Aff 2AC Ethanol 86

8/14/2019 Aff 2AC Ethanol 86

1/90

WNDI 2008 1Ethanol Aff 2ACs

Ethanol Aff 2ACs

A2 DAsEthanol Aff 2ACs........................................................................................................................................................1

Ethanol Aff 2ACs ...........................................................................................................................1

A2 Brazil Sugar Production Bad Arguments (1/1).....................................................................................................6

A2 Brazil Sugar Production Bad Arguments (1/1) .....................................................................6

A2 Agenda Politics DA (1/3)......................................................................................................................................7

A2 Agenda Politics DA (1/3) ..........................................................................................................7





A2 Agriculture DA (1/2)...........................................................................................................................................10

A2 Agriculture DA (1/2) ...............................................................................................................10

A2 Agriculture DA (2/2)...........................................................................................................................................11

A2 Agriculture DA (2/2) ...............................................................................................................11

A2 Amazon DA (1/2)................................................................................................................................................12

A2 Amazon DA (1/2) ....................................................................................................................12

A2 Amazon DA (2/2)................................................................................................................................................13

A2 Amazon DA (2/2) ....................................................................................................................13

A2 Australia DA (1/3)...............................................................................................................................................14A2 Australia DA (1/3) ...................................................................................................................14

A2 Australia DA (2/3)...............................................................................................................................................15

A2 Australia DA (2/3) ...................................................................................................................15

A2 Australia DA (3/3)...............................................................................................................................................16

A2 Australia DA (3/3) ...................................................................................................................16

A2 Backstopping DA (1/3).......................................................................................................................................17

A2 Backstopping DA (1/3) ...........................................................................................................17





A2 Bizcon DA (1/1)..................................................................................................................................................20

A2 Bizcon DA (1/1) .......................................................................................................................20

A2 Elections DA (1/4)...............................................................................................................................................21


2/90


3/90


A2 Oil DA (4/5) .............................................................................................................................39

A2 Oil DA (5/5)........................................................................................................................................................40

A2 Oil DA (5/5) .............................................................................................................................40

A2 Saudi Oil DA (1/3)..............................................................................................................................................41

A2 Saudi Oil DA (1/3) ..................................................................................................................41

A2 Saudi Oil DA (2/3)..............................................................................................................................................42

A2 Saudi Oil DA (2/3) ..................................................................................................................42

A2 Saudi Oil DA (3/3)..............................................................................................................................................43

A2 Saudi Oil DA (3/3) ..................................................................................................................43

A2 Slavery DA (1/4).................................................................................................................................................44

A2 Slavery DA (1/4) .....................................................................................................................44

A2 Slavery DA (2/4).................................................................................................................................................45

A2 Slavery DA (2/4) .....................................................................................................................45A2 Slavery DA (3/4).................................................................................................................................................46

A2 Slavery DA (3/4) .....................................................................................................................46

A2 Slavery DA (4/4).................................................................................................................................................47

A2 Slavery DA (4/4) .....................................................................................................................47

A2 Spending DA (1/3)..............................................................................................................................................48

A2 Spending DA (1/3) ..................................................................................................................48

A2 Spending DA (2/3)..............................................................................................................................................49

A2 Spending DA (2/3) ..................................................................................................................49A2 Spending DA (3/3)..............................................................................................................................................50

A2 Spending DA (3/3) ..................................................................................................................50

A2 T In the US.......................................................................................................................................................51

A2 T In the US ...........................................................................................................................51

A2 T Incentives......................................................................................................................................................52

A2 T Incentives ..........................................................................................................................52

A2 T 1AR Cards.....................................................................................................................................................53

A2 T 1AR Cards ........................................................................................................................53

A2 Consult CPs (1/3)................................................................................................................................................54

A2 Consult CPs (1/3) ....................................................................................................................54

A2 Consult CPs (2/3)................................................................................................................................................55

A2 Consult CPs (2/3) ....................................................................................................................55

A2 Consult CPs (3/3)................................................................................................................................................56

A2 Consult CPs (3/3) ....................................................................................................................56

A2 Consult China (1/1).............................................................................................................................................57


4/90


A2 Consult China (1/1) ................................................................................................................57

A2 Command CP (1/3)..............................................................................................................................................58

A2 Command CP (1/3) .................................................................................................................58

A2 Command CP (2/3)..............................................................................................................................................59

A2 Command CP (2/3) .................................................................................................................59

A2 Command CP (3/3)..............................................................................................................................................60

A2 Command CP (3/3) .................................................................................................................60

A2 Trade CP (1/3).....................................................................................................................................................61

A2 Trade CP (1/3) .........................................................................................................................61

A2 Trade CP (2/3).....................................................................................................................................................62

A2 Trade CP (2/3) .........................................................................................................................62

A2 Trade CP (3/3).....................................................................................................................................................63

A2 Trade CP (3/3) .........................................................................................................................63A2 K 2AC (1/4).........................................................................................................................................................64

A2 K 2AC (1/4) .............................................................................................................................64

A2 K 2AC (2/4).........................................................................................................................................................65

A2 K 2AC (2/4) .............................................................................................................................65

A2 K 2AC (3/4).........................................................................................................................................................66

A2 K 2AC (3/4) .............................................................................................................................66

A2 K 2AC (4/4).........................................................................................................................................................67

A2 K 2AC (4/4) .............................................................................................................................67A2 Capitalism K (1/4)...............................................................................................................................................68

A2 Capitalism K (1/4) ..................................................................................................................68

A2 Capitalism K (2/4)...............................................................................................................................................69

A2 Capitalism K (2/4) ..................................................................................................................69

A2 Capitalism K (3/4)...............................................................................................................................................70

A2 Capitalism K (3/4) ..................................................................................................................70

A2 Capitalism K (4/4)...............................................................................................................................................71

A2 Capitalism K (4/4) ..................................................................................................................71

A2 Neoliberalism K (1/5).........................................................................................................................................72

A2 Neoliberalism K (1/5) .............................................................................................................72







5/90





A2 Realism / Security K (1/6)...................................................................................................................................77

A2 Realism / Security K (1/6) ......................................................................................................77








A2 Realism / Security K (5/6) ......................................................................................................81A2 Realism / Security K (6/6)...................................................................................................................................82


A2 Amazon DA.........................................................................................................................................................83

A2 Amazon DA .............................................................................................................................83

A2 Amazon/Slavery DA...........................................................................................................................................84

A2 Amazon/Slavery DA ...............................................................................................................84

A2 Slavery DA..........................................................................................................................................................85

A2 Slavery DA ..............................................................................................................................85Plan Doha.............................................................................................................................................................86

Plan Doha ................................................................................................................................86Doha Uniqueness......................................................................................................................................................87

Doha Uniqueness ..........................................................................................................................87

Relations Uniqueness................................................................................................................................................88

Relations Uniqueness ...................................................................................................................88

Trade Good A2 Development................................................................................................................................89

Trade Good A2 Development ...................................................................................................89

Trade Good A2 Environment.................................................................................................................................90

Trade Good A2 Environment ...................................................................................................90


6/90


A2 Brazil Sugar Production Bad Arguments (1/1)

Brazil will expand ethanol production rapidly with or without tariff

Dan Buglass, Rural Affairs Editor, 4/24/2008, Ethanol Fuels Growth of Brazilian Agriculture, LexisPrime Ministers Gordon Brown's statement that the UK needs to reassess its commitment of producing

biofuels from land formerly devoted to crops for food production will have come as no great surprise to thosewho have questioned the economics of the headlong rush to renewable sources of energy. Meanwhile, Brazilis pressing ahead from its already leading position as the world's largest producer of ethanol. This

rapidly expanding industry is based on sugar cane, with suitable land for this crop now changing hands atup to GBP 8,000 per hectare - a valuation which sits very close to the top of the Scottish market. But thereality is that serious investors in agricultural land, including operators from New Zealand, Australia and

North America, have now grasped the fact that production costs in Brazil are much lower than in most of thedeveloped world. A group of 16 members of the Scottish Association of Young Farmers' Clubs visited Brazillast December, largely as a result of sponsorship from the Cameron Trust. The trust was set up by JohnCameron, a former president of NFU Scotland, and his wife Margaret following the sale of the major part oftheir extensive farming operations two years ago for price that must have approached GBP 10 million. TheCamerons have no immediate family, but have a reputation of steering the younger generation in the rightdirection: those chosen must prove their worth. Andrew Stevenson from Fife was one of the group whichvisited Brazil. He reported this week on the scale and future potential of the sugar and ethanol industries in

South America. He said: "Sugar cane is one of the biggest growth sectors within Brazilian agriculturefor many reasons, with energy security and environmental concerns being two of the main drivers.

Renewable sources of energy in Brazil are not uncommon with 45 per cent of the requirements being fedfrom these." But that is just a beginning, according to Stevenson, who was clearly impressed with what hesaw during the ten-day tour. He said: "Currently there are 350 sugar-cane plants operating in Brazilproducing 20 billion litres of ethanol and 30 million tonnes of sugar. By 2012 it is predicted that there

will be 412 plants producing 38 billion litres of ethanol with an exportable surplus of 10.5 billion litres."This source of energy, however, requires land to produce it. Fortunately this is something that Brazil has inabundance. Currently 6.3 million hectares are cultivated for sugar cane production and projectionsshow that by 2020 that will have doubled." That expansion is almost certainly to be at the cost of a furtherreduction in the Amazon rainforest, an exceedingly touchy subject. On a world scale Brazil accounts for 38

per cent of ethanol production but, in terms of exports, Brazil is by far the largest player with over 65 percent of the market. Stevenson added: "Sugar cane is undoubtedly the most competitive feedstock to produce

ethanol, with higher yields, lower costs which are competitive with crude oil at dollars 40 per barrel, and avery positive energy and environmental balance."


7/90


A2 Agenda Politics DA (1/3)

1. N/U 1AC Yacobucci evidence says that the United States is already importing ethanol

duty free from the CBI and CAFTA states.

2. N/U - COFTA will pass congressional delegationFarm Futures, 7/17/2008, Schafer Leads Congressional Delegation to Colombia,http://www.farmfutures.com/ME2/dirmod.asp ?sid=CD26BEDECA4A4946A1283CC7786AEB5A&nm=News&type=news&mod=News&mid=9A02E3B96F2A415ABC72CB5F516B4C10&tier=3&nid=8425B28418D44B1C9D62E5A504C6176B

A Congressional delegation will leave July 18 for Cartegena, Colombia on a trip to showcase thecountry's advances in democracy, security and human rights. Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer willlead the bi-partisan group and try to emphasize the importance of ratifying the pending free tradeagreement with Colombia. "Colombia is an important friend and trading partner of the United States,"Schafer said. "This trip will provide Congressional members with an invaluable opportunity to see firsthand the Colombian government's success in bringing about stability and economic growth, and how

the CTPA will help to continue this progress. We will also be able to see new markets for U.S.

agricultural exports." Trade benefits for U.S. agricultural producers in this market will be achievedthrough immediate elimination of variable tariffs, with half of U.S. exports entering duty-free as soon as theCTPA is implemented, most tariffs being phased out in 15 years, and all within 19 years. In calendar year2007, the United States shipped a record $1.2 billion worth of agricultural products to Colombia. Colombia isalso an important agricultural supplier to the U.S. marketplace. Major U.S. imports from Colombia includecoffee, nursery products, cut flowers and bananas and plantains.

3. N/U COFTA will pass newspaper endorsements, democratic switches, and Uribe

popularity

NYT, Steven R. Weisman, 7/13/2008, Colombia Trade Deal is Threatened,http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/washington/13trade.html?ref=americas

To President Bush, the free-trade deal his administration negotiated with Colombia has something foreveryone. If approved by Congress, it would open a new market for American produce and manufacturedgoods. Unlike other trade deals, it would not threaten American jobs, because imports from Colombia are

already coming in nearly duty-free. And it would have the added benefit of shoring up a respected ally,President lvaro Uribe, who has made progress in taming the narcotics traffickers, right-wing death squadsand left-wing guerrillas that had almost made Colombia a failed state. In recent months, nearly 100newspapers in the United States have endorsed the Colombia trade agreement. So have many topDemocrats, including Mayor Richard M. Daley of Chicago. And Mr. Uribe, who was already popular inCongress, was widely lionized after the dramatic rescue of hostages in Colombia on July 2.
http://www.farmfutures.com/ME2/dirmod.asphttp://www.farmfutures.com/ME2/dirmod.asp


8/90



4. Turn - Empirically plan is unpopular farm states and ag lobbies

Council on Hemispheric Relations, 7/24/2007, Aspiring To Leadership: Brazil, President Lula and Sugar-Cane Ethanol, http://www.coha.org/2007/08/aspiring-to-leadership-brazil-president-lula-and-sugar-cane-ethanol/

The burdensome import tax has been challenged in the U.S. Congress on a number of occasions. Thelatest attempt to rescind it was on June 20, when Republican Senator Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) led a

push to overturn the tariff, citing the current over-reliance of the U.S. on Venezuelan oil as his motivation: Iwould rather buy ethanol from Brazil than oil from Venezuela. It just makes a lot more geopolitical sense inhow we protect ourselves. Brazils friendly geopolitical position weighs in favor of its worldwide strategiesimportance which inevitably will service the cause of the potential improvement of the countrysstrengthened economy. But at the same time, its ability to threaten the U.S.-based corn ethanol methodologythat would come from the lifting of the U.S. tariffs can not be ignored. However, the measure affectingethanol, known on Capitol Hill as part of the farm bill, was shot down in the Senate by a vote of 56-36in favor of continuing the tariff, thus protecting the price of U.S. corn. Republican Senator John Thune ofSouth Dakota explained his nay vote: Eliminating the ethanol tariff would send a mixed signal toproducers, investors and farmers who sell their products to ethanol plants. Senator Thunes thoughts

appear to be the prevailing sentiment within the U.S. Congress. Lewis Perelman, a senior fellow at theHomeland Security Policy Institute in Washington, is not very optimistic that any transformation will be

revealed in the short term. During an interview with COHA, he explained, I dont see the politicallandscape changing anytime in the foreseeable future. Politicians and American citizens alike seem

content with the way things are. To date, there has been no realistic threat to the survival of the ethanoltariff in the House or the Senate. Most members of Congress believe that releasing the import tariffwould be a disservice to American corn farmers more than it would abet the welfare of the American

public, as rationalized by the recurring refusal to cancel the ethanol tariff.

5. Turn - Sugar lobby opposes plan and is strong

Forbes, Joshua Zumbrun, 6/30/2008, Sugars Sweet Deal, Forbes,http://www.forbes.com/home/2008/06/27/florida-sugar-crist-biz-beltway-cx_jz_0630sugar.html

For now, discussion of a free trade deal involving the U.S. and Brazil is stalled, but American sugar producers worry that if

such an agreement were put in place, Brazils sugar industry would gain a stronger place in the U.S. market. A

separate tariff applies to Brazils foreign ethanol--one that domestic ethanol producers are keen to keep in place. Nonetheless, the

U.S. sugar industry remains strong in Washington. "They have been a notoriously powerful lobby for

decades and decades," says Cato's Edwards. As an explanation for sugar's lavish subsidies in the 2008 farm bill, which recently

became law after a veto override, look no further than Congress' Agriculture Committees. According to the Center for

Responsive Politics, the top beneficiaries of big sugar's influence for the current election cycle include

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa ($35,400), House Agriculture Committee

member Tim Mahoney, D-Fla. ($33,923) and committee chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn., ($28,900). The U.S.Department of Agriculture says roughly 54% of total U.S. sugar-beet acreage is in the Red River Valley between Minnesota and NorthDakota. North Dakota's sole Congressman, Democrat Earl Pomeroy, has been the greatest beneficiary of

donations from sugar-related political-action committees for the 2008 election cycle, taking in $26,500, theCenter for Responsive Politics says. Peterson, whose district in western Minnesota stretches along the Red River Valley, is No. 2, with$26,400 in PAC money. As a governor, Crist has no vote on federal farm subsidies--he can only influence what's done with Floridians'tax money. And federal taxpayers? They're still paying to support sugar and keep prices high at the store. Sweet.

6. No I/L 1NC Inside U.S. Trade evidence says that Pelosi will be willing to trade CFTAfor TAA passage and housing bill not ethanol tariff.


9/90



Other issues key stimulus


As the price for approval of the Colombia deal, Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker and aCalifornia Democrat, demands specifically that the administration expand programs for Americanworkers. She blocked the agreement from coming to a vote in April, infuriating Mr. Bush. Her aideshave not set a specific price, but some Democrats say it would have to be at least $30 billion for items

such as worker training, childrens health programs, unemployment benefits and expenditures on

roads, bridges and infrastructure.

7. Case turns DA 1AC relations evidence says plan is key to check Chavez will collapse

US hegemony.

8. Other issues key stimulus


As the price for approval of the Colombia deal, Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker and aCalifornia Democrat, demands specifically that the administration expand programs for Americanworkers. She blocked the agreement from coming to a vote in April, infuriating Mr. Bush. Her aideshave not set a specific price, but some Democrats say it would have to be at least $30 billion for items

such as worker training, childrens health programs, unemployment benefits and expenditures on

roads, bridges and infrastructure.

9. Reducing tariffs is key to leadership

Ariel Cohen, Ph.D. and Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation, 5/31/2008, The Real World: Oil &Shifting Geopolitics, the Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed053108a.cfm

To stave off geopolitical and economic decline and to combat its oil-rich adversaries, the U.S. needs to

recognize the damage high oil prices are doing, and to design a strategy to change the geo-economic

equation. In the short term, the U.S. needs to expand its domestic energy sector. Increasing oil and gas production in the West, along

the Pacific and Atlantic continental shelf, and in Alaska, will help. More production from unconventional oil sources, such as oil sandsand oil shale, is also crucial. A coal and nuclear power build-up are necessary as well. The U.S. Congress should also abolishthe corn ethanol subsidy and lift tariffs on the really competitive ethanol made from sugar cane. Brazil and

Africa can produce more ethanol than Iowa and Nebraska. However, in the long term, more advanced technologicalsolutions are vital to stem the global wealth redistribution to OPEC potentates and other America-haters. A budgetary discipline by theCongress, coupled with a steady repayment of our domestic and foreign national debt will go a long way to restore the U.S. globaleconomic clout. World powers have risen and fallen over major economic factors, such as deficit spending, the loss of industrial base,and stifling innovation and entrepreneurship. This does not have to be the case with the United States. The U.S. should not beintimidated - or bankrupted - out of existence.

10. No impact Huffington Post evidence doesnt say the US has high HR credibility in the

status quo and it doesnt say that the deal kills military credibility which is what theyre

impact evidence is talking about.

11. Incentives coming now Senate

Congress.org 6/12/08 (Congress.org Bill # S.3126 6/12/08http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/bills/?billnum=S.3126&congress=110)

A bill to provide for the development ofcertain traditional and alternative energy resources, and for otherpurposes


10/90


A2 Agriculture DA (1/2)

1. N/U 1NC Yacobucci and Seeke evidence says the US already cooperates with Brazil

over ethanol technology and that the US already imports ethanol duty free from CBI and

CAFTA states.

2. Case turns DA 1AC Shaefer and Lieberman evidence says that lifting the tariff would

bring down food prices like corn and grain.

3. Removing Brazilian ethanol tariffs would decrease food prices

Brett D. Schaefer, Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs at the Heritage Foundation, BenLieberman, Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation, and Brian M. Riedl, 6/26/2008, Addressingthe Global Food Crisis, The Heritage Foundation,http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/bg2151.cfm

Eliminate ethanol and other biofuel mandates and remove tariffs on ethanol and other biofuel imports.Ethanol and other biofuel mandates adopted in the U.S. and many European countries have artificiallyincreased demand for food crops and contributed to the current food crisis. Eliminating these

mandates would immediately expand the amount of food available for consumption. Eliminating

import tariffs on ethanol would also reduce the amount of food used to manufacture ethanol and otherbiofuels. For example, the U.S. levies a tariff of 2.5 percent plus 54 cents on each gallon of imported ethanol.This tariff protects domestic production of corn ethanol by preventing imports of less expensive ethanol,largely sugar ethanol from Brazil. As World Bank President Zoellickhas noted, "Cutting tariffs onethanol imported into the US and European Union markets would encourage the output of more efficientsugarcane biofuels that do not compete directly with food production and expand opportunities for

poorer countries, including in Africa."[16]

4. No Link 1NC link evidence is talking about regulations like the carbon tax or RPS not

removing a tariff.

5. World bank and leading economists agree lifting tariff would relieve food prices

Des Moines Register, Philip Brasher, 7/3/2008, U.S. urged to import, not make, ethanol, Truth about Trade& Technology, http://www.truthabouttrade.org/content/view/12014/54/The skyrocketing price of grain is bringing new pressure on American and European leaders to ease

biofuel incentives, including the U.S. tariff on imported ethanol. The World Bank on Wednesday calledfor the United States and the European Union to roll back biofuel mandates, subsidies and tariffs as part ofa 10-point plan to deal with soaring food costs in poor countries. The plan, which also proposes doublingagricultural aid, was prepared for the Group of Eight economic summit meeting next week in Japan. "We'restarting to see a breakdown in international agricultural and food markets," the bank's president,

Robert Zoellick, said in an appearance at a Washington think tank. Meanwhile, a coalition of livestockproducers and food companies called on President Bush to lift the 54-cent-a-gallon tariffon importedethanol. The new farm bill extended the tariff through 2010. The organizations said that increasingimports of ethanol would hold down the price of grain for animal feed and food ingredients. The groupsinclude the National Pork Producers Council, the American Bakers Association, dairy giant Dean Foods Co.,

meatpacker Tyson Foods, Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc. The Iowa Turkey Federation also is among the 35groups that endorsed the proposal. Removing the tariff on ethanol imports "will alleviate a portion ofthe unnecessary feed and food price inflationary pressures that are adversely affecting our economicwell-being and American consumers," the groups wrote. The Brazilian ethanol industry is launching a smalladvertising campaign this weekend in Florida and California to generate public interest in repealing the tariff.Brazilian ethanol, which is distilled from sugar, cost about 90 cents a gallon to produce in 2007, comparedwith $1.70 for corn-based ethanol, according to the World Bank. Phasing out biofuel subsidies and reducingtariffs "would allow biofuels to be produced from the most efficient feedstock by the lowest-cost

producers, removing pressure from food prices," the bank said. A spokesman for Bush, Scott Stanzel,said the White House is "always reviewing policies to best address the needs of the country."


11/90


A2 Agriculture DA (2/2)

Removing the tariff would reduce corn prices

The Hill, Jim Snyder, 7/7/2008, Food, livestock groups push policies to reduce corn prices, The Hill,http://thehill.com/business--lobby/food-livestock-groups-push-policies-to-reduce-corn-prices-2008-07-07.html

Federal spending watchdogs have also signed on to a letter urging suspension of the tariff. Butlivestock producers that rely on corn as a feed grain, soft drink makers that use corn as a sweetenerandfood manufacturers that blame corn-based ethanol for raising the price of one of their main ingredientsare the main backers of the lobbying campaign. Feed prices and supply are press5ing dairy, livestockand poultry producers to endure one of the greatest adverse economic situations in decades, which isultimately adding unnecessary economic pressure to all Americans, 36 groups wrote President Bush lastweek. The American Meat Institute , Coca-Cola , the National Chicken Council and the GroceryManufacturers Association were among the groups and businesses that signed the letter. The letter urgedthe president to suspend the ethanol tariff to foster downward pressure for ethanol and its feedstock.

Dave Warner, a spokesman for the National Pork Producers Council , said farmers have lost on average $30 apig between October 2007 and April 2008. While rising energy costs have contributed to the tougheconomic times, the rising price of corn is more to blame, Warner said. He noted feed prices account for70 percent of the costs to raise a pig to market. The pork producers brought agriculture economists andfarm lenders to a meeting with United States Department of Agriculture officials two weeks ago to talk about

how high corn prices have hurt the livestock industry and could make it harder for producers to get operatingloans in the future.

Lifting the tariff would decrease food prices

Anne Korin, editor of Energy Security, 6/30/2008, Thinking Outside the Barrel About OPEC and the OilWeapon, The Cutting Edge, http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=601

In Brazil, where ethanol is widely used, the share of flex fuel vehicles in new car sales is estimated to be 90percent this year. These cars are manufactured by the same automakers that sell to the U.S. market and entailno size, power, or safety compromise by consumers. The proliferation of flex fuel vehicles in Brazil hasdriven fuel competition at the pump such that the Brazilian oil industry has been forced to keep gasoline

prices sufficiently low to compete with ethanol in order not to lose more market share. Expanding U.S. fuelchoices to include biofuels imported from developing countries can actually help ameliorate world

poverty and hunger. Sugar, from which ethanol can be cheaply and efficiently produced, is now grownin 100 countriesmany of which are poor and on the receiving end of U.S. development aid. Encouragingthese countries to increase their output and become fuel suppliers (and by removing our protectionist 54cent-per-gallon Brazilian sugar ethanol tariff) could have far-reaching implications for their economic

development. By creating economic interdependence with countries in Africa, Asia, and the southernhemisphere, the United States can strengthen ties with the developing world, help reduce poverty, andwean itself from oil. The International Energy Agency has noted that biofuels are key to keeping the lid onan overheated transportation fuel market. According to Merrill Lynch, without the increase in biofuels

production, oil prices would have been 15 percent higher, which at current oil prices translates into a savingsof over $80 billion a year to the U.S. economy. Critics continue to hammer America's $4 billion biofuels

program as expensive. However, if it generated $80 billion in fuel savings, the program yielded a $76 billionreturn. Moreover, it sent $4 billion to America's farmers instead of to petro-dictators in the Middle East.
http://thehill.com/business--lobby/food-livestock-groups-push-policies-to-reduce-corn-prices-2008-07-07.htmlhttp://thehill.com/business--lobby/food-livestock-groups-push-policies-to-reduce-corn-prices-2008-07-07.htmlhttp://thehill.com/business--lobby/food-livestock-groups-push-policies-to-reduce-corn-prices-2008-07-07.html


12/90


A2 Amazon DA (1/2)

1. N/U the US already imports Brazilian ethanol duty free from CAFTA/CBI states and

cooperates with Brazil over ethanol in the status quo thats our Seelke and Yacobucci

evidence.

2. N/U Yacobucci evidence says that Brazil is expanding its ethanol industry right now at its

maximum rater in the status quo plan doesnt change this.

3. Brazilian ethanol does not lead to reduction of the Amazon

The Economist, Ribeirao Preto, 6/26/2008, Lean, green and not mean, The Economist,http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11632886

Take this last point first. Demand for ethanol is growing fast in Brazil because 90% of new cars have flex-fuel engines that can run onany mixture of petrol and ethanol. Even so, ethanol remains cheap. This is because producers have invested in expanding capacity (seechart), partly because they hope for export markets, but mainly because they reckon they must sell at a 30% discount to petrol to keepthe custom of Brazilians. The price of petrol has not risen for three years because the government has opted to hold it down. This yearBrazil hopes to export up to 3 billion litres of ethanol to the United States. But this market depends on the corn price being so high as tomake it profitable to pay the import tariff. That was not the case last year and it may not be the case next year. Brazil could expandoutput much more, but will do so only when export markets are less unpredictable. That is because supplying them requires investment

in pipelines and port equipment. For those worried about climate change, Brazilian ethanol is worth buying only if it is as green asit claims to be. It is certainly much greener than its corn-based rival in America: it packs 8.2 times as much energy as isused in its production, compared with just 1.5 times for corn ethanol, according to the Woodrow Wilson Centre, a Washington think-tank. Some greens say that the spread of sugar is deforesting the Amazon. That is not true. The vast

majority of the sugar crop is grown thousands of miles away from the forest, in So Paulo state or the north-

east. Some 65% of new planting of sugar cane has been on land that was previously pasture; the rest

was previously used for other crops, according to Conab, a government agency.

4. Economic factors and regulation prevent Amazon deforestation

Reuters, Raymond Colitt, 7/11/2007, U.S. officials: Brazil ethanol doesnt harm Amazon, Reuters,http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSHO18246220070711?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

Brazil's ethanol production is not devastating the Amazon rain forest or hiking food prices, U.S. energy

officials said on Wednesday. "There is a huge misconception internationally that in Brazil, we're cuttingdown the rain forest to (make) fuels, which is not true," said Dan Arvizu, director of the U.S. Departmentof Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory. "Done responsibly (ethanol production) does not haveto (compete) with food orimpact the environment,"Arvizu told reporters in the capital Brasilia. PresidentLuiz Inacio Lula da Silva had said on Monday that European competitors were trying to undermine Brazil's

biofuels production by raising environmental concerns. Environmentalists fear increased sugar caneproduction for ethanol could push other crops, such as soybeans, deeper into the Amazon rain forest. Oil andnatural gas producers such as Venezuela and Bolivia along with Cuba have also openly criticized U.S. andBrazilian ethanol production, saying they would increase food prices and world hunger. The United States isthe world's largest producer of ethanol, which it derives from corn. Brazil is the world's largest exporter ofethanol. It launched a program to fuel cars with ethanol derived from sugar cane 30 years ago. Bothcountries signed an accord in March to jointly forge a global ethanol market and promote its production inLatin America and the Caribbean. In Europe and the United States biofuel production costs far more than inBrazil and is highly subsidized. Cultivating sugar cane in the rain forest's tropical climate makes nobusiness sense, said Gregory Manuel, International Energy Coordinator at the U.S. State Department."Economics don't drive ethanol production in the rain forest. Yield rates in very wet environments areroughly half that in temperate environments," he said. Both officials spoke on the sidelines of a U.S.-Brazilian business summit in Brasilia. Production growth must be monitored carefully to avoid unwantedconsequences, said Arvizu. But he added that the current global market for ethanol was still far fromwhat could be produced sustainably.


13/90


A2 Amazon DA (2/2)

5. Case turns DA relations are key to Amazon forest preservation.

6. US/Brazil cooperation is key to the Amazon and human survival

Council on Hemispheric Affairs,Hampden Macbeth, Philip Morrow, and Joseph Taves, 5/25/20

05,

Amazon Rainforest, Barbados and Haiti and the Bolton Nomination, http://www.coha.org/2005/05/amazon-rainforest-barbados-and-haiti-and-the-bolton-nomination/

News reports on May 19 announced that more than 10,000 square miles of the Amazon rainforest hadbeen deforested over the last year an area the size of Massachusetts. Not only is the Amazon rainforestan area of breathtaking beauty and unparalleled biodiversity, through the process of photosynthesis it alsoensures the survival of the human race, with its billions of trees producing much of the worlds supply

of oxygen. While ultimately Brazils progressive president, Luiz Incio Lulada Silva, bears the brunt ofthis fiasco, the U.S. and European nations also generously share in the responsibility for the destruction ofvast swaths of the countrys rainforest. They have promoted the neo-liberal economic polices that

persuaded Brazil to rely on the strength of its constantly expanding agricultural sector to pay down itssuffocating international debt. As a result, loggers have felled hundreds of thousands of hectares of trees andfarmers have cleared vast tracks of the rainforest to grow crops. Just as was the case under former PresidentHenrique Cardosa, the negative repercussions which result from this arboreal homicide, were relatively mild

because despite presidential declarations to the contrary Brazils environmental polices under Lula havebeen much more bark than bite. Brasilia, under the peoples president has failed to fulfill its commitment toprevent further destruction of the Amazon rainforest as promised last year when Lula announced a $140million campaign to preserve and ensure better policing of the fragile habitat. However, external economicfactors also have certainly played a role in persuading the government to turn a blind eye to the desecrationof its own rainforest. It is critical to our common planets survival that the U.S. and the EU develop acomprehensive plan with teeth, in cooperation with Brazil, in order to provide the financial incentivesnecessary to preserve the rainforest, while also strengthening Brazils competitiveness in the globaleconomy. The U.S. and the EU would be wise to accept this responsibility in order to temper the dangerousextremes involved in their push for globalization and the maximization of free trade that threatens the veryintegrity of the environment, if not the very survival of the human race.

7. Brazil will expand ethanol production rapidly with or without tariff

Dan Buglass, Rural Affairs Editor, 4/24/2008, Ethanol Fuels Growth of Brazilian Agriculture, LexisPrime Ministers Gordon Brown's statement that the UK needs to reassess its commitment of producing biofuels from land formerlydevoted to crops for food production will have come as no great surprise to those who have questioned the economics of the headlongrush to renewable sources of energy. Meanwhile, Brazil is pressing ahead from its already leading position as the

world's largest producer of ethanol. This rapidly expanding industry is based on sugar cane, with suitableland for this crop now changing hands at up to GBP 8,000 per hectare - a valuation which sits very close to the top of the Scottishmarket. But the reality is that serious investors in agricultural land, including operators from New Zealand, Australia and North America,have now grasped the fact that production costs in Brazil are much lower than in most of the developed world. A group of 16 membersof the Scottish Association of Young Farmers' Clubs visited Brazil last December, largely as a result of sponsorship from the CameronTrust. The trust was set up by John Cameron, a former president of NFU Scotland, and his wife Margaret following the sale of the major

part of their extensive farming operations two years ago for price that must have approached GBP 10 million. The Camerons have noimmediate family, but have a reputation of steering the younger generation in the right direction: those chosen must prove their worth.Andrew Stevenson from Fife was one of the group which visited Brazil. He reported this week on the scale and future potential of thesugar and ethanol industries in South America. He said: "Sugar cane is one of the biggest growth sectors within

Brazilian agriculture for many reasons, with energy security and environmental concerns being two of

the main drivers. Renewable sources of energy in Brazil are not uncommon with 45 per cent of the requirements being fed fromthese." But that is just a beginning, according to Stevenson, who was clearly impressed with what he saw during the ten-day

tour. He said: "Currently there are 350 sugar-cane plants operating in Brazil producing 20 billion litres of

ethanol and 30 million tonnes of sugar. By 2012 it is predicted that there will be 412 plants producing

38 billion litres of ethanol with an exportable surplus of 10.5 billion litres. "This source of energy, however,

requires land to produce it. Fortunately this is something that Brazil has in abundance. Currently 6.3 million hectares are

cultivated for sugar cane production and projections show that by 2020 that will have doubled." Thatexpansion is almost certainly to be at the cost of a further reduction in the Amazon rainforest, an exceedingly touchy subject. On a worldscale Brazil accounts for 38 per cent of ethanol production but, in terms of exports, Brazil is by far the largest player with over 65 percent of the market. Stevenson added: "Sugar cane is undoubtedly the most competitive feedstock to produce ethanol, with higher yields,lower costs which are competitive with crude oil at dollars 40 per barrel, and a very positive energy and environmental balance."


14/90


A2 Australia DA (1/3)



CAFTA states.

2. N/U Incentives coming now Senate



3. No I/L Coal isnt key to the Australian economy. Other mining industries are key like

uranium and silicon, their price evidence doesnt even use the word coal. The Roberts

evidence is generic but its talking about regulations and tax increases not a decrease in

taxes.

4. N/U Australian mining industry set to fail their authorRichard Price, Editor of EnergyMe.com, 7 July 2008, Mining sector to keep Australian economy from stalling,07/27/08, http://www.energyme.com/business/2008/20080200219.htm

The Mining in Australia, 2008 to 2023 report notes several key risks to the positive outlook. On theinvestment side, there are a number of downside risks including sharply rising costs for materials andequipment and skilled labour shortages. One-off events such as the Varanus Island gas explosion, whichhas constrained gas supply in Western Australia, also have the potential to impact the sector. However, Hartnotes these risks will tend to keep commodity prices high in the short-term, hence extending theminerals investment cycle. A more serious risk to the longevity and extent of the mining boom is asevere downturn in the Chinese economy, which would affect prices and investment. China accounts fora substantial portion of the growth in metals demand, according to BIS Shrapnel, and a manufacturedslowdown in the Chinese economy to prevent over-heating and an inflationary spiral could cause a sharperthan expected downturn in commodity prices.

5. Australias economy is failing causing unemployment rates to skyrocketNickBeams, SEP Senate Candidate For NSW, 10 Sept 1998, A tacit agreement to deny reality World SocialistWebsite, 07/26/08, http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/sep1998/unem-s10.shtml

If the issues were not so serious, the attempts to deny the impact of the gathering world economic crisison the Australian economy might be thought of as providing a dose of comic reliefto the Australianelection campaign. The latest official estimates show unemployment set to increase again after marginal fallsover the past few months. Treasury Department estimates reveal that an additional 50,000 people will

join the unemployment queues as a result of slowing economic growth. Other research indicates aneven more rapid downturn and a consequent sharp increase in the jobless rate. The head of theNational Institute of Economic Industry and Research, Dr Peter Brain, has forecast a return to double

digit unemployment rates within the next three years. He stated that because of the build up in debt, the USeconomy would slow to a crawl resulting in "a grinding down of the Australian growth rate to zero levels by

about 2000." Of course, none of the leaders of any of the major parties seriously believes that theAustralian economy can somehow escape the effects of the global crisis.


15/90


A2 Australia DA (2/3)

6. No I/L the coal industry will not be destroyed by a carbon tax- its abundance in

Australia guarantees the industries survival.Stephen Wisenthal, April 4, 2007 Wednesday, Coal's death much exaggerated, The Australian Financial Review,07/24/08,http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/ .

A carbon tax will not destroy the coal industry. Coal remains the cheapest way to generate electricity

for the world's industries. Its abundance in Australia guarantees it will play a large part in meeting

future energy needs. However it may not be business as usual - technologies will be needed to continuallylower the emissions coal produces. Those coal mining corporations that have deposits naturally lower incarbon, such as the high hydrogen-bearing coal of New Hope's New Acland mine in Queensland, will have adistinct advantage in this race The following companies were referenced in the original article

7. No Link - The increase in alternative energy would not trade off with the coal industry in

Australia.

Belinda Tasker, a London based writer and editor. Clean energy switch will cost jobs: BHP The Courier Mailpg. 17. October 27, 2007.http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4245334590&f

ormat=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4245334593&cisb=22_T4245334592&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=244788&docNo=18The head of the world's biggest miner said using nuclear, solar and wind energy sources would all help

Australia cut greenhouse gas emissions. But he said switching to such energy sources would involve trade-offs, includingmassive job cuts in Australia's booming coal industry, which has played a key role in driving economic growth. ''It's a matter of trade-offs the Government has to make, whether you close down coal power stations and rely on solar and wind,'' Mr Argus said.''(Governments) hold the economic levers so it's about how quickly or slowly they introduce alternative sources of energy.'' Mr Arguswas speaking after addressing shareholders at BHP Billiton's annual meeting in London. During the meeting, he downplayed claims bysome investors that BHP Billiton should resist tapping into the world's biggest uranium deposit, at its Olympic Dam mine in SouthAustralia. He said while there were emissions associated with the life cycle of a nuclear power plant, they

were ''insignificant'' compared to the fall in carbon emissions from switching to atomic power. After themeeting, Mr Argus said he believed nuclear power would be introduced in Australia one day, but only after people became more''educated'' about it. ''The debate in the northern hemisphere is far more advanced than what it is in the

Australian community,'' he said. ''I think once people see nuclear is the cleanest form of energy then

they will move on to the (nuclear) waste debate, and that's where I think we should be concentrating.''Mr Argus also called on governments around the globe to join forces with big business to develop new technologies that reduce orcapture greenhouse gases. He told shareholders that while alternative energy methods were becoming more

common, the use of coal would continue to grow.

8. Case turns DA Crane evidence says free trade is key to the US economy.

9. Removing tariffs prevent dollar tailspin

Ariel Cohen, Ph.D. and Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, 6/4/2008, Big Money, Big Oil, BirgRisk, the Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed060408b.cfm

Finally, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and even US friend Kuwait are dumping the greenback in favor of the Euro

in energy transactions. This is likely to decrease demand and increase the supply of dollars, sending the US currency

into a tailspin. Weaker dollars and higher inflation may add insult to injury in the prolonged process of

America's economic deterioration. To stave it offand to combat its oil-rich adversaries, the US needs, in the shortterm, to expand its domestic energy sector. Increasing oil and gas production in the West, along the Pacific and Atlantic continental shelf,and in Alaska will help, and so will a coal and nuclear power build-up. US should emphasize ties with friendly oil suppliers, such asAzerbaijan, Angola, Canada, Nigeria, Norway, Equatorial Guniea, etc. The US Congress should also abolish corn ethanol subsidy and

lift tariffs on the really competitive ethanol made from sugar cane. Brazil and Africa can produce more

ethanol than Iowa and Nebraska. However, in the long term, more advanced technological solutions are vital to stem theglobal wealth redistribution to OPEC potentates and other America-haters. World powers have risen and fallen over major economicfactors. This should never be the case of the US. The oil potentates should know that the US will not be intimidated - or bankrupted outof existence. And US allies, from the Caspian to the Middle East, from the Pacific to Atlantic, should know that US is a true and trustedfriend.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/


16/90


17/90


A2 Backstopping DA (1/3)

1. N/U 1NC Yacobucci evidence says the US is already importing ethanol duty free from

CBI and CAFTA states.

2. N/U 1NC Yacobucci and Seeke evidence says that Brazil increase ethanol production ata maximum rate whether or not the plan is passed.

3. The Market flood is coming now

John Mugarian Stock Analyst We Need to See a Final Selling Panic! June 27, 2008http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle+articleid_2320051&title=We_Need_to_See_a_Final.html

This being said, we need to ask if this event will mark the final bottom. If oil prices peak and begin adramatic decline from current levels, I would say yes. If oil prices rise to the $150-$170 range thissummer as OPEC's president suggested yesterday, then no. A $150-$170 price per barrel oil will translateinto a sell off on the DJIA that could reach 10000, or slightly lower. If you are a long term investor, thereare some incredible bargains to be had in the stock market. Assuming companies like Citigroup, MerrillLynch, General Motors and a host of others don't vaporize, extreme profit potential exists. After a GoldmanSachs analysts cut the three companies above to sell, GM hit a 53-year low, Citigroup traded back to its 1998

low, and Merrill Lynch went to a level not seen since 2002. The keys to a market turnaround are verysimple; 1) Oil prices must drop dramatically. As you are aware there are a few factors that can cause thisto happen. In July, the Bush (Oil) Administration will stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR).Saudi Arabia is going to flood the market with an addition 200,000 barrels per day. Some believe the figurecould go as high as 500,000 bbl/ day. U.S. oil consumption is falling as citizens (consumers) are driving less.In 2005, I said consumers buying big SUV's would regret it

4. Removing trade barriers to Brazilian ethanol solves oil dependence

Richard G. Lugar, Senator, and Roberto Abdenur, Brazilian ambassador to the U.S., 5/15/2006, America andBrazil Intersect on Ethanol, Renewable Energy World Online,http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=44896

The key is ethanol, which Brazil long ago saw as an important element of its energy strategy and now provides 18 percent of thecountry's automotive fuel, thanks to a booming sugar-cane-based ethanol industry. As a result, Brazil, which years ago had to import a

large share of the petroleum needed for domestic consumption, recently reached complete self-sufficiency in oil. For its own energysecurity, the United States -- by far the world's largest oil importer -- similarly needs to break oil's near-monopoly on the

transport sector by turning to ethanol for a much larger share of its auto fuel supply. Although the United States, using corn,produces nearly as much ethanol as Brazil and is expanding its annual production by 25 percent, the four billion gallons produced is stilla tiny fraction of the 140 billion gallons of gasoline consumed. Using E-85 fuel, a blend of 15-percent gasoline and 85-percent ethanol,and easily available flexible-fuel technology so that cars can burn E-85, the United States could dramatically lower its oil dependence.Gaining consumer acceptance will spur the expansion of ethanol production and infrastructure. That means spreading the availability ofE-85, now largely limited to the Midwest, to markets from coast to coast. One solution might be for the United States to

import more Brazilian ethanol to blend on East Coast, where transportation costs significantly raise the price of Midwest

ethanol. That would, however, require the politically difficult step ofending the protective tariffs on Brazilian

ethanol that now shelters the U.S. industry. It makes strategic sense to import environmentally friendly ethanol

from a reliable friend like Brazil in our own hemisphere. After all, the United States doesn't tax imported crude oil,which pollutes and often comes from unstable suppliers. Policymakers would need to consider the impact on the U.S. ethanol industry,where breakthroughs in making ethanol out of cheap and widely available biomass promise to lower costs and increase supplies.Currently, ethanol makers are highly profitable and are literally overwhelmed by demand. They have little immediate prospect of

marketing large volumes of their product on the East Coast. Some analyses suggest that increasing foreign supplies to accelerate the U.S.switch to E-85 will create a bigger ethanol pie for all. What is clear is that dropping the tariff would remove a major

source of friction between the two countries, as well as strengthen the energy security of both. This bold gesture of

friendship could launch productive bilateral negotiations on trade and broader cooperation on other issues. Together, the two

countries could undertake an international joint action to globalize the production and utilization of

ethanol, including by sharing their technology with potential producers of ethanol throughout the world, particularly in developingcountries. We share common goals. We should start sharing common programs to achieve them.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=44896http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=44896


18/90


A2 Backstopping DA (2/3)

5. Dependency allows countries to rely on oil wealth, preventing democracy or a diversified

economy from emerging

David Ivanovich, staff writer, May 18, 2003, Houston Chronicle

WASHINGTON - Call it the curse of crude. The 11 countries that comprise the OPEC cartel pocketednearly $ 180 billion in oil revenues last year. None is a thriving democracy. Coincidence? Oil wealthhinders development of a tax-paying middle class, the very segment of society most likely to agitate for

a voice in government, political economists say. Bountiful crude reserves also discourage the kind ofdiversification needed for a successful capitalistic economy.

6. Global democratic consolidation is essential to prevent many scenarios for war and

extinction.

Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict, October 1995, Promoting Democracy inthe 1990s, http://www.carnegie.org//sub/pubs/deadly/dia95_01.html, accessed on 12/11/99

OTHER THREATS This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the comingyears and decades. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and couldeasily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime

syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted theinstitutions of tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate.The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these newand unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of

democracy,with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness . LESSONSOF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries thatgovern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggressagainst their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do notethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency.Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction touse on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading

partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are moreenvironmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the

destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legalobligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Preciselybecause, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule oflaw, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and

prosperity can be built.

7. No internal link their shell evidence is from 99 any price dip wouldnt reach 90s level

means there is no impact to their da.


19/90


20/90


A2 Bizcon DA (1/1)



CAFTA states.

2. N/U - No Business Confidence

Fox Business July 17, 2008 Dismal Consumer Confidence Undermines 'Immunity' of Luxury Retail, SaysVeteran Retail Analyst http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/dismal-consumer-confidence-undermines-immunity-luxury-retail-says-veteran/

AGOURA HILLS, Calif., July 17, 2008 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ ----Luxury retailers' immunity tothe economic slump has been an article of faith on Wall Street, but that faith was shaken this month by

pallid sales reports from several upscale chains. The erosion of this last bastion of certitude speaks

volumes about consumer confidence in the United States, says Stevan Buxbaum, executive vice presidentof Agoura Hills, Calif.-based Buxbaum Group. "The only thing we can count on is, we can't count onanything," Buxbaum observes. "Uncertainty is the watchword of the day." And both Wall Street andMain Street abhor uncertainty, he notes. "Consumers are going to be extremely careful with theirpurchases," says the veteran retail consultant and analyst. "They want name brands or quality merchandise at

a value price, and so chains that can offer them this -- examples include Target, Kohl's, TJX Cos.,Aeropostale and Ross Dress For Less -- will be clear winners moving forward."

3. No link plan isnt a regulation, it removes a tax on imports.

4. Removing tariffs prevent dollar tailspin

Ariel Cohen, Ph.D. and Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, 6/4/2008, Big Money, Big Oil, BirgRisk, the Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed060408b.cfm

Finally, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and even US friend Kuwait are dumping the greenback in favor of the Euro

in energy transactions. This is likely to decrease demand and increase the supply of dollars, sending the US currency

into a tailspin. Weaker dollars and higher inflation may add insult to injury in the prolonged process of

America's economic deterioration. To stave it offand to combat its oil-rich adversaries, the US needs, in the shortterm, to expand its domestic energy sector. Increasing oil and gas production in the West, along the Pacific and Atlantic continental shelf,

and in Alaska will help, and so will a coal and nuclear power build-up. US should emphasize ties with friendly oil suppliers, such asAzerbaijan, Angola, Canada, Nigeria, Norway, Equatorial Guniea, etc. The US Congress should also abolish corn ethanol subsidy and

lift tariffs on the really competitive ethanol made from sugar cane. Brazil and Africa can produce more

ethanol than Iowa and Nebraska. However, in the long term, more advanced technological solutions are vital to stem theglobal wealth redistribution to OPEC potentates and other America-haters. World powers have risen and fallen over major economicfactors. This should never be the case of the US. The oil potentates should know that the US will not be intimidated - or bankrupted outof existence. And US allies, from the Caspian to the Middle East, from the Pacific to Atlantic, should know that US is a true and trustedfriend.

5. Weak dollar means Euroswitch which undermines the US economy

The Observer Sunday February 23, 2003At various points in time since the early 1970s, oil producers have discussed this, especially in periodswhen the dollar has been weak. Opinions have tended to be wide-ranging, depending on the strategic andtrade alliances certain members have with particular trade blocs,' said Yarjani. That was an elliptical

reference to the overwhelming influence of Saudi Arabia, whose government is the staunchest ally ofthe US within Opec. 'The Saudis are holding the line on oil prices in Opec and should they, for

example, go along with the rest of the Opec people in demanding that oil be priced in euros, that would

deal a very heavy blow to the American economy,' Youssef Ibrahim, of the influential US Council onForeign Relations, told CNN. Last year the former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia told a committee of theUS Congress: 'One of the major things the Saudis have historically done, in part out of friendship with theUnited States, is to insist that oil continues to be priced in dollars. Therefore, the US Treasury can printmoney and buy oil, which is an advantage no other country has. With the emergence of other currenciesand with strains in the relationship, I wonder whether there will not again be, as there have been in the

past, people in Saudi Arabia who raise the question of why they should be so kind to the United States.'
http://www.observer.co.uk/http://www.observer.co.uk/


21/90


A2 Elections DA (1/4)



CAFTA states.

2. N/U and No I/L - Obama wont necessarily win and issues arent key

Steven Stark, culture commentator for NPR, 6-12-2008, Will the Election Be All About Obama?RealClearPolitics, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/going_dutch.html

Sure, he'll occasionally get the spotlight, and there are things he can do to improve his chances marginally.But in the end, this election is about Barack Obama. The country wants a significant change in

direction and Obama and the Democrats are the only ones who can credibly promise to deliver it. Thus,the results in Novemberare going to come down to one question: can a significant portion of theelectorate abide Barack Obama as its next president? Right now, it's an open question. And for Obamato get the answer he wants, he's going to have to be another Ronald Reagan or another Franklin

Delano Roosevelt. There is always a threshold over which nominees must pass when the electorate decideswhether a candidate can be trusted with the most powerful job in the world. For some, like General DwightEisenhower in 1952, doing so is a cakewalk. For upstarts and more ideological purists, it's harder. Obama, of

course, is the upstart of upstarts. The good news for Obama is that most nominees do, in fact, successfullymake the transition, especially when there is an overriding desire for change. John F. Kennedy in 1960,Jimmy Carter in 1976, Reagan in 1980, and Bill Clinton in 1992 all faced an initially skeptical electorate and,through favorable debate performances and constant exposure in the general-election campaign, graduallyreassured the public that it had less to fear from the unknown than from the known. Upon closerexamination, however, the Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton comparisons may not offer much of aprecedent for Obama. After all, each of the three was a centrist who ran at his challengerfrom the rightas well as the left. Clinton and Carter came from the Southern GOP base and founded their appeal, in part,on their willingness to deviate sharply from party orthodoxy. JFK, too, was a hawk on military policy,running against Nixon from the right on the basis of a purported missile gap. In contrast, as his Senate votingrecord and positions demonstrate, Obama is as liberal as they come, without any public record of strayingfrom his party's left-leaning causes and constituencies. That means to win, he'll have to replicate theReagan experience and basically lead an ideological revolution that will redraw the electoral map.

Risk assessment It's a highly risky strategy, to say the least. It's risky, in part, because Americans -- evenwhen they say they want change -- often don't endorse a sharp turn in direction. Yes, FDR's election in1932 signaled a transformation, but the nation was in the midst of its worst depression. Reagan fomented ashift in the other direction, but the economy was in tatters and another nation held our citizens hostage. Arethe Iraq War and current economic situation commensurate woes? If precedent is any guide, for theDemocrats to win, the voters will have to think so. Then there's Obama himself. FDR and Reagan were well-known figures on the national scene for years before they finally made it to the Oval Office; they each had atrack record as governor of the nation's then-largest state (New York and California, respectively) that, in theend, reassured voters they could be trusted with the nation's highest office. Obama, by comparison, has ashort rsum. Yes, experience can be overrated (as Hillary Clinton discovered) but if you're promising todrastically refashion our politics, it may be more of a prerequisite than usual. Obama's uphill battle ismade even trickier by the opponent he faces. Both FDR and Reagan won the office against damaged

incumbents who, to a large number of Americans, had virtually disqualified themselves for a second term.McCain may not be a particularly vibrant candidate (especially if his Louisiana speech of this past weekis any indication), but he's not the incumbent. Those focusing on Obama's challenges so far have tended todwell on the issue of race. But race isn't really the main issue. Anybody would find it difficult to do whatObama is trying to do. He has a hard sell ahead of him, and there have been far more instances when such"revolutionary" candidates (think William Jennings Bryan, Barry Goldwater, or George McGovern)

have found the general-election mountain far too steep to climb. Support him or not, give Obama creditfor this: he thinks big, which is why the upcoming campaign will focus almost exclusively on his ideas andhis persona. If only by doing that, he's already changed our politics.


22/90



3. N/U McCain will win Electoral College heavily tilted towards GOP

Robert Novak, Syndicated Political Columnist, 5-28-2008, Electoral College Outlook: McCain 270, Obama268, Human Events, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26723

Electoral College: While national polls garner attention, they have no direct bearing on choosing ournext President. A state-by-state count of electoral votes is the key to analyzing the presidential race.

For the first time this year, we run through all 50 states plus the District of Columbia in order to handicap thepresidential race. Outlook: If the election were held today, we see a McCain victory by the narrowest ofmargins.

4. N/U McCain benefits from energy debate now

James Pethokoukis, Capital Commerce Correspondent, 7-15-2008, 4 Reasons the Weak Economy Is NowHelping McCain, US News World Report, http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/7/15/4-reasons-the-weak-economy-is-now-helping-mccain.html

1) Gas prices. Polls show the public wants lower gas prices and thinks oil drilling can help get them. AndMcCain and the Republicans have positioned themselves as the party of more energy and lower prices.

They want to drill, and they want to build more nuclear plants. But instead of opening up new areas todrilling, Democrats want to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And who can forget Obama's response whenasked what he thought of higher gas prices: "I would have preferred a gradual adjustment." One problem may

be that Obama fashioned his energy plan when oil was a mere $60 a barrel. McCain seems to be smartlytweaking his policies on the flydrilling, the gas tax moratoriumto appeal to voters furious about

higher prices at the pump.

5. No I/L the McKinnon evidence says that McCain will have to distance himself from

Bush to win the election not that his popularity is linked.

6. Turn - Empirically plan is unpopular farm states and ag lobbies

Council on Hemispheric Relations, 7/24/2007, Aspiring To Leadership: Brazil, President Lula and Sugar-Cane Ethanol, http://www.coha.org/2007/08/aspiring-to-leadership-brazil-president-lula-and-sugar-cane-ethanol/

The burdensome import tax has been challenged in the U.S. Congress on a number of occasions. The

latest attempt to rescind it was on June 20, when Republican Senator Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) led apush to overturn the tariff, citing the current over-reliance of the U.S. on Venezuelan oil as his motivation: Iwould rather buy ethanol from Brazil than oil from Venezuela. It just makes a lot more geopolitical sense inhow we protect ourselves. Brazils friendly geopolitical position weighs in favor of its worldwide strategiesimportance which inevitably will service the cause of the potential improvement of the countrysstrengthened economy. But at the same time, its ability to threaten the U.S.-based corn ethanol methodologythat would come from the lifting of the U.S. tariffs can not be ignored. However, the measure affectingethanol, known on Capitol Hill as part of the farm bill, was shot down in the Senate by a vote of 56-36in favor of continuing the tariff, thus protecting the price of U.S. corn. Republican Senator John Thune ofSouth Dakota explained his nay vote: Eliminating the ethanol tariff would send a mixed signal toproducers, investors and farmers who sell their products to ethanol plants. Senator Thunes thoughts

appear to be the prevailing sentiment within the U.S. Congress. Lewis Perelman, a senior fellow at theHomeland Security Policy Institute in Washington, is not very optimistic that any transformation will be

revealed in the short term. During an interview with COHA, he explained, I dont see the politicallandscape changing anytime in the foreseeable future. Politicians and American citizens alike seem

content with the way things are. To date, there has been no realistic threat to the survival of the ethanoltariff in the House or the Senate. Most members of Congress believe that releasing the import tariffwould be a disservice to American corn farmers more than it would abet the welfare of the American

public, as rationalized by the recurring refusal to cancel the ethanol tariff.


23/90


24/90



11. Incentives coming now Senate




25/90


A2 Ethanol Tradeoff DA (1/2)



CFT

Aff 2AC Ethanol 86

Documents