Energy reform destroys US agriculture market.
Stallman 9(Bob, President of The American Farm Bureau Federation, Letter to Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works)AQB
The increased fuel, fertilizer and energy costs that will result from H.R. 2454 and S. 1733 will greatly impact the relationship of American producers with the rest of the world. U.S. agriculture is an energy-intensive industry that relies to a large extent on international markets. These increased input costs will put our fanners and ranchers at a competitive disadvantage with producers in other countries that do not have similar GHG restrictions. Any loss of international markets or resulting loss of production in the United States will encourage production overseas in countries where production methods may be less efficient than in the United States. The production of food and fiber in the United States is important both to the U.S. and to the world and must ensure that our producers are not put at a competitive disadvantage. As much as our producers rely on exports for then* markets, the rest of the world relies on the United States for the production of then* food. Increased production costs in the United States resulting from this bill will likely raise world food prices at a time when most countries cannot afford it. Trade issues become more complicated, because any trade equalization measures seeking to "level the playing field" for our producers must also comply with our World Trade Organization commitments. Provisions such as those contained in the House bill effectively imposing border tariffs on goods from countries that do not have similar GHG restrictions will almost certainly be challenged in the WTO and are in serious jeopardy of being found to be non-compliant with our obligations. Moreover, such actions could very likely lead to retaliation.
Turn-focusing on global warming distracts us from short term security threats like the aff which outweigh
Shaefer and Lieberman 7 (Jay, Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs. Senior Policy Analyst, Energy and Environment http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm1425.cfm) ET
The United Kingdom is wrong to foist this issue on the Council. First, the extent, source, and consequences of global warming are subject to debate, and the possible implications of global warming, particularly the security implications, are speculative. Even if these consequences occur as predicted in the IPCC report, they are not immediate security threats. Second, numerous policy initiatives, forums, and organizations are focused on studying and evaluating the consequences of global warming. The focus of these efforts and discussions is to clarify the science of global warming and weigh the costs of action to address global warming against the risks of inaction. A debate in the Security Council is unlikely to contribute to these ongoing efforts. Finally, the Security Council has a full docket of immediate threats to international peace and security that is has failed to resolve. Focusing on speculative threats that may arise decades in the future undermines the seriousness of the body and is an affront to those suffering from immediate crises. Worse, it distracts the Council from pressing threats to international peace and security.
A2: Warming- Defense- Alt Cause: China
China’s CO2 emissions will overshadow emission cuts
National Geographic 8 (Mar 18-8, (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080318-china-warming.html)ET
China's greenhouse gas emissions are rising much faster than expected and will overshadow the cuts in global emissions expected due to the Kyoto Protocol, according to a new study. Forecasts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had predicted that China's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions would rise by about 2.5 to 5 percent each year between 2004 and 2010. But the estimates are two to four times too low, according to new research led by Maximilian Auffhammer of the University of California, Berkeley. The study calculated that for the period from 2004 to 2010, China's CO2 emissions will have grown by at least 11 percent a year. "The emissions growth rate is surpassing our worst expectations, and that means the goal of stabilizing atmospheric CO2 is going to be much, much harder to achieve," Auffhammer said. The new findings threaten to throw a damper on the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Most countries—including all major industrialized countries except the U.S.—have signed on to the Kyoto Protocol. (Related: "Australia Signs Kyoto Protocol; U.S. Now Only Holdout" [December 3, 2007].) But a major sticking point for the U.S. is that the agreement only mandates reductions for developed countries, mostly in North America and Europe. These areas are currently responsible for most of the CO2 that's causing global warming. Developing nations such as China, India, and Brazil are exempt from any reduction targets. But China, the world's most populous country, has been developing at lightning speed—perhaps faster than any country in history. Since most of its electricity comes from coal, for instance, China has been building coal-fired power plants at a rate of roughly two a week for the past few years. The country recently surpassed the U.S. to become the world's single leading emitter of CO2, according to another recent study. (China has more than four times the population of the U.S., however, so China's emissions per person are much lower.) China's greater-than-anticipated emissions may completely nullify the Kyoto reductions, raising the pressure to find ways for the country to grow cleanly, according to experts. "Making China and other developing countries an integral part of any future climate agreement is now even more important," Auffhammer said. To create the updated forecast, the new study took the novel approach of looking at each of China's provinces individually. "Everybody had been treating China as single country," said study co-author Richard Carson of the University of California, San Diego. But each of its more than 20 provinces is large, with populations bigger than many European countries, Carson pointed out. The areas have different standards of living and different rates of development and population growth—all of which the new study factors in. Also, many of the new coal-fired power plants that have been built in the past few years are low-cost designs, which are less efficient and therefore emit more CO2. "The problem is that power plants, once built, are meant to last for 40 to 75 years," Carson said. "Our forecast incorporates the fact that much of China is now stuck with power plants that are dirty and inefficient."
Share with your friends: |