• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD INDEX -- OBAMA (is not) BAD DA

1NC...... 2 1NC...... 3 ***UNIQUENESS***...... 4 NO CAP AND TRADE...... 4 NO CAP AND TRADE...... 5 OBAMA WANTS CAP AND TRADE...... 6 AT: U O/W LINK...... 7

***LINKS***...... 8 AFGHANISTAN : DEMS LINK...... 8 AFGHANISTAN : PC LINK...... 9 AFGHANISTAN : MILITARY LINK...... 10 AFGHANISTAN: PUBLIC LINK...... 11 IRAQ: BIPART LINK...... 12 IRAQ: DEMS LINK...... 13 IRAQ: PC LINK...... 14 IRAQ: PUBLIC LINK...... 15 IRAQ: STABENOW LINK...... 16 JAPAN: PUBLIC LINK...... 17 KUWAIT: PC LINK...... 18 KUWAIT: PUBLIC LINK...... 19 SOUTH KOREA: DEFENSE LOBBY LINK...... 20 SOUTH KOREA: GOP LINK...... 21 SOUTH KOREA: PC LINK...... 22 SOUTH KOREA: PUBLIC LINK...... 23 SOUTH KOREA: MEDIA SPIN...... 24 TURKEY: BIPART LINK...... 25 TURKEY: PC LINK...... 26 TURKEY: PUBLIC LINK...... 27 TURKEY: GOP LINK...... 28 TURKEY: AT: DEFENSE LINK TURN...... 29 WINNERS WIN...... 30 WINNERS WIN...... 31 ***INTERNALS***...... 32 PC KEY (GENERAL)...... 32 1 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD

PC KEY TO CAP AND TRADE...... 33 CONCESSIONS LINK...... 34 MODERATE DEMS KEY...... 35

***IMPACTS***...... 36 COMPETITIVENESS ECON IMPACT...... 36 EXT: C&T KILLS COMPETITIVENESS...... 37 C&T BAD: ENERGY PRICES...... 38 C&T BAD: ENERGY PRICES...... 39 EXT: C&T INCREASES PRICES...... 40 C&T BAD: INNOVATION...... 41 C&T BAD: MANUFACTURING...... 42 C&T BAD: MANUFACTURING...... 43 EXT:MANUFACTURNG HURTS AUTO IND.....44 C&T BAD: STEEL...... 45 EXT: C&T HURTS STEEL...... 46 C&T BAD: WARMING...... 47 AT: CAP AND TRADE GOOD...... 48 AT: C&T  INNOVATION...... 49 AT: C&T  JOBS...... 50

***ENERGY AFF***...... 51 YES CAP AND TRADE...... 51 IMPACT DEFENSE: ENERGY PRICES...... 52 C&T GOOD: CHEMICAL INDUSTRY...... 53 C&T GOOD: COMPETITIVENESS...... 54 C&T GOOD: ECON...... 55 C&T GOOD: HEG...... 56 EXT: CLIMATE POLICY KEY LEADERSHIP....57 C&T GOOD: INNOVATION...... 58 EXT: C&T  INNOVATION...... 59

2 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD 1NC

A. UNIQUENESS -- NO CAP AND TRADE INCLUSION IN ENERGY BILL NOW BUT DEMS ARE STILL TRYING. BUSINESS WEEK 7-13-10. [“U.S. election year pressures might sink carbon caps, Kerry says” -- http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-13/u-s-election-year-pressures-might-sink-carbon-caps-kerry-says.html -- DA 7/13/10] U.S. lawmakers might be too focused on elections in November to approve legislation this year that charges power plants and other industrial companies a price for releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, said Senator John Kerry, a leading advocate of the pollution-cutting plan. The U.S. Senate, which is expected to take up an energy bill within weeks, has “very little time” left this year to debate legislation, Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, told reporters in Washington yesterday. Lawmakers face “a lot of pressures, including election pressures, and we’re just going to have to kind of be realistic” about which energy proposals can win enough votes to become law this year, he said. Kerry has led an effort to revamp cap-and-trade legislation that stalled in the Senate after narrowly passing the U.S. House last year. Under cap-and- trade, power plants, refineries and factories buy and sell a declining number of government-issued pollution allowances to cut back carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases scientists have linked to climate change. Kerry said he hasn’t given up hope of adding carbon caps to the energy legislation that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, plans to bring up before lawmakers leave Washington in early August for a month to campaign in their home states before November’s elections.

B. LINK --

[INSERT PLAN IS POPULAR]

OBAMA’S POLITICAL CAPITAL IS KEY TO A STRONG BILL. INSIDE EPA 9. [“Despite hurdles, Hill faces renewed pressure to pass climate bill” July 3 – lexis -- DA 7/14/10] The environmentalist says that Obama also must come out more strongly on climate change and push for a stronger bill. "He needs to be getting out of his comfort zone and say to the Senate that Waxman-Markey is a start but we need to do much more, and he needs to demonstrate a real willingness to take regulatory action. So far this administration has been good about doing stuff that was, politically, not particularly risky," including granting the California waiver only after reaching a deal with automakers and proposing a stand-alone endangerment finding rather than including it as part of a proposal to regulate GHGs. "They are taking smaller steps than they could have conceivably taken. If the president wants to pressure the Senate, he needs to use his political influence. Otherwise in the Senate the best case is you get something as weak as Waxman-Markey and more likely something weaker."

C. IMPACT -- CAP AND TRADE WOULD DESTROY US COMPETITIVENESS. FELDSTEIN 9. [Mark, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Reagan, professor at Harvard University., “Cap and Tax” – The Weekly Standard – http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/06/25/cap-and-tax.aspx -- DA 7/14/10]] The rise in the prices of U.S. goods would make them less competitive. American firms would suffer in export markets and domestically in competition with goods imported from countries that do not impose such a high implicit tax on CO2 emissions. There would no doubt be pressure to impose tariffs on imports from other countries that have lower carbon costs. This might be welcomed by the unions that now seek to use foreign labor practices as an excuse for tariffs on imports, but countervailing tariffs based on carbon content would hurt American consumers and threaten our global trading system.

3 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD 1NC

AND COMPETITIVENESS KEY TO HEG. SEGAL 04. [ADAM, Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, Foreign Affairs, “Is America Losing Its Edge?” November / December 2004, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101facomment83601/adam-segal/is-america-losing-its-edge.html] The United States' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new technologies and industries faster than anyone else. For the last five decades, U.S. scientific innovation and technological entrepreneurship have ensured the country's economic prosperity and military power. It was Americans who invented and commercialized the semiconductor, the personal computer, and the Internet; other countries merely followed the U.S. lead. Today, however, this technological edge-so long taken for granted-may be slipping, and the most serious challenge is coming from Asia. Through competitive tax policies, increased investment in research and development (R&D), and preferential policies for science and technology (S&T) personnel, Asian governments are improving the quality of their science and ensuring the exploitation of future innovations. The percentage of patents issued to and science journal articles published by scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is rising. Indian companies are quickly becoming the second-largest producers of application services in the world, developing, supplying, and managing database and other types of software for clients around the world. South Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U.S. advantage in the manufacture of computer chips and telecommunications software. And even China has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such as lasers, biotechnology, and advanced materials used in semiconductors, aerospace, and many other types of manufacturing. Although the United States' technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of research and development is exerting considerable pressures on the American system. Indeed, as the United States is learning, globalization cuts both ways: it is both a potent catalyst of U.S. technological innovation and a significant threat to it. The United States will never be able to prevent rivals from developing new technologies; it can remain dominant only by continuing to innovate faster than everyone else. But this won't be easy; to keep its privileged position in the world, the United States must get better at fostering technological entrepreneurship at home. AND GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR. KHALILZAD 95. [ZALMAY, Zalmay, Rand Corporation, The Washington Quarterly] 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 to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as 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 of law. 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 help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

4 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD

***UNIQUENESS*** NO CAP AND TRADE

EXTEND THE 1NC BUSINESS WEEK EVIDENCE – CAP AND TRADE WON’T BE INCLUDED IN THE ENERGY BILL RIGHT NOW – MIDTERM PREOCCUPATION AND PACKED AGENDA MEAN IT WON’T PASS. PREFER OUR EVIDENCE BECAUSE ITS PREDICTIVE.

NO CAP AND TRADE INCLUSION NOW. GEMAN 7-13-10. [Ben, staffwriter, “Senior DEms won’t promise pre-recess energy bill” The Hill -- http://thehill.com/blogs/e2- wire/677-e2-wire/108445-senior-dems-wont-process-pre-recess-energy-bill- -- DA 7/13/10] Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the chamber’s number two Democrat, said plans to bring up energy legislation before the August recess are being “actively discussed” but declined to offer a firm commitment. A broad energy package faces competition from other items on the Senate agenda, including a bill to boost small-business hiring. Asked if an energy package was a certainty, Durbin chuckled and said, “Please.” “It is being actively discussed,” he told reporters in the Capitol after returning from a meeting at the White House with President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and other senior Senate Democrats. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who is also a member of the Democrats’ leadership team, said energy was a “small part” of a broader discussion about jobs at the meeting. Meanwhile, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Tuesday that architects of climate change plans are providing a suite of proposals to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) as Reid prepares to make critical decisions about the shape of the energy package. Lieberman and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) have seen their hopes fade for action on a sweeping climate change plan they authored that would impose an emissions cap across a broad swath of the economy.

NO CAP AND TRADE PROVISION NOW. BRAVENDER AND VOORHEES 7-13-10. [Robin, Josh, ClimateWire writers, “Kerry looking to strike deal with utilities on carbon emissions cap” New York Times -- http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/07/13/13climatewire-kerry-looking-to-strike-deal-with- utilities-16078.html -- DA 7/13/10] Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), whose energy efficiency bill is among the options the Senate is choosing from as it heads toward a floor debate, said an "energy only" bill that avoids carbon caps is the best way to reach the needed 60 votes. "If you can't get to 60 on that, I suspect you can't get to 60," Lugar said. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said he does not think a measure capping carbon will pass the Senate. "Someone might offer it as an amendment to an energy bill, but I don't think it will succeed this year, nor do I think it should," Alexander said. "This is not the year to pass an energy tax in the middle of a recession."

LOTS OF OPPOSITION TO C&T NOW. SAMUELSOHN 7-13-10. [Darren, staffwriter, “Reid warms to July climate vote” Politico -- http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39677.html DA 7/13/10] Reid’s task in the coming weeks will be just as intense as his other big legislative lifts. Besides vocal opposition from nearly all Senate Republicans, he faces concerns from liberal Democrats that the legislation is too weak and strong skepticism from moderate Democrats who would rather stay away from any type of mandatory carbon limits.

5 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD NO CAP AND TRADE

WON’T BE INCLUDED NOW DESPITE SUPPORT FROM THE LEFT. RESTUCCIA 7-14-10. [Andrew, Energy and Environment Reporter, “As Reid prepares energy bill, emissions cap appears unlikely” Washington Independent -- http://washingtonindependent.com/91399/as-reid-prepares-energy-bill-emissions-cap-appears-unlikely -- DA 7/14/10] Environmental groups are working feverishly behind the scenes to ensure that the climate and energy bill being cobbled together by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) includes a carbon cap on the power sector, but sources closely following the debate on and off Capitol Hill say there is simply not enough support for such a proposal to pass the Senate this year.

NO INCLUSION NOW. RESTUCCIA 7-14-10. [Andrew, Energy and Environment Reporter, “As Reid prepares energy bill, emissions cap appears unlikely” Washington Independent -- http://washingtonindependent.com/91399/as-reid-prepares-energy-bill-emissions-cap-appears-unlikely -- DA 7/14/10] But a list of provisions expected to be included in the final energy and climate bill, provided to TWI by a senior Senate source closely involved in the debate, does not include any cap on carbon emissions. And a Senate Democratic aide also closely tied to discussions on the bill echoes that point, saying the votes don’t exist to pass even a scaled-down utility-only bill.

DEMS ARE TRYING BUT IT WON’T PASS. MURPHY 7-12. [Patricia, Capital Hill Bureau Chief, “Climate Bill on the Table, Immigration Off as Democrats Rush to Pass Priorities” POLITICS DAILY – DA 7/13/10] In: Energy Bill/ Climate Change -- Democrats have seized on the BP oil spill as a catalyst to jump-start languishing efforts to pass energy-reform and climate-change legislation this year, which the House passed in 2009. Although the details of the bill are still being worked out between Sens. John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Jeff Bingaman and a half dozen other interested senators, look for some version of the legislation to be debated on the Senate floor in July. Without Republican support, however, actually passing the bill will be all but impossible.

NEGATIVE. BUSINESS WEEK 7-16. [“Scaled-Back Carbon Plan’s Prospects Slim, Senator Harkin Says” 2010 -- http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-16/scaled-back-carbon-plan-s-prospects-slim-senator-harkin-says.html -- DA 7/16/10] Scaling back legislation to cap carbon dioxide from power plants rather than most of the U.S. economy might not win enough votes for a new greenhouse gas law to pass the Senate this year, two senators said. “I don’t think that’s going to fly,” Senator Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, said yesterday of the plan for cutting power- plant carbon dioxide that may be included in an energy bill to be debated later this month.

6 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD OBAMA WANTS CAP AND TRADE

OBAMA WANTS CAP AND TRADE. BUSINESS WEEK 7-13-10. [“U.S. election year pressures might sink carbon caps, Kerry says” -- http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-13/u-s-election-year-pressures-might-sink-carbon-caps-kerry-says.html -- DA 7/13/10] President Barack Obama supported the House cap-and-trade bill and in a June 2 speech said the Senate should also pass legislation that puts “a price on carbon pollution.” Obama later said in a June 15 speech from the Oval Office that he’s also open to “other ideas” that would make the U.S. economy less dependent on fossil fuels.

7 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD AT: U O/W LINK

NEGATIVE – ITS NOT OVER UNTIL THE FAT LADY SINGS. RESTUCCIA 7-14-10. [Andrew, Energy and Environment Reporter, “As Reid prepares energy bill, emissions cap appears unlikely” Washington Independent -- http://washingtonindependent.com/91399/as-reid-prepares-energy-bill-emissions-cap-appears-unlikely -- DA 7/14/10] Weiss could not say for certain whether a bill without any carbon cap would retain the support of liberal Democrats. But he noted that if the Senate passes a bill without a cap, environmentalists could look to a conference session with the House, which approved an economy-wide cap- and-trade bill last year, to strengthen the bill. Franz Matzner, climate legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, echoed Weiss’s comments. “In Washington, there’s this perpetual drumbeat that any piece of legislation is dead until all of a sudden it’s not,” he said. “The public doesn’t want band-aid measures. A lot of work is being done to include a cap.”

8 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD

***LINKS*** AFGHANISTAN : DEMS LINK

OBAMA NEEDS LIBERAL POLICIES TO SHORE UP THE BASE – PLAN KEY TO ENSURING AGENDA. SELTZER 9. [Marc, lawyer, writer, “Obama Approval, Progressive Politics and Democratic Unity” Care 2 -- http://www.care2.com/causes/politics/blog/obama-public-oppinion-progressive-politics-and-democratic-unity/ -- Nov 25, -- DA 7/15/10] However, after nine months in office, it seems the President can no longer count on the Progressive wing for support. In the guise of influencing the President to move to the left, Progressive critics attack the President and his administration. Calls for Treasury Secretary Geithner to resign by Rep. Peter DeFazio D-Or are but the most recent example. The left is also troubled by economic decision-making and the potential increase in troops headed for Afghanistan. Of course, any coalition will contain different viewpoints. A goal of our democratic process is for hearty debate to distinguish the best ideas from all others. But Progressives fail to grasp that the President needs the full support of those that elected him in order to achieve his agenda and present a successful Democratic party to the electorate in 2010 and 2012. If the party is not unified, the President will not succeed and the power will shift back to the Republicans.

DEMS HATE THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN – PLAN IS POPULAR. SCHNEIDER 9. [Bill, CNN Senior Political Analyst, “Analysis: Americans wary about war in Afghanistan” CNN March 28, DA 7/15/10 -- http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/28/afghanistan.polls/] Opposition to the war in Afghanistan is more muted than opposition to the war in Iraq, but it's not so muted among Democrats. Two-thirds of Americans overall oppose the war in Iraq, but 64 percent of Democrats oppose the war in Afghanistan. The anti-war movements in Vietnam and Iraq helped define what the Democratic Party stands for. Watch: Is Afghanistan Obama's Vietnam? » "If we don't learn from our Iraq experience, we are doomed to repeat it," Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-California, said on the House floor Thursday. Why are Americans wary about Afghanistan? The recession. Iraq War fatigue. And frustration. Only 31 percent of Americans believe the United States is winning the war in Afghanistan. Fifty percent believe the United States is winning in Iraq -- the highest number in at least five years. But Americans still want to get out of Iraq.

THE BASE LOVES THE PLAN. Baker 9 [PETER, White house correspondent, “Iraq withdrawal Plan gains G.O.P. Support” 2/26, DA – 7/15/10 -- http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/washington/27troops.html?_r=1] President Obama won crucial backing on Thursday for his Iraq military withdrawal plan from leading Congressional Republicans, including Senator John McCain, the party’s presidential nominee, who spent much of last year debating the war with Mr. Obama. Obama’s Iraq Plan Has December Elections as Turning Point for Pullout (February 26, 2009) Obama Favoring Mid-2010 Pullout in Iraq, Aides Say (February 25, 2009) As the president prepared to fly to Camp Lejeune, N.C., on Friday to announce that he would pull combat forces out by August 2010 while leaving behind a residual force of 35,000 to 50,000 troops, he reassured Congressional leaders from both parties that his plan would not jeopardize hard-won stability in Iraq. But Republicans emerged from a meeting Thursday evening more supportive than several leading Democrats, who complained earlier in the day that the president was still leaving behind too many American forces

9 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD AFGHANISTAN : PC LINK

PLAN POPULAR – NO SUPPORT FOR WAR ON AFGHANISTAN. THE FRONTRUNNER 9. [“Pelosi says onus is on Obama to lobby democrats on Afghan Funds” Dec 17 – lexis -- DA 7/1/10] McClatchy (12/17, Douglas, Lightman) reports House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "said Wednesday that it's up to President Barack Obama to persuade reluctant Democrats to fund his Afghanistan troop buildup - his most important foreign policy initiative - because she has no plans to do so herself." Pelosi's "reluctance to lobby for an Afghan surge appropriation reflects the deep divisions within the Democratic Party over Obama's decision to send more troops to Afghanistan." Coupled with "lukewarm public support - in the latest Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey, only 51 percent of the respondents said they support the surge," Pelosi's view "suggests that support for the administration's Afghan policy is brittle, at best."

10 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD AFGHANISTAN : MILITARY LINK

PLAN POPULAR WITH MILITARY ELITES – PETRAUES. UPI 10. [“Petraeus Supports Withdrawal Plan”, United Press International, 6/25/10, DA 7/15/10 -- http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/06/25/Petraeus-supports-withdrawal-plan/UPI-38751277463714] U.S. Gen. David Petraeus, the new commander in Afghanistan, says he supports the plan for a likely July 2011 start of U.S. troop withdrawals from the country. President Barack Obama, who accepted the resignation of Gen. Stanley McChrystal as the top commander of the U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan this week, named Petraeus as his replacement. Petraeus, who has much support of both Democratic and Republican lawmakers for his military acumen and his efforts in turning the Iraqi war in U.S. favor, told CNN: "I support the president's policy, and I will also provide the best professional military advice as we conduct assessments."

11 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD AFGHANISTAN: PUBLIC LINK

PUBLIC OPPOSES THE WAR – LOVES THE PLAN. SCHNEIDER 9. [Bill, CNN Senior Political Analyst, “Analysis: Americans wary about war in Afghanistan” CNN March 28, DA 7/15/10 -- http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/28/afghanistan.polls/] Opposition to the war in Afghanistan is more muted than opposition to the war in Iraq, but it's not so muted among Democrats. Two-thirds of Americans overall oppose the war in Iraq, but 64 percent of Democrats oppose the war in Afghanistan. The anti-war movements in Vietnam and Iraq helped define what the Democratic Party stands for. Watch: Is Afghanistan Obama's Vietnam? » "If we don't learn from our Iraq experience, we are doomed to repeat it," Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D- California, said on the House floor Thursday. Why are Americans wary about Afghanistan? The recession. Iraq War fatigue. And frustration. Only 31 percent of Americans believe the United States is winning the war in Afghanistan. Fifty percent believe the United States is winning in Iraq -- the highest number in at least five years. But Americans still want to get out of Iraq.

12 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD IRAQ: BIPART LINK

BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR IRAQ WITHDRAWAL. PREBLE 10. [Christopher A, Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the CATO Institute, 3-5, “Iraq Elections Should Not Impact U.S. Troop Withdrawal,” http://www.cato.org/pressroom.php?display=ncomments&id=326 -- DA 7/15/10] Such a policy reversal is neither warranted nor wise. An expeditious military withdrawal from Iraq, and a handover of security responsibilities to the Iraqi people is in America's strategic interest. The war in Iraq has already consumed far too much blood and treasure, and our troops are straining under the burdens of repeated foreign deployments. Meanwhile, although Americans remain bitterly divided over a host of issues both foreign and domestic, there is strong bipartisan support for following through on our commitment to exit Iraq. The public is right to oppose a costly, endless state- building mission in that country.

13 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD IRAQ: DEMS LINK

BASE WANTS OUT OF AFGHANISTAN. JOSCELYN 7. [Thomas, staffwriter, “Iraq Is the Central Front” The Weekly Standard -- June 30 – lexis – DA 7/15/10] This narrative is politically convenient for anti-Iraq war Democrats and like-minded members of the press: Public support for the war and the president has plummeted; most now believe the United States should not have gone into Iraq in the first place; and the Democratic base wants American troops withdrawn as soon as possible. What the new conventional wisdom isn't is consistent with the actual struggle we are in. DEMS LOVE THE PLAN. MATTHEWS AND LAUER 6. [Chris, CNN reporter, Matt, news anchor/reporter, “Chris Matthews discusses the struggle between the White House and Democrats over Iraq” NBC News Transcripts -- Nov 14 -- lexis – DA 7/15/10] MATTHEWS: The people back home who voted for them aren't waiting for Jimmy Baker to bail them out. They're waiting for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to do it. I'm telling you, all the pressure in the world's going to come from that Democratic base, especially in the Northeast--I'm up in Boston right now--are going to want results from having voted Democrat. They want out of Iraq as soon as possible. LAUER: Well, let me... MATTHEWS: And that means troop withdrawals pretty soon.

14 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD IRAQ: PC LINK

Reducing military presence in Iraq helps Obama – he already committed to it, and its draining his political capital in the status quo. THE HERALD 9. [ “Obama: The first 100 Days,” 4-25, http://www.heraldscotland.com/obama-the-first-100-days-1.908554 -- DA 7/15/10] Almost six years after the invasion of Iraq, the end is finally in sight for America's involvement in its longest and bloodiest conflict since Vietnam. Obama has set out a timetable that will see all US combat units out by August 2010 and the remainder by the end of 2011. Winding down the highly unpopular conflict was a central plank of the Presidential campaign and earlier this month on an unannounced visit to Baghdad Obama told US troops it was time for Iraqis to take charge of the country. The war has cost more than 4000 US lives and those of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, cost billions of dollars and burned vast reservoirs of political capital. Attention is instead being switched towards Afghanistan, where the US is fighting a resurgent Taliban, and countering rising instability in neighbouring Pakistan. Many of the troops in Iraq are to be re-deployed to Afghanistan. The US has 36,000 troops there but the situation is deteriorating.

15 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD IRAQ: PUBLIC LINK

EMPIRICALLY THE PUBLIC HATES THE WAR IN IRAQ AND SUPPORTS WITHDRAWAL. GREENWALD 10. [Glenn, Salon columnist, former constitutional law and cival rights litigator, “Public opinion merits the profoundest respect” Salon Jan 19 -- http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/19/brooks -- DA 7/15/10] I remember another policy that was even more unpopular with the "American people" than Obama's health care plan. It was called the Iraq War. Throughout 2006 and 2007, overwhelming majorities of Americans were not only opposed to the war, but favored a quick timetable for withdrawal. So intense was the opposition that the Republicans suffered one of the century's most thorough and humiliating midterm election defeats in 2006. Yet there was David Brooks writing column after column demanding that public opinion be ignored, mocking withdrawal as deeply Unserious, advocating continued occupation, insisting that the superior wisdom of a select elite govern our policy rather than ignorant mass sentiment. Brooks and his neoconservative friends wanted to keep sending other Americans (but never themselves) off to that war to die even though only a small minority of citizens supported it. Marie Antoinette indeed. Opposition to Bush's surge was particularly intense -- close to 70% -- yet Brooks was heaping praise on John McCain for ignoring public opinion and supporting Bush's plan ("when the Iraq war was at its worst, and other candidates were hiding in the grass waiting to see how things would turn out, McCain championed the surge . . . . He did it knowing that it would cost him his media-darling status and probably the presidency. But for years he had hated the way the war was being fought. And when the opportunity to change it came, the only honorable course was to try").

PUBLIC WANTS OUT OF IRAQ. BBC MONITORING ASIA PACIFIC 9. [“Chinese agency examines new US anti-terror strategy, highlights difficulties” Sept 11 -- lexis -- DA 7/15/10] Public opinion in the United States generally believes that launching the Iraq war was the biggest mistake of US antiterrorism policy during the Bush era. This war promises to tie down the financial, military, and intelligence resources of the United States for a long time to come, thus directly affecting homeland defence and antiterrorism capabilities and leading to a worsening situation on the antiterrorism front. PUBLIC SUPPORTS QUICK WITHDRAWAL – POLLS PROVE. WING 9. [Joel, MA in International Relations, 3-1, “Obama’s Withdrawal and American Public Opinion,” http://www.epic- usa.org/node/3605 -- DA 7/16/10] Public feelings on such a move was another question in the poll. Based upon President Obama’s original plan to pull out troops within 16 months, the poll asked how important that was. 46% said it was very important, 32% said somewhat, 10% said not too important, 8% said not important at all, and 4% either didn’t know or had no answer. Early on in his campaign President Obama committed to withdrawing troops from Iraq. The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) signed between Iraq and the United States says that all U.S. troops have to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. The majority of U.S. forces will now be about before that deadline. The public opinion poll shows that the American public largely supports this move. The remaining force of several thousand will be there to ensure stability. There’s a good chance that many of these will even stay beyond 2011 if General Odierno has his way. They can remain if the Iraqi government agrees to it. Before than however, the U.S. needs to show that it is committed to pulling out troops because in July of this year Iraq will have a referendum on the SOFA. If it is not passed American soldiers and marines would have to be out by the end of 2009.

16 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD IRAQ: STABENOW LINK

DEBBIE LOVES THE PLAN. DANIELS 7. [Alex, “Bipartisan 6 offer plan for war Pryor's hand in proposal that echoes the Iraq Study Group” Arkansas Democrat- Gazette, May 25 -- lexis -- DA 7/14/10] Speaking at a news conference on behalf of a group called "America Speaks Out on the War in Iraq," Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat, said she would continue to push for a troop withdrawal. "We're not going to stop until this war stops and our soldiers come home," she said.

SHE’S KEY TO GETTING AN ENERGY BILL. TROWBRIDGE 9. [Gordon, Washington correspondent, “Dow exec: start cap and trade now” Detroit News, July 8, lexis -- DA 7/14/10] Though neither Michigan senator sits on the environment committee, the votes of Sens. Carl Levin, D-Detroit, and Debbie Stabenow, D-Lansing, are likely to be crucial in the coming Senate debate. They have opposed past efforts to limit carbon emissions, fearing damage to the auto industry,[and] other Michigan manufacturers and the state's electric utilities, which are fueled by carbon-heavy coal.

17 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD JAPAN: PUBLIC LINK

PUBLIC SUPPORTS WITHDRAWAL OF FORCES FROM JAPAN. Susan Shirk, Director of the University of California system-wide Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, March 2010, “American Hopes: An Agenda for Cooperation That Serves US Interests,” Global Asia, http://www.globalasia.org/l.php?c=e261 Not surprisingly, Asian leaders question whether the US will continue the forward deployment of military forces in South Korea and Japan forever. This uncertainty is a great source of instability. Since the end of the Cold War, the US has reduced its forces in East Asia from roughly 100,000 (1976-1990) to 64,500 today. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the high priority to defend the homeland from terrorist attack, and economic problems all create doubts about America’s ability to sustain its security commitments in Asia indefinitely. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s 2003 announcement that US forces in South Korea would be moved south of the demilitarized zone and cut drastically triggered fears of abandonment in both Japan and South Korea. But in both countries the issue of US military bases is also growing increasingly contentious. Korean and Japanese citizens may support the alliances with the US in principle, but they resent the impact of the bases on local communities and the indignities of dependence on American might. According to a December 2009 Pew Research Center for People and the Press survey,1 almost half of the American public — the highest percentage in four decades — believes that the US should “mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own.” No wonder East Asians lack confidence in the staying power of the US and are seeking alternative ways to preserve their security.

PUBLIC SUPPORTS ENDING THE US-JAPAN ALLIANCE. Bruce Stokes, international economics columnist for the National Journal, 12-10-2009, “US Opinion Turns Against the Globalism of its President ,” Yale Global, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/us-opinion-turns-against- globalism-their-president This unprecedented isolationism and support for unilateralism runs at cross purposes to Obama’s avowed goal of international engagement. The president talks the talk of internationalism, but he has yet to convince the American public to walk that walk. In fact, some would argue that he sought to please the labor unions by imposing tariffs on some Chinese imports while pledging to uphold free trade. Nowhere is this friction between US foreign policy objectives and American attitudes more evident than with regard to Afghanistan. Only one-in-three Americans backed president Obama’s troop surge, before his announcement, including just one-in-five Democrats. If American casualties mount in the months ahead, as they undoubtedly will, if there is new evidence of the Afghan government’s corruption or ineffectiveness and if the US is drawn even deeper into Pakistan to fight the Taliban, the Obama administration has no reservoir of public good will to draw upon to ride out the storms that are bound to rise. Maintaining the military initiative could then prove difficult, especially as public dissatisfaction makes Congress restive in the run up to the 2010 election. Isolationism and unilateralism may also complicate future US defense relations with Japan. The new government in Tokyo has called into question American military bases on Okinawa and has expressed a desire for closer ties with other Asian nations, effectively beginning to distance itself somewhat from Washington. Such actions could spark resentment among Americans who are already turning their backs on the world. And, with the Obama administration focusing most of its Asian energies on China, the US-Japan alliance, the bulwark of Asian security for the last two generations, could erode out of neglect and disinterest on both sides.

18 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD KUWAIT: PC LINK

Congressional opposition to basing – perceived as neo-imperialism. LACHOWSKI 7. [Zdzislaw, Senior Researcher with the SIPRI Euro-Atlantic, Regional and Global Security Project, June, “Foreign Military Bases in Eurasia,” SIPRI Policy Paper No. 18, http://books.sipri.org/files/PP/SIPRIPP18.pdf] The DOD’s basing strategy was criticized in 2003–2005 by analysts and by members of the US Congress during a series of hearings. The most radical critics perceived the realignment plan as modern imperialism and militarism and the military bases as an expression of colonial politics. An eight-member bipartisan congressional panel—the Commission on Review of the Overseas Military Facility Structure (Overseas Basing Commission, OBC)— was proposed in an April 2003 bill sponsored by senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and Dianne Feinstein, both members of the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Committee. Its purpose was ‘to assess the adequacy of the U.S. military footprint overseas, consider the feasibility and advisability of closing any current U.S. installations, and provide to Congress recommendations for a comprehensive overseas basing strategy that meets the current and projected needs of the United States’. The OBC was intended to ‘help to ensure that there is not a disconnect between realignment overseas and the closing of bases in the United States’.The OBC reviewed the IGPBS, including its geopolitical posture; operational requirements; the mobility of the forces (including air- and sealift); the quality of life of the military personnel; the costs of basing, base realignment and closure; and the timing and synchronization of various related undertakings.

19 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD KUWAIT: PUBLIC LINK

US peace movement supports closing bases in the Middle East. BENJAMIN 7. [Medea, Cofounder of Global Exchange and CODEPINK: Women for Peace, 3-12-2007, “A New Network Forms to Close U.S. Overseas Military Bases,” Common Dreams, http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0312-32.htm] Many U.S. groups sent representatives to the conference, including the Fellowship of Reconciliation, AFSC, United for Peace and Justice, Southwest Workers Union, WILPF, Global Exchange, CODEPINK and the Marin Interfaith Task Force. U.S. delegates said that the bases did not make them more secure; just the contrary. One of the reasons the U.S. was attacked on September 11 was because of U.S. foreign bases in Saudi Arabia,explained Joe Gerson of AFSC. But while the U.S. military has since abandoned the bases in Saudi Arabia, it has replaced them with even more bases throughout the region, creating more animosity towards Americans.The U.S. delegates made it clear that the network to close U.S. foreign bases was in line with the efforts of the U.S. peace movement, which would like to see our military used for defensive, not offensive purposes. U.S. delegates also emphasized how the billions of dollars now being spent to maintain this empire of bases would be better invested in peoples needs for health, education and housing.

Peace movement aligning with Tea Party groups – increasing their political power. BENJAMIN 7. [Medea, Cofounder of Global Exchange and CODEPINK: Women for Peace, 3-12-2007, “A New Network Forms to Close U.S. Overseas Military Bases,” Common Dreams, http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0312-32.htm] We are not naive to think that it would be easy for the Tea Party and the peace movement to work together. Our core values are different. We have had our battles in the past. We would certainly part ways in terms of how to redirect Pentagon funds, with progressives wanting more government investment in healthcare, jobs, clean energy and education--which is exactly what the Tea Party opposes. But building peace means reaching out to the other side and trying to find common ground even with those people whose beliefs contradict so many of our own. If the Tea Party is really against runaway government spending, then certainly we can work together to cut a slice out of the military pork that is bankrupting our nation. In extending the olive branch to talk about war, the conversation can hopefully be enlightening on other issues as well, such as banks run amok and undue corporate control of our government. Who knows what kind of potent brew could emerge when folks on the left and the right--both alienated by a two-party system that doesn't meet our needs--sit down for tea?

20 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD SOUTH KOREA: DEFENSE LOBBY LINK

DEFENSE LOBBIES LOVE THE PLAN – MASS OPPOSITION TO ALLIANCE. FLAKE 6 [L. Gordon, Executive Director – Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation, “U.S.-South Korean Relations”, CQ Congressional Testimony, 9-27, Lexis -- DA 7/15/10]

In and of themselves, the transfer of wartime operational control and even the redeployment and reduction of U.S. troop levels on the peninsula do not necessary speak of declining commitment to the alliance. Military officials are correct to point out that we should focus on capability, which may in fact be enhanced, rather than structure or numbers. However, if enacted as envisioned, particularly in the current political environment, it is easy to see the transfer of wartime operation control as tantamount to a divorce. The current joint command in Korea represents the only truly "joint" force in the world. The clear delineation of roles and reduced exposure to the increasingly suspect political will in Seoul for a potential conflagration that seems to be the objective in the U.S. support for transfer of wartime operation control would suggest at best a trial separation if not an amicable divorce. True, both the U.S. and the ROK proclaim unwavering support for the alliance and for the defense of the peninsula, but this support seems to be the equivalent of the assurances of separating parents that they are still "friends" and that they will still work together for the good of the child. The inevitable outcome appears to lay the groundwork for a much reduced U.S. presence on the Peninsula and, capabilities aside, a downgrade in the political perception of the alliance. In the end, as with the case with many divorces, this change may be for best, but it remains sad. It would be a mistake, however, to assume that this process is only being driven by the civilian leadership of the Defense Department. Traditionally the bastion of support for the U.S.-ROK alliance, the defense establishment both in Washington and in Korea now arguably gives Capitol Hill a run for its money as being the leading skeptic, if not detractor, of the alliance, at lease in the context of current leadership in Seoul. Sensitive issues, such as anti-American incidents, the vilification of the USFK in blockbuster movies, and questions about environmental standards and basing, have all taken their toll. However, the most influential factors on U.S. military perceptions have likely been related to questions of preparedness. The last-minute withdrawal of South Korean support for joint Operations Plan 5029 left U.S. planners feeling exposed. In addition, the question of bombing ranges and whether the U.S. will have to travel to Alaska or Thailand to train appears to have been solved only by an unprecedented threat to withdraw the U.S. Air Force from Korea. Coupled with base relocation issues and the growing difficulty of coordinating plans and policies regarding North Korea (a nation the ROK Ministry of Defense no longer designates as its primary enemy), and of course the question of wartime operational control, these issues combine to challenge longstanding military support.

PENTAGON SUPPORTS THE AFF. POLLACK AND REISS 4 [Jonathan D., Professor of Asian and Pacific Studies – Naval War College, and Mitchell B., Director – Reves Center for International Studies, The Nuclear Tipping Point, Ed. Campbell, Einhorn, and Reiss, p. 266-267] In recent years, however, significant fissures have raised serious questions about the durability of the alliance. A "push-pull" dynamic has developed, with elements of South Korean society wanting to push the United States away and some American voices, predominantly but not exclusively concentrated in the Pentagon, wanting to pull back from the traditional U.S. commitment to Korea. The inherent inequalities in U.S.- ROK alliance relations, which have long alienated many in the South— including close supporters of security ties—are also increasingly evident. A once-solid relationship is now experiencing severe strain.

21 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD SOUTH KOREA: GOP LINK

GOP LOVES THE PLAN BANDOW 96 [Doug, Senior Fellow – Cato Institute and Robert A. Taft Fellow – American Conservative Defense Alliance, Tripwire: Korea and U.S. Foreign Policy in a Changed World, p. 13] Such a harvest requires Washington to adapt its foreign policy to a changing world. A good place to begin that shift would be Korea. The prospect of a major-power confrontation in this region has virtually disappeared; the bilateral balance has shifted irrevocably toward America’s ally; and a successful disengagement would provide a model for eliminating other, similarly outmoded commitments in the region. Such a policy shift should hold particular attraction for conservatives, who most loudly proclaim their commitment to smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and individual liberty.

HAWKS DON’T CARE ABOUT SOUTH KOREA BANDOW 96 [Doug, Senior Fellow – Cato Institute and Robert A. Taft Fellow – American Conservative Defense Alliance, Tripwire: Korea and U.S. Foreign Policy in a Changed World, p. 13] Indeed, some hawks flaunt their lack of concern for Seoul's views. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) opines that "while they may risk their populations, the United States will do whatever it must to guarantee the security of the American people. And spare us the usual lectures about American unilateralism. We would prefer the company of North Korea's neighbors, but we will make do without it if we must." Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy hits a similar note: "The desire of dangerous nations' neighbors to accommodate, rather than confront, them is understandable. But it should not be determinative of U.S. policy. Such pleading today from South Korea and Japan is reminiscent of the Cold War advocacy for détente by leftists in the West German government." Apparently, America's allies should gaily commit suicide at Washington's command.

22 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD SOUTH KOREA: PC LINK

PLAN POPULAR – EVEN HAWKS ARE ANTI-SOUTH KOREA. BANDOW 3 [Doug, Senior Fellow – Cato Institute and Robert A. Taft Fellow – American Conservative Defense Alliance, “Bring the Troops Home: Ending the Obsolete Korean Commitment”, Cato Policy Analysis, 5-7, DA 7/15/10 http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa474.pdf] For years it was hard to find a single American analyst, let alone policymaker, who did not recoil in horror at the suggestion that American forces be brought home from Korea. Defenders of the commitment rushed to the barricades in the midst of Kim Daejung’s visit to Pyongyang. For instance, Robert Manning of the Council on Foreign Relations warned against the “loose talk about the future of the U.S.–South Korean alliance and the U.S. military presence in Korea.”81 Even after Roh’s election, U.S. Department of Defense consultant Richard Weitz advocates a continued U.S. presence for the purpose of “rapidly halting any North Korean invasion,” as if South Korea’s 700,000-man military didn’t exist.82 Former secretary of defense William J. Perry, Ashton B. Carter, and Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, leading figures in the Clinton administration, offer the cliché of America’s and South Korea’s troops standing “shoulder to shoulder to deter North Korean aggression.”83 Left unanswered is the question of why American shoulders are necessary in the first place. Some analysts would move to strengthen and expand the U.S. commitment to South Korea. Ralph Cossa, president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Pacific Forum, wants a force buildup.84 So does the Heritage Foundation.85 The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol wants efforts aimed at “shoring up the defense capabilities of South Korea.”86 The Bush administration seems to be taking those recommendations to heart: in early February 2003 Washington announced that it was supplementing its forces in Asia in response to a request from Adm. Thomas Fargo, Pacific commander of U.S. forces.87 But now a growing number of commentators, including some resolute hawks, are saying that the United States need not remain in Korea, and certainly not if our forces are unwanted.88 The message has hit home even at the Pentagon. More broadly, notes Scott Snyder, the Asia Foundation’s representative in Korea, “In Washington, within the U.S. government and Congress, there is a distinct, anti-Korean backlash.”89 ECONOMIC CONCERNS ENSURE SUPPORT FOR THE PLAN. BETTS 93 [John E., Lieutenant Colonel – U.S. Air Force Reserve, “Should U.S. Military Forces Remain in Korea After Reunification?”, April, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA278297&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf -- DA 7/15/10] The decision on whether to retain U.S. forces in Korea after reunification will not be an easy one for U.S. policy makers. With the ROK no longer facing a threat from North Korea, there will be strong pressures, especially from Congress and the American public, to remove U.S. troops from the peninsula. This would comport with the present U.S. policy of reducing its military forces because of economic considerations. In addition, this policy could possibly receive political momentum because of anti-Korean feeling engendered by trade disputes, anti-American demonstrations in Korea, and possible "cultural misunderstandings".

CONGRES LIKES THE PLAN - ANTI-AMERICAN BACKLASH IN KOREA CHA 3 [Victor D., Professor of Government and Asian Studies and Director of the American Alliances in Asia Project – Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, “Regional Implications of the Changing Nuclear Equation on the Korean Peninsula”, 3-12, http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2003/Cha Testimony030312.pdf – DA 7/15/10] Larger trends in U.S. security thinking also presage change. The Pentagon’s 100,000 personnel benchmark in Asia is viewed as obsolete among experts. The revolution in military affairs, moreover, with its emphasis on long-range, precision-strike capabilities foreshadow alterations in the face of US forward presence around the world. Those Koreans who believe that the U.S. is too comfortably self- interested with its position on the peninsula to contemplate serious change are dead wrong. As noted above, the images beamed back to the U.S. of “Yankee go home” demonstrations, burned American flags, accosted GIs, and young Korean assertions that George Bush is more threatening than Kim Jong-Il have had a real effect in Washington. There is anger, expressed in Congress and in the op-ed pages of major newspapers about South Korean ungratefulness for the alliance. With no imperial aspirations, the United States indeed would withdraw its forces in the face of an unwelcoming host nation. Secretary Rumsfeld’s recent remarks about possible modification of US forces in Korea offers a glimpse, in my view, of a deeper, serious, and longer-term study underway in Washington on revising the alliance. The anti-American tenor of the election campaign in Korea and the subsequent “peace” demonstrations have created a momentum in Washington that proponents of alliance revision can ride. The ostensible goal of such plans is the same alliance but with a smaller and different (i.e. less ground, more air/navy) footprint, but if the vicious circle of anti-Americanism in Seoul bearing anti-Korean backlashes in the US continues unabated, then the outcome could also entail a downgrading of the alliance in U.S. eyes.

23 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD SOUTH KOREA: PUBLIC LINK

PUBLIC LOVES THE PLAN. KIMS 4 [Woosang and Tae-Hyo, Professors of Political Science – Yonsei University, “A Candle in the Wind: Korean Perceptions of ROK- U.S. Security Relations”, Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, XVI(1), Spring, p. 114-115]

Another concern is a possible anti-Korean backlash in the United States in these days of swift and vivid communication. Pictures of anti- American demonstrations in South Korea appeared in the newspapers and on the television screens of American homes. Events in Korea can have an immediate reaction in the U.S. Congress and public. We may even begin to see arguments from isolationist advocates for breaking the U.S. alliance with the ROK and bringing U.S. troops home.2 3 The principal policy implication is quite clear. Unless policymakers in Seoul and Washington do something about the anti-American sentiment in Korea well in advance, the two countries may lose the best security option available to them. In public relations management, they should emphasize the vitality of the continued alliance between the United States and Korea and the necessity of U.S. troops’ remaining in Korea even after unification. Given that the U.S. Forces in Korea may gradually be adjusted to reflect the changing security environment in Northeast Asia and that there remains a salient rationale for ROK-U.S. security cooperation given neighboring great powers, the ongoing Korea-U.S. alliance will certainly remain a win-win strategic option for both countries: for Korea, its comprehensive alliance with the United States would maximize its security at least cost; while for the United States, it would maintain a forward base in one of the most cru c i a l strategic regions in East Asia with reasonable burden-sharing on the part of Korea . The Korean government should stress to its people that condemning the problems originating from the ROK-U.S. alliance does not necessarily imply the logic of denying the existence of the alliance. That is, while appreciating the positive role that public pressure makes in improving the Korean say in running the ROK-U.S. alliance, possible misunderstanding or conflict of interests with the United States should not damage the 50-year-long partnership and friendship between the two countries. For public opinion not to become “single frame,” the flow of information and communication on national foreign policy issues between the government and the public should be more transparent and dynamic. In particular, the government needs to establish close and regular communication channels with major opinion leaders, including journalists, intellectuals, and NGO leaders, in order to deliver accurate information and share a grand vision of national policy t o w a rd the United States. American society also faces similar challenges in public relations . As a society becomes more democratic and plural, public opinion on f o reign relations tends to become more diverse (sometimes largely indifferent) and uncertain. Just as in Korea, there may be a divergence between the attitudes of the public and those of political leaders in response to economic and security related questions. Even if leaders in Washington DC appreciate the strategic importance of the Korean Peninsula both now and after unification, American citizens may demand the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Korean Peninsula. U.S. policymakers should attempt to conduct active security dialogue with the mass media and the public to prevent anti-Korean feeling fro m spilling over into American society.

24 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD SOUTH KOREA: MEDIA SPIN

MEDIA SPINS AGAINST SOUTH KOREA – ENSURES PLAN PERCEIVED AS POPULAR. SHIN 3 [General Kim Dong, Visiting Scholar in the Center for Asia Pacific Policy – RAND Corporation, “The ROK-U.S. Alliance: Where Is It Headed?”, Strategic Forum, 197, April, http://www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/SF197/sf197.htm -- DA 7/15/10] Nationalist anti-American sentiments seen among some South Korean media and citizens, and reactive anti-Korean sentiments in the United States that are often exaggerated by some American media reports, have led to an eruption of demands for reductions and relocations of U.S. troops stationed in South Korea, further straining the time- honored alliance of the two nations. Differences appear to persist in their assessments of the current situation and expectations for the future, including on whether they can accommodate the unraveling situations and have confidence in their own capabilities to resolve them.

25 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD TURKEY: BIPART LINK

BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION TO TURKEY AS AN ALLY – WITHDRAW POPULAR. Bogardus 10. [KEVIN, Staff writer, “Ally Turkey comes under increasing criticism from some lawmakers”, The Hill, 6/13/10, http://thehill.com/homenews/house/102891-turkey-alliance-comes-under-increasing-criticism-from-lawmakers -- DA 7/13/10]

A U.S. military ally has come under increasingly withering criticism from Capitol Hill due to its role in the flare-up over the Gaza aid flotilla. Turkey was the country from which the flotilla left, and a charitable organization based there helped organize the relief aid trip to Gaza. Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said Sunday on CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" that there were about 75 "mercenaries" on the one ship that resisted efforts to be taken to shore, adding that "they were associated with al Qaeda and other terror organizations." Lawmakers have vigorously defended Israel after that one ship — out of the six in the flotilla — was raided by Israeli commandos on May 31, resulting in the death of nine activists and several injured soldiers. In turn, Turkey, often lauded for its Western-style democracy and strong military ties to the United States, has come under attack from members of Congress. Many have suggested that the country is not the strong U.S. ally that they expected, even implying it may be America’s enemy now. It is a marked shift from months ago, when several lawmakers came to the defense of Turkey when they were lobbying against a non-binding congressional resolution that would recognize the Ottoman Empire’s World War I-era killing of 1.5 million Armenians as genocide. The flotilla incident, along with Turkey’s vote last week against a new round of United Nations sanctions against Iran, has many in Congress moving against Turkey. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) did not mince words when he discussed the flotilla’s supporters on the House floor Wednesday. “It had an enormous amount of support by some of the worst enemies of peace in that region, and some of the worst enemies, quite literally, not only of Israel, but of the United States as well. And I mean Turkey, Iran, Hamas. These are not entities that were looking for some peaceful resolution here,” Weiner said. In a statement last week, Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.) suggested Turkey should share some of the blame for the skirmish between the Israeli commandos and the activists. “Some have expressed the view that Israel alone should account for this incident. That perspective neglects the role that Turkey played in staging the flotilla and Turkey’s readiness to condone this kind of brinksmanship,” Sarbanes said. Criticism of Turkey has been bipartisan as well, and from self-proclaimed Turkish supporters in the past.

NOBODY LIKES TURKEY – SEEN AS TIED TO IRAN. Schleifer, ’10. [YIGAL, Freelance Journalist and editor of EurasiaNet's Kebabistan blog 6/28/10, “US-Turkish Relations Appear Headed for Rough Patch”, Eurasianet.org, http://www.eurasianet.org/node/61426 -- DA 7/13/10] “I think the administration realizes it has a problem with Turkey, but it’s not a major rift. It’s subtler than that. I think what they will do is start looking at Turkey at a more transactional level for a while, meaning ‘What are you doing for me?’ and ‘This is what I can do for you,’” said Henri Barkey, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. “In the past we would have jumped through hoops for the Turks, but the Turks need to start being more sensitive to our concerns,” Barkey added. On the other hand, things may be less subtle in Congress, Barkey warned. “The fact that the Hamas and Iran issues coincided within a week of each other have created a combustible situation on the Hill,” he said. “The Turks have a problem on the Hill.” Speaking at a recent news conference, Rep. Mike Pence, a Republican from Indiana considered to be a Congressional supporter of Turkey, told reporters: “There will be a cost, if Turkey stays on its present heading of growing closer to Iran and more antagonistic to the state of Israel. It will bear upon my view and I believe the view of many members of Congress on the state of the relationship with Turkey.”

26 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD TURKEY: PC LINK

MASSIVE ANTI-TURKEY BACKLASH – PLAN POPULAR. KRIEGER 10. [Hilary, Jerusalem Post correspondent, “US Congressmen express their ire toward Turkey” Jerusalem Post June 17, lexis -- DA 7/15/10] US Congressmen ratcheted up their criticism of Turkey Wednesday, warning that Ankara was risking its historically warm ties with Congress by reaching toward Iran and breaking with Israel. In a press conference defending Israel's raid on a Turkish-flagged aid ship trying to break the Gaza blockade, several dozen of whose passengers had ties to terror organizations, numerous members of Congress turned their ire toward Turkey. "Turkey is responsible for the nine deaths aboard that ship. It is not Israel that's responsible," declared Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nevada), who pointed to Turkish funding and support for the expedition. "If Israel is at fault in any way, it's by falling into the trap that was set for them by Turkey." She continued: "The Turks have extraordinary nerve to lecture the State of Israel when they are occupiers of the island of Cyprus, where they systematically discriminate against the ecumenical patriarch, and they refuse to recognize the Armenian genocide." Her comments - which were accompanied by an announcement that Turkish representatives were no longer welcome in her office - touched on sensitive issues with Turkey that the US has often shied away from pressing Ankara on aggressively. Her words raised the prospect that the US Congress at least would be more assertive about its displeasure with Turkey. Speaking at the same press conference, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Indiana) said he recently warned the Turkish ambassador that "With regard to Congress of the United States, there will be a cost if Turkey stays on its current path of growing closed to Iran and more antagonistic to the State of Israel."

BACKLASH TO TURKEY NOW – PLAN POPULAR – SEEN AS RETRIBUTION. IHT 10. [International Herald Tribune, “After the flotilla” July 13 -- lexis -- DA 7/15/10] Since the raid, Turkey has recalled its ambassador from Jerusalem, halted military exercises with Israel and banned Israeli military planes from its airspace. It is now threatening to sever all diplomatic ties if Israel does not apologize, compensate the victims' families and accept an international investigation. Israel has withdrawn its defense advisers from Turkey, warned Israelis against visiting their once solid Muslim ally and impounded the seized ships. It is refusing to pay compensation or apologize. Some members of the U.S. Congress are adding to the tensions with anti-Turkey rants and threats to punish the Turkish government. ''There will be a cost if Turkey stays on its present heading,'' said Representative Mike Pence, a Republican of Indiana.

27 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD TURKEY: PUBLIC LINK

No public support for Turkish military alliance. Köknar 9. [Güler, Executive Director of the Turkish Cultural Foundation and Vice President of the Turkish Coalition of America, 12-30- 2009, “Güler Köknar: Our goal is for guests of cultural tours to fall in love with Turkey and plant a seed so that they pursue their own personal or business interests in Turkey,” http://www.turkishculturalfoundation.org/pages.php?ID=5&news_id=74] Mrs. Köknar: Relations between the United States and Turkey are largely shaped by government to government ties. While generally making a positive impact on the communities they live in, Turkish Americans are too small in numbers to change the lack of understanding about Turkey in the United States alone. Perceptions among Americans about Turks and Turkey are not viciously bad, but they are still mainly negative due to the largely negative media coverage about Turkey and stubborn stereotypes. Sadly, most Americans don’t have a real concept of Turks and Turkey. Therefore, US foreign policy vis-à-vis Turkey and particularly congressional actions are not based on grassroots support from the American public at large. It is therefore incumbent on Turkish Americans to rise up to this challenge and change minds about Turkey by promoting their heritage and culture in a positive way, which they are increasingly beginning to do. In addition, Turkish Americans need to get involved in the American political process and make their voices heard. I am reminded of the story of an American politician answering a prominent Turkish American, who asked him why members of Congress always vote in favor of the Greek lobby and against Turkey, by saying “Because there are more Greek restaurants.” This is certainly a simplistic way of putting it, but liking or disliking a certain culture based on a personal experience, has an incredible impact on people’s general perceptions and their decisions. Alas, Turkish Americans cannot do this alone. Turks from all walks of life, in the non-profit sector to the arts, business to academia, should seek their own ways to build people to people bridges with the United States, as well as other countries that matter to Turkey’s future, and contribute in their own ways to changing hearts and minds. I strongly believe that a multi-faceted civic effort that complements strategic, economic and other dimensions of the US-Turkey partnership and focuses on building people-to-people bridges will make a lasting impact on further strengthening relations between the two nations and shielding them, to a degree, from the ups and downs of politics.

28 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD TURKEY: GOP LINK

CONSERVATIVE HAWKS HATE TURKEY – DEMAND SUSPENSION OF MILITARY RELATIONS. Lobe 10. [JIM, Foreign Policy Writer, “Neo-Conservatives Lead Charge Against Turkey”, ipsnews.net, 6/9/10, http://ipsnews.net/news.asp? idnews=51771 -- DA 7/13/10]

As the right-wing leadership of the organised U.S. Jewish community defends Israel against international condemnation for its deadly seizure of a flotilla bearing humanitarian supplies for Gaza, a familiar clutch of neo-conservative hawks is going on the offensive against what they see as the flotilla's chief defender, Turkey. Outraged by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip's Erdogan's repeated denunciations of the May 31 Israeli raid, as well as his co- sponsorship with Brazil of an agreement with Iran designed to promote renewed negotiations with the West on Tehran's nuclear programme, some neo-conservatives are even demanding that the U.S. try to expel Ankara from NATO as one among of several suggested actions aimed at punishing Erdogan's AKP (Justice and Development Party) government. "Turkey, as a member of NATO, is privy to intelligence information having to do with terrorism and with Iran," noted the latest report by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), a hard-line neo-conservative group that promotes U.S.-Israeli military ties and has historically cultivated close ties to Turkey's military, as well. "If Turkey finds its best friends to be Iran, Hamas, Syria and Brazil (look for Venezuela in the future) the security of that information (and Western technology in weapons in Turkey's arsenal) is suspect. The United States should seriously consider suspending military cooperation with Turkey as a prelude to removing it from the organisation," suggested the group.

29 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD TURKEY: AT: DEFENSE LINK TURN

The tide has turned – Armenian lobby has overwhelmed defense lobbies – broad support for cutting off military cooperation. LARRABEE 8. [F. Stephen, Distinguished Chair in European Security at RAND, 2008, “Turkey as a US Security Partner,” http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG694.pdf] Congressional concerns about Turkey’s human-rights record and Cyprus have also contributed to tensions in U.S.–Turkish bilateral relations. In recent years, the U.S. Congress has held up several important defense deals with Turkey. This has strained defense relations and contributed to the impression that the United States is a less-thanreliable defense partner. This feeling has been one of the principal driving forces behind Turkey’s decision to expand defense cooperation with Israel in recent years. Relations with the United States have also been strained by the Armenian genocide issue. In recent years, the Armenian lobby in the United States has sought to introduce into Congress a resolution that condemns Turkey for “genocide” against the Armenians in 1915–1916. In the past, successive U.S. administrations have persuaded Congress not to pass the legislation. In 2007, the Bush administration narrowly averted a serious crisis with Ankara only through intensive last-minute lobbying to prevent the genocide resolution from coming to a vote on the House floor. But the Armenian lobby, galvanized by its near success, is likely to step up its lobbying for passage of a similar bill in the future. Thus, future administrations are likely to face strong pressure to pass similar legislation.

30 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD WINNERS WIN

WINNERS WIN Singer 9 (Jonathan -- senior writer and editor for MyDD. Singer is perhaps best known for his various interviews with prominent politicians. His interviews have included John Kerry, Walter Mondale, Bob Dole, Michael Dukakis, and George McGovern, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Tom Vilsack. He has also also interviewed dozens of senatorial, congressional and gubernatorial candidates all around the country. In his writing, Singer primarily covers all aspects of campaigns and elections, from polling and fundraising to opposition research and insider rumors. He has been quoted or cited in this capacity by Newsweek, The New York Times, USA Today, The Politico, and others. My Direct Democracy, 3-3-09, http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/3/3/191825/0428 -- DA 7/13/10) From the latest NBC News-Wall Street Journal survey: Despite the country's struggling economy and vocal opposition to some of his policies, President Obama's favorability rating is at an all-time high. Two-thirds feel hopeful about his leadership and six in 10 approve of the job he's doing in the White House. "What is amazing here is how much political capital Obama has spent in the first six weeks," said Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff. "And against that, he stands at the end of this six weeks with as much or more capital in the bank." Peter Hart gets at a key point. Some believe that political capital is finite, that it can be used up. To an extent that's true. But it's important to note, too, that political capital can be regenerated -- and, specifically, that when a President expends a great deal of capital on a measure that was difficult to enact and then succeeds, he can build up more capital. Indeed, that appears to be what is happening with Barack Obama, who went to the mat to pass the stimulus package out of the gate, got it passed despite near-unanimous opposition of the Republicans on Capitol Hill, and is being rewarded by the American public as a result. Take a look at the numbers. President Obama now has a 68 percent favorable rating in the NBC-WSJ poll, his highest ever showing in the survey. Nearly half of those surveyed (47 percent) view him very positively. Obama's Democratic Party earns a respectable 49 percent favorable rating. The Republican Party, however, is in the toilet, with its worst ever showing in the history of the NBC-WSJ poll, 26 percent favorable. On the question of blame for the partisanship in Washington, 56 percent place the onus on the Bush administration and another 41 percent place it on Congressional Republicans. Yet just 24 percent blame Congressional Democrats, and a mere 11 percent blame the Obama administration. So at this point, with President Obama seemingly benefiting from his ambitious actions and the Republicans sinking further and further as a result of their knee-jerked opposition to that agenda, there appears to be no reason not to push forward on anything from universal healthcare to energy reform to ending the war in Iraq. WINNERS WIN – GOTTA SPEND PC TO GET PC. PASCAL 9. [Marc, independent business and management consultant , “Obama’s only priority: Get re-elected” Moderate Voice, http://themoderatevoice.com/48571/obama%E2%80%99s-only-priority-get-re-elected/ -- Oct 5 -- DA 7/15/10] Many political leaders incorrectly confuse political capital with financial capital. The first is a perpetually renewable commodity if used correctly and the latter is always finite no matter how much is amassed. One cannot hoard political capital for some future battle that may or may not come. It grows and shrinks directly as one uses it, and it directly mirrors political fights taken and avoided. Actually winning on certain core issues and major legislative battles helps increase political capital for future use. But not using political capital causes it to dissolve rapidly. Talking too much and never getting anything accomplished is a good recipe to dissipate valuable political capital.

WINNERS WIN ON CONTROVERSIAL POLICIES. Ornstein 1 (Norman, American Enterprise Institute, “How is Bush Governing?” May 15, http://www.aei.org/events/filter.,eventID.281/transcript.asp DA 7/13/10) The best plan is to pick two significant priorities, things that can move relatively quickly. And in an ideal world, one of them is going to be a little bit tough, where it's a battle, where you've got to fight, but then your victory is all the sweeter. The other matters but you can sweep through fairly quickly with a broad base of support and show that you're a winner and can accomplish something. Bush did just that, picking one, education, where there was a fairly strong chance. Something he campaigned on, people care about, and a pretty strong chance that he could get a bill through with 80, 85 percent support of both houses of Congress and both parties. And the other that he picked, and there were other choices, but he picked the tax cuts. What flows from that as well is, use every bit of political capital you have to achieve early victories that will both establish you as a winner, because the key to political power is not the formal power that you have. Your ability to coerce people to do what they otherwise would not do. Presidents don't have a lot of that formal power. It's as much psychological as it is real. If you're a winner and people think you're a winner, and that issues come up and they’re tough but somehow you're going to prevail, they will act in anticipation of that. Winners win. If it looks like you can't get things done, then you have a steeply higher hill to climb with what follows. And as you use your political capital, you have to recognize that for presidents, political capital is a perishable quality, that it evaporates if it isn't used. That's a lesson, by the way, George W. Bush learned firsthand from his father. That if you use it and you succeed, it's a gamble, to be sure, you'll get it back with a very healthy premium.

31 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD WINNERS WIN

WINNERS WIN COHEN 95 [JEFF, Prof of Political Science at Kansas, American Journal of Political Science, 39(1), p. 68 -- DA 7/13/10]

By controlling the agenda, the president may secure success with Congress. He may be able to keep issues that he dislikes from the agenda, while advancing those that he favors. He can use the agenda-setting power strategically, promoting issues that Congress is likely to pass, demoting those that are more controversial. Such strategic behavior may foster an appearance of being a winner, and research suggests that winning in Congress boosts presidential popularity, which may feedback into legislative success (Brace and Hinckley 1992; Rivers and Rose 1985; Ostrom and Simon 1985). Manipulating the agenda for political advantage may help the presidential efforts with Congress.

32 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD

***INTERNALS***

PC KEY (General)

ENERGY TOP OF THE DOCKET – WON’T PASS WITHOUT OBAMA’S PC. CHADDOCK 6-22-10. [Gail Russell, staffwriter, “Senate Democrats to Obama on energy bill: Help us” Christian Science Monitor -- http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0622/Senate-Democrats-to-Obama-on-energy-bill-Help-us DA 7/12/10] Senate Democrats are taking a fresh run at energy legislation this week, beginning with a bipartisan White House meeting on Wednesday and a Democratic caucus meeting on Thursday to find common ground. The hope that the Gulf oil spill disaster might break partisan deadlock as 9/11 did – leading to a flood of new legislation – has not come to pass. So far, it has only reinforced the partisan tensions. Moreover, Democrats are divided among themselves on the way forward. Options range from a comprehensive energy and climate change bill that sets caps for carbon emissions on one hand to two competing measures that establish renewable-energy mandates for utility companies. None of these options has the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate without a filibuster – or even to muster all the Democratic votes. To get a bill, President Obama will have to take a stronger role. “It's pretty clear that we have to do something,” said Senate majority leader Harry Reid after a caucus luncheon on Tuesday. “A lot depends on what the White House is going to do to help us get something done."

PC KEY TO ENERGY BILL. GOODE 10. [7-1 -- Darren, staffwriter, “Environmental groups press Obama to take stronger lead on climate” The Hill -- DA 7/12/10] As the White House continues to tackle the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and renews its effort to address immigration reform, environmental groups are pressing President Barack Obama to take a stronger lead on pushing Senate climate and energy legislation this summer. “I think it absolutely is doable and we can pass a bill with an enforceable carbon limit before the August recess,” Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) President Fred Krupp told reporters Thursday. “The key to that, though, is that the president has to directly engage with his staff at a detailed level in producing a bill inclusive of carbon limits that will win 60 votes in the Senate.”

33 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD PC KEY TO CAP AND TRADE

PC KEY TO INCLUDING CAP AND TRADE IN ENERGY BILL. UCS 10. [Union of Concerned Scientists -- the leading U.S. science-based nonprofit organization, “Obama Puts Administration Muscle Behind Climate and Energy Bill in Meeting with Senators” June 29 -- http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/obama-administration-climate- energy-0416.html -- DA 7/13/10] President Obama’s call for Congress to pass comprehensive climate and energy legislation that includes a cap on carbon indicates that his administration is willing to expend political capital to secure a bill that would dramatically reduce emissions, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The president made the request earlier today during a meeting with two dozen senators at the White House. “President Obama is showing that he’s willing to put his weight behind the effort to pass comprehensive legislation,” said UCS President Kevin Knobloch. “He understands that putting us on the long-term path toward clean energy means putting a cap on carbon.

OBAMA PC KEY TO GETTING STRONG BILL. GOODE 10. [7-1 -- Darren, staffwriter, “Environmental groups press Obama to take stronger lead on climate” The Hill -- DA 7/12/10] Environmentalists give Obama kudos for emphasizing the need for broad energy legislation, including during his first-ever Oval Office address last month. “But this is the big test,” said Jeremy Symons, senior vice president at the National Wildlife Federation. “What kind of political capital is the White House willing to put into the fight as we near the finish line?” “The president’s increased focus on this is important,” said Franz Matzner, climate legislative director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Time and again the president has proven that when he says he’s going to do something it gets done. I certainly think that increased engagement is coming and is going to be extremely important to get the best package done in the window that’s needed.”

34 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD CONCESSIONS LINK

CONCESSIONS KEY TO GET TO 60. SAMUELSOHN 9. [Darren, Senior Reporter at E&E Publishing, LLC, “And Now, Climate Bill's Supporters Try Counting to 60 in Senate” NYTimes.com – June 29 – online]

According to an E&E analysis of the Senate, 60 votes is within reach for a cap-and-trade climate bill, but many concessions must be made to get the measure across the goal line.

35 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD MODERATE DEMS KEY

MODERATE DEMOCRATS ARE KEY. SAMUELSOHN 9. [Darren, Senior Reporter at E&E Publishing, LLC, “And Now, Climate Bill's Supporters Try Counting to 60 in Senate” NYTimes.com – June 29 – online] The consensus on Capitol Hill is that no group will be more important to the success of the next Senate global warming bill than the collection of moderate Democrats from the Midwest, Rust Belt and West who say the climate debate so far has not taken their interests into account.

36 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD

***IMPACTS***

COMPETITIVENESS ECON IMPACT

COMPETITIVENESS KEY TO US ECONOMIC GROWTH. Council on Competitiveness 8 (Define: Progressive Dialogue I: The Energy-Competitiveness Relationship, February 2008, Accessed May 16, 2008, http://www.compete.org/images/uploads/File/PDF%20Files/Define%20Final.pdf) It is clear that the United States faces serious challenges and a new competitiveness landscape as it contends with the twin challenges of energy security and sustainability. America’s continued economic growth and prosperity is at risk if we do not improve our energy productivity. Though the policy and regulatory response to these issues is still in flux–and can vary considerably at the state, national and international levels–leading companies are not waiting to act. As they do so, they are realizing significant cost savings and new opportunities for top line growth.

THE IMPACT IS GLOBAL GREAT POWER WARS. Mead 9 [Walter Russell, Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, New Republic, February 4, http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2] So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a progressively worse position, farther behind the front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that of the Baltic states and Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier societies. As a result, developing countries and countries where capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes--as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet again. None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.

37 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD EXT: C&T KILLS COMPETITIVENESS

Unilateral cap-and-trade will only hinder US competitiveness – the EU experience confirm CFIF ‘8 (Center for Individual Freedom is a non-partisan, non-profit organization -- An Inconvenient Announcement – April 4th -- http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/energy/Inconvenient-Announcement.htm) Across the EU, energy-intensive businesses are relocating their operations and employment overseas, and the European economies trail the United States economy, which has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol during both the Clinton and Bush Administrations. Conditions in the EU have deteriorated so badly that the European Roundtable of Industrialists has written the EU to warn that the EU’s Kyoto mandates are eroding businesses’ ability to compete in the world economy. Further, European businesses are bracing themselves for additional increases in cap-and-trade costs, as EU bureaucrats respond to the increase in European emissions by tightening limits. In turn, this will increase businesses’ cost of complying with the EU’s cap-and-trade scheme, further eroding EU economic competitiveness. Ignoring these inconvenient truths, climate change alarmists nevertheless insist that the United States dive into the same self-destructive schemes. But any such scheme inflicted upon the United States is doomed to failure, just as similar mandates have failed across the world. Cap-and-trade laws will fail to curtail emissions, let alone affect the vast global climatic environment. Instead, they will merely inflict great damage on our economic and employment climate precisely when America faces an increasingly- competitive world economy. The American Council for Capital Formation, as one example, estimates that a cap-and-trade law would cost 3.7 million American jobs, reduce gross national product by 2.6%, increase fuel costs even more and punish the average American household some $1,760 each year.

38 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD C&T BAD: ENERGY PRICES

UTILITIES CAP AND TRADE CAUSES ENERGY PRICE SPIKES. RESTUCCIA 7-14-10. [Andrew, Energy and Environment Reporter, “As Reid prepares energy bill, emissions cap appears unlikely” Washington Independent -- http://washingtonindependent.com/91399/as-reid-prepares-energy-bill-emissions-cap-appears-unlikely -- DA 7/14/10] One lobbyist who represents the manufacturing industry threw cold water on the idea of a utility-only bill. “With energy-intensive industries, you don’t have to think about utility-only for very long before you see that it has consequences,” the lobbyist said, adding that most utility-only proposals would result in a significant increase in electricity and production costs that could ultimately drive businesses, and jobs, overseas.

PRICE SPIKES JACK THE ECONOMY. AVERSA 8. [Jeannine, AP writer, “Economy: Economy struggles with rising prices, slow growth” North County Times -- June 17 -- http://www.nctimes.com/business/article_13bed2de-ff5e-50f0-ba7d-1849d00b829e.html -- DA 7/16/10] WASHINGTON — Wholesale prices barreled ahead while housing and industrial activity faltered - a blend of high-costs and slow growth that ensures the Federal Reserve's most likely move on interest rates next week will be no move whatsoever . There's some Catch 22 for the Fed in all of this, and Chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues have made increasingly clear they're not inclined to cut interest rates further for fear of aggravating inflation. On the other hand, if they act too quickly at the June 24-25 meeting to boost rates to fend off inflation, it would hurt an economy already battered by housing, credit and financial woes. "The Fed is in a box," Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics, said after the latest batch of economic barometers were released Tuesday. That's why many economists are predicting the Fed will hold rates steady at 2 percent, a four-year low, at next week's session. The Labor Department's Producer Price Index, which measures the costs of goods before they reach store shelves, leaped 1.4 percent in May, the biggest increase in six months. Galloping energy and food prices, which are especially squeezing business profits, figured prominently in the index's pickup. The economy's problems and high prices for fuel and raw materials are taking a toll on manufacturers and others. The Federal Reserve reported that industrial productions fell 0.2 percent in May, the second straight monthly decline. Plants operated at only a 79.4 percent capacity, the lowest since September 2005 after the Gulf Coast hurricanes. And, there was more fallout from a deeply depressed housing market. The number of new housing projects started in May fell 3.3 percent to a 975,000 pace - the lowest in 17 years - as builders pulled back further. Builders are smarting as unsold homes as well as foreclosed homes pile up, adding to already swollen supply. Sagging demand from would-be buyers and - more recently - rising mortgage rates, are adding to builder headaches. "Builders are doing the exactly the right thing - cutting back," said David Seiders, chief economist at the National Association of Home Builders. "Now I'm a little more worried on the interest rate front. I think we'll see mortgage rates recede to some degree. If not, it will be a tougher road for housing than anticipated," Seiders said. The housing slump has been the biggest drag on the economy, which has slowed sharply in recent months. The Fed and the Bush administration are hoping that the central bank's powerful rate cuts since last September - which take months to work through the economy - along with the government's $168 billion stimulus effort - will help lift the country out of its doldrums. It's a gamble, though, as expensive food and gas could force people and businesses to hunker down even further . Yet another report Tuesday showed that the country's "current account" deficit, which is the broadest measure of trade, widened to $176.4 billion in the first quarter, up from $167.2 billion in the final quarter of last year, as the U.S.' foreign oil bill soared. The current account report covers not only goods and services but also investment flows between the United States and other countries. Some fear that the nation could be headed for a bout of "stagflation," a toxic mix of stagnant economic growth and inflation not seen in decades. But Bernanke - who has ramped up his tough anti-inflation talk over the past few weeks - has said that's not the case. Bernanke also has said he doesn't see a repeat of a 1970s-style situation where workers demanded - and received - big pay increases to cover rapidly rising prices. In the PPI report, when energy and food costs were disregarded, the so-called "core" prices rose a much more modest 0.2 percent in May, an improvement from April's 0.4 percent increase. That suggested that other prices were better behaved. Still, there are growing concerns that rising energy and food costs will eventually force companies to boost prices for lots of other goods and services, spreading inflation through the economy. That's why Wall Street investors predict the Fed will be forced to boost rates later this year to combat inflation. Others, however, think the Fed won't have to start to raise rates until next year. Over the past year, overall producer prices have gone up 7.2 percent, while "core" prices have increased 3 percent. Energy prices were up 4.9 percent in May, the most since November. Diesel fuel prices jumped 11.2 percent, gasoline prices rose 9.3 percent and home heating oil increased 8 percent. Food prices went up a sharp 0.8 percent, the most since March. Soaring energy and food prices, which have wracked up a string of record highs in recent days, are walloping consumers and businesses alike . Energy prices eased a bit Tuesday, with oil hovering around $134.19 a barrel and gas prices at $4.078 a gallon. Last week, the government reported that consumer prices surged by 0.6 percent in May, the biggest increase in six months. Those higher prices also are cutting into workers' paychecks - further straining household budgets. Wholesale prices are rising faster than consumer prices because businesses - for competitive or other reasons - have been limited in their ability to pass along to consumers all of their higher costs from energy and other raw materials. The Fed is hoping such restraint will continue. "For now the Fed seems content to talk tough" against inflation, said Stephen Stanley chief economist at RBS Greenwich Capital. "This strategy is risky."

39 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD C&T BAD: ENERGY PRICES

THE IMPACT IS GLOBAL GREAT POWER WARS. Mead 9 [Walter Russell, Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, New Republic, February 4, http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2] So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a progressively worse position, farther behind the front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that of the Baltic states and Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier societies. As a result, developing countries and countries where capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes--as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet again. None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.

40 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD EXT: C&T INCREASES PRICES

UTILITIES ONLY CAP RAISES PRICES. BUSINESS WIRE 10. [“Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights” June 24 -- lexis -- DA 7/15/10] On the regulatory front, there is heated debate regarding the effectiveness of "cap-and-trade" legislation. Basically designed to impose a per-ton expense on carbon dioxide emissions, the coal and utility industries have been opposed to this system, claiming that it will drive up the cost of coal and put an effective tax onto people living in the Midwest U.S.

41 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD C&T BAD: INNOVATION

CAP AND TRADE DESTROYS INNOVATION. KATZ 08. [DIANE, DIRECTOR OF RISK ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY POLICY FOR THE FRASER INSTITUTE -- “COSTLY CONSEQUENCES: CAP AND TRADE IS NOT A MARKET BASED SOLUTION” – JUN 27 – FRASER INSTITUTE -- http://www.fraserinstitute.org/newsandevents/commentaries/5709.aspx] The worst effects will likely be felt by those trying to break into the market after cap and trade is launched. Newcomers will face a competitive disadvantage before they even open their doors; having not obtained free allowances from the government, their costs will be greater than those of their competitors. Simply put, cap and trade raises barriers to entry in a most un-market-like fashion.

INNOVATION KEY TO THE ECONOMY. DONAHUE 8. [Thomas, president and CEO of the United States Chamber of Commerce, “Innovation is essential to economic growth” Huffington Post, Oct 7 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-donohue/post_203_b_132695.html -- DA 7/16/10] Given the urgent challenges confronting the American economy, why do I want to devote today's column to protecting intellectual property (IP) and preventing IP theft, counterfeiting, and piracy? Because America's ability to compete in the global economy and create 21st century jobs for our children and grandchildren depend on our ability to lead the world in innovation. And the key to innovation is intellectual property. A culture of innovation and respect for IP rights have long been a source of America's competitive advantage. In 2006, the United States led the world in global patent filings, accounting for more than one-third of the total. This was spurred by industry investing more than $223 billion in research and development. America's IP-intensive industries have created 18 million jobs for U.S. workers-- jobs that usually pay better and are expected to grow faster over the next decade than the national average. Staying on the cutting edge of innovation means not only growth and jobs, but also the potential to find cures for deadly diseases, sources of clean energy, and other products and services yet to be dreamed of. America's innovation advantage will be challenged as emerging economies--such as China, India, and Russia--learn that innovation and IP rights are fundamental to economic growth. As government and the private sector in these countries begin to invest in innovation, the United States must do more to retain our position as the world's idea factory. We must also address the concerted effort by some governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and activists that seek to weaken IP rights around the world. For example, NGOs have tried to hijack the World Health Organization in order to undermine respect for pharmaceutical patents. This jeopardizes American jobs as well as the possibility of finding the next wonder drug. Congress recently took a step to address this threat by passing the PRO-IP Act of 2008. This important legislation will strengthen civil and criminal IP laws, increase law enforcement resources at the federal and state levels, and create an intellectual property enforcement coordinator in the White House. America's success in the 21st century economy will be inextricably linked to our ability to innovate. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its Global Intellectual Property Center are leading the fight to ensure that IP and innovation are respected around the world. To learn more about our efforts to grow the economy, create good-paying American jobs, and solve global challenges through innovation, visit www.uschamber.com/ip. THE IMPACT IS GLOBAL GREAT POWER WARS. Mead 9 [Walter Russell, Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, New Republic, February 4, http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2] So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a progressively worse position, farther behind the front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that of the Baltic states and Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier societies. As a result, developing countries and countries where capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes--as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet again. None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.

42 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD C&T BAD: MANUFACTURING

UTILITIES ONLY CAP DESTROYS THE MANUFACTURING SECTOR. BRAVENDER 10. [Robin, E&E Reporter, “Climate: Manufacturers worry of pitfalls from utility-only carbon cap” Energy and Environment Daily, http://www.eenews.net/EEDaily/2010/07/02/2/ -- July 2 -- DA 7/15/10] Capping greenhouse gas emissions from only the electric utility sector may present a possible political compromise on Senate climate legislation but that approach raises some concerns for industries that would be left out from the cap. Some Senate Democrats and environmentalists are hoping Republicans and moderate Democrats might be willing to sign on to the narrower utility-only emission cap in lieu of an economywide cap-and-trade bill. One Republican, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, publicly signaled support for such an approach earlier this week, and Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) is drafting a power sector-only bill. Proponents say it makes sense for utilities to go first as the industry has long been subject to market-based rules, and companies are looking to make significant new investments over the next several decades. But manufacturing industry representatives say that approach could still create problems for them . "At first blush, you'd think, 'Oh god, wonderful, we got a bye,'" said Andy O'Hare, vice president of regulatory affairs at the Portland Cement Association. "But in the end it sets up some difficulties." For one thing, O'Hare said, "it sort of leaves us in an uncertain state under the EPA regulatory process." If a utility-only measure were passed, it would likely exempt that sector from U.S. EPA climate regulations, he said, but "it would be difficult for a sector that's not included in the bill to be seeking an exemption." EPA is planning to begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions from industrial sources next January, and many industry representatives fear the new rules will be costly and could be overturned in court, creating uncertainty for investors. Manufacturers would likely be hit by increasing electricity costs because the bill would constrain greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants. "We'd be looking for some means by which to offset those cost increases in the bill," O'Hare said, but that could create political problems because the manufacturing sector won't be capping its emissions. AUTO INDUSTRY MANUFACTURING KEY TO CONVENTIONAL READINESS. Gallagher 6 (Paul -- an economic analyst and editor for Executive Intelligence Review -- EIR – June 9th -- http://www.larouchepub.com/eirtoc/2006/eirtoc_3325.html) Auto production plants which are being idled in the United States this year and next—a total of nearly 80 million square feet of capacity full of very diverse and capable machine tools—are also being rapidly sold off at auctions, and their unmatched machine-tool capabilities lost to the national economy. Rather than simply being "idled" with the possibility of workforces returning and work resuming, these plants are disappearing under auctioneers' hammers almost as fast as they are shut down. A list of 65 major auto plants shutting down, and their capacities which may be lost, was featured in EIR, May 12, 2006 and in the LaRouche PAC pamphlet, Economic Recovery Act of 2006. The pattern of auctions, of which two examples are shown here, makes clear that the automakers and major auto supply producers, seeing at least 65-70 of their plants as unutilized capacity, do not plan or expect that capacity to come back into use for production of automobiles; rather, underutilization will continue to grow by outsourcing under conditions of rampant globalization. The pattern also presents a challenge to Congress to act fast to save this huge unutilized chunk of the auto sectors' machine-tool design and production capability, and use it for missions more urgent to the nation's economy than producing cars and light trucks to fill the ranks of lengthening traffic jams across the country. Lyndon LaRouche has proposed, and his LaRouche PAC is mobilized to get through Congress, a Federal Public Corporation to adopt the capacity the automakers are discarding, and use it to help build a new national infrastructure from high-speed rail lines to electric power. `No Longer Required' EIR's investigation shows that three major auto plants, closed within six months or less, were auctioned off in their entirety in the second half of May; and a fourth auction, in late April, sold off machinery for production of electrical systems from four different plants of Delphi Corporation: in Rochester, New York; Athens, Alabama; and Dayton and Moraine, Ohio. The complete plant contents auctioned were the General Motors transmission plant in Muncie, Indiana, hammered away in a three-day sale May 16-18; the metal stamping and machining plant known as "Chrysler machine," sold off in Toledo, Ohio on May 24-25; and the Delphi electrical systems plant in Irvine, California, auctioned on May 23. The Toledo plant's auction sale notice is shown in the illustration, marked "no longer required" by Chrysler. The featured machines in the sale included some of the largest and most capable metal presses used in the auto industry. The case of Muncie Manual Transmissions LLC, "one of the largest gear manufacturers in North America," is shown here in the auction company's brochure. Its illustrations make clear that most of the machines in this plant are quite new, built and bought since 1995. Virtually all of its machinery was auctioned off from May 16-18. "The building will be empty now," said one person present, and GM's plan is to demolish it immediately. That plant has some 600,000 square feet of production space, and had 300 remaining production workers before being closed. The workforce had recently used about 500 major machine tools in the plant; many had a replacement value of $500,000-1,000,000 each. All sold, according to the auction brochure, and the entire plant full of machinery apparently brought about $30 million. So a rough estimate might be that the machine tools were sold for 15 cents on the dollar of their replacement value for production. It is no secret that the purchasers at these auctions include other U.S. firms, scrap outfits, and foreign firms employing machine tools, including for production for export to the United States. People in the business indicate that the pace of these sales has been brisk for more than a decade; but the size of the auctions has definitely grown in the past two years or so, with large plants like this going under the hammer. "We also see a lot of aerospace tools" from Boeing and other companies, said one. As for the city of Muncie, it has been told to hope that the GM jobs that were lost, will be matched by new jobs gained—from a Sallie Mae "center for debt management"! Machine tools and productive skills will be "no longer required" there. Dissipation of Bankrupt's Assets In Delphi's case, a full 25 out of its 33 auto parts and supply plants in the country are on the management's list to close down or sell; in addition, others, like the Irvine electrical systems plant, have been closed in recent months. The management under CEO Steve Miller, who was brought in last year to declare the company bankrupt, are flouting the principles of bankruptcy by hiding the accounts of the company's outsourced foreign operations (already 75% of its total work!) while bankrupting and trying to liquidate only the U.S. capacity. On May 28, calls to the lawyers for parties contesting Delphi's filing in New York Federal bankruptcy court, found that with the exception of the UAW's lawyer, none of those attorneys was aware that the productive assets of the "bankrupt" company were being auctioned off. Sources say that the UAW has attempted to protest and stop the auctions of Delphi's plant and equipment in the court, but has been unable to do so. The attorney representing Delphi's shareholders said that the actions would not be permitted unless Delphi had sought and received permission from Judge Robert Drain to sell the machines. None of the attorneys knew whether Delphi had gotten Drain's approval, nor could this be learned from the judge's clerk. In any case, it is clear that the intention of Delphi's management is "globalization by bankruptcy," and that critical productive machinery of the "bankrupt" company is being dissipated—a violation of at least the spirit of the law—through auctions to other firms, other divisions, and other countries, because it does not intend to emerge from bankruptcy to produce again in the United States. And vital high- technology productive machine tools and other capacity of the U.S. national economy, essential for producing the infrastructure of productivity, are being lost. Had Congress already acted along the legislative lines LaRouche is calling for, this capacity could have been purchased by a Federal Public Corporation and saved for use in the critical purposes of building a new national economic infrastructure, and creating skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled employment. Another month's set of U.S. auto sales reports came in on June 2 and showed the urgent need to diversify the "product" of the auto industrial sector in this way, as it will not come back to building more autos for sale . Ford's U.S. sales through May are 3.3% below a year ago; Daimler-Chrysler's, 4.1% down; Ford-Volvo's 6.3% down; GM's, 4.6% down; Nissan's, 8.4% down. Toyota, Hyundai, and Mazda's sales are still up for the year, but the overall national trend is down. Total sales of cars and light trucks fell from a 16.7 million annual rate last May, to a 16.3 million rate this May, and the annual sales rate for January-May 2006 as a whole, is only 16.4 million units, compared to 16.9 million for all of 2005, and 17.1 million in 2004. Use It or Lose It International Association of Machinists president Thomas Buffenbarger charged in a Washington, D.C. speech May 15, "We have lost the ability to manufacture the means of our prosperity," and now Congress has given away "the ability of this country to defend itself" by outsourcing its machine-tool production in aerospace-defense and auto. Every week that Congress delays emergency legislation to save this remaining industrial power, more of it is lost, irretrievably. Auto skilled trades workers, machinists, and others among America's dwindling base of industrial production workers, realize that the loss of machine-tool and other skilled engineering employment in the United States, could end technological progress in our economy, and ruin our national security. In LaRouche PAC's one-hour documentary DVD on retooling and saving the auto industry, "Auto and World Economic Recovery," the auto unionists and Midwest elected officials interviewed all stressed the potential threat: The United States could find itself in a war, needing new munitions and related industrial production, with effectively all of our machine-tool design and production capability exported to other nations. These nations may not be allies, in part because of their exploitation by the very same low-wage outsourcing which made them the repositories of the machine tools now being auctioned off from Rochester, Toledo, and Irvine.

43 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD C&T BAD: MANUFACTURING

READINESS CHECKS NUCLEAR CONFLICT WITH CHINA AND OTHERS.

Record 95 (JEFFREY prof , Department of Strategy and International Security @ USAF Air War College -- Parameters, Autumn, pp. 20-30. http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/parameters/1995/record.htm In terms of training, sustainability, and weaponry, it is always better to be ready and modern than unready and obsolete. What Congress does not look at, because it is constitutionally incapable of doing so in a coherent fashion, is the broader and far more critical question: Ready for what? What exactly should we expect our military to do? Against whom do we modernize? Have we correctly identified future threats to our security and the proper forces for dealing with those threats? Are we breathlessly and blindly pursuing modernization for its own sake, or are we tying it in with the quality and pace of hostile competition? These are the questions I would like to address. Informed line-item judgments on readiness and modernization hinge on informed judgments at the level of strategy, whose formulation is the responsibility of the Executive Branch. Our present strategy portends an excessive readiness for the familiar and comfortable at the expense of preparation for the more likely and less pleasant. Introducing Realism Into Our Assessments The basis of present strategy is the Administration's Bottom-Up Review, a 1993 assessment of US force requirements in the post-Soviet-threat world. The assessment concluded, among other things, that the United States should maintain ground, sea, and air forces sufficient to prevail in two nearly simultaneous major regional contingencies. For planning purposes the assessment postulated another Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (and Saudi Arabia's eastern province) and another North Korean invasion of South Korea--two large and thoroughly conventional wars fought on familiar territory against familiar Soviet-model armies. Congressional and other critics rightly point to disparities between stated requirements for waging two major wars concurrently and the existing and planned forces that would actually be available. Shortfalls are especially pronounced in airlift, sealift, and long-range aerial bombardment. Critics also note that the Bottom-Up Review more or less ignores the impact of Haiti- and Somalia-like operations on our capacity to fight another Korean and another Persian Gulf war at the same time. Few in Congress or elsewhere, however, have questioned the realism of the scenario. How likely is it that we would be drawn into two major wars at the same time? What are the opportunity costs of preparing for such a prospect? The prospect of twin wars has been a bugaboo of US force planners since the eve of World War II-- the only conflict in which the US military was in fact called upon to wage simultaneously what amounted to two separate wars. Chances for another world war, however, disappeared with the Soviet Union's demise. Moreover, two points should be kept in mind with respect to World War II. First, the two-front dilemma came about only because of Hitler's utterly gratuitous declaration of war on the United States just after Pearl Harbor--a move that has to go down as one of the most strategically stupid decisions ever undertaken by a head of state. Had Hitler instead declared that Germany had no quarrel with the United States, and therefore would remain at peace with it, President Roosevelt would have been hard put to obtain a congressional declaration of war on Germany, or, with one, to pursue a Germany-first strategy. Second, during World War II the United States was compelled to pursue a win-hold-win strategy against Germany and Japan, respectively, even though we spent 40 percent of the GNP on defense, placed 12 million Americans under arms, and had powerful allies (unlike Germany or Japan). We sought to--and did--defeat Germany first, while initially remaining on the strategic defense in the Pacific. In the decades since 1945, US planners persisted in postulating scenarios involving at least two concurrent conflicts, even though we have never had the resources to wage two big wars at the same time. Recall that the Vietnam conflict was a "half-war" in contemporary US force planning nomenclature. More to the point, our enemies have without exception refused to take advantage of our involvement in one war to start another one with us; not during the three years of the Korean War, the ten years of the Vietnam War, or the eight months of the Persian Gulf crisis of 1990-91. States almost always go to war for specific reasons independent of whether an adversary is already at war with another country. This is especially true for states contemplating potentially war-provoking acts against the world's sole remaining superpower. In none of the three major wars we have fought since 1945 did our enemies, when contemplating aggression, believe that their aggressive acts would prompt war with the United States. If prospects for being drawn into two large-scale conventional conflicts at the same time are remote, prudence dictates maintenance of sufficient military power to deal quickly and effectively with such conflicts one at a time. And for this we are well prepared. Our force structure remains optimized for interstate conventional combat, and it proved devastating in our last conventional war, against Saddam Hussein's large--albeit incompetently led--Soviet-model forces. Though most national military establishments in the Third World, which today includes much of the former Soviet Union, are incapable of waging large-scale conventional warfare, the few that are or have the potential to do so are all authoritarian states with ambitions hostile to US security interests. Among those states are Iran, Iraq, Syria, a radicalized Egypt, and China. Russia can be excluded for probably at least the next decade. Russia's conventional military forces have deteriorated to the point where they have great difficulty suppressing even small insurrections inside Russia's own borders. The humiliating performance of the Russian forces in Chechnya reveals the extent to which draft avoidance, demoralization, disobedience, desertion, political tension, professional incompetence, and the virtual collapse of combat support and combat service support capabilities have wrecked what just a decade ago was an army that awed many NATO force planners. China is included not just as a potential regional threat but as a potential global threat. We need to be wary of today's commonplace notion that the United States is the last superpower, that we will never again face the kind of global and robust threat to our vital security interests once posed by the Soviet Union, and before that, the Axis Powers. The present planning focus on regional conflict should not blind us to the probable emergence over the next decade or two of at least one regional superpower capable of delivering significant numbers of nuclear weapons over intercontinental distances and of projecting conventional forces well beyond their national frontiers. China comes first to mind. China's vast and talented population and spectacular economic performance could provide the foundation for a military challenge in Asia of a magnitude similar to that posed by the growth of Japanese military power in the 1930s. Our capacity for large- scale interstate conventional combat is indispensable to our security. It served us well in Korea and the Persian Gulf, where we continue to have vital interests threatened by adversaries who have amassed or are seeking to amass significant, and in the case of North Korea, vast amounts of conventional military power.

(Optional) That causes extinction Straits Times -2K 6-25-00. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -- horror of horrors -- raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia , hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -- truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilisation.

44 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD EXT: MANUFACTURING AFFECTS AUTO INDUSTRY

MANUFACTURING AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY ARE INTRINSICLY LINKED – THE AUTO INDUSTRY IS THE BIGGEST SECTOR. AMERICAN ECONOMIC ALERT 8. [“Can US Manufacturing Industry Be Saved?” Dec 4, http://www.americaneconomicalert.org/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=3087 DA 7/16/10] But if the Big Three fail what will be left of the U.S. manufacturing base? Televisions, computers, cell phones, radios and other electronics have already been ceded to Asia, particularly to China. The U.S. barely makes cruise ships, Boeing is becoming a relic, and U.S. factories dwindle as China assumes her spot as the factory floor to the world. "If the automotive sector is dramatically downsized, the overall manufacturing sector takes tremendous hit," Alan Tonelson, research fellow for the United States Business and Industry Council, said, adding much of U.S. manufacturing is somehow related to the auto industry.

45 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD C&T BAD: STEEL

UTILITIES ONLY CAP JACKS THE STEEL INDUSTRY. BRAVENDER 10. [Robin, E&E Reporter, “Climate: Manufacturers worry of pitfalls from utility-only carbon cap” Energy and Environment Daily, http://www.eenews.net/EEDaily/2010/07/02/2/ -- July 2 -- DA 7/15/10] The American Iron and Steel Institute does not favor a utilities-only approach, said spokeswoman Nancy Gravatt. "Steel is a very energy-intensive industry thus such an approach would result in a huge spike in energy costs putting U.S. steelmakers at great competitive disadvantage to steel producers from other countries," such as China, India and Brazil, who do not face the same costs and produce steel with higher emissions than the United States.

STEEL INDUSTRY KEY TO MILITARY READINESS AND HEG. AISI 8. [7/1 American Iron and Steel Institute, U.S. STEEL INDUSTRY CRITICAL TO KEEPING US FREE, 2008, http://www.steel.org/AM/Template.cfm? Section=2008&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=24325] WASHINGTON, D.C. -- As we reflect on our country’s independence this Fourth of July, we should pause to recognize those who fought for our freedom more than 230 years ago. But we should also recognize those who continue to keep our country free today: the men and women in uniform who offer their noble service in order to preserve America’s national security. “Members of the United States Navy, Marine Corps, Army, Air Force and Coast Guard, both at home and overseas, risk their lives everyday to ensure that Americans continue to have the freedoms that our country is founded upon. It is their commitment to our country that has made America what it is today – a beacon for freedom and democracy, “Andrew G. Sharkey, III, president and CEO, American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), said. “Our veterans represent the very best of America and the U.S. steel industry is continuously working to serve the military in their efforts to defend our nation.” Sharkey said domestically-produced steel is important to “improve our military platforms, strengthen the nation’s industrial base and harden our vital homeland security infrastructure.” Congressman Peter J. Visclosky (D-IN), Chairman of the Congressional Steel Caucus, has noted that “to ensure that our national defense needs will be met, it is crucial that we have a robust and vibrant domestic steel industry. It is poor policy to rely on foreign steel for our national security – instead, we need a long-term investment in domestically-produced, high-quality and reliable steel that will serve and strengthen our national security interests.” Protecting the nation’s vast infrastructure is essential to our homeland security . This became an issue in recent times when it was discovered that substandard steel imported from China was being used by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to construct the border fence between the United States and Mexico. Members of the Congressional Steel Caucus, including Congressman Visclosky (D-IN), have worked to introduce legislation that will help strengthen the domestic steel industry in order to address issues of substandard steel imports. “AISI and its members greatly appreciate the Congressional Steel Caucus’ support for the steel industry and their vigilance on behalf of America’s national security,” Sharkey said. In addition, thousands of skilled men and women of the U.S. steel industry work to produce high quality, cost-competitive products that are used by the military in various applications ranging from aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines to Patriot and Stinger missiles, Sharkey said. Land based vehicles, such as the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Abrams Tank and the family of Light Armored Vehicles, also utilize significant tonnage of steel plate per vehicle. The up-armored Humvee, in use by the U.S. Army, includes steel plating around the cab of the vehicle, offering improved protection against small arms fire and shrapnel. In fact, the steel plating underneath the cab is designed to survive up to eight pounds of explosives beneath the engine to four pounds in the cargo area. These critical applications require consistent, high quality domestic sources of supply. “We as a country need to make sure that our national defense needs will be met, making it critical for the United States to have a robust and vibrant domestic steel industry that will serve to strengthen our national security interests,” Sharkey noted. Historically, American-made steel and specialty metals have been integral components of U.S. military strength and they continue in this role today. The Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) primary use of steel in weapons systems is for shipbuilding, but steel is also an important component in ammunition, aircraft parts, and aircraft engines. DOD’s steel requirements are satisfied by both integrated steel mills and EAF producer mills. “With the desire never to be dependent on foreign nations for the steel used in military applications, it is critical that U.S. trade laws be defended, strengthened and enforced so that American-made steel can continue to play a vital role in our nation’s security,” Sharkey said. “On this Independence Day, let’s pledge to work to uphold that ideal.” AISI serves as the voice of the North American steel industry in the public policy arena and advances the case for steel in the marketplace as the preferred material of choice. AISI also plays a lead role in the development and application of new steels and steelmaking technology. AISI is comprised of 29 member companies, including integrated and electric furnace steelmakers, and 138 associate and affiliate members who are suppliers to or customers of the steel industry. AISI's member companies represent approximately 75 percent of both U.S. and North American steel capacity. For more information on safety tips for consumers, visit AISI’s Web site at www.steel.org.

GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR. KHALILZAD 95. [ZALMAY, Zalmay, Rand Corporation, The Washington Quarterly] 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 to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as 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 of law. 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 help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

46 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD EXT: C&T HURTS STEEL

CAP AND TRADE JACKS US STEEL – FORCES OVERSEAS RELOCATION. Slattery ‘8 (Jim Slattery -- partner with Wiley Rein LLP, testifying before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY OF THE HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE -- Federal News Service March 5th – lexis) Due to major achievements in efficiency and recycling, U.S. steel producers have survived massive onslaughts of imports and are finally recovering from years of losses; however the competitiveness of U.S. steel is always under pressure, particularly from developing country producers who face far less environmental or labor regulations and often benefit from large government subsidies. Our customers make buying decisions based on a few dollars per ton, as hard as that is to believe. If costs make either portion of the U.S. steel industry less competitive, then the balance that created our phenomenal environmental achievements will be lost. Under a poorly conceived U.S. greenhouse gas regime, global market pressures will work and I regret to say that the inevitable result will be to off shore production and increased global emissions at great cost to U.S. jobs in the world environment. Carbon intensity standards would limit greenhouse gas emissions per ton of steel for steel consumed in the United States, whether domestic or imported. These standards would be analogous to car and truck fuel economy standards and appliance energy efficiency standards. Whether Congress creates a cap-and-trade system, carbon taxes, or carbon intensity standards, the only metric to achieve global reach is carbon intensity. Congress has no ability to impose carbon caps on the total emissions from economies like China, Russian, India, and Brazil . To determine carbon intensity, a steel producer would one, identify the quantity of each input; two, multiply that quantity by the greenhouse gas factor identified by the EPA; and three add up the total emissions; and four divide the total emissions by the total tons of steel produced. Congress would direct the EPA to set the standard so that a predetermined percentage of U.S. production would meet the standard. Any producer, foreign or domestic, that failed to comply within a fixed amount of time, could not sell their products in the United States. The key is that these standards would apply to domestically produced and imported products equally. Our firm has conducted an intensive analysis and concluded that such standards would be consistent with U.S. obligations under GATT. I would be remiss if I did not tell you that the U.S. steel industry still has grave doubts about a cap-and-trade regime. We think the American Electric approach is inadequate as currently drafted in S. 2191. Our competitors, producing steel in countries like China, India, and Brazil do not need handouts from the U.S. Government to reduce emissions when they have equal access to capital and technology in this global marketplace. The American steel industry has led the world in reducing greenhouse emissions. But legislation that fails to achieve global reach will push production offshore and produce greater greenhouse gas emissions.

47 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD C&T BAD: WARMING

CAP AND TRADE INCREASES WARMING. DANHOF 8. [July 16, Justin, General Counsel for the National Center for Public Policy Research, “Why cap and trade could backfire” Christian Science Monitor -- http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/0716/p09s02-coop.html -- DA 7/14/10] Environmentalists claim that capping greenhouse-gas emissions and creating a market for emissions trading - a policy prescription called "cap-and-trade" - would reduce carbon dioxide output and with it the risk of global warming. But it could achieve the opposite. Here's how: By turning carbon emissions into commodities that can be bought and sold, cap-and-trade policies could remove the stigma from producing such emissions. In the late 1990s, Israeli researchers Uri Gneezy and Aldo Rustichini performed an experiment that provides a useful model. They chose six random day-care centers in Haifa at which parents sometimes arrived late to pick up their children. Intending to reduce the frequency of tardiness, the two imposed a fine on late parents. Mr. Gneezy and Mr. Rustichini explain that, typically, "when negative consequences are imposed on a behavior, they will produce a reduction of that particular response." But the experiment did not produce the anticipated results. Instead, the incidence of late arrivals increased. In fact, the percentage of parents who were late more than doubled. Behavioral law and economics help explain this counterintuitive result. Prior to the imposition of the fine, parents - recognizing it is wrong to make a teacher stay past normal hours with their children - experienced feelings of guilt and shame when they were late. In other words, some parents were motivated to arrive on time by the stigma attached to arriving late. Imposing the fine reduced the stigma. The fine created a good, and a market where none previously existed. Parents were no longer "arriving late," but rather, purchasing extra child-care hours. A similar situation could occur under a cap-and-trade regime. Under cap-and-trade rules, the government places an artificial cap on the amount of carbon each regulated facility may emit. Facilities producing more carbon than they are allowed are required to purchase additional credits to make up the difference. The opportunity to purchase these credits creates a market where none previously existed. As in the example of the fined parents, the purchase of the right to emit greenhouse gases would likely reduce any stigma associated with doing so. Emission levels, consequently, could rise. This phenomenon is already seen on an individual level. Al Gore says the risk of catastrophic global warming is so great that Americans should act immediately to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Yet his home uses 20 times more energy than the average American home, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. That's OK, the former vice president assures us, because he purchases offsets to ensure that he lives a carbon-neutral lifestyle. His message - albeit unintentional - is simple: Produce carbon to your heart's content; just pay a carbon broker to "neutralize" your carbon footprint and your guilt. If Mr. Gore could not purchase offsets, would he feel more pressure to reduce his energy use? The likely answer is "yes." Columnist Charles Krauthammer explains in Time magazine that "purchasing carbon credits is an incentive to burn even more fossil fuels, since now it is done under the illusion that it's really cost free to the atmosphere." Perhaps that helps explain why most European nations have increased their carbon emissions since adopting the Kyoto global-warming treaty in 1997. By most accounts, the European Union's cap-and-trade system isn't working. In its first year of operation (2005-06), emissions covered by the trading scheme rose 0.8 percent. During the same time, according to the Energy Information Agency, emissions in the US - which hasn't ratified the Kyoto Protocol or adopted a cap-and-trade system - dropped 1.8 percent. Samuel Boles, a researcher at the Santa Fe Institute, has noted that "[p]olicies designed to harness self-regarding preferences to public ends may be counterproductive. These failures occur when conventional self- interest-based policies compromise the beneficial effects of intrinsic motivation and ... a desire to uphold social norms." The social stigma of carbon emissions grows stronger each day. As this stigma grows, companies are increasing their investments into research and technologies to reduce and store carbon. If Congress removes the stigma associated with these emissions by assigning a price to them, it may not like the results. THE IMPACT IS EXTINCTION. Tickell 08 [Oliver, “On a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare for is extinction” Guardian Unlimited – lexis – DA 7/14/10] We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Gurdian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die.

48 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD AT: CAP AND TRADE GOOD

Tradable permits would fail in a US or international system – too experimental and tough to administer Avi-Yonah & Uhlmann ‘8 ( Reuven S. Avi-Yonah is the Irwin I. Cohn Professor of Law and the Director of the International Tax LLM Program at the University of Michigan Law School; David M. Uhlmann is the Jeffrey F. Liss Professor from Practice and the Director of the Environmental Law and Policy Program at the University of Michigan Law School. Combating Global Climate Change: Why a Carbon Tax is a Better Response to Global Warming than Cap and Trade – March 18th -- http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? abstract_id=1109167#PaperDownload) But an international environmental crisis is not the time to experiment with a largely untested regulatory system on a global scale. It is far from clear whether a cap and trade system will work on a national and international level. First, while the United States utilized a cap and trade system to reduce acid rain in the 1990s,3 we have never used cap and trade to address an emissions problem that affects the entire economy. Second, a cap and trade system promises fixed reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, but the trade-off is uncertainty about the price of those reductions. If the price of carbon rises too high, the carbon cap will need to be relaxed, thus removing the primary benefit of a cap and trade system. Third, a cap and trade system would be difficult to implement, monitor, and enforce. There would be complicated questions about how allowances should be distributed and challenges in determining the validity of allowances (especially in an international cap and trade system).

Tradable permits will fail – history is on our side. Hennessey ‘7 (Matthew Hennessey -- Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs – Policy Innovations – November 19th -- http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/briefings/data/cap_tax) Champions of cap and trade point to its potential to generate innovation. "When you impose emissions-reduction caps and allow trading, you stimulate private sector investment in new technologies," DeVito said. "Where else can you be a part of a new market? New ideas in old markets are rare. New ideas in new markets are extremely rare. The modern energy economy requires entrepreneurship and a cap-and-trade system will help the innovators innovate." Despite DeVito's "colossal optimism," examples of successful cap-and-trade programs are hard to come by. Economic guru and former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has come out against cap and trade as an effective mechanism for reducing carbon emissions. "I have grave doubts that international agreements imposing a globalized so-called cap-and-trade system on CO2 emissions will prove feasible," he wrote in his recent book, The Age of Turbulence. The 2005 European Union Emissions Trading Scheme got off to a rocky start. It was developed in part to help meet targets set by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, but the system ran into trouble when it became clear that too many permits had been allotted, causing their value to plummet. Distribution of permits was "grandfathered," meaning that countries received credits free of charge based on historic emissions. Cap and trade skeptics argue that giving away permits, rather than selling them, represents a de facto wealth transfer to large polluters. As caps reduce the size of the carbon market, the increased cost is passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices. "This extra money flows to the companies that get free permits," writes Peter Barnes in Carbon Capping: A Citizen's Guide. Others have noted that carbon markets are easily manipulated by industry lobbying. "When [a market] is created through political action, rather than emerging spontaneously, business will seek to influence its design for commercial advantage," wrote economist and Financial Times columnist John Kay in 2006. Still others point to the price volatility of carbon credits as a disincentive to invest in emissions-reducing technologies.

49 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD AT: C&T  INNOVATION

Cap-and-trade will not cause tech innovation Thorning ‘7 (Margo Thorning, Ph.D. Senior Vice President and Chief Economist American Council for Capital Formation Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works U.S. Senate November 8th -- http://www.accf.org/pdf/test-climate-security.pdf) Caps on emissions are not likely to promote new technology development because caps will force industry to divert resources to near-term, “end of pipe” solutions rather than promote spending for long-term technology innovations that will enable us to reduce GHGs and increase energy efficiency. An emission trading system would send exactly the wrong signals to investors because it would create uncertainty about the return on new investment. A “safety-valve” price of carbon (designed to create a sense of confidence about future energy costs) can easily be changed. Such uncertainty means that the hurdle rate, which new investments must meet, will be higher (thus less investment will occur) and they will be less willing to invest in the U.S. A tax on carbon would provide more certainty for investors and allow them to replace old capital equipment with less carbon intensive equipment during the replacement cycle.

Tradable Permits decreases the incentive to innovate. Driesen ’98 (David M. Driesen -- Assistant Professor, Syracuse University College of Law -- Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review – Fall – lexis, lawrev) Trading may not only discourage the up-front investment in innovation necessary to develop new technologies with some initial costs, it may lead to avoidance of inexpensive but institutionally difficult energy efficiency improvements. Wide agreement exists that fairly [*45] large cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are available at little or no net cost through investments in energy efficiency, which tend to reduce consumption of fossil fuels and associated greenhouse gas emissions. 250 Many energy efficiency improvements tend to produce enough savings in fuel costs to finance the initial cost of introducing greater efficiency. Substantial institutional barriers make it difficult to implement these inexpensive reductions. 251 The actual free market economy, as opposed to the perfect market economists model, often fails to realize cost saving emission reductions. Energy efficiency investments that save money for the society as a whole over a long period of time do not necessarily appear economic to the people in a logical position to make investments. For example, a homeowner may not invest in insulation, energy efficient lighting, and energy efficient appliances that would more than pay for themselves in a few years. The homeowner may not have the resources to make the required up-front investment or may not plan to live in a house long enough to realize the full return on the investment. Similarly, cultural factors, not just costs, help explain the increased use of passenger cars in the United States, which contributes to climate change. 252 Reversing this increase would no doubt require politically difficult changes, even if a shift to mass transit were economically attractive. 253 In many cases, realizing free or very inexpensive "no regrets" options requires significant institutional reforms that require political effort. 254 Government officials may find it easier to realize more expensive [*46] reductions abroad, than to realize cheap reductions at home that require political and cultural change. The broader the universe of trading opportunities, the greater the potential to find cheap fixes that avoid long-term investments. 255 In crafting agreements about trading, the international community faces important issues about the appropriate geographic breadth of trading and about which countries may trade. The degree of the threat to innovation depends on the particulars of the law governing trading. Geographically broad trading opportunities to realize credits for using standard technologies or planting trees may facilitate avoidance of investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy.

50 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD AT: C&T  JOBS

THE NEG IS WRONG – CAP AND TRADE WILL CAUSE A NET INCREASE IN UNEMPLOYMENT. Loris & Lieberman 9. [ 7/8-- Loris- Research Assistant at The Heritage Foundation's Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies., Lieberman- Senior Policy Analyst, Energy and Environment, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, “Cap and Trade Sold under False Pretenses”, The Heritage Foundation] President Obama and Democratic House leaders claimed that Waxman-Markey is a jobs bill. With the lavish subsidies for green investment placed in the bill, surely companies will hire workers to build solar panels and windmills; however, the number of "green" jobs will pale in comparison to the number of jobs lost due to higher energy prices and slower economic growth. The goal of cap and trade is to drive up the costs of energy in order for people to use less of it. Because just about every business uses energy to produce goods and must pay their own electricity bills, the cost of production for businesses increases, and consumer demand falls for two reasons: 1.Price hikes on goods reduce demand, and 2.People have less disposable income due to higher energy prices. Overall, production cuts and reduced consumer spending destroy jobs and slow economic growth, which further increases unemployment. The Heritage analysis found that over the 2012-2035 timeline, job losses average over 1.1 million. By 2035, a projected 2.5 million jobs are lost below the baseline--without a cap-and-trade bill.[4] Some jobs will be lost completely, while others will move to different countries where the cost of production is cheaper. Again, these losses are on top of "green jobs" created as a result of the bill.

51 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD

***ENERGY AFF*** YES CAP AND TRADE

YES CAP AND TRADE INCLUSION – REID PUSH. SAMUELSOHN 7-13-10. [Darren, staffwriter, “Reid warms to July climate vote” Politico -- http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39677.html DA 7/13/10] Senate Democratic leaders are set to roll the dice this month on a comprehensive energy and climate bill, including a cap on greenhouse gases from power plants, even though they don’t yet have the 60 votes needed to move the controversial plan. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) confirmed Tuesday that he would gamble on the high-stakes legislation — much as he undertook health care and Wall Street reform — that for now remains in the rough-draft stage but that will soon be the subject of intense negotiations. “Whatever I bring to the floor, I want to get 60 votes,” Reid told POLITICO shortly after announcing his strategy for a full Senate debate as early as the week of July 26. Reid confirmed the bill will have four parts: an oil spill response; a clean-energy and job-creation title based on work done in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee; a tax package from the Senate Finance Committee; and a section that deals with greenhouse gas emissions from the electric utility industry.

WILL PASS – BUSINESS SUPPORT. MURRAY 7-16. [James, Business Green writer, “Senate clears path for run at climate legislation” 2010 http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2266590/senate-clears-path-run-climate -- DA 7/16/10] The Senate last night passed Barack Obama's financial reform bill, finally clearing the way for a vote on controversial climate change legislation. The president had signalled that he would throw his full weight behind trying to secure the 60 Senate votes needed to pass a comprehensive energy and climate change bill as soon as the proposed overhaul of financial regulation was completed. Speculation is now mounting that the Senate could debate a draft climate bill put forward by Democrat senator John Kerry and independent senator Joe Lieberman within the next few weeks after Senate majority leader Harry Reid hinted that he was preparing to move forward with the latest revised version of the bill. Senators Kerry and Lieberman have been circulating a 667-page draft version of the bill that scales back previous plans for an economy-wide emissions trading scheme in favour of a narrower carbon-pricing mechanism that initially focuses solely on energy utilities. The proposals have secured support from a number of influential business groups and energy firms and Kerry and Lieberman are confident that the scaled-back proposals, which also include substantial support for renewable- and nuclear-energy projects, can win over the Republican votes needed to pass through the Senate.

52 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD IMPACT DEFENSE: ENERGY PRICES

DOESN’T COLLAPSE THE ECONOMY. BARR 9. [Colin, senior writer, “Forget $100 oil. $80 oil is a problem” CNN Money Nov 18 -- http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/18/news/economy/oil.prices.fortune/index.htm DA 7/16/10] None of this is to say a further rise in energy prices would necessarily send the economy into a tailspin. While consumers are still strapped, behavior changes should make the economy less vulnerable. U.S. oil consumption has slid 9% since 2007, Kopits notes. Americans also drove 3% fewer miles in the latest year through August than they did two years earlier, according to data from the Transportation Department. Hamilton points out that car sales reverted to depressed levels after the government's Cash for Clunkers promotion ended in August. Hillard G. Huntington, executive director at the Energy Modeling Forum at Stanford University, said that while oil markets remain exposed to a possible supply disruption, he believes the memory of last year's record prices is fresh enough that another oil shock is unlikely.

CAP AND TRADE DOESN’T CAUSE PRICE SPIKES. Parry and Pizer 7 (Ian and William, Senior Fellows at Resources for the Future, Regulation, Vol 30 No 3, Fall 2007, p.21)

Second, the problem of permit price volatility can be addressed through provisions like "safety valves" and, to a lesser extent, permit banking and permit borrowing. With a safety valve, firms can buy additional permits from the government in periods when the permit price reaches a specified trigger level. This effectively relaxes the permit cap in that period, thereby keeping a ceiling on permit prices when permits would otherwise have been in excessive demand. Coupling a very tight cap with a safety valve would almost completely stabilize prices. Alternatively, transitory permit price spikes might be ironed out by allowing firms to borrow permits from the government during periods of high permit prices and pay them back through more stringent emissions control in some future period. Similarly, permit banking helps to create a floor under permit prices; under this mechanism, in periods when the demand for permits is slack because abatement costs are low, firms have an incentive to abate more in order to hold over some allowances for use in future periods when they expect higher permit prices. While still subject to fluctuations driven by longer-term price expectations, these mechanisms at least remove short-term volatility. Although arrangements for banking and borrowing permits strengthen the need for new financial institutions, such institutions would probably develop quickly and at relatively low cost.

53 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD C&T GOOD: CHEMICAL INDUSTRY

CAP AND TRADE KEY TO CHEMICAL INDUSTRY – BOOSTS DEMAND. CAMPOY 9. [ANA, journalist, “Chemical makers poised to gain in new cap and trade system” Wall Street Journal – Jun 5] With legislation pending in Congress that could put a price on greenhouse-gas emissions, the energy-gulping chemical industry is trying to position itself to emerge as an unlikely winner. Chemical makers are one of the biggest energy users among manufacturers, expelling about 5% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, according to government data. They face heavy costs under a proposed system to cap emissions that would require the industry to purchase permits to pollute. But a so-called cap-and-trade system would also boost demand for some chemical companies' products, from insulation to solar-panel components, because those products would help others cut back on the energy use. "This is really our sweet spot," said Calvin Dooley, chief executive of the American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group.

CHEMICAL INDUSTRY KEY TO SOLVE DISEASES. NRC 2. [National Research Council Committee on Challenges for Chemical Sciences in the 21st century “National Security and Homeland Defense” -- P 28.] Many drugs are produced by either chemical synthesis or biosynthetic processes. Recent advances in synthetic organic chemistry, catalysis, biotechnology, and combinatorial chemistry have made it possible to synthesize many chemicals that are not found in nature or have heretofore been difficult to produce. Current chemical drugs, such as antibiotics, used to combat infectious diseases are threatened by bacterial abilities to quickly mutate into a drug-resistant form. Concern also exists for purposefully genetically modified organisms used for terrorist attacks. Consequently, there is a need to constantly develop new chemical drugs for fighting infectious diseases caused by new biological agents. As we know more about human genomics, many new drugs, whether small-molecule chemicals or large proteins, can be developed to better target the diseases.

EPIDEMICS CAUSE EXTINCTION. South China Morning Post 96 (1-4 Avi, quoting Dr. Ben-Abraham, called "one of the 100 greatest minds in history" by Mensa "Leading the way to a cure for AIDS," P. Lexis) Two decades of intensive study and research in the field of virology have convinced him of one thing: in place of natural and man- made disasters or nuclear warfare, humanity could face extinction because of a single virus, deadlier than HIV. "An airborne virus is a lively, complex and dangerous organism," he said. "It can come from a rare animal or from anywhere and can mutate constantly. If there is no cure, it affects one person and then there is a chain reaction and it is unstoppable. It is a tragedy waiting to happen." That may sound like a far-fetched plot for a Hollywood film, but Dr Ben -Abraham said history has already proven his theory. Fifteen years ago, few could have predicted the impact of AIDS on the world. Ebola has had sporadic outbreaks over the past 20 years and the only way the deadly virus - which turns internal organs into liquid - could be contained was because it was killed before it had a chance to spread. Imagine, he says, if it was closer to home: an outbreak of that scale in London, New York or Hong Kong. It could happen anytime in the next 20 years - theoretically, it could happen tomorrow.

54 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD C&T GOOD: COMPETITIVENESS

CAP AND TRADE KEY TO RENEWABLES SHIFT – KEY TO COMPETITIVENESS. Hawkins 7 (David -- director of the Climate Center at the National Resources Defense Council. Gristmill – November 28th -- http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/28/11254/2676) Between now and 2030 over $17 trillion will be invested globally to meet the growing demand for energy services. Nearly all of this will be spent on fuels and conversion methods selected by private sector actors chasing profitability. The challenge is to focus the incredible power of these private sector actors on energy investments that minimize carbon emissions. To move at the pace and scale required to prevent the worst impacts of global warming we need policies that make clean energy products and services a superior business proposition. Policies that require a clear and steady reduction in emissions will move the private sector in the right direction faster than any government funded program by itself. With a schedule of declining caps on emissions as the law of the land, entrepreneurs in firms large and small will know there is a growing market for clean energy innovations. They will help the nation meet targeted emissions reduction at the lowest possible cost. Nordhaus and Shellenberger ignore the reality of the energy marketplace when they argue that the most important policy to drive new technology is a large government funded program. While incentive funding measures can be an important complementary strategy for clean energy deployment, by themselves they will not move the private sector at the required pace. In arguing for "breakthrough" technologies rather than deployment of today's clean energy solutions, Nordhaus and Shellenberger are peddling the same false choice the Bush administration has used to justify its retrograde policies for the past seven years. The convenient truth is that with intelligent policies to make clean energy more profitable we can get started today and we can set in motion the forces that will deliver the additional breakthroughs we need in the coming decades. This is not an "environmentalist" pipe dream. It is the judgment of the leaders of 27 of the largest American businesses, who have joined with NRDC and others in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), calling for a mandatory declining cap on U.S. global warming emissions. Its members include large energy producers and consumers such as Shell, Rio Tinto, Duke Energy, and Alcoa. These Fortune 500 companies recognize that their future business model depends upon the shift to low carbon technologies and efficiencies made possible through a national program of required emission reductions.

COMPETITIVENESS KEY TO HEG. SEGAL 4. [ADAM, Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, Foreign Affairs, “Is America Losing Its Edge?” November / December 2004, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101facomment83601/adam-segal/is-america-losing-its-edge.html] The United States' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new technologies and industries faster than anyone else. For the last five decades, U.S. scientific innovation and technological entrepreneurship have ensured the country's economic prosperity and military power. It was Americans who invented and commercialized the semiconductor, the personal computer, and the Internet; other countries merely followed the U.S. lead. Today, however, this technological edge-so long taken for granted-may be slipping, and the most serious challenge is coming from Asia. Through competitive tax policies, increased investment in research and development (R&D), and preferential policies for science and technology (S&T) personnel, Asian governments are improving the quality of their science and ensuring the exploitation of future innovations. The percentage of patents issued to and science journal articles published by scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is rising. Indian companies are quickly becoming the second-largest producers of application services in the world, developing, supplying, and managing database and other types of software for clients around the world. South Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U.S. advantage in the manufacture of computer chips and telecommunications software. And even China has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such as lasers, biotechnology, and advanced materials used in semiconductors, aerospace, and many other types of manufacturing. Although the United States' technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of research and development is exerting considerable pressures on the American system. Indeed, as the United States is learning, globalization cuts both ways: it is both a potent catalyst of U.S. technological innovation and a significant threat to it. The United States will never be able to prevent rivals from developing new technologies; it can remain dominant only by continuing to innovate faster than everyone else. But this won't be easy; to keep its privileged position in the world, the United States must get better at fostering technological entrepreneurship at home.

GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR. KHALILZAD 95. [ZALMAY, Zalmay, Rand Corporation, The Washington Quarterly] 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 to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as 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 of law. 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 help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

55 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD C&T GOOD: ECON

STUDIES PROVE CAP AND TRADE IS GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY – ACTS LIKE A STIMULUS AND CREATES JOBS. CCS 8. [Center for Climate Studies, a nonprofit partnership consulting organization, “Climate change policy as economic stimulus: evidence and opportunities from states” Center for Climate strategies White Paper November -- http://www.rbf.org/usr_doc/CCS_paper_climate_chg_and_eco_stimulus_nov08.pdf] A growing body of related economic analysis indicates that these climate policies could have a significant and beneficial effect on job creation and overall economic development. Two important forces are at play. First, actions that reduce energy demand and infrastructure expenses save money and, by freeing up scarce capital for other uses, have an expansionary effect on the economy. In many cases they also have an economic stimulus effect by investing in labor-intensive installation of new energy efficient equipment, buildings and facilities. Second, actions that shift energy supply away from conventional fossil fuel sources to renewable and alternative sources typically result in proportionately higher use of labor per unit of energy produced. The higher cost of production for some of these options also results in more highly leveraged investments in job creation. This is even more pronounced when new indigenous energy supplies replace imported energy. The results of state climate action plans show that economic development benefits can result from specific sector-based policies and measures for these reasons, and others.

CAP AND TRADE WOULD CREATE JOBS – KEY INTERNAL LINK TO ECONOMIC GROWTH. Kane 9. [7/7 -- Paul , Washington Post Staff Writer, “Cabinet Members Push Climate Bill on the Hill” Washington Post, , online] A quartet of Obama administration officials launched a new effort to sell landmark climate change legislation on Capitol Hill, telling a Senate committee today that the goal was not limited to simply curbing greenhouse gases but also to creating a boom in alternative energy jobs. The administration's top energy and resource officials sought to provide a push for the legislation because of the steep climb it faces in the Senate. The officials hailed the emerging legislation as something that would provide a boost to the national economy at a time when it is shedding 500,000 jobs per month. "This is a jobs bill, it's an energy bill," EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, a former senator, called the battle against global warming "one of the signature issues of our time."

56 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD C&T GOOD: HEG

CLIMATE LEGISLATION KEY TO LEADERSHIP – CURRENT POLICY PERCEIVED AS THE US IS SOLELY SELF INTERESTED. Brunnée 4 (Jutta, Professor of Law and Metcalf Chair in Environmental Law at University of Toronto, “The United States and International Environmental Law: Living with an Elephant,” p.646, http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol15/No4/chh401.pdf)

The perils of American ‘a la carte multilateralism,’ have manifested themselves on many fronts over the last few years.227 But there are few better illustrations than the US withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol and the responses that this – perfectly legal – step provoked. Ultimately, soft power rests on credibility. 228 In this context, it matters that the Kyoto withdrawal is widely seen as part of a broader pattern. A country’s ability to get others to want what it wants will be diminished if it is perceived as a purely self- interested actor, which is precisely what current US climate change policy invites. In addition, over-reliance on coalitions of the willing, be it in the environmental context or beyond, undermines rather than enhances perception of the United States as a trustworthy, good faith actor. 229 This assessment applies in particular to US relations with European and other states that perceive a duty to cooperate to be at the very heart of the international legal order. 230 Therefore, even the Bush administration will likely have to adjust its approach to international law in view of its inherent limits. However, it is unlikely that such adjustments would have beneficial effects for the climate change regime. American re-engagement, be it in the Kyoto Protocol or in a new treaty, 231 arguably will have to wait for a new American administration. 232 The many state and local climate change initiatives that have been launched in the face of federal inaction may come to play an important role in assisting this move. 233 A recently publicized report commissioned by the Department of Defense, which argues that rapid climate change ‘should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern,’ may also enter into the equation. 234

GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR. KHALILZAD 95. [ZALMAY, Zalmay, Rand Corporation, The Washington Quarterly] 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 to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as 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 of law. 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 help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

57 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD EXT: CLIMATE POLICY KEY LEADERSHIP

U.S. CLIMATE ACTION KEY TO PREVENT THE COLLAPSE OF OVERALL LEADERSHIP. Walter 2 (Norbert, Chief Economist @ Deutsche Bank Group, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html? res=9907E7DE1F3CF93BA1575BC0A9649C8B63)

At present there is much talk about the unparalleled strength of the United States on the world stage. Yet at this very moment the most powerful country in the world stands to forfeit much political capital, moral authority and international good will by dragging its feet on the next great global issue: the environment. Before long, the administration's apparentunwillingness to take a leadership role -- or, at the very least, to stop acting as a brake -- in fighting global environmental degradation will threaten the very basis of the American supremacy that many now seem to assume will last forever. American authority is already in some danger as a result of the Bush administration's decision to send a low-level delegation to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg -- low-level, that is, relative to America's share of both the world economy and global pollution. The absence of President Bush from Johannesburg symbolizes this decline in authority. In recent weeks, newspapers around the world have been dominated by environmental headlines: In central Europe, flooding killed dozens, displaced tens of thousands and caused billions of dollars in damages. In South Asia, the United Nations reports a brown cloud of pollution that is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths a year from respiratory disease. The pollution (80 percent man-made) also cuts sunlight penetration, thus reducing rainfall, affecting agriculture and otherwise altering the climate. Many other examples of environmental degradation, often related to the warming of the atmosphere, could be cited. What they all have in common is that they severely affect countries around the world and are fast becoming a chief concern for people everywhere. Nobody is suggesting that these disasters are directly linked to anything the United States is doing. But when a country that emits 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases acts as an uninterested, sometimes hostile bystander in the environmental debate, it looks like unbearable arrogance to many people abroad. The administration seems to believe it is merely an observer -- that environmental issues are not its issues. But not doing anything amounts to ignoring a key source of world tension, and no superpower that wants to preserve its status can go on dismissing such a pivotal dimension of political and economic -- if not existential -- conflict. In my view, there is a clear-cut price to be paid for ignoring the views of just about every other country in the world today .The United States is jettisoning its hard-won moral and intellectual authority and perhaps the strategic advantages that come with being a good steward of the international political order. The United States may no longer be viewed as a leader or reliable partner in policymaking: necessary, perhaps inevitable, but not desirable, as it has been for decades. All of this because America's current leaders are not willing to acknowledge the very real concerns of many people about global environmental issues.

ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE KEY TO REVERSING DETERIORATING LEADERSHIP. NREL 8 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a national lab of the US DOE, “Strengthening US Leadership of International Clean Energy Cooperation” December, http://www.nrel.gov/applying_technologies/pdfs/44261.pdf)

Climate change, the growing demand for fossil fuel resources, energy security, and sustainable development issues are recognized worldwide as critical challenges that require immediate attention. These concerns have helped create a growing consensus that global energy systems need to undergo a fundamental transformation toward clean energy technologies in the coming decades. At the same time, U.S. leadership in global clean energy markets has declined and economic opportunities are being lost to other countries. Through revitalized international clean energy programs, the United States can reap substantial economic, energy security, environmental, and global sustainable development benefits. These benefits include: Providing direct economic benefits to the United States—jobs, price reductions, economic stability, and enhanced trade balance Speeding the rate of development and market introduction of advanced clean energy technologies Enhancing the competitiveness of U.S. industry Tackling climate change and energy security through international cooperation.

58 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD C&T GOOD: INNOVATION

CAP AND TRADE KEY TO INNOVATION. Yelin-Kefer 1. [Jennifer, Yale Law School, Spring 2001; M.E.S., Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 1998, Stanford Environmental Law Journal, January 20 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 221] In light of these shortcomings, tradable permits were first conceived as a possible pollution control strategy in 1968. 24 By 1974, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had begun to incorporate economic incentives into the Clean Air Act, allowing the regulated community to vary regulatory standards within defined regions. 25 These initial changes were followed by a flurry of congressional initiatives advocating the use of economic incentives in legislation. 26 Trading has "become the darling of innovative regulators and business people in the United States," 27 prompting one commentator to conclude that "there is now virtual consensus that incentive instruments ... are presumptively superior to conduct-based technology standards and fixed performance standards." 28

INNOVATION KEY TO THE ECONOMY. DONAHUE 8. [Thomas, president and CEO of the United States Chamber of Commerce, “Innovation is essential to economic growth” Huffington Post, Oct 7 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-donohue/post_203_b_132695.html -- DA 7/16/10] Given the urgent challenges confronting the American economy, why do I want to devote today's column to protecting intellectual property (IP) and preventing IP theft, counterfeiting, and piracy? Because America's ability to compete in the global economy and create 21st century jobs for our children and grandchildren depend on our ability to lead the world in innovation. And the key to innovation is intellectual property. A culture of innovation and respect for IP rights have long been a source of America's competitive advantage. In 2006, the United States led the world in global patent filings, accounting for more than one-third of the total. This was spurred by industry investing more than $223 billion in research and development. America's IP-intensive industries have created 18 million jobs for U.S. workers--jobs that usually pay better and are expected to grow faster over the next decade than the national average. Staying on the cutting edge of innovation means not only growth and jobs, but also the potential to find cures for deadly diseases, sources of clean energy, and other products and services yet to be dreamed of. America's innovation advantage will be challenged as emerging economies--such as China, India, and Russia--learn that innovation and IP rights are fundamental to economic growth. As government and the private sector in these countries begin to invest in innovation, the United States must do more to retain our position as the world's idea factory. We must also address the concerted effort by some governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and activists that seek to weaken IP rights around the world. For example, NGOs have tried to hijack the World Health Organization in order to undermine respect for pharmaceutical patents. This jeopardizes American jobs as well as the possibility of finding the next wonder drug. Congress recently took a step to address this threat by passing the PRO-IP Act of 2008. This important legislation will strengthen civil and criminal IP laws, increase law enforcement resources at the federal and state levels, and create an intellectual property enforcement coordinator in the White House. America's success in the 21st century economy will be inextricably linked to our ability to innovate. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its Global Intellectual Property Center are leading the fight to ensure that IP and innovation are respected around the world. To learn more about our efforts to grow the economy, create good-paying American jobs, and solve global challenges through innovation, visit www.uschamber.com/ip. THE IMPACT IS GLOBAL GREAT POWER WARS. Mead 9 [Walter Russell, Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, New Republic, February 4, http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2] So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a progressively worse position, farther behind the front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that of the Baltic states and Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier societies. As a result, developing countries and countries where capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes--as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet again. None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.

59 SDI 2010 POLITICS OBAMA (is not) BAD EXT: C&T  INNOVATION

CAP & TRADE MEANS THE MARKET DEVELOPS KEY TECHNOLOGIES KRUPP 8. [Fred, President of the Environmental Defense Fund Earth: The Sequel The Race to Reinvent Energy and Stop Global Warming, p. 178-179] Although gasification champions mostly scorn pulverized coal, and though about 160 coal-gasification plants now operate worldwide, debate continues about the relative merits of the two technologies. But this is the beauty of a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases: Under such a policy, it would not matter that no one yet knows which technologies will prove superior. It would be up to the market not the government—to find the best ways forward. Instead of forcing utilities to make certain decisions or to back certain technologies, a cap-and-trade system sets a limit and lets the market figure out the cheapest and most efficient means of getting there. Every measure proposed to clean up pollution has a potential role to play. Once a firm upper limit on emissions is set, and a trad ing mechanism is in place, allowing those who exceed that limit to buy allowances from those who beat their targets, the resulting price signal will determine what cleanup solution makes the most economic sense for any given facility.

60

Load more

  60

Copy Link