acda february brief ready to read

8/18/2019 ACDA February Brief Ready to Read

1/12

AMERICAN COMPETITIVE DEBATE

ASSOCIATION

February

Ready-to-ReadBlocks

2016.


2/12

Copyright by American Competitive Debate Association LLC

No rights reserved. Any part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any

form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,

recording, or by an information storage or retrieval system, with or without the

prior written permission of the copyright owner and the publisher.


3/12

Table of Contents

Responses to Pro

A/T Spurs Green Tech Innovation 4

A/T Paris Climate Pledge

4

A/T British Columbia Success5

Responses to Con

A/T Tipping Point Has Already Passed/Will Inevitably Be Passed6

A/T Increased Income Inequality7

A/T Not Worth It Since Other Countries Still Emit8

A/T Economic Harm 9A/T Cap and Trade

1

A/T Carbon Leakage 11

A/T CO2 Good – Helps Plants Grow 12

A/T CO2 Good – Prevents Ice Age12


4/12

ACDA BLOCKS February Topic 2016

4February 2016American Competitive Debate Association

Responses to Pro

A/T SPURS GREEN TECH INNOVATION

1) Look to european example. A 2015 study from Cass of the Manhattan Institute explains that

Europe’s carbon prices are already higher than any US carbon tax would drive them, and yet

we’ve seen zero green innovation as a result. Carbon taxes don’t drive innovation.

2) A carbon tax won’t result in radical innovation. A 2009 study from the Meridian Institute

explains that governments don’t want to risk major economic damage, so governments only set

carbon taxes and emissions goals that can be met by current technology and practices. The

problem is that this means carbon taxes can only ever incentivise marginal improvements — never the radical breakthroughs we need to develop a green economy.

3) A carbon tax won’t solve the fundamental problems of US green innovation. The Meridian

Institute study furthers, US green innovation has two major flaws. First, US green R&D is only

focused on short term technologies instead of long term breakthrough technologies. Second,

the study explains US R&D efforts lack adequate collaboration, they don’t share information

and don’t coordinate their efforts in any way. Even with a carbon tax, US green innovation will

still be stymied by these two fundamental flaws.

A/T PARIS CLIMATE PLEDGE

1) Paris agreement does not have legally binding emissions reductions. A 2015 article from

Telegraph explains the under paris agreement countries are only legally obligated to set new

climate goals every five years. However, countries have no legal obligation whatsoever in

regards to their actual emissions reductions.

2) We don’t need a carbon tax to fulfill our Paris climate pledge. A 2015 study from Hausker of

the World Resources Institute explains that the US is already fulfilling its pledge with increased

efficiency standards for cars, appliances, and electricity, and natural gas production. The study

concludes that the United States can meet its pledge using existing actions. There is no need for

a carbon tax.


5/12



A/T BRITISH COLUMBIA SUCCESS

1) No increase in GDP. A 2014 study from the Competitive Enterprise Institute explains that

economic growth in British Columbia was almost identical to growth in the rest of Canada,

differing by only .1%

2) Don’t trust the numbers. What actually happened is that locals of British Columbia simply

started crossing border into neighboring counties to buy gas where it wasn’t being taxed. A

2015 article from Cross of the Financial Post reports that right after the BC carbon tax was

implemented, border crossings doubled from 4 million to 8 million.

3) BC is fundamentally different from US. A 2014 study from the National Center for Policy

Analysis explains that the BC economy’s energy production is based on massive hydroelectric

dams. In contrast, US energy production is based on coal. The two economies are very verydifferent, what works in BC won’t work in the US.

4) The US can’t copy BC even if they wanted. The National Center for Policy Analysis study

furthers that US rivers are owned by private individuals and corporations who would block

government efforts to build hydroelectric dams. The study concludes, due to property right

laws, building hydroelectric dams would be impossible.

5) Regardless, there’s not enough data to figure out what’s actually happening. A 2015 article

from Werner of University of British Columbia explains we only currently have data onautomobile emissions, but no data whatsoever on industry and household emissions, which are

equally important. He concludes that measuring the tax’s effect on emissions will require at

least “another decade to determine reliably”.

6) The effects on emissions quickly evaporated. A 2015 article from Cross of the Financial Post

further explains that although studies report decrease in emissions in 2012, after 2012,

emissions soared, increasing even faster than comparable economic areas in the region.


6/12



Responses to Con

A/T TIPPING POINT HAS ALREADY PASSED/WILL

INEVITABLY BE PASSED

1) There’s no single tipping point to begin with. A 2010 study from Lenton of the University of

East Anglia explains that there are actually 9 major tipping points, each associated with a

different region, and triggered at a different level of global warming — first the melting of the

Arctic summer sea ice, then collapse of the Amazon rainforest, and so on. Even if we’re

guaranteed to pass some of the early tipping points, we can still do our best to avoid passing

the later tipping points.

2) Yes, there are regional tipping points, but there is no single global tipping point. A 2009

study from the IPCC concludes that a global runaway greenhouse gas effect has “virtually no

chance of being induced by human activities”

3) There’s too much uncertainty. A 2015 study from Drijfhout of the University of Southampton

concludes that there is “high uncertainty in predicting tipping points”. If there’s any chance at

all we can still avoid crossing a climate tipping point we must take action.


7/12



A/T INCREASED INCOME INEQUALITY

1) Revenue from carbon taxes can be used to help low income families. A 2009 study from

Kolstad of Stanford University explains that recycling carbon tax revenues to cut payroll taxes,

benefiting low income families.

2) No increase in income inequality. A 2007 analysis from the Brookings Institute explains that

using the tax revenues to cut taxes for low income families would completely offset the

regressive nature of the tax. The study concludes a revenue neutral carbon tax would be

distributionally neutral.

3) Solving climate change is the most important issue for income inequality. A 2015 study

from the National Academy of Sciences finds that climate change will hurt low income

populations the worst, making income inequality even worse. If you want to solve incomeinequality, solve climate change.

4) Reducing pollution is critical for low income families. A 2012 study from Bell of Yale explains

that the health and economic harms from local pollution falls disproportionately on low income

families and neighborhoods. A carbon tax is critical to reducing this inequality.


8/12



A/T NOT WORTH IT SINCE OTHER COUNTRIES STILL EMIT

1) Reducing CO2 emissions is justified even out of self interest. A 2015 study from Taylor of

the Nikansen Center explains that every $30 tax on a ton of carbon would produce $37 benefits

from reductions in health costs due to decreased pollution . Remember these are local benefits,so they occur even if no other country decreases emissions.

2) US can use border tax adjustments to incentivize global emissions reductions. A 2014 study

from Cottier of the World Trade Institute explains that the US could use border tax

adjustments, which mean for example that if China refused to cut their carbon emissions, the

US would tax Chinese imports in order to protect US industries. The study concludes border tax

adjustments would be effective

3) If US doesn’t do it, it’s all over. A 2009 study from the Nikansen institute explains that wecan’t ever know for sure whether other countries will follow US leadership, but if US does not

lead the charge, chances of a global agreement are extraordinarily low. The study concludes US

action is insufficient, but still absolutely necessary.


9/12



A/T ECONOMIC HARM

11) Reducing CO2 emissions is justified even out of self interest. A 2015 study from Taylor the

Nikansen Center explains that every $30 tax on a ton of carbon would produce $37 benefits

from reductions in health costs due to decreased pollution.

2) A Revenue Neutral Tax won’t hurt the economy. A 2014 study from Nystrom of REMI

explains that a revenue neutral tax means the government returns all the carbon tax revenue to

it’s citizens in the form of tax cuts. The study finds a revenue neutral carbon tax would increase

GDP, personal income, and decrease unemployment

3) In the long term, solving climate change is essential to protecting the economy. A 2006

study from the World Bank explains that if we do nothing, climate change will devastate the

global economy. The study concludes we must act now to avoid future economic harms.

4) A carbon tax will spur green tech innovation. A 2011 study from the ITIF finds a carbon tax

provide an incentive for businesses to move toward more green technologies, leading to an

expansion of a domestic clean energy industry, boosting US global competitiveness.


10/12



A/T CAP AND TRADE

1) Cap and trade isn’t a global solution. A 2007 article from Mankiw of Harvard explains

allocating carbon allowances to different countries will be a negotiations nightmare. Either the

US will have to pay China, or vice versa. Either option is politically infeasible domestically.Mankiw concludes a cap and trade system simply will not scale to the global level.

2) A tax provides the perfect global solution. Mankiw further explains that a global carbon tax

would be much easier to negotiate than a global cap and trade system. Mankiw explains a

carbon tax allows each government to keep revenues for use as it sees fit.

3) It’s too easy to game the system. A 2010 study from Chan of the FOE explains that any cap

and trade system will have to be extraordinarily complex, due the size of the US economy,

unfortunately this also makes it easy to game the system. Chan explains corporations havebeen able to easily evade cap and trade in the past through a mix of lobbying politicians, bribing

regulators, committing fraud, and wide array financial manipulations.

4) Look to the EU cap and trade system. A 2012 book from Wilensky of UC Berkeley explains

corporations “[made] sure that regulators did not set the cap too low, while they exploited the

opportunity for cheating” of their own. He concludes the EU cap and trade experiment totally

failed, in fact it actually increased EU’s carbon emissions by 1%

5) A US cap and trade system would look just like Europe’s failed system. Wilensky furthers

that when a cap and trade bill was proposed by the US federal government, we saw massive

corporate lobbying to water down the bill, the exact same practices that left the EU cap and

trade program ineffectual.

6) Even if cap and trade is good, we should still do both. A 2014 article from Charles Frank of

the Brookings Institute explains that even a perfect cap and trade system can only deal with

large factories, it won’t deal with the emissions of individuals. He concludes we need both a cap

and trade system and a carbon tax.


11/12



A/T CARBON LEAKAGE

1) US factories can’t be replaced. A 2015 study from Taylor of the Niskannen center explains

that 98% of the value produced by US manufacturing industries doesn’t come from specializedknowledge of its laborers, not energy inputs. What US industries do can not be replicated

elsewhere. That’s why the study concludes a carbon tax would only result in a 9% carbon

leakage.

2) The US can use tax revenues to bolster US manufacturing. Taylor furthers, revenue

generated from a carbon tax can be rebated to US manufacturers, to give them an incentive to

stay in the US, eliminating carbon leakage altogether.

3) The US will protect domestic industries from foreign competition. A 2015 article fromBrodwin of the American Sustainable Business Council explains that if the US passes a carbon

tax, it would likely be accompanied by border adjusted taxes. That means for example, if China

refused to cut their carbon emissions, the US would tax Chinese imports in order to protect US

industries. This eliminates foreign competitive advantage, and the resulting carbon leakage.

4) All the studies that show carbon leakage are theoretical, we need to look to the real world.

A 2007 report from the IPCC explains that “in practice, carbon leakage is unlikely to be

substantial because transport costs, local market conditions, product variety and incomplete

information all favour local production.”


12/12


February 2016

A/T CO2 GOOD – HELPS PLANTS GROW

1) Growth isn’t relevant. A 2015 study from the University of Gothenberg reports that carbon

dioxide prevents plants from absorbing nitrogen. This is bad because plants use nitrogen to

produce protein. The Study finds that even if plants grow taller due to high carbon dioxide

levels, overall nitrogen content is down, which leads to less protein.

2) Even if carbon is good for plants, high temperatures and droughts are not. A 2014 study

from Glickman of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs explains that, above 88 degrees

faranheight, plants productivity drops drastically. Furthermore, water shortages and droughts

caused by climate change will devestate crop yields. The study concludes climate change will

decrease agricultural production by 2 pecent on net every decade.

3) Any increases in food production would be offset by loss in seafood. A 2012 study from the

Oceana Institute explains that carbon in the air changes the chemical makeup of the earth’s

oceans, destroying food webs and threatening the food source of a billion people across the

earth.

A/T CO2 GOOD – PREVENTS ICE AGE

1) This plan will only leave the world more vulnerable to the eventual ice age. A 2009 article

from the MIT technology review explains that carbon can only prevent an ice age for a limitedtime. Once the period of warming ends and the ice age begins, temperatures will swing from

extreme highs to extreme lows, and “humanity will be hit by a one-two punch the likes of which

we have never seen.”

2) Too far out in the future to matter. In a 2016 CNN article, Ganopolski explains that even

without climate change, we wouldn’t be seeing an ice age for 50 thousand years. Climate

change does push the ice age an extra 50 thousand years, but this difference is so far in the

future as to be irrelevant. Ganopolski concludes “it has no practical importance whether the

next ice age will begin in 50,000 or 100,000 years from now”

3) Current levels of emissions are sufficient. A 2012 article from Skinner of Cambridge

University explains that current levels of emissions would be enough to prevent the ice age. The

problem is that global emissions are rapidly increasing every year, far greater than what’s

needed to prevent an ice age. He concludes “If we were trying to avoid an ice age, we've tried

too hard”

acda february brief ready to read

Documents