Elections Disad – Core – Hoya-Spartan 2012
Download 2.41 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Romneys bluffing – its just a campaign tactic
- Romney win blocks EPA regs
- EPA CO2 regs now and will massively expand
- EPA has discretion – doesn’t require congress
- If Romney wins Congress will be GOP enough to block EPA regs
- Even if rollback can’t occur – executive expansion to future harsh regulations are the real issue
- Ext – EPA has discretion
- Ext – Dems won’t be able to block
- Some Dems will crossover and accept congressional restrictions on EPA
- Obama win key to cap and trade
***EPA Regs Internals***No Romney EPA RollbackEven if Romney and GOP win – dems block EPA rollbackStar Ledger, 12 (6/3, http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2012/06/scary_times_for_environment_--.html) Yes, there are restraints on how bad this could get. Some of the EPA’s toughest regulations were put in place as a result of lawsuits. One example is the rule limiting mercury emissions from coal plants. New Jersey, in the pre-Christie era, was one of the states that filed that lawsuit. A President Romney might not be able to reverse those regulations without new legislation. And even if Republicans make gains, Democrats will be able to block the worst legislation with 41 votes in the Senate. The dreaded filibuster rule could finally come in handy. Romneys bluffing – its just a campaign tacticStar Ledger, 12 (6/3, http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2012/06/scary_times_for_environment_--.html) And, of course, you never know how seriously to take Romney. You get the sense he might not believe some of the crazy things he says, that he wouldn’t be as bad as he promises to be. As governor of Massachusetts, he imposed tough emissions rules on coal plants, and even stood outside one and said, "This plant kills people." Yes Romney Roll BackRomney win blocks EPA regsWilliams, 12 (Jean, Environmental Policy, 5/31, Examiner, http://www.examiner.com/article/a-romney-administration-would-intensify-the-world-s-climate-extremes) Nonetheless, a Mitt Romney presidency would strive for Republican control in congress and the senate, which would guarantee that carbon emissions management would grind to a halt. They have vowed to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), because any laws that aim to guard water and air from the ramifications of greenhouse gas pollution is in direct opposition to GOP vested interests. Environmentalists believe the Republican Party is not concerned about the possibility of impending atmospheric destruction or the survival of planet Earth for future generations, but are essentially controlled by what corporate billionaires and big oil companies want for their daily existence now. EPA regs now/comingEPA CO2 regs now and will massively expandWalsh, 11 (Bryan, senior writer for TIME magazine, covering energy and the environment,Time Magazine, 1/3, http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2040485,00.html) But the Obama Administration has a Plan B — and its already putting it into place. On Jan. 2, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enacted what are the first regulations of major stationary sources of greenhouse gases. (While auto fuel-efficiency standards of the sort strengthened by President Barack Obama in 2009 essentially regulate mobile sources of greenhouse gases, the EPA has never tried to regulate major stationary sources such as power plants, refineries and factories.) The new rules will be modest at first, affecting only new plants or existing facilities that are undergoing major upgrades — perhaps 400 facilities will be affected initially. But eventually the EPA will be issuing regulations for nearly all sources of greenhouse gases — providing the only federal action to control U.S. carbon emissions. "We are following through on our commitment to proceed in a measured and careful way to reduce GHG pollution that threatens the health and welfare of Americans, and contributes to climate change," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in a statement late last month. 2NC A2: Dems blockEPA has discretion – doesn’t require congressInstitute for 21st Century Energy, 9 (Institute for 21st Century Energy, US Chamber of Commerce, 4/21, http://energyxxi.org/sites/default/files/ClimateChange101.pdf Massachusetts vs. EPA: Supreme Court decision that held that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act from new automobile tailpipes if the agency finds that CO2 emissions endangers public health or welfare. However, the Court did not require EPA to regulate. post EPA v mass decisions prove executive has discretionFozard, ‘08 Colette Fozard, attorneys of Bracewell & Giuliani, Energy Legal Blog, 11/21/08 (http://www.energylegalblog.com/archives/2008/11/21/1316) In a noteworthy Clean Air Act decision in the wake of Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) avoided the key question of whether carbon dioxide (CO2) is currently “subject to regulation” under the Clean Air Act (Act). In the Matter of Deseret Power Electric Cooperative, EAB App. No. PSD 07-03. (November 13, 2008). It appears that the decision is carefully designed to leave open for the next Administration the question of whether CO2 will be regulated under a key EPA permitting program. On the one hand, EAB sided with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), agreeing that EPA is not required to treat CO2 as “subject to regulation” for purposes of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program. On the other hand, EAB found that EPA could exercise its discretion to treat CO2 as “subject to regulation,” and thus require permit limits for CO2 based on the “best available control technology” (BACT). Under the Bush Administration, EPA has made it clear that, for both legal and policy reasons, it does not want to treat CO2 as “subject to regulation” under the Act. The EAB found, however, that the Deseret permitting record was not adequate to support this position. It then remanded the permit back to the Agency with instructions that will make it very hard for EPA to respond to the remand until the new Administration takes office. In doing so, the EAB has created significant uncertainty for anyone planning to construct virtually any type of commercial building or industrial facility. If Romney wins Congress will be GOP enough to block EPA regsKevin Drum, Blogger, Mother Jones,1-17-2012 http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/01/president-romney-vs-president-obama-cage-match Karl Smith doesn't care if Mitt Romney is a liar, a cad, or a prick. He just wants to know what concrete things would be different under a Romney presidency compared to an Obama Presidency. My list is so conventional that I'm afraid it's pretty boring, but here goes. All of this is based on the assumption that if the electorate is pro-Republican enough to elect Romney, it will also be pro-Republican enough to give Republicans control of the Senate. Obamacare gets repealed via reconciliation. And even if that turns out not to be possible, it will be gutted enough to make it all but dead in practice. The judicial system gets packed with a lot more conservative, business-friendly judges. The Bush tax cuts are made permanent. Corporate tax rates are cut substantially. There's a slim chance that this would be done via a 1986-style tax reform bill that's a net positive, but since Republicans wouldn't need any Democratic help to pass it, probably not. The estate tax might very well be eliminated. Overall, for reasons of basic arithmetic, spending cuts will be much smaller than Romney and the GOP are promising, and the deficit will be substantially higher than it would be under Obama. We might stay in Afghanistan significantly longer than we would otherwise — though I'm not sure about this. Tightening of environmental regs would come to a halt. (Though it's unclear how much of the existing regulatory infrastructure would get rolled back. Probably not that much.) If another financial crisis hits, Romney would be very constrained in how he could deal with it. (So would Obama, but probably somewhat less so.) Although congressional Republicans will be less successful than they'd like at slashing social welfare programs, they'll still make some cuts. Life will get tougher for the poor. The NLRB would become toothless once again. Even if rollback can’t occur – executive expansion to future harsh regulations are the real issueWalsh, 11 (Bryan, senior writer for TIME magazine, covering energy and the environment,Time Magazine, 1/3, http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2040485,00.html) But the Obama Administration has a Plan B — and its already putting it into place. On Jan. 2, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enacted what are the first regulations of major stationary sources of greenhouse gases. (While auto fuel-efficiency standards of the sort strengthened by President Barack Obama in 2009 essentially regulate mobile sources of greenhouse gases, the EPA has never tried to regulate major stationary sources such as power plants, refineries and factories.) The new rules will be modest at first, affecting only new plants or existing facilities that are undergoing major upgrades — perhaps 400 facilities will be affected initially. But eventually the EPA will be issuing regulations for nearly all sources of greenhouse gases — providing the only federal action to control U.S. carbon emissions. "We are following through on our commitment to proceed in a measured and careful way to reduce GHG pollution that threatens the health and welfare of Americans, and contributes to climate change," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in a statement late last month. Ext – EPA has discretionCongress can’t block – Post EPA Mass challenges to EPA discretion have failedFozard, ‘08 Colette Fozard, attorneys of Bracewell & Giuliani, Energy Legal Blog, 11/21/08 (http://www.energylegalblog.com/archives/2008/11/21/1316) Highlights from EAB’s Decision EPA Region 8 issued a PSD permit to Deseret Power Electric Cooperative (Deseret) for a proposed waste-coal-fired electric generating unit planned at the existing Bonanza Power Plant in Utah. Deseret’s permit was subsequently challenged by the Sierra Club, which claimed that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, the permit was invalid because it did not include a CO2 emissions limit. In making its decision, the EAB parsed through a variety of arguments regarding textual and historical interpretations of the Act. Sierra Club’s challenge relied on sections 164 and 169 of the Act, provisions that prohibit the issuance of a PSD permit unless it includes a BACT emissions limit for “each pollutant subject to regulation under this Act.” With sections 164 and 169 in mind, Sierra Club pieced together its argument using (1) the Supreme Court’s ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA that CO2 is a “pollutant” as defined under the Clean Air Act; and (2) an argument that the CO2 “monitoring and reporting” requirements under section 821 of the Act constitute “regulation.” Thus, Sierra Club argued that CO2 should be considered a “pollutant” that is subject to “regulation.” On the other hand, EPA argued that “monitoring and reporting” requirements are not considered “regulation” and that deference should be given to its historical interpretations of the relevant provisions of the Act. In the end, the EAB found no Congressional intent in the Act that would require EPA to apply BACT to “pollutants” that are merely subject to “monitoring and reporting” requirements. The EAB also noted that in reconsidering its conclusions regarding CO2 BACT requirements, the EPA should be allowed to exercise discretion in interpreting what constitutes a “pollutant subject to regulation” under the Act. However, because the record did not support EPA’s current reasoning for failing to include a BACT limit for CO2 in the permit, the EAB remanded Deseret’s permit. In issuing the remand, the EAB noted that EPA has discretion to interpret the term “subject to regulation under the Act,” an interpretation that will determine whether BACT is required to limit CO2 emissions. The EAB noted in the closing paragraphs of its decision that it recognized the national implications this decision may have, and called for the EPA to consider whether “an action of nationwide scope” is required to address the issue. Ext – Dems won’t be able to blockEPA rollback efforts are close now – election will determine outcomeMcAuliff, 11 Michael McAuliff was a Washington correspondent for the New York Daily News, where he covered Sen. Hillary Clinton, the 2008 presidential campaign, and the fight over the 9/11 health and compensation law. Before coming to the paper in 2003 as a national and metro desk editor, he was the national editor of ABCNews.com, Huffington Post, 10/9, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/09/epa-republican-war-defund_n_1000664.html For the moment, it will be difficult for many of the House's bills to get through the Senate, where Boxer plans to stop them. The White House also has promised vetoes of the measures. Still, once anti-EPA legislation is written, it can wind up attached must-pass bills, or at least used to try and embarrass Democrats. Thursday night, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) tried to attach a measure to a bill on Chinese currency manipulation that ostensibly aimed to stop the EPA from regulating farm dust. But the measure's language doesn't actually mention "farm dust" after its title. Instead, it targets soot regulation. Democrats successfully blocked it. More troubling to environmental advocates is that they see the attempts to roll back regulations as a sustained effort that will not go away, and likely could pick up steam -- especially if Republicans take back the Senate in 2012. "I think it certainly will continue through the 2012 election," said Goldston. "I think it's partly an attack on Obama but I think much is a broader part of a Tea Party effort to question the role of government in providing public health protections across the board and funding that." And he predicted the range of attacks would only get broader. "This can play out in spending; this can play out in the series of efforts to block any additional protections, not only in the clean air area, but more broadly, there are bills that have been pending in the house and the senate ... that would change the entire structure necessary to create protections," Goldston said. The anti-EPA campaign has born some fruit already for the GOP, with President Obama delaying planned new regulations of ozone and citing economic reasons. The political climate has left Democrats wary -- and concerned they could lose some battles -- but they also think the GOP could pay a price. Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), chairman of the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee, expressed relief that so far lawmakers had successfully blocked EPA-targeted legislation in the Senate. But, he added, environmental protections remain vulnerable. Some Dems will crossover and accept congressional restrictions on EPAMurray, 11 (James, Editor, Business Green, 4/7, http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2041506/senate-rejects-attempt-scupper-epa-greenhouse-gas-rules) The Senate also rejected three Democrat amendments that would have watered down or delayed the EPA's new climate change rules, after Republicans refused to support proposals that they dismissed as "cover votes" that did not go far enough to limit the watchdog's power. However, GOP officials were quick to note that, with several Democrats from energy states voting for one or more of the amendments, in total 64 Senators voted for amendments calling for the scrapping or diluting of the EPA's emissions rules, suggesting that there is an appetite within Congress for a rethink on the administration's strategy. Obama Win = Cap + TradeObama win key to cap and tradePolitico, 2011 http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b75cfcfc-802a-23ad-4095-a6d19dce8fa3 President Barack Obama is offering his beleaguered green base some titillating morsels for what he hopes to deliver on energy policy if he wins a second term. Don't get Obama wrong; these are not campaign promises - yet. But over the past month, the president has made it clear in West Wing meetings and fundraisers that he wants to rally environmentally minded voters who, thanks in large part to last year's big global warming legislative failure, still feel like his second pick for the prom. "We've had some setbacks, and some things haven't happened as fast as people wanted them to happen," Obama said at a recent New York fundraiser. "I know. I know the conversations you guys have. ‘Oh, you didn't get the public option - and, gosh, I wish that energy bill had passed.' I understand the frustrations. I feel them too." Obama's team knows about the consequences of an environmental exodus. In the 2000 presidential election, Democrats blamed some greens with helping George W. Bush narrowly win the White House by supporting Ralph Nader over Al Gore. Last week in Chicago, Obama 2012 campaign adviser David Axelrod and Mayor-elect Rahm Emanuel tried to do their part to buck up the green base during private meetings with about 80 major environmental philanthropists. Attendees told POLITICO that the former White House officials heard a number of complaints about last year's climate bill loss but responded by pointing to the president's commitment to their issues via EPA climate rules and tens of billions in spending on renewable energy through the 2009 stimulus package. "We had a back and forth about getting to first base versus swinging for the fences," said Betsy Taylor, co-founder and board president of 1Sky, one of the environmental groups pushing for federal policies to curb greenhouse gases. With his day job, Obama must be careful not to give the appearance he's resting on his laurels until a second term. The president pounced last week on House Speaker John Boehner's ABC News interview expressing an openness to end some of the oil industry's biggest tax breaks. And his Cabinet fanned out around the country to unveil a long-awaited policy defining what waters are subject to federal pollution rules - answering pleas by greens to clarify conflicting Supreme Court opinions. But Obama's team probably is going to have to wait on many other top green priorities. Regulations for coal ash, a potentially toxic leftover from coal-fired power plants, probably will be pushed back until after the election. EPA's most anticipated new climate regulations for power plants and other major industrial sources are due in final form next spring. But with congressional Republicans making the rules a centerpiece of their legislative attack strategy, sources within and outside the administration expect that EPA's efforts will ultimately get punted beyond November 2012. Earlier this month, Obama dropped in unannounced on a group of youth activists meeting with senior aides in the White House. During a nearly 30-minute exchange, the president cited the challenges of moving comprehensive energy legislation in Congress, given hurdles from the Republican-led House. "The implication there was it would be pretty hard to do anything massive in the next 18 months," said Courtney Hight, executive director of the Energy Action Coalition and a former White House Council on Environmental Quality staffer. Veterans of Obama's first-term cap-and-trade battle have packed up their most ambitious requests until after the presidential campaign, relegating themselves to the back seat as the White House and Congress try to address the debt limit and budget issues. "I don't think anybody expects anything different than those two topics will take up all the energy for the remainder of this term," said Manik Roy, vice president of federal government outreach at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. But Roy said he would look to Obama for a second go at energy issues come 2013. "If we start seeing the unemployment situation turned around, if we get ourselves on a path to deal with the debt, then I think in a second term, I'd expect him to come back to his policy priorities, including clean energy," Roy said. Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 2.41 Mb. Share with your friends:
|