States. Without their best customer,countries including China and Japan would fall into depressions. The financial strength of everycountry would be severely shaken should the United States collapse. Under those circumstances, debt

becomes a strength, not a weakness, and other countries fear to break with the United States because theyneed its market and own its securities. Of course, pressed too far, a large national debt can turn from a sourceof strength to a crippling liability, and the United States must continue to justify other countries' faith bymaintaining its long-term record of meeting its financial obligations. But, like Samson in the temple of thePhilistines, a collapsing U.S. economy would inflict enormous, unacceptable damage on the rest of theworld. That is sticky power with a vengeance.

Global economic decline will bring ArmageddonLt. Col, Tom Bearden, PhD Nuclear Engineering, April 25, 2000,http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/042500%20-%20modified.htm

Just prior to the terrible collapse of the World economy, with the crumbling well underway and rising, itis inevitable that some ofthe weapons ofmass destruction will be usedby one or more nations on others.An interesting result then---as all the old strategic studies used to show---is that everyone willfire everything as fast as possible against their perceived enemies. The reason is simple: When the massdestruction weapons are unleashed at all, the only chance a nation has to survive is to desperately try todestroy its perceived enemies before they destroy it. So there will erupt a spasmodic unleashing of thelong range missiles, nuclear arsenals, and biological warfare arsenals of the nations as they feel theeconomic collapse, poverty, death, misery, etc. a bit earlier. The ensuing holocaust is certain toimmediately draw in the major nations also, and literally a hell on earth will result. In short, we will getthe great Armageddon we have been fearing since the advent of the nuclear genie. Right now, my

personal estimate is that we have about a 99% chance of that scenario or some modified version of it,resulting.
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/042500%20-%20modified.htmhttp://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/042500%20-%20modified.htm


6/39


Uniqueness Yes Econ (General)

The economy is recoveringSean OGrady,July 4, 2008, Paulson predicts US economy will pick up by end of the year, The Independent

The US Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, signalled yesterday that the worst may soon be over for theAmerican economy. As the price of a barrel of oil tested fresh highs once again, and acknowledging the"headwinds" to growth coming from rapidly rising global energy and food inflation, Mr Paulson nonethelesssaid: "We have a resilient economy, we have good productivity, we have good efficiency. I think there's avery strong possibility that we will be growing at the end of the year, we will have stronger growth at the endof the year than we have right now." That, however, could still be relatively weak, and Mr Paulson continuesto be more worried about growth than inflation. "Our biggest concern is the downturn. There's no doubt thathigh headline inflation numbers are a real concern to Americans, but core inflation is relatively containedand my biggest focus is on the downside risks, which are housing, oil prices and what is going on in thecapital markets."

Recession fears are wrong prefer predictive evidenceLondon Stock Exchange, July 11, 2008, US economy 'to begin recovery mid-2009'

The US economy is set to begin recovering from its slowdown next year, it has been predicted. KennethLewis, chief executive of Bank of America, issued his projection for the economy in a speech before a non-

profit organisation in Los Angeles. He said: "I think we'll start a gradual recovery toward the middle ofnext year. "Until then, depending on what sector of the economy you're in, it will feel slow and may feellike a recession."


7/39


Uniqueness Yes Econ (Prices)

The economy is growing stably, but higher energy prices would kill the economyDr. M. Ray Perryman, president and chief executive officer of the perryman group, economic theory prof at theinternational institute for advanced studies, July 13, 2008, Midland Reporter-Telegram, Long-term economic

outlook brighter than some forecasters suggestThe headlines are full of bad economic news ranging from high gasoline and food prices to housing market woes. Punditsdebate the best way to fix problems and deal with uncertainty. You might think we are in for a deep, dark recession. However, theU.S. economy is actually growing, albeit at a pace a bit anemic when compared to years past. The future is not nearly asbleakas some prognosticators suggest and, if you consider expectations for the long term, the picture is one of continuedhealth with moderate prosperity. I have just finished my annual long-term economic outlook for the United States, Texas, and thestate's major metropolitan areas and regions. It covers projections for the years from 2007 to 2030 with particular focus on vitaleconomic generators as well as industrial sectors. By virtually every measure, the Lone Star State is forecast to achieve compoundannual growth rates (CAGR) that exceed those of the U.S. With regard to real gross product (RGP), commonly referred to as output orthe final value of all goods and services produced in an economy during a given period of time, the U.S. is likely to experiencea per annum growth rate of 3.27 percent for the long term. Texas RGP is anticipated to expand at a 3.77 percent annual pace.This expectation follows the general historic pattern that has seen the Texas economy growing faster than the nation as a whole. Morethan half of the RGP growth projected for Texas will likely be generated by services -- 22.84 percent; finance, insurance, and real estate(FIRE) -- 16.53 percent; and trade -- 13.65 percent. These industrial sectors are predicted to contribute $674.51 billion of the expansionin the Texas economy through 2030. Other leading sectors anticipated to achieve significant expansion over the long term include

durable manufacturing; transportation, warehousing, and utilities (TWU); information; and nondurable manufacturing. In 2030, thepopulation of Texas is forecast to be approximately 36.3 million, an increase of nearly 13 million people from 2007 (a 1.82 percentyearly growth rate). During this same period, the U.S. will likely see an additional 68.5 million residents, which represents 0.89 percentannual expansion. The U.S. employment growth rate from 2007 to 2030 is expected to be 1.19 percent per annum.The Texas employment CAGR for these years is forecast to be 1.52 percent and will be noted by the 4.5 million new workers across thestate, more than half of which will be in the services sector. The government and trade industries combined should account for anadditional 1.2 million workers over the 23-year period. The industrial sector predicted to experience the fastest growth in wage andsalary employment in Texas during the long term is services, with a 2.03 percent CAGR. The yearly growth rates for the other sectorsare projected to range from 0.45 percent (mining) to 1.52 percent (achieved by both FIRE and TWU). Real personal income(RPI), which is the total income accruing to households, is expected to expand in Texas at 4.39 percent annually over the 2007-2030horizon, while the U.S. should see 3.51 percent per year gains. The Texas RPI (in 2000$ and by place of residence) is anticipatedto grow from $745.11 billion in 2007 to more than $2.00 trillion by 2030. The total volume of retail goods sold in Texas is anticipated tosurpass $2.06 trillion in 2030, a significant increase from the $435.62 billion in 2007 and representative of a 7.00 percent per annumgrowth rate (which includes some component of inflation). Of course, in making long-term economic projections, it isrecognized that numerous salient factors can affect the ultimate outcomes. Depending on patterns in these underlying

forces, the forecast for the long term could undergo some changes. Included in these key issues are high energycosts, health care affordability concerns, and the ongoing housing market difficulties. We have no idea where technology will take usduring this time, but we know it will be an interesting ride. Among the other matters in this mix are the demographic changes the nationwill experience during the next 23 years. Of particular note are the significant expansion of the minority population and the upward trendin the median age of the overall U.S. population. In spite of the challenges our state and nation will certainly face through 2030, thereare many reasons to believe that we will escape a major recession for the foreseeable future. Still, business cyclesare inevitable and can undoubtedly interrupt forecasted patterns periodically. All-in-all, the U.S. capacity for globalcompetitiveness remains alive and well.


8/39


9/39


Link Policy-Decisions

The perception of your plan will kill consumer confidence, which is key to the economyDaniel Gross, Moneybox columnist for Slate and the business columnist for Newsweek, July 13, 2008, NeitherObama nor McCain can cure ailing economy

When consumers, whose collective actions constitute more than two-thirds of U.S. economic activity, are in thedumps, they're less likely to spend, invest and take risks. But and this is the second but history has shown thatpresidents do have the ability to affect the short-term national mood about the economy, as long as therhetoric is backed by action. "Whatever beneficial effects FDR or Reagan had on the economy hadmore to do with their policies than with their pleasant demeanors," says Richard Scylla, a historian at New YorkUniversity. FDR's inspiring speeches and fireside chats in 1933 were accompanied by a profusion of policy experiments, many of whichworked.


10/39


11/39


Link Regulations (Exports)

Regulations lead to a rapid drop in exports.Adam B. Jaffe, Brandeis University and National Bureau of Economic Research, et al., March 1995,Journal of

Economic Literature, Environmental Regulation and the Competitiveness of US Manufacturing: What Does theEvidence Tell Us?, pg. 142

Natural resource endowments have been a particularly important determinant of trading patterns (see. forexample, Edward E. Leamer 1984). Having recognized this, we note that when a firm pollutes, it isessentially using a natural resource (a clean environment), and when a firm is compelled or otherwiseinduced to reduce itspollutant emissions, that firm has, in effect, seen its access to an important naturalresource reduced. Industries that lose the right to pollute freely may thus lose their comparativeadvantage, just as the copper industry in developed countries lost its comparative advantage as copperresources dwindled in those regions. The result is a fall in exports.

This causes a free-fall for the dollar.Newsday (New York), 12/10/04

But there is more going on here and none of it is good. The drop in the dollar's value is caused at least inpart by the large and dangerously growingbudget deficit in the United States. If things don't change - thatmeans if we keep increasing spending and cutting taxes - the deficit will rise to $825 billion, according toone recent report, which is 6.4 percent of gross domestic product. By any standard, that is alarming. Thedeficit has not been a major problem until now because foreign countries bought U.S. debt. But therewill be fewer buyers if the dollar continues to fall, unless interest rates increase substantially. Europeannations have already been selling greenbacks. Unfortunately, a sudden increase in interest rates wouldadversely affect the average American. Mortgage rates, for instance, would significantly increase. ManyLong Islanders have purchased homes at prices previously unimaginable because of low interest rates. But ifthose interest rates go up, especially for those with variable mortgages, the houses might becomeunaffordable. While other nations need to do more to improve their economic performance, most economistsagree that it's essential for the United States to reduce its deficit. But the Bush administration's economic

plan is to push for more and permanent tax cuts, even while the costs of the war in Iraq continue to mount.The Economist magazine recently pointed out that the dollar has been the world's reserve currency forlonger than anybody can remember. It has been a significant benefit to the U.S. economy and its overallstanding in the world. But that doesn't mean it can go on forever. It's time to pay attention.


12/39


Link Oil

Loss of oil power weakens US ability to force OPEC to trade in dollars.What The Papers Say (Russia), 3/10/03

Four out of five international currency transactions and half of export transactions are carried out indollars; two thirds of the world's currency reserve are also in dollars. The foundations of this status ispetro-dollar transactions - if it is broken, the whole structure may fall apart like a house of cards. Sinceeuro and the EU zone have appeared, the situation has become even more abnormal, as it does not correspond to the real weight of theUS economy in the world system. At present, the United Europe has already overweighed the US on the world market; hence, from thestandpoint of investments, the European finance is much more attractive than the US.

That shift crushes the dollar.Sartre The Petro-Dollar and the EURO: No more Dollars, we want the EURO; Sober Thought ProvokingEssays; April 4, 2003; http://pages.zdnet.com/sartre65/view/id20.html //nick

OPEC always priced oil in US Dollars. In the perceptive essay,The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraqby W Clark, thethesis that a shift using the EURO as the settlement currency, drives the Bush/Cheney administration hydrocarbons geo-strategy. "TheFederal Reserve's greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its international transactions from a dollarstandard to a euro standard. Iraq actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 (when the euro was worth around 82 cents), and hasactually made off like a bandit considering the dollar's steady depreciation against the euro. (Note: the dollar declined 17% against theeuro in 2002.) "The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in Iraq -- or more importantly, the reason why thecorporate-military-industrial network conglomerate wants a puppet government in Iraq -- is so that it will revert back to a dollar standardand stay that way." (While also hoping to veto any wider OPEC momentum towards the euro, especially from Iran -- the 2nd largestOPEC producer who is actively discussing a switch to euros for its oil exports)."The effect of an OPEC switch to the eurowould be that oil-consuming nations would have to flush dollars out oftheir (central bank) reserve fundsand replace these with euros. The dollar would crash anywhere from 20-40% in value and the consequenceswould be those one could expect from any currency collapse and massive inflation (think Argentina currency crisis, for example).You'd have foreign funds stream out of the U.S. stock markets and dollar denominated assets, there'dsurely be a run on the banks much like the 1930s, the current account deficit would becomeunserviceable, the budget deficit would go into default, and so on. Your basic 3rd world economic crisisscenario.

A. Reducing fossil fuel use increases energy pricesLehr and Bast,6/28/04 Chicago Sun-Times

The bill would cap major sources of greenhouse gas emissions at 2000 levels beginning in 2010. Theprincipal nonagricultural source of greenhouse gases is the burning of fossil fuels. For households andindustries to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels, prices must rise. As energy prices rise, industriessubstitute less energy-intensive production methods or use more expensive non-fossil sources of energy.Both forms of substitution require more capital investment, which leads to a lower level of consumption in the near-term and a reduced rate of return on investment, thereby reducing consumption in the future as well. Becauseindustries no longer would be as productive, their revenues would fall, leading to lower wages. Because of lower wages,labor supply would be reduced, furthertrimming economic output and personal income. Individuals would face areduced ability to consume as a result of this policy.
http://pages.zdnet.com/sartre65/view/id20.htmlhttp://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.htmlhttp://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.htmlhttp://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.htmlhttp://pages.zdnet.com/sartre65/view/id20.htmlhttp://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html


13/39


Link Energy Prices (Steel)

High energy prices crush the steel industry.HeatherVillanova, Villanova Environmental Law Review, 2000, 11 Vill. Envtl. L.J. 161

In addition to the effects the Protocol has on the coke process, the Protocol further impacts the steel process because it increases thecost of energy. Under the Protocol, energy prices could rise in two possible ways: (1) in an attempt to decrease the amount of fossil

fuels used, the government could place mandatory caps on fossil fuel usage or (2) in order to limit consumption, the government couldplace a tax on fuels which would inevitably cause the price of fuels to rise. The rise in the cost of energy dramaticallyaffects the steel industrybecause thesteelindustry isan "energy-intensive" industry.An "energy-intensive" industry produces a low-cost product at a high-cost of energy.In the manufacturing of steel, the costof energy comprises fifteen to twenty percent of the total cost of production.This is considered high because the average energy costfor manufacturing a product is three to five percent. Due to the high component of energy in the manufacturing of steel, the Protocol'seffect on energy prices will substantially increase the total cost of producing steel in the United States. If energy prices were todouble, the steel industry would suffer a five billion dollar increase in one year. This increase inthecostof productionwouldshift thirty percent of the manufacturing of steel to developing countries- countries the Protocol leavesunscathed. This shift of production would result in the loss of 100,000 United States steelmakingjobs. The economic effect on thesteel industry does not stop there. It also affects consumer products that rely on steel , such as automobiles and appliances. Becauseincreased costs of production are normally allocated to the consumer, consumers would expect to pay more for products with steelcomponents.

The steel industry is key to hegemony.Andrew Sharkey, III, President and CEO of the American Iron and Steel Institute, February 28, 2002,http://www.steel.org/news/innews/Andy2_28_02.htm, accessed 2/3/03

Third, it redefines, and brings into sharper focus, the issue of whya strongand vitaldomestic steel industry is critical tonational security. It does this in two ways. It explains whydomestic steel production is important to U.S. defenseindustriesdefined broadly, meaning both direct and indirect steel shipments to the military infrastructureneeded to support awar effort overseas,plus Federal Government-U.S. steel industry R&D efforts in defense-related areas. And it explains why thedomestic steelindustry is important toU.S. economic and infrastructure security, including ourhomeland security,once again defined broadly, meaning steel shipments to U.S. energy security infrastructure, U.S. transportation securityinfrastructure, U.S. health and public safety infrastructure and U.S. commercial, industrial and institutional buildings.

Heg solves nuclear warZalmay Khalilzad, RAND, The Washington Quarterly, Spring, 1999

Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return tomultipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable notas an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages.First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule oflaw. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear

proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would helpprecludethe rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold orhot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be moreconducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.


14/39


Link RPS

RPS will increase utility bills $3.1 billionCompetitive Enterprise Institute, September 23, 2002, http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,03215.cfm,Accessed: September 1, 2004

According to a July 2000 study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, more than one-third of U.S.consumers now have the option to purchase "green power" (electricity made wholly or partly fromrenewables) if they are willing to pay premiums ranging from 0.4 cents to 20 cents per kilowatt-hour.However, the study notes, less than one percent of utility customers choose "green power" when giventhe chance. Presumably, "green power" premiums would be higher - and customer participation even moredismal - if taxpayers and ratepayers were not already subsidizing renewable-based power. Should the U.S.Government force companies to sell what consumers do not want to buy? Citing a recent EIA study,proponents claim a 10-percent RPS will add "only" $3.1 billion to the nation's electricity bill in 2020.By this pork-barrel logic, one can justify any consumer or taxpayer rip-off. That is the nature of corporatewelfare entitlements - they filch relatively small sums from millions of households to enrich a greedy few.But EIA's estimate is really beside the point, because the Senate bill's RPS is the camel's nose under the tent -a floor, not a ceiling. Once enacted, the RPS will strengthen the renewable lobby and grow like otherentitlements.
http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,03215.cfmhttp://www.cei.org/gencon/019,03215.cfmhttp://www.cei.org/gencon/019,03215.cfm


15/39


Link Nuclear Power

Nuclear power costs billionsHarry Braun, Editor in Chief, The Bush Hydrogen Initiative:THE GOOD, THE BAD & THE UGLY, PhoenixProject, 2003 http://www.phoenixproject.net/releases/bushh2init.htm accessed 12/26/2004

Billions of dollars have been spent on trying to solve the nuclear waste problem over the past 50 years,and yet no acceptable solution has been identified.The waste disposal issue is already reaching acritical stage as existing nuclear plants are all becoming long-term waste storage facilities by default.But to embark on a program that will exponentially increase the nuclear waste problem is more thanirresponsible. It represents a crime against humanity that makes the atrocities committed against the Jewish

people in World War II pale by comparison. While Hitler's despicable acts were committed against onegeneration, the nuclear wastes we are creating will leak and spread for literally thousands of centuriesinto the future. It is hard to imagine a more insidious poison to inflict on our descendents over suchincomprehensible amounts of time. Given such considerations, allowing the existing nuclear plants tocontinue their daily operation of radioactive waste production, is far more unethical than the Germanswho tolerated the daily operation of the death camps.

New nuclear facilities would cost taxpayers and the government.

Reno Gazette-Journal, 5/21/03Perhaps the most appalling aspects of the Senate bill to Nevadans are federal subsidies for the nuclearpower industry and the repealing of consumer protection laws. The federal subsidies and loan guaranteesthat are slated for the nuclear power industry are to build new reactors. Generating power withnuclear energy is unsafe, inefficient and expensive to produce , and the reality is that federal subsidesmean taxpayersubsidies. So while Nevada's schools are in dire need of funding, we Nevadans will be

paying to build new nuclear reactors. New nuclear reactors could cost taxpayers as much as $30 billion.The federal government is already anticipating that even with federal subsidies and loans the newnuclear reactors won't be economically viable. Therefore the government has agreed to buy the powerfrom these reactors. Ifprivate investors are not willing to endure the financial burden and risks ofbuilding new reactors , then neither should the federal government. In summary, Nevada taxpayers will

pay to build nuclear power plants, buy the electricity these plants produce and then have to bury the nuclearwaste at Yucca Mountain.

New nuclear plants would be incredibly costly, requiring government expenditures in theform of loansTheRecord (Bergen County, NJ), August 4, 2003

However, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the prospects for a secondgeneration of nuclear reactors are equally abysmal. The CBO says the Department of Energy could

provide loan guarantees for up to 50 percent of the construction costs for seven new nuclear power plants, butit also considers the risk of default on these loans to be very high - well above 50 percent. It is littlewonder that the three nuclear corporations that are attempting to site new nuclear reactors - DominionResources, Entergy, and Exelon - have stated that the numbers for new nuclear construction just don'tadd up.

Nuclear power plants are expensive to build.

Springfield News-Leader (Springfield, MO) August 5, 2004Nuclear energy would be cheaper to generate than coal power except for the fact that a nuclear powergenerator would be more expensive to build and waste disposal presents a major problem. Few nuclearpower plants have been built in the United States since the 1980s.
http://www.phoenixproject.net/releases/bushh2init.htmhttp://www.phoenixproject.net/releases/bushh2init.htm


16/39


Link Nuclear Power

Nuclear power represents the biggest economic disaster in history. Plan is a terrible idea.TheRecord (Bergen County, NJ), August 4, 2003

The Department ofEnergy compared nuclear construction cost estimates to the actual final costs for 75of these reactors. The original cost estimate was $45 billion. The actual cost was $145 billion! Forbesmagazine recognized that this "failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largestmanagerial disaster in business history, a disaster of monumental scale." According to Forbes, "only theblind, or the biased, can now think the money has been well spent." Despite the $100 billion costoverrun, Sen. Domenici wants again to give the nuclear industry billions in taxpayer dollars and guaranteedloans.

The nuclear industry has a history of leaving economic disaster in its wake.Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, September 1, 2003

Others are less than pleased with the notion. Keith Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense points out thatnuclear power is still much more expensive than coal- or gas-fired power. The seven reactors atKashiwazaki cost more than $ 21 billion, according to Tepco records. Using that number, meeting the230,000-metric-ton estimate of daily U.S. hydrogen needs would require more than 50 such plants, at a costof more than $ 1 trillion. Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat, believes that the loan guaranteesproposedto the nuclear industry in the new Energy bill could riskas much as $ 30 billion of public money. Hereminded his colleagues that when the Washington Public Power Supply System pulled the plug on itsambitious, over-budget nuclear program in 1983, it mothballed several unfinished nuclear plants anddefaulted on $ 2.25 billion in bonds--at the time, the worst bond default in history,but positively Yugo-sized compared to the potential fallout from a subsidized nuclear renaissance built around hydrogen-poweredcars.

Investment in nuclear power wastes money, taxes consumers, and prevents development ofprofitable technologies.TheSentinel (Stoke), 4/13/03

The North West MEP is a regular campaigner for environmental issues and welcomed last month's shuttingdown of Calder Hall, at the plant in Cumbria. Liberal Democrat, Mr Davies, said it marked the beginning of

the end for an industry that had been "massively over-hyped and over-subsidised." He said: "When CalderHall opened in 1956, we were promised it would herald a new era of virtually free electricity. In practicenuclear power has been hugely expensive, surviving because of enormous subsidies from the taxpayerand extra charges on electricity bills." "The advocates of nuclear power have led us up a blind alley andleft us with a legacy of dangerous radioactive waste." He added: "If a fraction of the money spent ondeveloping nuclear power over the past fifty years had been devoted to alternative sources of energy,Britain would now be leading the way with this technology." The MEP claimed that if 20 per cent ofBritain's arable land was devoted to energy crops the electricity produced could replace the nuclearcontribution entirely.

Japan proves that nuclear power is more expensive because of excessive maintenance andsecurity requirements.The Japan Times, June 15, 2003

Nuclear advocates always say that Japan needs nuclear power so that it isn't dependent on foreign oil,an argument that supposedly addresses both environmental and economic concerns. But last year's scandalshowed that, whatever dangers lie in foreign oil dependence, there are more immediate dangersinherent in nuclear power. Economically, nukes are insupportable. It is extremely expensive to shutthem down and then start them up again, and if the scandal has taught us anything it's that nuclearreactors need to be shut down someday.


17/39


Link Nuclear Power (AT: Yucca)

Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste site would not benefit the economyCampbell, Duncan, The Guardian (London), May 19, 2001 L/N

Ed Goedhart is sceptical about a jobs windfall, saying that the project work so far and the adjoining militarybase has put little into the local economy. "All that money has gone somewhere else. It's lined the pockets oflobbyists and highly paid consultants who live in Denver, Colorado or some other yuppie place and theworkers are flown in or shuttled in." In Shoshone lore, the Yucca mountain is a snake. If the government andthe nuclear industry do press ahead with the waste dump scheme, as now seems inevitable, they could findthat the mountain and its diverse supporters still carry a potent bite.


18/39


Link Renewables

Renewables raise the cost of energy.Robert Bradley, president of the Institute for Energy Research, adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute, Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, NotGreen, Cato Policy Analysis No. 280, August 27, 1997, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html

A multi-billion-dollar government crusade to promote renewable energy for electricity generation, now in its third decade, has resultedin major economic costs and unintended environmental consequences. Even improved new generation renewablecapacity is, on average, twice as expensive as new capacity from the most economical fossil-fuel alternativeand triple the cost of surplus electricity. Solar power for bulk generation is substantially more uneconomic than the average;

biomass, hydroelectric power, and geothermal projects are less uneconomic. Wind power is the closest to the double-triple rule. Theuncompetitiveness of renewable generation explains the emphasis pro-renewable energy lobbyists on both the state and federal levels puton quota requirements, as well as continued or expanded subsidies. Yet every major renewable energy source has drawncriticism from leading environmental groups: hydro for river habitat destruction, wind for avian mortality, solar for desertoverdevelopment, biomass for air emissions, and geothermal for depletion and toxic discharges. Current state and federal efforts torestructure the electricity industry are being politicized to foist a new round of involuntary commitments on ratepayers and taxpayers for

politically favored renewables, particularly wind and solar. Yet new government subsidies for favored renewabletechnologies are likely to create few environmental benefits; increase electricity-generation overcapacity in mostregions of the United States; raise electricity rates; and create new "environmental pressures," given the extraland and materials (compared with those needed for traditional technologies) it would take to significantly increasethe capacity of wind and solar generation.

Renewables would require trillions of dollars of spending.FrankMurkowski, US Senator, Harvard Journal on Legislation, Summer, 2000, 37 Harv. J. on Legis. 345

Third, we must recognize the limitations of our economy and infrastructure to respond to significant policyshifts. The demand for energy facing the world of the twenty-first century will be enormous if we wish to sustain thecurrent standard of living in industrialized nations and extend it to developing countries. We will not be able to meet these energydemands without some use of fossil fuels, and emerging renewable energy tech nology will continue to requiresignificant market subsidies to be cost competitive. Moreover, nations have invested trillions of dollars inpower generation and transmission infrastructure that would need to be retired early if current energysources are replaced. There are also issues of reliability and availability of energy sources: the wind does not always blow,and the sun is not there to provide solar energy at night when heating is needed. Further, large production capacity fornon-hydro renewable energy is not yet available.

Regulations cause a ripple effect of high prices throughout the economy.Sheldon Pollack, Professor @ the University of Delaware. The Tax Lawyer. Fall 1998.

Businesses in the United States incur significant economic costs when complying with the vast array ofgovernmental regulations enacted since the 1960s and 1970s. n1 Among the most expensive of the new "social regulations" are thoseimplementing federal and state environmental policy. n2 Pervasive environmental regulation is now a recognized, although notnecessarily welcome, fact of doing business in the United States. For many sectors of the economy -- particularly, the chemical and

petroleum industries -- state and federal environmental regulation reaches virtually every level of business activity. While not allbusinesses so directly confront the plethora of rules and regulations enacted to protect the environment, for those that do, the cost ofcompliance can be staggering. Even for those industries not directly subject to the environmentalstatutes, this form of regulation imposes "hidden" or indirect outlays as the cost of compliance is builtinto the price of chemical and petroleum products used generally by American industry. In this way, thecosts of environmental compliance and remedial programs constitute a significant financial cost for virtuallyevery sector of domestic industry.


19/39


Link Renewables

A. Renewable transitions crush multiple sectors of the economy including the autoindustry.Paul Roberts, energy expert and writer for Harpers, 2004, The End of Oil, pg. 270

To divest in any real way from fossil fuels, or at least to change how we use them, will entail enormouschanges for companies that produce hydro carbons, those which consume large quantities ofhydrocarbons (such as utilities), and those whose products now burn hydrocarbons (such as auto-makers).True, some players will make the transition profitably oil companies, for example, are already investing in gas andalternative-energy technologies but many more will not. In some cases, the failure will stem from a simple lack of capacity tochange: the factors that gave a company an advantage in the old energy economy its technology, its business relationships, theexpertise and experience of its work force may simply not apply in the new energy economy. In many cases, however, companiescontemplating a move to the new economy must cope not only with their own weaknesses but with therealization that the new energy econ omy may not be a very profitable place.

B. Auto industry key to the economy.PR Newswire, September 24, 2003.

While the automobile industry continues to be America's largest manufacturing industry, the majority of thosejobs are in supplier and related industries, with total auto industry and related employment numbering 13.3million, a new Center for Automotive Research study shows. About 6.6 million jobs are connected to automotive manufacturing andnew vehicle sales, generating more than $240 billion in annual private sector compensation. "When you lookunder the hood of today's automobile, you'll see goods from America's greatest industries across the country," said Alliance President &CEO Josephine S. Cooper. "These include textiles from the Southeast, computer chips from California, aluminum manufactured in Iowa,and air bags produced in Arizona." Cooper continued: "No other single industry is more linked to U.S.manufacturing or generates more retail business and employment. New vehicle production, sales andother jobs related to the use of automobiles are responsible for one out of every 10 jobs in the U.S.economy."

The expense of transitions to renewables will bury the economy.Paul Roberts, energy expert and writer for Harpers, 2004, The End of Oil, pg. 287-8

Lacking true economic power, advocates rely instead on persuasion and coercion and often browbeat other energy players intotaking action. This has been critical in getting some producers, like BP, to change their policies and practices, but it has led to excesses.

Too many advocacy groups, in choosing issues for their publicity potential, exaggerate various energy andenvironmental calamities and ignore the economic realities of the new energy economy. In the climatedebate, for example, environmental groups are among the strongest advocates formaking ultradeep cuts in CO2emis sions quickly even though this approach may be so costly that it ulti mately defeats longer-termefforts to reduce emissions. Villains are also often an essential element in most advocates rhetoric. Some U.S. and Europeanadvocates, for example, say the only reason we dont have a hydrogen economy now is that automakers and oil companies are wickedand greedy but these claims conveniently omit any mention of the huge financial risks and engineering uncertainties inherent inshifting to a hydrogen economy. In the same way, some NGOs, in criticizing developing countries for using fossil fuels instead ofrenewables, ignore the expense of renewables and fail to acknowledge that often the quickest way to alleviate energypoverty is not with a solar panel but with a truckload of stove oil. Notes one expert on world poverty, Most of the

NGOs come from the north Europe and the U.S. where energy issues look a lot different, and a lot simpler.


20/39


Link Renewables (AT: New Market)

Losing the renewables market doesnt matter Denmark provesGraeme Haycroft, founder and General Secretary of the Small Business Union, The Courier, July 22, 2002

The Small Business Union, which now competes directly with Commerce Queensland to provide services toother small business employer associations and professional groups, is all about protecting Queensland small

business from adverse influences, wherever they may be. Andrew Craig bleats: "Our environmental andrenewable energy industries clearly will suffer if excluded from the international scene." Compared toQueensland's mighty coal industry, solar energy is a toy, and, moreovera very expensive toy. Even indraughty Denmark, much-touted wind energy is still unprofitable, according to Herbert Inhabler(TechCentralStation of 11 July 2002), who points out that Denmark remains heavily dependent on coal.

Renewables will never be efficient or a useful marketJackKemp, Distinguished Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, FNS, July 15, 1999

To make that case we have to strike boldly. To leapfrog over the green-eyeshade issue of what theadministration is spending "on Kyoto" versus "on idiotic energy policies" we should decisively go after thelatter. Over two decades after the Carteradministration's costly and failed policies to promote energysources that have no prospect of market viability (solar, wind, synfuels, biomass, ethanol, etc.), why dowe still have programs on the books to subsidize what we know doesn't work? Our policy as a nationshould be to encourage technological innovation in the broadest and most sweeping sense, whether in thefield of energy or beyond. We don't need corporate welfare programs, public-private partnerships, special-interest tax breaks, or propaganda campaigns to fight what the market tells us: the people want clean,efficient, reliable sources of energy at a reasonable cost. The free market has given them that, and willcontinue to do so with minimum, prudent regulation. Our energy future is freedom--it's as simple as that.Furthermore, we must pursue a pro-growth, pro-innovation, pro- entrepreneur tax policy that will liberate theimagination of our people to find ways to create jobs, improve productivity, and generate wealth in ways thatare even greener, cleaner, and more energy- efficient. That means lower tax rates, reducing the cost of capital,and removing tax considerations wherever possible from the economic decision-making equation, whether it

be investment in new equipment, raising venture capital, or a personal decision to invest in stocks as a steptowards retirement security. That kind of tax policy has everything to do with Kyoto, because itenthusiastically embraces America's overwhelming competitive advantage: the ingenuity of our peopleand our business leaders in bringing economic abundance, lower- cost energy, and more efficient energyto the world. Compared with that, the Clinton administration's elitist policy of offering miniscule tax breaksto politically-favored energy producers (like the so-called renewables) looks primitive indeed, whethermotivated by Kyoto or not.


21/39


Link Solar Power

Solar power is expensive and inefficientJerry Taylor, director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute and adjunct scholar at the Institute for EnergyResearch, and PeterVanDoren, editor of Regulation magazine, Journal of International Affairs, Fall 1999, p.

228-229In 1987 Scott Skiar, executive director of the Solar Industries Association and the United States leadingproponent of solar power, told a congressional subcommittee that the consensus among energy analystswas that solar power would provide between 10 and 20 percent of Americas energy needs by the year 2000quite easily. As we approach that date, solar provides but one-twentieth of 1 percent of Americasenergy needs, but Sklar and his colleagues continue to peddle the same solars around the cornermessage to congressional appropriators and the public. The main problem for all solar technologies iscost. Generating electricity via solar power from thermal or photovoltaic (PV) sources, or from micro-applications, costs between 11 and 12 cents per kilowatt hour, at least quadruple the cost of its maincompetitor todaycombined-cycle natural gasand quadruple the cost of surplus gas-fired electricity in themarketplace. Even those cost figures, however, are understated. According to Solarex, a subsidiary of a

partnership between Amoco and Enron and the largest U.S. manufacturer and marketer of PV systems, usingtypical borrowing costs and equipment life, the life-cycle cost of PV generated energy generally ranges from30 cents to $1 per kilowatt hour. Those high solar costs, according to the California Energy Commission, arerelated to problems such as high materials costs, fabrication cost, corrosion, erosion, fatigue, and thermalstress. Perhaps the greatest economic obstacle to solar poweris the problem referred to in the industry asintermittencythe fact that the sun doesnt always shine and thus solar plants are not reliable sources ofelectricity In fact, a typical plant only operates at 13 percent of its theoretical capacity over a given year.

Solar power is expensiveRobert L. Bradley Jr., president of the Institute for Energy Research, August 27, 1997,http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html

Weighing in at 358 MW nationally, bulk or central-station solar power (power generated at a large-scalecentralized location and then transmitted on the power grid to multiple users) represents .05 percent--1/20 of1 percent--of total U.S. generation capacity. Solar generation of 824 million kWh in 1995 was under 3/100 of1 percent of national electricity production, one-fourth the size of the tiny wind-power industry (seeAppendix, Tables A.2 and A.3). Like wind power's, solar's long-promised commercial viability has notoccurred,[161] and potential market share has been grossly overestimated.[162] Solar power issubstantially less economic than wind as a central-station power source, although its cost fell fromaround 25 centsper kWh in the early 1980s to a claimed 8 cents per kWh a decade later.[163] Unlike wind-

power capacity, new solar-power capacity is triple the cost of new gas-generated electricity andquadruple the cost of surplus power. Solar power, like most other renewables, is geographically limitedfor the foreseeable future. In the United States, central-station solar power is limited to the desert Southwestand other selected locales and often involves transmission investments that custom-sited gas-fired plants canavoid. States such as California and Nevada are swimming in economy energy at 2 cents per kWh, [164] aninsurmountable barrier for cost-effective central-station solar under any conditions. Greater potential mayexist abroad where power needs are greater (one-third of the world's population remains without electricity),desert areas are more common, electricity is more scarce, and natural gas is not indigenous. Even then, solar

power is only a daytime electricity source, and intermittent at that, unless fossil-fuel generation, pumpedstorage (very expensive), battery storage, or nuclear power provides back-up reliability.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html#FOOTNOTE_161#FOOTNOTE_161http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html#FOOTNOTE_161#FOOTNOTE_161http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html#FOOTNOTE_161#FOOTNOTE_161http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html#FOOTNOTE_162#FOOTNOTE_162http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html#FOOTNOTE_162#FOOTNOTE_162http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html#FOOTNOTE_162#FOOTNOTE_162http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html#FOOTNOTE_163#FOOTNOTE_163http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html#FOOTNOTE_163#FOOTNOTE_163http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html#FOOTNOTE_164#FOOTNOTE_164http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html#FOOTNOTE_161#FOOTNOTE_161http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html#FOOTNOTE_162#FOOTNOTE_162http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html#FOOTNOTE_163#FOOTNOTE_163http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html#FOOTNOTE_164#FOOTNOTE_164


22/39


Link CAFE

CAF standards hurt competitiveness.Andrew Kleit, Professor of Energy and Environmental Economics @ Penn State. CATO. CAF Changes by the

Numbers January 10, 2003. Regulations Magazine. http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv25n3/v25n3-8.pdf

Foreign automakers view the fine as a tax. Thus, BMW and Mercedes-Benz, for example, have routinelypaid cafe fines. In contrast, American firms view the standards as binding because their lawyers haveadvised them that, if they violate cafe, they would be liable for civil damages in stockholder suits. Thefear of civil suit is so strong that even Chrysler, which is owned by the German firm Daimler-Benz, willnot violate the limits. Because the shadow tax of the cafe constraint (the cost of complying with thestandards rather than paying the fine) can be much more than $55 per car/mpg, the effects of cafestandards are much larger on U.S. automakers than foreign firms.

Making CAF changes too big, too fast hurts industryBarry Felrice, Senior Manager of Regulatory Affairs for Chrysler, March 8, 2002,http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/WM85.cfm

Industry needs sufficient lead time if CAFE standards are to change to get a return on our investmentin technology. We spent $3 billion on the new 2002 Dodge Rams which included a new assembly plant, a

new engine, and a new drive train. We probably will need six to eight years of production to make thatmoney back and get some decent return on it. If CAFE standards change too quickly and are too high,we will have to scrap that investment where we'll lose more money, which is hard to imagine for someof us these days. We can't get to these new levels through technology. When that happens we startcutting back on the least fuel-efficient vehicles which lessens our revenue flow so then we have lessrevenue to invest in new technology. It's a vicious cycle.

CAF interferes in the economyDavid Montgomery, Vice President of Charles River Associates, March 8, 2002,http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/WM85.cfm

The economy is an engine for producing goods and services that consumers want. And what you'veheard about so far today is exactly how CAFE standards fundamentally interfere with efficientlyallocating the resources we have in order to produce the goods and services that people want. And that

means they're going to be a bad idea in terms ofhow well the economy operates. We need to workthrough where those inefficiencies in the resource allocation process come from and how large they are. Weshould also consider other ways we could go about remedying whatever defect in the economy CAFEstandards are supposed to remedy but without so much interference the economy.


23/39


Link CAFE (Auto)

CAF standards would kill the auto-industry.Andrew Kleit, Professor of Energy and Environmental Economics @ Penn State. CATO. CAF Changes by the

Numbers January 10, 2003. Regulations Magazine. http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv25n3/v25n3-8.pdf

I found that increasing the cafe standardsby 3 mpg would reduce annual profits at General Motors by$433 million, at Ford by $455 million, and at Chrysler by $236 million. Total losses to U.S. automakerswould amount to $1.124 billion. In contrast, foreign manufacturers would see an increase in profits of$260 million.

Auto industry key to the economy.PR Newswire, September 24, 2003.

While the automobile industry continues to be America's largest manufacturing industry, the majorityof those jobs are in supplier and related industries, with total auto industry and related employmentnumbering 13.3 million, a new Center for Automotive Research study shows. About 6.6 million jobs areconnected to automotive manufacturing and new vehicle sales, generating more than $240 billion inannual private sector compensation. "When you look under the hood of today's automobile, you'll seegoods from America's greatest industries across the country," said Alliance President & CEO Josephine S.

Cooper. "These include textiles from the Southeast, computer chips from California, aluminum manufacturedin Iowa, and air bags produced in Arizona." Cooper continued: "No other single industry is more linked toU.S. manufacturing or generates more retail business and employment. New vehicle production, salesand other jobs related to the use of automobiles are responsible for one out of every 10 jobs in the U.S.economy."

CAF standards would cost the US auto industry over a billion dollars annually.Andrew Kleit, Professor of Energy and Environmental Economics @ Penn State. CATO. CAF Changes by the

Numbers January 10, 2003. Regulations Magazine. http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv25n3/v25n3-8.pdfI found that increasing the cafe standardsby 3 mpg would reduce annual profits at General Motors by$433 million, at Ford by $455 million, and at Chrysler by $236 million. Total losses to U.S. automakerswould amount to $1.124 billion. In contrast, foreign manufacturers would see an increase in profits of$260 million.

CAF standards would hurt the auto industry by limiting production and eliminating jobs.The Times (Shreveport, LA) October 5, 2003

Barthmuss said GM does not want to see federal regulations on fuel economy. GM and United AutoWorkers officials have said higher CAFE standards could eliminate jobs in the auto industry becausethat would raise the cost of building vehicles and production could be cut. "We don't believe amandated approach to fuel consumption is the right approach," Barthmuss said. "It fails to take in factorslike safety equipment (which adds weight to the vehicle) and it takes away from consumer choice."

Increased CAF standards hurt automotive companiesDavid Montgomery, Vice President of Charles River Associates, March 8, 2002,http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/WM85.cfm

We (Charles River Associates) put together some estimates of the cost of technology fixes. What we came up with was that aproposal for something like the 28-mile-per- gallon SUV standard that if it was implemented over a 12-year period with a careful phase-in to match the cycle of rebuild, would increase the cost of a new SUV by about 10percent. Anything above 35 miles per gallon for new cars is hard to even conceive of over the periodthat we're looking at but it would add more than 20 percent to the cost of a new car. That includes both thetechnology fixes and the downgrading of the quality of the vehicle in the consumer's preference. It's not the hardware. It's thecombination of everything that either increases the cost or increases the value of the vehicle. So what we're talking aboutthere is probably something like a reduction in new car sales of about 15 percent when a standard likethis comes in and starts to bite. The larger economic modeling we've done suggests that that wouldproduce about a 10-percent drop in employment in the auto industry during the shock period. There isclearly a shock effect in the short run.


24/39


Link Hybrids

Hybrids kills the auto sector and the economyUniversity of Michigan News Service, January 31, 2005, Increase in Hybrid Cars Possibly Threatens USJobs.

Vehicles with gas-electric hybrid and advanced diesel powertrains could capture nearly 11 percent the U.S. light vehicle market by 2009,

but because most of these new drive trains are being built overseas, a consumer shift to hybrids could cost Michigan,Indiana and Ohio more auto manufacturing jobs. "Japan has a substantial lead in hybrid technology and production and Europeleads in advanced diesels, so most of the supplier and assembly workfor these new vehicles will probably take placeoutside the United States, and that could cost over 200,000 U.S. jobs," said Patrick Hammett of the U-M TransportationResearch Institute's Office for the Study of Automotive Transportation (OSAT). "Fortunately, there are ways to limit these losses, if notentirely avoid them." A new report issued by OSAT and the Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center and funded by the NationalCommission on Energy Policy and the Michigan Environmental Council outlines possible scenarios for U.S. sales of vehicles with thesetwo alternative powertrains, models their costs of production and forecasts the likely job consequences of their increasing market share.The study projects that hybrids and advanced diesels may account for as many as 1.8 million sales in reasonably robust market of 16.6million light vehicles in 2009. The study, "Fuel Saving Technologies and Facility Conversion: Costs, Benefits and Incentives," alsoexamines the impact of a tax credit to encourage powertrain component and vehicle producers to locate some production and assemblywork in the United States. "These scenarios are just thatpictures of what might happen," says Hammett, who directed the study. "Butthe farther out you go, say to 2012 or beyond, the more likely they become. So the real question is probably less whether they willhappen than it is when they will happen." The report considers three different market-growth scenarios in 2009 for vehicles with gas-electric hybrid and advanced diesel powertrains. A normal growth scenario of about 3 percent would result in job losses of 38,000; agrowth rate of roughly 7 percent (requiring some shift in consumer preferences) would mean a loss of 131,000 jobs; and growth ofnearly 11 percent (requiring a strong shift in consumer sentiment) would result in 207,000 job losses. "These losses include current jobsmaking vehicles with traditional powertrains that would be displaced by these new vehicles, as well as the failure to secure new jobsmaking those new vehicles with these alternative powertrains," Hammett said. One way to limit job losses is to provide an incentive tocomponent and vehicle manufacturers to invest in U.S. production. A tooling and equipment investment tax credit for suppliers thatconvert capacity to components for these new powertrains , and for manufacturers that convert capacity to assemble these vehicles,could indeed yield powerful results, Hammett says. If even partially effective, a tax credit can lower job losses substantially in eachmarket scenario, he says. Moreover, depending on the scenario, additional government revenues associated with U.S. production over a10-year period will reach five-to-eight times the cost of the credit. "This tax credit is not only revenue-neutral or even better, but it couldsave one of every four U.S. jobs put at risk from imports of these newer powertrains and vehicles," said Daniel Luria of the MMTC.According to Hammett, gas electric hybrid and advanced diesel powertrains present a bit of an "ecology vs. economy" dilemma. "Theirenhanced fuel economy and reduced emissions are important positives, but absent any effort, they will probablyhave adverse economic consequences on the United States," he said. Luria adds there would be particularly adverseeconomic consequences for Michigan, Indiana and Ohio, which together account for a substantial share of relevant automotive activity,including 45 percent of vehicle assemblies and 88 percent of transmissions and diesel engines. SOURCE: U of M News Services

Auto industry key to the economy.PR Newswire, September 24, 2003.While the automobile industry continues to be America's largest manufacturing industry, the majorityof those jobs are in supplier and related industries, with total auto industry and related employmentnumbering 13.3 million, a new Center for Automotive Research study shows. About 6.6 million jobs areconnected to automotive manufacturing and new vehicle sales, generating more than $240 billion inannual private sector compensation. "When you look under the hood of today's automobile, you'll seegoods from America's greatest industries across the country," said Alliance President & CEO Josephine S.Cooper. "These include textiles from the Southeast, computer chips from California, aluminum manufacturedin Iowa, and air bags produced in Arizona." Cooper continued: "No other single industry is more linked toU.S. manufacturing or generates more retail business and employment. New vehicle production, salesand other jobs related to the use of automobiles are responsible for one out of every 10 jobs in the U.S.economy."


25/39


Link Carbon Tax

A carbon tax would tank the global economy.The National Interest, Fall 1999

The Energy Modeling Forum at Stanford University (EMF) recently compared estimates of the costs ofmeeting the Kyoto targets made by ten modeling teams from around the world. They show that with nointernational trading of emission rights, the United States would need to levy a tax on carbon emissionsof between $90 and $400 per ton of emissions in 2010 to accomplish its Kyoto objectives; this isequivalent to a tax on coal of $70-$320 per ton (versus its current price ofabout $25per ton!). Most ofthe teams estimate that such a tax would cost the U.S. economy between $45 and $200 billion a year(about 0.5 to 2.0 percent of 2010's GDP). They show similar, oreven larger, costs for Europe and Japan.

Carbon taxes send ripple effects throughout the economy by hurting labor supply.Ian W. H. Perry, October 2003, Oxford Review of Economic Policy 19, 2003,http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:LjghhWTgEgsJ:www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-DP-03-46.pdf+carbon+tax&hl=en

By increasing energy prices, carbon taxes drive up product prices throughout the economy, sinceenergy is an input in most production sectors; this leads to a slight reduction in real household wagesand labor supply. In general, the efficiency loss from this reduction in labor supply, or tax-interaction effect,exceeds the benefits from the revenue-recycling effect, implying that carbon tax swaps increase rather than decrease the costs oflabor taxes. This finding is not surprising because, as explained below, it is entirely consistent with the familiar result in public financethat the efficiency costs of narrow taxes (ignoring externalities) tend to exceed those of broad taxes on labor income.

Carbon tax increases the price of productsIan W. H. Perry, October2003, Oxford Review of Economic Policy 19, 2003,http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:LjghhWTgEgsJ:www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-DP-03-46.pdf+carbon+tax&hl=en

A second wave of papers revealed another linkage with the labor market that undermines the double-dividend argument (e.g., Bovenbergand de Mooij 1994; Bovenberg and van der Ploeg 1994b; Bovenberg and Goulder 2002; Parry 1995, 1997). A carbon taxincreases the price of electricity, gasoline, and other energy goods; in turn, this drives up the prices ofproducts in general, since they require energy inputs in production. The general increase in the pricelevel reduces real household wages, which should slightly reduce employment given econometric

evidence that lower real household wages lead to lower labor force participation and work effort. This leads to an efficiencyloss of t , where is the (small) reduction in labor supply (this is the addition to the deadweight loss triangle in Figure 2 from a slight shiftin of the labor supply curve). And labor tax revenues fall by t ; to maintain revenues, labor taxes must be increased slightly, resulting inan efficiency cost of . The combined loss from these two effects, is referred to as the tax-interaction effect.


26/39


27/39


AT: Dollar Link Turn

The weak dollar helps the economy it is key to manufacturing and exportsAP, July 8, 2008, Dollar woes cramp economy, US consumers, but the governments options are limited

The limp greenback has had one big benefit to the U.S. economy: Since it makes American goodscheaper overseas, it has helped manufacturers who export and other U.S. based companies withinternational reach. Exports have been one of the few bright spots in an otherwise darkening U.S.economy. Franklin Vargo, vice president of international economic affairs at the National Association ofManufacturers, welcomes the dollar slide, as do members of his organization. "We can see that, when thedollar's not overpriced, that people around the world want American goods and our exports are goinggangbusters now," he said.

Unless we stop spending, foreign countries will abandon the dollar.Newsday (New York), 12/10/04

But there is more going on here and none of it is good. The drop in the dollar's value is caused at least inpart by the large and dangerously growingbudget deficit in the United States. If things don't change - thatmeans if we keep increasing spending and cutting taxes - the deficit will rise to $825 billion, according toone recent report, which is 6.4 percent of gross domestic product. By any standard, that is alarming. Thedeficit has not been a major problem until now because foreign countries bought U.S. debt. But therewill be fewer buyers if the dollar continues to fall, unless interest rates increase substantially. Europeannations have already been selling greenbacks. Unfortunately, a sudden increase in interest rates wouldadversely affect the average American. Mortgage rates, for instance, would significantly increase. ManyLong Islanders have purchased homes at prices previously unimaginable because of low interest rates. But ifthose interest rates go up, especially for those with variable mortgages, the houses might becomeunaffordable. While other nations need to do more to improve their economic performance, most economistsagree that it's essential for the United States to reduce its deficit. But the Bush administration's economic

plan is to push for more and permanent tax cuts, even while the costs of the war in Iraq continue to mount.The Economist magazine recently pointed out that the dollar has been the world's reserve currency forlonger than anybody can remember. It has been a significant benefit to the U.S. economy and its overallstanding in the world. But that doesn't mean it can go on forever. It's time to pay attention.

Higher prices for consumers will weaken the dollarUniversity Wire, 12/7/04

The U.S. dollar is steadily losing value in global markets. The greenback hit a record low this past weekagainst the euro and has lost 15 percent against a diverse basket of other currencies.Our money's value isdeclining, and that trend is likely to continue as the trade imbalance, fiscal irresponsibility in the publicsector and excessive household consumption all increase.What difference does this make to you? A weakdollar could hit your wallet in a big way.

Fiscal discipline is key to a strong dollar.The Baltimore Sun, 12/20/04

Of course, no change in dollarrhetoric will generate an orderly decline of the dollar if the fundamentalpolicies that have an impact on the U.S. current-account position are not improved. Paramount here isagreement in the administration and Congress on a credible medium-term plan for fiscal consolidation

in the United States.


28/39


29/39


Internal Link Energy Prices (Forests)

Energy prices are key to the forest industry which is key to the nations economy.FDCH Congressional Testimony of James Rubright, Chairman and CEO of Rock-Tenn Company. 2/12/04

The U.S. forest products industry is vital to the nation's economy. We employ approximately 1.3million people and rank among the top ten manufacturing employers in 42 states with an estimatedpayroll of $50 billion. Sales of the paper and forest products industry top $230 billion annually in theU.S. and export markets. We are the world's largest producer of forest products. Energy is the thirdlargest operating cost for the forest products industry1, making up more than 8 percent of totaloperating costs. Since 1972, this industry has reduced its average total energy usage by 17 percent throughincreased efficiencies in the manufacturing and production process. In addition, it has reduced its fossil fueland purchased energy consumption by 38 percent, and increased its energy self- sufficiency by 46 percent.Although the industry is nearly 60 percent self-sufficient (using biomass), we also use natural gas, coal, fueloil, and purchased electricity to meet the balance of our energy needs.


30/39


2NC Impact Module China

The US is on the brink of losing economic leadership in Asia to China economicdownturn causes a Chinese takeoverAFP, July 8, 2008, Protectionist US risks losing economic leadership in Asia: official

WASHINGTON (AFP) The U

nitedS

tates is becoming increasingly protectionist andrisks losing its economicleadership positio

DA Neg Spending 37

Documents

Transcript of DA Neg Spending 37