15 Generic Olsen Europe Trade DA

8/14/2019 15 Generic Olsen Europe Trade DA

1/116

Europe Trade DADDI 2008

Europe Trade DA

Europe Trade DA............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. . 1

1NC................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. ..... 5

1NC................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. ..... 6

1NC................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. ..... 7

1nc................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. ...... 8

1NC .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 9

Uniqueness..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. . 10

Unique -EU-US Climate Relations...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. ...... 11

Unique -EU-US Climate Relations...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. ...... 12

Unique - Both Candidates Cap and Trade ..................................................................................................................................13

Unique - Both Candidates Cap and Trade...................................................................................................................................14

Unique - Both Candidates Cap and Trade...................................................................................................................................15

Unique - EU Expects US Climate Action.................. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 16



Unique - EU Liberalizing Trade - Climate..................................................................................................................................19

Unique - EU Liberalizing Trade - Climate..................................................................................................................................20

Unique: AT: No Regulations ......................................................................................................................................................21

Unique: AT: Incentives Now.............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. ........ 22

Unique: AT: Incentives Now ............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. ........ 23

Unique: AT: Incentives Now.............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. ........ 24

Unique - AT: BioFuel Subsides .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .... 25

AT: Iraq killed US-EU trade................... .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .... 26

Links............................................................................................................................................................................................27

Extension - Generic Link ............ ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. . 28

Extension - general Links............................................................................................................................................................29

Extension - general Links............................................................................................................................................................30

Link-- environmental policy........................................................................................................................................................31

Link environmental policy.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .... 32

Link--environmental policy.........................................................................................................................................................33

Link --Incentives........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .... 34

Link -- Incentives....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .... 34

Link-- incentives....................... .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .... 36

Link incentives ............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 37

1


2/116


Link - incentives..........................................................................................................................................................................38

Link Incentives............................................................................................................................................................................39

LinkIncentives.........................................................................................................................................................................40

Link--Subsidies.......................... .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. ... 41LinkDomestic Policy...............................................................................................................................................................42

Link-must be 0 emissions............................................................................................................................................................43

Linkpolicy not Kyoto................. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. ............. 44

Link policy not Kyoto................ .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. ............. 45






Link - technology...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .... 52

Internal Link - Voluntary Percieved As Shift From Cap................. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. ...... 53






Internal Links - Carbon Tarrifs/Relations............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .... 59

Carbon Tariffs = Trade War........................................................................................................................................................60

Carbon Tariffs= Trade War .................... .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. ...61

Carbon Tariffs =Trade War ........................................................................................................................................................62

Trade Key to US-EU Relations ..................................................................................................................................................63

Trade Key to US-Eu Relations ...................................................................................................................................................64

Trade Key to US-Eu Relations ...................................................................................................................................................65

Impacts .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. ............. 66

US-EU Free Trade - Extensions..................................................................................................................................................67

US-EU Trade Economy -Module ...............................................................................................................................................68

US-EU Trade Economy - Extensions .........................................................................................................................................69

US-EU Relations Democracy Module.................. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .... 70

US-EU Relations Democracy Extensions .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .. 71

US-EU Solves Iran Prolif Module................. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............ 72

US-EU Coop on Iran Prolif Now............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .. 73

2


3/116


US-EU Cooperation on Prolif Now.............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. ............ 74

US-Eu Key to Iran Prolif.............................................................................................................................................................75

US-EU Solves Peace Process Module .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... ....... 76

US-EU Solves Peace Process - Extension..................... .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..........77US-EU Relations - Heg Module..................................................................................................................................................78

US-EU Relations -Heg Extensions.................... .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... ....... 79

US-EU Relations -Heg Extensions.................... .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... ....... 80

US-EU Bioterror Module ............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. 81

US-EU Bioterror - Extensions.....................................................................................................................................................82

US-EU Relations Solves War - General .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. ..... 83

US-EU Relations Solves War - General................... .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... 84

US-EU Trade Solves LL................ .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. ............. 85

US-EU key to Indo-Pak...............................................................................................................................................................86

US-EU key to Central Asian stability......................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. ............. 87

US-EU key to Disease.................................................................................................................................................................88

US-EU key to Bird Flu................................................................................................................................................................89

US-EU NMD..........................................................................................................................................................................90

US-EU NMD..........................................................................................................................................................................91

US-EU Relations - Turns Case - Climate....................................................................................................................................92



Afff................... .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. . 95

US-EU cant solve terrorism/prolif................ .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............ 96

US-EU alliance fails....................................................................................................................................................................97

Wont Cause US-EU trade conflicts .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .......... 98

No US-EU Cooperation on Middle East .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..... 99

US-EU relations low - climate........................ .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ......... 100

AT: Value Gap hurts counterterrrorism ................................................................................................................................101

No Obama Change................ .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... ...... 102

No Obama/McCain Kyoto Agreement......................................................................................................................................103

Aff: Depending on McCain/Obama .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. ......... 104

Aff: Depending on McCain/Obama...................... ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .. 105

Wont Cut W/O Dev Countries.................................................................................................................................................106

Non-Unique: France Taxes Imports..........................................................................................................................................107

No Bush Change .......................................................................................................................................................................108

3


4/116


US-EU Relations Wont Fail.....................................................................................................................................................109

Bush Cant Influence.................................................................................................................................................................110

Bush Cant Influence.................................................................................................................................................................111

Bush Cant Influence.................................................................................................................................................................112Aff No link.................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... ............. 113

Aff no link.................. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. 114

Aff-Eu already mad...................................................................................................................................................................115

Perception world climate policy.............................................................................................................................................116

4


5/116


1NC

A. The EU is holding off on trade barriers because they believe the Us will increase c02 regulationsStephen Boucher, Former Advisor on European Affairs for the Belgian Deputy PM - Prof. @ Science Po in Paris, 4/4/8 [Clinton,Obama, McCain - Europes Best Hope for Fighting Climate Change, http://www.notre-europe.eu/uploads/tx_publication/Policypaper34-SBoucher-ClimateChange-en.pdf]

What EU governments and institutions can do in the forthcoming months in relation to US plans for climate change can only bemodest in the context of an electoral campaign. However, with the promising trends described above, an unprecedented opportunityhas arisen to form a transatlantic alliance to lead efforts to fight global warming. Climate change could now be seen as a commoncause for the EU and the USA, rather than an issue that pits both sides of the Atlantic against each other. There is the possibility to helpdrive the world towards an international agreement that seriously tackles the issue of global warming. In light of these objectives, EU policy-makersshould, more specifically: Maintain high standards; Monitor closely US efforts and debates and engage in discussions over precise mechanisms inorder to address competitiveness concerns jointly; Encourage common thinking on China and India.45 These tasks will fall primarily to the Frenchadministration under its presidency of the EU in the second half of 2008, to European Commission officials, and to the Swedish presidency, in thesecond half of 2009, as the Czech government has clearly indicated that climate change will not be a priority, unlike for the French and Swedish

governments. Despite Czech President Vaclav Klaus skepticism regarding climate change, the Czech government has nevertheless indicatedinformally to its French partners that it will not hinder Frances efforts to conclude legislative negotiations on the Commissions proposals by the endof 2008. 3.2 Maintain high standards If the EU wishes to play an active role, it should not provide ammunition for those in the USA seeking to lowerlong-term objectives nor weaken future US legislation. This could happen with the current dilution of goals indicated by the fact that the EU hadcommitted to a reduction by 25- 40% in Bali. The EU environment commissioner, as mentioned above, has talked of an insufficient goal of 50%emissions reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. This goal was in fact endorsed at the June 2007 G8 meeting in Heiligendamm. This sends the wrongsignal. A weakening of EU resolve has also been noticed concerning auctioning rules. Emphatic talk about the EUs leadership should not hide this.At present, the best thing the EU can do in 2008 is therefore to put its own house in order. This would mean reaching a preliminary agreement

between the Council and the Parliament by the end of 2008 and sticking as closely as possible to the Commissions proposal. This will requireresisting national industry lobbying on a number of dimensions. European policy makers should also consider enforcing the 30% emissions reductiontarget by 2020 even before an international agreement is reached. If Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is elected, this will help them stick to the moredemanding plans they have backed. If McCain is elected, this will help him go higher than the 65% reduction goal by 2050 he has announced,considered insufficient, and at least not go lower. On the other hand, one should be wary of letting the current US administrations recalcitrance pushEurope to make counter-proposals that are too bold. A careful balance needs to be found between proposing anything too radical, while keeping the

pressure on, and preparing for quick movement in January 2009. 3.3 Initiate discussion on mechanisms Two striking observations can be made

regarding the current situation. First, for the first time, legislative proposals seeking to address climate change happen to be underdiscussion in parallel on both sides of the Atlantic and may come to fruition in 2009. Second, as seen above, while there are realsimilarities between US and EU plans, the United States may possibly go further than the EU on a number of aspects, and vice versa.The opportunity is thus ripe for Europe to engage the United States in climate policy deliberations and for EU discussions to benefitfrom US plans. Whether with each campaign individually, or the US policy arena collectively, the most important thing is for Europeto engage Americans actively on the climate issue. The American mainstream is fast becoming aware of the climate problem, andcould benefit from learning of Europes experience in tackling the issue. Also, it is crucial that both US and EU policies trend towardsharmonization and integration, especially for the functioning of carbon markets. Therefore, at this formative stage, the EuropeanUnion, the United States, and the world would benefit from a closer alignment of climate policies across the Atlantic. Efforts shouldbe focused on finding common legislative ground, so as to increase the likelihood that the US outcome can work with the EU regime,and vice versa. Until the future tells us who becomes the next US President, EU policymakers would therefore be well advised tofollow closely discussions and legislative progress on climate change in the USA. They should continue carrying out negotiations withthe Bush administration while remembering that a more climate-ambitious administration will be coming soon. Pursuing informal channels of

diplomacy is also in order. Making contact with the staff of all three candidates would be wise. Informal diplomacy, with the help of relevant EU andUS think tanks and officials would not be time wasted. Engaging private sector stakeholders across the two sides of the Atlantic is also important, tofoster common thinking and support. 3.4 Encourage common thinking on China, India and other major emitters The critical issue moving forward istreatment of BRICs and differentiated responsibility. This is the stated reason of the Byrd-Hagel resolution opposing the Kyoto treaty in 1997, andcould ultimately derail - or at least stymie and delay - US climate policy action. Therefore, addressing this issue is essential for ensuring US action,no matter who the President-elect is. Europe has a vital and important role to play in facilitating these difficult discussions, as it did in Bali. Also, theEU and the future US President will agree that the best way to tackle global warming while limiting the impact on their

5


6/116


1NC

competitiveness is by involving as many countries as possible under the principle of common but differentiated responsibility. This requires bringing

in developing countries, if necessary starting from relatively limited emission cuts. There will be no Congress backing if the BRICs are not seriouslycommitted. However, the current bill moving through Senate requires comparable action from developing countries, indicating that it may becomemore flexible on the issue. Considering the outcome of the December UNFCCC Bali meeting, itwould seem that China is ready to play a more constructive role. China and other emerging countries agreed for the first time in Bali to try to makemeasurable, reportable and verifiable emissions cuts.46 However, they did not appear to be ready to agreeing to any mandatory restrictions in the

near future. Their priority remains economic development. Both the EU and the USA should therefore seek jointly to make use of thesepositive signals for a global climate treaty, while engaging in discussions with all major emitters with an open mind. Mostimportantly, they should not talk unwisely of border adjustments47 and tariffs on imported goods from countries without carbonpricing. Rightly so, EU Commission President Barroso said that this issue would only be reviewed in 2010 in the light ofinternational negotiations. EU government should adhere to this discipline. This is true also for the USA, where import tariffs havebeen requested by a number of business interest groups.ConclusionEurope should already start looking beyond the Bush Administration and begin to engage alternative and emerging policy leaders.This is a crucial period in US climate policy formulation and Europe has a rare and fleeting opportunity to help inform US climatepolicy development. For those in Europe who assume that a Democrat as President of the USA would be more inclined to join forceswith Europe to lead the global fight against climate change, this paper suggests that there is in fact a unique opportunity lying ahead tojoin forces with the forthcoming US administration, no matter who wins the November election. However, it also argues that theresolve of any of the three could be dampened if faced with resistance . Or, possibly, with Europes own lack of ambition EU policymakers today should be governed by an exceptional sense of urgency. If Europe adopts clear legislation, it could bolster efforts bythose in the USA who have similar goals. They should also be governed by the notion that convergence is desirable, as opposed to aform of beauty contest some seem to believe the EU is engaged in with the United States. This could lead to the creation before theend of 2009 of a transatlantic consensus helping shape a successor treaty to the Kyoto treaty. As Europe wrestles with the difficulty ofbeing leader and worries about the impact on its economy, its best hope today is to prepare to join forces with the next USadministration, setting bold long term emissions targets and encouraging cooperation with developing countries.

6


7/116


1NC

The Plan Will be Percieved as a Trojan Horse to Block US Cap and Trade -Ensuring EU Backlash

Time Magazine, staff writer Andrew Purvis, 6-4-07, Europe vs. Bush on global warming,http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1628024,00.html[Barber]

The targets require taking steps to ensure that average temperatures on the planet increase by no more than 2 degrees celsius by theend of the century, and to slash greenhouse gas emissions to 50% of the 1990 level before 2050. But when the German draft wascirculated two weeks ago in Washington, U.S. negotiators declared, in a document leaked shortly afterwards, that the German draft"crossed multiple 'red lines'" and that "there is only so far we can go, given our fundamental opposition to the German position." Thenon May 31, President George W. Bush announced his own climate change inititiative, which calls on the leaders of the 15 leadingproducers of the heat-trapping gases to develop long term voluntary emission-reduction goals. The proposal, notably short onspecfics, raised concern in Europe that Bush was trying to make an end-run around the existing United Nations process foraddressing climate change, which includes the Kyoto agreement. The German environment minister warned of a possible "trojanhorse" designed to sidestep an agreement in Heiligendamm and "torpedo the international climate protection process." Underlying

the increasingly testy exchange are fundamental differences over how the climate crisis is to be addressed. The biggest worry inEurope is that the Bush Administration approach of stressing technology and voluntary targets will weaken the global effort underU.N. auspices to set mandatory targets. "America increasingly wants to use new technologies and in this way test how much carbondioxide emissions can be decreased," Angela Merkel told the newsmagazineDer Spiegel. "We Europeans find it more compelling toagree on goals on an international level, and direct our efforts accordingly." She added: "I encourage [President Bush] to becourageous and lead the way with concrete climate protection goals." Sigmar Gabriel, the German Environment Minister, added:"What we need now is a worldwide climate change regime. We need clear aims and we have to be able to check if the contractingpartners stick to the goals." Defenders of the Bush plan contend that it would actually help the U.N. process by bringing in countriessuch as China and India, along with the U.S., that have been reluctant to sign on to a more top-down approach. And tempers appear tobe cooling as the G8 summit draws near. Merkel announced over the weekend that the U.S. President's proposals of May 31 were, infact, "very welcome ... if they are channeled into the framework of [U.N. treaty negotiations]." Blair, speaking afterward, agreed that"it is good that the U.S. has made these commitments," while adding, "We need to make sure that we keep these targets within theU.N. agreement." Still, the U.S. and the Europeans are unlikely to resolve differences when their leaders meet this week. Thoughthere's a chance the Europeans could water down the communique by agreeing to remove concrete targets, Merkel insisted lastweekend that she would not do so. No European leaders are going to suffer politically for standing up to the Bush Administration onglobal warming. But they point to President Bush's recent acknowledgement that man-made global warming is a reality as a sign ofprogress and sufficient reason for avoiding a head-on collision, at least for now. Administration on global warming. But they pointto President Bush's recent acknowledgement that man-made global warming is a reality as a sign of progress and sufficient reasonfor avoiding a head-on collision, at least for now.

7
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1628024,00.htmlhttp://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1628024,00.html


8/116


1nc

EU Climate Trade Sanctions Spills Over to Collapse the WTOEuractiv '8 [January 28, EU Warned of Trade War Over Climate Measures, http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?

type=DocDet&ObjectId=MjgyNjc]The Commission's threat of climate-related trade sanctions aimed at putting EU and third country producers on a level

footing appears mainly targeted at convincing governments in Washington and Beijing to adhere to a global deal onclimate change. Indeed, the EU executive has confirmed that it will not decide on the introduction of any such measuresbefore 2011. However, the mere fact that the EU is considering such action has already caused outrage among its tradepartners. The United States has warned it would "vigorously" resist any move to introduce a tax on American products basedon its position in. Last week , US Trade Representative Susan Schwab accused the EU of using the climate as an excuse forprotectionism. Legal experts remain divided on whether the EU's proposed measures would be compatible with internationaltrade regulations, as the WTO has no clear provisions on the subject. On the one hand, border adjustment measures could beconsidered to contravene WTO rules prohibiting discrimination between countries or between "like products". On the other,WTO law also states that countries may deviate from these rules if it is for the protection of animal, plant or human health orfor the conservation of natural resources. Positions Commission President Jos Manuel Barroso said: "There would be nopoint in pushing EU companies to cut emissions if the only result is that production, and indeed pollution, shifts to countries

with no carbon disciplines at all." A spokesman from the US Mission to the EU told EurActiv that while the US wasencouraged to see that the EU's new climate package does not introduce any trade-restrictive action on imports, the US wouldbe "vigorous in resisting calls for any form of trade protectionism as a response to climate change." Furthermore, the USappears to have won British support. "We are against any measures which might look like trade barriers [] There is alwaysthe danger that the protectionists in Europe - and they do exist - could use this as a kind of secret weapon to bring aboutprotectionism," British Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks told the BBC. France, however, is continuing to push forprotection against unfair international competition to avoid massive delocalisation of EU companies. The establishmentof a border adjustment mechanism is a "fundamental element" of the package and France will work "very closely" with theEuropean Commission between now and 2011 on proposals to set up the scheme, insisted French Minister of Ecology andSustainable Development Jean-Louis Borloo . According to the Financial Times, Ujal Singh Bhatia, India's ambassador tothe WTO , warnedagainst the risk of retaliation and litigation from the EU's trade partners if it goes ahead with traderestrictive measures. He said: "Unilateral measures at this stage would create contentiousness and lead to charges ofprotectionism [] If the countries imposing such measures invoke Gatt provisions to justify them, the dispute settlementmechanism in [the] WTO would face serious challenges and create divisions along North-South lines." However, BritishLiberal MEP Chris Davies welcomed the idea of tariffs, saying they would create a level-playing field for business: "It makesmore likely an emissions trading scheme on a worldwide basis, if manufacturers in China know they are not going to gainentry." But business leaders fear that imposing "climate tariffs" could provoke trade retaliation. FolkerFranz, a seniorpolicy adviser at BusinessEurope, the European employers' organisation , said: "If you impose import measures on others,the others might do the same." As an alternative, he said the EU should promote the clean development mechanism ascheme which allows European companies to invest in carbon-reduction projects in the developing world.

8
http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type=DocDet&ObjectId=MjgyNjchttp://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type=DocDet&ObjectId=MjgyNjchttp://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type=DocDet&ObjectId=MjgyNjchttp://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type=DocDet&ObjectId=MjgyNjc


9/116


1NC

Nuclear Extinction

Copley News 99 [12/1, Commentary, ln]For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by nuclear war. The specter ofnuclear

winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. Activists protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle

apparently have forgotten that threat. The truth is that nations join together in groups like the WTO not just to further their own

prosperity, but also to forestall conflict with other nations. In a way, our planet has traded in the threat ofa worldwide nuclear war

for the benefit ofcooperative global economics. Some Seattle protesters clearly fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear

disarmament or anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades past. But they're not. They're special-interest activists, whether the cause is

environmental, labor or paranoia about global government. Actually, most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike

yesterday's peace activists, such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand Russell, the father of the nuclear disarmament

movement, both of whom urged people and nations to work together rather than strive against each other. These and other war

protesters would probably approve of135 WTO nations sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the past might have

been settled by bullets and bombs. As long as nations are trading peacefully, and their economies are built on exports to other

countries, they have a major disincentive to wage war. That's why bringing China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so

important. As exports to the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand forthe goods we produce, the threat of hostility diminishes. Many anti-trade protesters in Seattle claim that only multinational

corporations benefit from global trade, and that it's the everyday wage earners who get hurt. That's just plain wrong. First of all, it's

not the military-industrial complex benefiting. It's U.S. companies that make high-tech goods. And those companies provide a

growing number of jobs for Americans. In San Diego, many people have good jobs at Qualcomm, Solar Turbines and other companie

for whom overseas markets are essential. In Seattle, many of the 100,000 people who work at Boeing would lose their livelihoods

without world trade. Foreign trade today accounts for 30 percent of our gross domestic product. That's a lot of jobs for everyday

workers. Growing globalprosperity has helped counter the specter ofnuclear winter. Nations of the world are learning to live and

work together, like the singers of anti-war songs once imagined. Those who care about world peaceshouldn't be protesting world

trade. They should be celebrating it.

9


10/116


Uniqueness

10


11/116


Unique -EU-US Climate Relations

US-EU relations are strong even in the areas of trade and climate change.

Colleen P. Graffy, Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs,5/13/08, Gaffy, Trade, Climate Change and Soft Power--Does America Have Friends inEurope?, http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/104981.htm [SD]

So, when I am posed the question: Does America have friends in Europe with regard to trade and climate change? I would say notonly does the U.S. have friends, the U.S. also haspartners. Lets remember that the transatlantic market today makes up nearly 55percent of global GDP and about 40 percent of world trade. So there is a strong incentive to work together as friends and partners.Both the United States and Europe believe in strong and effective regulation to protect our citizens and the environment. However, insome cases, unnecessary differences in our regulatory approaches have made our companies less competitive, raised consumer costs,reduced consumer choice and slowed job creation. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and BusinessEurope believe that if we could alignour economies better, we could generate $10 billion in saved costs and potential growth for the transatlantic economy. And so,working together, we are trying to do exactly that, by creating the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC), which met for the secondtime today in Brussels. The TEC was created in April 2007, under the Framework for Advancing Transatlantic Economic Integration,

and was signed by President Bush, Chancellor Merkel and European Commission President Barroso during the U.S.-EU Summit inWashington, DC. The goal of the TEC is to promote regulatory cooperation, eliminate barriers to transatlantic trade, advance capitalmarket liberalization, and strengthen support for open investment regimes. In short, it is trying to reduce barriers to trade andinvestment. In the area of the environment, the Transatlantic Economic Council is recommending that the June 2008 U.S.-EU Summitconsider joint efforts in clean energy technologies that will help us address our shared concerns about energy security and climatechange.

Bush implements many climate change policies to keep US-EU relations strong


Another example of our multilateral cooperation with the EU is the Methane to Markets Partnership, which is an international effort topromote methane recovery and its use as a clean source of energy. Methane accounts for 16 percent of all greenhouse gas emissionsthat come from human activities. It remains in the atmosphere for up to 15 years and is also a primary constituent of natural gas and animportant energy source. So if we can either prevent or use methane emissions, we can achieve significant energy, economic andenvironmental benefits. This Partnership, which began in 2004, has the potential to deliver, by 2015, annual reductions in methaneemissions that would be the equivalent of removing 33 million cars from the roadways for one year, or planting 55 million acres oftrees. The Transatlantic Economic Council and the Methane to Markets Partnership are two examples of U.S.-EU cooperation. BeforeI describe others, it might be helpful to know about the commitments the U.S. has made domestically on energy security, renewableand alternative energy sources and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. As many of you know, President Bush signed theEnergy Independence and Security Act (EISA) in December 2007. EISA was in response to the Presidents "Twenty in Ten" challengein last year's State of the Union Address to improve vehicle fuel economy and increase alternative fuels. The act includes somesignificant measures, including a Renewable Fuels Mandate that will increase the use of renewable fuels by 500 percent, and a Vehicle

Fuel Economy Mandate, which specifies a national mandatory fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. That mandatealone would save billions of gallons of fuel and increase efficiency by 40 percent. EISA also phases out the use of incandescent lightbulbs by 2014, sets new mandatory efficiency standards for appliances, and requires all federal buildings to reduce their energyconsumption by 30 percent by 2015 and to be carbon-neutral by 2030.

11


12/116


Unique -EU-US Climate Relations

US-EU relations promote multilateral cooperation


Not only do the U.S. and EU cooperate closely bilaterally, but we also work together multilaterally. Last September, the Presidentlaunched the Major Economies Process (MEP) as a way to support and accelerate the UN process. We believe that when you gatheraround a single table the 17 economies that represent 80 percent of the worlds economy and 80 percent of the worlds emissions, youcan make a significant contribution to the UN talks. The EU and several European countries participate in the MEP, and France justhosted the latest meeting in Paris in April. The result is that for the first time ever there will be a Major Economies Meeting (MEM) atthe time of the G-8 Summit where MEM countries will be represented at the leader level. European countries also played an importantrole at the recent Washington International Renewable Energy Conference (WIREC), which brought together government officials,civil society and private sector leaders from around the world to advance the development and commercialization of renewable energyAnd lets not forget the World Trade Organization (WTO). Last year, U.S. Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab announced that the

United States and the European Union had submitted a proposalin the WTOto increase global trade in environmental goods andservices. This initiative places priority on technologies that are directly linked to addressing climate change and energy security. TheU.S. and EU also proposed to eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers to environmental technologies and services in the Doha Round. Inaddition, the U.S. is forming several other international partnerships to pursue clean and renewable energy, such as the Asia-PacificPartnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP). The APP, which includes Australia, Canada, China, Japan, Korea and India,has endorsed more than 25 new renewable energy projects. There are also other international partnerships and initiatives, includingworking with Sweden to advance biofuel and clean vehicle technologies, and working with the private sector and the UnitedKingdom's Wave Hub to harness the power of the ocean. And of course we have the agreement reached under the Montreal Protocolto speed the phase-out of hydro chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) that deplete the ozone layer. If you leave today with only one messagefrom my remarks, I hope it is the message that the United States is actively engaged and working with other countries in a multilateralway to find solutions to these energy issues that the whole world is facing.

12


13/116


Unique - Both Candidates Cap and Trade

EU expects similar strategies from US presidential candidates to decrease emissions

Stephen Boucher, consultant in the energy policy field, 4/2008, Clinton, Obama, McCain - Europes Best Hopefor Fighting Climate Change, http://www.notre-europe.eu/uploads/tx_publication/Policypaper34-SBoucher-ClimateChange-en.pdf [SD]

How do US plans compare with the EUs?

The short answer is: favorably.20 As summarized in Table 1 below, plans endorsed by US presidential candidates are on par with EUplans on several key dimensions of emissions trading. A notable exception is the issue of flexibility, where US proposals allow foroverly generous use of reduction projects outside the USA.

First, the long-term targets in US legislative proposals (between 65% for McCain and 80% for Clinton and Obama) are at least asambitious as the EUs, if not more. Official EU statements have suggested that significant emission reductions of 60%-80%compared to 1990 will be necessary by 2050, if we are to reach the strategic objective of limiting the global average temperatureincrease to not more than 2C above pre-industrial levels.22 Yet, EU environment commissioner Stavros Dimas also recently spokeof the need for global emissions to be cut by at least 50% of 1990 levels by 2050.

The percentage of auctioning is higher. And coverage, both in terms of industries and gases is also potentially greater. For the EU, itrepresents about half its economy from 2013. For the US, about 80%.

U.S. presidential candidates are expected to fight climate change

Stephen Boucher, consultant in the energy policy field, 4/2008, Clinton, Obama, McCain - Europes Best Hopefor Fighting Climate Change, http://www.notre-europe.eu/uploads/tx_publication/Policypaper34-SBoucher-

ClimateChange-en.pdf [SD]

One might consider Obamas environmental record, Clintons precise plans, or McCains boldness in sponsoring legislation in Congress tosuggest that one or the other is a better candidate for fighting climate change. One can also find fault with each candidate. A crucialassessment was made by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). Recalling that a minimum of 80% below 2000 levels is required from theUnited States to limit the global temperature increase to 2C, UCS argues that the Sanders-Boxer Bill achieves that, but not the McCain-Lieberman Bill.19Notwithstanding this assessment, McCain has not sufficiently strengthened his proposals. In his defense, considering his

partys stance, this would probably be politically suicide at this stage, and one should not exclude his willingness to agree to a higher target ifelected President.

Albeit with shades of green, it appears overall that all three current US presidential hopefuls have relatively good credentials to fight climatechangeespecially if compared with former Republican candidates and collaborate with the EU to negotiate a successor treaty to theKyoto Treaty. Another question is whether Europes plans will measure up with the United States.

13


14/116



Obama and McCain are committed to cap and trade.The Irish Times, 7/11/08, G8 and climate change,http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0711/1215677267262.html [SD]

At the UN Climate Change Conference in Bali last December, delegates from more than 180 countries, rich and poor alike, committedthemselves to negotiate a comprehensive global agreement on global warming in Copenhagen at the end of next year. Crucial talks toadvance this goal will be held in the Polish city of Poznan this December, by which time George W Bush will be on the way out andthe US will have a new president-elect. Encouragingly, both Barack Obama and John McCain are committed to dealing with climatechange, including the introduction of a "cap and trade" regime aimed at cutting emissions in the US. Whether this commitment willsurvive in an era of recession and rising oil prices is a moot point, but at least the fact that oil is now more realistically priced to reflectits relative scarcity will spur the long-delayed advance of alternative energy technologies.

EU leaders expect McCain and Obama to participate in international cap and trade.

PatrickWintour, political editor for The Guardian, 7/8/08, Clouds part slowly in climate change diplomacy,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/08/g8.climatechange [SD]There is also an acceptance that there must be interim targets for emissions reductions, presumably for 2020, and an agreement that anew body may be needed to guide this process through the UN. The EU has already unilaterally targeted a 20% interim cut by 2020.This, in the sphere of international climate change diplomacy, represents progress, and sets the course for further talks through the UNleading to an agreement at Copenhagen at the end of next year on a precise deal designed to replace the Kyoto agreement that expiresin 2012. Copenhagen has always been seen as the ultimate destination for these talks. But Gordon Brown, like every other Europeanleader, has been waiting politely for George Bush to leave the international stage and allow either John McCain or Barack Obama toembrace deep carbon cuts by 2050, based on an international cap and trade scheme. In private he points out that he has spoken to bothMcCain and Obama about climate change, and both are committed to changing US policy. Obama favours an 80% cut in emissions by2050 using a baseline of 1990, and McCain favours a 60% cut. Both favour an international cap and trade mechanism to achieve this."Cap and trade is being implemented in Europe and they have stumbled and they've had problems but it is still the right thing to do,"McCain has said. McCain is probably more pro-nuclear of the two, and Obama appears to have a more progressive view on biofuels,

14


15/116



McCain will push for cap-and-trade regardless of political rewards

Stephen Boucher, consultant in the energy policy field, 4/2008, Clinton, Obama, McCain - Europes Best Hopefor Fighting Climate Change, http://www.notre-europe.eu/uploads/tx_publication/Policypaper34-SBoucher-ClimateChange-en.pdf [SD]

For John McCain, The issue of climate change is one of the most important issues facing our nation and the world today.2 On thepositive side, as previously mentioned, he can be credited for taking a bold step: co-authoring the first-ever Congress bill on climatechange. In 2003, he and Senator Joe Lieberman introduced the Climate Stewardship Act, which called for a cap-and-trade systemsimilar to Europes. It was defeated that same year, but the two congressmen reintroduced it in 2005, and again in 2007.

He has also voted against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, contrary to President George Bushs desire and despite partypressure. As suggested by political commentator and senior staff writer at Grist.org David Roberts, These arent chopped liver. Allwere acts of courage undertaken in a time of Republican majority, when they offered little political reward.

Relative to other Republican candidates, McCain is definitely good news for Europe and climate change. Other Republican hopefuls,such as Mitt Romney, only grudgingly acknowledged human influence on the climate and were very critical of McCains stance.

15


16/116


Unique - EU Expects US Climate Action

Europe is withholding boarder taxes because they expect that the United

States will cap emission- new climate proposals will be used as an excuse forprotectionismJames Kanter and Stephen Castle, January 22, 2008, International Herald Tribune,http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2008/01/22/us_warns_eu_on_using_climate_change_as_pretext/

BRUSSELS - The United States warned the European Union yesterday against using climate change as a pretext forprotectionism, setting the stage for trans-Atlantic tension over a new package of EU measures to combat global warming. 'Wehave been dismayed . . . where we have seen the climate and the environment being used.' The pointed comments by the US traderepresentative, Susan Schwab, after talks in Brussels, came just two days before the European Commission introduced its proposalsfor cutting EU emissions at least 20 percent from 1990 levels by 2020. "We have been dismayed at a variety of suggestions wherewe have seen the climate and the environment being used as an excuse to close markets," Schwab said after discussions withPeter Mandelson, her European counterpart. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France has called for a carbon tax on imports to ensure thatEuropean companies that need to comply with tough environmental rules are not undercut by foreign competitors whose governments

are not capping carbon emissions. EU officials were not expected to propose such a measure tomorrow but were expected tokeep alive the possibility of a so-called border tax to keep European industries competitive. The EU pledge to protect

European industry by 2011 at the latest will be aimed at assuaging powerful lobby groups from sectors like steel and

aluminum manufacturing, which say they are facing higher costs than their overseas competitors because of the EU's

determination to lead the world in climate protection. Even so, EU officials hope to be able to avoid the issue, not least becauseany European border tax could be challenged at the World Trade Organization. Instead, EU officials hope that other developedcountries like the United States, which did not sign the Kyoto climate treaty, will join an international treaty by the end of the

decade, making protectionist measures unnecessary.

G-8 Predicts Bush to advocate climate control

Associated Press, 7/8/08, Bush, G-8 make progress on climate change,

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iDhfdxlthyulzNbmR8KGjPKvNzaAD91PO3D00 [SD]

TOYAKO, Japan (AP) President Bush and other world leaders made gradual progress Tuesday on climate change, but finalizing along-term global agreement on what to do about the fevered planet remains elusive. Climate change, the focus of this year's meeting ofindustrialized nations, is just one on a long list of global issues from Iran's nuclear weapons program to missile defense thatBush is trying to push forward at the Group of Eight summit. With his popularity low at home and fewer than 200 days left in office,Bush is methodically promoting his issues, seemingly ready to accept incremental progress rather than pursuing eye-catchingbreakthroughs. The G-8 endorsed cutting global emissions of greenhouse gases by 50 percent by 2050 and called for emitters to setmidterm reduction targets. The White House quickly hailed the G-8 declaration as a validation of Bush's approach. "This representssubstantial progress from last year," said Dan Price, the president's deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs.Price said the G-8 acknowledged that it alone cannot effectively address climate change that contributions from all majoreconomies are required a position Bush has argued repeatedly. Price also said the declaration struck here Tuesday reflects the sensethe development and deployment of clean technologies in developing nations is crucial another thing that Bush has been pushing.

The president long has insisted that major emerging economies like China and India be included in any global plan to cut emissions.Bush scored a small victory in getting the other big-polluting major economy nations to agree to attend a meeting Wednesday on thesidelines of a summit. It's unclear, however, whether the heads of state at Wednesday's session will "finalize" a long-term goal forreducing global greenhouse gas emissions, as Bush predicted back in September.

16


17/116


18/116


Unique - EU Expects US Climate Action

Europe wants countries to cap emissions or they will permit energy incentive exports.

Jennifer L Morgan, Director at Climate and Energy Security for Third Generation Environmentalism, 5/20/08,Clinton, Obama, McCain Europes opportunity to shape a presidency,http://www.e3g.org/images/uploads/Reaction_E3G_Notre_Europe_Policy_Paper_34_US___EU_Climate_Change.pdf [SD]

Recently, voices on both sides of the Atlantic have increasingly started to call for the use of trade sanctions as a tool to protect energy-intensive industries and/or workers. There is still however a distinct difference in approach. While Europe is waiting to see theoutcome of the Copenhagen negotiations before implementing any protective measures for energy-intensive industries, theLieberman/Warner bill poses a more explicit threat to emerging economies (i.e. China). The bill sets out that these countries shouldtake on a national cap by a certain date or accept an emissions permit levy on energy-intensive exports to the US. This provisionignores the responsibility of the US and other developed countries to cut their emissions further and faster than developing countries.It would antagonise developing countries, make it harder to get a deal at Copenhagen and help only a handful of industries (energyintensive goods account for just 3% of US imports from China). Far more effective would be for Europe to continue its more positive

engagement with China to bring together the worlds largest single market with the worlds most dynamic economy in the pursuit of acombined transition to a low carbon economy. For example, next year the European Commission should decide to remove high tariffson Chinese compact fluorescent lightbulbs so that European consumers can purchase cheap low carbon goods, and Chinese producerscan see the benefit of producing them. Really making such low carbon markets function would create massive first-mover benefits forboth economies, and would signal the way forward for a more positive and proactive engagement from US business interests.

Climate Progress Preserving US-EU Co-operation

Plain Dealer 6/17/8 [Bush's farewell tour, ln]Even the protesters mostly stayed away - but not for the reason the president claimed: that they've lost interest because Iraq is going sowell. Bush also ascribed his smooth sailing through the capitals of Europe to America's progress on climate change policy. That, hisaides suggested, has led to a new amity between his administration and old Europe. Such amity is important. It preserves the all-important united front between Europe and the United States on the tricky question of how much pressure to put on Tehran to give up

its nuclear weapons ambitions.

Bush is Percievedas Moving Towards Europe on Climate

Chicago Tribune 6/15/8 [With Bush near exit, Europe's ire softens, ln]Even the tone has changed. In an interview with the Times of London, the president was applauded for adopting language "much lessjarring, more conciliatory than it once was." "His humor is self-deprecating," the paper said. This is a marked change from thecharacterizations that had become so familiar. The "Toxic Texan" with his "cowboy diplomacy" seems to many over here a distantmemory. And on his last trip to Europe, Bush might just have achieved something that had hitherto eluded him. With his newfoundsupport for climate-change policy, his emphasis on a multilateral approach to Iran and his commitment, however belated, toengagement with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Bush comes across as being constructive: a man to do business with. He looks like astatesman.

18


19/116


Unique - EU Liberalizing Trade - Climate

The EU Is Support Trade Relations By Liberalizing Climate BarriersMeena Raman and Charly Poppe, Secretary General, Friends of the Earth Malaysia & Chair - Friends of the

Earth International, and Trade Programme Coordinator, Friends of the Earth Europe, 1/2008 Climate Changeand International Trade: The Need for a Paradigm Shift,"http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2008/trade_climate_jan08_en.pdf [SD]

The trade & climate change debate started in Europe in 2006 when some very different stakeholders argued for the establishment ofa Kyoto tariff at the EU border, both on competitiveness and moral grounds. Since then, the EU Trade Commissioner ruled out theproposal as bad politics and much of the climate & trade debate has been focussed on the mutual supportiveness of the trade andclimate regimes. It has been emphasized how the liberalisation of environmental goods and services and green technologies couldplay a role in climate mitigation and adaptation. It has also been argued that the liberalisation of energy resources will bring moreenergy security more efficiency, and the necessary stimulus for the development of the renewable energy market. Strong pressureshave also been made for the liberalisation of agrofuels as a means for cutting carbon emissions from transport (although this idea hassuffered from major setbacks in the last months). In the same vein, the old theory that trade liberalisation leads to growth which leadsto increased welfare and in turn, to more environmental consciousness and, ultimately, to environmental policies, is making its come-

back, although it has proven to be fallacious and factually wrong3. So let us leave theory and the good thoughts about mutualsupportiveness aside for a moment, and talk about the real crunching issues. Let us face it: policy-making is rarely coherent, andthere are a number of potential or existing tensions and conflicts between climate and trade policies. Trade and Climate: Tensions andConflicts To begin with, we would like to emphasize that in Friends of the Earths view, the current trading system and the push forliberalisation is a driver of climate change. The dominant trading system, and its emphasis on the free market, promotes a modelof development based on unsustainable patterns of production and consumption dependent on a fossil fuel-based economy. The modelis premised on unfettered growth and consumption, including growth of exports and imports, and the deregulation of markets, wherenature has no limits and pollution costs are externalised. While scarce resources are used to feed the greed of a few rich, the poormajority is denied a decent standard of living. By the same token, the rich have emitted so much of greenhouse gases (GHG) alreadyto feed their irrational wants that the poor who are least responsible for climate change have to pay the price in terms of climatecatastrophes. The EU is a frontrunner in global climate negotiations; this should be acknowledged. In the last few years, the EU(comparing to other governments) has committed itself to strong and binding GHG reductions targets, setting a positive trend for othernations and giving positive market signals. Yet many other EU policies are undermining these efforts. What are these contradictions?

Global Europe is the new framework for the EUs trade policy. The Global Europe strategy is placing competitiveness and marketaccess above all other concerns. Global Europe is fundamentally a pro-deregulation and market-opening approach. With its push foreliminating non-tariff barriers and particularly export taxes, the EU is threatening to undermine or chill any domestic

legislation, measure or standard that intends to mitigate or prevent climate change (for instance: subsidies to renewable energyprogrammes, energy efficiency standards, export restrictions on climate-sensitive products such as illegal timber, etc.). This is notonly jeopardizing climate policies but also undermining the development space of poor countries.

19


20/116


Unique - EU Liberalizing Trade - Climate

EU is considering carbon taxes now

Business Week, 1/8/08, EU Ponders Carbon Tariff on Imports,http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jan2008/gb2008018_121679.htm?chan=search [SD]

Brussels considers a policy to charge companies that import goods into Europe for the CO2 they emitted during productionEuropean Union leaders strive to portray themselves as being on the front line of global efforts to combat climate change. They boastthat the EU has agreed to cut emissions 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, well beyond the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol.And both the United Kingdom and Germany recently announced plans to expand their commitment to renewable energy. Theirstrategy, it seemed, was to lead by example. But they appear to be considering less subtle tactics. The European Commission isconsidering a carbon tariff on goods from countries where greenhouse gas emission policies do not match European standards. The

tariff system would force companies that import products into Europe to buy EU carbon emissions permits through the EmissionsTrading Scheme (ETS) -- the ETS already obliges European firms to buy and sell excess carbon dioxide emissions, thereby creating acontinental cap on carbon dioxide emissions. Some EU officials have publicly opposed the proposed tariff. European TradeCommissioner Peter Mandelson told Reuters that such a scheme would be hard to implement and could lead to trade disputes.

A spokesperson for the European Commission's secretary of environment, reached by SPIEGEL ONLINE, confirmed thatthe tariff is under discussion but declined to comment further. The proposed tariff is one facet of a larger debate on emissions controlpolicies that will govern Europe after current regulations expire in 2012. A package of climate policy proposals is due to be publishedby the commission later this month. France, in particular, is a supporter of the potential tariff. Both former president Jacques Chiracand current president Nicolas Sarkozy have warned that overly strict emissions regulations could hobble the competitiveness ofEuropean countries. In October, Sarkozy urged European leaders to "examine the option of taxing products imported from countriesthat do not respect the Kyoto Protocol."

20


21/116


Unique: AT: No Regulations

We Control the Uniqueness Trend- Bushs Moves Have been TowardsRegulation

MSNBC 7 [Oct 4, U.S. official: CO2 regulation likely, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21135556/]

The United States is moving toward the regulation of carbon emissions, a U.S. energy official said Thursday, even though the Bush

administration adheres to a voluntary approach to controlling the primary gas blamed for climate change. "There will be carbon

regulation of some sort," said Dan Arvizu, director of the National Renewable Energy Lab, speaking a week after he briefed President

Bush's global warming conference in Washington. "I am neutral as to which kind of carbon management regulation there will be. It is

very clear to me that there will be carbon management, whether it will be a direct tax, carbon cap-and-trade or some other instrument,"

Arvizu told an international conference on the next generation of biofuels. Arvizu did not say he was speaking for the administration.

But some of his listeners thought it was significant that he spoke after the Washington meeting that brought the United States together

with leading industrial nations which have embraced stringent mandatory controls and with developing countries like India, China and

Brazil which are totally unregulated. "He's picking up the vibe" in Washington, said Patrick Mazza, chairman of the biofuel

conference and research director of Climate Solutions based in Seattle. Arvizu later told The Associated Press the United States "is

headed in a different direction than we were a few years ago." He said executives of utility companies and U.S. oil giants two

lobbies that had resisted regulation now want predictable and transparent carbon policies. "Certainly my reference point has

changed dramatically," he said. "The position of this administration is beginning to evolve." In his speech to the Washingtonconference, Bush reiterated his view that each nation should set targets for itself and decide how it will combat global warming

without hindering economic growth. But Arvizu said that, while Bush remained in favor of voluntary targets, his position is not as

rigid as it once was, and he made a point of telling the Washington meeting that he has accepted a mandatory renewable fuel standard

for vehicles.

U.S. is Determening its Approach to C02 Regulations - 2008 Will be the Determening Year

Fox News 5/14/7 [Bush Orders Regulations to Cut Carbon Emissions in Response to High Court Ruling,

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272078,00.html]

President Bush on Monday ordered his cabinet members to begin drafting rules that will comply with recent a Supreme Court decision

combating greenhouse gases as well as meet his call to begin replacing gasoline with alternative fuels. "We're taking action by taking

the first step towards rules that will make our economy stronger, our environment cleaner and our nation more secure for generations

to come," Bush said, addressing reporters in the Rose Garden. Bush said he ordered his cabinet members to finish the process by the

end of2008. While the regulations he called for can be implemented by the executive branch, Bush added that Congress could make even more of adifference. "With good legislation, we could save up to 8.5 billion gallons of gasoline per year by 2017 and further reduce greenhouse gas emissions

from cars and trucks," Bush said. Bush said he signed an executive order Monday directing the EPA and the Energy, Transportation and Agriculture

departments to work with White House staff and Congress to develop regulations that will meet the needs of the ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA by

using Bush's "20 in 10" plan to reduce gasoline consumption by 20 percent by 2017 as a starting point. The 20 in 10 plan focuses on reducing

Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards the average fuel economy standards for autos and light trucks as well as reducing

gasoline consumption by boosting alternative fuel consumption to 35 billion gallons by 2017. The White House is hoping for a bipartisan accord to

make way for broader, more effective changes. "This is a proposal that seems to give both parties what they say they want in terms of pursuing

energy independence and at the same time pursuing a cleaner environment," White House press secretary Tony Snow said earlier Monday. "So there

ought to be a pretty good bipartisan basis for passing such legislation. We'll continue to work it." Last month in a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court

ruled carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases qualify as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act and can be regulated by the EPA, which the

administration had fought. The court also said the reasons the administration had given for declining to regulate greenhouse gases are insufficient,

and that the agency must regulate carbon dioxide, the leading gas linked to global warming, if it finds that it endangers public health. Bush has said

that he recognized the serious environmental problems created by such emissions and other so-called greenhouse gases. But he has

urged against anything other than a voluntary approach to curbing emissions, saying regulations could undercut economic activity.

The president also says he will accept no global deal on greenhouse gases without the participation of China, India and other high-

polluting, developing nations. Since taking control of Congress in January, Democrats have held a number of hearings exploring the

consequences of climate change and have been pressuring the administration to say when it will comply with the high court's ruling

and decide whether to regulate carbon dioxide. The environmental group Environmental Defense said the effort "will fall far short of

fixing the climate problem" without mandatory caps on carbon emissions. "Whether EPA will lead the fight against global warming

or lead us to a hotter planet remains to be seen," said Environmental Defense President Fred Krupp. "It's time for this administration to

join with the mainstream of American businesses and support a cap on carbon."

21


22/116


Unique: AT: Incentives Now

New Funding Alternatives to Carbon Regulations Will Be Blocked

EnergyWashington Week 6/18/8 [Environmentalists Blast Pending Bush Request For Clean-Energy Fund, ln]Environmentalists are criticizing a Bush administration proposal to create a $10 billion international "Clean Technology Fund" to beadministered by the World Bank, arguing the fund would subsidize the construction of coal plants and other projects in the developingworld that could undermine efforts to mitigate climate change. The criticisms might deal a heavy blow to what couldbe one of theBush administration's final initiatives for a technology-based response to climate change as an alternative to emission-reductionmandates. Announced by President Bush last September, the proposed technology fund seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the developingworld by retrofitting existing energy infrastructure, promoting efficiency improvements, and financing new, "clean" power generation. The Bushadministration has pledged $2 billion over the first three years of the fund and is currently requesting that Congress appropriate $400 million forfiscal year 2009. Another $8 billion is expected to be contributed by other developed nations, including Britain and Japan. But a "fact sheet" released

by Friends of the Earth and the environmental group Oil Change International charges that the fund could actually fuel global warming rather thanmitigate it. In fact, the groups argue "The 'Slightly Less Dirty' Technology Fund" could "potentially be used to fund massive coal projects that areonly somewhat less polluting than the dirtiest existing projects," including funds "to prepare for 'carbon capture and storage,' a technology which

doesn't even exist yet."At a June 5 hearing on the fund held by the House Financial Services Committee's monetary policy andtechnology subcommittee, which is required to authorize World Bank-related funding, Friends of the Earth President Brent

Blackwelder criticized the lack of clarity regarding what technologies would qualify as either "clean" or "lowcarbon" under the fund.Blackwelder also singled out the World Bank's willingness to fund projects aimed at promoting carbon capture and storage (CCS) "readiness,"arguing that, "Using public money for coal and CCS may boost companies that make coal plant equipment, but it cannot be considered part of thesolution for the climate crisis." In his written testimony, Blackwelder suggested "there should be a certification requirement to ensure that none of thefunds have been used for coal, oil, gas or nuclear projects." A senior official with the World Bank's environmental department says the technologyfund will likely include significant investments in coal as part of a "diverse and balanced portfolio" that meets the energy needs of developingcountries. "Obviously, there will be a strong preference for the most cost-effective interventions," the official notes, though all projects would need to

be desired by the host countries and lead to "significant greenhouse gas reductions." "Yes, there might be greater [emissions] savings if you went towind or solar, but at what cost?" the source asks. The World Bank would also consider funding integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) coal

plants that have the capacity to add CCS "at a future time," as well as commercial-scale demonstration projects of CCS technology. Most analystsestimate that CCS is, at best, more than a decade away from commercial availability, with officials for some electric utilities suggesting it could be asmuch 40 years away. A World Bank document from April laying out the scope of the fund states, "Recognizing that coal is forecast to remain animportant component of global energy use for the next 30-50 years, the coal-fired projects would be supported where they are least cost." Thatlanguage is absent from the final, June 9 "scoping" document, though that document nonetheless endorses "adopting best available coal technologieswith substantial improvements in energy efficiency and readiness for implementation of carbon capture and storage." In contrast, a statement of

principles for a prospective clean technology fund distributed by Friends of the Earth calls for investing in "the full range of existing solar, wind,hydropower below ten megawatts, and geothermal energy supply technologies," while funds "should not be used to make conventional high emission

projects marginally or incrementally cleaner." The money should also be distributed through the United Nations and not the World Bank so as toprovide developing countries more say in how funds are dispersed, the group argues. At the June 5 hearing, Financial Services Chairman BarneyFrank (D-MA) noted that "historically, the World Bank has not been seen as an institution friendly to environmental concerns." In March, theInstitute for Policy Studies issued a report, World Bank: Climate Profiteer, charging that the Bank's climate change programs, such as the "CleanDevelopment Mechanism," frequently benefited corporate interests through projects of dubious environmental merit.

Frank said concerns about the World Bank's environmental record were "well grounded in history" and "not paranoia." He suggestedthat he would likely support authorizing the clean technology fund for no more than a one year "trial period," before adding that, iffaced with a "budget crunch," he would recommend the fund be the first program to be axed. The fund requires approval from boththe Financial Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee's foreign operations subcommittee. Meanwhile, Rep. Ron Paul(R-TX) questioned where Congress would find the money for a $2 billion technology fund amid rising deficits, as well as the wisdom ofexpecting the World Bank, rather than market forces, to determine how to best invest money in carbon-reducing technologies. "It's sort of like

politicians deciding, well, the very best way to develop ethanol is to subsidize farmers and prohibit people from raising hemp, and, you know, hemp

is so much better" from an environmental perspective, said Paul, the subcommittee's ranking Republican. Subcommittee Chairman LuisGutierrez (D-IL), in questioning State Department Under Secretary for International Affairs David McCormick, also noted theconcerns of some environmentalists regarding the lack of a "clean technology" definition, and inquired as to whether the fund would endup financing "super-critical coal plants." In response, McCormick said coal projects "would be considered," but that he didn't expect them to make upa "significant portion" of the fund's investments. However, he then argued that certain countries were going to go ahead with coal plants "with orwithout our support, and we think there may be cases that do in fact justify the deployment of the cleanest available coal technology possible." Laterin the hearing, McCormick maintained that the fund was "not meant to finance the development of new technologies, but rather the deployment ofexisting technologies."

22


23/116


Unique: AT: Incentives Now

Reduction in R&D subsidies

Andreas Tjernshaugen , @ Center for International Climate and Environmental Research, 5 [CICERO Policy Note 2005:01, United

States participation in future climate agreements, http://www.cicero.uio.no/media/3312.pdf]

Fifth, the Kyoto parties should consider in which climate-relevant fields other than actual emissions regulation they might usefully

cooperate with the Americans on the short term. The obvious answer is science and technology. The knowledge and shared

understanding built through cooperation in scientific research, monitoring and assessment of climate change is a crucial foundation for

climate policy and should be given a high priority. As discussed in section 1 above, technology research, development and

demonstration is the area of climate policy where the potential for cooperation with the United States currently looks best. Both the

United States and European countries could usefully increase their efforts in this field. Given the discrepancy between projected

energy supply and demand and what would be needed to keep global warming in check, governments worldwide spend remarkablylittle money on energy research and development. From the mid 1980s to the late 1990s the very period that the global warming

problem was taken up by political bodies spending on energy R&D was in fact considerably reduced (Dooley et al. 1998; Dooley

and Runci 1999). One proposed remedy is to negotiate a R&D protocol to the UNFCCC, where countries commit to specific levels

of funding for collaborative research and development on cleaner energy technologies (Barret 2003). It is, however, not clear that such

a formal agreement is necessary to promote R&D spending. Since just nine OECD countries account for 95 percent of the worldsinvestments in energy research and development (Dooley et al. 1998), negotiations involving all UN members may not be the most

effective approach.

Congress Pushing to Cut Climate Tech

CRS 7 [February 8, Congressional Research Service, Climate change and Environmental policy,

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Global_Climate_Change

15 Generic Olsen Europe Trade DA

Documents