Advantage CPs - SDI 2021 Scholars

==NEGATIVE COUNTERPLANS==
Advantage CPs vs. Carbon

Sequestration
Clean Energy for America Act (CEAA) CP
Notes
** CEAA = Clean Energy for America Act **
1NC — CEAA CP
CP Text: The United States federal government should enact the Clean
Energy for America Act.
The counterplan solves -- investment under the CEAA will better nearly all
parts of the power sector
John Larsen et al, Ben King, Hannah Kolus, and Whitney Herndon 3-23-2021, John Larsen is
a Director at Rhodium Group and leads the firm’s US power sector and energy systems research.
Ben King is a Senior Analyst with Rhodium Group's Energy & Climate practice. Hannah Kolus is
a Research Analyst with Rhodium Group's Energy & Climate practice, focusing on US energy
markets and policy. Whitney Herndon is an Associate Director at Rhodium Group and manages
the firm's US energy research. "Pathways to Build Back Better: Investing in 100% Clean
Electricity," Rhodium Group, https://rhg.com/research/build-back-better-clean-electricity/,
Accessed June 28, 2021, HYZ
Can a clean energy investment package make a difference? To answer this question, we
constructed a potential investment package scenario that draws from existing and draft policy
ideas currently in play in this Congress. The package focuses on programs that push progress on
all four Rs and relies on spending mechanisms that can fit within budget reconciliation. The
scenario assumes Congress puts in place a 10-year spending package that starts in 2022 and goes
through 2031. The scenario is intended to illustrate the potential of spending to decarbonize the
electric sector. There are certainly alternative pathways that could be pursued. This specific
package is comprised of four key components: Tech-neutral tax credits for new clean capacity:
An ITC of 30% or a PTC at $25/MWH (67% higher than the current wind PTC) is available for
any zero emitting capacity that enters into service before the end of 2031. Fossil capacity with
carbon capture, including new retrofits, qualify and get a discounted credit depending on the level
of capture. Developers can choose the ITC or PTC, whichever suits them best. Existing coal
retirement incentive: Any coal plant owned by a rural cooperative can have its federal Rural
Utility Service loans written off if the plant is retired by the end of 2025 and the energy is
replaced with clean generation. We estimate that up to 30 GW of coal could be eligible, which
wouldn’t retire under current policy. These plants have an associated outstanding federal debt of
roughly $10 billion. Existing clean retention incentive: An incentive is available for any existing
nuclear capacity to stay online at least through 2031. The incentive can be made available to all
generators or scaled based on need, similar to a recent proposal by Senators Whitehouse and
Barrasso. We assume the incentive is sufficient to prevent roughly 50 GW of economic nuclear
retirements that we see in our current policy scenario. Extension of carbon capture incentives:
New and retrofitted fossil plants equipped with carbon capture that enter into service by the end
of 2031 can claim the section 45Q carbon capture tax credit of $50/ton if coupled with storage
and $35/ton if coupled with utilization or EOR. Developers cannot claim both this and the tech
neutral credit. We find that a robust, long-term spending package that focuses on all aspects of
decarbonization can make meaningful progress on electric power emission reductions. This
investment package gets emissions on a straight-line path to zero at least through 2025, and by
2031 emissions are 66-74% below 2005 levels when accounting for clean energy technology cost
uncertainty (Figure 4). That’s a major step forward. The long-term tax credit for new clean
capacity with flexible election of the ITC or PTC in the investment package scenario
hypercharges renewable energy deployment. With the tax credit in place, in our mid tech cost
case, average annual renewable capacity additions are 33 GW per year through 2031, just over
10% more than the 2020 record. In our low tech cost case, average capacity additions are double
that, at 66 GW a year. This new renewable capacity displaces fossil generation, both coal and
natural gas, thanks to the nuclear retention incentive. Without the nuclear retention incentive,
electric power sector emissions would be 23-28% higher, up to 188 million metric tons more in
2031. Looking at the fossil fleet, we find clean energy and coal retirement incentives combined
lead to an additional 34-38 GW of coal retirements in 2031 compared to current policy.
Extending the section 45Q carbon capture tax credit does not drive deployment of more plants
equipped with carbon capture. The incentive is not high enough for the technology to compete.
All together, the aggregate impact of the investment package leads to a dramatically different
electric power generation mix in 2031 than under current policy. Under the investment package,
wind and solar nearly double their contribution to total generation, and nuclear generation more
than doubles. The net effect is that total zero emitting generation gets as high as 67% in the low
tech cost case. This clean generation plus the coal retirement incentives cut coal generation by
one-half to two-thirds compared to current policy and NGCC generation by 30-43% (Figure 5).
Climate action helps farmers economically – farmers themselves want it

Stephanie Hanes, 6-3-2021, Stephanie Hanes is the Monitor's environment and climate change
writer, "Climate versus jobs? Not in this heartland state.," Christian Science Monitor,
https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2021/0603/Climate-versus-jobs-Not-in-this-heartland-
state, Accessed June 28, 2021, HYZ
For five generations, Andrew Bowman’s family has worked the land in Oneida, population 700-
ish – a flat and fertile swath of Illinois his father always said was good for growing crops and
kids. Today, he farms soybeans and corn, as well as specialty popcorn, which he sells under the
label Pilot Knob Comforts. Mr. Bowman hopes to have a new resource to harvest soon, as well:
wind. This past year, Mr. Bowman took a lead representing local landowners in negotiating with
Orion Renewable Energy Group, one of the many companies installing wind farms across
Illinois, to build a new 100-turbine project in his part of Knox County. Clean energy would not
only help keep the local school open and support the fire department and library, he says, but
would also offer a new income stream to farmers who agree to lease some of their land for the
project – some $30 million over 25 years, according to the proposal. WHY WE WROTE THIS
Progress within the clean energy sector may be pushing the debate about climate change toward
irrelevance. Across the Midwest – from wind farms to R&D labs – farmers are finding climate
action is good business. “It’s going to be life-changing for people who sign up,” Mr. Bowman
says. For Mr. Bowman, embracing wind power is part of stewarding the land for the next
generation – and one of many steps he and his brother-in-law, Matt Hulsizer, have taken to ensure
resiliency on their 1,800 acres. They are acutely focused on soil health, low tillage, and reducing
fuel consumption; they have tried organic practices and are investigating cover crops to retain
nutrients and prevent erosion. But none of this is because they are trying to fight climate change.
They care deeply about the environment, they say; after all, they live and work in it. But they
cringe at the cries for climate action, and they bristle when city people suggest their outdoor, low-
consumption life is problematic. (“The difference between growing up on dirt and growing up on
asphalt,” Mr. Hulsizer says.) If human-made climate change is happening, they say – something
they find dubious – they doubt there’s much anyone can do to stop it. ‘The signs are there.’ Is US
democracy on a dangerous trajectory? For them, tending soil and harvesting wind for clean
energy – two initiatives climate scholars say are crucial for reducing carbon emissions – is simply
about taking the best steps economically. And that, scholars point out, is a tremendous shift. For
years, the dominant narrative of climate action was one of trade-offs and costs – that saving the
world as we know it meant taking hard steps to reduce carbon emissions, and likely sacrificing
jobs and lifestyle in the process. Over the past months, the Biden administration has worked to
change this storyline, explicitly connecting “climate” with “good-paying union jobs,” and tying
climate action to massive government investment and redevelopment. But travel across Illinois –
a state that reflects the country’s political profile, with solidly red rural areas and a few blue cities
– and one sees something more. Economic shifts, whether around clean energy or electric
vehicles, regenerative agriculture or green construction, may be starting to defuse much of the
debate over climate change. Instead, climate action has merged with economic progress –
particularly when it comes to clean energy. And although climate activists say this awakening
won’t by itself put the nation on track to meet the Paris Agreement goal of net-zero carbon
emissions by 2050, some suggest it is making that path less arduous, while creating new
opportunities and connections for those across the ideological spectrum. “There’s an argument
that’s been around for a long time, that somehow the economy and the environment are at odds
and we can’t do two things at once,” says Bob Keefe, executive director of E2, an organization of
business groups focused on environmental action. “What we’re seeing today is that there’s never
been more clarity about the economic costs of climate change, or the economic potential of
climate action.”
2NC/1NR — Overview
The CEAA solves emissions and creates jobs while avoiding the farming da
net benefit -- farmers themselves want the CEAA. That’s Larsen et al and
Hanes.
2NC/1NR — Farming DA Net Benefit
Reformations in the clean energy sector help climate actions – farmers receive
economic bonuses
Indeed, perhaps more than in any other industry, progress within the clean energy sector may be
pushing the debate about climate change toward irrelevance. Tyler Duvelius, spokesman for the
Conservative Energy Network advocacy group, says this is because more people simply see the
economic opportunity in clean energy – as well as the possibility for U.S. energy independence.
And clean energy is a booming employment opportunity, he says. “There are 3.3. million clean
energy jobs in America right now,” Mr. Duvelius says. “These jobs pay 25% more than the
national median. One in 5 are in construction. There are plenty more in the clean energy supply
chain. We’re looking at traditional, American jobs.” But it’s not only jobs. As Ken Springer, the
economic development coordinator for Knox County, points out, many rural counties do not have
the labor force to attract other industries. But because solar and wind farms do not need much
labor once they are built, they can still locate in these areas, and still help the economy through
lease payments and property taxes. And according to a recent Brookings Institution report, most
of the counties likely to benefit from clean energy lean Republican. “Eighty percent plus of all
clean energy projects are built in red, Republican districts,” says Jeff Danielson, central region
director for the American Clean Power lobbying group. “That would not happen if they were not
aware of and understood the economic value of those projects in their districts. ... So, as in all
politics these days, you can find division. But scratch the surface a little deeper in clean energy
and there is broad bipartisan support. Not everybody has the same reasons, and that’s important to
acknowledge, but there is bipartisan support for clean energy.” This is what Mr. Springer found
during the effort to lure Orion Energy’s proposed wind farm – the one that Mr. Bowman, the
farmer, helped negotiate. Two years earlier, in 2018, Knox County had split over a proposed solar
project. “We had a legit protest,” Mr. Springer recalls. So many people showed up to the zoning
board meeting that they couldn’t fit in the room. People were holding signs that read, “no green
energy in Knox County.” But last year, Knox County commissioners voted 14-1 to approve Orion
Energy’s proposed wind farm. Part of that, Mr. Springer says, is because of the work the
company did to answer questions; part of it was that residents could see how wind energy has
helped neighboring communities. Mr. Bowman, for instance, is eager for his children’s school to
get a desperately needed infusion of cash. Although the teachers and community there are
wonderful, he says, the facilities are so bad right now that he worries about retaining staff. “The
wind turbines couldn’t come at a better time,” he says.
2NC/1NR — Solvency
The CEAA betters federal investments – solar and wind will prove
Trevor Higgins, 6-11-2021, senior director of Domestic Climate and Energy Policy at the
Center for American Progress, "Clean Energy Tax Incentives Will Help Fight the Climate Crisis,"
Center for American Progress,
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2021/06/11/500429/clean-energy-tax-
incentives-will-help-fight-climate-crisis/, Accessed June 28, 2021, HYZ
Even these impressive modeling results may understate the full impact of the Clean Energy for America Act, as the Senate Finance Committee
included several additional policies that would further expand the tax incentives. For example, the
committee would allow renewables to take the full value of the credit as a direct pay option
instead of splitting the credit with Wall Street in exchange for costly tax equity financing . And new
renewable capacity investments in low-income communities or energy communities would garner
an additional 10 percentage points of federal investment credit. New, more powerful incentives that
support investment in the areas that need it most will further accelerate the pace of renewable
deployment. These policy changes mark a new approach to federal investments. While tax incentives for wind and solar
deployment have existed for many years, they have expired and been temporarily extended more than a dozen
times since 1999. In some cases, this extension was provided as a retroactive windfall rather than a
forward-looking incentive, and values are currently on the decline. Investment in the future of the electricity
system won’t happen fast enough without stable and supportive policy . Not only would the Clean
Energy for America Act provide a long-duration extension at full value, it would also allow both
wind and solar developers the option to take either the production tax credit or the investment tax
credit, as best suits each individual project. The current credit programs are rigid, offering solar a
credit based only on the cost of initial investment but allowing wind a credit based on the amount
of electricity generated in the first decade of operation. This production-based credit is, increasingly, a more generous
offer, and providing an option between the two will maximize total renewable deployment. The
Union of Concerned Scientists recently found that a tax credit package offering this flexibility and
full value crediting is more than twice as effective compared to a straight 10-year extension of the current credit system.
Unfortunately, negotiations on infrastructure spending to date have not focused on how to maximize the effectiveness of clean energy tax incentives but
on whether clean energy tax incentives should be included at all. In response to the American Jobs Plan, in April, Sen. Shelley Capito (R-WV) led
Republican negotiators to reject investment in clean energy and clean vehicles. The White House insisted that these are must-have investments, only to
have Sen. Capito again reject clean energy and clean vehicle investments in May. This week, the White House moved on to explore whether there are
other more viable solutions. Any
infrastructure legislation must invest in tax credits for clean electricity and
clean vehicles. This means at least 10-years of full-value tax incentives for new and existing clean electricity generation—with direct pay
provisions to bypass the expensive Wall Street tax equity market and with flexibility for wind and solar developers to choose the credit design that works
best for each individual situation. For clean vehicles, this means incentives for new and used passenger electric vehicles available to consumers at the
point of purchase; new commercial zero-emission trucks; charging infrastructure; and automotive and supply chain manufacturing. In both sectors,
incentives and requirements for good wages and domestic content will lay a critical foundation for high-quality domestic jobs. Tax incentives are just one
of the many great tools that Congress should use to invest in a more just and equitable economy that is ready to compete globally in the clean energy
future. Other important tools include a clean electricity standard; investments in environmental justice and energy transition communities; funding for
green school facilities; grid modernization; industrial carbon capture; the creation of a civilian climate corps; rebates for replacing fossil fuel appliances
with efficient heat pumps; and more. In short, the United States needs the full scope of American Jobs Plan, and tax incentives are a major part of the
plan.
The status quo cannot solve and an infrastructure package is needed

Over the past 15 years, CO2 emissions from the electric power sector have dropped by just under
a billion tons, 0r 40% below 2005 levels (Figure 1). In both absolute and relative terms, that’s
more than any other major emitting sector in the US. These gains are the result of state and
federal policies, rapidly declining costs for renewable generation, and persistently cheap natural
gas, which together have undermined the market dominance of carbon-intensive coal plants.
However, this 40% cut does not put the electric power sector on track to zero emissions by 2035.
Under current policy, progress on decarbonization will stall out in the next few years (Figure 1).
[1] Renewables will continue to grow but continued cheap natural gas will increasingly drive the
retirement of zero-emitting nuclear plants, canceling out gains in emission reductions. At best, the
electric power sector maintains emissions in the range of 46%-50% below 2005 levels in 2030
without additional action, which is nowhere near a straight-line path towards the goal of zero
emissions in 2035. The Biden administration and congressional leaders have announced plans to
pursue a major infrastructure investment package this year. While we don’t know exactly what
will be in the legislation, we do know that budget reconciliation is a potential procedural path for
the effort. Under reconciliation, all measures must have a direct effect on the federal budget.
Taxes, tax credits, and direct spending are all clearly in bounds. New policies such as a clean
electricity standard (CES) may also be in play. While reducing emissions from the electric power
sector is only part of what’s needed to decarbonize the US economy, the power sector is where
the largest and cheapest emission reduction opportunities reside. In order to help assess potential
pathways to decarbonizing the electric power sector, in this note we quantify the extent of
emission reductions that are achievable through just federal spending on its own and in
combination with pollution regulations that a Biden EPA may pursue. An investment approach
and a CES are not mutually exclusive. If a CES or other decarbonization policy does get enacted,
the spending initiatives we consider here can complement those programs. If other policies are
not enacted this year but a robust spending package is, investment can buy time and build support
for future more ambitious action.
The CEAA is needed to fight the climate crisis

As discussions of President Joe Biden’s American Jobs Plan continue, progressive leaders in
Congress and the White House have insisted that the investment package must meet the scope
and scale of the climate crisis. This is essential, but there is no single climate policy that can serve
as a simple litmus test, as success will require investments across the economy. Of all the
climate-related funding in the American Jobs Plan, more than half comes through tax incentives,
which are a powerful set of solutions now being redesigned and rescaled to drive the deployment
of the proven clean energy technologies the country needs to build a 100 percent clean future.
Fortunately, promising proposals for clean energy tax incentives have great potential for
supporting good quality jobs and are already making their way through the Senate. Last month,
the Senate Finance Committee advanced legislation that would deliver many of the key elements
of President Biden’s American Jobs Plan. Chairman Ron Wyden’s (D-OR) bill—the Clean
Energy for America Act—proposes major new tax incentives for clean electricity, electric
vehicles, advanced manufacturing, and more. Tax incentives such as these are impressively
effective climate policy—especially when it comes to clean electricity and clean vehicles— and
are a must-have in any infrastructure bill. From creating good-paying jobs to laying the
foundation for a clean energy economy, the United States needs ambitious clean energy tax
incentives.
Biden’s agenda includes infrastructure to cut emissions

The electric power sector accounts for 28% of the United States’ net greenhouse gas emissions
and is the second highest emitting sector after transportation. While reducing emissions from the
electric power sector is only part of what’s needed to decarbonize the US economy, the power
sector is where the fastest and cheapest emission reduction opportunities reside. Over the past 15
years, carbon emissions from the electric power sector in the US have dropped by 40%—more
than any other US sector. As part of its Build Back Better plan, the Biden administration has a
goal to get to 100% clean electricity in 2035—effectively getting the electric power sector all the
way to zero emissions within the next 15 years. At the same time, the Biden administration is
expected to step up regulation of fossil fuel-fired electric plants in order to cut pollution that
endangers public health. With the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill enacted, the Biden
administration and congressional leaders are now turning their attention to a major infrastructure
investment package, which may include new infrastructure investment in clean energy. In this
note, we explore ways in which congressional clean energy investments in the electric power
sector can help accelerate decarbonization and put the sector on a path to zero emissions. We then
consider how these investments can complement new power plant regulations that could be put in
place in President Biden’s first term. We find that a combination of investment and regulations
can achieve CO2 emission reductions of 69-76% below 2005 levels in 2031, accelerating
progress towards the 2035 goal. This can be done without imposing new costs on households
while also cutting conventional pollutants by up to 84% in just the next five years. To achieve
this, Congress will need to enact long-term incentives for new and existing clean generation and
inducements to retire carbon-intensive generation. All of these investments can complement other
decarbonization policy efforts such as a clean electricity standard or a carbon price.
Plan is bipartisan but still needs some work

Abbie Bennett, 5-28-2021, Abbie Bennett is Energy & environment reporter at S&P Global,
"US Senators want to add nuclear tax credit to energy tax reform bill," SNL Financial LC,
https://www-proquest-com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/docview/2534813893, Accessed June 28, 2021,
HYZ
Senators on May 26 introduced an amendment to the energy tax reform legislation, the Clean
Energy for America Act, that would provide a tax credit for existing nuclear power plants in
states with deregulated power markets. Three Senate Democrats — Ben Cardin, Md.; Sheldon
Whitehouse, R.I.; and Bob Casey, Penn. — introduced the amendment to the larger bill, which
could align with the Biden administration's aim to use such credits to cut carbon emissions. The
amendment would provide a nuclear power production tax credit of $15/MWh for existing
nuclear owners and operators. The credit would be reduced by 80% of any market revenues above
$25/MWh, with both the credit and the threshold price that triggers the reduction adjusted for
inflation using the same index as the renewable energy production credit. The amendment also
calls for phasing out the credit when greenhouse gas emissions fall 50% below 2020 levels and
terminating it in 2030. "(We) are seeing premature closings of nuclear reactors all over the
country," Cardin said during the Senate Finance Committee markup hearing May 26 for
consideration of the larger clean energy bill. "We've had 11 close in 10 of our states. We rely
upon nuclear for 20% of our electricity and 50% of our carbon-free electricity." One of those
states is Maryland, which Cardin represents. Cardin believed the issue had bipartisan support but
also recognizes that more work must be done before the committee can move forward with the
measure. He, therefore, did not bring a proposal up for a vote during the hearing. "It's an unfair
playing field for nuclear against fossil fuel competitors and the result has been safely operating
nuclear facilities that close down in order for new polluting facilities to be developed, which
makes no sense whatsoever," Whitehouse said. "It's an economic malfunction." A tax credit like
the one the senators proposed could help some utilities continue operating their nuclear plants,
such as Exelon Corp., which has said it plans to close at least four reactors at two plants later this
year. Company executives said May 5 that the company was still focused on securing additional
subsidies for two of its at-risk plants in Illinois, despite reports that the Biden administration is
weighing nuclear production tax credits to meet its net-zero climate goals. In August 2020,
Exelon announced plans to retire its 2,346-MW Byron and 1,805-MW Dresden nuclear power
plants by September 2021 and November 2021, respectively, citing wholesale power market rules
that fail to compensate the generators for their emission-free attributes. John Kotek, senior vice
president of policy development and public affairs for the Nuclear Energy Institute, said in an
interview earlier this month that he anticipated lawmakers to support a policy to keep nuclear
plants running. The Clean Energy for America Act, sponsored by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.,
includes a series of longer-term incentives for clean energy transitions and also includes some tax
breaks for fossil fuels. The bill passed the committee May 26 along party lines. Several
committee Republicans were critical of the bill removing fossil fuel tax incentives, arguing the
move could harm the economy.
Tax incentives cut emissions and create jobs

Consider the power sector, which needs to decarbonize rapidly in order to cleanly power the rest
of the economy. A report from the Rhodium Group in March found that 10 years of tax incentives
for new zero-emission electricity generation like those included in the Clean Energy for America
Act would transform the power sector. In combination with regulation under existing statutory
authorities, maintenance of existing zero-emission capacity, and accelerated retirement of certain
rural co-op coal plants, the incentives would cut air pollution, such as sulfur dioxide, by up to 84
percent in just five years and cut carbon dioxide to 76 percent below 2005 levels in a decade. By
itself, this set of power sector investments could double the share of clean electricity generation at
the end of the decade, from as little as 34 percent to as much as 69 percent, flooding the economy
with abundant, affordable, clean electricity; creating good jobs; and jump-starting the
achievement of a clean energy future. These investments could also lead to a net gain of more
than 600,000 jobs annually in the electricity sector over the next decade.
Tax incentives solve transportation emissions – electric vehicles

This critical headway is not limited to the power sector, either. In another analysis this May, the
Rhodium Group also found major opportunities from investment in transportation electrification
like those included in the Clean Energy for America Act and the American Jobs Plan, especially
when combined with strong vehicle emission regulations. The model shows such investments in
charging infrastructure, trucks, and passenger vehicles would drive light-duty battery electric
vehicle sales from 2 percent today to between 40 percent and 61 percent of all light-duty vehicles
in 2031, depending on battery prices and regulatory actions. The stock turnover brought on by
this jump in electric vehicle sales would result in major emissions reductions in the 2030s.
Perhaps most significantly, the investments could make the total cost to own an electric vehicle as
much as 16 percent less expensive than the average gas vehicle
They Say: “Increases Electricity Prices”
Electric bills will have an insignificant increase under decarbonization – bills
are already cheaper
One fear often stoked during clean electric policy debates is that ratepayers will have to bear the
brunt of the costs of emission reductions through higher bills. We find that this is not the case. In
fact, we find that in 2031, national average household electric bills are no more than $1 per month
higher under the investment or investment & regulations scenarios than under current policy
(Figure 9). Moreover, bills are lower than what households paid in 2020. Renewables have
become so cheap (and continue their cost declines through this window), so the impact of
accelerated deployment on electric bills is small. In addition, federal investment shifts the cost of
decarbonization from ratepayers to the federal government, resulting in negligible changes in bills
even when regulations add costs to the electric system. While there will certainly be regional
differences in bill impacts, they are unlikely to be large due to these dynamics.
Storing CO2 and Lower Emissions (SCALE)
Act CP
1NC — CP
Text: The United States Federal Government should enact the Storing CO2
and Lower Emissions Act.
SCALE solves – it’s the only way to reach midcentury climate goals –
independently solves economy
Elizabeth Abramson & Jennifer Christensen, 21 — [Elizabeth Bramson & Jennifer
Christensen, Elizabeth Abramson is a Research Analyst and environmental writer for the GPI,
Jennifer Christensen is managing editor and senior writer for the GPI; Great Plains Institute;
Published: 4-14-2021; "Game-Changing SCALE Act Could Enable Carbon Capture
Infrastructure Needed for Net-Zero Goals"; Great Plains Institute; Accessed: 6-28-2021;
https://www.betterenergy.org/blog/game-changing-scale-act-could-enable-carbon-capture-
infrastructure-needed-for-net-zero-goals/]//PD
Bipartisan legislation re-introduced on March 17 could provide game-changing support for
carbon dioxide (CO2) transport and storage infrastructure that will be essential to reaching
midcentury climate goals. The Storing CO2 and Lowering Emissions Act (SCALE Act), re-
introduced in both chambers and led by Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) in
the Senate and Representatives Marc Veasey (D-TX) and David McKinley (R-WV) in the House
would enable CO2 transport and storage infrastructure required to scale up carbon capture,
removal, use, and storage across domestic industries, including those that are difficult to
decarbonize.
The re-introduced SCALE Act is being supported by a diverse and influential bipartisan group of
original cosponsors, including Senators Tina Smith (D-MN), John Hoeven (R-ND), Sheldon
Whitehouse (D-RI), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Mike Braun (R-
IN), Jon Tester (D-MT), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and Joe Manchin (D-WV), and
Representatives Cheri Bustos (D-IL), Pete Stauber (R-MN), Terri Sewell (D-AL), and Liz
Cheney (R-WY).
The SCALE Act also received bipartisan support from state leaders, with Governors John Bel
Edwards (D-LA), Mark Gordon (R-WY), Kevin Stitt (R-OK), and Tom Wolf (R-PA) signing a
letter to lead House and Senate sponsors on behalf of the seven signatory states to the State
CO2 Transport Infrastructure MOU (Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Montana, Pennsylvania,
Oklahoma, and Wyoming). The governors wrote “in strong support” of the bill and urged
Congress to prioritize its inclusion in a broader infrastructure package.
The SCALE Act would give the federal government tools to enable US leadership on critical
technology innovation and deployment in industries across the economy. The bill focuses on
three key areas:
Provides a federal financing mechanism for CO2 transport and storage infrastructure and realizes
economies of scale by reducing the overall costs associated with buildout of an interconnected
system;
Supports development of saline geologic storage resources, focusing on projects that could serve
as regional hubs for the deployment of large-scale saline geologic storage, and supports
implementation of the EPA permitting program on CO2 injection for secure geologic storage;
and,
Provides grants for states and municipalities to procure low- and zero-carbon products derived
from CO2 and carbon oxides.
GPI Vice President Brad Crabtree, speaking in his role as the director of the GPI-convened
Carbon Capture Coalition, stated that the bill would “drive the billions of dollars in private
investment in infrastructure required to accelerate and scale up the deployment of carbon capture,
removal and utilization from our nation’s industrial facilities, power plants and future large-scale
direct air capture facilities.”
In addition to its statement endorsing the legislation, the Coalition shared quotations of support
from over 20 unions, NGOs, and companies in the Coalition. For example, Roxanne Brown, vice
president at large, United Steelworkers, stated:
Carbon capture is a key technology for maintaining good manufacturing jobs as the global
economy decarbonizes to move towards the industry of the future. The SCALE Act enables the
buildout of CO2 transport and storage infrastructure, with Buy America requirements, that is
necessary for large-scale deployment of carbon capture at industrial facilities across our vast
country.
The SCALE Act also gained support from the Industrial Innovation Initiative, a coalition of key
industrial and power companies, environmental organizations, unions, and state officials from
Midwestern and Gulf Coast states (convened by GPI and World Resources Institute). The
Initiative sent a letter to Congressional leaders strongly supporting the SCALE Act and urging
Congress to prioritize the inclusion of the legislation in any broader infrastructure package, given
its essential role in helping achieve net-zero emissions economywide.
Carbon capture has an essential role in addressing emissions from key industrial sectors like steel,
cement, plastics, and fertilizer production that make up approximately 30 percent of global
CO2 emissions and have inherent CO2 emissions in production processes. Carbon capture, along
with direct air capture, must be deployed at scale to achieve economywide decarbonization by
midcentury.
US industries are ready to lead on carbon capture with key infrastructure, policy support in place
Many established and emerging companies in the US are investing in carbon management
technologies that could create and sustain high-paying jobs across the US, from aviation to
manufacturing and electric power generation. Yet, these companies need financing policy and
available transport and storage infrastructure that the SCALE Act would support to attract the
level of investment required for economywide deployment.
As lead bill author Representative Veasey (D-TX) said in a statement on the bill re-introduction,
“If we successfully deploy CO2 transport and storage infrastructure, we can help certain
industrial sectors of our economy dramatically reduce their emissions while creating thousands of
good jobs.”
Recently released analysis by Rhodium Group, commissioned by GPI, underscores the jobs and
economic potential of enabling economywide deployment, finding that investing in carbon
capture technology and infrastructure is a multi-billion dollar investment opportunity for the
nation. The first-of-its-kind analysis shows detailed jobs and investment potential in several
regions of the country and describes the unique opportunities for each region based on their
industrial sectors. The study demonstrates the versatility of carbon capture, which can be applied
across sectors and geographies.
As lead bill author Representative McKinley (R-WV) said in his statement on the bill re-
introduction, “For carbon capture to work, we need to be able to transport it to geologic storage or
customers who can use it.”
Regional opportunities for carbon capture infrastructure can be seen, for example, in the
Midcontinent region of the US, which has localized clusters of industrial emissions.
Analysis shows the need for a national CO2 transport infrastructure network grounded in regional
hubs and guided by long-term planning
Analysis by GPI, in partnership with leading research institutions, demonstrates the potential
benefits of and need for a national, interconnected CO2 transport infrastructure network grounded
in regional hubs to manage and reduce carbon emissions.
Through detailed scenario modeling using the SimCCS model, the analysis found that
“infrastructure with larger capacities built for long-term planning horizons can deliver more
CO2 at lower per-ton transport costs.” The analysis showed “clear climate and economic benefits
of long-term coordination and planning of CO2 transport infrastructure for midcentury
decarbonization.”
[[GRAPHIC OMITTED]]
While the US has transported CO2 since the 1970s, the existing network is vastly insufficient to
cost-effectively transport the volume of emissions from facilities eligible for the 45Q tax credit to
suitable geologic storage sites. Similarly, the US needs to identify and develop more large-scale
geologic storage sites that can serve these regional networks, along with funding and supporting
the permitting process for geologic storage.
[[GRAPHIC OMITTED]]
This lack of infrastructure poses a significant barrier to project development and cost-effective
economywide deployment. As the Coalition shared in their SCALE ACT endorsement, “The
strategic importance of access to CO2 transport and geologic storage can be seen in the 30-plus
publicly announced projects now under development in response to the 45Q tax credit, nearly all
of which are presently limited to locations that benefit from close proximity to existing
CO2 pipeline infrastructure or appropriate geologic formations for storage.”
As Crabtree states in the Coalition statement, “Congressional leaders should incorporate the
provisions of the SCALE Act into the next major legislative package now being developed to
address COVID economic recovery, infrastructure and climate… Congress and the administration
must now take the next critical step of establishing a robust federal CO2 transport and storage
infrastructure policy as provided by the SCALE Act.”
SCALE Act provides an opportunity for economywide carbon capture deployment
Carbon capture and removal is an essential part of building a net-zero carbon economy while
growing jobs and supporting existing and emerging industries. Building on the landmark 45Q tax
credit passed in 2019, the bipartisan SCALE Act can put the country on a trajectory to have key
infrastructure in place over the next decade that will be required for midcentury decarbonization.
2NC/1NR — OV
The CP solves warming – it funds critical infrastructure for carbon capture
and storage, snowballing investment and development.
Studies show that’s the only way to sufficiently reduce carbon, and avoids
overregulating farms – if we kick it’s a solvency takeout – that’s all Sobhani
Sufficiency – weigh any solvency deficit through a risk of the net benefit.
SCALE solves climate leadership – most recent studies.
Nader Sobhani 21 — [Nader Sobhani, Senior Energy Markets Specialist at ICF and
environmental researcher, Niskanen Center; Published: 3-22-2021; "Bipartisan SCALE Act Puts
U.S. on the Path to Becoming a Global Leader in Carbon Capture"; Niskanen Center; Accessed:
6-25-2021; https://www.niskanencenter.org/bipartisan-scale-act-puts-u-s-on-the-path-to-
becoming-a-global-leader-in-carbon-capture/]//PD
Last week, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate unveiled a landmark bill that
would invest billions of dollars in CO2 transport and storage infrastructure. The Storing CO2 and
Lowering Emissions (SCALE) Act, introduced by Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del) and Bill Cassidy
(R-LA) and Reps Marc Veasey (D-TX) and David McKinley (R-W.Va.), authorizes $4.9 billion
in spending over five years for the development of CO2 transport and storage infrastructure to
boost investment in carbon capture utilization and sequestration ( CCUS) projects.
CCUS has a critical role in reducing CO2 emissions from the power sector and key industrial
sectors such as steel, cement, plastics, and fertilizers. The Net-Zero America report led by
Princeton University researchers estimates that meeting mid-century emissions targets will
require sequestering between 1 to 1.7 billion metric tons of CO2 per year , with CCUS installed
at over 1,000 facilities. A critical component of scaling CCUS technology to this level is building
a robust network of CO2 pipelines that are capable of moving captured CO2 from industrial
facilities to geologic storage hubs. The same report from Princeton estimates that enabling the
CCUS industry to reach these levels will require building roughly 110,000 km of new CO2
pipeline infrastructure, orders of magnitude more than the 8,500 km currently built. Despite
the fact that CO2 transport infrastructure is an integral component of a carbon management
market, deployment of CO2 infrastructure faces critical barriers that have limited its
development.
Cost is the primary obstacle to building large pipelines connecting industrial and power plant
CO2 sources to sequestration sites. While the 45Q tax credits offer some incentive to retrofit sites
with CCUS technology, it is not enough to also fund major CO2 infrastructure developments.
There is also a chicken-and-egg challenge, whereby plans to build CO2 transportation
infrastructure will help incentivize CCUS projects to be built. Still, in order for investors to put
capital into building CO2 infrastructure, there must also be a pipeline of CCUS projects that will
use this transport infrastructure. Federal support is needed to overcome these critical barriers to
building a robust carbon management market.
The SCALE act looks to address these barriers through new federal loan and grant programs .
Key components of the bill include:
The establishment of the CO2 Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act ( CIFIA ) program to
finance shared CO2 transport infrastructure. The CIFIA program is modeled after existing
programs for highway and waterway infrastructure development. It offers low-interest loans for
CO2 transport infrastructure , and grants to develop CO2 pipeline capacity .
Authorizes the Department of Energy ( DOE ) to provide grants to states and municipalities for
procurement of carbon utilization products for infrastructure projects
Authorizes funding for a cost-sharing program through the DOE for the development of
commercial geologic storage sites
Authorizes increased funding for the EPA for permitting Class VI CO2 storage wells and
provides grants for states to establish their own Class VI permitting programs to streamline the
CO2 storage process.
While the 45Q tax credit has helped pave the way for the U.S. to be a leader in the carbon capture
industry–with over half of large-scale CCS projects operating currently in the U.S.– cementing
this status requires investing in the transport and storage infrastructure that is the backbone to any
carbon management market. Policymakers have advocated federal support to overcome the
barriers inhibiting CO2 transportation infrastructure in the past. For example, Rep. Brian
Fitzpatrick’s Market Choice Act, introduced in the 116th Congress, provides federal grants to
develop CO2 pipeline capacity, financed through revenue generated from an economy-wide
carbon price. While a carbon price with a dedicated stream of revenue allocated towards clean
energy infrastructure is the most cost-effective way of reducing economy-wide GHG emissions,
the SCALE Act would make progress on the clean energy transition in the near-term . At the
same time, it would smooth the path for more ambitious climate policy, such as a carbon price,
in the future.
The SCALE Act builds on the 45Q credits and previous efforts to incentivize the development of
CO2 and transport and storage infrastructure and firmly places the U.S . on the path to becoming
a global leader in carbon management .
SCALE solves – skyrocketing energy demand makes CCS technology the only
way to solve warming. Independently solves extreme whether events
Christopher Coons 21 — [Christopher Coons, Senator, CHRIS COONS Press Release;
Published: 3-17-2021; "U.S. Senator Christopher Coons of Delaware"; No Publication; Accessed:
6-25-2021; https://www.coons.senate.gov/news/press-releases/bipartisan-group-introduces-
nations-first-comprehensive-co2-infrastructure-bill]//PD
WASHINGTON – Infrastructure to support carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology
remains underdeveloped in the United States, leaving the country behind in the adoption of a
crucial tool in the fight against climate change. To address this issue, U.S. Senators Chris Coons
(D-Del.) and Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-La.) and U.S. Representatives Marc Veasey (D-Texas) and
David McKinley (R-W.Va.) today introduced the Storing CO2 And Lowering Emissions
( SCALE ) Act. The landmark bill will help develop CCS infrastructure as a critical means of
reducing emissions of CO2 – or carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas – while creating regional
economic opportunities and jobs.
The SCALE Act is the first comprehensive CO2 infrastructure package to be introduced in
Congress. The bill would support the buildout of infrastructure to transport CO2 from the sites of
capture to locations where it can be either utilized in manufacturing or sequestered safely and
securely underground. Carbon capture will play a critical role in reaching net-zero emissions by
2050, and the availability of CO2 transport infrastructure is necessary to drive investments in
carbon capture tech nologies.
The legislation would also provide critical regional economic opportunities and create thousands
of jobs. An analysis released as part of the Decarb America Project shows that the provisions in
the SCALE Act could create approximately 13,000 direct and indirect jobs per year through the
5-year authorization. This figure does not include the additional thousands of jobs created by
retrofitting energy-intensive facilities such as cement and steel plants or by building direct air
capture (DAC) plants.
“Carbon capture, utilization, and storage will play a critical role in meeting mid-century climate
goals, supporting high-paying manufacturing jobs, and maintaining American competitiveness,
but cost barriers currently stand in the way of its widespread deployment in the United
States,” said Senator Coons, co-chair of the Senate Climate Solutions Caucus. “I’m working to
advance the SCALE Act to build this crucial infrastructure that will help reduce industrial
emissions and create thousands of high-wage jobs. Now is the time to invest in carbon capture, a
promising technology with broad support.”
“If the world wants less carbon in the atmosphere while preserving jobs, the answer is
sequestering carbon,” said Dr. Cassidy. “There is no better place in the world than Louisiana to
sequester carbon. This bill supports that vision of lower carbon and creates jobs in Louisiana.”
“Carbon Capture and the associated infrastructure is essential for the United States to reach net-
zero emissions by mid-century,” said Representative Veasey. “If we successfully deploy CO2
transport and storage infrastructure, we can help certain industrial sectors of our economy
dramatically reduce their emissions while creating thousands of good job s.”
“Building out midstream and downstream infrastructure is a key component of supporting the
deployment of carbon capture technologies,” said Representative McKinley. “For carbon capture
to work, we need to be able to transport it to geologic storage or customers who can use it.
Through additional investments proposed in this bill, the U.S. can take significant steps towards
reducing its carbon emissions by developing a program that will support the construction of CO2
pipelines across the country and create countless jobs.”
“Advancing legislation that enables wide-scale deployment of CCUS technologies must continue
to be a priority,” said U.S. Senator Joe Manchin, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources. “The SCALE Act does just that by complementing and building on the
nearly $6 billion for CCUS research , development , deployment , and commercialization I
secured in the Energy Act of 2020. This bill will enhance the entire CCUS value chain by
incentivizing the buildout of CO2 pipeline and storage infrastructure, providing a critical link for
CO2 sequestration and end-use markets. Measures like these will push our clean energy
objectives forward while supporting thousands of clean energy, infrastructure and manufacturing
jobs across the country, including in traditional energy producing communities like those in West
Virginia.”
How the SCALE Act supports carbon capture: Interconnected CO2 transport systems that collect
CO2 from capture sources and deliver it to shared CO2 storage sites are the key backbone
infrastructure needed for widespread carbon capture deployment at the necessary scale to achieve
economy-wide emissions reductions. Yet, deployment of CO2 infrastructure faces critical cost
barriers that require federal support to overcome. Many countries and regions, including the
European Union, the UK, Norway, Australia, and Canada, have already committed billions to
construct CO2 transport and storage infrastructure to decarbonize heavy industry, and the United
States is currently lagging behind. The SCALE Act would provide the federal support needed to
kick-start a CO2 transport and storage infrastructure build-out over the next decade to get the
United States back on track. This new transport infrastructure will enable CO2 to be transported
from the site of capture to locations where it can be used or stored safely underground.
To support carbon capture and job growth, the SCALE Act would:
Establish the CO2 Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (CIFIA) program, which will
provide flexible, low-interest loans for CO2 transport infrastructure projects and grants for
initial excess capacity on new infrastructure to facilitate future growth . Modeled after the
existing TIFIA and WIFIA programs for highway and water infrastructure, CIFIA will help
facilitate private sector investment in infrastructure critical for reaching net-zero emissions. The
bill also includes grants for Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) studies for CO2 transport
infrastructure.
Build upon the existing Department of Energy (DOE) CarbonSAFE program to provide cost
sharing for deployment of commercial-scale saline geologic CO2 storage projects. The program
would give priority to larger, commercial saline geologic storage projects that will serve as hubs
for storing CO2 from multiple carbon capture facilities.
Authorize increased funding to EPA for permitting Class VI CO2 storage wells in saline
geologic formations and providing grants for states to establish their own Class VI permitting
programs to ensure rigorous and efficient CO2 geologic storage site permitting.
Provide grants to state and local governments for procuring CO2 utilization productsand support
state and local programs that create demand for materials, fuels, and other products made from
captured carbon. The bill also adds the objective of developing standards and certifications for
products that use CO2 to DOE’s carbon utilization program.
In the Senate, the bill is also cosponsored by U.S. Senators Tina Smith (D-Minn.), John Hoeven
(R-N.D.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Tammy Duckworth
(D-Ill.), Mike Braun (R-Ind.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Joe
Manchin (D-W.Va.). In the House, cosponsors include U.S. Representatives Cheri Bustos (D-
Ill.), Pete Stauber (R-Minn.), Terri Sewell (D-Ala.), and Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.).
“Climate change is real, and it’s damaging to our health, our families and our environment. We
know this because that’s what science tells us,” said Senator Smith. “The SCALE Act will help
develop the carbon capture and storage infrastructure we will need to capture emissions from
steelmaking , biofuels , and other key Minnesota industries. This is an important part of our
effort to get to net-zero emissions for the entire economy. I'll be working with my colleagues to
move this forward. Our country can lead or we can follow when it comes to fighting climate
change. I for one, want us to lead.”
“For more than a decade, North Dakota has been working to crack the code on CCUS
technology,” said Senator Hoeven. “That means not only proving that CCUS works in the lab, but
also providing the right legal, tax and regulatory environment to support its implementation. Our
legislation addresses a key aspect of this effort – building the pipeline infrastructure we need to
transport and store captured CO2 emissions in the appropriate geologic formations. This is about
investing in new technologies and helping bring them to scale so they will be commercially-
viable over the long-term. That’s how we will empower America to continue utilizing all of its
abundant energy resources, helping to ensure our national and economic security.”
“Scientists tell us that we likely need to reverse a significant amount of carbon pollution to meet
our climate goals. Right now, we’re a long way from having the infrastructure in place to do
that,” said Senator Whitehouse. “Our bipartisan proposal is a roadmap for scaling up the
construction of carbon capture infrastructure and building momentum for these technologies
while creating jobs in a promising field.”
“This is a commonsense, win-win bill that will help lower carbon emissions and create jobs
through the construction of pipelines,” said Senator Capito. “Building infrastructure for carbon
capture utilization and storage is critical in promoting deployment of this technology. Partnered
with the bipartisan 45Q tax credit I authored and the reforms of the USE IT Act, this bill further
advances our carbon capture goals.”
“Illinois is a leader in demonstrating the potential of carbon capture, utilization and storage to
help our nation combat the climate crisis, while creating and supporting good jobs in an emerging
sector,” said Senator Duckworth. “Our bipartisan SCALE Act seeks to build out the critical
infrastructure that will enable us to not only reduce CO2 emissions at industrial sites, but ensure
that captured carbon is reused or safely stored.”
“As a Main Street entrepreneur and co-founder of the Climate Solutions Caucus, I understand the
need to find real solutions to our address our changing climate without putting Americans out of
work,” said Senator Braun. “This bill walks the line between climate-smart practices and
protecting American workers by driving private investment into the development of carbon
transport and storage infrastructure and creating well-paying jobs as a result.”
“We’re already seeing the impacts of climate change across the country as severe weather
events and natural disasters become more and more common ,” said Senator Tester. “As we
work to combat climate change, carbon capture can play an important role —and it’s high-time
we make the investment. I’m proud to support this bill to help build this critical infrastructure to
reduce emissions while creating jobs for hardworking Americans.”
“It is estimated that the demand for energy across the country could grow nearly 50 percent by
the year 2050, making carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technologies as important
as ever in the fight against climate change,” said Senator Murkowski. “CCUS will not only help
America meet the growing demand for energy, but will also be critical to reducing emissions and
supporting a cleaner environment. Through the SCALE Act, we are taking significant steps to
construct and develop the critical infrastructure needed for large-scale carbon management.
Investment in the expansion of CCUS will play an integral role in our nation’s all-of-the-above
energy strategy.”
The SCALE Act is endorsed by a broad coalition of labor, environmental, and industry
stakeholders: Carbon Capture Coalition, Third Way, National Wildlife Federation, Growth
Energy, Carbon Engineering, Clean Air Task Force, Occidental, Citizens for Responsible Energy
Solutions, Bipartisan Policy Center Action, Utility Workers Union of America, Carbon
Utilization Research Council, Calpine, GE Gas Power, United Steelworkers, United Mine
Workers of America (UMWA), North America’s Building Trades Unions (NABTU), C2ES,
Carbon180, The Nature Conservancy, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of
Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), and American Conservation Coalition.
“Climate change is happening now, across the globe and right here in Delaware,” said Lori
Brennan, Executive Director for The Nature Conservancy in Pennsylvania and
Delaware.“Confronted by the prospect of increasing temperatures, more extreme weather events
and rising sea levels, it’s clear that a robust mix of climate strategies is needed. Carbon capture,
storage and use needs to be part of this conversation, and the SCALE Act will support the
infrastructure necessary for safe, effective and environmentally-sound deployment of these
technologies. We thank Senator Coons for introducing this legislation.”
"The bipartisan SCALE Act represents a golden opportunity for the creation of desperately
needed middle-class sustaining jobs,” said Sean McGarvey, President of North America’s
Building Trades Unions (NABTU). “This legislation is the prime example of how Congress,
industry, environmental groups, and construction unions can come together to develop needed
climate policy while ensuring the creation of middle-class sustaining energy jobs. If our nation is
to meet its midcentury climate goals, Congress must pass this legislation to begin the construction
of the infrastructure necessary to support the deployment of systems to capture, transport, and
store CO2. This essential part of our overall national infrastructure effort provides an immediate
opportunity to create union jobs and train the next generation of construction workers. The carbon
capture industry is committed to utilizing NABTU’s world-class apprenticeship and training
system to provide the workforce to build the carbon capture, transport, and storage infrastructure
for our country. We look forward to working with Congress to ensure that the SCALE Act is
included in a comprehensive infrastructure package.”
“The IBEW thanks Senators Coons and Cassidy and Representatives Veasey and McKinley for
introducing the SCALE Act,” said Lonnie R. Stephenson, President of International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers (IBEW). “This legislation will help further the development of carbon
capture sequestration and utilization, which are essential for the United States – and the
international community – to meet the emission reductions called for by climate scientists .
The SCALE Act will focus federal resources towards the transportation and storage of captured
carbon, which will help preserve the livelihood of IBEW members who work day and night to
maintain the safety and reliability of the electrical and natural gas services that we all rely on.”
They Say: “SCALE Hurts Clean Energy”
Carbon capture expedites not stifles clean energy transition
Vanessa Suarez, 21 — [Vanessa Suarez, senior policy adviser with Carbon180, and a public
voices fellow with the Op Ed Project and Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, The
Hill ; Published: 5-25-2021; "Carbon removal can and must be part of the climate justice
agenda"; TheHill; Accessed: 6-28-2021; https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/555267-
carbon-removal-can-and-must-be-part-of-the-climate-justice-agenda]//PD
The science is clear: To avoid catastrophic climate disasters and limit global warming to 1.5
degrees Celsius, the world will likely need to remove billions of tons of carbon from the
atmosphere over the course of this century. Carbon removal refers to the range of engineered
technologies, like direct air capture (DAC), and land management practices, like reforestation,
that draw down carbon from the atmosphere to be stored away long-term in underground rock
formations, soils, plants and commercial goods.
The scale of implementation we’ll need for carbon removal understandably raises concerns
around the potential health and environmental impacts. For example, irresponsible forestry or
direct air capture projects could compete with other land use priorities, like growing food . But if
deployed thoughtfully, these solutions can not only help us meet our climate goals, they can
provide a myriad of social, environmental and economic benefits to frontline communities while
promoting justice.
DAC — technologies that remove carbon directly from the air using huge fans and chemical
processes — is projected to create 300,000 jobs in the U.S. over the next 30 years. Many of these
jobs in construction, maintenance and transportation could support fossil fuel workers and their
communities in the clean energy transition . Moreover, because of the large amount of energy
required for DAC projects, renewable energy sources can be leveraged to meet the energy
demands of these facilities and ensure they are net negative , creating opportunity for the scale-
up of DAC to be in support of widespread scale-up of renewable energy .
Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) — a hybrid carbon removal solution that
involves capturing carbon through plants and converting it into power, heat, or fuel — can also
provide benefits, if deployed thoughtfully. A recently announced project in Mendota, California
plans to take agricultural waste, like almond trees, convert it into electricity and safely store the
carbon produced. This project is expected to create local jobs, improve local air quality, remove
hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon from the atmosphere per year and contribute to the city’s
tax revenue base.
While these opportunities exist, carbon removal has received valid criticism from environmental
justice advocates for various reasons. First, carbon removal’s association with carbon capture and
storage in power generation — technologies that advocates have largely opposed because of
concerns that they will lock out transitions to renewable energy and continue air and water
pollution from extraction and combustion activities.
Moreover, the role of powerful and extractive industries, like oil and gas and large-scale
agriculture, in developing and deploying carbon removal solutions raises major flags for
advocates, as these industries are the same ones that have contributed many of the environmental,
racial and socioeconomic disparities frontline communities face today. Advocates are also
concerned that carbon removal will be used as an excuse to delay or avoid reducing carbon
emissions — also known as moral hazard — which should be the No. 1 priority in climate
mitigation work. Gaps in scientific knowledge for various solutions and failures in monitoring
and reporting on stored carbon likewise make it difficult for advocates to sign-on.
We can ensure carbon removal doesn’t only avoid contributing or exacerbating the harms
frontline communities currently face, but that it helps radically transform our systems of
today. We can do this by incorporating different components of justice and equity long-promoted
by the environmental and climate justice movements, like:
fair decision-making processes (procedural)
fair allocation of benefits (distributive)
amends of previous harms (reparative)
changes in our social systems (transformative)
Carbon removal projects with procedural and distributive justice components can allow frontline
communities to have a direct hand in shaping how projects will be deployed (if at all), what
benefits they will provide and how those benefits will be distributed. Through incorporation of
reparative justice, carbon removal could provide windows for industries to redress their historic
harms by providing community-driven reparations through concrete opportunities and
benefits.
Carbon removal can also promote transformative justice by helping advance major shifts in
our food and energy systems, like supporting conversion of industrial scale agricultural
systems to regenerative and soil health practices and supporting advancement of renewable
energy sources concurrently with expansion of net-negative direct air capture technologies.
Clean Energy Standard (CES) CP
1NC — CES CP
CP Text: The United States federal government should enact the Clean
Energy Standard
The counterplan solves – we have to implement the CES now for a clean
future
Stokes et al. 21 Leah C. Stokes (Evergreen Advisory Board and Assistant Professor in
Department of Poli-Sci), Sam Ricketts (Co-founder and senior advisor for Evergreen), Olivia
Quinn (UCSB), Narayan Subramanian (Legal Advisor and Department of Energy), and Bracket
Hendricks (Evergreen Collaborative), Evergreen Collaborative. “A Roadmap to 100% Clean
Electricity by 2035; Power Sector Decarbonization through a Federal Clean Electricity Standard
and Robust Clean Energy Investments and Justice-Centered Policies” February 2021. Evergreen
Collaborative. Accessed 6/25/2021.
next two years are crucial. The Biden-Harris administration and the 117th Congress must confront the climate crisis
The
and enact transformational policies that sustain a clean energy recovery for a more just, equitable and thriving
American economy. History shows that new presidential administrations are at the height of their political power in their first two years. And 2021-2022
represents the first time in over a decade when the U.S. Congress will ha[s]ve an opportunity to advance
meaningful climate and energy legislation. This moment must not go to waste. The last decade was lost in federal climate inaction, and there
are no more decades left for Congress to delay the bold national mobilization that the climate crisis requires. Given
the critical importance of clean electricity to unlocking carbon pollution reductions throughout the American
economy, the new Biden-Harris administration and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate must use the next two years to set the country on the path to 100% clean electricity
by 2035. This means passing standards, investments, and justice-driven legislation, that includes a
federal Clean Electricity Standard (CES), alongside supportive policies including crucial
investments in clean energy deployment, manufacturing and innovation, and that supports good
jobs and environmental justice. Simultaneously, the Biden-Harris administration must be
committed to immediately using all existing authorities, including the federal Clean Air Act, to
help achieve this goal by blocking new polluting power plants and reducing pollution from the
conventional fleet that remains in service. Both executive and legislative action will be required for success on all of these fronts. National
Democratic leaders appear united around the necessity of this agenda fo r swift power sector decarbonization. President Biden and Vice President
Harris’ Build Back Better economic plan calls for implementation of a nation-wide combined Energy Efficiency & Clean
Electricity Standard to “achieve carbon-pollution free energy in electricity generation by 2035.”35 In Congress, the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
published a report in July 2020 that points to the implementation of a national Clean Energy Standard for the electricity sector as its very first policy recommendation.36 And
Senate Democrats’ 2020 report—The Case for Climate Action—identified a CES as a key national policy to guarantee
the power sector’s contribution to economy-wide decarbonization by mid-century.37 In January 2021, Senate Majority
Leader Chuck Schumer said on national television: “We have to do something about climate. We don’t have any more
time. We need strong bold action. One way or another, we’ve got to get it done. We can even use reconciliation for a much broader proposal: [President] Biden’s Build Back
Better.” A 100% CES is at the center of the Biden plan.
CES prioritizes regional equity and ensures that all regions are benefiting
from the policy – aff leaves some regions unprotected **need to find card to
support this
Collaborative. Accessed 6/28/2021
A federal CES must consider how costs and benefits will fall regionally. Regions of the country have different clean energy resources, like hydropower,
geothermal, wind and solar. Some parts of the country have already made significant strides in power sector decarbonization, while others have not. And
regions vary in their current energy costs and economic challenges. A federal CES should promote
regional equity as a central goal. One way to promote regional equity in clean energy investments is to have ZEC trading
areas limited to smaller geographic boundaries. This would help ensure that all regions of the
country are capturing benefits from job creation and cleaner air. Regional boundaries could be
defined based on existing Regional Transmission Organizations (RTO) and Independent System Operators (ISO), or other electricity
market boundaries such as regional transmission planning bodies under FERC Order 1000 or the NERC regions (see Figure 4). This
approach could also have the benefit of integrating regional transmission planning with the CES
policy. Congress could also delegate to the implementing agency to establish regional boundaries. Resources with a direct connection or delivery to a
given region could receive ZECs for that region— essentially bundling together the power and the credits. Alternatively, the policy could allow for some
fraction of bundled ZECs—perhaps 80%—and some fraction of unbundled ZECs. For example, LSEs could procure and retire credits only from clean
energy resources that could also sell energy to that LSE, such as within a balancing authority or connected by transmission. The specific rules around
implementing cross-region trading could be delegated to the implementing agency, such as the existing regional transmission planning bodies under
FERC Order 1000.46 Sucha design would also avoid legal challenges surrounding out-of-state
discrimination. Alternatively, Congress could delegate to states whether and how they organize into
multi-state trading agreements. ZECs could still be traded across regions when there are imports through transmission connected
sources.
ACP revenue can be used to drive clean energy

Alternative Compliance Payments (ACPs) provide a backstop compliance mechanism when there is a scarcity of ZECs
available for LSEs to purchase, and provide an important accountability mechanism throughout the
enforcement term of a CES. Additionally, the value of the ACP can effectively serve as a price ceiling for ZEC trading systems, as LSEs
would only purchase ZECs if they are cheaper than the ACP. The ACP can be pegged to a dynamic value that increases year-on-year to ensure that the
cost of non-compliance with a CES becomes greater over time. A study by Resources for the Future of Sen. Bingaman’s 2012 CES legislation found that
its ACP would mitigate any retail electricity price increases.58 The flipside of this, however, is that an ACP could have the effect of undercutting
emissions reductions unless it is valued high enough to deter its significant use. We believe that an ACP
is an important part of a
federal CES, and that it should begin at a modest value but increase gradually and then sharply
over time, to ensure a cost effective CES that appropriately incentivizes compliance and sustained decarbonization for LSEs in all
regions of the country. In setting this amount, in early years especially, Congress and/or the program administrator should contemplate in particular
consequences upon the fleet of existing nuclear plants, and their ability to continue to compete versus gas and continue providing carbon-free electricity
generation. Furthermore, we
propose reinvesting the revenues derived from ACPs in a way that drives an
equitable clean energy transition, including in renewable energy and energy efficiency projects in low-income communities and
communities of color, and in economic development in communities experiencing retirement of fossil fuel assets - coal-fired power plants, in particular.
2NC/1NR — Overview
The CES solves emissions through the implementation of clean energy
standards while avoiding the farming da net benefit – farmers like climate
action. That’s Stokes et al and Hanes.
2NC/1NR — Farming DA Net Benefit
** Generic cards about climate action and farming. CES is kinda vague so hard to find cards
about specifically farming and the CES **
Climate action helps farmers economically – farmers themselves want it

For five generations, Andrew Bowman’s family has worked the land in Oneida, population 700-ish – a flat and fertile swath of Illinois his father always
said was good for growing crops and kids. Today, he farms soybeans and corn, as well as specialty popcorn, which he sells under the label Pilot Knob
Comforts. Mr.
Bowman hopes to have a new resource to harvest soon, as well: wind. This past year, Mr.
Bowman took a lead representing local landowners in negotiating with Orion Renewable Energy
Group, one of the many companies installing wind farms across Illinois, to build a new 100-
turbine project in his part of Knox County. Clean energy would not only help keep the local
school open and support the fire department and library, he says, but would also offer a new
income stream to farmers who agree to lease some of their land for the project – some $30
million over 25 years, according to the proposal. WHY WE WROTE THIS Progress within the clean
energy sector may be pushing the debate about climate change toward irrelevance. Across the
Midwest – from wind farms to R&D labs – farmers are finding climate action is good business.
“It’s going to be life-changing for people who sign up,” Mr. Bowman says. For Mr. Bowman,
embracing wind power is part of stewarding the land for the next generation – and one of many steps he and
his brother-in-law, Matt Hulsizer, have taken to ensure resiliency on their 1,800 acres. They are acutely focused on soil health, low tillage, and reducing
fuel consumption; they have tried organic practices and are investigating cover crops to retain nutrients and prevent erosion. But none of this is because
they are trying to fight climate change. They care deeply about the environment, they say; after all, they live and work in it. But they cringe at the cries
for climate action, and they bristle when city people suggest their outdoor, low-consumption life is problematic. (“The difference between growing up on
dirt and growing up on asphalt,” Mr. Hulsizer says.) If human-made climate change is happening, they say – something they find dubious – they doubt
there’s much anyone can do to stop it. ‘The signs are there.’ Is US democracy on a dangerous trajectory? For
them, tending soil and
harvesting wind for clean energy – two initiatives climate scholars say are crucial for reducing
carbon emissions – is simply about taking the best steps economically. And that, scholars point out, is a
tremendous shift. For years, the dominant narrative of climate action was one of trade-offs and costs – that saving the world as we know it meant taking
hard steps to reduce carbon emissions, and likely sacrificing jobs and lifestyle in the process. Over the past months, the Biden administration has worked
to change this storyline, explicitly connecting “climate” with “good-paying union jobs,” and tying climate action to massive government investment and
redevelopment. But travel across Illinois – a state that reflects the country’s political profile, with solidly red rural areas and a few blue cities – and one
sees something more.
Economic shifts, whether around clean energy or electric vehicles, regenerative
agriculture or green construction, may be starting to defuse much of the debate over climate
change. Instead, climate action has merged with economic progress – particularly when it comes to
clean energy. And although climate activists say this awakening won’t by itself put the nation on track to meet the Paris Agreement goal of net-
zero carbon emissions by 2050, some suggest it is making that path less arduous, while creating new opportunities and connections for those across the
ideological spectrum. “There’s an argument that’s been around for a long time, that somehow the economy and the environment are at odds and we can’t
do two things at once,” says Bob Keefe, executive director of E2, an organization of business groups focused on environmental action. “What we’re
seeing today is that there’s never been more clarity about the economic costs of climate change, or the economic potential of climate action.”
Reformations in the clean energy sector help climate actions – farmers receive
economic bonuses
Indeed, perhaps more than in any other industry,
progress within the clean energy sector may be pushing the debate
about climate change toward irrelevance. Tyler Duvelius, spokesman for the Conservative Energy Network advocacy group,
says this is because more people simply see the economic opportunity in clean energy – as well as the
possibility for U.S. energy independence. And clean energy is a booming employment
opportunity, he says. “There are 3.3. million clean energy jobs in America right now,” Mr. Duvelius
says. “These jobs pay 25% more than the national median. One in 5 are in construction. There are plenty more in the clean
energy supply chain. We’re looking at traditional, American jobs.” But it’s not only jobs. As Ken Springer, the economic development coordinator for
Knox County, points out, many
rural counties do not have the labor force to attract other industries. But
because solar and wind farms do not need much labor once they are built, they can still locate in
these areas, and still help the economy through lease payments and property taxes. And according to a
recent Brookings Institution report, most of the counties likely to benefit from clean energy lean Republican. “Eighty percent plus of all clean energy
projects are built in red, Republican districts,” says Jeff Danielson, central region director for the American Clean Power lobbying group. “That would
not happen if they were not aware of and understood the economic value of those projects in their districts. ... So, as in all politics these days, you can
find division. But scratch the surface a little deeper in clean energy and there is broad bipartisan support. Not everybody has the same reasons, and that’s
important to acknowledge, but there is bipartisan support for clean energy.” This is what Mr. Springer found during the effort to lure Orion Energy’s
proposed wind farm – the one that Mr. Bowman, the farmer, helped negotiate. Two years earlier, in 2018, Knox County had
split over a proposed solar project. “We had a legit protest,” Mr. Springer recalls. So many people showed up to the zoning board
meeting that they couldn’t fit in the room. People were holding signs that read, “no green energy in Knox County.” But last year, Knox
County commissioners voted 14-1 to approve Orion Energy’s proposed wind farm. Part of that,
Mr. Springer says, is because of the work the company did to answer questions; part of it was that
residents could see how wind energy has helped neighboring communities. Mr. Bowman, for instance, is eager
for his children’s school to get a desperately needed infusion of cash. Although the teachers and community there are wonderful, he says, the facilities are
so bad right now that he worries about retaining staff. “The wind turbines couldn’t come at a better time,” he says.
Renewable energy key to empowering impoverished rural communities

Spw, 6-10-2021, SPW is a media outlet for the US solar market, "Largest agrivoltaic research
project in U.S. advances renewable energy while empowering local farmers," Solar Power World,
https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2021/06/largest-agrivoltaic-research-project-in-u-s-
advances-renewable-energy-while-empowering-local-farmers/, Accessed June 29, 2021, HYZ
In addition to providing critical national research about dual-use projects, Jack’s Solar Garden
has also brought clean energy and associated benefits to those previously unable to access it.
Reports from NREL estimate that only 22 to 27% of residential rooftops can host solar panels.
Jack’s also donates 2% of its energy production to low-income households in Boulder County
and has an Artist on the Farm program to support local creatives. Additionally, the food grown at
Jack’s will help benefit Longmont residents experiencing food insecurity, as this year’s food will
be distributed through the Longmont farmers market and anyone with federal Supplemental
Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits will be able to purchase the food at half price.
Students and community members also have an opportunity to tour Jack’s to learn about
agriculture, solar power and land-use management through Jack’s new non-profit arm, the Colorado Agrivoltaic Learning
Center. Sprout City Farms will also offer incubator plots at Jack’s to help new farmers test their business plans and receive mentorship from experienced
staff in the coming farm seasons.
Jack’s is therefore cultivating the next generation of agrivoltaic farmers
while simultaneously proving out the dual-use economic model, which allows farmers to
maintain their land and enhance their agricultural activities while adding a new source of income
from solar energy. With Namasté Solar and Solar FlexRack’s help, Jack’s has been able to successfully emphasize
the idea of community all while supporting crucial national research and education. Jack’s will
also continue to prove the viability of agrivoltaics — both for farmers’ incomes and for future
clean energy installers and developers, which will in turn enable greater national prosperity and
the development of more renewable energy projects.
There’s no more time; we have to implement CES for widespread clean
electricity and to reduce carbon pollution
Finally, it must be recognized that the Biden-Harris administration cannot wait for Congress before it takes
aggressive action to drive carbon pollution reductions in the power sector that will realize its 100% clean
energy commitments. This agenda must begin immediately. And it must include using existing federal
authorities under the Clean Air Act through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), flowing
from the 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA decision and the agency’s subsequent Endangerment Finding, to advance stringent greenhouse gas pollution
standards for power plants.43 It must also include carbon pollution co-benefits that are achieved as the Biden EPA reverses Trump
rollbacks and promulgates new standards for toxic air pollution from power plants, such as for particulate matter, ozone, mercury, and air toxics
standards. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)—which now has a full suite of 5 Commissioners—could also play
a critical
role in driving the transition to 100% clean electricity. FERC could decide to use its existing authorities under the Federal
Power Act to restructure markets to encourage competition, distributed energy technologies like flexible load technologies, and demand response. These
changes would enable greater levels of large-scale renewable energy resources to be integrated into the grid. The
country’s largest energy buyers, with their own decarbonization goals, are leveraging their combined procurement power to support policies that expand
grid access to clean energy resources. Within the first week of the Biden Administration, the Renewable Energy Buyers Alliance,
representing dozens of corporations—including Amazon, General Motors, Google, and Microsoft— released a policy statement
calling on the federal government to expand and improve existing organized wholesale electricity
markets,44 a move they argue would accelerate grid decarbonization at least-cost. The new administration should also take immediate,
aggressive and creative action in using all of its existing federal financing authorities and funding mechanisms that can leverage greater
private investment into clean energy deployment. These tools are legion: ranging from the Department of Energy (DOE) Loan
Guarantee Program, and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Utilities Service, to the Defense Production Act and aggressive use of procurement
authorities to deploy more renewable energy and grid storage at federal facilities throughout the country. The subject of Clean Air Act regulation of
carbon and criteria air pollution in the power sector under existing authorities is particularly important for 100% carbon-free power and deserves a deeper
treatment than it will receive in this paper. It should be understood as crucial for federal leadership on the climate crisis in the Biden-Harris
administration.
CES will empower state efforts to advance clean energy

Implementing a
federal CES will require concerted federal oversight and integration with existing
regulatory structures. Federal agencies will need to oversee compliance with the CES as well as the monetary flows between regulated actors
in the implementation of a CES. The Department of Energy (DOE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) could be designated as the lead agency in implementing a federal CES .
DOE, with its Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (EERE) can leverage its coordination with State Energy Offices and the U.S. Energy
Information Administration, giving it the capability to collect and utilize data on the electricity generation mix of LSEs. The EPA has experience
regulating air pollution from power plants under the Clean Air Act. FERC is also an experienced regulator, particularly with oversight of wholesale
electricity markets and therefore firm institutional knowledge of and regular engagement with LSEs. Alternatively, any
one of these federal
agencies can serve as the coordinating body with relevant agencies in enforcing CES , including the
Department of Treasury, the Department of Labor, and the Federal Trade Commission. As states continue to assert their clean energy leadership, the
jurisdictional line between federal and state energy policy has become increasingly blurry, and occasionally in conflict. Under the Trump
administration, FERC has taken extraordinary steps to undercut state clean energy subsidy
programs, as in the case of Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland,59 and in limiting the ability for wholesale electricity markets to favor renewable
energy resources, as in the case of New York.60 State RPSs have also come under attack. As recently as 2015, Colorado’s RPS was challenged by an
industry group for allegedly running afoul of the constitution’s Dormant Commerce Clause because out-of-state fossil fuel energy producers were
burdened in their ability to sell electricity to Colorado LSEs.61 While the Colorado RPS was upheld unanimously, states continue to be constrained in
their ability to support clean energy, or even just to make gas and coal plants pay some small share.62 A
federal CES could further
clarify the jurisdictional lines between federal and state authority in energy policy and therefore
further empower states in their efforts to advance clean energy. In addition to putting state clean electricity standards
on relatively stronger legal footing, it would also send a clear signal to FERC, wholesale electricity operators (RTO/ISOs), and state
public utility commissions, to establish the rules necessary to allow a federal CES to be implemented most
efficiently, while allowing states to maintain their authority and the implementation of their
complementary programs. This is especially important as a bulwark against potential backsliding in future federal policy. Separately, the
EPA’s Clean Air Act authority to regulate greenhouse gas pollution from stationary sources should remain intact under a
federal CES. And, the implementation of a federal CES would not and should not in any way subtract from the important work that the EPA must
do to limit traditional air pollutants from power plants, such as through rules like Clean Air Act Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS). These rules
— and the life-saving pollution-reductions they will cause—are particularly critical to an all of-government agenda for environmental justice, given that
communities of color and low-income communities face a significant amount of toxic air pollution and suffer greater associated death and health impacts
as a result.63
Existing pathways can limit carbon pollution; Biden Administration

regulations can help minimize leakage
Resource eligibility under a ZEC trading system should be tailored to maximize the buildout of new
renewable energy resources, while maintaining existing zero-carbon resources and ensuring the
reliability of the electricity system. All zero-carbon energy resources should be provided full credits under the system. Using
existing technology pathways, electricity system models show that during periods of normal generation and demand, wind, solar, and other
renewables (e.g. geothermal, marine hydrokinetic), plus battery storage, could eventually provide approximately 70% of
generation, coupled with an additional 20% from nuclear and hydropower.47 Climate models also show that we cannot continue to build new
uncontrolled fossil energy infrastructure and meet a 1.5 °C temperature target.48 For the interim future, and pending technology breakthroughs, in times
of poor renewable generation or extremely high demand, existing gas generation could step in to compensate for the mismatch between demand and clean
generation. This gas
generation could, theoretically, be controlled and emit no carbon pollution in electricity
generation, using carbon capture. Biogas and synthetic gas could also be allowed to qualify for credits
provided it can be shown that utilized fuels have a zero-carbon lifecycle . But the lifecycle carbon pollution
associated with these resources, and therefore their climate benefit, are subject to a robust policy debate.49 There is a discussion over whether
uncontrolled gas plants, without carbon capture technology, should receive a partial credit under a CES. Some modelling suggests that such an approach
could help to shutdown coal somewhat faster, leading to air pollution benefits. Compared to the business as usual scenario, a
CES with or
without partial crediting for uncontrolled gas will result in less overall gas being built . However,
providing any incentives for uncontrolled fossil gas in a CES may not adequately discourage further overbuilding of gas infrastructure, leading to
stranded costs and climate impacts. Some have also raised concerns that partial crediting for gas could create further financial challenges for nuclear
plants by deflating wholesale electricity prices. Methane leakage associated with gas production and distribution is a serious climate problem.50
Estimates for the scale of methane leakage are challenging to pin down, but may be higher than the EPA has previously assessed.51 Depending on the
scale of methane leakage, uncontrolled fossil gas plants can even have higher carbon footprints than coal plants.52 Methane
leakage could
be minimized through effort from industry and new regulations from the Biden Administration . As
some have proposed, if gas plants receive partial credits, ZECs could be adjusted to account for the
methane leakage per MWh of generation. Some current CES proposals in Congress propose partial credit for fossil gas electricity
generation resources. Legislation offered during the 116th Congress by Senators Tina Smith (D-MN) and Ben Ray Luján (D-
NM) set an emissions benchmark of 0.4 metric tons/MWh, which effectively excludes all fossil fuel
resources except for fossil gas with carbon capture.53 The bill proposed by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), meanwhile, would
establish an emissions benchmark of 0.82 metric tons/MWh. The House Energy & Commerce Committee later adopted this benchmark in its proposed
CLEAN Future Act. 54 This benchmark provides for partial credit for fossil gas-fired power plants as a means of differentiation between coal and gas,
which have different emissions profiles. This would theoretically push coal, the more carbon-intense fuel, offline faster—a worthy objective. However,
given the aforementioned methane leakage, such partial crediting of gas fails to account for the fuels’ lifecycle climate impact, which may be quite large.
The DeGette bill seeks to address the issue of lifecycle climate impact by accounting for upstream
greenhouse gas emissions and instructs the Energy Secretary to “use the best available science” to determine the carbon intensity of the
fuel sources used by utilities to qualify with a CES, with a particular focus on fossil gas. This could provide a valuable tool as long as fossil gas remains a
part of the electricity mix. However, in practice, this may be difficult to implement, as methane leakage occurs at various points from production to
transportation of natural gas. The bill language includes emissions from extraction, flaring, processing, and transportation of gas—it has proven difficult
to accurately and consistently measure the emissions across these areas. A similar approach was adopted in a recent bipartisan CES proposal released by
Reps. David McKinley (R-WV) and Kurt Schrader (D-OR).55 The proposal provides the Energy Secretary the option of working in consultation with the
EPA Administrator (and technical input from FERC) to develop a dynamic crediting model that accounts for “the carbon dioxide emissions from
electricity generation resources that are avoided or displaced by increasing the generation from generating facilities eligible to receive clean electricity
credits.” A critical omission in the McKinley Schrader proposal for dynamic crediting is its specific reference to “carbon dioxide emissions” as opposed
to “greenhouse gas emissions,” or more specifically “methane emissions,” which would be the primary concern in a system that partially credits fossil
gas. It should also be noted that the dynamic model that the DeGette and McKinley Schrader proposals call for can be subject to erosion under future
administrations, given discretion in how such a rule could be implemented and modified. We believe that fossil
gas generation without
carbon capture should not receive credit under a federal CES. Ending carbon and other pollution from coal power
plants is an important policy goal, towards which the CES will contribute, as will other policies, such as criteria pollutant regulations as well as debt
retirement or securitization (section 3.2). Asan alternative to a partial credit for uncontrolled fossil gas, coal
plants that shut down early could be given credits, as C2ES has recently proposed.56 This would have the effect of
loosening the CES policy stringency, so such credits should likely be for a short duration. In addition to questions around fossil fuel
powered generation resources, existing nuclear plants may also merit special consideration. The Rhodium Group projects that, under current
policy, up to two-thirds of the existing nuclear energy fleet could be retired from the grid by
2030, striking an enormous blow to the country’s largest current source of carbon-free
electricity.57 Federal lawmakers should take pains to ensure that all safely-operating existing nuclear generators continue to remain online and
contribute toward a fully carbon-free electricity grid.
Energy Efficiency Targets Linked to a CES

energy efficiency. This is particularly important as we electrify
In parallel with cleaning the carbon out of our electricity system, we must focus on
other sectors and in so doing dramatically increase domestic electricity demand . In their Build Back Better plan Biden and
Harris actually proposed a combined national “Energy Efficiency and Clean Energy Standard” (EECES)84 to drive both efficiency
improvements and the transition to clean generation in utilities and grid operators , on the way to 100% carbon-free
power by 2035. This combined standard has precedent at the state and federal levels, and will warrant attention from federal lawmakers in consideration of CES policies. We propose that a national
Energy Efficiency and Resource Standard (EERS) should be enacted as a complementary policy to a CES . It would play an
important role holding down electricity demand growth while clean energy assets replace existing fossil
fuels— critical support for meeting a 100% CES as fast as possible. Energy efficiency is the great “low hanging fruit” of climate policy, with the potential to cut
domestic greenhouse gas pollution in half by 2050 and generate hundreds of billions of dollars in
consumer savings.85 And energy efficiency can reduce loads during periods of emerging peak demand (hot summer
evenings and cold winter mornings), reducing the amount of power we will need to generate and store. An EERS requires electricity and natural gas providers to reduce energy demand via efficiency measures,
overcoming market barriers and failures86 to chip away at the two-thirds of US electricity production that is currently wasted before end use and by partnering with energy consumers to reduce demand overall.87
Currently, 28 states have standalone EERSs or include energy efficiency as part of their
Renewable Portfolio Standards.88 While there is some variation in the design and implementation of these policies—energy savings targets, regulated entities, and efficiency
delivery mechanisms—the vast majority are successful in reaching their targets. For example , in 2017, states with an EERS policy saved 1.2% in
retail electricity sales on average (measured as a reduction in previous year demand), compared to just 0.3% savings in states
without a policy—this is four times more savings.89 Setting a Federal Energy Efficiency Target Many state EERS policies don’t cover every utility
within the state, with some large industrial ratepayers, rural co-ops, and municipally-owned utilities opting out completely. As a result, the total percentage of retail electricity and gas sales covered by EERS policies
ranges from 50% to 100%90 depending on the state. A national energy efficiency benchmark should be pursued alongside a CES to provide comprehensive efficiency targets and close the gaps in the current state-
based system (Figure 5). Setting a bold retail electricity reduction target, with planned incremental increases, would spur the adoption and improvement of existing energy efficiency technology by retail electricity
and natural gas sellers. A federal goal should be to reduce cumulative electricity demand 25% and natural gas 50% by 2035. Compliance with the federal target can be met in various ways: through enduse efficiency
programs, transmission and distribution infrastructure improvements, and waste heat recapture.91 A federal EERS policy should direct the Department of Energy to establish an efficiency program that delegates
implementation to the states wherever states are willing to take the lead. In this way, states that already maintain robust EERS policies that exceed the federal standard can continue doing so without federal pre-
emption. State policies that fail to meet or exceed the benchmark would be compelled to implement the federal standard. By setting clear, long-term efficiency targets, a nationwide EERS would introduce regulatory
certainty and establish an energy efficiency economic sector, employing hundreds of thousands of Americans.92 A recent economic analysis by the Political Economy Research Institute and the Sierra Club estimates
700,000 jobs could be created in the efficiency sector alone.93 These jobs will employ high-skilled workers in all 50 states—in rural, suburban, and urban communities alike—from industrial engineers and software
developers to manufacturing and construction workers, to design, install, and maintain energy efficiency upgrades. Workers in the energy efficiency sector already benefit from higher-quality jobs, with a rate of
unionization that is nearly 70% higher than the national average.94 And labor and equity mechanisms built into a federal EERS would ensure that these jobs are domestic, high-wage, and unionized. Energy
Efficiency in Frontline Communities Energy efficiency investments should also center equity. As a percentage of their income spent on utility bills, low-income households pay more than three times the amount of
high income households.95 Targeted efficiency investments would help close this affordability gap between low-income and minority households and their wealthier, white counterparts, ensuring a just transition. A
significant and primary portion of utilities’ efficiency investments—and never less than 40%—should flow to low-income, high-need communities. Reforming the Utility Business Model Lost utility revenues may be
a concern for some utilities, though this will be offset in part by federal support for vehicle and building electrification. This policy could preempt that opposition by encouraging states to reform their utility
regulatory processes, to decouple energy sales from revenue.96 More than half of states have adopted rate reconciliation mechanisms for electric and gas utilities, decoupling the recovery of fixed costs from sales.
Leading states have gone further to align incentives by sharing the consumer savings with the utility shareholders – a “shared savings mechanism.”97 Reforming the ratemaking process alongside an EERS
incentivizes utility investment in energy efficiency programs and, with targeted efficiency investments in low income households, maximizes cost-savings for utility customers.98
2NC/1NR — Budget Reconciliation Version
Clean electricity standards and budget go hand in hand
However, as helpful as it would be to eliminate the filibuster in the U.S. Senate, the opportunity to pass a CES is not dependent on success in this regard.
Nor does other meaningful climate legislation—including realizing President Biden’s $2 trillion investment vision—rest on rolling back this outdated and
anachronistic Senate rule. Rather, the new Senate majority empowers federal lawmakers to follow through on their 100% clean energy policy
commitments within the budget process. The undemocratic idiosyncrasies of the U.S. Senate mean that supporters
of climate action now
contemplate use of the “Budget Reconciliation” process to achieve their legislative goals. This process
allows for passage of legislation with a simple majority in the upper chamber. (Fifty-one votes or, 50 votes plus the vice president’s.) Reconciliation has
been historically allowed use in a limited number of times per federal fiscal year and has been confined only to legislation tailored to issues concerning
the federal government’s outlays, revenues, budget and debt limit. While some have voiced skepticism about the possibility of passing CES legislation
via reconciliation, we argue strongly and unequivocally that a CES can absolutely fit within the confines of the “Byrd Rule” that defines its terms. Within
this paper we discuss 3 options that could optimize a well structured CES for successful passage under such a parliamentary strategy, and we further
discuss 3 CES-alternative policies that are aimed at the same goal and should also fit within reconciliation. These 3 federal
CES options are:
1) a federal CES with an “on the books” system for Zero-emissions Energy Credits (ZECs), inside the federal
budget; 2) a CES with Reverse-Auctions for ZECs; 3) and a Mass-Based federal CES. The CES-
alternative policies are: 1) Conditional Block Grants to States for 100% Clean Power; 2) a federal
Carbon-Intensity Standard for Electricity; and 3) Tax Code-Based Clean Electricity Policy. All 6 of
these options are discussed in greater detail in Sec. 2.5. In this paper, we centrally propose that a CES, and related policies that contribute
to full power sector decarbonization, could pass through reconciliation and achieve an 80% reduction in carbon
pollution in the power sector over the 10-year federal budget window that is traditionally germane to reconciliation by 2030, putting
the nation well on its way to fully meeting the goal of 100% clean, carbon free electricity by 2035.
CES can be passed through budget reconciliation

Kelsey Tamborrino, 4-14-2021, Kelsey Tamborrino is an energy reporter and author of
Morning Energy, "Granholm: Reconciliation possible for clean energy standard, but no decisions
made," POLITICO, https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/14/jennifer-granholm-clean-energy-
reconciliation-481545, Accessed July 1, 2021, HYZ
Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said Tuesday there is a potential pathway for a clean energy
standard under Senate reconciliation — a tool that allows passage of some bills with a simple
Senate majority — but cautioned no final decisions have been made. "I think there still are
versions of a clean energy standard that work for Senate reconciliation rules," she said Tuesday.
Granholm made the comments during a virtual appearance at the BloombergNEF Summit, where
she also spoke about the Biden administration's push for good-paying clean energy jobs and
potential tax credit extensions. Clean energy standard: The Energy secretary said no decisions
have been made on how exactly such a standard would work, but said the Biden administration is
open to ways that a CES could work for both "the pockets of this country that might have
concerns" and for those states that have "led by example" by enacting their own standards.
President Joe Biden unveiled an infrastructure and jobs plan last month that proposed a federal
clean electricity standard and in his recent fiscal year 2022 discretionary budget request called for
$1.9 billion in a Building Clean Energy Projects and Workforce Initiative at the Energy
Department in support of it. "So much of it depends on how it is crafted, right?" Granholm said
Tuesday of the potential CES. "The question about whether you can get a clean energy standard
through regular order or reconciliation — all of that still remains to be seen. But there's also a
way to consider crafting something that provides incentives to the states to be able to make that
happen also, so that might be another venue." But the reconciliation pathway could be
challenging, as Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chair Joe Manchin, a moderate Democrat
from West Virginia, wrote in an op-ed recently that he did not "believe budget reconciliation
should replace regular order in the Senate." Granholm stressed however the need for a
mechanism, like a CES, to create strong demand in the U.S. and thus drive supply. "You can't put
the cart of supply before the horse of demand," she said. "You've got to go down both paths and
the clean energy standard is one way to do that."
They Say: “CES Hurts Electricity Providers”
CES helps retail electricity providers and offers different alternatives to help
reach the standard
A Clean Electricity Standard (CES) is a well tested policy approach. It involves establishing a target and a deadline (with
intervening compliance periods) for the electricity sector. This policy creates a performance standard that electricity
suppliers must meet in the execution of their operations: in the percentage of carbon-free electricity that they generate or use to service
customers. A CES offers flexibility for regulated entities by giving them two alternate modes of
compliance to help them meet their obligations under the standard—the purchase of credits through a Zero-
emissions Electricity Credit (ZEC) trading system, and an Alternative Compliance Payment (ACP) . A
ZEC is representative, in relevant state policies, of the environmental, social and other non-power attributes of one megawatt-hour (MWh) of power that
was generated from an eligible clean resource. There are a number of policy considerations in designing a ZEC system. Targets, Compliance and Credits
Similar to Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), and existing CES policies in states across the country, a federal CES can be implemented by setting the
requirement for the share of clean electricity in retail electricity sales and increasing the requirement until it reaches 100% by 2035 .
Each retail
electricity provider (aka load-serving entity or LSE) begins with its current electricity mix, and a requirement
to make demonstrable annual or regular improvements in its generation portfolio to reach that
goal. We believe this requirement should be set as a linear percentage of increases until it reaches
the 100% target in 2035. Each year, the utility must comply with their annual benchmark by retiring ZECs. They can earn those ZEC
credits by generating clean power or through buying them from other generators that have extra credits. If an electric utility falls
short of achieving its compliance obligation, it can pay an Alternative Compliance Payment
(ACP) to the government agency implementing the program, for each unit of power necessary to
meet its annual compliance obligation. In creating a ZEC program, Congress can establish standards with which an entity must
comply in order to qualify to sell ZECs. ZEC markets can also offer an economically efficient solution to
obtaining the cheapest clean energy deployment in the short- to medium-term . However, economic
efficiency cannot be prioritized over regionally equitable reductions in carbon pollution.
Advantage CPs vs. Water Protections
Water Quality Protection Act
1NC — Water Quality Protection Act CP
Plan Text: The Congressional branch of The United States should pass the
Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2021.
The CP solves — clean water and economy.
Levine and Neuwirth 21 — David Levine, American Sustainable Business Council
President, former Founding Director of Continuing Education & Public Programs at The
Graduate Center; Michael Neuwirth, Chief Communications Officer, former Senior Director of
External Communications, holds a B.A. from Vassar, 2021 (“ASBC Endorses the Water Quality
Protection and Job Creation Act as Vital for Stimulating the Economy and Protecting
Businesses,” American Sustainable Business Council, March 17th, Available Online at
https://www.asbcouncil.org/media-release/asbc-endorses-water-quality-protection-and-job-
creation-act-vital-stimulating-economy, Accessed 06-28-2021)
Washington, D.C. – The American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC) released the following
statement endorsing the Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2021, which was
introduced in Congress on Tuesday, March 16 by the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee. The proposed legislation would help close the investment gap in U.S. water
infrastructure by significantly increasing annual authorized funding for the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund program. The legislation also increases funding for several other important
federal water quality programs.
“To protect our businesses and our environment, and to fuel economic activity, America needs a
powerful Federal investment in water infrastructure,” said American Sustainable Business
Council President David Levine. “Congress must swiftly pass the Water Quality Protection and
Job Creation Act and also ensure there is significant funding set aside for climate-resilient green
infrastructure projects and for low-income and marginalized communities.”
Experts project that maintaining current national water infrastructure investment levels would
lead to a $4.5 trillion loss in business sales by 2039 due to flooding and more costly and
unreliable water utility services. Making the necessary investment to achieve a state of good
repair in the nation’s water infrastructure is projected to increase business sales by $5.6 trillion
over the next 20 years.
Levine said, “Making the investments called for in the Water Quality Protection and Job Creation
Act will create needed jobs in the construction, engineering, and planning of water infrastructure
and create a beneficial economic ripple effect for American businesses across the whole
economy.”
ASBC’s Clean Water is Good for Business initiative brings together businesses from across
sectors to educate the public and policy makers about how protecting the nation’s clean water
resources is vital for the economy and businesses.
Levine said, “In addition to stimulating the economy, the Water Quality Protection and Job
Creation Act will help protect the many businesses that depend on clean water for their bottom
line. For most industries, including breweries, outdoor recreation, and countless others, clean
water is vital.
2NC/1NR — Solvency Overview
The CP solves clean water — through investment, the CP addresses water
infrastructure to increase federal assistance. That allows for clean water and
more jobs. That’s Levine and Neuwirth.
The CP solves water quality — infrastructure investment.

DeFazio, Napolitano, and Fitzpatrick 21 — Peter DeFazio, Member of the U.S. House
of Representatives from Oregon's 4th district, Chair of the House Transportation Committee,
served in the United States Air Force Reserve, holds a MA from University of Oregon; Grace F.
Napolitano, U.S. House of Representatives from California, former employ of the Ford Motor
Company, attended Cerritos College; Brian Fitzpatrick, U.S. House of Representatives from
Pennsylvania, former United States Attorney, holds a JD from Penn State, 2021 (“Water Quality
Protection and Job Creation Act of 2021,” The House Committee on Transportation, March 16th,
Available Online at https://transportation.house.gov/committee-activity/issue/water-quality-
protection-and-job-creation-act-of-2021, Accessed 06-25-2021)
Washington, D.C. — Today, Chair of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Chair of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment Grace
F. Napolitano (D-CA), and Representative Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) are set to introduce the
Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2021. This bipartisan legislation would
authorize $50 billion in direct infrastructure investment over the next five years to address
America’s crumbling wastewater infrastructure and local water quality challenges. The bill would
also significantly increase the amount of Federal assistance made available to States and
communities through the successful Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) program—the
primary source of Federal assistance for wastewater infrastructure construction—which has not
been reauthorized by Congress since 1987.
In addition, the Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2021 would create thousands of
jobs in the construction and wastewater sectors, reduce the cost of constructing and maintaining
that infrastructure, accelerate efforts to increase the resiliency of wastewater infrastructure,
promote energy efficiency and water efficiency, reduce the potential long-term operation and
maintenance costs of publicly-owned sewage treatment plants, and clarify requirements that
American-made iron and steel be used for construction of wastewater infrastructure funded under
the Clean Water Act, regardless of whether it is funded through the Clean Water SRF or other
Clean Water infrastructure grant programs.
The CP Solves Hawaii.

KHON2 21 — KHON2, local Hawaii news source, 2021(“Hawaii congressman secures $50M
to address state’s cesspools and wastewater systems,” Khon 2, June 10th, Available Online at
https://www.khon2.com/local-news/hawaii-congressman-secures-50m-to-address-states-
cesspools-and-wastewater-systems/, Accessed 07-01-2021)
The Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2021, a bipartisan bill championed by
Hawaii Congressman Kaialiʻi (Kai) Kahele, would authorize $50 billion in direct infrastructure
investment over the next five years to address America’s crumbling wastewater infrastructure and
local water quality challenges.
Of that amount, $50 million would aid Hawaii’s domestic wastewater systems.
“The current state of Hawaii’s infrastructure and wastewater systems threatens the health of our
people, our land and our oceans. We have to act now to modernize our aging infrastructure by
scaling up and implementing successful programs particularly in rural areas,” said Congressman
Kahele. “I thank the committee for approving my request for $50 million through the Water
Quality Protection and Job Creation Act to address the roughly 88,000 cesspools that contaminate
Hawaii’s drinking water, erode our coral reefs and threaten our coastal ecosystem.”
The CP solves wastewater systems.

Wanek-Libman 10 — Mischa Wanek-Libman, executive editor of Mass Transit magazine,
holds a BA from Drake University, 2021 (“Surface transportation legislation movement in House
and Senate,” Mass Transit, June 11th, Available Online at
https://www.masstransitmag.com/management/article/21226359/surface-transportation-
legislation-movement-in-house-and-senate, Accessed 07-01-2021)
It’s been a busy week for surface transportation legislation on Capitol Hill as the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) approved the $547-billion INVEST in
America Act out of committee following a 19-hour markup of both the surface transportation
legislation, as well as the Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2021.
The legislation includes $109 billion for transit, $95 billion for passenger and freight rail and
$343 billion for roads, bridges and safety over a five-year timeframe. The bill also includes $5.6
billion in Member Designated Projects, informally referred to as earmarks, with more than $1
billion of these projects benefiting 237 transit projects in the U.S.
“Infrastructure is calling, and we are answering with bold legislation that invests in American
workers and communities and lays the groundwork for the president’s visionary Americans Jobs
Plan,” said Chair Peter DeFazio (D-OR-04). “I commend my colleagues for their hard work
helping craft these two bills to deliver what Americans expect and deserve: safe roads and
bridges, reliable transit options and a robust passenger rail network, wastewater systems that
aren’t on the brink of failure, and a commitment to address the existential threat of climate
change. In many ways, the choice couldn’t be easier—because the best part of rebuilding our
infrastructure for the modern era is the incredible opportunity for our nation that comes with it.
We’re talking millions of good-paying jobs that can’t be exported, real and sustained support for
U.S. manufacturing, and the chance to make our nation a world leader once again. This is a once-
in-a-generation opportunity that we can’t afford to miss.”
However, the committee’s Ranking Member Sam Graves (R-MO-06) critiqued the process as
being partisan, citing several amendments put forth by Republican committee members that were
not agreed to during the markup.
“Instead of working with Committee Republicans this year to find a compromise that addresses
priorities for members on both sides of the aisle, the majority elected to move further away from
any middle ground,” the minority included in a recap of the markup.
The bill now moves to the full House for consideration.
On the other side of the Hill, the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation introduced the Surface Transportation Investment Act. The proposal authorizes
$78 billion in rail, multimodal and safety programs over the five-year life of the bill. The
legislation includes $36 billion for rail, $27.8 billion for multimodal grant programs and $13
billion for safety programs.
The proposal includes $1.5 billion annually for the U.S. Department of Transportation’s
Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) grants (formerly
known as BUILD and TIGER grants) and $2 billion annually to fund big dollar value projects of
national significance.
Within the funding for rail, the legislation would authorize more than $25 billion over five years
for intercity passenger rail and $7.5 billion for rail safety and improvement projects. The bill
includes a new $500-million-per-year grant program to eliminate grade crossings and makes
improvements to the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program.
In late breaking news during the evening of June 10, a group of 10 U.S. Senators shared they had
reached a compromise on an infrastructure deal.
The joint statement said, “Our group – comprised of 10 Senators, five from each party – has
worked in good faith and reached a bipartisan agreement on a realistic, compromise framework to
modernize our nation’s infrastructure and energy technologies. This investment would be fully
paid for and not include tax increases. We are discussing our approach with our respective
colleagues, and the White House, and remain optimistic that this can lay the groundwork to
garner broad support from both parties and meet America’s infrastructure needs.”
Investment is the only way to solve for clean water.
“The business community depends on America’s water infrastructure for the health and quality of
life for our employees, customers, and families in the communities where we operate, so we
appreciate the efforts of Chairs DeFazio and Napolitano and Rep. Fitzpatrick for introducing the
Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2021,” Marty Durbin, Senior Vice President for
Policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said. “This bipartisan legislation includes
unprecedented funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund and grants for treatment
of emerging contaminants such as PFAS, among other provisions that will provide good paying,
technical jobs and ensure modern, resilient wastewater infrastructure across our nation.”
“For too long, the costs of clean water have fallen overwhelmingly to local customers and
communities as Federal investment in water declined,” Adam Krantz, CEO of the National
Association of Clean Water Agencies said. “The Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act
of 2021 takes critical steps to increase the federal cost share in clean water, reauthorizing the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund and–critically for communities facing economic hardships–
providing grant programs to help support costly challenges including investment in wet weather
management and resilience.”
“To protect our businesses and our environment, and to fuel economic activity, America needs a
powerful Federal investment in water infrastructure,” David Levine, American Sustainable
Business Council President said. “Failure to do so will increase water pollution and flooding and
result in more costly and unreliable water utility services, harming businesses across all sectors.
Conversely, making investments called for in the Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act
of 2021 will create needed jobs in the construction, engineering, and planning of water
infrastructure and create a beneficial economic ripple effect across the whole economy.”
2NC/1NR — Farming DA NB
We don’t link — The counter plan is not a regulation that would be imposed
on farmers but rather an incentive to get the federal government to clean up
water.
2NC/1NR — Hollow Hope NB
We don’t link — We use congress to do the CP.
They Say: “Doesn’t Help Rural Areas”
Solves for rural and urban communities.
“Our bipartisan legislation will not only make badly-needed investments in America’s crumbling
water infrastructure and help clean up local rivers, it will also create good-paying jobs—
something both Democrats and Republicans can get behind,” Chair DeFazio said. “By
reauthorizing the Clean Water State Revolving Fund for the first time in over three decades, we
have an opportunity to invest in both rural and urban communities alike and ensure that no matter
what zip code a person lives in, they will have access to clean, reliable, and safe water. I look
forward to getting this bill signed into law because clean water can’t wait.”
“The Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act provides funding to address ongoing drought
conditions in the West and support cities with increased stormwater control issues, like many in
my district and across Los Angeles County,” Chair Napolitano said. “Our legislation makes
tremendous investments in water recycling and reuse, groundwater recharge, and stormwater
projects, which are needed now as we confront the global pandemic and long-term for our
recovery. I thank Chair DeFazio and Congressman Fitzpatrick for their partnership on this critical
legislation to boost American jobs, modernize our nation’s water infrastructure, and meet the
needs of communities across America.”
Advantage CPs vs. Extreme Weather
Extreme Weather CP Notes
General Notes
This file includes 6 counterplan variations. Many of the counterplans overlap, so extensions are
organized categorically. The answers are organized by counterplan — you may need to mix-and-
match if the negative does a CP combination, as described below.
The negative was produced by Elizabeth, Jay, Maggie, Paarth, and Sahithi. The file was
organized and the file notes were written by Elizabeth.
The affirmative answers were produced by Stella, Ishan, Rohan M., Rohit, Justin, and Mace.
***CLEAN + Bank + RDRA CP Notes***

What does this CP do?
This counterplan enacts three policies: (1) it implements the CLEAN Future Act, (2) it creates a
national climate bank, and (3) it enacts the Reforming Disaster Recovery Act. See the specific
notes sections for each of these planks for more details on what each entail.
The CP primarily solves the extreme weather, climate change, and environmental justice-related
scenarios. Some parts of the CP may also solve some of the economy scenario, but you may have
to read an additional card in the 1NC to prove that.
***CLEAN Future Act CP Notes***

What is the CLEAN Future Act?
The CLEAN (Climate Leadership and Environmental Action for our Nation’s) Future Act is a
comprehensive bill from the House Energy and Commerce Committee to achieve net zero
greenhouse gas pollution, combat the climate crisis, put Americans back to work, and rebuild the
economy. The act includes general and more sector-specific solutions to achieve these goals,
including two national greenhouse gas pollution targets, a national clean electricity standard,
provisions that promote clean transportation, efficiency, and clean energy, a buy clean program,
state climate plans, a Clean Energy & Sustainability Accelerator (modeled after “green banks”),
environmental justice protections, and initiatives supporting worker and community transitions
away from fossil fuels.
If you want to learn more about the major aspects of the CLEAN Future act, you can read about
the act here: https://energycommerce.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases/ec-leaders-introduce-
the-clean-future-act-comprehensive-legislation-to
Reading the evidence about the CLEAN Future Act in this file can also help with understanding
the policy.
What does the CP do?

The CP enacts the CLEAN Future Act.
The CP mainly solves climate, environmental justice, and economy scenarios.
***DSPGA CP Notes***
What is the DSPGA?
DSPGA = Disaster Safe Power Grid Act.
The DSPGA would ensure that power companies do their part to reduce the risks of power
blackouts and wildland fires through power system upgrades, fire and disaster safety equipment
installation, and proper vegetation management. Through a matching grant program, the
legislation would also incentivize utilities to do more to reduce natural disaster and wildfire risks
while also bearing a substantial responsibility for the costs involved.
For more information, read the evidence related to the DSPGA in this file.

The CP enacts the DSPGA.
The CP primarily solves the extreme weather/blackouts scenario, but there are 2NC/1NR cards
that support access to other scenarios based on strengthening grid resilience.
This CP accesses stronger extreme weather/blackouts solvency than the 3 policies CP but can be
combined with the CP if needed.
The CP is also distinct from the EMP CP in that it enacts a broader policy action focusing on
mitigating blackouts writ large and dealing with companies whereas the EMP CP is more specific
to the WOTUS Aff’s Pry impact about mitigating electromagnetic pulses (EMPs).
***EMP CP Notes***
What is an EMP?
EMP = Electromagnetic Pulse
EMP + HEMP (High Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse) are interchangeable words
General Information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse
What does the EMP CP do?

The CP requires utilities to protect the electric grid from 100 kilovolts/meter E1 electromagnetic
pulse and 85 volts/kilometer E3 electromagnetic pulse.
The reason why these numbers are so specific is because they refer to high EMP levels that would
be bad to experience and we need more protection against. (See 2NC/1NR — EMP Solvency)
Upsides of reading this CP —
- The CP solves the extreme weather/blackouts scenario. The solvency extensions don’t
include many cards, but some of the cards about grid resilience generally from the
2NC/1NR — DSPGA Solvency section also can be applied to this CP.
- You can access a solvency takeout to the plan even if you kick the CP — 1NC Graham
and Pry and 2NC/1NR Pry describe how current bureaucratic barriers prevent actions to
strengthen critical infrastructure despite the litany of measures that have been proposed
and can probably used to characterize the aff as insufficient.
- The 1NC and one of the 2NC/1NR cards are from the WOTUS 1AC’s Pry author so the
CP is more tailored towards the aff’s impact.
Downsides of reading this CP —
- It’s not very clear what “utilities to protect the electric grid” look like whereas the
DSPGA CP outlines more practical measures that also involve companies.
- The CP has a more narrow scope than the DSPGA CP
FYI — EMPs, HEMPs, E1, E2, E3

Horton 19 — Randy Horton, Senior Program Manager of the Electric Power Research
Institute, Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), former
Vice Chair of the NERC Standards Development Team, former Chair of the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation Working Group on Field Measured Overvoltages and their
Analysis, Secretary of IEEE Std. 519 (Harmonics), and Secretary of IEEE Std. 1453 (Flicker) at
the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), holds a PhD degree in electrical
engineering from University of Alabama, holds a Master of Electrical Engineering degree from
Auburn University, holds a B.S. in Electrical Engineering degree from the University of Alabama
at Birmingham (UAB), 2019 (“High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse and the Bulk Power System:
Potential Impacts and Mitigation Strategies,” Electric Power Research Institute, April 29 th,
Available Online at https://www.epri.com/research/summary/000000003002014979, Accessed
07-02-2021)
The detonation of a nuclear weapon at high altitude or in space (~30 km or more above the
earth’s surface) can generate an intense electromagnetic pulse (EMP) referred to as a high-
altitude EMP or HEMP. HEMP can propagate to the earth and impact various ground-based
technological systems such as the electric power grid. Depending on the height of the explosion
above the earth’s surface and the yield of the weapon, the resulting HEMP can be characterized
by three hazard fields, denoted as E1 EMP, E2 EMP, and E3 EMP.
The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) defines the three HEMP hazard fields
based on their distinct characteristics and time scales:
The early time component (E1 EMP) consists of an intense, short-duration electromagnetic pulse
characterized by a rise time of 2.5 nanoseconds and amplitude on the order of tens of kV/m (up to
50 kV/m at the most severe location on the ground).
The intermediate time component (E2 EMP) is considered an extension of E1 EMP and has an
electric field pulse amplitude on the order of 0.1 kV/m and duration of one microsecond to
approximately ten milliseconds.
The late time component (E3 EMP) is a very low frequency (below 1 Hz) pulse with amplitude
on the order of tens of V/km with duration of one second to hundreds of seconds. E3 EMP is
often compared with severe geomagnetic disturbance (GMD) events; however, the intensity of E3
EMP can be orders of magnitude more severe, and E3 EMP is much shorter in duration than
GMD events, which can last for several days.
Potential impacts of HEMP vary depending on the component (E1 EMP, E2 EMP, or E3 EMP)
that is responsible for the resulting disruption or damage.
The geographic area exposed to varying levels of E1 EMP fields can be quite large, as the area of
coverage is characterized by the line of sight from where the weapon is exploded to the
horizon. For example, a detonation at 200 km can affect a circular area of on the order of 3
million square miles. However, not all areas included within the circular region experience the
maximum electric field, and strength of the field falls off with distance from the ground zero
location. The incident E1 EMP can couple to overhead lines and cables, exposing connected
equipment to voltage and current surges (referred to as the conducted threat). The resulting E1
EMP can also radiate equipment directly (referred to as the radiated threat). Potential impacts
from E1 EMP on the electric transmission system include disruption or damage of electronics
such as digital protective relays (DPRs), communication systems , and supervisory control and
data acquisition (SCADA) systems .
The characteristics of E2 EMP are often compared with nearby lightning strikes. However, it is
important to understand that E2 EMP does not couple to overhead lines or cables in the more
traditional sense of how lightning strikes a transmission tower or a conductor. Rather, E2 EMP
couples to conductors through the air, like E1 EMP. This coupling mechanism is similar to how
the field created by a nearby lightning strike couples to an overhead transmission line. Because
the amplitude of the incident E2 EMP field is quite low (0.1 kV/m), impacts to the transmission
system are not expected to occur .
E3 EMP induces low-frequency (quasi-dc) currents in transmission lines and transformers. The
flow of these geomagnetically induced currents (GICs) in transformer windings can cause
magnetic saturation of transformer cores, which causes transformers to generate harmonic
currents, absorb significant quantities of reactive power, and experience additional hotspot
heating in windings and structural parts. Potential impacts of E3 EMP on the bulk power system
can include voltage collapse (regional blackout) and transformer damage due to additional
hotspot heating.
***RDRA CP Notes***
What is the RDRA?
RDRA = Reforming Disaster Recovery Act
The RDRA is legislation aimed at mitigating natural disasters improving the speed of community
recovery after disaster strike. An earlier version called the DRRA passed, but the CP argues it
needs to be expanded. To do this, the CP would permanently authorize the Community
Development Block Grant Disaster Relief (CDBG-DR) Program, provide long-term rebuilding
resources, and strengthen administration of the program to ensure that low-income households,
children, people with disabilities, and others affected by disasters are not left behind. It would
also include measures to make disaster response more consistent, improve resource
distribution/use, and strengthen mitigation standards.
For more information, read the 1NC and 2NC/1NR evidence related to this act.

It enacts the RDRA.
The CP solves the extreme weather scenario at the internal link level.
***National Climate Bank CP Notes***

What is a national climate bank?
A national climate bank would be a bank public and private institutions could invest where the
money would be put into investment towards renewable energy, clean transportation, community
support, stronger infrastructure, etc. The government would have to invest money in the bank at
first, but private institutions could also do so as well after the bank is established. Currently, there
are already some subnational climate banks but none at the national level.

It implements a national climate bank.
This CP solves the climate scenario the best but can probably be applied to solve parts of various
other modules like extreme weather (it increases infrastructure resilience) or the economy (it
creates economic returns and increases jobs).
Generally, it’s probably better to read the CLEAN + Bank + RDRA CP instead (it includes this
CP as a plank) because it covers more ground in terms of solving aff impacts, but this CP is an
individual option in case you do not want to read those other planks. A benefit to reading it as its
own CP or combining it with another CP that doesn’t mandate something could be that it links
less to the Farming DA.
***User Guide***
File organization notes
Because of the overlapping areas between some counterplans, the file is organized categorically
in 1NC and 2NC/1NR sections.
Cards are generally ordered alphabetically under 2NC/1NR Solvency sections except for the 1 st
card occasionally being a more general card.
The CLEAN Future Act Solvency extensions are divided into general, emission, clean energy and
blackouts/grid sections because that is how solvency is categorically split up from the cards.
- If you read cards from the 2NC/1NR — CLEAN Future Act Solvency (Emissions)
section, I recommend you read the first card in that section first and then use other cards
from that section (if you plan on reading addition cards from that section) as benefits of
reducing emissions post-CP.
- The 2NC/1NR — CLEAN Future Act Solvency section includes some cards about
adopting 100% Wind-Water-Solar (WWS). Those apply because the CLEAN Future Act
includes a goal to achieve a 100% clean economy.
Many of the solvency extensions are titled “warrant — explanation.” This is meant to help with
labeling arguments when you extend solvency but as always, you are free to retag, rehighlight,
etc. cards as necessary in debates/when using evidence in the file.
When should I run each CP?

See each CP notes sections for what scenarios each CP solves.
You can run the CPs separately, pick and choose between CPs, or combine CPs as needed.
1NCs
1NC — CLEAN + Bank + RDRA CP
Text: The United States federal government should:
- Enact the Climate Leadership and Environmental Action for our
Nation’s Future Act,
- Create a national climate bank, and
- Enact the Reforming Disaster Recovery Act.
The CP solves — it’s a comprehensive solution to strengthen climate policies

and infrastructure and support communities.
Ortiz and Kelly 20 — Guillermo Ortiz, Sustainabilty & Diversity Educational Programs
Manager at the University of California, Merced, former Research Associate for Energy and
Environment at the Center for American Progress, former Legislative Correspondent for the
United States Senator Robert Menendez, former Fellow at the Clean Energy Leadership Institute,
former STEM Public Policy Fellow at the Office of Economic Impact and Diversity in the
Department of Energy, former Sustainability Consultant for the Third Partners LLC, holds a
Bachelor’s degree in Global Environmental Change and Sustainability from John Hopkins
University, and Cathleen Kelly, Senior Fellow for Energy and Environment at the Center for
American Progress specializing in international and U.S. climate mitigation, preparedness,
resilience, and sustainable development policy, former Deputy Associate Director of Climate
Change Adaptation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality during the Obama
administration, former Director of the Climate & Energy Program at The German Marshall Fund,
former Policy Director and Senior Policy Adviser at The Nature Conservancy and the Center for
Clean Air Policy, former Professor of International and Environmental Policy at the Johns
Hopkins University Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), holds a
Master of Arts in international relations and energy and environmental policy, 2020 (“3 Bold
Actions Congress Should Take to Equitably Address Weather and Climate Disasters,” Center for
American Progress, January 30th, Available Online at
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2020/01/30/479843/3-bold-actions-
congress-take-equitably-address-weather-climate-disasters/, Accessed 06-25-2021)
To hold global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels and safeguard
communities from climate change impacts, the United States will need an ambitious framework
for climate action that is centered on achieving economic, racial, and environmental justice.
Failure to mobilize the needed resources and build a strong and diverse coalition—including
environmental justice advocates, labor organizations, environmental groups, and more— to act on
climate will threaten the nation’s public health, national security, and economy, as well as
exacerbate wealth and racial inequality. Congress should immediately take the actions detailed
below in order to significantly reduce U.S. greenhouse gas and other pollution and build
healthy and safe communities and infrastructure.
1. Design national climate policies to reduce pollution in front-line communities
To build broad support for national climate action, Congress must design comprehensive
climate legislation that delivers real benefits to communities, including improved air and water
quality, climate-ready housing and infrastructure, and good jobs with family-sustaining wages.
The Equitable and Just National Climate Platform, which the Center for American Progress co-
authored with 12 environmental justice groups and seven national environmental organizations
and which has been signed by more than 240 community and national groups, states that such
action “will require a realignment of public dollars at all levels toward policy structures that rely
heavily on holistic nonmarket-based regulatory mechanisms that explicitly account for local
impacts.” The platform recognizes that “[u]nless justice and equity are central components of
our climate agenda, the inequality of the carbon-based economy will be replicated in the new
economy.”
On January 8, 2020, Reps. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), Paul Tonko (D-NY), and Bobby L. Rush (D-
IL) of the House Energy and Commerce Committee announced the framework of their draft
Climate Leadership and Environmental Action for our Nation’s (CLEAN) Future Act, which
aims to put the nation on track to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas pollution (GHG) by 2050. On
January 28, the committee released a discussion draft of the CLEAN Future Act. This effort
creates a critical opportunity to design climate legislation to improve the health and well-being
of all communities, particularly those in which pollution historically has been concentrated.
According to Nicky Sheats, co-founder and chair of the board of the New Jersey Environmental
Justice Alliance, climate change mitigation policy should be specifically designed to reduce
emissions in EJ communities. In an October 2019 interview with CAP, Sheats discussed why
climate mitigation policy should not only curb climate change but also reduce locally harmful
GHG co-pollutants in EJ communities to improve residents’ health and quality of life. He
emphasized that “if we do climate change mitigation policy in a business-as-usual way, which
means not paying attention to environmental justice and equity up front, … [there’s a] very good
chance we’re going to reproduce those inequalities or make things worse in the neighborhoods
that have the most pollution now.”
To more equitably tackle climate change, national climate legislation must include policies that
require polluting facilities in or near low-income neighborhoods and communities of color to
reduce their emissions significantly.
2. Create a National Climate Bank
Congress should also create a National Climate Bank to drive public and private investment into
renewable energy, clean transportation, and community resilience projects, particularly in front-
line communities such as economically disadvantaged communities, tribal communities, and
communities of color. In July 2019, Sens. Edward Markey (D-MA) and Chris Van Hollen (D-
MD) introduced the National Climate Bank Act to expand investments in clean energy,
transportation, and infrastructure to reduce carbon and other pollution and improve the health and
well-being of communities. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) introduced similar legislation in the
House in December 2019. Her legislation proposes that the National Climate Bank be capitalized
with $35 billion over six years to leverage up to $1 trillion in private investment. According to
Rep. Dingell, “Establishing a National Climate Bank will serve as an important
implementation tool to achieve this goal by publicly financing and stimulating private
investments” in renewable energy and “clean transportation,” as well as provide support to
communities that bear the brunt of climate change.
Meanwhile, if the CLEAN Future Act is enacted, it would create a “first-of-its-kind National
Climate Bank … to provide financing for low- and zero-emissions energy technologies, climate
resiliency, building efficiency and electrification, industrial decarbonization, grid modernization,
agriculture projects, and clean transportation.” Like the House and Senate National Climate Bank
bills, the CLEAN Future Act would require the bank to prioritize investments in “frontline, rural,
low-income and environmental justice communities.”
Similar to the State Future Funds that CAP proposed in 2015, the National Climate Bank is a
forward-thinking approach to supporting future-ready infrastructure and access to clean,
affordable energy and transportation options to improve community health and safety.
Congress can begin to tackle past inequities and unfair infrastructure practices by requiring that at
least 60 percent of proposed National Climate Bank capital be invested in communities with the
greatest need.
3. Permanently authorize the CDBG-DR Program
To improve the speed of community recovery after disaster strikes, Congress should pass the
Reforming Disaster Recovery Act of 2019, which would permanently authorize the Community
children, people with disabilities, and others affected by disasters are not left behind.
After a presidentially declared disaster, CDBG-DR funds are allocated to states, counties, and
cities to fund construction or rehabilitation projects, recovery planning and administration, and
predisaster mitigation activities. Under the CDBG-DR Program, after Congress passes a disaster
supplemental appropriation, the Department of Housing and Urban Development is required to
issue a Federal Register notice that sets requirements and waivers for each individual CDBG-DR
allocation. Since this process occurs on a case-by-case basis, the delivery of disaster assistance to
the communities that need it most is often delayed.
The potential for the Reforming Disaster Recovery Act to become law is promising: It
unanimously passed the House Financial Services Committee in July 2019 and passed the House
of Representatives with bipartisan support the following November. By passing the Reforming
Disaster Recovery Act and adequately funding the CDBG-DR Program, Congress can ensure
faster disaster recovery for front-line communities across the United States.
Conclusion
Reducing the devastating impacts of extreme weather and climate events demands bold and
decisive action from federal, state, and local policymakers before, during, and after natural
disasters. By designing equitable climate policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and co-
pollutants in areas overburdened by poor air and water quality and by improving community
health and safety, Congress can support economic security and address the unfair and
reprehensible legacy of racial and wealth inequality in the United States.
1NC — CLEAN Future Act CP
Text: The United States federal government should enact the Climate
Leadership and Environmental Action for our Nation’s Future Act.
The CP solves the climate, environmental justice, and economy scenarios — it

reduces pollution, increases clean energy, supports communities, and increases
jobs.
Castor 21 — Kathy Castor, Member of the U.S. House of Representatives (D-FL), Chair of the
House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, holds a J.D. from Florida State University
College of Law, 2021 (“Unleashing an American-led clean energy economy to reach net-zero
emissions,” The Hill, April 12th, Available Online at
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/547474-unleashing-an-american-led-
clean-energy-economy-to, Accessed 06-25-2021) SM
It’s often said that nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come. In 2021, that idea
is powerfully simple: We can reach net-zero emissions in the United States by the middle of the
century, all while creating millions of jobs, ensuring justice for vulnerable Americans, protecting
our public health and our national security, and strengthening communities against more frequent
and costly extreme weather events. By the time we reach 2050, we’ll be able to look back
knowing we saved countless lives, reduced pollution across the board and met our science-based
deadline to protect families and businesses from climate-fueled risks. ¶ We have a long road ahead
of us, and there are hundreds of policies and solutions that can help get us to net zero. In fact, I’ve
counted at least 700 of them. Last Congress, I was tasked with putting together a comprehensive
framework of policies to solve the climate crisis, as the chair of the newly formed House Select
Committee on the Climate Crisis. With the help of my colleagues — and with the valued advice
of scientists, environmental justice champions, farmers, tribal leaders, union members and
countless other experts — I led our select committee as we drafted the Climate Crisis Action
Plan, which includes hundreds of policy recommendations to help the United States reach net-
zero emissions by 2050, or earlier, and net-negative emissions thereafter. When we released the
plan last summer, one journalist called it “the most detailed and well-thought-out plan for
addressing climate change that has ever been a part of U.S. politics.” This Congress, we’re
building on that progress by helping turn our recommendations into legislation, including
ambitious bills like the wide-ranging Climate Leadership and Environmental Action for our
Nation’s (CLEAN) Future Act. ¶ Introduced by Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman
Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), along with subcommittee chairs Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) and Bobby
Rush (D-Ill.), the CLEAN Future Act would significantly reduce pollution in the United States
by decarbonizing the power sector, the building sector, the transportation sector and the industrial
sector. As a longtime member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I’m amazed by the
breadth of this legislative effort; if passed, this bill alone would help get America to net zero by
2050. The CLEAN Future Act will ensure American families can power their homes with 100
percent clean electricity by creating a nationwide clean electricity goal. It also will make our
buildings more energy efficient, reduce pollution from surface transportation and construction,
and put environmental justice at the center of our nation’s environmental laws. Most importantly,
the CLEAN Future Act will put millions of Americans to work. It will allow us to hire utility
workers to bring cleaner, cheaper energy to millions of homes and businesses, as well as welders,
roofers, plumbers, engineers and auto workers. And it will ensure our progress in the years ahead
won’t leave behind Black, brown and tribal communities, or the low-income Americans whose
lives have been further upended by the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. ¶ Before
the pandemic, the clean energy sector was already the fastest growing job creator in America.
And as we invest in building the infrastructure needed for more energy efficient homes and
electric vehicles, we can put millions of Americans to work in blue-collar jobs that don’t require a
college degree. Solving the climate crisis means rebuilding our nation in a way that makes our
economy stronger , our way of life more sustainable and our society more just . Take solar and
wind energy: By investing in these clean sources of electricity, we can save families money on
their utility bills, bring union jobs to communities across the nation, reduce our dependence on
foreign oil and drive down pollution to help us meet our emissions goals. The same goes for
infrastructure spending: Every $1 we spend on resilience and mitigation saves us $6 in reduced
costs and risks, as we make every penny go toward protecting communities instead of waiting for
the next disaster to strike. ¶ There has never been a more crucial time to act on climate. It’s
incredible to think of the many challenges our nation can tackle at once by working to unleash an
American-led clean energy economy, whether it’s through advancing renewable technologies or
making our infrastructure more resilient. It’s time we make the right investments that will power
our 21st century economy, putting Americans to work and helping us reach net zero as fast as the
science requires.
1NC — DSPGA CP
Text: The United States federal government should enact the Disaster Safe
Power Grid Act.
The DSPGA solves blackouts by increasing funding, grid resilience, and

accountability.
Wyden 21 — Ron Wyden, Member of the U.S. Senate (D-OR), Chair of the Senate Finance
Committee, holds a J.D. from the University of Oregon School of Law, 2021 (“Wyden, Merkley
Introduce Bill to Ensure More Disaster Resilient Power Grid,” Press Release, March 11 th,
Available Online at https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-merkley-
introduce-bill-to-ensure-more-disaster-resilient-power-grid, Accessed 06-25-2021) PB
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., today introduced
legislation that would provide incentives to utility companies to do more to protect against power
outages and wildfires as the climate emergency hits communities in Oregon and nationwide with
extreme weather events.
Wyden and Merkley's Disaster Safe Power Grid Act would ensure that power companies do their
part to reduce the risks of power blackouts and wildland fires through power system upgrades,
fire and disaster safety equipment installation, and proper vegetation management. The legislation
follows recent instances of how snow and ice storms in Oregon and around the country strained
utility infrastructure and caused widespread blackouts, as well as the continued risk of wildfires
igniting aging power line infrastructure.
“In the last year alone, families in Oregon and around the country have felt the severe impacts of
the climate emergency in their communities – some losing power for days because of the recent
winter storms, and others losing their homes because of wildfires sparked by aging power lines,”
Wyden said. “The climate fight must include a significant investment in making our power grid
more resilient to extreme weather events and that means partnering with utility companies to get
the job done. This is a public safety issue, and as another dry summer is imminent, there's not
time to wait.”
“No American should have to worry about their life being at risk because they’ve been stranded
for days or weeks on end without electricity, or because their community is on the verge of being
enveloped in a catastrophic wildfire started by a power line spark,” said Merkley. “Especially as
summer droughts and intense winter storms become more common, now is the time to invest in
our power grids and reduce the chance of outages or sparks. Let’s pass the Disaster Safe Power
Grid Act and make all of our communities safer.”
Through a matching grant program, the Disaster Safe Power Grid Act would incentivize utilities
to do more to reduce natural disaster and wildfire risks while also bearing a substantial
responsibility for the costs involved. By partnering with utilities around the country, the federal
government can increase disaster and wildfire mitigation efforts at a modest cost to the public—a
risk prevention and safety enhancement investment that will pay dividends.
The Disaster Safe Power Grid Act:
* Establishes a $10 billion-per-year matching grant program for power companies through the
Department of Energy to reduce the risk of disaster-caused outages or power lines causing
wildfires.
* Gives special priority to smaller, rural electric companies.
* Promotes proven methods for hardening the power grid and reducing wildfire risks, including
undergrounding of powerlines, installation of microgrids, and strengthening utility poles.
* Provides for hardening of overhead power lines and clearing of brush and other hazardous
vegetation where undergrounding of power lines is not a favorable option.
* Requires power companies to have “skin in the game” by making the program a 1-to-1
matching grant, with an exception for smaller utilities where the matching requirement is one
third of the grant.
* Delivers accountability on the part of utilities and the Department of Energy by generating a
report every two years on efforts conducted under the grant program.
1NC — EMPs CP
Text: The United States federal government should require utilities to protect
the electric grid from 100 kilovolts/meter E1 electromagnetic pulse and 85
volts/kilometer E3 electromagnetic pulse.
The CP solves the blackouts scenario — it overcomes bureaucratic barriers

preventing increased protection. This also proves the plan doesn’t solve even if
we kick the CP — their impact is about EMP attacks, not extreme weather.
Graham and Pry 18 — William R. Graham, former Chair of the statutory Commission to
Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack, former Chair and CEO
of National Security Research, Inc.—a consulting firm providing policy analysis and strategic
and technology assessment support, former Director of the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy and Science Adviser to President Reagan, former Chair of President Reagan’s
General Advisory Committee on Arms Control, holds a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from
Stanford University, and Peter Vincent Pry, Executive Director of the Task Force on National and
Homeland Security—a Congressional Advisory Board, Director of the United States Nuclear
Strategy Forum—a Congressional Advisory Board, former Chief of Staff of the statutory
Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack, former
Professional Staff on the U.S. House Armed Services Committee, former Intelligence Officer
with the Central Intelligence Agency, holds a Ph.D. in Defense and National Security Policy from
the University of Southern California, 2018 (“Ignoring EMP threat is a death sentence for
Americans,” The Hill, October 16th, Available Online at
https://thehill.com/opinion/cybersecurity/411451-ignoring-emp-threat-is-a-death-sentence-for-
americans, Accessed 06-29-2021) SM
In 2008, the statutory Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from
Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack delivered over 100 recommendations to Congress to protect
the national electric grid and other life-sustaining critical infrastructures — including
communications, transportation, energy, business and finance, food and water. We were hopeful
the job would get done. ¶ Following an EMP attack, 326 million Americans could not long
survive bereft of the electronic civilization that sustains their lives. EMP would be a civilization
killer. ¶ The EMP commission reports are “good news,” because they prove there is no excuse for
the nation to be vulnerable. Electric grids and other life-sustaining critical infrastructures can be
protected — affordably. For example, the 2008 report estimates that the electric grid’s bulk-
power system can be hardened to survive for a few billion dollars. ¶ So, in 2008, when the EMP
Commission delivered what we thought then was our final report to Congress, we were hopeful
America soon would be protected. ¶ However, by 2015 — 20 years after the first open
congressional EMP hearing in 1995 — the U.S. Government Accountability Office testified to
Congress that not a single major recommendation of the EMP Commission had yet been
implemented. Not one. ¶ Consequently, Congress re-established the EMP Commission in 2015-
2017 to re-examine[d] the threat and to make further recommendations. ¶ The commission
concludes in its new reports that the threat to electric grids and other life-sustaining critical
infrastructures is just as great, or greater, than in 2008. U.S. military power, the national economy
and civil society are increasingly dependent upon electricity and electronics that are vulnerable to
EMP. ¶ And, now, North Korea has nuclear missiles and satellites that could execute an EMP
attack on the United States. ¶ Moreover, on July 23, 2012, a massive and energetic solar coronal
mass ejection crossed the orbit of the Earth, narrowly missing our planet by a few days. NASA
now estimates the likelihood of a solar superstorm, of worldwide magnitude like the 1859
Carrington Event, is 12 percent per decade. ¶ Perhaps the most alarming conclusion of the new
EMP Commission reports is that the U.S. government has been incapable of protecting our
electronic civilization from EMP extinction. ¶ The EMP commissioners mostly are from a
generation accustomed to thinking of the U.S. government as having the wisdom, vision and
competence to successfully accomplish great enterprises in the national interest and protect our
nation from existential threats. For example: ¶ During World War II, the U.S. government
transformed its almost nonexistent U.S. Army into liberators of Western Europe and Asia and the
“Arsenal of Democracy” that defeated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. ¶ The Manhattan
Project (1942-1945) invented the atomic bomb and built the scientific-industrial infrastructure
that sustained nuclear deterrence, preserved peace and won the Cold War. ¶ In 1954, with the
launch of the USS Nautilus, the so-called U.S. Nuclear Navy soon included nuclear-powered
aircraft carriers, cruisers, attack and ballistic missile submarines. ¶ The 1956 Dwight D.
Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways launched construction of the
world’s largest highway system, 50,000 road miles costing $120 billion, for commercial and
defense purposes. ¶ In 1958, President Eisenhower’s National Aeronautics and Space Act created
NASA, responding to the USSR’s launch of a satellite causing the “Sputnik crisis.” NASA sent
men to the moon in 1969 and won the space race. ¶ Whatever happened to the U.S. government
capable of such feats? ¶ Bureaucratic politics, negligence and gross incompetence accounts for
why the U.S. government has failed to protect Americans from the existential threat that is EMP.
For example: ¶ The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is a rotating door for
lawyers and lobbyists serving electric utilities and has been “captured” by the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), which is essentially a lobby for the electric power
industry. ¶ The Department of Defense (DOD) over-classifies data on the EMP threat and
hardening techniques needed by electric utilities and private sectors to protect the critical
infrastructures, indifferent to the fact that DOD cannot defend the nation without electricity from
the national grids. ¶ The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), bereft of data on the real EMP
threat from DOD, relies for EMP expertise on novices working for the Department of Energy.
The Department of Energy (DOE) relies for EMP expertise on novices, bureaucrats and erroneous
“junk science” studies by recent administrations and electric power industries. ¶ Despite President
Trump’s direction to the U.S. government in his National Security Strategy that the nation’s
electric grid and other life-sustaining critical infrastructures be EMP-protected, and despite
Congress in the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act ordering protection of the nation from EMP
as a legal obligation, bureaucrats in DHS and DOE have, to date, deliberately ignored or
dismissed the guidance of the president, the Congress and the EMP Commission. ¶ The
bureaucratic Gordian knot preventing national EMP preparedness appears to be a greater
challenge than winning World War II, the invention of the atomic bomb, the development of the
nuclear navy, building the national highway system or sending men to the moon. ¶ What is
needed, as recommended by the commission, is White House leadership , an executive agent
appointed by the president — or, perhaps President Trump himself taking charge of national EMP
preparedness — to plough through a resistant federal bureaucracy, the way that President
Roosevelt did with the Manhattan Project or President Eisenhower with the national highway
system. Protecting our electronic civilization is easy to do: A FERC regulation requiring utilities
to protect the electric grid from 100 kilovolts/meter E1 EMP and 85 volts/kilometer E3 EMP
would seriously address, and eventually solve, the problem.
1NC — RDRA CP
Text: The United States federal government should enact the Reforming
Disaster Recovery Act.
The RDRA solves by mitigating disasters and aiding recovery.

Green 19 — Al Green, Member of the U.S. House of Representatives (D-TX), Member of the
U.S. House Committee on Financial Services, holds a J.D. from Texas Southern University, 2019
(Dear Colleague Letter in Support of the Reforming Disaster Recovery Act of 2019, Available
Online at http://dearcolleague.us/2019/11/vote-yes-on-h-r-3702-reforming-disaster-recovery-act-
of-2019-3/, Accessed 06-29-2021) MS
Today, the House will consider H.R. 3702, the bi-partisan Reforming Disaster Recovery Act of
2019, which passed unanimously out of Committee earlier this year. The bill codifies for the first
time the fundamental requirements and policy objectives of the Community Development Block
Grant-Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) program. Since 1993, HUD has been charged with
administering this program to provide critical funding to grantees impacted by natural disasters
and other extreme events. In that time, appropriations under the program have grown
exponentially, recently nearing $100 billion following the 2017 hurricanes and wildfires.
In the absence of a statutory framework governing the disaster recovery aspects of CDBG, HUD
is required to rewrite the rules for the CDBG-DR program each time Congress appropriates
funding, literally reinventing the wheel after every disaster . Promulgating new rules for such a
pivotal program, sometimes on a yearly basis, has led to confusion, needless delays, and
understandable frustration for taxpayers and localities trying to recover
from disaster. This is why our bill is so important. Specifically, the bill would:
Authorize HUD to provide for consistency in the disaster recovery process. Once enacted, the
bill directs HUD to undertake a formal rulemaking pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act
in order to develop widely-applicable procedures and program requirements for all future
disasters, with notice to and comment from all interested parties.
Ensure timely and efficient distribution of relief funds to disaster victims. By setting
reasonable timeframes for agency action on approval, disapproval, and amendment of grantee
action plans, the bill eliminates long delays that currently plague the program, in some cases
nearly two years since appropriation of funds.
End bureaucratic delays and barriers to prompt, fair distribution of disaster relief resources as
intended and appropriated by Congress. By codifying the ground rules within federal statute, the
bill will eliminate the need under current appropriations for HUD to reinvent the wheel after
every disaster through serial, labor-intensive and time-consuming notice and comment processes.
Safeguard against misuse of program resources at all levels. The bill protects taxpayer dollars
against the risk of fraud or misuse by dedicating substantial resources to oversight, audits, and
inspections by HUD’s Office of the Inspector General, which contributed to the drafting of the
legislation and has called for its passage.
Incorporate 21st Century mitigation resiliency standards. These standards will help ensure
CDBG-DR funds are invested into projects that are better able to withstand future disasters .
1NC — National Climate Bank CP
Text: The United States federal government should create a national climate
bank.
The CP solves — it increases investments towards clean energy, community

support, and stronger infrastructure.
2. Create a National Climate Bank
Congress should also create a National Climate Bank to drive public and private investment into
renewable energy, clean transportation, and community resilience projects, particularly in front-
line communities such as economically disadvantaged communities, tribal communities, and
communities of color. In July 2019, Sens. Edward Markey (D-MA) and Chris Van Hollen (D-
MD) introduced the National Climate Bank Act to expand investments in clean energy,
Rep. Dingell, “Establishing a National Climate Bank will serve as an important
implementation tool to achieve this goal by publicly financing and stimulating private
investments” in renewable energy and “clean transportation,” as well as provide support to
communities that bear the brunt of climate change.
Meanwhile, if the CLEAN Future Act is enacted, it would create a “first-of-its-kind National
Climate Bank … to provide financing for low- and zero-emissions energy technologies, climate
resiliency, building efficiency and electrification, industrial decarbonization, grid modernization,
agriculture projects, and clean transportation.” Like the House and Senate National Climate Bank
bills, the CLEAN Future Act would require the bank to prioritize investments in “frontline, rural,
low-income and environmental justice communities.”
affordable energy and transportation options to improve community health and safety.
Congress can begin to tackle past inequities and unfair infrastructure practices by requiring that at
least 60 percent of proposed National Climate Bank capital be invested in communities with the
greatest need.
2NC/1NR
2NC/1NR — CLEAN Future Act Solvency (General)
The CLEAN Future Act directs action to achieve a national goal of zero
emissions and 100% clean energy.
Craddock and Noe 21 — Elizabeth Leoty Craddock, Special Counsel and Member of the
Government Relations Team at Jones Walker LLP—one of the largest law firms in the United
States, former Vice President of Policy and Government Affairs at the International Association
of Drilling Contractors, former Staff Director of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, former Legislative Director and Counsel at the U.S. Senate, holds a J.D. from Tulane
University Law School, and James W. Noe, Partner in the Government Relations Practice Group
and Member of the Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources Industry Team at Jones Walker
LLP, Advisory Board Member at the Louisiana State Energy Law Center, holds a J.D. from
Louisiana State University, 2021 (“The ‘CLEAN’ Future Is Coming, Are You Ready?,” The
National Law Review, Volume XI, Number 75, March 16th, Available Online at
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/clean-future-coming-are-you-ready, Accessed 07-05-2021)
SM
In early March, the House Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee released their
legislative blueprint for tacking climate change, entitled the Climate Leadership and
Environmental Action for our Nation’s Future Act, or the CLEAN Future Act. This bill is nearly
1,000 pages in length and touches almost every segment of the economy . While Congress is
still a long way off from any bipartisan climate legislation being enacted, the CLEAN Future Act
is a glimpse into what the House Democratic leadership is thinking and planning for the
years to come — a great road map for companies that might be impacted by this legislation. ¶ The
legislation starts with an overall interim goal to reduce greenhouse gas pollution by no less than
50% below 2005 levels, by no later than 2030, and a national goal for the United States to achieve
a 100% clean economy by no later than 2050. It directs the head of each federal agency to
develop a plan to achieve the overall national goal in conjunction with all other federal
agencies. ¶ The bulk of the goal attainment seems to rest[s] on a “zero-emissions electricity
requirement” that requires retail electricity suppliers to provide an increasing percentage
of clean electricity each year starting in 2023, rising to 80% in 2030, and 100% in 2035. Clean
energy is defined as “economy wide, net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, or negative greenhouse
gas emissions, after annual accounting for sources and sinks of anthropogenic greenhouse gas
emissions consistent with the coverage of emissions reported by the United States under the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.” The legislation would create[s] a
zero-emissions electricity credit trading program and allow[s] for alternative compliance
payments. ¶ There are too many provisions of the legislation to cover in this alert but suffice to
say they are wide ranging and almost impossible for a business or local or state government to
avoid. Here is a sampling: siting of interstate electric transmission facilities, distributed
energy resources, energy-saving building codes, emissions standards for new non-road
engines, a Clean School Bus Program, a Clean Cities Coalition Program, electric vehicles
and charging infrastructure, air pollution reduction at ports, environmental justice
initiatives, methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sectors, energy workforce
development, and financial disclosures related to climate change. Companies planning for the
future should ask themselves how they would fare under this new framework. Now is the time to
get ready for the CLEAN Future — opportunities exist to engage with members of Congress to
mitigate the impacts of this legislation or even work to include provisions that would be
beneficial. The CLEAN Future is coming, whether through this Congress or a future one — we
are here to help you get ready for it.
Distinct Policy — the CLEAN Future Act stands out from other climate
legislation.
Lashof et. al. 21 — Dan Lashof, Director of the World Resources Institute United States,
former Chief Operating Officer of the NextGen Policy Center, former Director of the Climate and
Clean Air Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, former Member of Governor
McAuliffe’s Climate Change and Resiliency Update Commission, holds a Doctorate from the
Energy and Resources Group from the University of California, Berkeley, holds a Bachelor's
degree in Physics and Mathematics from Harvard University, Devashree Saha, Senior Associate
at WRI United States, former Director of Energy & Environmental Policy for the Council of State
Government (CSG), former Senior Policy Associate and Associate Fellow at the Brookings
Institution, former Senior Policy Analyst for the National Governors Association Center for Best
Practices, holds a Ph.D in public policy from the University of Texas at Austin, holds a master’s
degree in political science from Purdue University, Karl Hausker, Senior Fellow in WRI’s
Climate Program, former Vice President at ICF International, former Deputy Director at the
Center for Climate Strategies, former Deputy Assistant Administrator in EPA’s Policy Office
during Clinton’s administration, former Chief Economist for the U.S. Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, holds a M.P.P and Ph.D. in Public Policy from University of
California, Berkeley, holds a Bachelor’s degree in Economics from Cornell University, Greg
Carlock, Manager for Climate Action and Data in WRI United States, former GHG Mitigation
and Sustainability Manager at ICF International, former Research Assistant for the Joint Global
Change Research Institute, holds a Masters in Environmental Policy from the University of
Maryland, holds a Bachelors of Science in Ecology at The Ohio State University, Kevin
Kennedy, Senior Fellow in the U.S. Climate Initiative in the Global Climate Program at WRI,
former Assistant Executive Officer at the Office of Climate Change at the California Air
Resources Board (CARB), former Special Advisor to Energy Commission Chairman Joseph
Desmond and Commissioner Jeffrey D. Byron for the California Energy Commission, holds a
Ph.D. from the Energy and Resources Group at University of California, Berkeley, and Tyler
Clevenger, former Research Analyst II for WRI U.S., Master of Environmental Management
candidate at the Yale School of the Environment, holds a B.A. in Environmental Studies (Policy
Concentration) from Colby College, 2021 (“Unpacking the US CLEAN Future Act,” World
Resources Institute, March 13th, Available Online at https://www.wri.org/insights/unpacking-us-
clean-future-act, Accessed 07-01-2021)
U.S. Representative Frank Pallone, chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee,
together with subcommittee chairs Bobby Rush and Paul Tonko, introduced the CLEAN Future
Act on March 2, 2021. While numerous climate bills are introduced in each Congress, this
proposal deserves special attention : It is the first major piece of climate legislation to be
introduced since President Biden assumed office, and it is authored by leadership of the
committee with primary jurisdiction over climate policy in the House. It is an updated version of
a discussion draft circulated last year, reflecting dozens of hearings, input from experts and
activists, and the changing political and physical climate.
Environmental Justice — the CLEAN Future Act increases protection of over
environmental justice communities against impacts of climate change.
3. Environmental Justice
While Title VI of the bill focuses on environmental justice, equity and justice components are
woven into all aspects of the legislation, reflecting the elevated priority Congressional
Democrats are putting on equity as they consider ways to address climate change. For instance, in
the transportation section, the bill provides directions on expanding access to electric vehicles in
underserved communities.
Within Title VI, the provisions aim to not only protect the health and safety of communities
disproportionately impacted by environmental harms and risks (also referred to as “environmental
justice communities”), but also include grants to enable those communities to participate in
decision-making processes under the Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act and Solid Waste
Disposal Act.
Ample evidence highlights how communities of color are disproportionately exposed to toxic air
pollution from facilities located in their neighborhoods. The CFA increases air quality monitoring
for toxic air pollutants and expands the national ambient air monitoring network in environmental
justice communities. It also restricts the issuance of permits for major sources of air pollutants in
areas that are determined to be pollution burdened.
Other provisions include funding for a new program to replace lead water service lines across the
country, a 10-year deadline for cleaning up all federal Superfund sites, protections for
underground drinking water sources from enhanced oil recovery, new coal ash disposal
requirements and repeal of oil and gas production exemptions from landmark environmental
laws. The CFA also creates a climate justice grant program to provide $1 billion each year from
2022 to 2031 to help communities respond to the impacts of climate change.
Taken together, these provisions provide a bold roadmap for the federal government to protect
historically marginalized communities from legacy toxic exposures and the effects of climate
change.
Foundation for Future Action — the CFA can improve future environmental
action.
Other provisions of the CFA could be enhanced as the bill moves through Committee hearings
and markup. For example:
A grant program could be added to support construction of underground powerlines that would be
less vulnerable to damage from extreme weather and could avoid land-use conflicts by following
existing railroad and highway rights-of-way.
A federal low-carbon fuel standard could be included to reduce transportation fuels’ emissions-
per-gallon-equivalent. This standard could replace the existing renewable fuels standard, which
expires in 2022 and is not based on emissions-per-gallon-equivalent performance.
A low carbon fuel standard could be established for fuels used to provide heat in industry and
buildings, while a low-carbon products standards could be established for all cement and steel
used in the United States.
Provisions aimed at electrifying existing buildings could be strengthened by providing incentives
to replace fossil fuel water heaters and furnaces with electric heat pumps.
These measures would help achieve the goals of the CLEAN Future Act by accelerating
construction of the electricity transmission infrastructure needed to support a zero-emissions
electricity system, as well as the equipment needed to use that clean electricity to eliminate
emissions from other sectors.
Despite some limitations, the CLEAN Future Act provides a great starting point for turning
President Biden’s necessarily ambitious agenda for tackling the climate crisis into specific
policies that create good-paying jobs, address the legacy of environmental injustice and , well,
create a clean future. The pathway from bill introduction to enactment is strewn with potholes,
but the CLEAN Future Act clearly lays out the direction we must travel.
Methane Emissions and Waste Reduction — the CFA’s measures support more
sustainable practices.
9. Methane Emissions and Waste Reduction
The expansive bill contains an array of additional climate provisions, including measures to
reduce methane emissions and waste . The legislation aims to reduce methane emissions from
oil and gas operations 65% below 2012 levels by 2025 and 90% by 2030. Efforts to tighten
emissions leakage would be aided in part by a technology commercialization program to develop
waste-reduction improvements in the oil and gas sector, as well as grants to improve the
performance of natural gas distribution systems.
The bill also encourages reductions in emissions and waste from the plastics industry, which is
currently surging in production. It proposes a pause on issuing permits for plastic-producing and
some petrochemical facilities, and directs the EPA to issue emissions and health standards for the
industry. The legislation also takes aim at waste accumulation by revamping the nation’s
recycling system and establishing a grant program to support community-level zero-waste
projects.
2NC/1NR — CLEAN Future Act Solvency (Emissions)
National Emissions Reduction — the act’s climate targets would reduce
emissions while supporting societal growth.
1. National Emissions-reduction Target
Like last year’s discussion draft, the CLEAN Future Act of 2021 (CFA) starts by setting a
national goal to achieve a 100% clean economy by no later than 2050 (defined as net-zero or
negative greenhouse gas emissions). Importantly, this year’s bill adds an interim goal to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions at least 50% by 2030 from 2005 levels, the same goal WRI urged the
Biden administration to establish through its forthcoming Nationally Determined Contribution
(NDC) under the Paris Climate Agreement. Analysis shows that this target is both ambitious and
achievable through measures that would create good jobs, make the U.S. economy more
competitive internationally and make Americans healthier.
While these goals are not directly enforceable, the CFA tasks agencies with using their existing
legal authorities to achieve them and tasks EPA with tracking progress and recommending to
Congress any additional legislative authority that may be needed.
Climate Change — reducing emissions through the CLEAN Future Act could
mitigate global warming.
Carlock and Lashof 21 — Greg Carlock, Manager for Climate Action and Data in the
World Resources Institute United States, former GHG Mitigation and Sustainability Manager at
ICF International, former Research Assistant for the Joint Global Change Research Institute,
holds a Masters in Environmental Policy from the University of Maryland, holds a Bachelors of
Science in Ecology at The Ohio State University and Dan Lashof, Director of the World
Resources Institute United States, former Chief Operating Officer of the NextGen Policy Center,
former Director of the Climate and Clean Air Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council,
former Member of Governor McAuliffe’s Climate Change and Resiliency Update Commission,
holds a Doctorate from the Energy and Resources Group from the University of California,
Berkeley, holds a Bachelor's degree in Physics and Mathematics from Harvard University, 2021
(“5 Reasons the US Should Cut its GHG Emissions in Half by 2030,” World Resources Institute,
February 24th, Available Online at https://www.wri.org/insights/5-reasons-us-should-cut-its-ghg-
emissions-half-2030, Accessed 07-01-2021)
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made it clear that unprecedented action
is required to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) above pre-industrial
levels, the threshold scientists say is necessary for averting the worst impacts of climate change.
Achieving that goal requires that global greenhouse gas emissions drop by half by 2030 and reach
net-zero around mid-century. The United States bears a significant responsibility as the source of
13% of current global emissions and more cumulative emissions than any other country.
Preliminary estimates show that economy-wide emissions fell by 10.3% between 2019 and 2020,
or 21% between 2005 and 2020. This technically means the United States met its commitment to
reduce emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 under the Copenhagen Accord, and appears
to put the country on track to meet its 2025 goal. However, appearances can be deceiving. This
decline in 2020 was mostly driven by the COVID-19 lockdowns and economic recession; without
a green recovery, emissions will likely rise again as the economy rebounds, putting the United
States off-track for achieving its 2025 target.
To ensure emissions do not revert to pre-pandemic levels, the United States must respond to the
COVID-19 crisis by investing in clean energy and deploying a whole-of-society approach to
tackle the climate crisis. It must tap into the climate leadership of U.S. states, cities and business
that proliferated after President Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement. Today, one in three
Americans lives in a jurisdiction committed to 100% clean electricity. In 2017, only Hawaii and
33 cities had committed to 100% clean electricity; now, 13 states, Puerto Rico and 165 cities have
100% clean energy commitments.
COVID Economic Recovery — the act’s reduction in emissions could encourage
an economic recovery.
3. An ambitious emissions-reduction target would support economic recovery from COVID-19.
The types of investments that support an ambitious 2030 emissions-reduction target would also
support economic recovery after COVID-19. The 2009 recovery efforts revealed two
important lessons: 1) major investments in clean energy launched the domestic industry
and supported 900,000 jobs; and 2) this investment could have been greener. Only 12% of
U.S. spending during the 2009 recovery went to green measures, even though much of the green
spending created more jobs than other types of investments. For example, public transit projects
resulted in 70% more job-hours than similar spending on highways. We must learn from history
and make win-win investments that create good jobs, jolt the economy to life, reduce climate
pollution and improve public health.
Domestic Signal — the CLEAN Future Act’s interim emissions reduction goal
could anchor and guide future policy.
President Biden campaigned on the most ambitious climate platform of any presidential candidate
in history. It included achieving net-zero emissions from electricity by 2035 and the full economy
by 2050 — a step further than the 80% reduction target in the current U.S. Mid-Century Strategy.
He promised near-term goals to reduce emissions from vehicles, buildings and industry. Now as
president, his early “climate blitz” and emerging Build Back Better Economic Recovery Plan will
make progress along a number of climate action priorities.
In addition, the federal government and private sector have made progress that signals the United
States can mobilize toward an ambitious 2030 reduction goal. For example:
In December 2020, Congress passed major energy legislation that will phase down the use of
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), super-pollutants used in refrigeration and air conditioning, as well as
expand investments in wind, solar, the electricity grid, energy storage, weatherization of low-
income housing, and energy efficiency upgrades of schools and federal buildings.
The U.S. electric vehicle market doubled since 2017. Earlier this year, General Motors announced
it will only sell zero-emission vehicles by 2035, a significant move that could prompt other
automakers to accelerate their transition to electric vehicles.
In 2019, the United States consumed more renewable energy than coal for the first time ever, and
in 2020, U.S. wind energy capacity increased by 17 gigawatts, 85% more than the previous year.
This is in part due to the rapid decline in costs for wind and solar power.
In 2020, building renewable forms of energy such as wind and solar officially became more cost-
effective than building a new coal power plant.
An ambitious 2030 goal would anchor and guide the Biden administration’s and Congress’s
approach to push further on cleaner forms of energy, zero-emission cars and buildings, healthier
forests and improved agricultural practices. For example, it could help drive 100% zero-emission
electricity and light-duty vehicle sales, as well as development of all the related grid and charging
infrastructure to support them. It could spur strong energy standards for appliances and
emissions-performance standards for heavy-emitting industries like cement, steel and plastic. It
could also mean innovation in carbon dioxide removal and green hydrogen to create the clean
energy technology and careers of the future.
International Follow-On — the CP’s ambitious climate reduction could build

momentum for international action.
5. An ambitious U.S. climate goal would inspire the international community to take bolder
climate action.
As the world’s second-largest emitter — responsible for 13% of global emissions — the United
States must use its position of leadership to encourage greater ambition and faster action by peer
nations. A strong emissions-reduction commitment ahead of the Leaders’ Climate Summit can
help build momentum for enhanced targets from countries around the world.
This will be particularly critical in the run-up to the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow this
November. Strong commitments from China, Japan, South Korea, Canada, India, South Africa
and other major emitters will be especially important. Ambitious action from the United States
can help persuade them to step up their emissions-reduction targets to be commensurate with the
scale of the climate change challenge. A strong U.S. target is also critical for demonstrating
credibility, as others like the European Union and UK have already adopted ambitious emissions-
reduction targets for 2030 that would go even further than a 50% cut by the United States.
Job Growth — the act’s commitment to reducing emissions could increase jobs,
boosting the economy, and increasing annual savings.
According to a recent WRI report on America’s New Climate Economy, the low-carbon
transition is an immense opportunity for the U.S. economy. Even now, 41 U.S. states are growing
their economies while also reducing their emissions.
In the short-term, clean energy and other green investments associated with a stronger climate
commitment and economic recovery can create more jobs than fossil fuels. Currently, wind and
solar energy generation provide double the number of jobs as fossil fuel production. Research
shows that $1 million spent on renewable energy or energy efficiency in the United States
generates more than twice as many jobs in the short- to medium-term as $1 million spent on fossil
fuels. The mean hourly wages for clean energy jobs are higher than the national average by 8–
19%. Many are available to workers without college degrees, though job security and access to
benefits remain important concerns.
In the medium-term, a low-carbon economy will create more than enough jobs to replace those
lost in fossil fuel industries. According to a recent analysis, widespread electrification of the
economy, which is essential for reducing emissions, will require public investments of about
$300 billion per year for 10 years. This could support up to 25 million good-paying jobs over the
next 15 years and 5 million sustained jobs by mid-century. Meanwhile, the average household
could see up to $2,000 in annual savings on energy costs and better health outcomes. However,
executing a just transition for fossil fuel workers must be a deliberate process. There are a number
of steps the United States can take, including through economic development programs,
innovative financing programs, and the rehabilitation of abandoned mines and orphaned wells.
Most importantly, in the long-term, rapidly reducing emissions will help stave off the economic
consequences of unchecked climate change. Without new policies, the annual economic damages
from climate change could reach 1-3% of U.S. GDP by the end of the century, with extreme heat,
sea level rise and crop yield declines hitting the South and parts of the Midwest the hardest. In the
worst-case scenario, the damages could reach 3.7-10% of GDP.
2NC/1NR — CLEAN Future Act (Clean Energy)
Transition to clean energy solves — it’d provide a litany of natural power
methods.
Jacobson 21 — Mark Z. Jacobson, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program, Senior Fellow in the Woods Institute for the
Environment, and Senior Fellow in the Precourt Institute for Energy at Stanford University, holds
a Ph.D. in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of California-Los Angeles, 2021 (“Why
investments in clean, renewable energy will avoid blackouts at a low cost,” The Hill, April 8th,
Available Online at https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/547068-why-investments-in-
clean-renewable-energy-will-avoid-blackouts-at, Accessed 06-25-2021) JY
Clean, renewable energy is really a system that consists of wind-water-solar (WWS) electricity
and heat generation. It also includes storage of electricity, heat, cold and hydrogen; electric
appliances, machines and equipment; and a well-interconnected and managed transmission and
distribution grid. WWS generation includes onshore and offshore wind, solar photovoltaics,
concentrated solar power, geothermal electricity and heat, hydropower, and tidal and wave power.
A WWS system does not include natural gas, biomass, biofuels, carbon capture, direct air
capture, nuclear or geoengineering, since these are all dirtier and/or more dangerous opportunity
costs relative to WWS.
Buildings — the CP improves energy use in new, old, public, and residential
buildings.
8. Buildings
In 2019, residential and commercial buildings accounted for 35% of U.S. carbon dioxide
emissions due to their direct use of fossil fuels directly and from the electricity they consume.
The CFA tackles energy use in both new and existing buildings in several ways.
The first is a push for stronger building energy codes that aim for all new buildings built by 2029
to use 50% less energy compared to buildings built under today’s codes. The new codes would
also ensure that all new buildings built in 2030 and after are “zero energy ready,” meaning they
are highly efficient and could meet their energy needs through onsite or nearby sources of zero-
emission energy.
The CFA targets state and local public facilities with nearly $40 billion of investment over 10
years to improve resilience, increase energy efficiency, expand use of renewable energy and
enhance grid integration. This includes $1.5 billion for tribal governments, $1 billion for public
schools and $100 million for nonprofits.
The legislation also revives two successful programs utilized under the American Recovery &
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) during the 2009 recession. This includes $35 billion for the Energy
Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program to finance energy efficiency, renewable
energy, zero-emission transportation and the use of alternative fuels in commercial and industrial
buildings. It also reauthorizes the State Energy-Efficient Appliance Rebate Program at $3 billion
— 10 times the ARRA level — and expands eligibility to encourage adoption of electric
appliances.
Finally, the CFA makes a large push to retrofit the nearly 140 million existing residential
buildings. It establishes a new home energy savings rebate program that would provide $1,500 to
property owners for the installation of insulation, air sealing and replacement of a heating,
ventilation and air conditioning system. This rebate could be as much as $4,000 if upgrades
achieve a 40% reduction in energy consumption, which would cut household utility bills while
reducing emissions.
Clean Energy Leadership — the CP’s emissions reduction goal reinforces and
signals future clean energy action.
The United States is officially the only country in the world to join the Paris Agreement twice. A
second chance to participate in the greatest collective climate effort in history should also mean
double the commitment and twice the ambition.
A more ambitious 2030 emissions-reduction goal reinforces all levels of domestic action on
pollution and clean energy. It charts a new course for the U.S. economy that can pull it out of
the pandemic-induced recession in ways that make it cleaner and more equitable than before. And
it signals that the country that led in the energy of the past will be the leader in the clean energy
of the future.
The United States should not waste this second chance, because we have no second Earth.
Industrial Practices — the CFA reduces industrial emissions while supporting

decarbonization and cleaner practices.
7. Industry
Achieving the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 will require significant steps to reduce
emissions from the industrial sector. The CFA takes several important steps in that direction.
One of the major challenges in creating markets for low-carbon products such as steel and
concrete is the lack of clear, consistent and transparent information on the embodied carbon in
those products. This bill would build on progress from the private sector in the use of
environmental product declarations (EPDs), which provide information on the lifecycle
environmental impacts of products. This bill would bring the power of the federal government to
bear on the problem, helping ensure that EPDs or similar disclosure tools follow clear and
consistent rules and creating a national database.
The bill would also create a Buy Clean program that creates standards for the embodied
emissions in construction materials and manufactured products purchased in projects with federal
funding, and create a voluntary Climate Star program. Similar to the successful Energy Star
program, this initiative would identify and certify products with significantly lower embodied
carbon emissions. Such a voluntary program would aid companies and consumers looking to
reduce the carbon footprint of the products they purchase.
The bill also includes two provisions to help manufacturers improve their efficiency. It directs the
Department of Energy (DOE) to expand the existing work of the national labs in assisting small
and medium manufacturers in implementing smart manufacturing practices, and would authorize
$100 million over 10 years for states to support this effort. The bill also would authorize $10
billion over 10 years to establish a rebate program for industrial facilities to improve their energy
and water efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
While these steps will not be sufficient on their own to decarbonize U.S. industry, they are a good
starting point and provide a foundation for more ambitious action.
Power — the CP increases clean energy use while strengthening power.

6. Power
Title II of the legislation addresses the power sector.
The centerpiece is a proposed federal Clean Electricity Standard (CES) that would require all
retail electric providers to generate 80% of their power from zero-emissions sources by 2030, and
100% by 2035, consistent with President Biden’s campaign pledge. Key provisions of the CES
include:
A credit system for compliance that awards full credits for zero-emission power generation and
partial credits for generation with emissions below specified carbon-intensity benchmarks.
An Alternative Compliance Payment system to provide flexibility to covered entities, while also
granting the EPA administrator some limited authority to defer compliance by a maximum of five
years.
Among other provisions, Title II would:
Direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to lower barriers to interstate
transmission expansion, and to establish an Office of Transmission to assess current transmission
policies.
Amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA) to require states and utilities to
consider investment in energy storage systems; consider non-wire alternatives to traditional
transmission investments; and offer community solar programs to all ratepayers.
Authorize programs to promote microgrids, distributed energy resources, and solar installations in
low-income and underserved areas; and improve resiliency, performance and efficiency of power
grids.
Transportation — the CP’s clean transportation programs would cut pollution.

5. Transportation
Title IV of the CFA authorizes more than $100 billion over the next decade to electrify the U.S.
transportation system , which is currently the largest source of climate-altering pollution in the
country. It prioritizes projects that will reduce diesel emissions, providing substantial health
benefits to communities of color and others overburdened by pollution. It would provide major
support for domestic manufacturing of electric and other advanced vehicles.
Key provisions include:
Grant and rebate programs authorizing almost $50 billion for charging infrastructure for both
passenger vehicles and trucks, and programs to electrify equipment at airports, ports, railyards
and other freight facilities.
A dedicated $25 billion program to clean up ports, which are a major source of pollution
impacting environmental justice communities. The bill also reauthorizes the broader Diesel
Emissions Reduction Act program at $5 billion over 10 years and directs EPA to set emissions
standards for non-road engines and aircraft.
Establishes a revised Clean School Bus program at EPA, authorizing $25 billion over 10 years to
support the replacement of diesel school buses with zero-emission electric buses and associated
charging infrastructure. At least 40% of program investments will be dedicated to communities of
color, low-income communities and environmental justice communities.
Authorizes $25 billion for retooling plants to manufacture electric vehicles, with priority given to
at-risk or recently closed plants. To be eligible, manufacturers must pay prevailing wages and
commit to continuing production at the facility for at least 10 years.
2NC/1NR — CLEAN Future Act (Grid/Blackouts)
Blackouts — adopting completely clean energy increase grid stability and reduce
costs.
Kubota 18 — Taylor Kubota, Public Information Officer at Stanford University, former
editorial assistant at Healthline Media, holds an M.A. in Science Journalism from New York
University, 2018 (“Stanford engineers develop a new method of keeping the lights on if the world
turns to 100% clean, renewable energy,” Stanford News, February 8th, Available Online at
https://news.stanford.edu/2018/02/08/avoiding-blackouts-100-renewable-energy/, Accessed 06-
25-2021) JY
Avoiding blackouts
Scenarios based on the modeling data avoided blackouts at low cost in all 20 world regions for all
five years examined and under three different storage scenarios. One scenario includes heat
pumps – which are used in place of combustion-based heaters and coolers – but no hot or cold
energy storage; two add no hydropower turbines to existing hydropower dams; and one has no
battery storage. The fact that no blackouts occurred under three different scenarios suggests that
many possible solutions to grid stability with 100 percent wind, water and solar power are
possible, a conclusion that contradicts previous claims that the grid cannot stay stable with such
high penetrations of just renewables.
Overall, the researchers found that the cost per unit of energy – including the cost in terms of
health, climate and energy – in every scenario was about one quarter what it would be if the
world continues on its current energy path. This is largely due to eliminating the health and
climate costs of fossil fuels. Also, by reducing water vapor, the wind turbines included in the
roadmaps would offset about 3 percent of global warming to date.
Although the cost of producing a unit of energy is similar in the roadmap scenarios and the non-
intervention scenario, the researchers found that the roadmaps roughly cut in half the amount of
energy needed in the system. So, consumers would actually pay less. The vast amount of these
energy savings come from avoiding the energy needed to mine, transport and refine fossil fuels,
converting from combustion to direct electricity, and using heat pumps instead of conventional
heaters and air conditioners.
“One of the biggest challenges facing energy systems based entirely on clean, zero-emission
wind, water and solar power is to match supply and demand with near-perfect reliability at
reasonable cost,” said Mark Delucchi, co-author of the paper and a research scientist at the
University of California, Berkeley. “Our work shows that this can be accomplished, in almost all
countries of the world, with established technologies.”
Grid Stability — clean energy mitigates blackouts and reduces costs.

Jacobson 21 — Mark Z. Jacobson, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program, Senior Fellow in the Woods Institute for the
Environment, and Senior Fellow in the Precourt Institute for Energy at Stanford University, holds
a Ph.D. in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of California-Los Angeles, 2021 (“Why
investments in clean, renewable energy will avoid blackouts at a low cost,” The Hill, April 8th,
Available Online at https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/547068-why-investments-in-
clean-renewable-energy-will-avoid-blackouts-at, Accessed 06-25-2021) JY
So, how does 100 percent WWS keep the grid stable? By a combination of several methods:
1. Wind and solar are intermittent (the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always
shine). However, wind and solar are also complementary (when the wind isn’t blowing during the
day, the sun is often shining and vice versa). Thus, combining wind and solar smoothens the
power supply versus wind or solar alone.
2. Similarly, combining wind over long distances or solar over long distances smoothens the
supply of either versus wind or solar at one location.
3. Building more wind turbines in cold climates also increases reliability because, on average,
winds become stronger when temperatures drop.
4. Building offshore wind in coastal areas helps because offshore wind is usually less variable
than onshore wind and often peaks when energy demand peaks.
5. Geothermal (from the heat of the Earth) electricity, where it exists, provides a flat source of
supply.
6. Gaps in wind and solar supply can often be filled by electricity from hydropower, batteries,
pumped hydro storage, flywheels, compressed air storage and gravitational storage.
7. Electrifying transportation, buildings, and industry reduces power demand significantly,
making meeting demand with WWS supply easier. For example, electric heat pumps for air and
water heating and air conditioning reduce energy use by a factor of four versus natural gas
heaters. Similarly, electric vehicles use one-fourth the energy as gasoline vehicles.
8. Increasing energy efficiency in buildings by reducing heat and cold loss through doors and
windows; using LED lights; using energy-efficient appliances; and using electric induction
cooktops helps to reduce energy needs.
9. Increasing district heating allows heat to be stored underground or in water pits for months at
low cost.
10. Using excess WWS either to produce heat or hydrogen that is stored reduces costs. Hydrogen
will be used primarily for long-distance planes, ships, trains, trucks and military equipment and
some industrial processes like steel production.
11. Using demand response, where utilities give people and businesses incentives can shift the
time of their energy use.
I’ve studied the use of these techniques in 143 countries and the 50 states and found that the grid
can stay stable everywhere, including in California and Texas, with 100 percent WWS.
A transition to 100 percent WWS not only avoids blackouts, but for the U.S., it reduces energy
needs by 57 percent, annual energy costs by 62 percent, and annual energy plus health plus
climate costs by 86 percent while creating 6.5 million more long-term, full-time jobs than lost and
saving 53,000 lives per year from air pollution in 2050. The lower annual energy costs with
WWS are due substantially to the fact that we need much less energy with it.
Grid Stability — international studies prove Wind-water-solar energy improves
it.
Jacobson et al. 19 — Mark Z. Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering at
Stanford University, author of 100% Clean, Renewable Energy and Storage for Everything, PhD
and MS in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of California Los Angeles, MS in
Environmental Engineering from Stanford University, et al., 2019 (“Impacts of Green New Deal
Energy Plans on Grid Stability, Costs, Jobs, Health, and Climate in 143 Countries,” One Earth,
Volume 1, Issue 4, December 20th, Available Online at
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332219302258, Accessed 06-29-2021)
JY
Global warming, air pollution, and energy insecurity are three of the greatest problems facing
humanity. To address these problems, we develop Green New Deal energy roadmaps for 143
countries. The roadmaps call for a 100% transition of all-purpose business-as-usual (BAU)
energy to wind-water-solar (WWS) energy, efficiency, and storage by 2050 with at least 80% by
2030. Our studies on grid stability find that the countries, grouped into 24 regions, can match
demand exactly from 2050 to 2052 with 100% WWS supply and storage. We also derive new
cost metrics. Worldwide, WWS energy reduces end-use energy by 57.1%, aggregate private
energy costs from $17.7 to $6.8 trillion/year (61%), and aggregate social (private plus health plus
climate) costs from $76.1 to $6.8 trillion/year (91%) at a present value capital cost of ∼$73
trillion. WWS energy creates 28.6 million more long-term, full-time jobs than BAU energy and
needs only ∼0.17% and ∼0.48% of land for new footprint and spacing, respectively. Thus, WWS
requires less energy, costs less, and creates more jobs than does BAU.
2NC/1NR — DSPGA Solvency
Climate Change — grid resilience boosts renewable energy use and supports
zero-emission vehicles.
Reta and Gout 21 — Mikyla Reta, Research Associate for Energy and Environment Policy at
the Center for American Progress, former Staff Assistant and Legislative Corespondent in the
U.S. House of Representatives, holds a B.S. in Environmental Science from the University of
California-Los Angeles, and Elise Gout, Research Associate for Energy and Environment Policy
at the Center for American Progress, former Contractor to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency supporting projects in water quality, water security, and climate resilience, former
Program Assistant in the Climate Adaptation Initiative at The Earth Institute at Columbia
University, holds a B.A. in Sustainable Development from Columbia University, 2021
(“Advancing Equity Through Grid Modernization,” Center for American Progress, April 28th,
Available Online at https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2021/04/28/498839/
advancing-equity-grid-modernization/, Accessed 06-29-2021) PB
Over the last century, the United States’ reliance on fossil fuels for power generation has
disproportionately subjected low-income communities and communities of color to dangerous
and life-threatening health risks. Every step of the way—from extraction to refinement to burning
—fossil fuels emit greenhouse gases and toxic pollutants into the surrounding environment, most
often in communities of color, where fossil fuel production facilities are more likely to be sited
compared with white communities. Studies have shown that the acute and sustained exposure to
this pollution has caused poorer people and people of color to suffer higher rates of cancer,
asthma, and other serious health problems.
Enhancing grid flexibility and expanding long-distance transmission would considerably cut
pollution by enabling an increase in the share of electricity generated by renewable energy
resources—namely wind, solar, and hydroelectric power. Wind and solar farms are often located
far from where electricity demand is greatest, and renewable energy development can be stymied
by poor planning, lack of connectivity, and congested power lines. By facilitating the integration
of cost-competitive renewable energy generation into the power mix, investments in transmission
would accelerate the retirement of conventional fossil fuel power plants.
Improving the generation of and access to renewable energy would complement the increased
deployment of modern grid technologies such as energy storage. In addition, utility-scale
energy storage would replace the need for peaking power plants—commonly known as peaker
plants—which rely on fossil fuel generation to meet periods of high electricity demand. Peaker
plants emit incredibly high concentrations of toxic air pollutants such as nitrous oxide, sulfur
dioxide, and small particulate matter. Of the more than 1,000 fossil fuel peaker plants in
operation in the United States, the majority are located in low-income communities and
communities of color. Well-designed grid modernization investments would expedite the
retirement of these plants and deliver meaningful environmental and public health benefits for
those living on the front lines of their pollution.
Lastly, upgrading the power grid is essential to supporting the wide-scale use of zero-emission
electric vehicles. As more people switch to electric vehicles, the power grid must be equipped to
reliably manage the additional electricity demand required to charge them. Transitioning away
from gas-powered cars is easier for consumers when electric charging is reliable, convenient, and
affordable. Grid modernization would support that transition and by doing so would facilitate the
reduction of toxic emissions from gas- and diesel-powered vehicles.
Community Justice — the CP’s grid resilience programs directly aid

communities.
The enactment of any infrastructure package such as President Biden’s American Jobs Plan
would be incomplete without long-term federal investments in the nation’s power grid that
intentionally address the country’s long-standing history of economic, racial, and environmental
injustice. These investments should include revitalizing the Smart Grid Investment Grant
program, funding other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) grid modernization and clean energy
programs—including expanding on DOE’s pledge to dedicate $8.35 billion in loans for
improving the grid—and directing project funds to environmental justice communities, as well as
investment tax credits for long-range transmission lines and energy storage. The DOE and other
federal agencies should also provide Black, brown, Indigenous and low-income communities—
who have historically borne the brunt of pollution from power plants—with grants for clean
energy microgrids; energy storage; and other projects that reduce pollution from fossil fuels,
lower energy costs for consumers, and improve the energy resiliency of critical infrastructure.
The federal government should also remove barriers to interregional planning, facilitating the
connection of distant renewable energy to load centers, and create incentives or mandates that
allow for better leverage of existing rights of way during the siting of transmission lines to avoid
community disruption.
These policies cannot alone reverse the harmful and persistent effects of systemic racism and
environmental injustice in the United States. While improving the grid will bring benefits to
communities in need, the Biden administration must also fulfill the president’s commitment to
ensuring that at least 40 percent of federal investments provide direct and measurable benefits to
environmental justice and other disadvantaged communities. In addition, the administration must
implement energy and climate policies that mandate emissions reductions in Black, brown, and
Indigenous communities; low-income communities; and environmental justice communities
overburdened by pollution, as well as strengthen and rigorously enforce air and water pollution
standards for power plants through the Environmental Protection Agency.
Disaster Resilience — the CP makes infrastructure more secure.
Pope 21 — Maria Pope, President and CEO at Portland General Electric—Oregon’s largest
energy company, holds an M.B.A. from the Stanford University Graduate School of Business,
2021 (“Wyden, Merkley Introduce Bill to Ensure More Disaster Resilient Power Grid,” Press
Release, March 11th, Available Online at
https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-merkley-introduce-bill-to-ensure-
more-disaster-resilient-power-grid, Accessed 06-25-2021) PB
Portland General Electric President and CEO Maria Pope: “Senators Wyden and Merkley are
steadfast advocates for legislation and federal funding to help protect Oregon’s critical
infrastructure from the devastating impacts of natural disasters like the ice and snowstorms we
just experienced and last fall’s wildfires. This legislation will help fortify Oregon’s electric
system, making it safer and more secure, while limiting impacts on customer prices.”
Disaster Recovery — the bill mitigates damage caused by natural disasters.

Kuhn 21 — Tom Kuhn, President of the Edison Electric Institution—the association that
represents all U.S. investor-owned electric companies, former President of the American Nuclear
Energy Council, former Member of the U.S. Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board, former
Member of the Board of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, holds an MBA from George
Washington University, 2021 (“Wyden, Merkley Introduce Bill to Ensure More Disaster Resilient
Power Grid,” Press Release, March 11th, Available Online at
https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-merkley-introduce-bill-to-ensure-
more-disaster-resilient-power-grid, Accessed 06-25-2021) PB
“EEI thanks Senators Wyden for his leadership in introducing the Disaster Safe Power Grid Act
of 2021. This bill will help support and accelerate EEI member company projects to make the
energy grid more resilient and to mitigate the risk of damage to power lines caused by natural
disasters and, especially, wildfires. Electric companies across the country are committed to
working with our government partners and other stakeholders to enhance grid resiliency, while
delivering the safe, reliable, affordable, and clean energy our customers need.”
Energy Poverty — grid resilience would allow low-income homes to save

money.
Investing in a cleaner, more efficient, and more reliable power grid would lower energy costs for
ratepayers. Low-income households are particularly burdened by electricity costs , as energy
bills account for a much larger portion of their monthly income than those of wealthier
households. Among these low-income households, people of color suffer from energy insecurity
more than white people, and Black families have been found to have the highest rates of energy
insecurity across all levels of income. More grid capacity will help deliver much-needed relief
to energy-burdened low-income households and Black, brown, and Indigenous communities.
A 2020 report by Americans for a Clean Energy Grid (ACEG) found that large-scale transmission
upgrades would cut consumer electric bills by more than $100 billion by 2050 and decrease the
average electric bill rate by more than one-third , saving a typical household more than $300 per
year. With nearly 1 in 3 households struggling to pay their energy bills, these savings would
reduce the energy bill burden on households and help to end energy poverty in the United
States.
Grid Investment — the matching grant program boosts funding for better
infrastructure.
Frazin 21 — Rachel Frazin, Staff Writer at The Hill, 2021 (“Lawmakers aim to incentivize
weatherizing power lines,” The Hill, March 11th, Available Online at
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/542764-lawmakers-aim-to-incentivize-
weatherizing-power-lines, Accessed 06-29-2021) PB
A new Senate bill aims to incentivize companies to weatherize the power grid and prevent power
lines from starting wildfires.
The legislation, introduced Thursday by Democratic Oregon Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley,
would create an annual $10 billion matching grant program for companies that want to reduce the
risk of their power lines from causing wildfires or seek to make the grid more resilient to natural
disasters.
“No American should have to worry about their life being at risk because they’ve been stranded
for days or weeks on end without electricity, or because their community is on the verge of being
enveloped in a catastrophic wildfire started by a power line spark,” Merkley said in a statement.
“Especially as summer droughts and intense winter storms become more common, now is the
time to invest in our power grids and reduce the chance of outages or sparks,” he added.
Activities that could be funded under the bill include installing underground new and existing
power lines, creating weather-monitoring stations and hardening facilities against seismic events.
The grants would be matching, meaning that companies need to invest an equal amount, except
for small utilities, which would have to match one-third of the grant.
The effort comes after winter storms last month battered various parts of the country, most
notably Texas, where millions were left without power and several people died.
Last year, the Western part of the U.S. faced record-setting wildfires that burned for weeks and
claimed dozens of lives.
Jobs — transmission projects create millions of employment opportunities.
Upgrading the transmission grid will also create thousands of good-paying jobs at a time when
unemployment rates are still recovering from the coronavirus-induced recession. For example,
ACEG has estimated that the construction of 22 shovel-ready transmission projects would lead to
the creation of 1.24 million jobs and 60,000 megawatts of new renewable energy capacity.
Jobs in transmission, distribution, and storage tend to pay prevailing wages and have one of the
highest rates of unionization in the energy sector—around 17 percent in 2020, almost triple that
of the national private sector. Unionization across sectors of the economy has historically
excluded workers of color, leaving Black, Latinx, and other racial and ethnic groups unable to
access the multitude of benefits unions have. These grid investments and jobs should be targeted
to environmental justice and economically disadvantaged communities to ensure historical
inequities are not repeated in the clean energy economy.
2NC/1NR — EMP Solvency
*See 2NC — DSPGA Solvency for more general cards
National EMP action is key — otherwise, bureaucrats will continue

preventing action.
Pry 21 — Peter Vincent Pry, Executive Director of the Task Force on National and Homeland
Security—a Congressional Advisory Board, Director of the United States Nuclear Strategy
Forum—a Congressional Advisory Board, former Chief of Staff of the statutory Commission to
Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack, former Professional
Staff on the U.S. House Armed Services Committee, former Intelligence Officer with the Central
Intelligence Agency, holds a Ph.D. in Defense and National Security Policy from the University
of Southern California, 2021 (“When will America protect itself against EMP, cyber and
ransomware attacks?,” The Hill, May 21st, Available Online at
https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/554503-when-will-america-protect-itself-against-
emp-cyber-and-ransomware, Accessed 06-29-2021) SM
“A long-term outage owing to EMP could disable most critical supply chains, leaving the U.S.
population living in conditions similar to centuries past, prior to the advent of electric power. In
the 1800s, the U.S. population was less than 60 million, and those people had many skills and
assets necessary for survival without today’s infrastructure. An extended blackout today could
result in the death of a large fraction of the American people through the effects of societal
collapse, disease and starvation. While national planning and preparation for such events could
help mitigate the damage , few such actions are currently under way or even being
contemplated.” — Congressional EMP Commission (2017) ¶ The people of Rangely, Colo., are
not waiting for Washington to protect them from a Great American Blackout caused by a solar
superstorm or cyber warfare or electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack. Like several other Western
municipalities, Rangely, a town of 2,300 in northwest Colorado, home to a community college,
has rolled up its sleeves and, in the best traditions of Western pioneering spirit, independence and
self-sufficiency, is building redundant microgrids so they can survive anything. ¶ Texas state Sen.
Bob Hall and his colleagues aren’t waiting for Washington to “provide for the common defense,”
either. Hall’s bill to protect the Texas electric grid from all hazards — including EMP, cyber
warfare and sabotage — recently passed the state Senate. ¶ Texans had a small taste of
“electronic apocalypse” in February when an ice storm caused statewide rolling blackouts,
resulting in property damage totaling billions of dollars, fuel shortages including a reduction in
the national fuel supply, industrial accidents, including a major explosion and fire in a chemical
plant, and 100 deaths. Experts have cautioned the same could happen during hot, summer
weather. ¶ Sen. Hall, a former Air Force officer and an EMP expert, has been warning Texas for
years that electric grid vulnerability to EMP and cyber attack could have catastrophic
consequences. The Electric Reliability Council Of Texas (ERCOT), which manages the state’s
electricity infrastructure, proved in February that they and the utilities are not even prepared to
cope with a severe ice storm, let alone existential threats from EMP and cyber warfare. ¶ In South
Carolina, Ambassador Henry Cooper, a former Air Force officer, EMP expert and engineer, is
working with Duke Energy on the Lake Wylie project to protect a nuclear reactor from EMP — a
pilot project that could result in converting 100 U.S. nuclear reactors into “islands of
survivability” to help the nation recover in the event of an EMP or cyber attack, or both. The
Lake Wylie project began, and continues, as a local grassroots initiative receiving no financial or
technical support from the Department of Energy, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or other
agencies of the federal government. ¶ Ambassador Cooper says he has lost faith that Washington
will ever act to protect the national electric grid and other life-sustaining critical infrastructures
from EMP and cyber warfare. According to Cooper, if America is to be protected, it won’t be
done by an incompetent federal government but by the people and the states, working “from the
bottom up.” ¶ Now the recent Colonial Pipeline cyber attack appears to prove the ambassador is
right. The official story is that Russian hackers made a ransomware attack on the business side of
Colonial Pipeline’s information technology network, moving the owners, Koch Industries, to shut
down the pipeline to exercise “an abundance of caution.” So supposedly, turning off the 5,500-
mile artery that supplies 45 percent of petroleum to the eastern U.S. for civilian and military use
— causing gas shortages and panic-buying — was self-inflicted. ¶ Or maybe not. ¶ The U.S.
government and Koch Industries might not want to admit that Russian hackers turned off
Colonial Pipeline — which they could do by manipulating the supervisory control and data
acquisition (SCADA) system that controls the pipeline valves. A cyber attack could destroy the
pipeline by manipulating valves to cause excessive pressure, resulting in an explosion. At
minimum, the decision to turn off Colonial Pipeline proves that the ransomware threat was
sufficiently credible that the government and Koch did not want to take any chances. ¶ So why is
Colonial Pipeline vulnerable to Russian hackers, and the Texas electric grid vulnerable to ice
storms, and all the nation’s life-sustaining critical infrastructure vulnerable to EMP and cyber
attacks? ¶ Since President George W. Bush’s administration established the Department of
Homeland Security, protection of the nation’s critical infrastructure supposedly has been high
priority. But in truth, little has been done . ¶ Much to their credit, Congress passed the Critical
Infrastructure Protection Act in 2015, the White House issued an executive order to protect
critical infrastructure from EMP in 2019, and Congress in 2020 incorporated the essentials of the
order into the National Defense Authorization Act, giving it the force of law. This month,
President Biden issued an executive order to improve cybersecurity. The White House and
Congress have given the federal government all the direction and legal authority necessary to
protect the nation’s critical infrastructure from existential threats — yet, again, little has been
done. ¶ The problem may be that there are too many lawyers and non-expert bureaucrats in
charge of national preparedness for EMP and cyber warfare who lack deep technical expertise .
The problem may be that lawyers are not forged in a national security culture that gives highest
priority to winning a World War III. Lawyers are taught negotiation, compromise, achieving
consensus among all stakeholders — which means critical infrastructure never will be protected.
¶ Once upon a time, nuclear physicist Robert Oppenheimer (not a lawyer) led the Manhattan
Project to invent the atomic bomb in just three years. Adm. Hyman Rickover, an engineer and not
a lawyer, built the U.S. “nuclear navy.” And rocket scientist Werner von Braun, not a lawyer, ran
NASA and sent Americans to the moon. ¶ Today what is urgently needed are EMP and cyber
warfare experts to run another “Manhattan Project” to quickly protect America’s critical
infrastructure. Their maxim should be: “Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way!”
100 kV/m E1 protection is key — it’d provide grid resilience against the worst
case scenario.
NCC 19 — National Coordinating Center for Communications, 2019 (“Electromagnetic Pulse
(EMP) Protection and Resilience Guidelines for Critical Infrastructure and Equipment,” National
Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center, February 5th, Available Online at
https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/19_0307_CISA_EMP-Protection-Resilience-
Guidelines.pdf, Accessed 07-02-2021, p. 27)
Since the E1 HEMP standards of the IEC (as well as most military standards) use a single worst-
case electric field pulse waveform (the IEC identifies a peak field of 50 kV/m), these waveforms
are considered a reasonable worst-case tool for the design of resilient infrastructures. (Note that
while 50 kV/m peak field is used by the IEC and military standards, some Chinese and Russian
authorities have said “super-EMP” weapons can generate E1 levels as high as 100 kV/m to 200
kV/m, respectively, as reported in the EMP Commission’s 2017 “Chairman’s Report” pages 21
and 31.) It is possible, as in the case of the Starfish test in 1962, that the HEMP peak fields can be
smaller than the worst case, depending on the location of the burst and the location of the
infrastructure relative to the burst. Therefore, even for a building with no shielding for E1 HEMP,
the voltages coupled to the wiring leading to equipment may be lower by a factor of 5, for
example. This means 4 kV could be induced for fields oriented perfectly for cable coupling
(assuming no building attenuation). As the equipment can tolerate a peak EMC transient (EFT) of
500 V for a data line entering an electronic equipment and probably more (testing safety margin)
the amount of reduction required in the peak voltage on a cable is between a factor of 4 and 8,
which is not usually a problem for a typical SPD.
Measures against 85 V/m E3 EMP could strengthen the grid against nukes —
study based on Soviet high-altitude nuclear testing proves.
EMP Commission 18 — EMP Commission, a commission established by Congress to assess
the threat of an EMP attack on U.S. critical infrastructure, 2018 (“Recommended E3 HEMP
Heave Electric Field Waveform for the Critical Infrastructures,” EMP Commission, Volume 2,
April 9th, Available Online at
http://www.firstempcommission.org/uploads/1/1/9/5/119571849/recommended_e3_waveform_fo
r_critical_infrastructures_-_final_april2018.pdf, p. x)
After computing the electric fields using the Soviet measurements , the results were scaled to
account for the fact that their measurement locations were not at the optimum points on the
ground to capture the maximum peak fields. Through this process, it was determined that the
scaled maximum peak E3 HEMP heave field would have been 66 volts per kilometer (V/km) for
the magnetic latitude of the Soviet tests.
As the E3 HEMP heave field also increases for burst points closer to the geomagnetic equator, the
measured results were also evaluated for this parameter. This scaling increases the maximum
peak electric field up to 85 V/km for locations in the southern part of the continental U.S., and
102 V/km for locations nearer to the geomagnetic equator, as in Hawaii. The levels in Alaska
would be lower at an estimated peak value of 38 V/km (see Table 5 for information dealing with
this scaling process).
2NC/1NR — RDRA Solvency
Community Disaster Relief — the CP supports recovery for front-line
communities.
To improve the speed of community recovery after disaster strikes, Congress should pass the
Reforming Disaster Recovery Act of 2019, which would permanently authorize the Community
children, people with disabilities, and others affected by disasters are not left behind.
After a presidentially declared disaster, CDBG-DR funds are allocated to states, counties, and
cities to fund construction or rehabilitation projects, recovery planning and administration, and
predisaster mitigation activities. Under the CDBG-DR Program, after Congress passes a disaster
supplemental appropriation, the Department of Housing and Urban Development is required to
issue a Federal Register notice that sets requirements and waivers for each individual CDBG-DR
allocation. Since this process occurs on a case-by-case basis, the delivery of disaster assistance to
the communities that need it most is often delayed.
The potential for the Reforming Disaster Recovery Act to become law is promising: It
unanimously passed the House Financial Services Committee in July 2019 and passed the House
of Representatives with bipartisan support the following November. By passing the Reforming
Disaster Recovery Act and adequately funding the CDBG-DR Program, Congress can ensure
faster disaster recovery for front-line communities across the United States.
Extreme Weather — the RDRA mitigates the risk of natural disasters.
Sillman 21 — Ari Sillman, J.D. Candidate and Research Assistant at Harvard Law School,
holds an M.A. in Arab Studies from Georgetown University, 2021 (“A New Approach to Disaster
Relief Funding? The Disaster Recovery Reform Act’s Promise for Pre-Disaster Mitigation,”
Paper Published by the Harvard University Environmental & Energy Law Program, January 28 th,
Available Online at https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/2021/01/a-new-approach-to-disaster-relief-
funding-the-disaster-recovery-reform-acts-promise-for-pre-disaster-mitigation/, Accessed 06-25-
2021) MS
Climate change is likely to increase the frequency and cost of natural disasters in the U.S.,
underscoring the importance of a robust and proactive federal natural disaster response.
Fortunately, legislation enacted in 2018 provides a pathway for tribes, states, territories, and
localities to respond more proactively to dangerous storms, floods, and fires. The Disaster
Recovery Reform Act (“DRRA”) provides a number of tools for the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (“FEMA”) and other federal and state actors to better respond to natural
disasters. Importantly, the DRRA provides a dedicated funding stream for proactive disaster
mitigation. This dedicated funding will allow FEMA to empower local communities to build
resilient defenses before disasters strike, saving money and lives. Resilient infrastructure and
disaster planning are particularly important in the context of sea level rise, where such damage is
incremental but increasingly predictable.
Federal disaster response is governed by the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (“Stafford Act”). Passed in 1988, the Stafford Act is by nature reactionary and, as recent
years have illustrated, dependent on the discretion of the President. [7] The Act defines a “major
disaster” as “any natural catastrophe” deemed by the President to “warrant major disaster
assistance . . . to supplement the efforts and available resources of States, local governments, and
disaster relief organizations.”[8] Thus, by the Act’s design, the federal government is meant to
support, not lead, disaster response efforts, and FEMA (among other agencies, including the
Small Business Administration and the Department of Housing and Urban Development) is
responsible for coordinating the federal response. Only once a state, territorial, or tribal
government has formally petitioned the federal government for assistance can the President make
a major disaster declaration. After a major disaster has been declared, the federal government can
provide funding for states, localities, and individuals, as well as for future hazard mitigation.
In response to changes in the DRRA, FEMA launched the Building Resilient Infrastructure and
Communities (“BRIC”) Program, replacing the previous PDM grant program.] The BRIC
Program will provide funds to states, territories, localities, and tribal governments for pre-disaster
mitigation projects.[42] These funds will be distributed according to six “guiding
principles”—“[1] supporting communities through capability- and capacity-building; encouraging
and enabling innovation; [3] promoting partnerships; [4] enabling large projects; [5] maintaining
flexibility; and [6] providing consistency.”[43] Funding for the BRIC program will be provided
through the NPIPDM, and FEMA “will provide a federal cost share of up to 75% for most funded
projects, and to up to 90% per project for small impoverished communities.”[44]
In its 2020 Notice of Funding Opportunity for the initial BRIC disbursement, FEMA announced
up to $500 million in available funding for BRIC applicants with “mitigation projects ” and
“Capability- and Capacity-Building” programs, as well as “non-financial Direct Technical
Assistance.”[45] To be eligible for an award, applicants need to demonstrate that their projects
generate at least as many benefits as costs.[46] Such cost-benefit analyses can also incorporate
“ecosystem service benefits.”[47] Thus, eligible applicants can use funds on mitigation projects
that strengthen natural or “green” infrastructure and count those environmental gains in their
cost-benefit analysis.
The DRRA and the BRIC program will allow tribes, states, territories, and localities to prepare
for increasingly dangerous and costly natural disasters, including sea level rise. With a dedicated
funding stream, FEMA can help communities develop robust pre-disaster mitigation projects,
while the DRRA’s language on building codes, inspections, and resilience will allow FEMA to
assist communities to build back smarter. Such efforts will help avoid “decisions to rebuild in
place, often made seemingly in defiance of climate change, [which] have at times left structures
just as defenseless against the next storm.
Resource Allocation — the RDRA adjusts disaster relief to be more cost-effective

while addressing vulnerabilities.
Sillman 21 — Ari Sillman, J.D. Candidate and Research Assistant at Harvard Law School,
holds an M.A. in Arab Studies from Georgetown University, 2021 (“A New Approach to Disaster
Relief Funding? The Disaster Recovery Reform Act’s Promise for Pre-Disaster Mitigation,”
Paper Published by the Harvard University Environmental & Energy Law Program, January 28 th,
Available Online at https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/2021/01/a-new-approach-to-disaster-relief-
funding-the-disaster-recovery-reform-acts-promise-for-pre-disaster-mitigation/, Accessed 06-25-
2021) MS
Funding issues have also historically impaired federal disaster response and mitigation efforts.
The Stafford Act’s Pre-Disaster Hazard Mitigation (“PDM”) Program authorized the President to
disperse funds to state and local authorities “to assist in the implementation of predisaster hazard
mitigation measures that are cost-effective and are designed to reduce injuries, loss of life, and
damage and destruction of property.”[12] These funds, however, were appropriated on an ad hoc
basis into a pre-disaster mitigation fund,[13] and have been “unpredictable, and historically much
smaller than post-disaster allocations.”[14] From 2013 to 2015, for example, the PDM Program
received only $25 million annually in appropriated funds.[15] In 2016, the PDM budget rose to
$100 million.[16]
Such an ad hoc approach to disaster mitigation funding makes little sense given that such funds
are estimated to “save $6 per $1 spent.”[17] Post-disaster funding, in contrast to pre-disaster
mitigation, fails to save lives and mitigate economic damage. Resource allocation in the aftermath
of a disaster is often rushed due to pressing need and a desire “to restore normalcy.”[18] These
pressures lead communities to rebuild over and over without addressing underlying
vulnerabilities , or engaging in meaningful consultation with community members and
organizations. Focus on pre-disaster mitigation, by contrast, can be done more deliberately,
leveraging research and community input along the way.
Second, the DRRA adjusted the language of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (“HMGP”) to
permit the federal government to “contribute up to 75% of the cost of hazard mitigation measures
which the President has determined are cost effective and which substantially reduce the risk of,
or increase resilience to, future damage . . . in any area affected by a major disaster.
The DRRA also provides states, tribes, territories, and localities with new authority to rebuild
buildings according to the latest building codes so that they are more resilient to future natural
disasters. The Act provides funding for “extra hires to facilitate the implementation and
enforcement of adopted building codes”[30] and sets up an expert panel to develop better
procedures for cost estimates of repairs.[31] It also permits FEMA to incentivize “the adoption
and enforcement of the latest published editions of relevant consensus-based codes,” and to set
baseline acceptable building standards “for the design, construction, and maintenance of
residential structures . . . eligible for assistance under this Act.” [32] Furthermore, FEMA is
permitted to condition cost estimates for these homes upon a forthcoming definition of the term
“resilient.”[33] Before the DRRA, FEMA only required that estimates for new home construction
meet “codes, specifications, and standards . . . applicable at the time at which the disaster
occurred.”[34] These changes should help make the rebuilding process after a disaster more cost-
effective—a recent FEMA study found that updating building codes to harden structures from
storms would lead to annual cost savings of more than $1.6 billion.[35]
2NC/1NR — National Climate Bank Solvency
Best Practices — a bank could improve practices and resource use to reduce
vulnerabilities.
Kohoe et. al. 21 — Julia Kehoe, former Dow Sustainability Masters Fellow at EcoWorks
Detroit, former Organizing Assistant for the Northern Plains Resource Council, MS/MBA
Candidate in Sustainable Business and Environmental Policy at the Erb Institute for Global
Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan, Maddie Lee, Associate Fellow at the Center
for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES), holds a B.A. in international relations from Claremont
McKenna College, and Verena Radulovic, Vice President for Business Engagement at the Center
for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES), former Lead of the Center for Corporate Climate
Leadership at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), former Research Associate at
the Environmental Law Institute, holds a Msc. in environmental policy and international
development from the London School of Economics and Political Science, holds a B.A. in
political science from Indiana University, 2021 (“Catalyzing Investment with a National Climate
Bank: Lessons from Subnational Green Banks,” Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, June,
Available Online at https://www.c2es.org/site/assets/uploads/2021/06/catalyzing-investment-
with-a-national-climate-bank.pdf, Accessed 06-28-2021, p. 13)
INVESTMENT PRIORITIES
At a minimum , a national climate bank should provide support to subnational green banks and
fill financing gaps for projects that may be too risky or too large for subnational banks (in terms
of dollars or geography) but that are not traditionally financed by private lenders. More
specifically, a national climate bank should prioritize the following:
Supporting subnational green banks & investment tools: A national climate bank should provide
technical and financial assistance to existing green banks, as well as initial capitalization to help
establish new subnational green banks. While existing green banks have built local market
expertise and established relationships with customers, contractors, and funders, a national
climate bank can add dollars and capacity, help disseminate best practices, and grow the network
of regional, state and local green banks across the United States.
Rather than financing state and local projects directly, a national climate bank should, wherever
possible, support subnational green banks to ensure that local needs are being met and to grow
local capacity and investment opportunities. A national climate bank could connect national
funding streams—including both public- and private-sector lending—to state and local
investment opportunities. The bank should also create guidelines and criteria, and should serve as
a clearinghouse, for potential clean energy project partners. Such coordination also reduces the
odds of national and subnational green banks devoting time and resources to the same project ,
enabling limited resources to be targeted more efficiently
At present, subnational green banks are likely to be better suited to accelerate clean energy and
energy efficiency among LMI communities and to fill financing gaps related to local resilience. A
national climate bank can support these efforts by providing financial and technical support to
existing subnational green banks, helping to establish new subnational green banks, or partnering
with local institutions (including CDFIs) to help close financing gaps in jurisdictions where
establishing new subnational green banks is not feasible. With respect to widespread climate
impacts, a national climate bank can strategically deploy financial and technical support and
provide coordination of financing efforts to reduce a region’s vulnerability.
Climate Change — the bank could maximize a reduction in emissions, making

the US a world leader. International studies prove.
Schmidt 21 — Contributor to International Banker, 2021 (“Could the US Benefit from a
National Green Bank?,” International Banker, June 25th, Available Online at
https://internationalbanker.com/banking/could-the-us-benefit-from-a-national-green-bank/,
Accessed 06-29-2021)
The report analysed 27 existing green banks based in 12 countries representing 42 percent of
global GDP (gross domestic product) and 32 percent of carbon emissions . Research was
conducted between June and September 2020, including 46 surveys and 15 interviews with
representatives from 36 countries. A snapshot of some of the results of the analysis reveals some
encouraging progress being made on the global stage, with existing green banks increasingly
catalysing new low-carbon markets and crowding in private investment. Twelve of the green
banks from ten countries, including three national-level green banks—New Zealand’s Green
Investment Finance, Norway’s Nysnø and Switzerland’s Technology Fund—have managed to
invest $24.5 billion in total of their own capital since their respective creations. And nine green
banks from eight countries attracted a median of $2-plus of additional private money into low-
carbon projects for every dollar invested.
So, could the United States achieve similarly laudable results as that of its international peers by
creating its own national green bank? According to the official wording of the CLEAN Future
Act itself, the Accelerator shall make the US “a world leader in combating the causes and
effects of climate change through the rapid deployment of mature technologies and scaling of
new technologies by maximizing the reduction of emissions in the United States for every dollar
deployed by the Accelerator”. What’s more, the Accelerator’s finance and investment division
will make capital available to state, territorial and local green banks to enable them to finance
eligible projects in their markets that are better served by a locally based entity than directly via
the Accelerator.
Community Revitalization — a bank could provide capital supporting fence-line

communities to fossil fuels.
CGC 20 — Coalition for Green Capital, a 501c3 non-profit that works with governments at the
international, national, state and local level to establish Green Bank finance institutions to
accelerate the deployment of clean energy technology, 2020 (“Catalyzing Investment for
Environmental Justice,” Coalition for Green Capital, October, Available Online at
https://coalitionforgreencapital.com/wp-content/uploads/20201027_NCB-Environmental-Justice-
Whitepaper.pdf, Accessed 06-28-2021, p. 9)
The National Climate Bank will also undertake large scale project that enable communities to
recover from the effects of fossil fuel infrastructure.16
Supporting revitalization efforts of fence-line communities
The National Climate Bank will serve as a new source of capital for the revitalization of fence-
line communities. Low-income communities and communities of color are more likely to live in
fence-line communities that are in close proximity to polluting fossil fuel infrastructure. These
communities have long fought for regulatory interventions to mitigate the harms caused by fossil
fuel infrastructure, and are increasingly forcing the decommissioning of this infrastructure.
However, once the polluting facilities are closed, capital is required to rebuild, repair and renew
damaged community infrastructure. Currently, communities depend on scarce philanthropy and
governmental grants to undertake these rebuilding efforts. The National Climate Bank will be
capable of providing the low/no-cost patient capital that communities need to undertake
revitalization projects like community renewable generation facility construction and green
retrofits of housing and commercial spaces enable community renewal after fossil fuel
infrastructure.
Facilitating a Just Transition for frontline communities
The National Climate Bank will be a tool to support a just transition for communities harmed by
the transition away from fossil fuel infrastructure. Many low-income, communities of color,
Native and indigenous communities are being devastated by the closure of fossil fuel
infrastructure, like coal mines, that were previously the primary source of employment and tax
revenue in their communities. Responding to this reality requires a cohesive national response
led by the communities experiencing this crisis. However, the National Climate Bank can play a
role as a capital provider as these communities develop their post-fossil fuel future. The National
Climate Bank will provide financing that supports the creation and capitalization of new
businesses in clean energy and climate infrastructure, one of the fastest growing segments of the
economy. The National Climate Bank will also be a capital provider for communities looking to
reclaim former fossil fuel infrastructure sites, mitigating public health and environmental
risks.
Economic Growth — private investment would increase jobs and boost the
economy.
Schmidt 21 — Contributor to International Banker, 2021 (“Could the US Benefit from a
National Green Bank?,” International Banker, June 25th, Available Online at
https://internationalbanker.com/banking/could-the-us-benefit-from-a-national-green-bank/,
Already, there is much evidence of existing green banks at state and local levels achieving
considerable success , catalysing a record $1.69 billion of investments, which is more than
double the $709 million recorded in 2015, according to a new report by the American Green
Bank Consortium, a group comprising 21 local green banks and six foundations. “Green banks
established in New York, Connecticut and California, among others, have collectively invested
more than $5 billion in clean energy initiatives, with efforts frequently catalysing the private
sector to invest significantly more ,” Kathleen Sifer, Phil Kangas and Kyle Reid of Grant
Thornton recently wrote in the US government business news daily GovExec.com.
But a bank at the federal level could well accelerate those numbers going forward by
supporting existing green banks as well as developing new green institutions in areas in which
they don’t yet operate and sending funds to projects and sectors directly. This could significantly
expedite the allocation of funds towards sectors that need to be most urgently addressed in
order to meet President Joe Biden’s lofty decarbonisation ambitions. “Doing project finance at
the individual facility level, at the community level, is complicated,” Jahi Wise, a senior White
House adviser for climate policy and finance, said on May 11. “Sometimes the transaction costs
can be high, and we need institutions that are specialized in doing that work. Green banks have
stepped up to fill the void. We need to support these institutions with technical assistance and
with capital.”
Such an initiative could also attract a hefty volume of additional private investment as well as
create millions of jobs in the process. The bill’s proponents estimate that $100 billion in capital
could end up leveraging an additional $500 billion in private-sector investment and create up to
four million jobs over the next four years. “Capitalized with $100 billion in funding, the
Accelerator will mobilize public and private investments to provide financing for low- and zero-
emissions energy technologies, climate resiliency projects, building efficiency and electrification,
industrial decarbonization, grid modernization, agriculture projects, clean transportation, and the
development of state and local green banks where they do not yet exist,” stated the House Energy
and Commerce Committee.
But not everyone is on board with the national green-bank concept. “The argument for a federal
green bank is flawed in many respects,” Paul H. Tice, adjunct professor of finance at the Leonard
N. Stern School of Business at New York University (NYU), recently explained in the Wall
Street Journal. “For one, there is a truth-in-advertising problem. Banks are conservatively
managed, highly regulated financial institutions that mainly engage in deposit-taking on the
liability side and lending on the asset side of the balance sheet—neither of which would be
central to the business mix of a federal green bank.” Tice also warned against including high-risk
activities—such as taking noncontrolling private-equity stakes in green-energy ventures and
funding research on breakthrough clean technologies—within the federal green bank’s core
capital-providing business.
Nevertheless, the results observed worldwide suggest that a federal green bank would be a net
positive, not only in meeting sustainable development goals but also in providing a much-
needed economic boost . Of course, much more needs to be done beyond simply creating a
national green bank to meet the increasingly arduous challenges posed by climate change.
Economic Returns — numerous stakeholders could benefit.

Undertaking large and complex environmental justice projects
The National Climate Bank will also invest in large and complex clean energy and climate
infrastructure investment projects that are currently outside the scope and scale of most state and
local Green Banks. These projects have the potential to bring significant economic activity to
the communities and regions in which they are located, and to ameliorate long-standing
environmental harms caused by fossil-fuel infrastructure.
A wide array of local stakeholders stand to benefit, including:
• Americans who suffer from the health effects of fossil-fuel based generation;
• Businesses that construct or install clean energy;
• Contractors that perform energy efficiency audits, upgrades, or other construction;
• Communities charting a new path in a post-fossil fuel economy; and
• Energy-intensive businesses constrained by the availability or price of power.
Though the National Climate Bank would invest at an even larger scale, a few examples from
existing Green Banks point to the potential benefits, including the jobs that can be created by
clean energy investment at scale.
Employment — investment toward front-line communities would provide

millions of jobs.
Hundt 20 — Reed Hundt, Co-founder, Chairman and CEO of the Coalition for Green Capital,
a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that supports and advocates for green banks to invest in the clean power
platform, former Board Member of the Connecticut Green Bank, former Economic Working
Group Head of the Barack Obama Presidential Transition Team, former Chairman of the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), former Professor at Yale Law School and the Yale School
of Management, former Senior Adviser at McKinsey & Company, holds a J.D. from Yale Law
School, 2020 (“Investing in the Future with a National Bank for Green Tech,” German Marshall
Fund, November 19th, Available Online at https://www.gmfus.org/publications/investing-future-
national-bank-green-tech, Accessed 06-25-2021)
Purchasing Additional Greenhouse-Gas Reductions and Ensuring a Just Transition
Furthermore, a National Green Bank should be authorized to accelerate the clean-energy

transition by purchasing fossil fuels while they are still in the ground or paying coal plants to
cease operation. Finally, a National Green Bank should be charged with remedying the long-term
injustices and inequities that low-income communities and communities of color have
disproportionately suffered from the burning of fossil fuels. Aside from merely delivering clean
energy at competitive prices, it should prioritize investment—including investment in job training
and reskilling—in communities that have suffered economically from the closure of fossil-fueled
facilities or long-term negative health effects from living in high-pollution areas.
Conclusion
The benefits of a National Green Bank extend beyond achieving clean-energy objectives . A
$35 billion deposit, once mobilized, would put millions of currently unemployed Americans
back to work across every state. Voters want Congress to invest in clean-energy infrastructure
and the jobs that come with it, with and over 80 percent of Democrats as well as over 50 percent
of independents and Republicans embracing a National Green Bank as an engine of job creation
and stable employment.6 Solar and wind technology, smart electrical grids, Internet-ofThings-
enabled charging infrastructure—all need to be built, and at a time when over 10 million
Americans remain unemployed, there are workers ready to build them. All that remains is to
create the financial vehicle ready to invest in them.
Infrastructure — a bank could transform power generation and transportation.

Financing Clean Energy Technology
A National Green Bank should undertake direct financing of capital-intensive projects in a variety
of sectors and technologies, including energy generation, transmission, and transportation. Low-
cost financing for utility-scale renewable energy technology—such as solar, wind, geothermal,
and hydropower—could help transform electric power generation , which still accounts for
over 25 percent of U.S. emissions . By increasing the greenhouse-gas competitiveness of
renewables and reducing project costs, a green bank could spur the uptake of clean energy in
crowded markets and penetrate regions where renewable generation was previously nonviable.
Similarly, the construction of a smart electrical grid, which is integral to the successful
integration of renewables, is ripe for green-bank investment. A green bank should invest directly
in transmission projects and invest in advanced battery technology, such as lithium ion-based
batteries, and technically innovative storage systems, like gravity storage able to stockpile large
amounts of intermittent energy by harnessing the earth’s gravitational pull.
Meanwhile, transportation remains the highest contributor to U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. A

green bank should invest in the advancement of electric-vehicle technology and the charging
infrastructure it requires. Additionally, it could drive investment in public transit, from bike-share
programs to all-electric bus fleets. Beyond these sectors, a green bank should also direct capital
toward climate-resilient infrastructure, industrial decarbonization, and energy-efficiency
programs.
Investment Growth — banks could increase returns towards clean energy.

accelerate the deployment of clean energy technology, 2020 (“A Green Recovery for Minnesota:
Job Creation, Environmental Justice, and Clean Energy,” Coalition for Green Capital, November,
Available Online at
http://coalitionforgreencapital.com/wp-content/uploads/4451_CGC_MN_Report-Web-2.pdf,
Accessed 06-29-2021, p. 8)
The Green Bank Model for Economic Growth & Environmental Justice
Clean energy deployment must happen faster and at a larger scale; a green bank can facilitate that
transition. Green banks are job-creating, dedicated finance institutions (often public entities or
nonprofit organizations) that use innovative financing techniques to connect clean energy projects
with capital. Given the highly localized nature of energy markets, green banks are often created
as local institutions. They are market-oriented , seeking to achieve returns on their investments,
in part to demonstrate to private investors that attractive returns are possible. While they are not
technically banks (in that they do not take deposits), they use various techniques to offer
favorable terms to clean energy projects, including credit enhancements, technical assistance, and
lowercost or longer-term loans.
Green banks apply their specialized expertise in energy lending to undertake transactions that
private sector capital providers are unlikely or unable to do on their own. They focus on scalable
solutions, dedicating capital and staff time to demonstrate innovative financing structures that can
be replicated across multiple projects.
Green banks have served as powerful tools to help states and cities achieve their sustainability
goals and drive greater investment into clean energy markets by leveraging private capital. As
reported in the American Green Bank Consortium’s 2020 Green Bank Annual Industry Report,
for every $1 invested by a green bank, the organization is able to mobilize on average $3.6 in
overall investment.18
For example, The Connecticut Green Bank, the state’s quasi-public green bank, has used $250
million in public funding to drive over $1.6 billion in overall investment in the state’s clean
energy market. Michigan Saves, Michigan’s independent, nonprofit green bank, has used $19
million in public and philanthropic funding to drive over $190 million of investment into the
state’s clean energy market. Overall, green banks across the country have helped drive over $ 5
billion of investment into clean energy projects as can be seen in.
Local Expansion — the CP spurs local follow-on and more green initiatives.
Supporting State and Local Green Banks
Many clean-energy projects require local expertise. Energy markets are regulated at the state
level, and clean-energy market participants such as contractors and developers generally operate
within a single jurisdiction. In these cases, a National Green Bank would be able to assist in two
ways: by supplying seed capital and technical assistance to create subnational green banks where
they do not already exist, and by providing a low-cost capital base for those that do so that they
can undertake the financing of state and local initiatives. A National Green Bank should operate
with an internal team specializing in the formation of green banks, offering technical assistance to
remove barriers to growth in the green-bank ecosystem. For new and existing green banks, a
National Green Bank should provide funding in the form of grants, loans, or loan guarantees.
Local Support — a bank would enhance current local green initiatives.

A National Climate Bank increases environmental justice investment
A National Climate Bank will build on the work of state and local Green Banks and be a
powerful tool for environmental justice in its own right, by a) supporting the expansion of the
environmental justice programs currently underway in state and local Green Banks b) creating
local financing entities that enable local control of climate investment and c) undertaking large
and complex environmental justice related investment projects.
Supporting expansion of state and local environmental justice programs
The National Climate Bank will expand the environmental justice work currently underway at
state and local Green Banks across the country. As is discussed at length above, state and local
Green Banks across the country are facilitating the transactions necessary to enable clean energy
and climate infrastructure investment in environmental justice communities. The National
Climate Bank will further this work by providing additional flexible capital that can be used to
broaden the scope and scale of environmental justice focused financing programs. The National
Climate Bank will also provide technical assistance that enables state and local Green Banks to
develop new financing programs that facilitate investment in environmental justice communities.
Like state and local Green Banks, the National Climate Bank would focus its technical assistance
and capital on projects involving technologies that are on the edge of widespread deployment in
environmental justice communities.
New Green Banks — a national bank could form new banks that could
immediately finance projects.
Whitepaper.pdf, Accessed 06-28-2021, p. 7-8)
Providing resources necessary for local control of climate investment
The National Climate Bank will also provide the resources necessary to stand up new Green
Banks in environmental justice communities. Historically, Green Banks in the U.S. have been
formed by state governments, local governments and non-profit and community organizations.
There are currently 15 Green Banks operating nationally and across 13 states. State and local
Green Banks can be formed and operated by community stakeholders and accordingly, are an
ideal vehicle for community control and direction of clean energy and climate infrastructure
investments.
A key function of the National Climate Bank will be to provide technical assistance to enable the
formation and launch of new Green Banks in environmental justice communities. Technical
assistance is a key ingredient for the success of any Green Bank and will be especially important
for Green Banks launching in environmental justice communities with a limited history of clean
energy and climate infrastructure investment. The National Climate Bank’s technical assistance
offerings will include market evaluation, product design and implementation, organizational
formation, hiring, business plan creation, and launch support.
The National Climate Bank will also provide seed capital to enable new Green Banks to launch
their operations and initial financing products. Access to start-up operating capital is key to the
success of new Green Banks, as it often takes several years for a new Green Bank to generate
revenues sufficient to cover its operating costs. This timeline may be longer in communities
where project sizes are smaller or expected returns from financing are low. The National Climate
Bank will provide operating capital, sized to the operating needs of the applicable Green Bank, to
enable the Green Bank to immediately begin financing clean energy and infrastructure projects.
Tech Modernization — a bank could advance grid resilience, alternative vehicle

use, and emerging clean tech.
with-a-national-climate-bank.pdf, Accessed 06-28-2021, p. 13-14)
Supporting the development of large-scale or regional infrastructure projects: A national climate
bank can play an important role in advancing critical infrastructure needed to enable and scale
technologies that can decarbonize the economy, including grid modernization and alternative
vehicle charging and refueling. While, as noted earlier, some subnational green banks can finance
projects outside their jurisdiction that provide benefits to their jurisdiction, a national-level
climate bank can finance projects across regions to a greater degree, including potentially
coordinating or co-investing with subnational banks. The construction of a cleaner and more
resilient grid is clearly such a project, as it will require investment in new high-voltage, long-
distance, inter-regional transmission lines, including to bring clean energy from high resource to
high demand areas; a national climate bank could help facilitate this transmission overhaul by
coordinating public and private lending efforts and co-investing in projects.46 Likewise, a
national bank could support large, regional efforts to deploy alternative vehicle charging and
refueling infrastructure, providing additional coordination, technical, and financial assistance to
complement subnational green bank efforts.
Supporting the commercialization and widespread deployment of emerging technologies:
Technologies such as advanced nuclear, hydrogen, renewable natural gas, industrial
electrification, and direct air capture are nascent but emerging opportunities deemed necessary to
enable a transition to a net-zero future. At the moment, many are still being piloted through
research, development, demonstration, and deployment (RDD&D) efforts funded by both the
private and public sectors. The size of the needed funding and the range of real and perceived
financial, technical, and regulatory risks present challenges for most state and local green banks,
which instead have been focused on filling financing gaps for proven, commercially available
clean energy technologies. A national climate bank can accept risks and dollar amounts that
subnational banks or the private sector cannot, making it ideally suited to provide support for the
early commercialization projects needed to build market confidence in a new technology, referred
to as first-of-a-kind (FOAK) through nth-of-a-kind (NOAK) projects. Many federal programs
develop, pilot, and commercialize new technologies, and a national climate bank should work
closely with those programs to avoid duplication and identify opportunities for synergies.
Limitations in the technology or sectoral focus, as well as financing instruments available to these
programs highlights the importance of collaboration with a national climate bank to fill critical,
persistent financing gaps and/or help scale the reach of different programs. By establishing early-
stage financing opportunities, leveraging public and private RDD&D efforts, and building strong
relationships with other federal or nongovernmental innovation efforts, a national climate bank
could serve as a conduit to finance the rapid deployment of nascent technologies as they become
commercially viable. Subnational green banks can partner with the national climate bank and
other organizations to support these kinds of deployments once the technologies and business
models are more established.
Providing investment at scale to assist fossil fuel-reliant communities in their transition to a net-
zero economy: Like subnational green banks, a national climate bank should focus on how to best
utilize financing to assist fossil fuel-dependent communities and workers in their transition to a
net-zero economy. These investments could focus on projects that facilitate diversification into
low-, zero- and negative-emission industries or other low-carbon economic opportunities that can
enhance economic resilience. Facility buyouts could include payments to workers impacted by
early retirement of fossil assets. More research is needed to determine how a national climate
bank can develop and deploy strategic financing mechanisms to assist such communities,
particularly in states that lack subnational green banks, but also as a complement to subnational
green bank efforts.
They Say: “Climate Bank Fails/Can’t Afford It”
Creating a national climate bank is feasible — state adoption, Congressional
recognition, and sustainable investment method prove.
What the United States lacks today is not political will—climate change is no longer a partisan
issue, with four of every five voters identifying it as a major crisis or real problem.1 Rather, it
lacks a functioning framework through which to channel this ambition . Direct government
funding will not be adequate to meet the challenge: recent estimates suggest that converting to
100 percent clean energy would require $4.5 trillion in investment.2 Instead, climate investment
policies must be catalytic, driving private capital toward a clean, technology-driven economy that
creates new, high-paying jobs. The solution lies in the creation of a National Green Bank .
The Solution: A National Green Bank to Invest in Clean Energy and Green Tech
Green banks currently exist at the state and local level. These smaller efforts have delivered
outsized results, with the current roster of 15 catalyzing $5.3 billion in clean-energy investment
since 2011. In 2019, every $1 invested by a green bank resulted in $3.60 of total investment into
the U.S. clean-energy economy.3 The model is working ; all that is needed now is the ambition
to implement it on a national scale.
Congress has recognized the need for a National Green Bank and sought to deliver it. The
National Climate Bank Act of 2019, which has been introduced in the House and Senate, would
establish an independent, non-profit entity capitalized with $35 billion in federal funds over six
years.4 The House passed the bill with a strong bipartisan vote in the summer of 2020. However,
the bill was not taken up by the Senate and, now that this Congress is coming to a close, the
legislation will have to be reintroduced in 2021.
Under this act, the National Climate Bank would be tasked with raising and deploying capital in
order to maximize reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions, and with prioritizing projects that
offer economic benefits to frontline and marginalized communities, which experience the first
and worst impacts of climate change. Analysis by the Coalition for Green Capital suggests that
the bank would be able to mobilize up to $1 trillion of investment over the 30-year length of its
charter by drawing in private investment and recycling its initial capital.5 A National Green
Bank, as proposed in the 2019 draft legislation, should focus on four categories of activity:
directly financing clean-energy projects, supporting state and local green banks, purchasing
additional greenhouse gas reductions, and ensuring a just transition.
A national climate bank could sustainably invest and track market changes.
TYPES OF FINANCING PRODUCTS AND SERVICES
A national climate bank can leverage the same financing mechanisms that subnational banks
currently use. As a national climate bank may be able to raise funds at a larger scale and borrow
at a lower rate than subnational green banks or project developers, enabling it to provide access to
lower-cost financing and to act more like a traditional development bank or mission-driven
financial institution. (It would be motivated to maintain a high credit rating, though, to access the
bond market, such as by keeping the balance sheet leverage ratio below or well below the
leverage ratio of a traditional bank.) A national climate bank should also aim to diversify its
funding streams. Providing transparency to private investors regarding how it seeks to attract, not
compete with, private investment can serve that objective.
TRACKING & REPORTING
In addition to tracking and reporting its direct impacts, a national climate bank, like subnational
green banks, should build impact metrics and baseline data collection into the start-up phase to be
able to better demonstrate impact and market transformation over time. A robust impact
evaluation demonstrating both financial and social returns will provide assurance to both
private investors and the public for continued support and success. Tracking market
transformation will also enable a national climate bank to know when it can scale down its role in
particular markets and shift attention and resources to other markets with greater need.
Where a national climate bank receives federal funding for capitalizations and financial
assistance, it should publicize its investments and outcomes with a public annual report to
Congress to improve transparency and strengthen accountability. It should also articulate its plans
and goals regarding how and where it seeks to deploy capital, in order to grow private-sector
confidence and investment in targeted technologies, communities, and markets.
A national climate bank could model subnational practices and fill gaps.
There are many lessons to be learned by examining existing subnational green banks in the
United States, including their organizational structures, capitalizations and funding, operational
scopes, types of financing products and services, and success metrics. As new state and local
banks emerge, they can learn from these experiences and should craft models that best align with
local circumstances and opportunities to use public funds to leverage much greater amounts of
private and other capital for the net-zero transition. Subnational green banks have focused their
efforts primarily on the vital need to expand deployment of established clean energy and energy
efficiency technologies, but they are starting—and should continue—to expand their efforts to
reach LMI communities, boost resilience to climate impacts, broaden the scope of their
infrastructure and technology lending, and support communities reliant on emitting industries
during the transition.
These experiences can also inform the establishment of a national climate bank , which is
necessary to fill gaps left by subnational banks, and crowd in private sector investment at the
scale needed to rapidly facilitate the low-carbon transition in the United States. A national bank
should support subnational green banks in their efforts, but also pursue its own portfolio of
initiatives to support the deployment of newly commercialized low- and zero-carbon technologies
and large-scale infrastructure projects.
They Say: “Economic Tradeoff DA (vs. Climate Policies)”
No Link — the CP supports the economy (Insert Job Growth/Econ Solvency
Card)
[(If reading CLEAN Future Act CP/Plank)] Worker Transition Solves — the CP
softens adverse economic effects by supporting workers reliant on the fossil fuels
industry.
4. Worker and Community Transition
The importance of helping workers and communities dependent on the fossil fuel industry to find
new opportunities and diversify their economic base as the country transitions to a low-carbon
economy cannot be overemphasized. While “just transition” policies are gaining traction in a
handful of U.S. states, including Colorado and New Mexico, the CFA acknowledges the
significant responsibility of the federal government.
To begin with, the bill broadens the conversation to include all workers and communities
adversely affected by the low-carbon transition, including those with ties to oil and gas industry
and those manufacturing internal combustion engine vehicles. This is important given that much
of the national conversation so far has focused on coal workers and communities.
The bill creates an Office of Energy and Economic Transition in the White House, entrusted with
developing federal policies on just transition. With the help of an interagency energy and
economic task force and a stakeholder advisory committee, the office would coordinate across
federal agencies to align transition strategies. The legislation also calls for the creation of a
clearinghouse to provide information on federal programs, grants, loans, loan guarantees and
technical assistance that can help impacted workers and local communities.
The legislation also creates new programs to support fossil workers who have lost their jobs, and
provides funding assistance to local governments that have been fiscally impacted due to closure
of a fossil fuel employer.
One promising program is “community-based transition hubs,” which would provide federal
funding to entities with relationships to local and regional economic development organizations,
workforce development and other community organizations to provide assistance to displaced
workers and aid communities with economic diversification. The hubs would support workers by
providing information and facilitating enrollment in locally available training and employment
opportunities and offering prevocational services to prepare individuals for employment, among
other things. This reflects a more bottom-up approach to investing in communities, enabling
federal dollars to be targeted to local challenges and needs.
They Say: “Links to Farming DA (Climate Policy)”
Counterplan Avoids Farming DA — the ag industry supports voluntary
incentives to reduce climate change (like the counterplan).
Calderon 21 — Ignacio Calderon, USA Today Agriculture Data Fellow at the Midwest Center
for Investigative Reporting, 2021 (“Once climate change deniers, the agriculture industry
positions itself as part of the solution,” USA Today, April 2nd, Available Online at
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2021/04/01/agriculture-industry-changes-
its-tune-climate-change/7053550002/, Accessed 07-04-2021)
For decades, the U.S. agriculture industry had staunchly opposed measures to limit climate
change.
Lobbying groups, such as the American Farm Bureau Federation, expressed skepticism that
humans caused it. And companies, such as Tyson Foods and Smithfield Foods, have been fined
millions for environmental violations.
But the industry in recent years has altered its stance on the issue . Riding a wave of shifting
public opinion about the reality of climate change, it is staking out a new position as part of
the climate solution .
One of the most visible signs of this about-face happened late last year when the Farm Bureau
partnered with dozens of other groups, from agriculture organizations to environmental
advocates, to announce a new initiative: the Food and Agriculture Climate Alliance . The
group has proposed 40 new policies , including voluntary incentives and other tools for
farmers to address a warming planet.
Farmers increasingly support climate policy — industry declarations and

changing practices prove.
Ferguson 20 — Agriculture Reporter for Roll Call, Member of the North American
Agricultural Journalists, holds a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Florida, 2020
(“Farmers are coming around on climate change,” Roll Call, May 13th, Available Online at
https://www.rollcall.com/2020/05/13/farmers-are-coming-around-on-climate-change/, Accessed
06-27-2021)
Major farm and livestock groups held a press conference in February to project a united voice on
an issue they’ve long avoided. The coalition leaders said they wanted to join the fight against
climate change rather than remain cast as villains avoiding the responsibility.
The approach was a sharp departure for an industry that less than a year earlier looked more like a
victim as photos circulated of nearly 20 million acres so saturated and flooded that farmers,
mostly in the Midwest, couldn’t get into their fields. The federal crop insurance program paid out
more than $4 billion in claims.
But farmers and ranchers now acknowledge that they have to change their practices. In myriad
ways, the agriculture sector pumps carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxide
and methane into the atmosphere, contributing to a warming planet. They suffer the effects in
flooded fields, persistent droughts or ravaging wildfires partly fueled by trees killed by insects
that are increasingly flourishing because of mild winters.
To counteract agriculture’s contribution to climate change, environmentally minded farmers are
changing the way they work. They are planting “cover crops,” such as ryegrass, crimson clover,
oil-seed radishes and cereal rye, which prevent soil depletion when cash crops are out of rotation.
And they are shifting to no-till agriculture, which also protects the soil by leaving it undisturbed
during cultivation and harvesting. Healthier soil can serve as a “carbon sink,” a reservoir that
absorbs more carbon than it emits.
These farmers are self-motivated . They know that they face projected yield declines in major
crops such as corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, sorghum and cotton as temperatures increase and water
becomes scarcer.
“If you ask any farmer if they’ve experienced a difference between when they first started
farming and today, almost everybody can recognize some dramatic differences in weather
patterns,” says Josh Yoder, an Ohio corn and soybean farmer.
The EPA’s 2018 greenhouse gas inventory says the U.S. agriculture sector accounted for nearly
10 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, up from 9 percent in 2017. Overall, the EPA
found greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. rose by 2.9 percent from 2017 to 2018 because of
increased fossil fuel use.
Zippy Duvall, the American Farm Bureau president who raises cattle and crops in Georgia, said
at the press conference that climate issues are a growing priority for the country and for Congress
and his industry should be at the table .
The goal for farmers is to make sure they’re involved in policy decisions that could affect their
livelihoods. The pressure isn’t just coming from the environmental movement. Big customers are
responding to investors and consumers by pressing suppliers to reduce emissions.
The agriculture groups’ turnaround can be attributed at least in part to the release in early 2019 of
the so-called Green New Deal, a resolution by two Democrats, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of
New York and Sen. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, that cast farmers as part of the problem.
One sentence in a question-and-answer document about the proposal raised alarms across the
agriculture industry: “We set a goal to get to net-zero rather than zero emissions in 10 years
because we aren’t sure we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast, but we
think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in
America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and
restore our ecosystem to get to net-zero.”
In effect, the document from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party said that any
remaining emissions would need to be compensated for.
“Some of the conventional agriculture groups want to get ahead of this ,” says Rep. Chellie
Pingree, a Maine Democrat who is an organic farmer. “They don’t want to be seen as the evil
wrongdoers.” But Pingree says that progressives too often ignore the complexities of agriculture
and climate. “Too much of the conversation around climate change in agriculture is just plant a
tree and don’t eat meat and close the door. That’s such a simplistic understanding of what is
going on.”
They Say: “Link to Farming DA (National Climate Bank)
A national climate bank avoids the link by supporting small businesses.
Schuster 21 – Paul Schuster, Founder and CEO of the Trimountaine Group LLC, a company
providing advisory services on energy transition, decarbonization and sustainability strategies to
small and medium sized businesses, large commercial companies, and utilities, 2021 (“How the
National Green Bank can help small businesses build back greener,” Utility Dive, March 4th,
Available Online at https://www.utilitydive.com/news/how-the-national-green-bank-can-help-
small-businesses-build-back-greener/596143/, Accessed 07-02-2021)
If the Administration wishes to think bold, though, the National Green Bank could serve an even
broader role in the energy transition. Today, large energy consumers have the ability to purchase
electricity directly from giant, utility-scale renewable energy projects, often at a discount to
wholesale market rates. They can do this because 1) they hold investment grade credit and 2) they
consume energy at a scale where the renewable energy project can sell significantly all of their
power to one consumer. As a result, the renewable project is often able to provide electricity at a
price below that at which the company is currently buying power.
Small businesses, though, can't access that value. Most are simply too small to even register for a
utility-scale renewable project and even those of some scale find the requirements to post credit
too onerous and expensive to undertake. These are businesses that have good cash flow and
strong financials, but the system is built against them transitioning to clean energy.
As Congress and the Biden Administration develop the scaffolding for a National Green Bank,
this lack of access for small businesses should be carefully considered. A national institution
providing the credit and warehousing capability to backstop any number of renewable energy
offtake agreements would be a powerful accelerator for the clean energy economy.
The Bank would purchase discounted power from new build utility-scale renewable generators
and, through a public RFP process, sell that power back to small businesses participating within
its program. Small businesses would have access to low cost, clean power while the Green Bank
facilitates the growth of new projects. For every dollar of credit enhancement provided by the
government, multiple dollars of private capital would flow into the actual construction of these
renewable projects.
The federal government may be the only entity of scale capable of managing a program like
this. Private institutions would otherwise seek a risk adjusted return that would eat into the
savings the small businesses could experience, and few are of a size to backstop and warehouse
the power in the first place. And while the Green Bank should also consider ways to leverage
loans, research grants, and other securitization options, the opportunity around warehousing and
credit is immense. It would finally allow 30.7 million small businesses to capture the value from
the energy transition, right as they need it the most.
That’s key — the majority of farms are small.

Young 15 — Krissy Young, Senior Public Affairs Specialist at U.S. Department of Agriculture,
2015 (“Family Farms are the Focus of New Agriculture Census Data,” United States Department
of Agriculture, March 17th, Available Online at
https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2015/03/17/family-farms-are-focus-new-agriculture-
census-data, Accessed 07-02-2021)
As we wrap up mining the 6 million data points from the latest Census of Agriculture, we used
typology to further explore the demographics of who is farming and ranching today," said NASS
Statistics Division Director Hubert Hamer. "What we found is that family-owned businesses,
while very diverse, are at the core of the U.S. agriculture industry . In fact, 97 percent of all
U.S. farms are family-owned."
The 2012 Census of Agriculture Farm Typology report is a special data series that primarily
focuses on the "family farm." By definition, a family farm is any farm where the majority of the
business is owned by the operator and individuals related to the operator, including through
blood, marriage, or adoption. Key highlights from the report include the following five facts
about family farms in the United States:
Five Facts to Know about Family Farms
1. Food equals family – 97 percent of the 2.1 million farms in the United States are family-owned
operations.
2. Small business matters – 88 percent of all U.S. farms are small family farms .
3. Local connections come in small packages – 58 percent of all direct farm sales to consumers
come from small family farms.
4. Big business matters too – 64 percent of all vegetable sales and 66 percent of all dairy sales
come from the 3 percent of farms that are large or very large family farms.
5. Farming provides new beginnings – 18 percent of principal operators on family farms in the
U.S. started within the last 10 years.
They Say: “Links to Federalism DA (CLEAN Future Act)”
The CLEAN Future Act preserves federalism by supporting regional
differences and collaboration.
2. Climate Federalism
Recognizing the integral role that state governments must play in achieving national targets, the
CFA would require states to develop State Climate Plans to achieve interim and midcentury
emissions-reduction goals set by EPA to collectively meet the national targets. Each state would
be able to craft emissions-reduction pathways tailored to its unique priorities and
circumstances. Under this model of climate federalism, states would submit a proposal to the
EPA that details emissions-reduction plans for each decade until 2050. This approach builds on
the leadership of the 25 governors who have committed to the goals of the Paris Agreement
through state clean electricity standards, zero emission vehicle programs, natural climate
solutions and other policies.
In the event that a state misses an interim target, they are required to submit a revised plan and,
until the target is met or the revised plan is satisfactory, would need to offset increased emissions
from any source with double the emission reductions from other sources. The bill would require
EPA to set a carbon fee that kicks in if it determines that a state has failed to submit an adequate
plan. EPA would set the fee at a level calculated to be sufficient to put the state on track to meet
its emissions target.
In addition to $200 million in federal grants for the preparation of state plans, states would be
provided with a portfolio of state-level strategies developed by the EPA, including performance-
based fuel standards, carbon removal strategies, pollution phaseout plans and more. States can
also apply for grants under a Race to Net-Zero Grant Program. Furthermore, the CFA allows for
regional collaboration , effectively encouraging the expansion and proliferation of pacts such as
the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and Transportation Climate Initiative (TCI).
They Say: “Links to Federalism DA (National Climate Bank)”
A national climate bank would complement subnational environmental
efforts.
“Green banks” refer to state and local financial institutions—including government and non-
profit entities—that leverage public funds and financing tools to attract capital for investments
which most often include clean energy, energy efficiency, other distributed energy resources, and
resilience projects.1 More than 20 subnational green banks are currently in operation at the state,
regional, county, and city levels in the United States. As of May 2021, government officials and
local leaders are exploring green banks in 11 additional states.2 Existing green banks have been
established by different means (e.g., legislation, nonprofit incorporation), have taken on a variety
of structures (e.g., public, quasi-public, nonprofit), and have been capitalized by a variety of
funding types (e.g., public, private, philanthropic). The banks help fill knowledge and financing
gaps in local markets, especially for smaller clean energy projects that traditional private lenders
tend not to finance. Green banks partner with private lenders and other investors to mobilize
capital, reduce perceived project risks, and provide technical assistance.3 They often prioritize
underserved markets where a lack of affordable capital and other barriers slow the adoption of
clean energy technologies.4 Between 2011 and 2020, green banks invested approximately $1.9
billion and leveraged $5.1 billion in private capital investment, for a total of $7 billion
mobilized.5 Thus far, all subnational green banks have been established primarily as debt-
financing institutions, wherein the capital invested is expected to be repaid, so they have mostly
focused on the vital work of deploying established climate-related technologies, such as clean
energy and energy efficiency.
A new national climate bank, capitalized by the federal government, could complement these
efforts by providing technical and financial assistance to new and existing subnational green
banks and financial institutions, while also establishing its own dedicated climate-focused
portfolio addressing larger-scale projects that subnational banks are not well positioned to
address. For example, a national climate bank could help support the widespread deployment of
less proven, more capitalintensive technologies and infrastructure projects. Like state and local
green banks, a national climate bank would focus on financing gaps and “crowding in” private
finance to support the comprehensive market response needed for widespread adoption of clean
energy and other climate solutions.6
Advantage CPs vs. Warming
National Climate Bank CP
1NC — National Climate Bank CP
The United States federal government should establish and fund a National
Climate Bank and require at least 60 percent be invested in communities with
the greatest need.
National Climate Bank solves climate and growth – public financing

stimulates private investment
Kathleen 20 [Expertise: International climate policy, climate preparedness, climate justice,
Arctic policy. Cathleen Kelly is a senior fellow for Energy and Environment at the Center for
American Progress. She specializes in international and U.S. climate mitigation, preparedness,
resilience, and sustainable development policy. Kelly served in the Obama administration at the
White House Council on Environmental Quality, where she led a 20-plus-agency task force to
develop a national climate resilience strategy., 1/30/2020, “3 Bold Actions Congress Should Take
to Equitably Address Weather and Climate Disasters”,
congress-take-equitably-address-weather-climate-disasters/]RG
Congress should also create a National Climate Bank to drive public and private investment
into renewable energy, clean transportation, and community resilience projects, particularly in
front-line communities such as economically disadvantaged communities, tribal communities,
and communities of color. In July 2019, Sens. Edward Markey (D-MA) and Chris Van Hollen
(D-MD) introduced the National Climate Bank Act to expand investments in clean energy,
Rep. Dingell, "Establishing a National Climate Bank will serve as an important implementation
tool to achieve this goal by publicly financing and stimulating private investments" in renewable
energy and "clean transportation," as well as provide support to communities that bear the
brunt of climate change. Meanwhile, if the CLEAN Future Act is enacted, it would create a "first-
of-its-kind National Climate Bank … to provide financing for low- and zero-emissions energy
technologies, climate resiliency , building efficiency and electrification, industrial
decarbonization, grid modernization, agriculture projects, and clean transportation." Like the
House and Senate National Climate Bank bills, the CLEAN Future Act would require the bank to
prioritize investments in "frontline, rural, low-income and environmental justice communities."
affordable energy and transportation options to improve community health and safety. Congress
can begin to tackle past inequities and unfair infrastructure practices by requiring that at least 60
percent of proposed National Climate Bank capital be invested in communities with the greatest
need.
2NC/1NR — Solvency — Climate
National Climate Bank solves climate – drives public and private investment
in renewables, transportation and resilience – that’s Kathleen
State banks prove effectiveness – capital base will mobilize investment in

green tech
*Note: solves grid/jobs internal links
Hundt 20 [Reed Hundt is co-founder, Chairman and CEO of the Coalition for Green Capital, a
501(c)(3) nonprofit that supports, and advocates for green banks to invest in the clean power
platform.,11/19/2020, “Investing in the Future with a National Bank for Green Tech”,
https://www.gmfus.org/publications/investing-future-national-bank-green-tech]RG
The Challenge: A Climate Crisis and Economic Emergency The conjoined crises of climate
change and the coronavirus pandemic have revealed the urgent need to pursue alternative avenues
for innovation and investment. Extreme weather events cost the United States over $45 billion in
2019, while the pandemic has resulted in over 200,000 deaths in the United States and over a
million worldwide. Today, as the west coast experiences devastating wildfires and the country
suffers from high unemployment, the country must seize the opportunity to address both through
national investment in green technology. What the United States lacks today is not political will
—climate change is no longer a partisan issue, with four of every five voters identifying it as a
major crisis or real problem.1 Rather, it lacks a functioning framework through which to channel
this ambition. Direct government funding will not be adequate to meet the challenge: recent
estimates suggest that converting to 100 percent clean energy would require $4.5 trillion in
investment.2 Instead, climate investment policies must be catalytic, driving private capital
toward a clean, technology-driven economy that creates new, high-paying jobs. The solution
lies in the creation of a National Green Bank. The Solution: A National Green Bank to Invest in
Clean Energy and Green Tech Green banks currently exist at the state and local level. These
smaller efforts have delivered outsized results, with the current roster of 15 catalyzing $5.3
billion in clean-energy investment since 2011. In 2019, every $1 invested by a green bank
resulted in $3.60 of total investment into the U.S. clean-energy economy.3 The model is
working ; all that is needed now is the ambition to implement it on a national scale . Congress
has recognized the need for a National Green Bank and sought to deliver it. The National Climate
Bank Act of 2019, which has been introduced in the House and Senate, would establish an
independent, non-profit entity capitalized with $35 billion in federal funds over six years.4 The
House passed the bill with a strong bipartisan vote in the summer of 2020. However, the bill was
not taken up by the Senate and, now that this Congress is coming to a close, the legislation will
have to be reintroduced in 2021. Under this act, the National Climate Bank would be tasked with
raising and deploying capital in order to maximize reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions, and
with prioritizing projects that offer economic benefits to frontline and marginalized communities,
which experience the first and worst impacts of climate change. Analysis by the Coalition for
Green Capital suggests that the bank would be able to mobilize up to $1 trillion of investment
over the 30-year length of its charter by drawing in private investment and recycling its
initial capital .5 A National Green Bank, as proposed in the 2019 draft legislation, should focus
on four categories of activity: directly financing clean-energy projects, supporting state and local
green banks, purchasing additional greenhouse gas reductions, and ensuring a just transition.
Financing Clean Energy Technology A National Green Bank should undertake direct financing of
capital-intensive projects in a variety of sectors and technologies, including energy generation,
transmission, and transportation. Low-cost financing for utility-scale renewable energy
technology—such as solar, wind, geothermal, and hydropower—could help transform electric
power generation, which still accounts for over 25 percent of U.S. g reen h ouse- g as emission s .
By increasing the competitiveness of renewables and reducing project costs, a green bank
could spur the uptake of clean energy in crowded markets and penetrate regions where
renewable generation was previously nonviable. Similarly, the construction of a smart electrical
grid, which is integral to the successful integration of renewables, is ripe for green-bank
investment. A green bank should invest directly in transmission projects and invest in advanced
battery technology, such as lithium ion-based batteries, and technically innovative storage
systems, like gravity storage able to stockpile large amounts of intermittent energy by harnessing
the earth’s gravitational pull. Meanwhile, transportation remains the highest contributor to U.S.
greenhouse-gas emissions. A green bank should invest in the advancement of e lectric- v ehicle
technology and the charging infrastructure it requires. Additionally, it could drive investment in
public transit, from bike-share programs to all-electric bus fleets. Beyond these sectors, a green
bank should also direct capital toward climate-resilient infrastructure, industrial decarbonization,
and energy-efficiency programs. Supporting State and Local Green Banks Many clean-energy
projects require local expertise. Energy markets are regulated at the state level, and clean-energy
market participants such as contractors and developers generally operate within a single
jurisdiction. In these cases, a National Green Bank would be able to assist in two ways: by
supplying seed capital and technical assistance to create subnational green banks where
they do not already exist, and by providing a low-cost capital base for those that do so that
they can undertake the financing of state and local initiatives . A National Green Bank should
operate with an internal team specializing in the formation of green banks, offering technical
assistance to remove barriers to growth in the green-bank ecosystem. For new and existing green
banks, a National Green Bank should provide funding in the form of grants, loans, or loan
guarantees. Purchasing Additional Greenhouse-Gas Reductions and Ensuring a Just Transition
Furthermore, a National Green Bank should be authorized to accelerate the clean-energy
transition by purchasing fossil fuels while they are still in the ground or paying coal plants to
cease operation. Finally, a National Green Bank should be charged with remedying the long-term
injustices and inequities that low-income communities and communities of color have
disproportionately suffered from the burning of fossil fuels. Aside from merely delivering clean
energy at competitive prices, it should prioritize investment—including investment in job training
and reskilling—in communities that have suffered economically from the closure of fossil-fueled
facilities or long-term negative health effects from living in high-pollution areas. Conclusion The
benefits of a National Green Bank extend beyond achieving clean-energy objectives. A $35
billion deposit, once mobilized, would put millions of currently unemployed Americans back to
work across every state. Voters want Congress to invest in clean-energy infrastructure and
the jobs that come with it, with and over 80 percent of Democrats as well as over 50 percent
of independents and Republicans embracing a National Green Bank as an engine of job
creation and stable employment. 6 Solar and wind technology, smart electrical grids, Internet-
ofThings-enabled charging infrastructure—all need to be built, and at a time when over 10
million Americans remain unemployed, there are workers ready to build them. All that remains is
to create the financial vehicle ready to invest in them.
UK, Australia, and states prove.

Sifer et al 21 [Sifer has deep leadership and management experience at global public and
private sector organizations. She also led numerous enterprise-wide business transformations,
strategic planning, shared service and process improvements, and change management initiatives
for bank regulators and global financial institutions., “How a National ‘Green Bank’ Could Help
Advance Biden’s Climate Agenda”, 4/22/2021
https://www.govexec.com/management/2021/04/how-national-green-bank-could-help-advance-
bidens-climate-agenda/173538/]RG
Addressing climate change is clearly a top priority for the Biden administration. Besides rejoining
the Paris Climate Accords and directing federal agencies to employ “green” considerations in
their procurements and strategies, Biden has selected a Cabinet of leaders committed to a “whole
of government” approach to the problem, making leadership on climate change a central theme of
the president’s earliest initiatives. A key initiative is creation of a national “green bank” to help
drive investment in the renewable energy and technology innovation market. The concept has
roots in other federal financing programs that have been created to address gaps in available
market funding. Private financial institutions may view the return on investment for new or
untested technological innovations as too high risk, regardless of the downstream societal
benefits. In the area of clean energy technology, significant government and private equity grant
and award programs exist to fund early phases of research and development activities. Moving
beyond this stage, however, becomes problematic, as the journey from pilot or demonstration
project to commercialization and market deployment can present substantial hurdles. As private
financial institutions require evidence of profitability for funding, promising pilot projects often
wither on the vine without the necessary financial backing to demonstrate viability. This early
and critical phase is where federal action, through targeted loan offerings, can be impactful.
Congress has an important role to play, too. Lawmakers on the House Energy and Commerce
Committee recently introduced The Clean Energy and Sustainability Accelerator Act, which
would direct $100 billion to a “clean energy and sustainability accelerator,” a nonprofit entity
intended to to fund renewable power, building efficiency, grid infrastructure, industrial
decarbonization, clean transportation, reforestation and climate-resilient infrastructure. By
supporting promising or proven energy innovation initiatives with limited access to capital,
government action could attract additional private investment and create millions of new jobs,
proponents argue. Federal, state, and local government programs with similar goals exist today,
albeit in smaller models with limited scope and varying financing offerings. Each of these
provide important lessons for deployment. Green banks established in New York, Connecticut
and California, among others, have collectively invested more than $5 billion in clean energy
initiatives, with efforts frequently catalyzing the private sector to invest significantly more. The
Energy Department’s Loan Programs Office, led by newly-appointed clean energy pioneer Jigar
Shah, offers several financing programs for market innovators and has issued more than $35
billion in loans and loan guarantees supporting the development of solar, wind, geothermal, and
electric vehicle technologies, among others. Beyond offering access to capital and flexible project
financing, LPO supports borrowers with an in-house team of financial, technical, legal and
environmental experts. Likewise, the Agriculture Department’s Rural Utilities Service program
leverages credit assistance to finance infrastructure improvements in rural communities, including
water and waste treatment, electric power and telecommunications services. Green banks have
demonstrated an ability to develop innovative financing instruments to spur private sector activity
worldwide. The UK Green Investment Bank was the first publicly funded bank designed to
mobilize private finance into the green energy sector. From 2012-2017, it supported financing of
more than £12 billion of UK green infrastructure projects before its acquisition by Macquarie
Group. Though not exclusively a green bank, the European Investment Bank has financed over
€53 billion in clean energy infrastructure since 2015, drawing from a capital base pooled from its
27-member state shareholders and weighted by GDP. In Australia, the government-owned Clean
Energy Finance Corporation has deployed $7 billion (Australian dollars) in cleantech innovation,
energy storage and other sectors since 2013.
2NC/1NR — Solvency — Growth
National Climate Bank solve growth internal links – mobilizes projects that
create jobs – that’s Kathleen
And – investment returns and cheap power boost small businesses

Schuster 21 [Paul Schuster's research and monitoring work has included many national-scale
studies such as acid rain studies, Grand Canyon flood reconstruction studies, paleoclimate and
paleoenvironmental pollution studies on the glaciers of Wyoming, aquatic cycling of mercury and
climate change studies as far south as the Florida Everglades and as far north as the Yukon River
Basin, Alaska. Paul has been the laboratory supervisor all of these studies, including the Water,
Energy, and Biogeochemical Budget (WEBB) Program. Paul encourages interactions among
scientists and non scientists of diverse backgrounds and disciplines“How the National Green
Bank can help small businesses build back greener”, 3/4/2021,
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/how-the-national-green-bank-can-help-small-businesses-build-
back-greener/596143/]RG
As the economy recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic, small businesses will be at the forefront
of any economic recovery. And while the Biden Administration contemplates ways to support small
businesses in their recovery, they should consider the opportunity to align these recovery efforts
with the broader imperative of reducing the nation's impact on climate change. With 30.7 million
small businesses located in the U.S., any efforts toward reducing emissions are going to need to
include this market. SPONSORED BY GEOTAB ENERGY Electric vehicle growing pains: Electric vehicles are evolving and up-to-date data
is critical for demand-side management. Get the data-driven report The current administration has promoted a massive investment into climate change
initiatives, including shifting the entire federal fleet to electric vehicles, accelerating research into battery technology and domestic production, and
negotiating ambitious fuel economy standards. Harnessing this clean energy ambition to help small businesses emerge healthier from the pandemic
should be a top priority. Some efforts have already taken place. Included in the pandemic relief bill passed late in 2020 are extensions to the federal tax
credits for solar and wind. In fact, the bill went further and introduced a new production tax credit for offshore wind. These efforts will help to continue
the momentum around renewable energy and continue to drive down costs. Small businesses able to access clean energy tariffs and Power Purchase
Agreements will find opportunities to shave costs from their electricity supply bills. Future policy, though, needs to go further. About a month ago,
Democrats in Congress introduced the Clean Energy and Sustainability Accelerator Act which would, among other thing, create a $100 billion financing
institution to invest behind clean energy and decarbonization projects. This federal institution would assume the role of a National Green Bank and
accelerate the country's transition to cleaner energy. Green investment banks have become a useful tool to mobilize private capital on behalf of
environmental programs. States and other countries have harnessed the power of these organizations to address some of the major obstacles that keep
clean energy from being equitably distributed across the economy. The green banks do this by providing loans, credit enhancement, or any number of
other levers. The Connecticut Green Bank, for instance, supports renewable energy and energy efficiency products for low and moderate income (LMI)
households by providing a credit backstop. These LMI customers are then able to participate in clean energy projects from which they would have
otherwise been excluded due to poor individual credit. As the Biden Administration eyes a National Green Bank, they should harness the lessons learned
from Connecticut and others and not only support LMI households, but also include small business enterprises under its mandate. A federal institution
would provide a needed credit backstop for small businesses emerging from today's pandemic, encouraging clean energy investments that can have a real
impact on both the bottom line and the emissions footprints of these businesses. Energy efficiency projects that reduce operating costs or onsite solar
panels that generate low-cost electricity would be immediate areas in which to see payback. If the Administration wishes to think bold, though, the
National Green Bank could serve an even broader role in the energy transition. Today, large
energy consumers have the ability to purchase electricity directly from giant, utility-scale
renewable energy projects, often at a discount to wholesale market rates. They can do this
because 1) they hold investment grade credit and 2) they consume energy at a scale where the
renewable energy project can sell significantly all of their power to one consumer. As a result, the
renewable project is often able to provide electricity at a price below that at which the company is
currently buying power. Small businesses, though, can't access that value. Most are simply too small to even register for a utility-scale
renewable project and even those of some scale find the requirements to post credit too onerous and expensive to undertake. These are businesses that
have good cash flow and strong financials, but the system is built against them transitioning to clean energy. As Congress and the Biden Administration
develop the scaffolding for a National Green Bank, this lack of access for small businesses should be carefully considered. A national institution
providing the credit and warehousing capability to backstop any number of renewable energy offtake agreements would be a powerful accelerator for the
clean energy economy. The Bank would purchase discounted power from new build utility-scale renewable generators and, through a public RFP
process, sell that power back to small businesses participating within its program. Small businesses would have access to low
cost, clean power while the Green Bank facilitates the growth of new projects. For every dollar
of credit enhancement provided by the government, multiple dollars of private capital would flow
into the actual construction of these renewable projects. The federal government may be the only
entity of scale capable of managing a program like this. Private institutions would otherwise seek
a risk adjusted return that would eat into the savings the small businesses could experience, and
few are of a size to backstop and warehouse the power in the first place. And while the Green Bank should also
consider ways to leverage loans, research grants, and other securitization options, the opportunity around warehousing and credit is immense . It
would finally allow 30.7 million small businesses to capture the value from the energy transition,
right as they need it the most.
- Creates jobs and sector growth

Grbusic 21[Tamara Grbusic is a Senior Associate with the Climate-Aligned Industries team
working on green investment banks and on improving access to climate finance in developing
countries. Background Prior to joining RMI, Tamara completed her master’s degree at Yale
University’s Jackson Institute for Global Affairs, where she focused on international finance and
sustainable development. Before Yale, she worked for the International Monetary Fund as a
Research Analyst. Education Master of Arts in Global Affairs, Yale University Bachelor of Arts
in Economics and History, Grinnell College,4/30/2021, Green Banks for Economic Recovery and
Climate Mitigation, https://rmi.org/green-banks-for-economic-recovery-and-climate-
mitigation/]RG
UKGIB proves that a small amount of public funds, channeled into green projects that
commercial banks otherwise initially consider too risky, can successfully attract private
investment for even more projects. This, in turn, creates jobs that can help fill the void of
recessionary unemployment and declining industries . According to the International
Renewable Energy Agency, “solar, wind and other forms of green energy could add 42 million
jobs by 2050 if nations spend more aggressively to limit the increase in average global
temperatures […] New jobs in transition-related technologies and sectors are expected to
outweigh job losses in fossil fuels and nuclear energy.” Leadership at the State Level
Recognizing the exigency of a clean and resilient post-COVID recovery, some countries are
already proposing concrete plans. The South Korean Democratic Party has pledged net zero
emissions by 2050, carbon taxes, an end to coal financing at home and abroad, and sufficient
support for workers transitioning to green jobs. Its final plan is likely to include a national green
bank that can implement the stated goal of large-scale renewable energy investment. The United
States already has several state-level green banks, including in Connecticut, New York, Rhode
Island, and elsewhere. Last July, a National Climate Bank bill was introduced in the Senate,
proposing to capitalize a federal green bank with $35 billion over five years. From our current
vantage point, $35 billion is a small fraction of the trillions that have already been spent and will
continue to be spent to combat the health impacts and economic fallout of coronavirus. However,
those $35 billion could create $1 trillion worth of projects funded by private investors and
create hundreds of thousands of new jobs . Moreover, using portions of stimulus funds for green
recovery is not without precedent in the United States. The US stimulus package passed after the
2008 financial crisis included $90 billion for clean energy. This $90 billion spurred some of the
largest wind and solar plants built to date in the United States and drove an additional $150
billion in private and other non-federal investment. With these benefits demonstrated, now is the
time for bolder action: we should dedicate more significant portions of post-COVID recovery
stimulus funds to capitalize the national green bank, which can facilitate the building of green
infrastructure that is key to positive economic, environmental, and health impacts. An Economic
and Climate Double Win In essence, green banks offer a path to an economic and climate double
win. In the short term, they enable green projects that generate jobs and aid recovery. In the long
term, they help realize the direly needed clean energy future. At this point, green banks are a
proven concept that has been hard at work for a decade, transforming nine jurisdictions’
economies—including three U.S. states—to clean, more sustainable futures with demonstrable
success. Nearly thirty other countries, developed and developing, are currently working on some
variation of green bank establishment. The United States, already a leader in the field, should
now rapidly take action and capitalize a national green bank in order to ensure not only a
nationwide smart recovery from the COVID crisis, but also a sustainable future for the United
States and for the planet.
They Say: “Links to Politics DA”
National Climate Bank avoids politics – clean energy spending is popular
Hundt 20 [Reed Hundt is co-founder, Chairman and CEO of the Coalition for Green Capital, a
501(c)(3) nonprofit that supports, and advocates for green banks to invest in the clean power
platform.,11/19/2020, “Investing in the Future with a National Bank for Green Tech”,
https://www.gmfus.org/publications/investing-future-national-bank-green-tech]RG
Conclusion The benefits of a National Green Bank extend beyond achieving clean-energy
objectives. A $35 billion deposit, once mobilized, would put millions of currently unemployed
Americans back to work across every state. Voters want Congress to invest in clean-energy
infrastructure and the jobs that come with it, with and over 80 percent of Democrats as
well as over 50 percent of independents and Republicans embracing a National Green
Bank as an engine of job creation and stable employment. 6 Solar and wind technology, smart
electrical grids, Internet-ofThings-enabled charging infrastructure—all need to be built, and at a
time when over 10 million Americans remain unemployed, there are workers ready to build them.
All that remains is to create the financial vehicle ready to invest in them.
It’s bipartisan - even Republicans support financing green banks

Rives 21 [Karin Rives, Senior Climate and Energy Reporter at S&P Global Market Intelligence,
S&P Global 2021,6/24/2021, “US green banks urge Congress to establish a national climate
bank”,https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/us-
green-banks-urge-congress-to-establish-a-national-climate-bank-65146683]RG
Since the first U.S. green bank was established by Connecticut lawmakers in 2011, another 21
have opened in 16 states and 21 other states are seeking to emanate the success of such programs.
But this patchwork of lenders cannot meet the need for clean energy financing today — much less
mobilize billions from the private sector to help transition the economy to net-zero emissions,
green bank officials say. The national $100 billion climate finance accelerator program proposed
by President Joe Biden is critical for taking the market to scale, green bankers asserted during a
June 23 webinar hosted by the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. The federal funding
would be passed on to state and local green banks, which today wrestle with a $21 billion project
backlog. "This is a fundamentally a states-based solution that requires national attention," said
Jeffrey Schub, executive director of the Coalition for Green Capital. "The number one challenge
is, there just isn't enough money ." Green banks have bipartisan support Since the beginning
of the year, no fewer than six bills have been introduced in Congress to establish a national
climate bank. In addition, the broad climate bill introduced in the House in March, known as the
CLEAN Future Act, would authorize $100 billion in federal support to boost private sector
investments in clean energy and other climate solutions. The House Energy and Commerce
Committee on June 29 is holding another hearing on the climate bill, which Republicans have
dubbed a job killer. Green banks as institutions, however, have support from both parties.
In Alaska, for example, Gov. Mike Dunleavy, a Republican, recently introduced legislation
to create a fund to finance clean energy projects in the state . It would be capitalized with $10
million. Green banks leverage private-sector finance for clean energy projects by offering loan
guarantees or by underwriting work that traditional lenders deem to be too small or risky. They
can also structure deals and offer technical assistance to drive down capital costs and open up
new markets to private investment. Green banks draw on average $3 in private capital for every
$1 they put in to help finance community solar initiatives, energy-efficiency programs, storm
resilience upgrades, and a host of other projects in often-underserved markets. They drove nearly
$1.7 billion in total investments in 2020, a record. SNL Image The NY Green Bank has helped
private lenders access the once-nascent community solar market after investing $300 million
since 2017, said Kim Erle, a managing director at the bank. In December 2020, the Greenbacker
Capital Management LLC and the New York bank closed on a deal to finance community solar
projects across the state. It was the first time a private investor served as a co-lender in a NY
Green Bank community solar development. "So as community solar is increasingly seen as an
attractive component in a high-performing energy investment portfolio, we are now raising the
bar," Erle said. "We're done with the plain vanilla and moving on to address other financing
gaps." To serve as true catalysts, however, Erle and other leaders of state-run green banks say
they need backing from a national program that will leverage their expertise and give public
programs muscle. To decarbonize the U.S. energy sector, the nation needs to invest at least $3.3
trillion in wind and solar investments over the next 30 years, Schub said. Energy transition
projects, in turn, will lead to new jobs in diverse American communities, the panel said. The
Connecticut Green Bank estimates its programs have created 23,000 jobs in the state over the past
decade and nearly $100 million in tax revenue. "It all comes back to that investment right at the
front end," said Bryan Garcia, the bank's president and CEO. "And the more we can do…to
encourage those private investments the more we will see those other metrics improve." The
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions released a paper June 23 with policy proposals for the
climate finance accelerator that lawmakers are discussing. Unlike many state banks, the
accelerator or national climate bank should have an explicit mandate to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and make communities more resilient to climate change, the paper said. It should also
focus on deploying renewable energy technology. Congress should allocate between $30 billion
and $100 billion to establish the bank and set it up as an independent non-profit, the group
recommended.
Kigali Amendment CP
1NC — Kigali Amendment CP
The United States federal government should ratify the Kigali Amendment to
the Montreal Protocol.
Ratification solves warming – limiting HFCs limits temperature rise to 1.5

degrees
Asadollahi, 16 (Amin Asadollahi, master’s degree in public policy and public
administration – Concordia University, "Turning Down the Temperature: Freezing HFCs as a
critical step in climate action", International Institute for Sustainable Development,
https://www.iisd.org/articles/turning-down-temperature-freezing-hfcs-critical-step-climate-action,
10-17-2016, Accessed 6-28-2021)//ILake-RM
On October 14, a historic agreement was reached to freeze and then eliminate, over the next few
decades, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), a potent class of greenhouse gases used in air conditioners,
aerosols and insulation foams. This is the second historic deal on global climate action reached
this month. On October 6, the international community agreed on a global, market-based
approach to address emissions from the international aviation sector starting in 2021. These
mitigation measures show the continued momentum of realizing commitments made under the
Paris Agreement . They also demonstrate the i mportance of specific, focused time-bound
agreements to tackle climate change. The agreement reached this past week in Kigali is the
single biggest climate commitment ever, averting almost 0.5 degrees Celsius of global warming.
It commits developed countries—such as the United States, Canada, and members of the
European Union—to begin a phase down of HFCs by 2019. Developing countries—including
China, Brazil, India and many African countries—have agreed to freeze HFC consumption by
either 2024 or 2028. The Kigali agreement embeds the successful model of the Montreal
Protocol. In the past 30 years, the Montreal Protocol has played a critical role in helping the
ozone hole recover, with a recent study noting the emergence of a healing in the Antarctic ozone
layer. By 2005, the Montreal Protocol was successful in reducing ozone-depleting substances by
over 95 per cent or near 1.7 million tonnes, and avoided emissions of several billions tonnes of
carbon dioxide equivalent. It has generated over USD 3 billion of funding to help developing
countries meet their commitments under the agreement. In the United States alone, the success of
the Montreal Protocol is estimated to result in 6.3 million skin cancer deaths avoided by the end
of the century, with health care savings of over USD 4 trillion from 1990 to 2065. For 30 years,
the Montreal Protocol has brought together some key policy elements that were repeated in
Kigali: strong scientific evidence of the atmospheric and climate effects of HFCs, collaboration
with researchers and industry to identify and scale up substitutes, securing new and additional
funding to assist developing countries in meeting reduction timetables, introducing a dual-track
timetable for commitment implementation between developed and developing countries, and
having a robust monitoring and compliance system to check ongoing progress. HFCs are all
around us—in air conditioners that cool our houses and cars, in aerosols and insulation foams.
They are potent gases with global warming potentials hundreds of times greater than carbon
dioxide (CO2). The most common type, HFC134a, used in automobile air conditioners, has a
global warming potential that is 3,790 times that of CO2 (over a period of 20 years, with climate-
carbon feedbacks). Although HFCs represent a small fraction of climate pollutants in the
atmosphere today, their production and use are rising at a rate of 7 per cent per year. Moreover, in
some places they are the fastest-growing source of greenhouse gases. With a short atmospheric
lifetime (HFC134a, for example, has a lifetime of 13.4 years), their increased use can pose a
significant risk of short-term temperature increases. However, the good news is that HFCs are
one of the lowest-hanging fruits in the global effort to combat climate change, with cost-effective
solutions that are available today. Despite the opportunities, the negotiations to phase out HFCs
are no mean feat. Industrial activity, the growing global middle class, and rising temperatures will
result in increased demand for low-cost cooling options. This requires solutions to address
growing use of HFCs while avoiding undue burdens that would push people further into poverty
and negatively impact quality of life and health. Photo of President and Executive Secretary
Patching the ozone hole In 1989, the international community agreed to reduce the production
and use of products that were responsible for the depletion of the ozone layer. The resulting
Montreal Protocol has been one of the most successful global environmental treaties. It has been
incredibly effective in reducing ozone-depleting products, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
Data source: European Environment Agency The phase-out of CFCs was essential in reversing
the damage done to the ozone layer. In addition, CFCs are potent climate pollutants, and their
removal has had secondary climate benefits. For example, CFC11, which was used as a
refrigerant gas, has a global warming potential 7,020 times that of CO2 (over a period of 20
years, with climate-carbon feedbacks). The phase-out of CFCs not only helped ozone recovery
efforts but also resulted in about 10 gigatonnes CO2 equivalent of avoided emissions per year in
2010. However, the growing global middle class combined with industrial growth have resulted
in increased demand for production and use of substitute products such as HFCs. Much of the
growth in HFC emissions is expected to come from developing countries. Although significantly
less damaging to the ozone layer, the climate impacts of HFCs were likely not top of mind when
the Montreal Protocol was initially drafted. The more recent realization of the existential threat of
climate change has put the spotlight on HFCs for a number of reasons, including their climate
impact, the fact that there are cost-effective alternatives and because the benefits of action
significantly outweigh the costs. How low/fast must we go? As with any climate pollutant with
high global warming potential, such as HFCs and methane, the question shouldn’t be about the
extent of reduction but rather how fast can we eliminate these sources of pollution altogether.
Left unaddressed, the rise of emissions from HFCs would have likely offset the success of the
Montreal Protocol. Growth in HFCs would add near 9 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent of emissions
by 2050 and result in temperature increases of up to 0.5 degrees by the end of the century.
Preventing such a dramatic increase is especially important in a world where the goalpost has
been set to keeping the rise in global average temperature to below 1.5 degrees Celsius. The
United States, which has already begun regulating HFCs domestically, has championed a North
American proposal and played a critical role in advocating for an ambitious, comprehensive
approach for tackling HFCs. The agreement in Kigali has a number of key positive outcomes: It
builds on the success of the Montreal Protocol, as an effective instrument and adds HFCs as a
regulated gas under the protocol through an amendment. It sets milestones including one whereby
developed countries will start to phase down HFCs by 2019, and developing countries will follow
with a freeze of HFC consumption levels in 2024. Finally, financial support to offset the impact
on developing countries will be discussed in Montreal in 2017. This funding will no doubt be
complemented by recently announced USD 1 billion funding measure by the World Bank and
another USD 80 million by donor countries and philanthropists. North America—First movers
can benefit from economic opportunities The United States is already ahead, having introduced
HFC regulations under the EPA’s Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program. A
number of large US private sector companies have also thrown their weight in support of an
accelerated phase-out of HFCs. As the world transitions away from HFCs, new products will
create economic opportunities and will drive innovation. Those that get ahead of the regulatory
curve will likely stand to benefit from tremendous opportunities presented by demand for
substitute products. For its part, Canadian regulators can work with their US and Mexican
counterparts and continue on a path of strengthening a regional approach to climate policy. Better
regulatory alignment will reduce compliance costs and can create economic activity on both sides
of the border. Collaboration can also result in increased ambition while building on the North
American leaders' commitment to working together to tackle HFCs. Refer to IISD's Earth
Negotiations Bulletin for detailed coverage of the Meeting of the Open-ended Working Group
(OEWG 38) of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
and 28th Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol.
CP ratifies Kigali Amendment – US leadership successfully limits warming to
1.5 degrees – drives innovation and limits HFCs – absent HFC regulation,
rapid increases are inevitable – that’s Asadollahi
Solves globally – US tech diffusion adopted globally

Schillaci, 20 (William C. Schillaci, EHS Advisor, "Most Industry Stakeholders Support HFC
Reduction Bill", EHS Daily Advisor, https://ehsdailyadvisor.blr.com/2020/02/most-industry-
stakeholders-support-hfc-reduction-bill/, 2-5-2020, Accessed 6-28-2021)//ILake-RM
Much of industry’s support for H.R. 5544 appears to be based on Economic Impacts of U.S.
Ratification of the Kigali Amendment, an April 2018 report prepared for the Air-Conditioning,
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute and Alliance for a Responsible Atmospheric Policy by
Interindustry Forecasting at the University of Maryland (INFORUM) and JMS Consulting. The
report states: “U.S. industry supports ratification of the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal
Protocol, followed by domestic implementation. The Kigali Amendment provides a global
platform for gradual introduction and commercialization of next generation technologies in
the U.S. and in the rapidly expanding global market. Prior transitions under the Montreal Protocol
enabled these important U.S. industries to maintain their technology leadership. The new
Kigali Amendment, which creates a clear path toward global adoption of the next generation
technologies, will have a similar effect.”
HFCs heat trapping potential is larger than carbon – vital to solve warming
Fisher and Wilson, 17 (Jenny Fisher is a Senior Lecturer in Atmospheric Chemistry at the
University of Wollongong, Stephen Wilson is an Associate Professor at the University of
Wollongong, "Explainer: hydrofluorocarbons saved the ozone layer, so why are we banning
them?", Conversation, https://theconversation.com/explainer-hydrofluorocarbons-saved-the-
ozone-layer-so-why-are-we-banning-them-86672, 11-1-2017, Accessed 7-1-2021)//ILake-RM
Why are HFCs so bad? All greenhouse gases work by absorbing infrared radiation, which would
otherwise escape into space. But not all greenhouse gases are created equal. The potency of a
greenhouse gas depends on three properties: how long it remains in the atmosphere (its
“lifetime”) how much radiation it absorbs whether the specific wavelength of radiation it
absorbs would otherwise be absorbed by something else in the atmosphere (like water).
Global warming potentials of five greenhouse gases. The area of each circle represents the global
warming potential, calculated for a 100-year time horizon. Author created/Data from UNEP 2011
report HFCs: A Critical Link in Protecting Climate and the Ozone Layer, Author provided
Combined, these three properties can be used to determine the global warming potential for each
greenhouse gas. This is a measure of how potent the gas is relative to carbon dioxide (CO ₂ ). By
definition, CO₂ has a global warming potential of 1. Methane, commonly considered the second
most important greenhouse gas, has a global warming potential of 34 – meaning that 1 tonne of
methane would trap 34 times more heat than 1 tonne of CO₂ . The global warming potentials for
the three most abundant HFCs range from 1,370 to 4,180 . In other words, these gases trap
thousands of times more heat in our atmosphere than an equivalent amount of CO₂. What will
replace HFCs? The nearly 200 countries that signed the original Montreal Protocol have
unanimously agreed that the climate risks posed by HFCs are too significant to ignore.
Developed countries will begin phasing out HFCs in 2019. Developing countries will follow suit
between 2024 and 2028. So what will our refrigerators and air conditioners use instead? Several
replacements are being considered. Some groups are promoting another class of fluorine-
containing compounds called hydrofluoroolefins (or HFOs ). These have a short lifetime in the
atmosphere and so pose much less of a climate risk. However, environmental groups have
raised concern about the potentially toxic chemicals produced when HFOs break down. Another
option is to use mixtures of hydrocarbons such as butane. Hydrocarbons pose safety risks as they
are highly flammable and may also adversely affect air quality. Ammonia is another alternative
that has been used as a refrigerant for a long time but is highly toxic. And, finally, there is the
surprise candidate : CO₂. Although using CO₂ as a refrigerant poses technical challenges, it is
non-toxic and non-flammable and a much weaker greenhouse gas than the HFCs it would replace.
Strangely, from an environmental perspective, CO₂ may actually be the “best” refrigerant
available. A cooler future ahead? The Montreal Protocol has long been considered one of the
greatest environmental success stories of all time . It brought together the world’s governments
and chemical industries to protect the ozone layer. Read more: After 30 years of the Montreal
Protocol, the ozone layer is gradually healing The adoption of the Kigali Amendment will be
another feather in the cap of this important agreement. HFCs aren’t overly prevalent yet – but
without Kigali they are expected to grow rapidly. By banning them now, we will avoid their
impacts before it is too late. Estimates suggest that phasing out HFCs will prevent up to 0.5℃ of
future warming. Even if this estimate turns out to be overly optimistic, getting rid of the HFCs
will be an important step towards achieving the Paris Agreement goal of limiting warming to well
below 2℃.
They Say: “Links to Politics DA”
Ratification avoids politics – bipartisan support
Hillbrand and Doniger, 21 (Alex Hillbrand holds a bachelor’s degree in physics and a
master’s degree in energy systems engineering and is based in the Washington, D.C. office,
David Doniger served on the White House Council on Environmental Quality, followed by key
posts at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Biden Announces Move to Ratify Kigali
Amendment on HFCs", NRDC, https://www.nrdc.org/experts/alex-hillbrand/biden-announces-
move-ratify-kigali-amendment-hfcs, 1-27-2021, Accessed 7-1-2021)//ILake-RM
Earlier today, by executive order, President Biden directed his administration to prepare to send
the Kigali Amendment phasing down super-polluting hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) to the Senate
for its advice and consent to U.S. ratification . The president’s quick action on Kigali sends a
powerful signal to the world that the U.S. will join the global effort to cut reliance on these
dangerous gases and drive a deep domestic and international climate agenda as well. The order
formally directs the State Department to prepare a ‘transmittal package’ to the U.S. Senate for the
Kigali Amendment, the first step of the U.S. ratification process, within 60 days. The Kigali
Amendment is a 2016 global pact under the Montreal Protocol to phase down climate-warming
HFCs over the coming decades. Both Gina McCarthy and John Kerry helped negotiate the
agreement, which the U.S. signed in 2016 but has not yet ratified. Amendments to the Montreal
Protocol typically require the Senate’s ‘advice and consent’ to ratification, making today’s
announcement a key step towards bringing the U.S. properly into the agreement. The Biden
administration’s move shows how serious it is about achieving the massive climate benefits the
Kigali Amendment can deliver. Kigali implementation worldwide can avoid HFC use
equivalent to as much as 70 billion tons of carbon dioxide between now and 2050 and can
prevent up to one half a degree Celsius of climate warming over this century. The passage of
the bipartisan American Innovation and Manufacturing Act at the end of the last Congress
equips the administration with comprehensive authority to carry out the HFC phasedown in the
United States. NRDC and our partners plan to be there each step of the way to make sure EPA
and other agencies move as quickly and ambitiously as they can to reduce U.S. HFC by 85% over
15 years, as Kigali requires, or more. Once the State Department submits the transmittal package,
it will fall to the U.S. Senate to determine whether to move forward with Kigali ratification. The
prospects seem bright : in 2018 thirteen Republican Senators sent a letter to President Trump
expressing support for ratifying the Kigali amendment and noting its economic benefits for the
United States. And more than 17 GOP Senators cosponsored the AIM Act, along with essentially
all Democrats. Like the original Montreal Protocol and subsequent amendments, there is every
reason to expect bipartisan support for Kigali ratification. Congress has also repeatedly
appropriated funds to support the Montreal Protocol’s Multilateral Fund, which assists
developing countries in their implementation. The continuation of this support will be essential to
achieving Kigali’s potential benefits. More than 120 nations have already ratified the Kigali
Amendment. U.S. ratification will pave the way for similar action by China, India, and other
major economies already moving forward on domestic action but which have yet to ratify.
Several of these countries were understandably waiting for a signal that the U.S. would move
forward under the agreement; the U.S. was a top proponent of a global HFC phasedown in the
years leading up to the Kigali Amendment and its continued leadership couldn’t be more
important. The Biden team deserves applause for moving quickly on HFCs. It’s time now to
recommit, in the U.S. and around the globe, to the Kigali Amendment once again and embark as
fast as we can on the transition to a world beyond HFCs.
Advantage CPs vs. Biodiversity
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) CP
1NC — CBD CP
The United States federal government should ratify the Convention on
Biological Diversity.
CBD ratification solves biodiversity – spurs global protections

Saunders and Meek 21 — Sarah Saunders is a PhD research scientist at The National
Audubon Society, Mariah Meek is an assistant professor in the Department of Integrative
Biology, AgBio Research, and the Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior Program at Michigan State
University, 2021 ("America can lead again in global conservation," TheHill, 1-8-2021, Available
Online at https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/533139-america-can-lead-again-in-
global-conservation, Accessed 6-25-2021)
The Trump presidency has cost the planet valuable time in the fight against climate change and
biodiversity loss. Additionally, the harm to scientific integrity, public trust and the United States’
international reputation will linger well beyond Trump’s tenure.
The Biden White House will represent a new day — and new hope — in the fight for
environmental protection and climate action. Under the Biden-Harris administration, America has
the opportunity to rebuild our stature in the world and assert our leadership in combating the
climate crisis. The Biden transition website contains numerous policies that have reinvigorated
scientists and those who care about the environment, including plans to rejoin the Paris Climate
Accord, reach net-zero emissions by 2050, invest in environmental justice and conserve 30
percent of the nation’s land and water by 2030.
This last directive, also called “30 by 30,” would represent one of the largest commitments to
science-based conservation policy in the U.S. since the adoption of the Endangered Species Act
in 1973. However, the 30 by 30 target is but one of the proposed targets to be negotiated by the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) at its meeting in 2021. The CBD is an international
treaty focused on the conservation, sustainable use and equitable sharing of benefits derived from
the Earth’s biodiversity. Every recognized country in the world has ratified the treaty except the
U nited S tates and the Holy See (which is a UN permanent observer State).
The Biden administration should fix this mistake immediately and work with the Senate to ratify
the CBD. Safeguarding our planet for future generations requires more than just re-signing the
Paris Accord. It requires a portfolio of actions designed to address threats to biodiversity, protect
and restore natural ecosystems, combat climate change and transform food and energy
production. The Global Biodiversity Framework, to be adopted by the CBD in 2021,
encompasses this breadth of strategies. Member states are now negotiating the next iteration of
the CBD’s goals, which will frame the actions of governments for decades to come. Global
biodiversity policy is at a pivotal crossroads, and the U.S. needs to have a seat at the table before
it is too late.
Critically, committing the U.S. to the CBD comes at a time when the relationship between people
and nature is at the forefront. The COVID-19 pandemic is a shocking demonstration of the link
between our treatment of the natural world and the emergence of human disease. From this global
crisis, it is clear that living in harmony with nature necessitates the recognition that biodiversity
and the services it provides are essential elements of sustainable development. The pandemic has
also revealed society’s capacity to take extraordinary steps in the face of an urgent, common
threat. The threats of climate change and biodiversity loss are no different; the strong ties
between climate, biodiversity and human health prove that efforts to alleviate one threat will have
cascading benefits to human and wildlife communities alike.
Ratification of the CBD solves biodiversity – leverages US leadership to
catalyze global protections – that’s Saunders and Meek
Failure to ratify dooms aff solvency – the US is the only country that hasn’t
ratified but US joining cements global commitments
Jones 21 — Benji Jones, environmental reporter at Vox.com, where he writes about the science
and politics of the biodiversity crisis, covered the energy industry as a senior reporter at Business
Insider, writing also appears in National Geographic, Smithsonian, and Audubon Magazine, 2021
("Why the US won’t join the single most important treaty to protect nature," Vox, 5-20-2021,
Available Online at https://www.vox.com/22434172/us-cbd-treaty-biological-diversity-nature-
conservation, Accessed 6-28-2021)
It would be a big deal if the US joined CBD
Many environmental groups and researchers say, yes, it does matter and are urging Biden to
work with the Senate to ratify CBD. In a January 8 op-ed published in the Hill, Sarah Saunders, a
researcher at the National Audubon Society, and Mariah Meek, an assistant professor at Michigan
State University, wrote that “global biodiversity policy is at a pivotal crossroads , and the US
needs to have a seat at the table before it is too late.” They also urged the US to fully fund the
CBD secretariat, which oversees the convention.
The convention has its big meeting this coming fall in Kunming, China, at which parties will
build a strategy for biodiversity conservation over the next decade and out to 2050, that’s likely to
include a 30 by 30 pledge. The US plans to send a delegation to the conference, the State
Department confirmed with Vox, but as a non-member, the country doesn’t have the right to vote
(such as on CBD procedures, including the location of a meeting, and in elections for various
leadership roles).
Some experts, including Patrick of the Council on Foreign Relations, say ratification is still
possible. Conservation is among the few issues that have bipartisan support, he writes,
mentioning that nearly a third of US House and Senate members are a part of the bipartisan
International Conservation Caucus (ICC). (Vox reached out to all eight ICC co-chairs, including
four GOP lawmakers. They all declined interview requests or did not respond.)
“Eventual US accession is possible,” Patrick wrote, assuming the treaty is accompanied by
“specific reservations, understandings, and declarations to reinforce the intellectual property
rights of American companies and mollify conservative Republican senators with unrealistic fears
that the convention could undermine U.S. sovereignty.”
That sounds a lot like what Clinton tried to do back in the ’90s, leaving others with little
optimism. Snape, for one, says there’s no chance of ratification in the next two years — and
unlikely in the next 10. That view is shared by Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the
Center for Biological Diversity. There’s simply not enough appetite among GOP lawmakers to
sign treaties of any kind, they said. To get the required 67 votes, you’d need 17 of their votes,
assuming all Democrats voted in favor of ratification.
(In response to a request for comment, the White House directed questions about the treaty to the
State Department. A State spokesperson said the US “has always supported the objectives of the
CBD and continues to be actively involved in its processes.” The department declined to
comment on whether Biden would make ratifying the treaty a priority.)
But what experts can all agree on is that, by failing to join CBD, the US — which has a huge
environmental footprint — is hampering global conservation efforts . “Our absence from the
CBD keeps international biodiversity ‘out of sight, out of mind’ at a time when its priority needs
to be elevated,” Brian O’Donnell, director of Campaign for Nature, a conservation group
advocating to conserve at least 30 percent of Earth by 2030, said by email.
Nature isn’t bound by political borders, O’Donnell said. So, reaching the goals of CBD — which
we have so far failed to do — requires international cooperation and coordination. The US’s
absence makes that harder , he said. The US is also home to some of the world’s best
conservation researchers and tools, including those used for monitoring wildlife populations,
Snape added. “The rest of the world needs us,” he said.
And – CBD restores US global conservation leadership

Patrick 21 — Stewart Patrick, James H. Binger Senior Fellow in Global Governance and
Director of the International Institutions and Global Governance Program, 2021 ("It’s Long Past
Time for the U.S. to Ratify the ‘Treaty of Life’," Council on Foreign Relations, 3-1-2021,
Available Online at https://www.cfr.org/blog/its-long-past-time-us-ratify-treaty-life, Accessed 6-
25-2021)
Nearly three decades after it emerged from the landmark “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro, the
C onvention on B iological D iversity has been ratified by 196 countries; the U nited S tates is the
sole remaining holdout. This failure of global leadership is unconscionable and self-defeating ,
given continued, catastrophic declines in biodiversity that could see roughly 1 million species
disappear in the coming decades. America must finally become party to this “Treaty of Life.”
The Biden administration should promptly submit the U.N. biodiversity convention to the Senate
for its advice and consent, while refuting several misconceptions that continue to underpin
political resistance to the treaty in Washington. Contrary to what critics allege, the convention
poses no threat to U.S. sovereignty, requires no change in America’s environmental laws,
imposes no onerous financial burdens, and poses no risk to U.S. commercial interests.
At first blush, the U.S. failure to ratify the biodiversity convention seems inexplicable. America
has been a global leader in domestic environmental conservation since the 1970s, including
through measures like the E ndangered S pecies A ct of 1973. It also spearheaded the early push
for a global biodiversity treaty during the 1980s. In a 1991 message to Congress, President
George H. W. Bush lauded America’s domestic environmental legacy, while reminding
legislators that “environmental threats do not stop at a line on a map.” Bush called for the U.S.
“to broaden our dialogue with other nations and international institutions and together address
environmental issues that know no boundaries.”
The biodiversity convention, approved at the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development
in Rio in 1992, reflected the handiwork of U.S. negotiators. It created a balanced and flexible
multilateral framework to advance three objectives: conserving diversity within and among
species and ecosystems; promoting the sustainable use of living natural resources; and ensuring
the “fair and equitable” sharing of any benefits obtained from exploiting genetic resources.
CBD protects species – creates national strategies for global conservation

Jones 21 — Benji Jones, environmental reporter at Vox.com, where he writes about the science
and politics of the biodiversity crisis, covered the energy industry as a senior reporter at Business
Insider, writing also appears in National Geographic, Smithsonian, and Audubon Magazine, 2021
("Why the US won’t join the single most important treaty to protect nature," Vox, 5-20-2021,
Available Online at https://www.vox.com/22434172/us-cbd-treaty-biological-diversity-nature-
conservation, Accessed 6-28-2021)
As President Joe Biden moves quickly to reinstate the full slate of environmental policies
weakened by former President Donald Trump, including the landmark Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
he’s signaling that climate change and biodiversity loss are now major priorities for the US.
Earlier this month, the Interior Department also launched a campaign to conserve 30 percent of
US land and water by 2030, joining more than 50 other countries that have committed to that
goal. Biden is pursuing the target, known as 30 by 30, alongside a new and more ambitious
commitment to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
Yet there’s one big problem with this post-Trump environmental renaissance: The US still hasn’t
joined the most important international agreement to conserve biodiversity , known as the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). And it isn’t just a small, inconsequential treaty.
Designed to protect species , ecosystems , and genetic diversity , the treaty has been ratified by
every other country or territory aside from the Holy See. Among other achievements, CBD has
pushed countries to create national biodiversity strategies and to expand their networks of
protected areas.
Since the early 1990s — when CBD was drafted, with input from the US — Republican
lawmakers have blocked ratification, which requires a two-thirds Senate majority. They’ve
argued that CBD would infringe on American sovereignty, put commercial interests at risk, and
impose a financial burden, claims that environmental experts say have no support.
With Biden now in office, some experts see a pathway to ratification — certainly, environmental
groups are calling for it — while others say there’s no chance of wooing enough Republicans.
But they all agree on one thing: The US’s absence from the agreement harms biodiversity
conservation at a time when such efforts are desperately needed.
They Say: “CBD Hurts US Sovereignty”
No sovereignty DA – not onerous and doesn’t require law changes
Patrick 21 — Stewart Patrick, James H. Binger Senior Fellow in Global Governance and
Director of the International Institutions and Global Governance Program, 2021 ("It’s Long Past
Time for the U.S. to Ratify the ‘Treaty of Life’," Council on Foreign Relations, 3-1-2021,
Available Online at https://www.cfr.org/blog/its-long-past-time-us-ratify-treaty-life, Accessed 6-
25-2021)
Nearly three decades after it emerged from the landmark “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro, the
C onvention on B iological D iversity has been ratified by 196 countries; the U nited S tates is the
sole remaining holdout. This failure of global leadership is unconscionable and self-defeating ,
given continued, catastrophic declines in biodiversity that could see roughly 1 million species
disappear in the coming decades. America must finally become party to this “Treaty of Life.”
The Biden administration should promptly submit the U.N. biodiversity convention to the Senate
for its advice and consent, while refuting several misconceptions that continue to underpin
political resistance to the treaty in Washington. Contrary to what critics allege , the convention
poses no threat to U.S. sovereignty, requires no change in America’s environmental laws,
imposes no onerous financial burdens, and poses no risk to U.S. commercial interests.
Advantage CPs vs. Fish
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) CP
1NC — MPAs CP
The United States federal government should designate 30 percent of ocean
territory in each major geographic ocean region of the United States as no-
take Marine Protected Areas.
Implementing Marine Protected Areas solve fish depletion--- MPAs benefit

fish populations, biodiversity, and the fishing economy
Cooney et al 19 - Margaret Cooney is the campaign manager for Ocean Policy at the Center
for American Progress. Miriam Goldstein is the managing director for Energy and Environment
and the director of Ocean Policy at the Center. Emma Shapiro is a former intern for Public Lands
and Ocean Policy at the Center. (“How Marine Protected Areas Help Fisheries and Ocean
Ecosystems”, Center for American Progress, 6/3/2019,
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2019/06/03/470585/marine-protected-
areas-help-fisheries-ocean-ecosystems/)//ST
How highly to fully protected MPAs benefit fisheries By providing a refuge for targeted species,
a highly to fully protected MPA gives animals inside its boundaries time to grow larger than their
counterparts outside of the area. For example, larger fish generally produce more offspring, and
this surplus of fish will exit the MPA and help to stock fisheries.35 This effect is termed
“spillover” and can be thought of in similar terms to interest on a savings account: The highly or
fully protected MPA protects the “principal,” and the fish exiting the MPA are the “interest.” One
study of spillover from more than a dozen highly and fully protected MPAs found that, in almost
all cases, the fisheries outside the MPAs were likely unsustainable without the spillover from
populations inside highly or fully protected MPAs.36 The beneficial effects of MPAs to fisheries
can be best quantified by measuring biomass, numerical density, and organism size.37 Biomass
Biomass is the total mass of living biological organisms in a given area at a given time. Abundant
evidence has shown that highly and fully protected MPAs promote large, rapid, and sustained
buildup of biomass of commercially important species within their boundaries. 38 One meta-
analysis of scientific studies showed that biomass of whole fish groups in highly and fully
protected MPAs is, on average, six to seven times greater than in adjacent unprotected areas and
three to four times greater than in lightly protected MPAs.39 Numerical density Numerical
density refers to the number of individuals of a targeted species in a given area. As the number of
individuals increases, more and more will exit the protected area and be available to fisheries.
One study showed that the density of organisms within highly or fully protected MPAs is more
than 1 1/2 times greater than the density in unprotected areas nearby.40 In Tsitsikamma
National Park in South Africa, one of the oldest fully protected MPAs in the world, the density of
commercially important fish is around 42 times higher than in the nearby fishing grounds.41
And on Georges Bank in the Gulf of Maine, after just five years of protection, the densities of
legal-sized scallops reached nine to 14 times those of scallops in fished areas.42 Another
commonly used measure of density is the catch per unit effort (CPUE), which is the total catch
divided by the total amount of effort used to harvest the catch.43 This is considered to be an
indirect measure of fisheries stock abundance. For example, if CPUE is decreasing, fishermen are
spending more time catching fewer fish, indicating that stocks are declining. If CPUE is
increasing, fishermen are catching more fish in less time, indicating a recovering or healthy stock.
One large global study found that fished areas near highly to fully protected MPAs experienced a
fourfold increase in CPUE.44 Another study found that the CPUE of fish traps outside a network
of fully protected MPAs in waters off the island nation of St. Lucia increased between 46 and 90
percent within five years of designation.45 Organism size Highly and fully protected MPAs
increase average organism size by 28 percent.46 Organism size is important to fisheries
sustainability, since in many commercially important species, larger females release eggs that are
larger, more numerous, and higher quality than those of smaller females.47 This result does not
scale with mass, meaning that one large female reproduces more than two smaller females with
the same total body mass. For example, in the commercially important Atlantic cod fishery, a
single, large 30-kilogram (kg) female produces more eggs than 28 small 2-kg females combined.
Moreover, the batch of eggs of the large 30-kg female has 37 times more energy content, which
increases the survival of the newly hatched fish.48 In another example, the New Zealand snapper
fishery saw the benefit of 14 times more fish in fully protected MPAs than in fished areas,
making egg production an estimated 18 times higher than outside of the protected area.49
Similarly, in Edmonds Underwater Park, a fully protected area in the state of Washington,
lingcod produced 20 times more eggs and copper rockfish produced 100 times more eggs than
their species counterparts outside of the marine park boundary.50 For commercially important
species, the benefits of a highly to fully protected MPA can mean the difference between a
collapsed local fishery and a rapidly recovered one. In Baja California, the local economy is
primarily supported by fishing for pink abalone. However, when warming waters and reduced
oxygen killed most of the species in 2010, the larger, highly reproductive abalone that survived in
the nearby fully protected MPA replenished the abalone stocks for the entire region.51 To sum
up, highly to fully protected areas provide significant biological benefits, fostering an
environment that allows for the growth of larger females that produce more offspring. In turn,
these offspring grow up into larger fish, some of which will move away from home and replenish
the supply of fish in the surrounding waters. The fish in these replenished waters will attract
fishermen who will catch them, thus reaping the benefits of a sustainable supply of larger fish. It
is a beneficial circle that starts with a highly or fully protected MPA. Highly to fully protected
MPAs increase biodiversity, which fosters resilience Highly to fully protected MPAs have been
shown to foster greater biodiversity, which is helpful to overall ecosystem health and
productivity. In a meta-analysis looking at the role of biodiversity loss on ecosystem services, the
data showed that post-designation, levels of biodiversity of fully protected MPAs increased by
an average of 23 percent. At the same time, areas adjacent to the MPAs were associated with
large increases in fisheries productivity.52 Biodiversity has also been shown to enhance the
ability of ecosystems to withstand a stress event and recover relatively quickly afterwards.53 In
one example, a fully protected area in New Zealand was able to go from a sea urchin barren—an
ecosystem destroyed by overgrazing from an unchecked and exploding population of sea urchins
—back to its original kelp forest ecosystem within 12 years of its designation.54 The shelter
offered by the fully protected MPA allowed for an increase in the abundance of sea urchin-eating
fish, resulting in an overall increase in local biodiversity. Research has found that as ocean
waters warm and become more acidic, biodiversity can also provide a buffer to climate
change. One study that synthesized global, fishery-independent data to test the importance of
biodiversity to fish production showed that more diverse fish communities also had a greater
resilience to temperature variations.55 How highly to fully protected MPAs benefit coastal
economies Economic studies of the value of highly and fully protected MPAs show
considerable returns on investment. One comprehensive economic study found that the total
value of protecting these areas included benefits to neighboring fisheries, reduced greenhouse gas
emissions, establishment of storm buffers, profitable eco-tourism, new MPA management jobs,
and gains from new scientific discoveries.56 Essentially, each $1 invested returns
approximately $20 in benefits. This economic study also found that fisheries in medium- to
high-decline gained the most from spillover from highly and fully protected MPAs. Another
study that looked at the combined economic benefits of MPAs found that both tourism and
neighboring fishery profits increased within as little as five years after the reserve was
established.57
MPAs solve – clear and enforceable standards
Carter et al 20 -- Alexandra Carter is a policy analyst for Ocean Policy at the Center for American Progress.
Margaret Cooney is the campaign manager for Ocean Policy at the Center. Sung Chung is a former intern for Public
Lands and Ocean Policy at the Center. Carlos Rivero Lopez is a former intern for Public Lands and Ocean Policy at the
Center. Miriam Goldstein is the managing director for Energy and Environment and the director of Ocean Policy at the
Center. (“How To Reform and Strengthen Fishery Habitat Protection” 09/20/20 Center For American
Progress https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2020/07/07/487317/reform-strengthen-
fishery-habitat-protection/)//RSG🌳
How To Reform and Strengthen Fishery Habitat Protection In the United States, fisheries in
federal waters are managed by the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(MSA).6 When the MSA was originally passed in 1976, it established eight regional fishery
management councils comprised of assorted stakeholder, agency, and fishery representatives that
are tasked with creating fishery management plans (FMPs) for marine fisheries in their regions.
The councils are designed to allow better relationships between governments and regional
stakeholders and encourage diverse public input in the management of fisheries.7 As fishery
management strategies and technology have evolved, overfishing—removing fish faster than they
can reproduce—has become a widespread problem. Therefore, under the MSA’s 1996 and 2006
reauthorizations, sustainable management became more of a priority and the fishery management
councils’ mandated goal of recovering overfished stocks and preventing overfishing was
significantly strengthened. Fisheries habitat protections were also identified as a concern that
needed to be addressed.8 To that end, the 1996 reauthorization of the MSA requires that the
fishery management councils—using guidance established by the National Marine Fisheries
Service—describe and identify essential fish habitat (EFH) for each species or group of species
managed by an FMP.9 Currently, the councils are also required to consider how such habitat can
be conserved and, where practicable, enact measures to protect it. For example, the councils may
recommend limitations on fishing through temporary area closures and specific gear restrictions.
It is important to note that EFH measures are not permanent, and the councils can only
recommend limitations on nonfishing activities, such as drilling for oil and gas, rather than
enforce such limitations.10 Because EFH protections are temporary and cannot limit other
extractive activities, EFH areas do not meet the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s
definition of what it means to be an MPA.11 The International Union for Conservation of Nature
is the leading international organization on safeguarding the natural world. The role of essential
fish habitat in federal fisheries management 3 Center for American Progress | How To Reform
and Strengthen Fishery Habitat Protection Defining MPAs, EFH, and state actions There are a
variety of ways fishery managers, states, federal agencies, and the president can designate habitat
protections. Each type of protection is designated, defined, and implemented differently. These
are the most commonly discussed methods of protection discussed within this report: • Marine
protected area. An MPA is a clearly defined geographic space managed for longterm
conservation.12 MPAs are categorized by degree of protection. The MPA Guide—the leading
classification system in the United States—classifies MPAs into four different levels of
protection.13 Highly and fully protected MPAs—the two strongest classifications—have been
shown to be most effective because they prohibit commercial extraction such as fishing, drilling,
and other actions.14 In this report, the authors used all MPAs in the U.S. exclusive economic
zone (EEZ)—including state water designations, sanctuaries, and monuments—as listed in the
MPAtlas database and directly described by the Marine Conservation Institute. • Essential fish
habitat. The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines EFH as those waters and substrate necessary to fish
for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. Fishery management councils have the
authority and are required within the MSA to define the characteristics of habitat necessary for
the health of fishery resources managed by the councils’ FMPs. EFH areas are designated by
councils as important to the survival of commercially and recreationally important species.
However, it is important to note that EFH areas designated by councils are not necessarily
protected in the way that the authors define in this report. The designation itself is the only legal
requirement; it is up to the councils to decide if other fishing-restrictive or habitat-protective
actions are practicable.15 The authors only analyzed EFHs for this report that met the report’s
methodological standards, otherwise qualified as “fishing-restrictive EFH.” From that subset, the
authors divided EFH into four classifications of level of protection: minimal, moderate,
significant, and complete.
Marine protected areas bolster the health of marine ecosystems.

Marine Conservation Institute, 1/13/2021 THE MARINE PROTECTION ATLAS. Jan.
13, 2021. Retrieved Apr. 20, 2021 from https://mpatlas.org/
Marine protected areas are essential for safeguarding biodiversity and the health of marine
ecosystems . They provide sanctuary for species to mature, reproduce, and help restore healthy
populations within and beyond their borders. Marine protected areas also build resilience against
threats such as climate change and pollution by maintaining vital natural processes, storing carbon, and
buffering coastlines as well as ensuring sustainable food supplies for coastal communities.
MPAs are crucial to restore and protect ocean biodiversity.

Madeleine Serkissian, 2020 (Marine Conservation Institute), June 4, 2020. Retrieved Apr.
19, 2021 from https://marine-conservation.org/on-the-tide/calling-on-marine-scientists-to-
support-protecting-at-least-30-of-the-ocean-by-2030-30x30/
Scientific evidence suggests that to secure a healthy, productive, and resilient marine
environment , at least 30% of the world’s ocean must be safeguarded in a network of well
managed MPAs and OECMs[3]. It has been shown that protected areas that do not allow
industrial extraction such as long-line fishing or deep-sea mining are crucial to restore and
protect biodiversity.[4],[5],[6]
2NC/1NR — Solvency – Carbon Sequestration
MPAs increase carbon sequestration and the absorption of carbon dioxide.
Matt Rand, 7/20/2020 (Senior Director, Marine Habitat Protection, Pew Trusts), July 20, 2020.
Retrieved Apr. 19, 2021 from
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2020/07/the-case-for-marine-
protected-areas
Mounting scientific research indicates that fully protected marine areas can help build resilience
against the effects of climate change .22 The alterations are far-reaching and include rising sea
surface temperatures, the loss of coral reefs as waters acidify, decreased ocean productivity,
shifts in species distribution, and impacts on fisheries.23 MPAs help build biodiversity and
genetic diversity, improve carbon sequestration, and even enhance the absorption of carbon
dioxide. Safeguarding mangroves and coral reefs in coastal areas can provide buffers against
storms while protected wetlands aid in long-term storage and carbon sequestration.24 MPAs can
lead to more resilient ecosystems and in turn help secure the well-being of societies that depend
on healthy oceans.
2NC/1NR — Solvency – Coral
MPAs reverse the damage done to coral reefs:
Liz Karan, 8/19/2019 (Project Director, Protecting Ocean Life on the High Seas of the Pew
Charitable Trusts), Aug. 19, 2019. Retrieved Apr. 19, 2021 from
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2019/08/how-mpas-safeguard-
the-high-seas
Build resilience to climate change. The ocean plays a critical role in building resilience to the
impacts of climate change. It stores more carbon than anywhere else on Earth—about 16 times
more than plants and soil store on land.8 At the same time, higher levels of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere are causing the ocean to become warmer and more acidic, which leads to additional
problems such as coral bleaching and deoxygenation. Reserves can make marine ecosystems,
including those on the high seas, more resilient to these impacts.9 This benefit may be critically
important in systems stressed by climate change.10 For example, coral reefs that experience
bleaching are able to rapidly and even completely recover within marine reserve areas.11
2NC/1NR — Solvency – Economy
Protection of fish leads to an increase in the fish economy
Carter et al 20 -- Alexandra Carter is a policy analyst for Ocean Policy at the Center for American Progress.
Margaret Cooney is the campaign manager for Ocean Policy at the Center. Sung Chung is a former intern for Public
Lands and Ocean Policy at the Center. Carlos Rivero Lopez is a former intern for Public Lands and Ocean Policy at the
Center. Miriam Goldstein is the managing director for Energy and Environment and the director of Ocean Policy at the
Center. (“How To Reform and Strengthen Fishery Habitat Protection” 09/20/20 Center For American
Progress https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2020/07/07/487317/reform-strengthen-
fishery-habitat-protection/)//RSG🌳
While not created under an EFH, these closures show that when fishery management councils
work with states to restrict fishing, they can produce significant results for the benefit of target
species.48 As a result of coordination between state and federal managers, which reduced fishing
pressure through a network of designated fishing-restrictive areas and implemented highly-to-
fully protected MPAs, nine of the 10 stocks that were declared overfished in 1999 were rebuilt.49
More fish meant more fishing activity, which generated 900 jobs and $60 million in
income.50 With stocks rebuilding, NOAA eased fishing regulations in 2018 and reopened 7,769
square kilometers of preferred fishing areas to commercial and recreational fishermen in 2020.51
The reopening of preferred rockfish fishing areas allowed NOAA to collaborate with the state and
local interest groups to close another 363,030 square kilometers to mobile bottom gear, other
gear, or certain fishing types.52 While many of these areas are very deep and unlikely to have
been fished with bottom trawling in the 13 Center for American Progress | How To Reform and
Strengthen Fishery Habitat Protection past, the action of freezing the footprint of fishing impacts
on habitat in the future should not be overlooked. These closures, designed to protect sensitive
deep-sea habitats, are included in this report’s analysis as significant and moderate closures,
depending upon the detail of each specific area’s regulations. By creating a network of council-
enacted EFH and state MPAs that worked in concert, this region was able to rebuild rockfish to
great economic and ecological benefit. This is a particularly impressive accomplishment given
the slow growth of many rockfish species. Now, the regional fisheries enjoy better catches and
fishing grounds closer to shore, and other fishing-restrictive areas protect the sensitive habitats
that support ocean health. 14 Center for American Progress | How To Reform and Strengthen
Fishery Habitat Protection The authors’ analysis also shows that regional EFH implementation is
uneven, leaving some regions less protected than others. States play a vital role in fishery
management and ocean habitat conservation because they have jurisdiction over some of the most
diverse, important nearshore areas, which many fish rely on for spawning and nursey grounds.53
For the best chance of securing sustainable fishery resources and coastal ecosystems, nearshore
habitats in state waters in every region must be protected by the states that oversee them in
concert with larger protected area systems, including fishing-restrictive EFH and marine
protected areas in federal waters. In addition, the EFH provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
have the potential to be a powerful tool that could be used to greatly aid in the recovery and
resilience of key species and habitats if the law were changed to mandate that the fishery
management councils and NOAA protect important habitats while ensuring the benefit of
fisheries. Here, the authors suggest two statutory changes that would strengthen the ability of
managers to protect key habitats through improved use of EFH.
MPA’s benefit the global economy.
Dan Laffoley, et al 2019 (International Union for Conservation of Nature), 2019. Retrieved
Apr. 19, 2021 from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330047018_Marine_Protected_Areas
MPAs provide great benefits to the global economy . Healthy marine ecosystems supply
multiple services from increasing fish stocks for commercial and recreational fisheries,
supporting coastal businesses that depend on healthy marine ecosystems, to providing marine-
based tourism opportunities, among others. The economic valuation of ecosystem services is a
growing field, with initiatives, such as the economics of ecosystem services (TEEB), millennium
ecosystem assessment, and others. Costanza et al. (1997) made an initial valuation of the
ecosystem services across the globe which was revised in 2014 with a value of the world’s
natural capital estimated at US$145 trillion (Costanza et al., 2014). The annual value of goods
and services provided by coastal and oceanic environments was estimated at US$24 trillion in
2015, noting that if the ocean were a country it would have the world’s 7th largest economy
(Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2015). Hoisington (2016) presents the economic case for MPAs, noting
that MPAs have many economic benefits which increase over time if managed effectively,
although the biological effects, for which an MPA is often designated, are usually the most
difficult to measure and estimate economically. This underpins the importance of ensuring
effective research and monitoring of marine ecosystems.
They Say: “Doesn’t Solve Globally”
Past conservation actions show the US action would be modeled and make the
US a trailblazer in ocean conservation—no-take reserves are key:
Ryan Richards, 12/4/2018 (senior policy analyst for Public Lands at the Center for American
Progress, “Measuring Conservation Progress in North America,”
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues /green/reports /2018/12/04/461705/measuring-
conservation-progress-north-america/, Retrieved 6/7/2021)
For more than a century, the United States has been a global leader in conservation. In 1872, it became the first country to
establish and protect a national park—Yellowstone—for the benefit and enjoyment of the public.1 Though radical at the time, the idea of conserving nature through
the creation of protected areas has become the most powerful, effective, and flexible tool of American
conservation policy. To date, this strategy has protected millions of acres, emerged as a point of national pride, and made the United States a global role
model for conservation.2 Unfortunately, the U nited S tates is now retreating from its position as a
global conservation leader. In December 2017, President Donald Trump announced the elimination of protections for
large portions of two national monuments in Utah: Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears. This action, though likely to be overturned in court, was the largest reduction in land
protections in the country’s history.3 Soon after, Congress ordered that the coastal plain of Alaska’s pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge be auctioned off for oil and gas drilling for the first time in its 40-year
history.4 Weeks later, in January 2018, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke approved a plan to build a road straight through the previously wild Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, also located in Alaska.5
Altogether, these actions have eliminated protections for more than 3 million acres of previously conserved lands—an area 1.5 times the size of Yellowstone National Park. SUBSCRIBE TO INPROGRESS Outside
of the United States, however, conservation has been on a growth trajectory, including to the immediate north and south of U.S. borders. Both Canada and Mexico have designated major new reserves and expanded
existing areas, significantly increasing the extent of their protected area systems. Both countries have also announced ambitious plans to invest in further expansions of protected areas.6 The role reversal between the
United States and its neighbors, Canada and Mexico, is occurring during a pivotal moment in the history of conservation. Scientists agree that species extinctions are occurring at a rate that is 100 to 1,000 times faster
than before humans were present.7 Wildlife populations and the habitats they rely on are also in steep decline.8 Recent research shows that even in remote areas such as the open ocean, the negative impacts of human
activity on ecosystem function are much greater than previously thought.9 These global declines have spurred an urgent call for increasing conservation efforts worldwide. The Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD), a global agreement signed in 1994 to coordinate conservation efforts, includes a goal for all 196 nations party to the convention to set aside 17 percent of their lands and 10 percent of their oceans for
conservation by 2020, including protections that cover the full range of habitats in each country.10 Complementary efforts are being made through both public programs and private investments to increase the
resources that are dedicated to conservation, protecting and restoring nature’s contributions to people.11 Though the United States has signed the treaty, it has neither ratified it nor announced plans to.12 This report
reviews trends in the conservation of lands and oceans across the United States, Canada, and Mexico—the three largest countries in North America—since the CBD was opened for signatures at the U.N. Conference
on Environment and Development—also called the Rio Earth Summit—in 1992.13 The following sections examine these trends for both public and private lands conservation, as well as oceans protections. The
result is a first-of-its-kind analysis of how protections have changed in North America. The data show that all three countries have made strides in different aspects of conservation, but they also reveal the challenges
Protecting lands and oceans is important to the future of both natural

that remain for each country to meet agreed targets and better protect nature.
systems and society. While Mexico and Canada have taken promising steps toward better stewardship, the United States has seen an overall reduction in
protected areas since 2017. If this trend continues, it places the future of American wildlife in dire
straits. How the conservation trends were tracked This study was conducted using data from the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). Maintained by the International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN)—an international coordinating organization that helps countries share best practices for conservation—and the U.N. Environment Program World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC),
the WDPA represents the best available resource for determining how many protected areas there are in the world, how big they are, when they were established, and how strict the protections are within their
boundaries.14 These data are used to track progress toward the goals of the Convention for Biological Diversity.15 Additional data for marine protections were drawn from databases maintained by the Marine
Conservation Institute.16 A detailed methods section can be found at the end of this report. In summary, the authors analyzed trends in protected area designations from 1992 through 2018 in the United States,
Canada, and Mexico. The starting point of 1992 was selected because it is the year of the Rio Earth Summit, which represented the start of a new phase of international coordination toward achieving set targets for
land and ocean protection. Although this analysis uses the best available data on trends in protected area designations, the database has some limitations should be acknowledged here.17 Protected areas are added
incrementally to the database, and as a result, there is sometimes a lag before new protected area designations are included. Additionally, the limited number of variables—including only one variable for designation
date—constrain how much of the history of protection in a specific place is included in the data. This means that, over time, strengthened or weakened protections for a given protected area may skew the
establishment date. For example, protections for some areas will appear newer because the database uses the date of a change in protection—e.g., a national monument becoming a national park—rather than the
earliest date of protection. In addition, protected areas must satisfy minimum international standards maintained by IUCN to be considered protected. As a result, some official protected area designations are not
internationally recognized until their legal status and management have satisfied IUCN standards.18 Because the purpose of the database is to track existing protected areas, when protections are removed from lands
or waters, these areas are no longer included in the database. To fill some of these gaps, the authors used data from the Protected Area Downgrading, Downsizing, and Degazettement (PADDD) database, which
tracks reductions in land and ocean protections globally.19 Despite these limitations, the results below paint as clear a picture as possible of how the broad trends in protection of lands and oceans have changed over
time. They also provide some explanation about why these patterns are being seen. Glossary of useful terms Protected area: Protecting lands and oceans generally means restricting human activities within an area,
with the extent of restrictions roughly defining the strength of protection an area is considered to have. As a result, a protected area can include places such as wilderness areas, where all development is restricted, and
national parks, as well as forests, where the protection of biodiversity is one of many management objectives, and activities such as selective logging can occur. There are a number of categorization tools that help
standardize the strength of a protected area for comparing across international boundaries. The most widely used tool is maintained by the IUCN.20 Marine protected area: Marine protected areas refer to parts of the
ocean where human activities are restricted to conserve ecosystems and natural resources. This primarily means restrictions on resource uses—in particular, fishing, oil and gas exploration, and mining. The strength
of a marine protected area often hinges on the extent to which fishing is restricted, with no-take areas—places where all fishing is prohibited—considered to be the strongest level of protection. The Marine
Conservation Institute has modified the IUCN system to create an international categorization system appropriate for the management needs and challenges of marine protected areas.21 Convention on Biological
Diversity: The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is an international accord that was opened for signatures following the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. It created objectives for countries to pursue in biodiversity
conservation, including the establishment of protected areas to cover certain portions of the land and ocean area of signatory nations. Every few years, these objectives have been adapted into specific, time-sensitive
targets—most recently, as the Aichi Targets in 2010—to protect a set amount of lands and waters by a certain date. At present, there are 196 parties to the accord, including 168 signatories.22 Aichi Targets: Named
for the prefecture in Japan where negotiations occurred, the Aichi Targets are the basis for conservation objectives to be achieved by 2020 by countries that are party to the CBD. Aichi Target 11 addresses protected
areas, including protecting 17 percent of land area and 10 percent of ocean area in each country party to the CBD by 2020. Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD): There are several
ways that protections can be reduced for lands and oceans. The authors use the same terminology as researchers involved in the development of the PADDD database.23 Downgrading refers to reducing the legal
restrictions on human activities in a protected area; downsizing is a reduction in the size of a protected area; and degazettement is the legal elimination of an entire protected area. Protecting lands Despite major
increases in public land protections in Canada and Mexico since 1992, the United States has seen only modest gains In 1992, of the three largest North American countries, the United States had far and away the
greatest extent of land protected, with roughly 10 percent of its total lands under conservation. (see Figure 1) This achievement was the byproduct of a century of leadership and investment in conservation. Canada
had approximately 6 percent of its lands protected, and Mexico lagged far behind its neighbors, with roughly 2 percent of its lands under conservation management. There is a positive trend in land protection for all
three countries since 1992, but the trends are very different for each. (see Figure 1) In Mexico, nearly 90 percent of current land protections have been granted since 1992—resulting in roughly 14 percent of its total
land being under conservation management—the highest overall in North America. Although most of Mexico’s national parks were established in the mid-20th century, the country added large numbers of
sustainable use and biosphere reserves and strengthened protections for existing reserves during the 1990s and 2000s. While these protections are not as strong as wilderness areas or most national parks, they do
result in positive conservation outcomes.24 This expansion coincided with the establishment of national commissions on biodiversity and protected areas, as well as increased investment in law enforcement and
management of protected areas. With these steps, Mexico has made notable improvements to its stewardship of biodiversity over the past 25 years.25 The expansion of land protections in Canada has not been as
rapid—roughly 10 percent of its land is protected, lagging behind the United States and Mexico—but nearly half of its current protections have been implemented since 1992. This progress is the result of a
commitment by provinces and territories to protect large portions of lands under their jurisdiction, as well as the recent establishment of a few large federally protected areas.26 Recently, government agencies at the
federal, provincial, and territorial levels have engaged in closer collaboration with indigenous peoples to plan new protected areas. Progress has accelerated over the past year, with the announcement of several large
protected areas and a commitment from the federal government to spend $1.3 billion over the next five years to expand the protected area network.27 Despite this growth, none of the three countries have protected
17 percent of their land—the Aichi Target for 2020. Mexico has made the greatest advancement toward this goal, as it is now nearly 3 percentage points away from the Aichi Target. The United States is unique in
that it is the only country of the three largest North American countries to show a net loss in overall protected area in any year. The Trump administration’s 2017 cuts in protections for the Grand Staircase-Escalante
and Bears Ears national monuments—which reduced their size by 50 percent and 85 percent, respectively—affected slightly less than 2 million acres of land and, as such, represents the largest reduction in protected
areas in the nation’s history.28 Weeks after President Trump announced the reductions for these two Utah monuments, Congress passed tax legislation that also opened up 1.5 million acres of the previously off-limits
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration, and Secretary Ryan Zinke agreed to allow a road to be built through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, further weakening the integrity of U.S. protected lands.
Taken together, these lost or weakened protections affect 3.3 million acres—an area 50 percent larger than Yellowstone National Park. The only comparable event on record elsewhere in North America was a 2013
change in classification of Mexico’s Nevado de Toluca National Park to a sustainable use reserve. This downgrade in protections occurred over a much smaller area—130,000 acres—and allowed local communities
to conduct limited collection of natural resources within the reserve. However, the land was still protected from the significant impacts of mining and other extractive industries, a prohibition that was deliberately
removed from both Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears national monuments by the Trump administration and from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by Congress.29 While public land protections lead the
way, progress is slow on private land Public lands protections play a dominant role in conservation globally and in the protected area strategies of the United States, Canada, and Mexico. However, conservation on
private lands is acknowledged as a critically important component of conservation strategy, given the uneven distribution of public lands across different regions and ecosystems.30 Across each of the three North
American countries, private conservation lands represent less than 4 percent of the protected area system. (see Table 1) Overall, the United States has the highest level of private lands conservation, due in large part
to federal and state incentives for conservation easements, as well as high levels of private land ownership.31 Lower rates of private lands conservation in Canada can be attributed, in part, to having a much higher
proportion of public and provincial land ownership, but they are also due to gaps in Canada’s records on private lands conservation, which it has committed to improving by 2020.32 In Mexico, data show that
progress in conserving private lands accelerated only recently, possibly facilitated by land reforms in 2001.33 These data reinforce the major opportunities and challenges for land conservation. First, they
demonstrate how central public land is to conservation. While some gains have been made in increasing private lands conservation, public lands—especially national parks and forests—anchor large-scale
conservation programs, even in areas dominated by private lands. However, in the long term, the bias in protections toward regions with high levels of public land represent a major challenge for effectively
protecting ecosystems. Public land is disproportionately distributed in places where the demand for land is lower, often because it is remote, rugged, dry, or some combination of the three. The ecosystems in these
places are more likely to receive protection, while habitats in areas that are more conducive to human development are left vulnerable—places such as wetlands, grasslands, rainforests, and deciduous forests.34
Therefore, identifying effective strategies to increase conservation on private lands is urgently needed, and the World Database on Protected Areas data suggest that much remains to be done. Protecting oceans All
three countries take their own approach to protecting a neglected region Although oceans are home to rich ecosystems that provide immense economic and cultural value to society, they have only received large-
Since 1992, the number of marine protected areas

scale protections in the past few decades as a better understanding has been gained concerning human impacts on marine life.
(MPAs) has increased dramatically, especially in the U nited States. (see Figure 2) The United States creates huge reserves, mostly in distant
territorial waters The United States has protected the largest portion of its territorial waters out of the three largest North American countries—nearly 26 percent. This investment in marine conservation is relatively
recent; almost all of these MPAs have been designated since 2004.35It is worth noting that the distribution of these protected waters
heavily favors areas outside the continental United States. (see Figure 3) More than 40 percent of the overall
MPA estate in the United States is in one MPA: the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in northwestern Hawaii. Another 45 percent is in a handful of
national monuments and marine sanctuaries in the western Pacific Ocean. While these are biologically important places, it is worth pointing out that the percentage of protected
waters off the West Coast, the Gulf of Mexico, and the East Coast of the United States is much lower
despite the unique ecosystems and economic values these waters support. Canada forges a new path to greater marine protections Canada has pursued its
own unique approach to expanding its ocean conservation system. Given the challenges of balancing the economic and cultural importance of fishing in the country, the Canadian government has pursued both MPAs
and what it defines as “other effective area-based conservation measures,” which involve restrictions on fishing and other activities to protect specific features, such as coral reefs and spawning grounds, that are
ecologically important or unique.36 While the overall extent of MPAs remains low—they account for less than 1 percent of Canada’s oceans—these other conservation measures, also called marine refuges, have
expanded dramatically in the past two years and now cover more than 5 percent of Canada’s oceans. (see Figure 2) A new MPA, called Tallurutiup Imanga, is in the process of being established as well. When
designated, it will add protections to 109,000 square kilometers of the Arctic Ocean—almost 2 percent of Canada’s ocean territory.37 In addition to this impressive spike in new and proposed protections, the
government has also recently released new guidelines for the planning and development of new MPAs, including protection standards and co-management strategies to work with indigenous peoples, with the goal of
making it easier to create new MPAs in the future.38 Mexico’s MPA system continues to grow In 1992, Mexico was the leader among the three countries in terms of ocean area under some form of protection. This is
notable because of Mexico’s early adoption of this conservation approach, but also because the country does not have the same vast ocean territories as the United States or Canada. While the United States has
passed its neighbors in terms of relative area protected, Mexico has maintained its commitment to marine conservation. In addition to older MPAs in the upper Gulf of California and the Colorado River Delta,
Mexico has recently designated large areas off the west coast of Baja California and in the Caribbean to protect ecosystems and fisheries.39 This increase in ocean protections has created an opportunity for future
investments in management to better conserve the country’s marine resources. Progress on the strongest ocean protections varies by country In
North America, the most effective designations— no-take reserves , which fully restrict
commercial fishing—have, until recently, been limited to the U nited States.40 These types of reserves
are especially important to the long-term health of ecosystems, as they have been shown to have
much larger positive effects on fish populations than other MPAs—even those with heavily regulated fishing.41 As the value of
these strong protections has become more widely recognized, each of the three countries has taken a different path toward incorporating them into their MPA system.42 The United States remains
a leader in designating no-take reserves, and a handful of very large no-take designations now represent more than 80 percent of the overall MPA area in the country.
However, as with MPAs generally, the majority of these areas are located in distant territorial waters, primarily northwest of the main Hawaiian Islands and in the western Pacific Ocean. The recent designation of the
Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument off the coast of New England adopted a slow phasing-in approach to no-take protections closer to the continental United States. However, there is
concern that this commitment could be undermined by the Trump administration.43 Mexico has made significant marine designations since 2015, including large new no-take protected areas near the Baja
Peninsula.44 Canada has yet to implement similar MPAs, but the release of new guidelines and expansion of less restrictive conservation measures appear to be steps toward eventual expansion of its MPA system.45
The impact of political leadership Across all three countries studied, only one administration over the past 25 years facilitated an overall decline in land or ocean protections. (see Figures 4 and 5) President Donald
Trump’s reduction of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments, along with his removal of protections in the Arctic and Izembek national wildlife refuges, have led to a contraction of roughly 1.2
percent of the U.S. protected area estate—an area 50 percent larger than Yellowstone National Park. This has effectively erased the United States’ overall gain in lands protections since 2015.46 Prior to the Trump
administration, the rate of land protection in the United States had slowed since the mid-1990s. While the use of executive authority through the Antiquities Act of 1906 has resulted in major new protections in the
past two decades for lands and large areas of U.S. oceans—especially around distant islands in the western Pacific Ocean—congressional action to protect land and ocean areas has become less frequent. In the past
decade, only three major pieces of successful land protection legislation have passed into law in the United States: the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, the National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) for Fiscal Year of 2013, and the 2015 Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Additions Act. In Mexico, the administrations of former Presidents Ernesto Zedillo (1994–2000) and
Vicente Fox (2000–2006) implemented management improvements and expansions of the country’s protected area estate after decades of low investment.47 These improvements included the establishment of
national commissions on biodiversity and protected areas, which helped build capacity for managing natural resources.48 Federal budgets for conservation in Mexico also increased dramatically during the 1990s.49
This investment resulted in improved protections for several large reserves that had been designated in the mid-20th century and resulted in a substantial increase in the effectiveness of protected areas covering
significant portions of Mexican territory.50 (see years 2000 and 2002 in Figure 1) More recently, conservation priorities have appeared to shift somewhat to protecting more of Mexico’s marine ecosystems. While
the administration of current President Enrique Peña Nieto has not protected as much land as its predecessors, it has made considerable additions to the country’s marine protected area network.51 In Canada, the
annual rate of expansion of both terrestrial and marine protected area systems has been relatively constant, with the exception of the dramatic uptick in marine protections in the past two years. Although Canada has
lower protected area coverage than the United States or Mexico, its push to extend marine protections, invest in greater collaboration with indigenous peoples, and adopt new guidelines for establishing protected
Protecting lands and oceans is critically important to

areas all should lay the groundwork for growth in the nation’s protected area estate. Conclusion
effective stewardship of wildlife and ecosystems and to the health of our economy and society. The United States has long been a
trailblazer in conservation , creating the first national park and leading the way in developing protected area systems and capable public agencies to manage them.
However, the data support the concerns that have emerged since the Trump administration announced its plans to shrink Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears
national monuments: The United States has foregone its role as a global leader in land and water conservation. Instead, Canada’s and
Mexico’s progress toward their 2020 commitments stand out as examples of conservation leadership in North America. There are other bright spots in the data—including stronger protections for ocean territories
Addressing the extinction

within each country. However, most of these designations have only occurred during the past ten years, and it remains to be seen whether this trend continues.
crisis and meeting international commitments will require continued investment and dedication.
They Say: “No Evidence for Solvency”
Substantial evidence demonstrates MPA effectiveness
Alexandra Carter et al, 11/16/2020 (deputy director for Ocean Policy at Center for American
Progress, “To Save Nature, We Must Protect 30 Percent of U.S. Ocean,”
https://www.americanprogress.org /issues/green /news/2020/11/16/492946/save-nature-must-
protect-30-percent-u-s-ocean/, Retrieved 6/7/2021)
Protecting 30 percent of the U.S. ocean is key to saving the diversity and abundance of life on
Earth. Scientists have found that placing at least 30 percent of the world’s ocean in fully or highly
protected marine protected areas ( MPAs ) is necessary to stem the extinction of ocean wildlife,
stabilize our climate, and safeguard our future. The United States has currently protected 23
percent of its oceans, but more than 99 percent of that area is in the remote Pacific. Protecting
more areas that are closer to heavily populated coastal communities would not only benefit
biodiversity but also improve the health and economic outlook for the millions of Americans who
rely on the coast and ocean. Protecting 30 percent of the U.S. ocean near people and ensuring
access to more nature would also benefit families with children, low-income communities, and
people of color—all of whom are more likely to be deprived of the benefits of nature. Objectives
and impacts of the Magnuson-Stevens Act Because highly to fully protected MPAs prohibit or
reduce industrial fishing activity, many commercial fishermen have been wary of the 30 percent
goal. The fishing industry has long believed that the United States’ primary fishery management
law is the only tool that can or should address fishing activity. U.S. fisheries are indeed among
the best managed in the world under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSA). Under the law, the United States has reduced overfishing by setting and
enforcing sustainable fishing limits and has progressed in rebuilding stocks that are recovering
from past overfishing. While the MSA’s success is undeniable, many of these conservation-
minded provisions are relatively new additions from the law’s most recent reauthorization in
2007. And although the MSA has a mandate to ensure sustainable long-term fishing operations,
this legal mandate does not extend to ensuring healthy oceans or protecting the ocean biodiversity
and ecosystem services upon which many Americans depend. This is why the MSA is not an
ocean management law—it is a fisheries management law. Its core principles are based in
fisheries science and focused on managing a single species or closely related species complexes
—not on the conservation of biodiversity. At its best, the MSA has reduced pressure on specific
species complexes such as groundfish off the West Coast and single species of fish such as the
American plaice off the East Coast, allowing those populations to rebuild and once again be
fished. But the MSA does little to address the destructive impacts of climate change and other
nonfishing stressors on biodiversity. To provide significant benefits to biodiversity, highly to
fully protected MPAs are necessary . The MSA does have some habitat protection provisions;
the law requires regional fishery management councils to declare essential fish habitat (EFH).
Councils are mandated to consider how such habitat can be conserved and, where practicable,
enact measures to protect it. Unfortunately, the EFH provisions and their state-based equivalents
are underused; a CAP analysis found more than 75 percent of EFH-designated and state-based
equivalent areas to be minimally protective at best. Given the law’s practicability standard, it is
unsurprising that regulatory bodies comprised of fishermen have rarely found it practicable to
limit fishing. It is also important to note that EFH designations are not MPAs because they are
not permanent and only allow the councils to regulate fishing actions that harm habitat. They
cannot, for example, prevent a salt marsh from being filled or a coral reef from being dredged. In
short, the MSA is not a habitat conservation law but a fisheries management tool that regulates
fishing on some species and protects a relatively small amount of habitat from certain fishing
impacts. This is a relatively small sliver of ocean life. The MSA manages a little more than 479
different fish stocks or stock complexes of fish. Leaving aside the species yet to be discovered, at
least 49,250 documented species are currently found in U.S. waters. This means the MSA
manages no more than 1 percent of all known species in U.S. waters. While the law plays a
critical role in maintaining sustainable populations of commercially valuable species for
commercial and other extractive uses, it does very little to protect the habitat of those species.
Additionally, ocean ecosystems are significantly vaster and more complicated than those few
under the law’s purview, meaning the MSA is ill-equipped to conserve the ocean’s biodiversity to
the extent scientists have said is necessary. Benefits of MPAs Expanding ocean MPAs to protect
a higher percentage of marine species and habitats does not harm fishing industry interests. For
example, the expansion of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument and the
Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument—two of the largest U.S. MPAs in the Pacific
Ocean—had no measurable economic effects on the region’s fishing industry. Similarly, there
were no adverse impacts on regional fishing industries associated with the declaration of the
Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument in New England waters.
However, there is substantial evidence from across the United States that expanding MPAs and
decreasing habitat stressors, such as fishing and pollution, helps ocean ecosystems and coastal
communities become more resilient to climate change . The U.S. Palmyra Atoll National
Wildlife Refuge has shown that large MPAs provide substantial large-predator protection for
species such as reef sharks, which are a part of healthy functioning reef habitats. Closer to the
contiguous United States, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary protects the third-largest
barrier reef system in the world, and recent studies have shown that expanded protections are
needed to maintain healthy populations of reef-building species of coral. In the colder waters off
the mid-Atlantic, oyster and urban habitat conservation has benefited water quality, coastal
resilience, and ecosystem services in both the Chesapeake Bay and the Long Island Sound. Off of
the West Coast, scientists are seeing more and larger fish and invertebrates—an early sign of
success for the network of MPAs in California created by the Marine Life Protection Act.
Managing sustainable fisheries is one part of maintaining a healthy and climate-resilient ocean,
but it is not the only part. Just as habitat protection cannot replace fisheries management, fisheries
management cannot replace habitat protection. Both systems must be used in concert to achieve a
sustainable, healthy, and economically robust ocean. By protecting 30 percent of U.S. lands and
oceans by 2030, the United States can continue to build on its strong record of ocean
conservation leadership .
Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) Amendment
CP
1NC — MSA Amendment CP
The United States federal government should amend the Magnuson-Stevens

Act to require all “Essential Fish Habitat” designations have fishing-
restrictive protections, metrics of success, and regular evaluations.
Amended MSA solves fish – clear metrics and regular evaluation ensure
ecosystem protection
Carter et al 20, Alexandra Carter, Margaret Cooney, Sung Chung, Carlos Rivero Lopez, and
Miriam Goldstein, 7-7-2020, "How To Reform and Strengthen Fishery Habitat Protection,"
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2020/07/07/487317/reform-strengthen-
fishery-habitat-protection/, JTong
In addition, the EFH provisions of the M agnuson- S tevens A ct have the potential to be a
powerful tool that could be used to greatly aid in the recovery and resilience of key species and
habitats if the law were changed to mandate that the fishery management councils and NOAA
protect important habitats while ensuring the benefit of fisheries. Here, the authors suggest two
statutory changes that would strengthen the ability of managers to protect key habitats through
improved use of EFH.
Require essential fish habitat to be treated as essential
Since EFH was first required by the MSA, it has been used as an informative tool for identifying
habitats important to American fisheries’ recovery and management. However, once EFH is
designated, the fishery management councils are only required to minimize the adverse effects on
this so-called essential habitat to the extent practicable. The reality is that very few councils have
found it practicable to do so.
Some councils, such as in the case of the California groundfish above, have implemented fishery
management in coordination with fishing-restrictive EFH, negotiating with fishermen on deals to
implement closures in some areas in exchange for restoring fishing privileges in others.54 Other
councils have done the minimum required by the MSA, which is to describe EFH areas in their
fisheries management plans and then declare any further action impracticable.
Because of the political pressure and short-term economic impacts of the legal practicability
standard, councils often fail to close fishing grounds or take other management efforts that could
have any adverse effect on the fishing industry. However, if these habitats are actually essential
for the recovery and management of American fishery resources, then it is time to start treating
them as such. With more than 99 percent of the area of U.S. MPAs concentrated in the West
Pacific and 42 percent of EFH area concentrated in the North Pacific, many regions remain
vulnerable to habitat degradation. Improved EFH protections would provide the largest benefit
and best chances of long-term economic prosperity to those council regions with the fewest
protected habitats and the lowest coverage of fishing-restrictive area.55
Congress should amend the MSA to require all EFH designations to have fishing-
restrictive protections and metrics of success for their conservation and management .
Because most of the U.S. exclusive economic zone is already designated as EFH, a congressional
requirement to make EFH fishing restrictive would result in fewer areas being designated, and
those that are designated would have concrete and specific protections. This would help
councils prioritize and protect the most important habitat while cutting excess designations.
Congress should also mandate that the EFH designations be regularly evaluated against specific
goals for success. The National Marine Fisheries Service and the fishery management councils
could then work together to prescribe localized specific metrics and timelines to measure success
for fishing-restrictive EFH within each fisheries management plan.
These recommended requirements—and all existing EFH designations—should also be
periodically reviewed and revised by the councils to ensure that they are meeting their goals.
The counterplan does three things:
1. Amends the Magnuson-Stevens Act to clarify the term “Essential Fish
Habitat”
2. Requires clear metrics for success in ecosystem protection and
3. Mandates periodic council review
This combination gives teeth to the MSA to solve fish and ecosystems – that’s
Carter et al
MSA amendments create a powerful tool for conservation – avoids squo

pitfalls of the MSA
EFH consultation improvement
The MSA has few requirements for other federal agencies to consult with NOAA on proposed
actions that would affect EFH. Currently, the consultation provisions do not require that other
federal agencies avoid negative impacts on EFH or allow NOAA to prevent such effects from
taking place. While fishing can have a significant impact on ocean habitats, it is not the only
activity that can cause damage. EFH provisions in the MSA should be improved to better protect
EFH from all types of federally regulated impacts.
Congress should amend the MSA to require that federal agencies avoid impacts on EFH from
nonfishing actions such as oil and gas drilling or deep-sea mining. If the effect of federal actions
on EFH cannot be avoided, the federal agency should be required to mitigate them. The impact of
federal activities would be assessed by NOAA either during the statutorily required
environmental review process for all major federal projects under the National Environmental
Policy Act or through other means if NEPA review is not required.56
Making these changes to the EFH provisions within the MSA would change the way EFH is used
in management. By creating a legal mandate for fishing-restrictive EFH with metrics for
success and real consultation requirements to protect these areas from nonfishing impacts, the
provision would become a powerful tool for strengthening the councils’ long-touted
conservation priorities. These recommendations, used together with a robust network of highly-
to-fully protected MPAs, would truly put the United States at the forefront of ocean habitat
protection and long-term climate resilience.
Failure to address MSA loophole is a huge alt cause to the aff – conservation
efforts are destined to fail absent enforceable restrictions
Fishery management councils are required to designate EFH in each fishery management plan
and minimize fishing impacts on EFH where practicable. The practicable legal standard has been
interpreted by some councils to mean that any restriction on fishermen is impractical, most likely
because the fishing industry representatives who comprise the bulk of the councils rarely wish to
go through an arduous process in order to limit their own access to specific areas. This means that
minimization of fishing impacts on EFH is rarely considered practicable , and the councils have
recommended limiting fishing activities in only a small fraction of EFH areas.17 This report will
call such areas “fishing-restrictive EFH.”
The requirement that fishery management councils designate EFH—combined with the lack of a
requirement for the councils to implement fishing-impact restrictions for the EFH they
themselves designate—has ironically resulted in the designation of almost all U.S. federal waters
to be designated as EFH. However, very few areas have enforceable restrictions on fishing
activity in the so-called essential habitat. In other words, although nearly the entire U.S.
e xclusive e conomic z one is considered essential, the term has very little meaning .
Fishing-restrictive EFH, where the councils have both designated an EFH area and taken
management action to restrict certain fishing activities in the area, is not widely used—as noted
above—but tends to include limitations on harvesting, such as gear restrictions and closed areas.
The councils do have the authority under the MSA to comment on and make recommendations to
the U.S. secretary of commerce regarding any activities by other federal agencies that may affect
the habitat of a fishery under the council’s jurisdiction.18 However, the consultation provisions
do not require that other federal agencies avoid negative impacts on EFH, nor do they allow the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to prevent such impacts from taking
place.
EFH areas are minimally protected – enhancing legal protection solves

habitats
Of the few EFH areas that are fishing-restrictive, most—75 percent—are minimally protected .
While these measures are steps in the right direction, they consist of relatively minor
modifications to existing gear and so offer relatively little habitat protection. For example, the
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council requires bottom trawl gear to include at least one
link in their tickler chain that is weaker than the rest. Theoretically, this allows the chain to break
if it gets tangled or caught on bottom habitat such as coral. However, to prevent costly gear loss,
most boats had already installed a weak link prior to the EFH requirement.22 Additionally,
because the regulations do not define how weak the link must be, even trawler tickler chains with
a weak link are likely to destroy most corals.23
The limited extent to which meaningful habitat protections are enacted by states or councils
makes clear that, without significant changes to the law or its application, these protected areas
are not likely to be an adequate substitute for a more geographically representative and
comprehensive system of MPAs. However, EFH and state actions do not need to be MPA
substitutes in order to be effective. If EFH protections and the consultation process with other
agencies could be more widely used to restrict both fishing and other extractive activities—such
as oil drilling and seabed mining—and state designations were used in concert with federal ones,
these areas could prove to be a powerful tool to enhance fisheries by conserving the important
habitat upon which fisheries depend.
Addressing overfishing vital to marine ecosystems

Gordon & Binns 21, Joseph Gordon & Holly Binns, 1-25-2021, "Main U.S. Fisheries Law
on Track for Overdue Improvements," No Publication, https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-
and-analysis/articles/2021/01/25/main-us-fisheries-law-on-track-for-overdue-improvements,
Jtong
But managers still have more to do. The MSA required an end to overfishing, but it still
occurs far too often , and in some cases is increasing . For the fish stocks with a known
population level, almost 1 in 5 is far below the target level. And some marine animals that are
highly vulnerable to fishing pressure and other stressors have not rebounded to the levels required
under the Endangered Species Act and other laws. Moreover, the entire ocean is under stress from
climate change—which is driving increases in water temperatures and acidity—and from
pollution and increasing global demand for seafood. All of these factors are affecting the
abundance and location of many species. The stakes of these changes are high: U.S. marine
ecosystems provide millions of Americans with food, jobs, security, and recreation, and are
important to the cultural identity of many communities.
Advantage CPs vs. Rural Economy
Agriculture Resilience Act (ARA) CP
1NC — ARA CP
The United States federal government should pass the Agriculture Resilience
Act.
The ARA empowers farmers to combat warming while providing economic

stimulus
Deeble 4/22 – Eric Deeble is the Policy Director at National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
(“Release: Agriculture Resilience Act Delivers Bold Vision for Net Zero Agriculture” 4/22/21 Sustainable
Agriculture Coalition https://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/release-ara-delivers-bold-vision-for-net-zero-
agriculture/)//RSG🌳
Today, Representative Chellie Pingree (D-ME) and Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM) introduced
the Agriculture Resilience Act (ARA), which outlines a farmer-focused, research-driven path to
net zero agriculture. This Earth Week, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) is
proud to endorse a bill delivering a bold vision for the future of agriculture. The ARA will
refocus federal conservation, research, renewable energy, and rural economic development
programs on climate resilience and empower farmers and ranchers eager to drive climate change
solutions on the ground.
Farmers and ranchers know the fundamental threat that the climate crisis poses to their
livelihoods and the viability of agriculture and have called on Congress to support them as they
implement climate stewardship practices and build resilience to climate stresses. In response to
American producers, Representative Pingree (D-ME) and Senator Heinrich (D-NM) offer the
ARA and express their commitment:
“Extreme weather events are upending farmers’ bottom lines, threatening their businesses and
risking the future of our food supply. Congress must work to keep farmers on their land, and
we must work to empower those farmers to implement climate-smart practices that reduce the
nation’s greenhouse gas emissions and increase their resilience in the face of climate
change,” said Congresswoman Pingree. “The Agriculture Resilience Act focuses on solutions that
are farmer-driven in order to reach net-zero emissions in this sector by 2040. Climate change
deserves a whole-of-government approach, and I’m looking forward to working with the Biden
administration to ensure farmers have a seat at the table as we work to address the climate crisis.”
“New Mexico’s farmers and ranchers, whose livelihoods depend on the health of our land and
water, are on the frontlines of the climate crisis and know all too well the effects that extreme
weather events can have on their operations. Through regenerative agriculture and soil
management, our producers can simultaneously make their land more resilient and play a large
role in the fight against climate change,” said U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich. “I’m proud to
join Congresswoman Pingree, an organic farmer of more than 40 years, to introduce the
Agriculture Resilience Act, which sets a national goal of achieving net-zero emissions in
agriculture by 2040 through farmer-led, science-based initiatives. This legislation will make
ambitious investments to help our farmers and ranchers improve soil health, expand conservation
programs, increase research into climate agricultural practices, and support on-farm renewable
energy projects.”
The ARA utilizes existing farm bill programs to keep farmers on the land and in business, while
equipping them with the tools and resources they need to be active partners in our efforts to
mitigate the climate crisis by doubling funding for conservation programs and tripling
agricultural research funding.
The bill was first introduced in the House last Congress and the reintroduced version of the bill,
now with a Senate companion, incorporates important modifications. The new version has several
co-sponsors in the Senate and House, including Senators Sanders (I-VT), Gillibrand (D-NY), and
Blumenthal (D-CT), and Representatives Spanberger (D-VA), Khanna (D-CA), Carbajal (D-CA),
Hayes (D-CT), McGovern (D-MA), and Kuster (D-NH).
The new version of the ARA:
Expands provisions to better serve and prioritize farmers of color, as well as beginning and
veteran farmers and ranchers;
Makes conservation programs more accessible to organic and transitioning to organic producers;
and
Incorporates perennial agriculture throughout the bill, recognizing the climate mitigation and
adaptation contributions of these production systems.
In response to the introduction of the bill, NSAC issued the following comment:
“NSAC is proud to endorse the Agriculture Resilience Act and wish to thank Representative
Pingree and Senator Heinrich for their leadership in this vital work,” said Eric Deeble, NSAC
Policy Director. “This bill continues to be the most comprehensive piece of legislation on climate
and agriculture and includes actionable steps toward achieving net zero emissions by 2040.”
“Farmers and ranchers are increasingly being recognized as an essential part of the solution to the
climate crisis,” said Deeble. “They are committed to healthy soils and resilient, sustainable
production systems because they face the rising pressures of a changing climate every day and
they know what’s at stake – their livelihood and their legacies. The ARA puts producers at the
center of meaningful and long-lasting policy action on climate change. NSAC supports this bill
and hopes that Congress will include the funding elements in the infrastructure and climate bill
under consideration this year, with the balance of the proposed policy changes for inclusion in the
next farm bill.”
The tenets of the ARA are fully in line with the recommendations of NSAC’s 2019 climate
report, Agriculture and Climate Change: Policy Imperatives and Opportunities to Help Producers
Meet the Challenge, and have the full support of our 130+ member organizations nationwide.
Solves emissions and preserves development
Deeble 21 – Eric Deeble, Policy Director at National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition and
former Senior Policy Director for Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. (“RELEASE: AGRICULTURE
RESILIENCE ACT DELIVERS BOLD VISION FOR NET ZERO AGRICULTURE”, National
Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, 4/22/2021, https://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/release-ara-
delivers-bold-vision-for-net-zero-agriculture/)//ST
Agriculture Resilience Act Delivers Bold Vision for Net Zero Agriculture National Sustainable
Agriculture Coalition Applauds Trailblazing Climate and Agriculture Bill Washington, DC, April
22, 2021 – Today, Representative Chellie Pingree (D-ME) and Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
introduced the Agriculture Resilience Act (ARA), which outlines a farmer-focused, research-
driven path to net zero agriculture. This Earth Week, the National Sustainable Agriculture
Coalition (NSAC) is proud to endorse a bill delivering a bold vision for the future of agriculture.
The ARA will refocus federal conservation, research, renewable energy, and rural eco nomic
development programs on climate resilience and empower farmers and ranchers eager to drive
climate change solutions on the ground. Farmers and ranchers know the fundamental threat that
the climate crisis poses to their livelihoods and the viability of agriculture and have called on
Congress to support them as they implement climate stewardship practices and build resilience to
climate stresses. In response to American producers, Representative Pingree (D-ME) and Senator
Heinrich (D-NM) offer the ARA and express their commitment: “Extreme weather events are
upending farmers’ bottom lines, threatening their businesses and risking the future of our food
supply. Congress must work to keep farmers on their land, and we must work to empower those
farmers to implement climate-smart practices that reduce the nation’s greenhouse gas
emissions and increase their resilience in the face of climate change,” said Congresswoman
Pingree. “The Agriculture Resilience Act focuses on solutions that are farmer-driven in order
to reach net-zero emissions in this sector by 2040. Climate change deserves a whole-of-
government approach, and I’m looking forward to working with the Biden administration to
ensure farmers have a seat at the table as we work to address the climate crisis.” “New Mexico’s
farmers and ranchers, whose livelihoods depend on the health of our land and water, are on the
frontlines of the climate crisis and know all too well the effects that extreme weather events can
have on their operations. Through regenerative agriculture and soil management, our producers
can simultaneously make their land more resilient and play a large role in the fight against
climate change,” said U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich. “I’m proud to join Congresswoman Pingree,
an organic farmer of more than 40 years, to introduce the Agriculture Resilience Act, which sets a
national goal of achieving net-zero emissions in agriculture by 2040 through farmer-led, science-
based initiatives. This legislation will make ambitious investments to help our farmers and
ranchers improve soil health, expand conservation programs, increase research into climate
agricultural practices, and support on-farm renewable energy projects.” The ARA utilizes existing
farm bill programs to keep farmers on the land and in business, while equipping them with the
tools and resources they need to be active partners in our efforts to mitigate the climate crisis by
doubling funding for conservation programs and tripling agricultural research funding. The bill
was first introduced in the House last Congress and the reintroduced version of the bill, now with
a Senate companion, incorporates important modifications. The new version has several co-
sponsors in the Senate and House, including Senators Sanders (I-VT), Gillibrand (D-NY), and
Blumenthal (D-CT), and Representatives Spanberger (D-VA), Khanna (D-CA), Carbajal (D-CA),
Hayes (D-CT), McGovern (D-MA), and Kuster (D-NH). The new version of the ARA: Expands
provisions to better serve and prioritize farmers of color, as well as beginning and veteran farmers
and ranchers; Makes conservation programs more accessible to organic and transitioning to
organic producers; and Incorporates perennial agriculture throughout the bill, recognizing the
climate mitigation and adaptation contributions of these production systems. In response to
the introduction of the bill, NSAC issued the following comment: “NSAC is proud to endorse the
Agriculture Resilience Act and wish to thank Representative Pingree and Senator Heinrich for
their leadership in this vital work,” said Eric Deeble, NSAC Policy Director. “This bill continues
to be the most comprehensive piece of legislation on climate and agriculture and includes
actionable steps toward achieving net zero emissions by 2040.”
==AFFIRMATIVE ANSWERS==
Affs Answers vs. Carbon
Sequestration CPs
Clean Energy for America Act (CEAA) CP
2AC — CEAA CP (General)
1. Perm: do both. [Farmers will perceive the plan as an addition to CEAA
benefits, shielding the link.]
2. Tax Incentives Fail — they don’t reduce emissions.

TCS 21 — Taxpayers for Common Sense, an independent, nonpartisan voice for taxpayers
working to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly and that government operates within
its means, 2021 (“$216 Billion for Sen. Wyden’s Clean Energy for America Act,” Taxpayers for
Common Sense, May 26th, Available Online at https://www.taxpayer.net/budget-appropriations-
tax/216-billion-for-sen-wydens-clean-energy-for-america-act/, Accessed 07-05-2021)
Today, the Senate Finance Committee plans to mark up the Clean Energy for America Act, which
proposes to consolidate the current plethora of renewable energy tax credits into three new
buckets – for “clean” fuel, “clean” electricity, and energy efficiency. While the Committee’s
focus is on clean energy and climate mitigation, some parts of the bill could resurrect wasteful
subsidies that do little to reduce carbon emissions – or worse yet, increase climate risks.
The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates Chairman Wyden’s (D-OR) clean energy tax
extenders legislation would cost taxpayers $215.5 billion over the next decade (Fiscal Year (FY)
2022-2031). A rough breakdown of the bill’s 10-year cost estimates includes the following:
Eliminating fossil fuel incentives is expected to save $24.5 billion, but the bill proposes huge
spending increases on electric vehicles, alternative fuels, renewable electricity, manufacturing,
and energy efficiency.
Renewable electricity tax credits are expected to cost taxpayers $155 billion over the next ten
years, an increase over current law (as a comparison, current credits for renewables – primarily
wind and solar – are expected to cost $10.6 billion in FY22). The additional credits would be
made up of new Clean Electricity Production and Investment Credits for both businesses and
residences. The majority of the projected costs are expected to occur in the latter part of the
decade. These provisions could subsidize forms of biomass that fail to significantly reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Clean Fuel Production Credit (which is intended to consolidate the current maze of credits such
as those for biomass-based diesel, alternative fuel mixtures, and cellulosic biofuel) is expected to
cost taxpayers $20 billion over the next ten years, rising to $4.8 billion in FY25 alone. It could
end up costing taxpayers more than projected in out-years due to credits being tied to estimates of
carbon reductions in future years. Either way, the new credit is expected to cost more than the
status quo, primarily because the costliest biofuels extender – the $3 billion-per-year biodiesel tax
credit – is due to expire at the end of 2022. Furthermore, some of the subsidized fuels may not
actually reduce climate-related emissions in practice (more info below).
Electric vehicle credits – $21 billion
Energy efficiency credits – $21 billion
Clean Electricity and Fuel Bonds – $10 billion
Other incentives such as those for clean energy manufacturing – round out the total $215.5
billion, in addition to other policy changes and the elimination of certain existing credits.
New Fuel Credits May Be Anything but Clean
Senator Wyden’s bill proposes a new “clean” fuel production credit, but it may be anything but
clean in practice.
The U.S. has already heavily subsidized the corn ethanol and soy biodiesel industries for decades.
Billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted each year on biofuels tax credits that have failed to
achieve their primary goal – significantly reducing GHG emissions. Currently, the U.S. provides
a $1 per gallon tax credit for biomass-based diesel. In addition, a $1.01 per gallon credit has also
been provided for cellulosic biofuels. Other credits such as those for biofuels and electric vehicle
infrastructure, other alternative fuel mixtures, etc. have also distorted markets and propped up
demand for certain industries at taxpayer expense.
Senator Wyden’s new bill to consolidate biofuels and other energy tax extenders recognizes that
historic energy tax policies have picked winners and losers. As a result, the new legislation
proposes a technology-neutral Clean Fuel Production Credit. The new credit, if enacted, would
provide up to $1 per gallon for biofuels that reduce lifecycle carbon emissions by at least 25
percent as compared to the current nationwide fuel average. Over time, fuels would only qualify
if they reduced carbon emissions by greater levels:
In 2026 and 2027, fuels with carbon emissions of less than 50 kg CO2e per mmBtu would qualify
for a credit.
In 2028 and 2029, the threshold would be 25 kg CO2e per mmBtu.
Beginning in 2030, only zero-emission fuels would receive a credit.
According to the bill summary,
“The credits are set to phase out when emission targets are achieved: when EPA and DOE certify
that the transportation sector emits 75 percent less carbon than 2021 levels, the incentives will be
phased out over five years. Facilities will be able to claim a credit at 100 percent value in the first
year, then 75 percent, then 50 percent, and then 0 percent.”
The bill would also create “a tax credit bond for facilities producing clean electricity or clean
transportation fuels.”
The devil is always in the details, however . Carbon emission reduction calculations don’t just
fall out of the sky and onto the Treasury’s desk. They must first be calculated by government
staff. Several factors enter into the calculations, and decisions must be made about which
emissions factors to include or not, at which levels, and more. Just one example is how to account
for changes in land use (when the government subsidizes biofuels, farmers plant more biofuels
crops, which impacts crop prices and future crop choices). Various universities and independent
government analysts land on a wide range of carbon emission estimates for biofuels, not to
mention the plethora of different production pathways for each type of biofuel (a corn ethanol
facility powered by coal or natural gas, for instance). The National Academies of Sciences found
that biofuels subsidies increase – instead of decrease – GHG emissions , running counter to
Congress’s original intent.
The Wyden bill could bring some wasteful corn ethanol subsidies back from the dead. This
even though a bipartisan Senate voted to kill the ethanol tax credit almost exactly a decade ago –
in June 2011 – and the credit ultimately ended in Dec. 2011. Current biodiesel tax credits also
distort markets and waste taxpayer dollars , especially given some biodiesel derived from
animal fats and used cooking oil is economic on its own without government subsidies, as
reported by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Yet, as one of the most expensive energy
tax extenders, the biodiesel credit currently costs taxpayers $3 billion annually. Certain types of
mature biodiesel and ethanol, biofuel facilities powered by biomass sources, and others could
qualify for credits under the Wyden proposal.
Instead of resurrecting wasteful, market-distorting, special interest tax breaks that may not
actually reduce climate-causing emissions, Congress should invest in real, lasting climate
solutions.
3. Delay DA — the CEAA will take a long transition period, deterring

short-term solvency.
Medina 21 — Jorge Medina, Partner and Co-Leader of Renewable Energy Practice at Pillsbury
Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, former Associate General Counsel-Tax at Tesla, former Vice
President and Deputy General Counsel at SolarCity, former Tax Counsel at Sidley Austin LLP
and Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, holds a J.D. from UC Berkley, 2021 (“CEAA and GREEN Act
Present Competing Frameworks for Energy Tax Credits,” Pillsbury, May 18th, Available Online
at https://www.pillsburylaw.com/en/news-and-insights/ceaa-green-act-competing-frameworks-
energy-tax-credits.html, Accessed 07-13-2021)
Ultimately, the proposals included in the GREEN Act and the CEAA advance many of the same
goals. The overarching differences between the two proposals are that the CEAA provides a
bolder expansion and reimagination of tax incentives that potentially better align to the required
results. The technology-neutral approach provides for broader qualification among energy assets
and greater flexibility for emerging technologies to potentially take advantage of the existing tax
credit framework without future congressional action. Additionally, the ability to toggle between
an ITC and PTC could provide flexibility to developers as different technologies advance, and
cost are reduced, without the further legislative changes or extensions. The CEAA, however, is
likely to create a more complex transition period, which will likely require further government
guidance and potential clarifications of new rules and regulations as issues arise. These issues can
have the effect of slowing down financing transaction during an interim period until issues are
clarified. These sort of financing snags occurred initially with the 1603 Grant Program, the
beginning of construction rules, and the Section 45Q credit expansion, but the potential for
mischief is far greater because the changes proposed by the CEAA are far more significant is
scope and scale. The GREEN Act by comparison provides a less ambitious and less disruptive
approach of primarily extending and enhancing the current incentives under the existing tax
framework
4. Economy DA — CEAA increases corporate taxes.
Lautz 21 — Andrew Lautz, Director of Federal Policy for National Taxpayers Union, former
Policy Analyst at Madison Services Group, Inc., former Senior Senate Research Analyst at the
America Rising Corporation, former Research Associate at Definers Public Affairs, holds a
Master’s degree in Political Management and Bachelor’s degree in Political Communication from
George Washington University, 2021 (“Senate Dems' Energy Bill Confuses Legitimate Cost
Recovery With "Subsidies",” National Taxpayers Union, May 25th, Available Online at
https://www.ntu.org/publications/detail/senate-dems-energy-bill-confuses-legitimate-cost-
recovery-with-subsidies, Accessed 07-13-2021)
In other words, repealing expensing for IDC would not level the tax playing field, it would
actively harm certain sectors of the energy industry at the expense of others. The Joint
Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates this would raise taxes by $3.4 billion over the next 10
years. This would make for a less fair tax code, not a more fair one.
The Committee Should Not Double Down on EV Tax Credits That Flow to the Wealthy
According to the Congressional Research Service, around 80 cents of every dollar in electric
vehicle (EV) credits have been claimed by taxpayers with an average income of over $100,000.
Rather than use this opportunity to limit the types of households that can claim the EV tax credit,
lawmakers supporting the Clean Energy for America Act have doubled down on this subsidy for
wealthy car buyers by lifting the per-manufacturer cap without any corresponding changes -- at a
cost of $21 billion over 10 years. NTU has suggested to lawmakers that they target the credit to
lower-income households and/or convert the per-manufacturer cap into an overall cap for EVs
across the market.
The Committee Should Not Subject Energy Companies to Double Taxation
The Clean Energy for America Act would also subject energy companies to a higher level of
double taxation by making changes to so-called “dual capacity” rules that currently enable
companies to receive a tax credit for levies paid to foreign countries. As former NTU Foundation
Vice President Nicole Kaeding once explained: “Oil and gas companies pay income taxes for
their foreign production in the foreign jurisdiction, but often other countries also assess royalties
on companies that extract resources. For example, Norway imposes a corporate income tax of 22
percent, with an additional tax rate of 56 percent on oil and gas extraction, bringing the total
marginal tax rate to 78 percent. Dual capacity rules ensure that the company gets a foreign tax
credit against the full 78 percent tax paid to Norway.”
JCT estimates that rolling back dual capacity rules for major integrated oil companies would raise
their taxes by $5.6 billion over 10 years, which combined with the IDC changes mentioned above
could raise taxes on energy companies by $9 billion over the next decade. This could have
significant, negative impacts on workers that directly and indirectly support these companies,
while also making the tax code less fair and less oriented toward economic growth.
S. 1298 Would Have Significant Deficit Impacts

It is also deeply concerning that, according to a JCT cost estimate for the Clean Energy for
America Act, the legislation would increase deficits by more than $200 billion over the next 10
years. With the nation’s debt in a perilous place, and after $5 trillion in spending on responses to
the COVID-19 pandemic, now is the time for lawmakers to propose reducing deficits rather than
increasing them. This bill would be yet another budget-buster, notwithstanding the modest (and,
in the case of the IDC and dual capacity provisions, harmful) tax hikes sponsors included to offset
a small fraction of the cost for new tax credits.
That collapses the economy and turns solvency by harming stocks, labor, and
innovation, and preventing innovations vs warming.
Millsap 21 — Adam A. Millsap, Senior Fellow for economic opportunity issues at Stand
Together and the Charles Koch Institute, former Senior Affiliated Scholar at the Mercatus Center
at George Mason University, former Adjunct Instructor of Economics at Florida State University,
former Adjunct Professor of Economics at George Mason University, holds a Ph.D. and M.A. in
Economics from Clemson University, holds a BS in Economics from Miami University, 2021
(“Higher Corporate Taxes Affect Everyone,” Forbes, April 28th, Available Online at
https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammillsap/2021/04/28/higher-corporate-taxes-affect-everyone/?
sh=225c2cf66808, Accessed 07-13-2021)
It is important to remember that corporate taxes must be paid by people . Any corporate tax
increase will be paid by either shareholders/owners, employees in the form of lower wages, or
customers in the form of higher prices. A study from 2016 finds that shareholders/owners bear
around 40% of state corporate income taxes while employees bear 30 to 35%. So, even though
corporate tax increases are not levied directly on workers, they still affect workers indirectly by
lowering their wages.
The burden on shareholders also affects people in the middle class through retirement accounts
and pensions. Over half of American workers are saving for retirement via a workplace
retirement plan. Investments in the stock market are impacted by corporate tax increases that
reduce corporate profits and thus stock market returns. This is true whether those investments are
in a defined contribution plan like a 401(k) or a defined benefit plan like many government
pensions.
A study from 2018 also finds that state corporate tax increases harm the labor market. The
authors analyze counties that border one another but are in different states and find that counties
in states with higher corporate tax rates have less employment and lower wage income. They also
find that during recessions corporate tax rate cuts boost economic activity. Given that the
economy is coming out of a pandemic-induced downturn, a corporate tax cut seems like a better
way to help workers than the tax increase President Biden is proposing.
There is also evidence from states that the best scientists move away in response to higher
corporate taxes. A study from 2017 finds that among superstar scientists, a 1% increase in the
state corporate income tax increase scientists’ migration by 1.9%.
It is easier to leave one U.S. state for another than it is to leave the country, so a federal corporate
tax increase may not have as large of an effect on mobility as a state increase. But it is not
impossible to leave the United States, and there are plenty of examples of people fleeing high-tax
countries for lower-tax ones. Losing star scientists and inventors will reduce U.S. innovation and
dynamism in the long run, further hurting workers.
Finally, there are several studies that find higher corporate tax rates directly reduce investment
and innovation. One study from 2007 finds that higher state corporate income taxes result in
less foreign direct investment. Investment is an important driver of economic growth, so less
investment, all else equal, means less growth.
Another study from 2017 finds that an increase in state corporate taxes reduces future innovation.
Higher corporate taxes reduce patenting, R & D investment, and new product introductions. The
authors note that their results are consistent with models that show that higher taxes reduce the
incentive to innovate and discourage risk-taking.
These results are consistent with other studies. One study from 2019 finds that large corporate
income tax cuts increase corporate innovation, especially among financially constrained firms.
Another study from 2020 looks at data from Portugal and finds that a lower corporate tax rate
increased firm entry and job creation and that the firms that responded to the tax cut tended to be
larger, more productive, and more likely to survive after three years.
There is strong evidence that corporate tax increases cause worse economic outcomes at the
state level. At a time when unemployment claims remain high and thousands of firms are still in
survival mode, it seems imprudent to raise corporate taxes at the federal or state level.
Economic decline causes nuclear war — countries will escalate.

Mann ’14 (Eric Mann is a special agent with a United States federal agency, with significant
domestic and international counterintelligence and counter-terrorism experience. Worked as a
special assistant for a U.S. Senator and served as a presidential appointee for the U.S. Congress.
He is currently responsible for an internal security and vulnerability assessment program.
Bachelors @ University of South Carolina, Graduate degree in Homeland Security @
Georgetown. “AUSTERITY, ECONOMIC DECLINE, AND FINANCIAL WEAPONS OF
WAR: A NEW PARADIGM FOR GLOBAL SECURITY,” May 2014,
https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/1774.2/37262/MANN-THESIS-2014.pdf)
The conclusions reached in this thesis demonstrate how economic considerations within states
can figure prominently into the calculus for future conflicts. The findings also suggest that
security issues with economic or financial underpinnings will transcend classical determinants of
war and conflict, and change the manner by which rival states engage in hostile acts toward one
another. The research shows that security concerns emanating from economic uncertainty and the
inherent vulnerabilities within global financial markets will present new challenges for national
security, and provide developing states new asymmetric options for balancing against stronger
states.¶ The security areas, identified in the proceeding chapters, are likely to mature into global
security threats in the immediate future. As the case study on South Korea suggest, the
overlapping security issues associated with economic decline and reduced military spending by
the United States will affect allied confidence in America’s security guarantees. The study
shows that this outcome could cause regional instability or realignments of strategic partnerships
in the Asia-pacific region with ramifications for U.S. national security. Rival states and non-state
groups may also become emboldened to challenge America’s status in the unipolar
international system.¶ The potential risks associated with stolen or loose WMD, resulting from
poor security, can also pose a threat to U.S. national security. The case study on Pakistan, Syria
and North Korea show how financial constraints affect weapons security making weapons
vulnerable to theft, and how financial factors can influence WMD proliferation by contributing to
the motivating factors behind a trusted insider’s decision to sell weapons technology. The
inherent vulnerabilities within the global financial markets will provide terrorists’ organizations
and other non-state groups, who object to the current international system or distribution of
power, with opportunities to disrupt global finance and perhaps weaken America’s status. A more
ominous threat originates from states intent on increasing diversification of foreign currency
holdings, establishing alternatives to the dollar for international trade, or engaging financial
warfare against the United States.
1AR — Tax Incentives Fail
Tax incentives only make companies dependent on credits, failing to reduce
emissions. [This also proves the CP links to the Politics DA — industries will
increase lobbying as a response to the CP.]
Michel and Loris 21 — Adam Michel, Deputy Staff Director at the United States Congress
Joint Economic Committee, former Senior Policy Analyst in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for
Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, former Program Manager for the Spending
and Budget Initiative and Master's Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason
University, holds a Master’s degree in Economics from George Mason University, holds a
Bachelor of Arts in Politics from Whitman College, and Nicolas Loris, Vice President of Public
Policy at C3 Solutions, Senior Advisor on energy and environment at Madrus, LLC, Member of
the Policy Advisory Boards at ConservAmerica and the American Conservation Coalition, former
Deputy Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute and Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow in Energy
and Environmental Policy at the Heritage Foundation, holds a Master’s degree in Economics
from George Mason University, holds a Bachelor’s degree in Economics, Finance, and Political
Science from Albright College, 2021 (“Tax Incentives Are No Way to Drive Energy Innovation.
Here’s Why,” The Daily Signal, March 23rd, Available Online at
https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/03/23/tax-incentives-are-no-way-to-drive-energy-innovation-
heres-why/, Accessed 07-13-2021)
Time and again, Congress creates new “temporary” subsidies to prop up politically popular,
nascent technologies that claim to need government help, “just to get on our feet.” But these
temporary subsidies seldom die. Instead, companies become dependent on them , and limp
along in a wasteful and inefficient manner.
In fact, some proponents of carbon capture have called 45Q a “make-or-break element” of the
technology’s future success. That is a recipe for dependence.
Tax credits have also been issued for wind power, solar energy, electric cars, and biofuels, to
name a few. Each of these credits were designed to get fledgling industries off the ground. As
they began to expire, the industries pursued fierce lobbying to expand the subsidies or make
them permanent.
Companies that do not receive any preferential treatment are also incentivized to lobby for tax
subsidies simply to level the playing field. The result is a hodgepodge of tax credits benefiting
select technologies that members of Congress support, even if the support harms the country as a
whole despite benefiting their districts or states. It is by no means an effective way to reduce
carbon dioxide emissions , as many of the subsidies carry significantly high abatement costs.
1AR — Economy DA (Internal Link)
Increased corporate taxes decrease economic investments and fall heavily on
workers, causing econ decline.
Harris 21 — Caroline L. Harris, Partner to Capitol Tax Partner, Former Vice President of Tax
Policy & Economic Development and Former Chief Tax Policy Counsel at the U.S. Chamber of
Commons, holds a J.D. in Law from the George Washington University Law School, holds a
B.A. in Economics from the University of Wisconsin-Maidson, 2021 (“The Case for Preserving a
Competitive Corporate Tax Rate,” United States Chamber of Consequence, January 27 th,
Available Online at https://www.uschamber.com/series/above-the-fold/the-case-preserving-
competitive-corporate-tax-rate, Accessed 07-13-2021)
There is bipartisan agreement, from President Obama to Chairman Grassley, that an economic
downturn is not the time to raise taxes . Even Secretary Janet Yellen last week indicated that tax
increases should not be discussed until the United States has overcome the coronavirus. However,
while also acknowledging that corporate tax cuts improved the competitiveness of U.S.
businesses, what Secretary Yellen further said was that U.S. can afford a higher corporate tax rate
if it coordinates with other countries. I beg to differ.
Corporate income taxes are the most harmful for economic growth . Further, the burden of
corporate taxes falls most heavily on workers. High corporate tax rates divert investment away
from the corporate sector, curtailing investment that would raise the productivity of American
workers and increase those workers’ real wages. Studies estimate that labor likely bears about
70% of the burden of the corporate income tax. In other words, raising the U.S. corporate tax
rate is a bad idea at any time given its impact on growth and real wage levels. Undertaking this
worldwide to globally slow growth and lower real wages is simply a bad idea on a larger scale.
Further, country’s tax bases are different – as noted above, rate changes have different impacts on
different tax bases. And we’ve seen how attempts to create a common consolidated corporate tax
base have fared – just ask our friends in the EU who have been trying to do it since 2011.
Raising the corporate tax rate would make our tax system less competitive.
The current U.S. combined statutory corporate tax rate is 25.9% (21% federal corporate income
tax rate plus a 4.9% average state corporate income tax rate). This rate is still above the
worldwide average combined corporate income tax rate, measured across 177 jurisdictions, of
23.85%, and the OECD rate of 23.5%. In fact, raising the 21% rate to 28% would give the United
States the highest combined corporate tax rate in the OECD. This is not how we want America to
be #1.
So how do we stack up in terms of competitiveness? On the Tax Foundation’s International Tax
Competitiveness Index (ITCI), the United States ranks 21st out of 36 countries on overall
competitiveness, a jump from the 28th ranking prior to tax reform, and 19th on corporate taxes,
down from 35th before tax reform. Raising the 21% rate to 28% would cause the United States to
drop from 21st to 30th on overall competitiveness, a position even lower than before tax reform,
and to fall to 33rd on corporate taxes. This is not the direction we want to be heading.
Raising the corporate rate makes the United States a less attractive place to invest profits and
locate corporate headquarters.
A higher corporate tax rate would discourage investment of profits within our borders, sending
much needed capital – and the jobs that come with it – elsewhere. The most recent BEA data on
U.S. multinational activities for the first year after the TCJA, indicates that the TCJA contributed
to faster growth at U.S. parent companies for things such as employment and expenditures for
property, plant, and equipment (PP&E) and research and development (R&D). This reverses a
long-term trend where growth at foreign affiliates outpaced that of U.S. parents. In other words,
tax reform played a role in making the United States a more attractive place to do business.
Likewise, a higher corporate tax rate makes it harder for U.S.-based companies to compete
globally. Prior to tax reform, some American companies were forced to merge with foreign
companies to avail themselves of a lower foreign tax rate; in other words, these companies
“inverted,” relocating from the high tax United States to a lower tax jurisdiction. Lowering the
corporate rate in tax reform made the United States a significantly more attractive place to be
headquartered, virtually eliminating corporate inversion transactions. Raising U.S. tax rates could
once again force American companies to invert to remain competitive, taking valuable jobs
and capital investment with them.
The bottom line? We worked a really long time to achieve a corporate tax rate that drives growth
and job creation, that makes our tax system globally competitive, and that encourages investment
within U.S. borders. The last thing we need now, or down the road, is a tax hike that threatens
the success of American companies , workers , and the U.S. economy .
2AC — Links to Farming DA
The CP Links to the Farming DA — farmers perceive the CP immediate and
unpredictable, causing uncertainty.
2AC — Links to Politics DA
The CP Links to Politics — it undermines passage of the infrastructure bill.
Bolton 21 — Senior Staff Writer for The Hill, 2021 (“Senate climate advocates start digging in
on infrastructure goals,” The Hill, June 2nd, Available Online at https://thehill.com/policy/energy-
environment/556414-senate-climate-advocates-start-digging-in-on-infrastructure-goals, Accessed
07-09-2021)
The Senate Finance Committee took a big step last week when it advanced the Clean Energy for
America Act, a package of tax credits to incentivize clean electricity, clean transportation and
energy efficiency.
The bill also ends and modifies favorable tax provisions for the coal, gas and oil industry.
The vote to move it out of committee deadlocked 14-14 on a party-line vote.
Schatz, like Whitehouse and others, isn’t enthusiastic about passing a scaled-down
infrastructure bill with some Republican support that leaves climate provisions by the wayside
and could make it tougher to pass a bigger package later this year by getting the most popular
priorities done first.
“I’d like for there to be only one package. But if there are two, I’d like my priorities to be first,”
he said.
In the 50-50 Senate, it would only take one Senate Democrat to hold up action on an
infrastructure bill that passes through the reconciliation process if Republicans are unified against
it.
Climate advocates outside the Senate say they’re concerned that too much time has been wasted
on bipartisan talks that don’t seem close to producing a deal.
“We’re nervous too,” said a legislative affairs director at a prominent environmental group,
adding outside groups feel “the urgency to move” and warned “the clock is ticking” and “there
are precious few days.”
“How do we stop this kicking the can down the road with the back-and-forth negotiations with
Capito?” the strategist said.
Some environmental activists say Democratic messaging has become too narrowly focused on
job creation and hasn’t done enough to highlight the opportunity infrastructure spending
presents to address climate change.
2AC — Certainty DA (MPAs)
Certainty DA — only MPAs ensure emissions reductions by strengthening
oceans. That’s key to sequester carbon, adapt to climate, and preserve coral
reefs. That’s Carter, Laffoley, and Karan. Incentives are conditional on
individual compliance.
2AC — Modeling DA (MPAs)
Modeling DA — countries won’t model tax incentives, preventing
international spillover. Water conservation is key — past policies prove.
That’s Richards.
2AC — “Carbon Bomb” DA (WOTUS)
“Carbon Bomb” DA — wetland protections are key. Otherwise, their
destruction triggers runaway warming. That’s Moomaw and…
Zabarenko 08 --- Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent, Reuters, “Wetlands could
unleash "carbon bomb"” July 2008,
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-wetlands/wetlands-could-unleash-carbon-bomb-
idUSN1745905120080720
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The world’s wetlands, threatened by development, dehydration and
climate change, could release a planet-warming “carbon bomb” if they are destroyed,
ecological scientists said on Sunday.
Wetlands contain 771 billion tons of greenhouse gases, one-fifth of all the carbon on Earth
and about the same amount of carbon as is now in the atmosphere, the scientists said before
an international conference linking wetlands and global warming.
If all the wetlands on the planet released the carbon they hold, it would contribute powerfully to
the climate-warming greenhouse effect, said Paulo Teixeira, coordinator of the Pantanal
Regional Environment Program in Brazil.
“We could call it the carbon bomb,” Teixeira said by telephone from Cuiaba, Brazil, site of the
conference. “It’s a very tricky situation.”
Some 700 scientists from 28 nations are meeting this week at the INTECOL International
Wetlands Conference at the edge of Brazil’s vast Pantanal wetland to look for ways to protect
these endangered areas.
Wetlands are not just swamps: they also include marshes, peat bogs, river deltas, mangroves,
tundra, lagoons and river flood plains.
Together they account for 6 percent of Earth’s land surface and store 20 percent of its carbon.
They also produce 25 percent of the world’s food, purify water, recharge aquifers and act as
buffers against violent coastal storms.
Historically, wetlands have been regarded as an impediment to civilization. About 60 percent of
wetlands worldwide have been destroyed in the past century, mostly due to draining for
agriculture. Pollution, dams, canals, groundwater pumping, urban development and peat
extraction add to the destruction.
1AR — “Carbon Bomb” DA (WOTUS)
Natural sequestration is the only chance to mitigate emissions.
Sturm 19 --- Melanie Sturm is a Program Director, Forests & Wildlife at Natural Resources
Defense Council, “Nature Is an Asset in the Fight Against Climate Change”, Sept 24 th 2019,
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/melanie-sturm/nature-asset-fight-against-climate-change
In Fall 2018, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicated that in
order to avoid the worst-case climate change scenarios, we must take aggressive action against
climate change and limit warming to less than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
Around the same time, the Fourth National Climate Assessment documented the litany of
suffering that is already occurring due to climate change and described the havoc future climate
change will cause. A third report from the National Academy of Sciences suggested that limiting
future emissions alone is insufficient to curb climate change; rather “negative” fossil fuel
emissions, which actually remove existing carbon from the atmosphere, are essential to avoid a
climate catastrophe. These reports underscore the critical role nature can play in
“decarbonization”—or removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to reduce the extent of
climate change.
Natural climate solutions, or ecosystems-based carbon dioxide removal, utilize natural landscapes
to absorb and store atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). Natural climate solutions include
protecting and restoring forests and wetlands, altering farming practices, planting vegetation in
areas prone to soil erosion, and changing the way in which grazing lands are managed, among
other activities. Knowing how to implement these landscape changes is not the challenge; they
can be put into place immediately at relatively low cost. The biggest barriers are political will and
funding. But if those barriers are overcome, natural climate solutions offer a profound
opportunity to mitigate climate change when implemented alongside technological solutions
and reduced reliance on fossil fuels by increasing energy efficiency and investing in clean energy.
Nature serves an array of vital functions for people, some of which simply cannot be quantified or
enumerated. In addition to the carbon sequestration benefits, natural climate solutions also offer
many social and environmental co-benefits, including but not limited to increased biodiversity,
flood buffering, improved water quality, and nutrient cycling. Nature is already doing a lot of
climate-mitigation work for us. About half of CO2 emissions in a year are absorbed by the
world’s oceans, soils, and vegetation. The oceans alone have absorbed about one-third of
anthropogenic emissions (that’s 38 trillion metric tons (MT) of carbon over time).
But we haven’t yet harnessed natural climate solutions in a deliberate and systematic way. Doing
so could yield enormous paybacks. One study estimates the total absorption capacity of natural
climate solutions in the U.S. is 40-60 billion MT CO2 over the next 50 years, which is
significant given that the U.S. currently emits 6 billion MT CO2 per year. Another study found
that the maximum potential of natural climate solutions in the U.S. is 1.2 billion (+/- 0.9 to 1.6
billion) MT CO2 per year. That’s 21% of net annual emissions in the country. Both results
demonstrate that natural climate solutions could counteract a notable portion of U.S. carbon
emissions.
Based on these estimates, natural climate solutions can deliver over one-third of the climate
mitigation required through 2030 to keep warming to below 2°C. To see the greatest benefit,
both ecosystem protection and restoration, not one or the other, must be pursued immediately.
Restoration of 350 million hectares of degraded land between now and 2030 could generate $9
trillion in ecosystem services and take an additional 13-26 billion MT of greenhouse gases
(GHG) out of the atmosphere (note this is all GHGs, not just carbon). Forests offer the greatest
opportunity to capture and store carbon followed by wetlands, croplands, and grass/shrublands.
The enormous potential for forests to sequester carbon is a function of the amount of land area
that is and could be forested.
Wetlands are critical carbon sinks, but destruction causes accelerated climate
change.
Kenyon 17 --- Kenyon College, “Wetlands play vital role in carbon storage, study finds”
Phys.org, Feb 2017, https://phys.org/news/2017-02-wetlands-vital-role-carbon-storage.html
The study, the first conducted using soil samples from wetlands on a national scale, sheds light on
the important role that wetlands play in storing carbon in soil, keeping carbon dioxide out of the
atmosphere. The study was authored by Kenyon College Professor of Biology Siobhan Fennessy
and Amanda Nahlik, a post-doctoral fellow at Kenyon who is now a research ecologist at the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and was published in the December
2016 issue of Nature Communications.
Fennessy and Nahlik drew upon data from the USEPA's 2011 National Wetland Condition
Assessment (NWCA), which collected carbon concentration data from soil pits at nearly a
thousand wetland sites across the conterminous U.S. Their work, coupled with a new version of
the NWCA using data from 2016, could help researchers better track trends in carbon retention
rates of wetlands.
"The 2011 NWCA marks the first time in the U.S. that there's been a measurement at the national
scale of the amount of carbon held in different wetland types and different regions of the U.S.,"
Fennessy said.
Fennessy and Nahlik found that wetlands in the conterminous U.S. store a total of 11.52
petagrams of carbon—roughly equivalent to four years of annual carbon emissions by the
nation. Freshwater inland wetlands store nearly 10 times more carbon than tidal saltwater sites
on a national basis due to the sheer extent of freshwater inland wetlands on the landscape,
the study found.
"There's more carbon held in the soils of the Earth than there is in the atmosphere, and wetlands
hold a hugely disproportionate amount of that carbon," Fennessy said. Despite only
occupying between 5 and 8 percent of the earth's land surface, wetlands hold between 20 and 30
percent of its estimated global soil carbon.
Partly due to their cooler temperatures, the Upper Midwest and the Eastern Mountains have
wetlands that are especially adept at storing carbon, accounting for nearly half the wetland
carbon stocks in the U.S. But nearly 90 percent of the wetlands that were in the Midwest at the
time of European settlement, Fennessy says, have been lost, mainly due to agricultural
development. When wetlands are developed, their retention of carbon is disturbed, and the carbon
cycles back into the atmosphere.
The data collected by Fennessy and Nahlik show that levels of carbon retention are significantly
lower in wetlands with the greatest human activity compared to site with lesser amounts of
human activity. Their study does not determine causality, but it does illustrate the need to protect
wetlands from disturbances in order to avoid releasing carbon into the atmosphere, accelerating
climate change.
2AC — Human Disturbance DA (WOTUS)
Human Disturbance DA — only wetlands protections prevent human
disturbances. That’ key to limit temperature increases. That’s Moomaw. They
don’t solve — CEAA applies to transportation, homes, and commercial facilities
which are conditional on incentives rather than direct protection.
CES (Clean Energy Standard) CP
2AC — CES CP (General)
1. Perm – do both – shields the link
2. Doesn’t solve – no capacity for alternatives to fill-in

IER 20 -- The Institute for Energy Research (IER) is a not-for-profit organization that conducts intensive research
and analysis on the functions, operations, and government regulation of global energy markets. IER maintains that
freely-functioning energy markets provide the most efficient and effective solutions to today’s global energy and
environmental challenges and, as such, are critical to the well-being of individuals and society. (“Biden’s Costly,
Quixotic ‘Clean Energy’ Standard” August 10, 2020 Institute for Energy Research
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/the-grid/bidens-costly-quixotic-clean-energy-standard/)//RSG🌳
Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s $2 trillion climate plan is supposed to eliminate carbon dioxide
emissions from the electric sector by 2035. In 2019, 62 percent of U.S. electricity generation was
produced from natural gas, coal, and petroleum products—the energy sources that will need to be
replaced if Biden’s plan goes into effect. Assuming that Biden’s plan allows for nuclear and
hydroelectric power to be part of his clean energy standard (something environmentalists have
fought against in the past), only 38 percent of current generation would count toward that
mandate.
In the 16-year period from 2003 until 2019, the share of electricity from nuclear, hydroelectric
and other renewable energy increased by 36 percent. Assuming that electricity demand in 2035
does not increase from the level it reached in 2019, and assuming that the same percentage
increase could occur over the next 16 years, the share of generation from those “clean” generating
sources would only be 50 percent—just half of what Biden’s mandate is by 2035. That’s a lot of
assumptions since nuclear power is being reduced in the United States and currently produces
almost twice as much electricity as wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass combined. And, if
electricity demand increases, which it is likely to do once the United States recovers from the
coronavirus pandemic, the share would be even lower.
The Energy Information Administration, in its Annual Energy Outlook 2020, forecasts that
market forces would only get the Biden “clean energy” share to reach 46 percent. All of the
increased generation would be from renewable energy, which almost doubles over the 16-year
period since new nuclear power is too expensive to compete on a market basis. By 2035, wind
generation doubles and solar generation increases by 348 percent assuming the wind production
tax credit is phased out next year and the investment tax credit for solar is decreased to 10 percent
for commercial, industrial, and utility solar farms in 2022, as current law requires.
Biden’s Daunting and Costly Challenge
In 2019, according to BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy, natural gas-fired generators
produced about 1,700 terawatt-hours of electricity (38 percent of U.S. generation) and coal-fired
plants produced about 1,050 terawatt-hours, for a total of 2,750 terawatt-hours, which together is
about half of the electricity that China produced from coal alone. Three more comparisons are:
Replacing that quantity of electricity (2,750 terawatt-hours) with non-carbon sources would
require as much nuclear capacity as now exists in the world.
Replacing that 2,750 terawatt-hours of energy per year with solar power would require 25 times
as much solar capacity as now exists in the United States or almost four times as much as exists
in the world.
Replacing it with wind would require installing nine times as much wind capacity as now exists
in this country or about twice as much as current global capacity.
Under Biden’s plan, this would need to be accomplished in the next 15 years.
The wind production tax credit has been in existence for almost 30 years and has resulted—along
with state mandates, which 30 states have endorsed—in 7.3 percent of U.S. generation from wind
in 2019. So, Biden is saying in the next 16 years, he needs to get about 9 times that amount of
wind, or 25 times as much solar, or a combination of the two, replacing perfectly good generation
capacity that the American public has already paid for and which can last 20 to 50 more years,
in most cases. If that is not a daunting and expensive task to ask the American public to buy into,
it is unclear what would constitute one. This would be profitable for regulated utilities which
make their money by capitalizing new equipment of any kind, but terrible for consumers who
would have to pay for all this new and unnecessary generating capacity. This is essentially akin to
an American family being told to get rid of 62 percent of its possessions that are in perfectly good
condition and requiring them to replace them with more expensive objects.
Further, Wood Mackenzie estimates the cost of full decarbonization of the U.S. power grid to be
$4.5 trillion, given the current state of technology. That cost would amount to $35,000 per
household or about $2,500 per year over the 14 year period that Biden would have to implement
the action should he get elected and take office in 2021. Clearly, Biden’s $2 trillion will not go
very far, particularly since it is also supposed to fund energy efficiency improvements in
buildings, more hybrid and electric vehicles and charging stations, an increase in public
transportation including high-speed rail, and research and development in advanced nuclear
power and carbon capture and sequestration systems.
Conclusion
Natural gas, wind, and solar are now the most common new generation fuels, but it took decades
of renewable energy mandates and government spending on renewables research, tax breaks, and
other subsidies to help make those resources plentiful and relatively inexpensive. Even so,
capacity factors for wind and solar power are half or less than they are for coal, natural gas, or
nuclear power, making the amount of generation from wind and solar capacity less than 10
percent of our generation today. For Biden to change the 62 percent of the generation currently
from fossil fuels into renewable energy sources will cost far more than he states he will spend on
his “clean energy” standard and other goals in the building and transportation sectors and cost
American families thousands of dollars needlessly, if it even can be accomplished.
Serious discussions about energy policy require serious study of the numbers as they are,
rather than as you would like them to be. If that is not done, the U.S. economy will never crawl
out of the COVID-19 economic crisis it currently faces because it will encounter the headwinds
of much steeper electricity bills to pay for this plan.
1AR — Doesn’t Solve (General)
CES doesn’t solve emissions – intermittent power and land use issues
Karlin 16 -- Rick Karlin covers the environment and energy development for the Times Union. Has previously
covered education and state government and wrote about natural resources and state government in Colorado and
Maine. (“Empire Center says clean energy standard will be costly” September 27, 2016 Institute for Energy
Research https://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/267892/empire-center-says-clean-energy-standard-
will-be-costly/) //RSG🌳
The Empire Center is out with a report blasting the Public Service Commission’s passage in
August of a Clean Energy Standard that aims to have a 50/30 configuration which means they
want 50 percent of the state’s energy needs coming from renewable sources by 2030. Essentially,
they say the plan puts too much emphasis on subsidizing renewables while they may be better off
to set greenhouse emission standards and let utilities figure out a way to meet them. They also
contend that the cost of ramping up renewables will be beyond the $2 per month extra that the
PSC predicted most consumers will have to pay on their rates. The study also believes the PSC
offered unrealistic estimates of how easy it will be to increase energy efficiency and to shift to
solar and wind power, especially given the constraints such as cloudy or windless days, and the
land use issues that come into play in developing what could be vast wind or solar farms. “It’s
about building solar power and windmills for the sake of solar power and windmills,” said the
Empire Center’s Ken Girardin who co-authored the study. The state, he believes, should instead
look at additional hydroelectric facilities and consider buying more nuclear power, which is free
of emissions, from places like the Millstone plant in Connecticut. The PSC calls for subsidizing
three northern New York nuclear plants, but the cost of propping up these money losing facilities
is so high that Girardin (and others) view it as a politically expedient plan to save badly needed
upstate jobs rather than an earth-friendly move. “They’ve drawn an arbitrary line around three
(upstate NY) nuclear power plants,” Girardin said. PSC spokesman Jon Sorensen defended the
plan saying in a prepared statement that “Rather than support bold national leadership to combat
the very real threat of climate change, this right-wing think tank denies reality and relies on bogus
cost assumptions to argue for inaction.” He argued that “The benefits of the Clean Energy
Standard far exceed the costs as we take the steps necessary to reduce severe environmental
threats and public health costs associated with greenhouse gas emissions.” Here are more details
and the report: New York’s Clean Energy Standard will cost ratepayers more than $3 billion
during its first five years, but its effect on global carbon dioxide emissions will be minimal,
according to a report released today by the Empire Center for Public Policy. “The Clean Energy
Standard shapes up as a massive unlegislated tax increase, imposed through utility charges,” said
Ken Girardin, Empire Center policy analyst and co-author of Green Overload, the Center’s
analysis of the state’s recently-enacted Clean Energy Standard. Adopted by the state Public
Service Commission in August, the Clean Energy Standard will require New York electric
utilities, and their customers, to heavily subsidize renewable energy, with the goal of having 50
percent of the state’s electricity come from renewables, such as solar and wind power, by 2030.
The standard also subsidizes money-losing nuclear power plants outside Rochester and Syracuse.
Girardin and report co-author Annette Brocks explain: • While the governor and the PSC have
portrayed the financial impact on ratepayers as minimal, the Clean Energy Standard is likely to
add nearly $3.4 billion to New York utility bills in just the next five years. • The 50 by 30
mandate will require the expansion of solar- and wind-generated power production on a massive
and unprecedented scale—without providing needed improvements to an already strained electric
transmission system. The PSC also failed to consider the added conventional generating capacity
needed to back up renewables when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing. • The
overarching goal of the Clean
Links to politics – GOP opposition
Waldman 21 Scott Waldman, state energy policy specialist, appeared in Scientific American,
won an Associated Press award, holds an M.D. in journalism from Syracuse University (Scott
Waldman, E&E News, 5-10-2021, "Biden’s Climate Bet Rests on Enacting a Clean Electricity
Standard,", 5-10-2021, Scientific American, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bidens-
climate-bet-rests-on-enacting-a-clean-electricity-standard/, Accessed 07/07/2021) PB
The true measure of President Biden’s climate ambition may be the clean electricity standard he
tucked into his massive $2.2 trillion infrastructure spending plan.
Its goal is striking: 80% clean power in the United States by 2030.
The details, however, are vague. And so is Biden’s plan B if it fails—an uncertainty that’s
worrisome to both activists and academics. The lack of a clear backup plan underscores the
importance of passing a clean electricity standard, they say.
If the clean electricity standard doesn’t survive Congress, it will put pressure on the need to drive
climate policy through targeted spending, said John Larsen, a power system analyst with the
Rhodium Group, an economic consulting firm.
“I don’t think the game is lost at all if a clean electricity standard doesn’t get through in this
round,” Larsen said. “But there’s a difference between not passing a clean electricity standard and
passing the right spending package.”
In his few months in office, Biden has outlined plans to bring the United States back into the
international Paris climate accord, pause oil and gas leasing on public lands, boost the electric
vehicle market, and target clean energy investments in vulnerable communities most affected by
climate change.
But those are largely executive orders and spending proposals—and unlikely to last beyond his
administration if the next president favors fossil fuel usage over climate policy. The clean
electricity standard, which would decarbonize 80% of the electrical grid by 2030, is different.
It transforms Biden’s climate vision from a goal into a mandate. Passing it through Congress
makes it that much harder for a future administration to undo. If Biden is in office for two terms,
the United States would see a rate of decarbonization unparalleled in its history that would set a
new bar for most of the world’s biggest economies.
But for now, the clean electricity standard faces an uncertain path through Congress and steep
odds to getting enacted. That means there’s a good chance the administration will need a plan B,
observers said.
Exactly what kind of climate spending can pass Congress is the very question the White House
and congressional Democrats will be working on in the next few months as the infrastructure bill
proceeds through Congress.
Negotiations are fraught already. Congress is almost evenly split between a party that wants to
curtail the use of fossil fuels and another that wants to grow them.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said last week that “100% of my focus is on
stopping this new administration.” He made similar comments at the start of the Obama
administration and blocked climate policy from getting through Congress. He also said last week
that no Republican senators would vote for Biden’s infrastructure spending plan.
1AR — Links to Politics DA
Links to politics – no Dem consensus
Waldman 21 Scott Waldman, state energy policy specialist, appeared in Scientific American,
won an Associated Press award, holds an M.D. in journalism from Syracuse University (Scott
Waldman, E&E News, 5-10-2021, "Biden’s Climate Bet Rests on Enacting a Clean Electricity
Standard,", 5-10-2021, Scientific American, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bidens-
climate-bet-rests-on-enacting-a-clean-electricity-standard/, Accessed 07/07/2021) PB
A clean electricity standard has been referred to as the “backbone” of Biden’s climate policy—a
way to ensure his policies to decarbonize the economy outlast a future president who would seek
to roll back his climate work. Advocates say hitting that benchmark is an essential milestone in
getting to a carbon-free grid by 2035. Much of President Obama’s climate policy, crafted largely
through regulations and executive orders, proved vulnerable to President Trump’s rollbacks.
Biden appears to have learned from those lessons and wants to chart a new course to mitigate the
worst effects of climate change. He’s using his majority in the House and Senate to lock in
whatever he can before the 2022 midterms, when Democrats are expected to lose the House.
To pass a clean electricity standard, virtually every Democrat must be on board, and even then,
the only chance of success is to pass a bill through the budget reconciliation process. Some
Senate Democrats have recently hinted that they were willing to split the bill into pieces to get it
through, while others are concerned that although this approach might win some GOP support on
traditional infrastructure such as roads and bridges, it would isolate the climate provisions that
make up more than half of the bill.
The most durable scenario for rapid electricity-sector decarbonization is to lock in a bipartisan
clean electricity standard into legislation with 60 votes in the Senate, said Mike O’Boyle, the
director of electricity policy for Energy Innovation. Because that’s highly unlikely—if not
impossible—there are other paths that could get the United States to the 80% goal within the
next decade.
2AC — CES CP (WOTUS)
1. Doesn’t solve warming – only wetlands preservation solves past
emissions and avoids massive carbon release and positive feedbacks –
that’s Moomaw
2. Doesn’t solve extreme weather – it’s inevitable and only wetlands

provide a buffer – Endter-Wada
Storing CO2 and Lowering Emissions
(SCALE) Act CP
2AC — SCALE Act CP (General)
1. Perm: Do Both. Shields the links and not mutually exclusive.
2. Perm: Do the plan and increase funding for existing carbon capture and
storage technology.
3. Doesn’t solve — carbon capture isn’t cost competitive and fails long-term,
even with subsidies.
Rissman and Orvis 17 — Jeffrey Rissman, Industry Program Director and Head of
Modeling at Energy Innovation, former Energy Policy Expert at Energy Innovation, former
research fellow at the UNC Institute for the Environment, M.S. in Environmental Sciences and
Engineering from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Robbie Orvis, Director of
Energy Policy Design at Energy Innovation, former research assistant at the Center for Business
and the Environment at Yale University, co-author of Designing Climate Solutions: A Policy
Guide for Low-Carbon Energy, Master of Environmental Management from Yale University,
2017 (“Carbon Capture And Storage: An Expensive Option For Reducing U.S. CO2 Emissions,”
Forbes, May 3rd, Available Online at
https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2017/05/03/carbon-capture-and-storage-an-
expensive-option-for-reducing-u-s-co2-emissions/?sh=306a02f26482, Accessed 07-07-2021)
The electric power sector accounts for 29% of the U.S.’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and
electricity demand is expected to increase between now and 2050, making GHG emissions
reductions from our electricity system one of the most promising ways to address climate change.
While many technologies can reduce power sector emissions, carbon capture and storage (CCS)
has gained support in Congress – but it’s the most expensive option available.
Our analysis shows coal plants equipped with CCS are nearly three times more expensive than
onshore wind power and more than twice as expensive as solar photovoltaics (PV). Although
these costs will decline with research and development, the potential for cost improvement is
limited. Coal with CCS will always need significant subsidies to complete economically with
wind and solar.
How CCS Works
A CCS-equipped power plant burns carbon-based fuels (usually coal) and uses equipment to
extract carbon dioxide (CO2) from the exhaust gases. In most instances, the CO2 then must be
transported via pipeline for injection and storage underground, such as a depleted oil or gas field,
a saline formation, or an unmineable coal seam. Once the storage site is full, the well must be
sealed, and the area must be monitored for thousands of years to prevent the release of CO2.
CCS is a favorite emissions reduction option for many politicians and coal companies because it
does not involve transitioning to a different electricity source (such as wind, solar, or nuclear
power). It holds out the promise that we can continue to burn fossil fuels, potentially in large
quantities, without negative climate change impacts. Perhaps unsurprisingly, many of the world’s
largest oil and gas companies recently invested $1 billion in CCS research.
The largest problem facing CCS today is cost. In addition to the costs of an ordinary coal-fired
power plant (which in the U.S. is already quite high, about $92 per megawatt-hour [MWh]), a
coal plant with CCS requires additional equipment, increasing upfront construction costs, and has
additional operations and maintenance (O&M) expenses. Since a considerable amount of energy
is required to extract, pump, and compress CO2, a plant with CCS must also purchase and burn
more fuel to produce the same amount of electricity as a plant without CCS. Additional costs
come from building pipelines to transport the CO2, injecting it underground, and
monitoring the injection site.
Comparing The Costs: Coal, CCS, Wind And Solar

We analyzed the cost of electricity for four types of power plants built in the U.S. in 2017:
ultrasupercritical (modern) coal units, coal units that capture and store 90% of their CO2
emissions, onshore wind power, and utility-scale solar PV. We included capital, fuel, and O&M
costs; the efficiencies (heat rates) of the coal plants, the plants’ capacity factors (what portion of
the year they may generate power), fuel prices, construction time, financing costs (including
inflation and interest rates), and depreciation. In the case of coal with CCS, we included the costs
of CO2 transportation (assuming a 500 kilometer pipeline) and injection, as well as long-term
monitoring. Government subsidies are not included for any of the technologies. Our full data
sources (primarily the U.S. EIA and National Renewable Energy Laboratory), assumptions, and
calculations are available online to download.
Even without CCS, a new coal plant in the U.S. costs more than onshore wind and solar PV per
unit of electricity it generates. Coal plants that capture and store 90% of their carbon emissions
cost nearly two-thirds more than an equivalent coal plant without CCS to produce the same
amount of electricity. A new solar PV or wind plant is between half and a third the price of a new
coal unit with CCS and emits zero CO2. As a source of low-carbon power, CCS can’t compete on
economics with wind and solar.
Will CCS Be Competitive In The Future?

CCS is a new technology, and costs tend to fall as new technologies are deployed and develop.
Could CCS become cost-competitive with onshore wind and solar PV thanks to research
progress?
The answer is no – the laws of physics limit CCS’ improvement potential. Extra energy is
required to extract, compress, and pump the CO2. No matter how efficient CCS equipment
becomes, it can never eliminate the need for extra energy to do extra work . Similarly, no matter
how cheap CCS equipment becomes, it will never be free. CCS plants will always be more
expensive to operate than regular coal plants, which are themselves more expensive than wind
and solar.
The price in the table above assumes that CCS plants will come in at forecasted costs, but CCS
projects have so far been vastly over budget. For example, Southern Company’s Kemper plant
was originally forecast to cost $2.2 billion, but it is still incomplete after three years of delays and
now has an estimated price tag of $7.3 billion. The Illinois FutureGen project, despite receiving
$200 million in subsidies, was ultimately scrapped due to cost and technology concerns.
Apart from CCS, coal power is a mature technology, and the costs of coal plants are not declining
much in response to research. In contrast, solar PV and wind are already cheaper than new coal,
and more cost declines are expected in the coming decade or so, as the technologies continue to
mature. In the long term, even coal without CCS is unlikely to compete economically with wind
and solar; it is extremely unlikely that coal with CCS will ever do so.
Some have proposed subsidizing CCS to help overcome its high costs. However, the subsidies
required to put CCS on equal footing with wind or solar are staggering. Bringing CCS costs in
line with solar costs today would require a roughly $80 per MWh subsidy, assuming CCS
projects stay on-budget.
By comparison, the production tax credit for wind plants, which passed on a bipartisan basis in
2015, provides a subsidy of $23 per MWh and will sunset completely in 2020. The investment
tax credit for solar plants pays for up to 30% of investment costs, or about $18 per MWh, and will
decrease to 10% of investment costs by 2022.
CCS May Have A Role To Play
Although CCS is a poor option for decarbonizing the power sector, other roles may exist for
CCS. For example, CO2 is a byproduct of cement manufacturing, and while some of these
emissions can be eliminated through best practices, some emissions are unavoidable. CCS may be
the only option to eliminate CO2 emissions from cement manufacturing and certain other
industrial activities.
While the industry sector might benefit from specific applications of CCS, most hopes for CCS,
especially in the power sector, are misplaced. Other technologies, including renewables and
energy efficiency, provide more emissions abatement at lower cost. If policymakers wish to
provide electricity without artificial subsidies while protecting the climate, the answer is not CCS.
4. Reject sufficiency framing — solving “enough” to reduce harms maintains
ongoing injustices against minorities. That’s Roberts.
5. Condo is bad. Time skews the 2AC so arguments are underdeveloped,
decreasing clash and in-depth education. The neg gets [x] conditional
advocacy.
6. No neg fiat — no “should not” in the resolution, potential CPs are infinite.
T, Ks, and DAs solve for ground.
Doesn’t solve — cement and steel plants.
Dodson 21 — David Dodson, former US Senate candidate in Wyoming, board member of
Wyoming Promise, a grassroots political organization, founding partner at Futaleufu Partners, an
investment fund, MBA from Stanford University, WyoFile, March 26th, Available Online at
https://www.wyofile.com/carbon-capture-and-the-scale-act-dont-hold-your-breath/, Accessed 07-
10-2021)
U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney recently joined a handful of other Congress members to advance the
“Storing CO2 and Lowering Emissions Act.” Gov. Mark Gordon followed quickly with a letter to
Congress offering his support for the so-called SCALE act.
Some may find this action of Wyoming politicians encouraging. But let’s not hold our collective
breath waiting for SCALE to make a dent in our current economic problems.
I hate to be the dog in the manger just as many claim carbon capture technology might save coal
and Wyoming’s economy. But to suggest to families in Kemmerer or Gillette who are worried
about being able to stay in their homes until their kids graduate that SCALE will help them
quickly enough to make a difference is cruelly misleading.
First, the bill does not directly affect coal-fired plants, but instead aims to add infrastructure for
transporting and then storing carbon emissions in the ground. That may seem promising, but coal
fired plants play only one part of the carbon capture equation — and likely the least important
part for SCALE. In fact, the word “coal” does not appear once in the 46-page bill.
Cement and steel plants also emit massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, and while we
have alternatives to high-carbon electrical generation, such as wind and solar, we don’t have the
same low-emission alternatives to making cement or steel. As a result, SCALE is likely to focus
on providing infrastructure for those industries instead of coal-fired plants.
Second, SCALE offers us millions when we need billions. SCALE authorizes roughly $65
million per year for R&D, transportation, and storage infrastructure. That may seem like a lot of
money, until you consider that the oil and gas industry spends twice that amount every year just
entertaining Congress through lobbying efforts.
SCALE also authorizes $500 million per year for commercialization programs. That also needs to
be put into perspective. I’m an owner of an oil and gas pipeline logistics company, and a
reasonable estimate we use for building this type of pipeline is $75 per foot. That means a mere
100 miles of pipeline would cost $40 million . Which is why estimates to build the Keystone
pipeline eventually added up to $8 billion. Five-hundred million per year wouldn’t likely go very
far.
Project Tundra, the only active carbon sequestration project in the country, has a price tag of $1.3
billion and will require an additional $3 billion in subsidies to be economically viable — and
that’s only for a single plant. Just to keep up with current coal plant retirements would cost nearly
$100 billion in construction and tax subsidies alone.
Third, the bill itself is unlikely to pass for years. That’s just how things work in Washington, D.C.
There is also this consideration: Given the approval process for pipelines and how long such
projects take to construct, building a national CO2 pipeline infrastructure would take at least a
decade under the most promising assumptions — not much help for a Wyoming family worried
about this month’s mortgage.
Let’s also remember that building a pipeline and finding locations to store the CO2 is the easy
part of carbon capture. The harder part is retrofitting coal plants with carbon capture technology.
If Project Tundra in North Dakota gets off the ground, it’s expected to take a minimum of four
years to build. But we’re in a race against time. In the four years it will take to bring Tundra’s
450 megawatts on-line, we’ll have retired 27,000 megawatts of existing coal capacity — the
equivalent of 50 Project Tundras.
The SCALE Act may serve a useful purpose in our broader energy strategy. For that Rep. Cheney
and Gov. Gordon should be applauded for their vision. But building out CO2 infrastructure is
long-term stuff, and we can’t be allowed to believe that help is around the corner — we’ve been
burned by that in the past and should know better.
Nothing contemplated in the “Storing CO2 and Lowering Emissions Act” will solve the
emergency facing our state, and any effort to create false hope only allows us to postpone making
hard decisions while our coal communities suffer. Let’s cheer on SCALE, while getting back to
solving our local problems.
Carbon capture technology overwhelms farmers with new costs. Supersedes
certainty as they’ll be short on cash which prevents investments. That’s
Rissman and Orvis.
CP links to politics — CCS is unpopular.
CIEL 6/25 — Center for International and Environmental Law, an environmental law firm,
2021 (“Carbon Capture and Storage: An Expensive and Dangerous Proposition for Louisiana,”
CIEL, June 25th, Available Online at https://www.ciel.org/carbon-capture-and-storage-an-
expensive-and-dangerous-proposition-for-louisiana-communities/, Accessed 07-07-2021)
Concern 2: Louisiana is a target for CCS development.
Louisiana has been widely touted as a potential epicenter for industrial carbon capture and storage
development in the United States. Existing concentrations of oil, gas, and petrochemical
infrastructure make Louisiana attractive to proponents of CCS.
Supporters pushed a CCS-friendly regulatory program through the Louisiana legislature in 2009.
Current law places responsibility for regulating carbon dioxide injection, storage, and use with
the Department of Natural Resources, an agency known for protecting instead of regulating the
industry.
Concern 3: Residents will pay the costs for CCS.
Massive tax subsidies will be required to implement carbon capture and storage, and the costs of
construction are significantly higher than renewable energy and storage options.
Proponents claim that there is already pipeline infrastructure available for transportation and
injection of CO2 in these areas along the Gulf. However, these pipelines would have to be
repurposed — and therefore reconstructed — to accommodate transport of compressed carbon
dioxide, placing additional burdens on land, water, and communities, at a hefty cost that local
ratepayers would likely bear.[2]
CCS would also threaten Louisiana’s wetlands. The wells and pipelines would contribute to land
loss, directly contradicting the Governor’s Executive Order for state agencies to adhere to the
Coastal Master Plan.
Because carbon capture infrastructure would be built near emitting sites, facilities would further
harm the same people already overburdened by industrial pollution. In Louisiana, that would put
Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities at even greater risk.
Concern 4: Carbon pipelines are dangerous.
Piping CO2 through communities presents a dangerous threat to health and safety. To
transport CO2 through pipelines, it must be highly pressurized and kept very cold, which would
require the construction of pipelines that can withstand those conditions. Condensed CO2 can
be corrosive to the steel used to build those pipelines, increasing the risk of leaks, ruptures,
and potentially catastrophic running fractures. [3] In addition, explosive decompression of
a CO2 pipeline releases more gas, more quickly, than an equivalent explosion in a gas
pipeline, because of the intense pressures involved.[4]
As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has recognized, “carbon dioxide leaking from
a pipeline forms a potential physiological hazard for humans and animals.”[5] In areas closest to
pipelines, released CO2 could quickly drop temperatures to -80°F , coating the surrounding
area with super-cold dry ice.[6] At high concentrations, CO2 is a toxic gas that can restrict
breathing. Potential contaminants in CO2 streams, like hydrogen sulfide (H2S), can dramatically
compound these risks.
Residents of Yazoo County, Mississippi, learned this in 2020 when a Denbury Enterprises CO2
pipeline ruptured. Three hundred people were evacuated, and 45 people had to be hospitalized,
including some sickened individuals whom authorities found near the scene acting like ‘zombies’.
Concern 5: CCS focuses on the wrong thing.
Carbon capture allows industries to keep burning fossil fuels. Even worse, the vast majority of
captured carbon today is used to produce more oil through so-called “enhanced oil recovery.”Real
solutions for climate change in Louisiana do exist, supported by local communities. The focus of
Louisiana leaders and policymakers should remain on cost-effective strategies that maximize
public benefit and ensure a stable and safe economic future for Louisiana and its people. Carbon
capture and storage does not fit that bill.
2AC — Doesn’t Solve (WOTUS)
CP doesn’t solve wetlands. Wetlands are a key natural carbon sink that
facilitates natural sequestration. That’s Moomaw.
Doesn’t solve weather, wetlands are a key natural barrier against natural
disasters. That’s Ender-Wata.
Aff Answers vs. Water Protection CPs
Water Quality and Protection Act CP
2AC — Water Quality and Protection Act (General)
1. Perm do both – Not mutually exclusive
2. Doesn’t solve --- CP relies on “state revolving funds” (SRF) – SRF’s

mismanaged and underutilized
Rob Moore – [Senior policy analyst at NDRC, was executive director of Environmental
Advocates of New York, executive director of the Prairie Rivers Network, bachelor’s from
Illinois State University, master’s from the University of Illinois]5-15-20 18, "States Need to Go
Back to the Well and Leverage SRF Dollars," NRDC,
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/rob-moore/states-need-go-back-well-and-leverage-srf-dollars
Congress established the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF) to provide states sustainable, long-term financial assistance to support
communities’ water infrastructure needs. These funds have provided $151.2 billion in financial
assistance since their inception, but their full potential remains untapped by most states .
Go Back to the Well recommends ways that states could more effectively leverage water
infrastructure funding through their SRFs using loan guarantees and the sale of bonds.
States have utterly failed to use their ability to issue loan guarantees backed by their SRFs. A
loan guarantee serves the same purpose as someone cosigning a loan for an individual—
providing a promise to repay the loan if the recipient defaults. SRFs can essentially cosign a
community’s loan or bond sale, guaranteeing the debt and eliminating the risk of default for
private bondholders. By issuing loan guarantees, SRFs allow communities to secure private
financing at a significantly lower cost. The use of loan guarantees has been recognized by the
EPA as a best practice. But to date, only one SRF-backed loan guarantee has been issued in the
history of both SRF programs – a single loan guarantee for $24.3 million in New York State (a
miniscule 0.15 percent of the $15.5 billion in CWSRF assistance that New York has provided).
States also have the ability to sell bonds and grow the amount of financial assistance they make
available to communities, but twenty-two states have done no bonding and most states are
doing relatively little . Only a handful of states are making a habit of this strategy for growing
their SRFs financial capacity.
For the CWSRF, we found that twenty-eight states have leveraged $43 billion through bond sales
since 1987. But 75 percent of all bond revenues come from just nine states : New York,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, Texas, Indiana, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Missouri. Through
2015, most other states were sporadically pursuing relatively small amounts of additional
financing through bond sales.
The same is true for the DWSRF. Twenty-two states have leveraged $8 billion through bond sales
since 1998, with 75 percent of all bond revenues coming from a small number of states: New
York, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oklahoma, Michigan, New Jersey, Indiana, Kansas, and Iowa.
Twenty-eight states have done no bonding and among those that are, most are sporadically
pursuing relatively small amounts of funding.
Current water infrastructure systems insufficient, DWSRF solves
Moore 18 —Rob Moore, executive director of Environmental Advocates of New York,
executive director of the Prairie Rivers Network in Illinois and as the Lake Champlain
Lakekeeper at the Conservation Law Foundation, bachelor’s degree from Illinois State University
and a master’s from the University of Illinois (“Go Back to the Well: States and the Federal
Government Are Neglecting a Key Funding Source for Water,” NRDC 2018, Available Online at
(https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/state-revolving-fund-water-infrastructure-ip.pdf)
The funding gap for U.S. water infrastructure could exceed $1 trillion . Many decades-old
drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater systems do not meet existing environmental and
public health standards. Even more systems will need to be modernized to continue to meet these
standards. Furthermore, our water infrastructure was never designed for the impacts of climate
change, including the increasing frequency of droughts and sea level rise, so many existing
systems will need to be redesigned or relocated.
Congress established the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF ) and Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) to provide states sustainable, long-term financial assistance to
support communities’ water infrastructure needs.1
These funds have provided $151.2 billion in financial assistance since their inception, but their
full potential remains untapped. 2 This report describes actions that federal and state
governments should take to more effectively leverage water infrastructure funding through State
Revolving Funds (SRFs).3
To help close the funding gap, there must be increased federal financial support for SRFs.
Second, states need to make use of their ability to issue SRF-backed loan guarantees to
communities. This would enable communities to more easily and cheaply raise funds from
private financial markets. Third, states should leverage additional funding for their SRF programs
through the issuance of bonds, which is a low-cost way to increase their SRFs’ financial capacity .
Finally, Congress should grant states the flexibility to use newly generated funding for SRF
grants or subsidized assistance.
These recommendations could help shrink the nation’s water infrastructure funding gap in a way
that’s sustainable and equitable. It would also provide assistance for communities most in need,
and help build the 21st century water infrastructure systems the entire nation needs.
2AC — Doesn’t Solve (WOTUS)
Doesn’t solve – regulation key – CP allows continued destruction of habitats
and wetlands – that’s Pitts
Aff Answers vs. Extreme Weather CPs
Clean Future Act CP Answers
2AC — Clean Future Act CP Answers
5. Perm: do both. Shields the link — [explain.]
6. No Solvency — CLEAN Future Act reliant on additional mandates and

unpredictable trading system and technology --- ineffective at
sequestering and mitigating carbon emissions --- empirics prove
Czapla, 21 (Ewelina Czapla, Director of Energy Policy at the American Action Forum, "The
CLEAN Future Act’s Clean Electricity Standard", AAF,
https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/the-clean-future-acts-clean-electricity-standard/?
fbclid=IwAR1gSagrVztohp8IDzSOYV-vyc-wgCLvKpgaQO4N_zKIDqdmXM5B--Hm2qU, 3-3-
2021, Accessed 7-5-2021)//ILake-RM
Broadly, the creation of an emissions trading system could lead to an unanticipated result rather
than the reductions sought in the timeline. The market could fail to operate as anticipated, not
only as it responds to unprecedented conditions, but also because the prices and conditions
established by a central authority, in this case the EPA, may fail to align with reality. The
European Emissions Trading System, for example, has had limited success in reducing carbon
emissions while increasing consumer costs despite the European Commission’s Energy
Directive to encourage renewable generation.[2] A majority of electricity generation in the United
States relies on fossil fuels , particularly natural gas and coal.[3] Many of these generating
facilities, specifically those that consume natural gas, were constructed recently and have
economic lives that stretch beyond the timeline proposed by the CLEAN Future Act. The average
capacity-weighted age of natural gas-fueled generation facilities in the United States is 22 years
while coal is 39 years.[4] As a result, these facilities will need to install carbon capture
technology in order to continue operating as the mandated minimum percentage of zero emission
electricity increases under the CLEAN Future Act. Thus far, carbon capture technology has been
adopted in the United States largely as a part of enhanced oil recovery rather than for the
purposes of capturing emissions at the smokestack. Direct air capture, on the other hand, has yet
to be commercialized in the United States. Its expanded adoption may rely on the appeal of the
45-Q tax credit, which calls for not only the capture of carbon dioxide but also its sequestration.
[5] The adoption of the technology could raise prices for retail consumers, particularly if market
conditions don’t improve and the mandate stands. Similarly, increased wages for construction
workers and the employees of generating facilities could increase costs for consumers. In
addition, such increased costs could discourage developers from constructing new generation
facilities. Conclusion The CLEAN Future Act relies on the development of additional
mandates and the creation of an emissions trading system as part of its CES . These policies
have proven ineffective in the past, as AAF has explained, and could result in increased consumer
costs with limited reductions in emissions.
3. Emissions DA — The CP just creates a market based cap and trade system
that will result in MORE emissions during the coming decades
Steve Horn, 1-14-2020, Steve Horn is a San Diego-based climate reporter and producer. He
was also a reporter on a part-time basis for The Coast News—covering Escondido, San Marcos,
and the San Diego North County region—from mid-2018 until early 2020. Also a freelance
investigative reporter, his work has appeared in The Guardian, Al Jazeera America, The Intercept,
Vice News, Wisconsin Watch, and other publications. He worked from 2011-2018 for the climate
news website DeSmog.com, a publication which investigates climate change disinformation and
the fossil fuel industry influence campaigns. "CLEAN Future Act Is ‘Shameful’ and
‘Greenwashing,’ say Climate Justice Groups," Real News Network,
https://therealnews.com/clean-future-act-is-shameful-and-greenwashing-say-climate-justice-
groups, Accessed --- 7/7/2021, WWIS
Even the 100% by 2050 goal included in the bill has a caveat, creating a market-based credit
auctions system without clarifying if it will be cap-and-trade, or something else. Climate justice
groups have for decades called cap-and-trade a “pay to pollute” oriented system. “The draft
legislation stipulates that [energy] suppliers must possess a sufficient quantity of ‘clean energy
credits’ at the end of each year, or may otherwise make an ‘alternative compliance payment,’” the
press release for the bill explains. “Suppliers may buy and trade clean energy credits from one
another or purchase them via auction. The mandate is technology-neutral, allowing electricity
suppliers ample flexibility and freedom of choice.” Jones worries that a market-oriented
scheme of this sort could mean increased fossil fuel energy production in the years ahead:
“A ‘technology-neutral’ approach leaves us primed for decades more greenhouse gas
emissions,” he said in the press release. “A bold climate plan must call for a ban on fracking and all new fossil fuel
infrastructure, and a swift and just transition to 100 percent clean, renewable energy across all sectors
of the economy. We have no time to rely on market-based schemes, dubious offset programs or
unproven carbon capture technologies designed to prolong the life of the fossil fuel industry.”
4. Community DA — The Clean Future Act disproportionately benefits high

income earners at the expense of average taxpayers. Act will only
disadvantage communities.
Stevens, 21 (Alexander Stevens is a Policy Analyst at the American Energy Alliance. In his
role, Alex writes on the relationship between business and government in the energy industry as
well as the effects of regulation and subsidies on energy markets. Alex graduated with a B.S. in
Political Science from Central Michigan University and a B.A. in Journalism from Oakland
University., "CLEAN Future Act Puts Ratepayers On The Hook For EV Infrastructure",
American Energy Alliance, https://www.americanenergyalliance.org/2021/03/clean-future-act-
puts-ratepayers-on-the-hook-for-ev-infrastructure/, 3-18-2021, Accessed 7-13-2021)//ILake-RM
In early March, the House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-
NJ), Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee Chairman Paul Tonko (D-NY) and Energy
Subcommittee Chairman Bobby L. Rush (D-IL) introduced the Climate Leadership and
Environmental Action for our Nation’s (CLEAN) Future Act. The bill aims to achieve net zero
greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, with an interim target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions
by 50 percent from 2005 levels no later than 2030. Taken as a whole, the bill would impose
overbearing regulations on the production of our most reliable energy sources, which would
raise costs on energy consumers and destroy jobs in the energy industry. Here, I want to focus
on one particular section of the bill that aims at encouraging the deployment of electric vehicle
charging stations in the name of environmental justice. Here is the summary language for the
relevant section of the CLEAN Future Act: “Sec. 435. STATE CONSIDERATION OF
ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING. Amends PURPA section 111(d) to require states consider
authorizing measures encouraging deployment of electric vehicle charging stations ;
allowing utilities to recover from ratepayers’ investments that further deployment of electric
vehicle charging networks; and excluding from regulation as electric utilities entities selling
electricity to the public solely through electric vehicle chargers .” Under rate-of-return
regulation, utilities are allowed to recover their cost to do business and earn a guaranteed return
on invested capital. Un der this system, there is little incentive for the utility to reduce
operating costs . As long as the rate-of-return is above the cost of debt, the rate base can be
inflated by spending more capital than is necessary. If passed, the CLEAN Future Act would
allow utilities to rate base the construction of electric vehicle charging stations, meaning
that the cost of these charging stations will be passed on to utility customers as a whole. As
we have noted elsewhere, EVs are already heavily subsidized and those subsidies are costly,
unnecessary, and unfair. Electric vehicles are mainly subsidized through tax credits, which are
the result of the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 (H.R. 6049) and The American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). These provide federal income tax credits for
new qualified electric vehicles of up to $7,500. According to a report by the Congressional
Research Service, the majority of people who claim the electric vehicle tax credit earn a much
higher income than the national average. As the report notes: “In 2016, 57,066 individual
taxpayers claimed $375 million in plug-in EV tax credits. EV tax credits are
disproportionately claimed by higher-income taxpayers . Most of the tax credits (78%) are
claimed by filers with adjusted gross income (AGI) of $100,000 or more, and those filers receive
an even higher proportion (83%) of the amount of credits claimed. About 7% of credits claimed,
and 8% of the total amount of credits, were on returns where the taxpayer’s AGI exceeded $1
million.” That same report found, based on estimates provided by the Joint Committee on
Taxation, that under current law tax expenditure (forgone revenue) for the plug-in EV tax credit
would be $7.5 billion between 2018 and 2022. In other words, American taxpayers are already
spending billions of dollars to subsidize electric vehicles that are mostly being purchased by
high-income earners . On top of that, this new bill would ensure that the costs of building out
EV infrastructure will be paid by utility ratepayers in the form of higher electricity prices .
This follows a familiar pattern where policies that are enacted in the name of ‘environmental
justice’ disproportionately benefit wealthier individuals while the costs are passed on to
everyone else.
5. Delay DA — The Clean Future Act will do nothing until the year 2049
Steve Horn, 1-14-2020, Steve Horn is a San Diego-based climate reporter and producer. He
was also a reporter on a part-time basis for The Coast News—covering Escondido, San Marcos,
and the San Diego North County region—from mid-2018 until early 2020. Also a freelance
investigative reporter, his work has appeared in The Guardian, Al Jazeera America, The Intercept,
Vice News, Wisconsin Watch, and other publications. He worked from 2011-2018 for the climate
news website DeSmog.com, a publication which investigates climate change disinformation and
the fossil fuel industry influence campaigns. "CLEAN Future Act Is ‘Shameful’ and
‘Greenwashing,’ say Climate Justice Groups," Real News Network,
https://therealnews.com/clean-future-act-is-shameful-and-greenwashing-say-climate-justice-
groups, Accessed --- 7/7/2021, WWIS
U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee that’s proposing the bill, said he sees it as an ambitious plan to
tackle the climate crisis. “Today
we are providing the kind of serious federal leadership this moment
requires,” said Pallone Jr. “This plan represents our commitment to achieving net zero
greenhouse gas pollution. For the sake of the American people, the long-term sustainability of our
economy, and public health, we must act boldly, and that is exactly what we intend to do.” While
Hartl acknowledges that he thinks all of the things found in the bill’s outline are “not terrible,” he
disagrees that it counts as bold action, saying that he believes it’s “so timid” and that “we could
be there much, much faster.” “ I think the reality is that these bills have so little substance and
requirements that it could be business as usual for 2049,” said Hartl. “And then we wave a
magic wand. And then the last year we do all the hard work. So it’s like procrastinating on
your homework. And that’s the approach to this bill is taking.”
2AC — Links to Federalism DA
Clean Future Act links to the federalism DA
Mike Palicz, 5-25-2021, Federal Affairs Manager at Americans for Tax Reform, "CLEAN
Future Act Lays Groundwork for Backdoor Fracking Ban," Americans for Tax Reform,
https://www.atr.org/clean-future-act-lays-groundwork-backdoor-fracking-ban, Accessed ---
7/5/2021, WWIS
On Tuesday, the House Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce will hold a legislative hearing on the CLEAN Future Act, legislation
sponsored by Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ). Buried
within the Democrats’ 981-page "climate" bill are provisions that would lay the groundwork for a
nationwide fracking ban, threatening American production of oil and natural gas, U.S. energy
independence, and affordable energy for consumers. Section 623 is a federal power grab
stripping states of the right to regulate hydraulic fracturing and could empower EPA to
impose a nationwide fracking ban through federal regulation of fluids required for
hydraulic fracturing . Rather than allowing states to regulate fluids from hydraulic fracturing as
they currently do, Section 623 would "prohibit the underground injection of fluids or propping
agents pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations" unless operators meet testing and data
reporting requirements determined by political appointees at the EPA. Democrats are using the
long-debunked and anti-science notion that fracking is an inherent threat to groundwater in order
to seize regulatory authority away from states. This provision would break from the Obama
EPA's years-long assessment that federal regulation of fracking's impact on water resources was
not required. A resolution co-sponsored by state oil regulators in Texas and North Dakota in
response to the CLEAN Future Act urges the Biden Administration and Congress to oppose the
CLEAN Future Act on behalf of oil and gas producing states. In the rollout of the resolution,
Texas Railroad Commissioner Wayne Christian labeled the CLEAN Future Act as "nothing more
than the Green New Deal in lipstick,” that would "effectively federalize regulation of oil and gas,
increasing costs to consumers and our national debt, while harming our energy independence and
national security.” Here is text straight from the resolution: "The CLEAN Future Act would
impose redundant and unneeded regulations on oil and gas drilling, hydraulic fracturing, and
production operations currently regulated by the States..." " The CLEAN Future Act
contravenes the principle of cooperative federalism by creating significant regulations at
the national level that will limit the ability of states to regulate the exploration and
production of oil and gas within their jurisdictions."
American agriculture is heavily dependent on fossil fuels --- proves link to the
farming DA --- the CP outlaws fossil fuels
Center for Industrial Progress No Date, "Fossil Fuels Are The Food Of Food," Center
for Industrial Progress, https://industrialprogress.com/fossil-fuels-are-the-food-of-food/ Accessed
--- 7/7/2021, WWIS
We all know that fossil fuels power our machines. Often overlooked however is the vital role they
play in powering humans, as the food we eat is made possible by fossil fuels. To take just one
example, synthesized fertilizers are the plant-nutrient inputs that feed humanity’s food
crops, and this plant food is overwhelmingly made possible by fossil fuels. The U.S. Energy
Information Administration (EIA) estimates that in 2010, the U.S. nitrogenous fertilizer industry
consumed more than 200 trillion Btu of natural gas as feedstock and another 152 trillion Btu for
heat and power. To put that into perspective, total U.S. Solar energy consumption in 2010
equalled just 125 trillion Btu not even enough to provide for the heat and power necessary to
synthesize this fertilizer. This is why Alex Epstein, in his 2012 debate with Bill McKibben,
called fossil fuels the food of food. They make possible the fertilizers, pesticides, and
machinery our food supply depends on. McKibben once called the nation’s leading
environmentalist by the Boston Globe has advocated the reduction of fossil fuel consumption by
95 percent. During the debate, Epstein explained that fossil fuels are critical for powering today’s
modern mechanized agricultural industry, and that a 95 percent cut in fossil fuel use would be
disastrous. In a society where most people are detached from food production, it is easy to forget just how much our ability to enjoy abundant food
depends on extraordinary amounts of affordable energy. For example: In 2012 the year of the debate the American agricultural industry consumed 800
Trillion (Btu) in the growing of crops and livestock about as much primary energy as the entire state of Utah, notes the Federal Energy Information
Administration (EIA). And according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, it is fossil fuels that feed the
modern mechanized agricultural industry: the dominant share of direct energy use on U.S. farms
is fuels (including diesel and gasoline) to run machinery for field operations such as planting,
tilling, and harvesting; to dry crops; for livestock use; and to transport goods. Supplying water can also be an
energy-intensive task, the EIA adds. Fossil fuel-powered modern irrigation has limited our reliance on nature
to rain water down on crops. Today, the electricity to power water pumps, filtration, and treatment systems, is inexpensive and abundant,
thanks to coal- and natural gas-fired central power stations; while more rural settings can depend upon water pumps powered by diesel or propane
generators. This ability to pump water vast distances created the opportunity for a wider variety of cropping alternatives, reduces frost damage, and has
led to higher yields with increased drought protection. The reason you nor I have any tragic memories of U.S. drought-related famines is because there
haven’t been any during our lifetimes. This happy reality owes more to a single coal miner than to Bill McKibben’s entire 350.org organization.
Reducing fossil fuel consumption by 95 percent, Epstein concluded, would starve the
modern mechanized agricultural industry of the energy necessary to continue its work
producing affordable, abundant food the consequence of which would be massive human
malnourishment and starvation.
Clean Future Act kills fossil fuels --- crushes rural agriculture
Rich Pierce, 4/15/2021, "Rep. McKinley blasts proposed Clean Future Act," WTOV,
https://wtov9.com/news/local/rep-mckinley-blasts-proposed-clean-future-act, Accessed ---
7/7/2021, WWIS
West Virginia Congressman David McKinley - a ranking member of the energy and commerce
subcommittee on environment and climate change - blasted the proposed Clean Future Act in a
meeting Thursday. Democratic committee leadership introduced the act in March that pushes for net zero greenhouse gas pollution no later
than 2050. McKinley, a Republican, said it's a bad plan for West Virginia and other communities
reliant on fossil fuels. “The cruel irony of all this,” he said, “as America dismantles it's fossil fuel
economy, the rest of the world is expanding its use of coal, natural gas and oil and emitting
greenhouse gasses at an alarming rate. By eliminating fossil fuels, congress will be send
Americans across the country into poverty."
CP links to politics — GOP hates it.
Barnard, 21 (Christopher Barnard, Christopher Barnard is the National Policy Director at the
American Conservation Coalition (ACC).Christopher is the Founder of the British Conservation
Alliance. He studied International Relations at The London School of Economics and Political
Science, "ACC On the Issues: The CLEAN Future Act is Divisive and Partisan ", American
Conservation Coalition, https://www.acc.eco/blog/2021/3/4/6gqqg74u920icv0phwn3jduoqy8kgt,
3-4-2021, Accessed 7-7-2021)//ILake-RM
Why It Matters: With
the Biden administration and Democratic majority promising to take drastic
climate action, the CLEAN Future Act includes a swathe of proposals to reduce emissions
across all sectors of the economy. Some of the main proposals include: A nationwide Clean Electricity Standard (CES), targeting 80%
clean electricity generation by 2030, and 100% clean by 2035 A Buy Clean Program, where federal funds for construction projects purchase low-carbon
materials and products A green bank called the Clean Energy and Sustainability Accelerator, which
would deploy $100 billion in
seed-funding to invest in energy & technology innovation across the economy, and leverage
additional private capital for these projects ‘Environmental Justice’ provisions to allocate 40% of the bill’s funding for minority
and low-income communities Programs to support dislocated communities & workers, including funding for local governments affected by the energy
transition Significant investment in grid infrastructure, energy efficiency programs, transportation electrification, etc. through grants, tax credits, and
other financial tools. As Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Republican Leader of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, announced in a statement
legislation is “full of more mandates and regulations that will raise energy
with several colleagues: the
prices.” Indeed, it slaps new standards on energy efficiency in buildings, electricity generation,
transportation, and other areas of the economy. This regulation-heavy approach risks slowing
post-COVID-19 economic recovery , while the bill’s price tag of $560 billion over the next decade
places a heavy burden on future generations. When asked why they opted for a clean energy standard over a carbon pricing
model, Chairman Pallone responded saying: “It’s time to try something new.” Nonetheless, the plan is unlikely to attract
Republican support because of its scope and price tag. Its sponsors have therefore refused to
rule out the possibility of pushing it through via reconciliation, which requires a simple majority
in the Senate, rather than the typical 60 votes. In doing so, they risk alienating half the country and
forcing through unpopular, deeply partisan legislation. We can't afford an Obamacare
situation in the climate arena – durable climate action has to be built on consensus. Moreover, as much as the bill claims to be an economy-wide
approach to reducing emissions in all sectors, there are several notable omissions. A true economy-wide climate package
should include these additional elements, which other committees can contribute, such as: Cost-
effective and bipartisan natural climate solutions An established domestic supply chain of
critical minerals needed for a clean energy transition and to reduce our reliance on China
Support for nuclear energy and carbon capture technology, through investment and streamlining
the regulatory process. However, there are two primary positive notes: Expands consumer freedom to purchase
clean energy across state lines, thus lowering barriers to entry Emphasis on federalism and
states’ authority to set their own climate agendas with stipulated targets Quote me on it: “Climate action
shouldn’t be measured by how many dollars we spend, but by how many tons of carbon we reduce. Climate change is too urgent to
waste time on divisive partisan plans, and ultimately, any meaningful climate legislation must be
bipartisan. E&C Republicans are ready to work on common-sense policy – Chairman Pallone should give them a larger seat at the table.” – ACC
National Policy Director Christopher Barnard
1AR — Emissions DA
The CLEAN Future Act doesn’t solve --- continues to enable big oil and gas
and does nothing to prevent additional emissions or sequester carbon already
in the atmosphere --- it just enforces a cap and trade system that ultimately
results in more emissions
Food & Water Action, ND (Food & Water Action,Food & Water Action mobilizes regular
people to build political power to move bold & uncompromised solutions to the most pressing
food, water, and climate problems of our time. They work to protect people’s health,
communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic
interests. , "The CLEAN Future Act isn't a Green New Deal",
https://secure.foodandwateraction.org/act/clean-future-act-green-new-dud, ND, Accessed 7-5-
2021)//ILake-RM
We finally have a real chance at the federal level to fight climate change. We have the
opportunity to set up strong protections for our communities and the planet. But House
Democrats are wasting this opportunity with the recently introduced CLEAN Future Act, which is
nowhere near what we need . Its name sounds promising, but it fails to take the most fundamental step to
fight climate change: stopping the extraction and burning of fossil fuels . The CLEAN Future Act would
continue to enable dirty energy by: Pairing fracked gas with unproven, impractical
“carbon capture technology” so it can be rebranded as “clean” Pushing pay-to-pollute
trading schemes like cap-and-trade Promoting factory farm biogas as “clean” energy ,
which does nothing to reduce methane emissions and props up industrial agriculture Big Oil &
Gas are on the ropes and they know it, which is why they're pushing so hard to distract us with
greenwashing and continue business as usual while doing nothing to stop the climate crisis they
created.
Disaster Safe Power Grid Act (DSPGA) CP
Answers
2AC — DSPGA CP Answers
1. Perm do both – not mutually exclusive. Shields the link — [explain.]
2. Doesn’t solve – utilities won’t take the incentives — they will do anything,
including bribe officials, to avoid increased costs.
Cosier 21 – Susan Cosier is a journalist focused on science and the environment. She has a
master’s degree from New York University’s Science, Health and Environmental Reporting
Program and also studied environmental science at Wesleyan University. Some of her works are
in Scientific American, Science, and the Guardian among others. (“Why Electric Utilities Are
Resorting to Dark Money and Bribes to Resist Renewables,” 3/16/2021,
https://www.audubon.org/news/why-electric-utilities-are-resorting-dark-money-and-bribes-resist-
renewables, Accessed 7/7/2021) RG
With renewable energy on the rise, many electric utilities—especially those dependent on fossil
fuels—are facing a crisis. Some are embracing the challenges necessary to implement new infrastructure, but others are resisting
change in extreme ways. A new stories series from Audubon investigates the industry at this crucial time. *** Early in the morning on
Tuesday, July 21, 2020, federal officers raided a farm in rural Glenford, Ohio. The FBI agents searched
the home and arrested 61-year-old Larry Householder, the speaker of the Ohio House of
Representatives. They charged him with racketeering: orchestrating a $60 million bribery scheme
involving the electric utility FirstEnergy Solutions, which funneled money to Householder and several co-conspirators
through a nonprofit group called Generation Now, a U.S. attorney alleged. The defendants, who include three lobbyists and Householder’s longtime
political strategist, pleaded not guilty in federal court by September. Since then, two have pleaded guilty. In exchange for
millions of dollars in cash, the indictment says, Householder and his co-conspirators helped pass
an energy bill that Vox called the worst passed this century. House Bill 6 (HB6) mobilized nearly
$1.5 billion in ratepayer money—bill charges paid by average electricity customers—to save four supposedly unprofitable, money-
losing power plants from closing: two nuclear plants originally owned by FirstEnergy and two coal plants owned by a utility collective. The bill
also wiped out renewable energy policies that required utilities to produce renewable power and
mandated energy efficiency. The provisions in HB6 gave FirstEnergy a significant financial boost, beyond preserving its failing plants.
Mere days after its passage, the utility announced its super-polluting Sammis plant on the Ohio–
West Virginia border would remain open. The coal-fired facility was scheduled to close in June
2022. “Dark money is a breeding ground for corruption,” said U.S. Attorney David M. DeVillers in a Justice Department press release. “This
investigation continues.” The corruption in Ohio is the latest example of how some private electric
utilities are willing to stretch the limits of the law to influence politicians, shore up fossil-
fuel investments, and maintain their grip on power. In Illinois, the electric utility Commonwealth Edison admitted in
2020 to bribing elected officials in exchange for electricity rate increases. ComEd received $150 million in benefits; now the
company will pay a $200 million fine, and an investigation is ongoing. In Wyoming, the state
government contributes taxpayer money to Energy Policy Network, a dark money group that runs
political campaigns to support utility-owned coal plants that burn Wyoming coal, according to a
2020 Wyoming Public Media and WyoFile investigation. In Michigan, the state’s largest utility,
Consumers Energy, gave more than $43 million to a dark money PAC, Citizens for Energizing
Michigan's Economy, to influence political races between 2014 and 2017. In 2019, the utility settled with the
Michigan Public Service Commission and agreed to stop donating to political advocacy groups for two years.
3. Climate change overwhelms resilience – only the aff solves the root cause of
disruptions
4. Resilience impossible – grid’s layout causes structural vulnerability

Geiger 16 [Juliane Geiger is a native English-speaking copy editor and writer specializing in
nonfiction, located in Michigan, with over a decade of experience writing and editor for
publishing houses, published authors, international news venues, intelligence agencies,
magazines, and businesses. What Will You Do When The Lights Go Out? The Inevitable Failure
Of The US Grid, https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/What-Will-You-Do-when-the-
Lights-Go-Out-The-Inevitable-Failure-of-the-US-Grid.html, 8/14/2016,]
Delta Airlines recently experienced what it called a power outage in its home base of Atlanta, Georgia, causing all the company’s computers to go offline—all of them. This
Delta planes for six hours, stranding passengers for even

seemingly minor hiccup managed to singlehandedly ground all
longer, as Delta scrambled to reshuffle passengers after the Monday debacle. Where Delta blamed its catastrophic
systems-wide computer failure vaguely on a loss of power, Georgia Power, their power provider, placed the ball squarely in Delta’s court, saying that “other Georgia Power
The
customers were not affected”, and that they had staff on site to assist Delta. Whether it was a true power outage, or an outage unique to Delta is fairly insignificant.
incident was a single company without power for six measly hours, yet it wreaked much havoc.
Which brings to mind (or at least it should) what happens when the lights really go out—everywhere? And just how dependent is the U.S. on
single-source power? When you hear about the possible insufficiency, unreliability, or lack of
resiliency of the U.S. power grid, your mind might naturally move toward the extreme, perhaps National
Geographic’s Doomsday Preppers. Talks about what a U.S. power grid failure could really mean are also often likened to survivalist blogs that speak of building faraday cages and
hoarding food, or possibly some riveting blockbuster movie about a well-intentioned government-sponsored genetically altered mosquito that leads to some zombie apocalypse.
But in the event of a power grid failure—and we have more than our fair share here in the U.S.—your survivalist savvy may be all for naught. This horror story doesn’t need
the International Business

zombies or genetically altered mosquitos in order to be scary. Using data from the United States Department of Energy,
Times reported in 2014 that the United States suffers more blackouts than any other developed
country in the world. Unfortunately, not much has been done since then to alleviate the system’s
critical vulnerabilities. In theory, we all understand the wisdom about not putting all our eggs in one basket, as the old-adage goes. Yet the U.S.
has done just that with our U.S. power grid. Sadly, this infrastructure is failing, and compared to
many other countries, the U.S. is sauntering slowly behind many other more conscientious
countries, seemingly unconcerned with its poor showing. The Grid, by Geography and Geopolitics According to the United States
Department of Energy, the American power grid is made up of three smaller grids, known as interconnections, which transport energy all over the country. The Eastern
Interconnection provides electricity to states to the east of the Rocky Mountains, while the Western interconnection serves the Rocky Mountain states and those that border the
Pacific Ocean. The Texas Interconnected System is the smallest grid in the nation, and serves most of Texas, although small portions of the Lone Star state benefit from the other
two grids. And if you’re wondering why Texas gets a grid of its own, according to the Texas Tribune they have their own grid “to avoid dealing with the feds.” Now that’s true
When you look at the layout of the grid above, it’s easy to see that a single
survivalist savvy—in theory.
grid going offline would disrupt a huge segment of North America. Wait—make that all of
North America. To give it to you straight, our national electrical grid works as an
interdependent network. This means that the failure of any one part would trigger the
borrowing of energy from other areas. Whichever grid attempts to carry the extra load would
likely be overtaxed, as the grid is already taxed to near max levels during peak hot or cold
seasons. The aftermath of a single grid going down could leave millions of residents without
power for days, weeks or longer depending on the scope of the failure. So although on the surface
it looks like the U.S. has wisely put its eggs into three separate baskets for safer keeping, the U.S.
has in essence, lined up our baskets so that if one were to drop, or if the bottom were to fall out,
the eggs from basket #1 would fall into basket #2. Which would break from the load, falling into
basket #3—eventually scrambling all the eggs. Sorry, Texas. Related: Is Saudi Arabia About To Cry Uncle In The Oil Price War? When
multiple parts of the grid fail at the same time, it’s not necessarily more catastrophic—the catastrophe just happens more quickly. According to Jon Wellinghoff, chairman of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in an interview with USA Today, "You have a very vulnerable system that will continue to be vulnerable until we figure out a way to
break it out into more distributed systems." The Grid, by the Numbers Let’s look at the math behind the power grid, and what the U.S. is doing to improve it. 1. Through the
Recovery Act, the DOE invested about $4.5 billion in the power grid since 2010 to modernize it and “increase its reliability”. $4.5 billion seems like a fairly large number, unless
you’re talking about a single machine that serves as the lifeblood to nearly every human in North America—a machine that was conceived in 1882 by Thomas Edison—with little
changed since then, conceptually speaking. For people who reside in weather-challenged areas, such as my home state of Michigan, a home generator is almost as necessary of an
appliance as a microwave, and people are scrambling to go “off-grid” with alternative energy solutions—an act that will not provide them immunity should the lights go out
And for what it’s worth, for those of you sporting solar and wind energy, you’re further
everywhere else.
taxing the grid—the grid just wasn’t designed to accommodate the surges and lulls of such
systems, however green you find them. 2. Power outages—just the ones due to severe weather—cost the U.S. economy between $18 and $33
billion annually in spoiled inventory, delayed production, grid damage, lost wages and output. Despite a few billion dollars being thrown at the grid to improve its resiliency or
reliability, the number of outages due to weather is expected to increase, assuming that climate change will indeed intensify extreme weather, as some predict. 3. The total annual
cost from power outages, per federal data published in The Smart Grid: An Introduction, is a whopping $150 billion. 4. As of 2014, the DOE had generously spent $100 million
(million, not billion) into modernizing the grid for the specific purposes of surviving a cyber incident by maintaining critical functions. This would be measures separate from
making the grid more reliable. 5. The American Society of Civil Engineers gave the electrical grid a grade of D+ in early 2014 after evaluating the grid for security and other
vulnerabilities. 6. The average age of large power transformers (LPTs) in the US is 40 years, with 70 percent of all large power transformers being 25 years or older. According to
the DOE, “aging power transformers are subject to increased risk of failure.” 7. LPTs cannot be easily replaced. They are custom built, have long lead times (even 20 months, in
some cases), cost millions of dollars, are usually purchased from foreign entities due to limited U.S. capacity, and weigh up to 400 tons. All this means that patching and fixing is
likely to be favored over replacement, despite their age and associated risk. Working with those figures, most of which are provided by federal sources, this means the U.S.
invested, from 2010 to 2014, $4.5 billion to modernize the grid, along with an additional $100 million to stave off cyber threats. That’s $4.6 billion over four years, or $1.15 billion
per year in upgrades. Next to the $150 billion lost each year due to outages, it looks like someone has done some subpar calculating. The security of the power grid, which is a
separate issue from the reliability of the power grid, is a whole other issue that concerns itself with hypothetical one-off scenarios—albeit terrible one-off scenarios. But at least
there’s a chance that those one-off scenarios, such as a cyber-attack on the grid or some terrorist activity, would not come to fruition. A chance, at least. What we are certain of, is
that severe weather will continue to stress and threaten our power grid. And unless something changes, ultimately, it will fail. So when we talk about reliability, we’re talking about
“when” and “for how long” scenarios, not “what if”. The how-long factor plays a huge role into how bad is “bad”; not because of the events that one knows will follow, which
includes mass food spoilage, deaths due to overheating in the hot summer months, deaths due to freezing in the cold regions, and the halting of everything we take for granted
these days—airlines, internet and most other forms of communication. All that sounds pretty bleak, but when you throw into the mix the mania and hysteria that would ensue
shortly after such catastrophic events, it will be so much worse. Best-selling author Charles Mackay, in his book Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds,
does a pretty good job describing, through example, how crowd decisions and reactions are significantly less sensible than individual decisions—sometimes downright nutty, as
evidenced by Tulip Mania, where supply and demand—or in this case scarcity and demand, drove up the prices of tulip bulbs to ridiculous levels. In the context of blackouts, we
saw this in 1977, when a lightning strike in New York on a Hudson River substation tripped two circuit breakers, causing power to be diverted in order to protect the circuit. The
chain of events that followed ended in an entire blackout for the area, which led to mass rioting, over 1000 deliberately set fires, the looting of 1600 stores, and the eventual arrest
of 4,500 perpetrators and the injury of 550 officers, according to some estimates. The power was only out for 25 hours, and in one area. In all likelihood, the haves (those who have
removed themselves from the grid and prepared accordingly) will soon be overrun by the have-nots in the event of any extended blackout, with heavily populated areas taking the
brunt of the chaos—and your solar roof panels or generator will not suffice as your savior. The U.S. would be wise to follow the lead of some other countries, such as Denmark,
which has decentralized its grid, but we doubt the cash exists to fund such an ambitious overhaul of an archaic system that has been left essentially unattended for decades upon
decades.
1AR — No Solvency — Utility Resistance
Incentives fail – utilities will resist transition – there is rampant corruption
that blocks changes to the grid
Recommendations are doomed – only explicit requirements overcome

aggressive utility resistance
Stephens 17 [Jennie Stephens is the dean’s professor of sustainability science and policy at
Northeastern University, associate director of Northeastern’s Global Resilience Institute, 11-13-
2017 https://www.wsj.com/articles/should-governments-require-utilities-to-make-the-electric-
grid-more-stormproof-1510628520]
Current efforts to stormproof the grid are inadequate because they focus too much on
“hardening” the current grid and restoring power rather than investing in innovations that would
prevent power outages in the first place. Stormproofing the grid is conventionally thought to
include putting some transmission and distribution lines underground, expanding efforts to prune
trees close to poles and wires, and reinforcing or replacing towers and poles with stronger, steel
structures. Smart-grid investments, too, have helped utilities minimize the duration of power
outages by helping to locate and restore power more quickly.
But utilities must do more. They must be required to make additional smart-grid investments
that encourage households and buildings to be self-sufficient and “island” during a storm so that
when the centralized grid is damaged (which inevitably will happen no matter what degree of
hardening takes places) power outages are minimized. And the best way to do this is for
regulators to require utilities to install more distributed renewable energy throughout the grid.
Given the benefits of distributed renewable power, we have to think outside the box and expand
our vision and expectations of electric utilities. If we stay with the same old assumptions and
keep trying the same old tactics, we will increase grid vulnerabilities. Investing in innovations
that accelerate more distributed renewable generation is critical to stormproofing the grid for the
future.
A grid designed for distributed renewable power is inherently more resilient to storms than the
current grid system. Renewable generation is modular and flexible, and when coupled with the
potential of islanding technology and microgrids, when destructive storms do damage, the grid’s
modularity allows for fast, segmented recovery. More distributed renewable generation builds
backups into the system. It creates networked redundancy, spreading out risks and reducing the
potential for cascading failures.
The tragedy in Puerto Rico, where Hurricane Maria effectively destroyed the grid, is an
opportunity to rebuild with distributed renewable design. After disruption, rather than recovering
by reinstalling the same technology, regulators should require utilities to be prepared to upgrade
and innovate.
Requiring utilities to make grids more resilient by adopting more distributed, renewable energy is
not easy, but regulatory change is essential . Consider solar panels, which can continue to
provide power to buildings on which they are installed, even if other lines are down. Many
utilities still aggressively resist distributed solar developments. Regulators need to take a
stronger stand in requiring utilities to accelerate distributed renewable power.
Overwhelming utility commitment to super-polluting plants and blocking

change
Cosier 21 – Susan Cosier is a journalist focused on science and the environment. She has a
master’s degree from New York University’s Science, Health and Environmental Reporting
Program and also studied environmental science at Wesleyan University. Some of her works are
in Scientific American, Science, and the Guardian among others. (“Why Electric Utilities Are
Resorting to Dark Money and Bribes to Resist Renewables,” 3/16/2021,
https://www.audubon.org/news/why-electric-utilities-are-resorting-dark-money-and-bribes-resist-
renewables, Accessed 7/7/2021) RG
In Arizona, in 2014, the state’s largest utility directed millions through dark money groups to
candidates running for the Corporation Commission, the regulatory body that sets utility rates, to
minimize incentives for homeowners to install rooftop solar panels. Utilities use dark money, front groups, LLCs,
and national interest groups to covertly advance their agendas. Across the country, the story repeats itself. Utilities use dark money,
front groups, LLCs, and national interest groups to covertly advance their agendas to maintain the
status quo and twist laws in their favor, pressing legislators to keep coal and gas powering our
electrical grid at the expense of renewable energy. Utilities’ behavior is in line with U.S. corporate behavior. Since 2010,
when the Supreme Court decided the Citizens United case, corporations have used dark-money groups to mask political donations from the public to the
tune of $1 billion. But some experts question whether electric utilities belong in a different category. Should utility companies, which provide a public
service, have a captured rate base, and often hold regional monopolies, be allowed to influence elections? “They get to use the money that you pay them
for their political ends,” says Leah Stokes, a political scientist at UC Santa Barbara and the author of Short Circuiting Policy. “So I think we should be
saying utilities cannot spend money on politics in this way.” When
they do, the policies can come at their customers’
expense. Many ratepayers have no say in their electricity source or where it’s generated , Stokes says.
“If your electricity provider is anti-climate, you don't get to do anything about that,” she says—except vote. “People can have a say, however, in the
source of their electricity when they elect governments who pass clean energy policies.” Rates paid by customers are used to prop up declining power
plants, as in Ohio, or to transition coal-fired power plants to fossil gas, as proposed in South Carolina. If a customer disagrees, they can’t typically switch
to another utility; in most cases they have no choice but to continue with their local provider. “Customers in many parts of the country pay more for
electricity than they need to because of bad investments by their utilities in coal-generating plants that are uneconomical,” Stokes says. The heaviest price
of this utility behavior, however, comes in future climate change. By 2050, global carbon emissions need to be brought to zero, experts say, to keep rising
temperatures from creating a cascade of catastrophic results. Electricity production accounts for more than a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions,
according to the U.S. EPA, and nearly two-thirds of our electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, mostly coal and natural gas. That makes transitioning
our electricity from fossil to renewable energy a pivotal part of the climate solution. FirstEnergy's W. H. Sammis Power Plant, a coal power plant in
The utility can afford to keep the super-polluting plant, slated to close in 2022,
Stratton, Ohio.
operating thanks to proceeds from legislation passed by an alleged $60 million bribery
scheme. Photo: Brian Snyder/Reuters/Alamy “If we take 2050 as our deadline for cleaning up the electricity system, we are way behind where we
need to be,” Stokes says. “Electricity is the golden ticket to the clean energy transition.” Until the grid produces carbon-free power, any electric devices
including cars will continue to run on fossil fuels. The benefits of accelerating that shift could be tremendous. If utilities invested in renewables, instead
of doubling down on fossil fuels, electricity prices would drop in the long term. A recent report by UC Berkeley showed that with deep investments in
renewables, the United States could close fossil-fuel plants and reach 90 percent clean electricity by 2035 at no extra cost to consumers thanks to the
falling cost of wind, solar, and battery power. But to get there, utilities need to get out of the way and to stop resisting change. How did we get here: a
place where utilities—which are, in theory, agnostic to their energy sources—bribe politicians to delay or halt the rollout of renewable energy? The
sordid tale goes back to the early history of the U.S. electrical grid. In the early 20th century, states struck deals with private companies that generated
and delivered electricity. In
exchange for allowing private electric utilities to operate as monopolies,
securing regional power, the government regulates the price of electricity while ensuring a return
for shareholders. This arrangement lets utilities stay profitable (they get an average return on
equity of more than 10 percent) while selling electricity to the public at an affordable price. But
for a number of utility executives, staying profitable is not enough: They want to earn larger
profits for themselves and their shareholders. So, some privately owned utilities financed or built
larger coal plants to generate electricity, which they then distributed and sold to the public.
Utilities owning their own power plants seemed like a good business move—until cheaper,
cleaner renewable fuels came along. Now many of those older utility-owned power plants are
losing money; they can’t compete with cheaper fuels. FirstEnergy’s Sammis plant, for example,
built coal and oil-fired units between 1959 and 1972. Now it’s failing financially due to cheaper
natural gas and renewable energy. To keep it running, the utility needed a financial injection—
and they found one in funds from HB6. In Ohio, specifically, there was “a reluctance to let go of the power plants they’ve already
built that are still operating, even when those power plants are losing money without state subsidies,” says Dave Anderson, a policy and communications
manager with the Energy and Policy Institute, an electric utility watchdog. Utilities are bound to fossil fuels not only through old financial investments.
It’s also their century-old operational mindset, and consumers’ expectation that we can use as much energy as we like whenever we’d like it. The system
relies on fuel-on-demand—specifically that a coal, oil, or gas plant can simply burn more fuel to generate more electricity when customers use more than
expected. Wind farms or solar arrays don’t provide the same steady stream of electricity (not until more advanced battery storage tech is invented,
anyway). As a result, switching to renewables requires a switch in utilities’ entire approach to generating electricity. _________ Switching to renewables
requires a switch in utilities’ entire approach to generating electricity. _________ Some utilities are proving resistant to that change. “It’s a lot easier for
them to continue to use the logic of a fossil fuel power plant,” says cultural anthropologist Gretchen Bakke, author of The Grid: The Fraying Wires
Between Americans and Our Energy Future. “It’s really complicated to run a [utility using] variable and distributed input.” To move them along toward
wind and solar sources, state legislatures are passing energy standards. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia now have renewable or clean
energy standards (including 100 percent clean energy-transition laws), which require utilities to supply a certain percentage of electricity from renewable
sources. But a number of utilities remain recalcitrant. Some states, like Ohio, have reversed their clean energy policies following pressure from utilities.
Now, after Householder’s arrest, Ohio may see a reversal of the reversal. (Householder was re-elected to the state legislature in November and sworn in
to a new term in January. It’s unclear whether the legislature will let him serve, and thus far he has not bowed to the new House Speaker’s calls for him to
resign.) State officials are discussing repealing or replacing HB6. Repealing the law—a move supported by 43 percent of Ohioan respondents in a poll
from September—would reinstate the state’s renewable energy standard to 12.5 percent by 2026. Some want to go further: A new law could allocate
more money toward wind and solar to give clean electricity a boost. Unlike fossil fuel-burning power plants, once solar panels and wind farms are in
place, the cost of running them is virtually zero, Bakke says. But, she cautions, utilities will have to adapt to these new electricity sources in ways that
require significant investment to make a renewably powered grid stable. Utilities, she says, are combatting a death spiral. “They’re fighting to stay alive
as companies, as services, as a necessary part of our world.” That some are resorting to outright bribery shows what a tough spot they’re in. “I think they
just assume that this power trip they’re on can’t possibly be interrupted. FirstEnergy, at least, is learning the hard way that that’s not the case,” Anderson
says. “It seems like utilities change when the public and the policy makers demand it, and not before.”
1AR — No Solvency — Resilience Fails
Resilience inevitably fails – too costly to implement and extreme weather
overwhelms
Rosen 21 [Phil Rosen is a California-based journalist who covers business, culture and travel 6-
3-2021 https://www.greenbiz.com/article/habitable-future-needs-resilient-grid-its-going-cost-us]
Under normal circumstances, the electric grid performs as it should: Operations run smoothly and
technicians resolve power outages without issue. But increasingly, modern infrastructure has had
to endure an uptick in extreme weather, wildfires and other high-impact, low frequency
events.
The Texas freeze earlier this year caused lengthy, widespread power outages that led to food and
water shortages. The cost of the winter storm ran into the billions of dollars — a far steeper price
than the estimated precautionary measure expense.
It is one thing to build something that works when things are going well, but something else
entirely to create something that remains steadfast through a crisis.
And crises are coming unless swift measures are taken to electrify our world and minimize
carbon emissions. Mere reliability must be reinforced with something greater . The power grid
of the future is one that prioritizes grid resilience — getting there won’t come cheap.
Grid resilience means the capacity to withstand externalities while operating more efficiently and
with a reduced carbon footprint. Expanding our means of creating energy through solar, wind or
hydrogen offers a path forward, but this can be costly for both companies and consumers. Storing
this type of green energy in a cost-effective way is also difficult.
Although the Biden administration has set aside billions for clean energy projects, throwing
around money doesn’t guarantee impact. Significantly moving the needle may cost even more
than the government is prepared to dole out.
EMPs CP Answers
2AC — EMPs CP Frontline
1. Perm: Do Both. Shields the link — [explain]
2. Climate change overwhelms resilience – only the aff solves the root cause of
disruptions
3. Resilience impossible – grid’s layout causes structural vulnerability

Geiger 16 [Juliane Geiger is a native English-speaking copy editor and writer specializing in
nonfiction, located in Michigan, with over a decade of experience writing and editor for
publishing houses, published authors, international news venues, intelligence agencies,
magazines, and businesses. What Will You Do When The Lights Go Out? The Inevitable Failure
Of The US Grid, https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/What-Will-You-Do-when-the-
Lights-Go-Out-The-Inevitable-Failure-of-the-US-Grid.html, 8/14/2016,]
Delta Airlines recently experienced what it called a power outage in its home base of Atlanta, Georgia, causing all the company’s computers to go offline—all of them. This
Delta planes for six hours, stranding passengers for even

seemingly minor hiccup managed to singlehandedly ground all
longer, as Delta scrambled to reshuffle passengers after the Monday debacle. Where Delta blamed its catastrophic
systems-wide computer failure vaguely on a loss of power, Georgia Power, their power provider, placed the ball squarely in Delta’s court, saying that “other Georgia Power
The
customers were not affected”, and that they had staff on site to assist Delta. Whether it was a true power outage, or an outage unique to Delta is fairly insignificant.
incident was a single company without power for six measly hours, yet it wreaked much havoc.
Which brings to mind (or at least it should) what happens when the lights really go out—everywhere? And just how dependent is the U.S. on
single-source power? When you hear about the possible insufficiency, unreliability, or lack of
resiliency of the U.S. power grid, your mind might naturally move toward the extreme, perhaps National
Geographic’s Doomsday Preppers. Talks about what a U.S. power grid failure could really mean are also often likened to survivalist blogs that speak of building faraday cages and
hoarding food, or possibly some riveting blockbuster movie about a well-intentioned government-sponsored genetically altered mosquito that leads to some zombie apocalypse.
But in the event of a power grid failure—and we have more than our fair share here in the U.S.—your survivalist savvy may be all for naught. This horror story doesn’t need
the International Business

zombies or genetically altered mosquitos in order to be scary. Using data from the United States Department of Energy,
Times reported in 2014 that the United States suffers more blackouts than any other developed
country in the world. Unfortunately, not much has been done since then to alleviate the system’s
critical vulnerabilities. In theory, we all understand the wisdom about not putting all our eggs in one basket, as the old-adage goes. Yet the U.S.
has done just that with our U.S. power grid. Sadly, this infrastructure is failing, and compared to
many other countries, the U.S. is sauntering slowly behind many other more conscientious
countries, seemingly unconcerned with its poor showing. The Grid, by Geography and Geopolitics According to the United States
Department of Energy, the American power grid is made up of three smaller grids, known as interconnections, which transport energy all over the country. The Eastern
Interconnection provides electricity to states to the east of the Rocky Mountains, while the Western interconnection serves the Rocky Mountain states and those that border the
Pacific Ocean. The Texas Interconnected System is the smallest grid in the nation, and serves most of Texas, although small portions of the Lone Star state benefit from the other
two grids. And if you’re wondering why Texas gets a grid of its own, according to the Texas Tribune they have their own grid “to avoid dealing with the feds.” Now that’s true
When you look at the layout of the grid above, it’s easy to see that a single
survivalist savvy—in theory.
grid going offline would disrupt a huge segment of North America. Wait—make that all of
North America. To give it to you straight, our national electrical grid works as an
interdependent network. This means that the failure of any one part would trigger the
borrowing of energy from other areas. Whichever grid attempts to carry the extra load would
likely be overtaxed, as the grid is already taxed to near max levels during peak hot or cold
seasons. The aftermath of a single grid going down could leave millions of residents without
power for days, weeks or longer depending on the scope of the failure. So although on the surface
it looks like the U.S. has wisely put its eggs into three separate baskets for safer keeping, the U.S.
has in essence, lined up our baskets so that if one were to drop, or if the bottom were to fall out,
the eggs from basket #1 would fall into basket #2. Which would break from the load, falling into
basket #3—eventually scrambling all the eggs. Sorry, Texas. Related: Is Saudi Arabia About To Cry Uncle In The Oil Price War? When
multiple parts of the grid fail at the same time, it’s not necessarily more catastrophic—the catastrophe just happens more quickly. According to Jon Wellinghoff, chairman of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in an interview with USA Today, "You have a very vulnerable system that will continue to be vulnerable until we figure out a way to
break it out into more distributed systems." The Grid, by the Numbers Let’s look at the math behind the power grid, and what the U.S. is doing to improve it. 1. Through the
Recovery Act, the DOE invested about $4.5 billion in the power grid since 2010 to modernize it and “increase its reliability”. $4.5 billion seems like a fairly large number, unless
you’re talking about a single machine that serves as the lifeblood to nearly every human in North America—a machine that was conceived in 1882 by Thomas Edison—with little
changed since then, conceptually speaking. For people who reside in weather-challenged areas, such as my home state of Michigan, a home generator is almost as necessary of an
appliance as a microwave, and people are scrambling to go “off-grid” with alternative energy solutions—an act that will not provide them immunity should the lights go out
And for what it’s worth, for those of you sporting solar and wind energy, you’re further
everywhere else.
taxing the grid—the grid just wasn’t designed to accommodate the surges and lulls of such
systems, however green you find them. 2. Power outages—just the ones due to severe weather—cost the U.S. economy between $18 and $33
billion annually in spoiled inventory, delayed production, grid damage, lost wages and output. Despite a few billion dollars being thrown at the grid to improve its resiliency or
reliability, the number of outages due to weather is expected to increase, assuming that climate change will indeed intensify extreme weather, as some predict. 3. The total annual
cost from power outages, per federal data published in The Smart Grid: An Introduction, is a whopping $150 billion. 4. As of 2014, the DOE had generously spent $100 million
(million, not billion) into modernizing the grid for the specific purposes of surviving a cyber incident by maintaining critical functions. This would be measures separate from
making the grid more reliable. 5. The American Society of Civil Engineers gave the electrical grid a grade of D+ in early 2014 after evaluating the grid for security and other
vulnerabilities. 6. The average age of large power transformers (LPTs) in the US is 40 years, with 70 percent of all large power transformers being 25 years or older. According to
the DOE, “aging power transformers are subject to increased risk of failure.” 7. LPTs cannot be easily replaced. They are custom built, have long lead times (even 20 months, in
some cases), cost millions of dollars, are usually purchased from foreign entities due to limited U.S. capacity, and weigh up to 400 tons. All this means that patching and fixing is
likely to be favored over replacement, despite their age and associated risk. Working with those figures, most of which are provided by federal sources, this means the U.S.
invested, from 2010 to 2014, $4.5 billion to modernize the grid, along with an additional $100 million to stave off cyber threats. That’s $4.6 billion over four years, or $1.15 billion
per year in upgrades. Next to the $150 billion lost each year due to outages, it looks like someone has done some subpar calculating. The security of the power grid, which is a
separate issue from the reliability of the power grid, is a whole other issue that concerns itself with hypothetical one-off scenarios—albeit terrible one-off scenarios. But at least
there’s a chance that those one-off scenarios, such as a cyber-attack on the grid or some terrorist activity, would not come to fruition. A chance, at least. What we are certain of, is
that severe weather will continue to stress and threaten our power grid. And unless something changes, ultimately, it will fail. So when we talk about reliability, we’re talking about
“when” and “for how long” scenarios, not “what if”. The how-long factor plays a huge role into how bad is “bad”; not because of the events that one knows will follow, which
includes mass food spoilage, deaths due to overheating in the hot summer months, deaths due to freezing in the cold regions, and the halting of everything we take for granted
these days—airlines, internet and most other forms of communication. All that sounds pretty bleak, but when you throw into the mix the mania and hysteria that would ensue
shortly after such catastrophic events, it will be so much worse. Best-selling author Charles Mackay, in his book Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds,
does a pretty good job describing, through example, how crowd decisions and reactions are significantly less sensible than individual decisions—sometimes downright nutty, as
evidenced by Tulip Mania, where supply and demand—or in this case scarcity and demand, drove up the prices of tulip bulbs to ridiculous levels. In the context of blackouts, we
saw this in 1977, when a lightning strike in New York on a Hudson River substation tripped two circuit breakers, causing power to be diverted in order to protect the circuit. The
chain of events that followed ended in an entire blackout for the area, which led to mass rioting, over 1000 deliberately set fires, the looting of 1600 stores, and the eventual arrest
of 4,500 perpetrators and the injury of 550 officers, according to some estimates. The power was only out for 25 hours, and in one area. In all likelihood, the haves (those who have
removed themselves from the grid and prepared accordingly) will soon be overrun by the have-nots in the event of any extended blackout, with heavily populated areas taking the
brunt of the chaos—and your solar roof panels or generator will not suffice as your savior. The U.S. would be wise to follow the lead of some other countries, such as Denmark,
which has decentralized its grid, but we doubt the cash exists to fund such an ambitious overhaul of an archaic system that has been left essentially unattended for decades upon
decades.
4. Overregulation Turn — the CP’s electricity regulations disproportionately

hurt the poor.
Millsap 19 — Adam A. Millsap, writes about state and local policy and urban economics, 2019
("How Too Much Regulation Hurts America's Poor," Forbes, 7-23-2019, Available Online at
https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammillsap/2019/07/23/how-too-much-regulation-hurts-americas-
poor/?sh=493088e8271f, Accessed 7-13-2021)
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Apollo moon landing. A lot has changed since that
incredible event, including the size and scope of the federal government. From 1970 to 2017, the
number of words in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) nearly tripled from 35 million to over
103 million. This increase in regulation reduced economic growth and lowered Americans’
incomes, and now new evidence shows that regulation has especially harmful effects on the
country’s low-income residents.
Of course, not all regulation is bad. Regulations that focus on basic worker or consumer safety
often have benefits that outweigh their costs. But many regulations on the books today go way
beyond basic safety, which isn’t surprising considering the rapid growth of the CFR just
mentioned. Such regulations protect established businesses by limiting entry or increase firms’
costs without providing an offsetting safety benefit, harming workers, customers, and potential
entrepreneurs in the process.
And this harm is not just theoretical. The studies in a recent issue of the academic journal Public
Choice focus on how regulation impacts lower-income people and many of them find harmful
effects.
One study by Dustin Chambers, Courtney A. Collins, and Alan Krause finds that regulation leads
to higher consumer prices—a 10% increase in total regulation leads to about a 1% increase in
prices. They also find that low-income households spend more of their money on the goods and
services most prone to regulation-induced price increases. This means too much regulation
worsens the financial problems of people who are already struggling.
Another study by G.P. Manish and Colin O’Reilly finds that more intense banking supervision
and regulation is associated with greater income inequality. They attribute this finding to
regulatory capture, in which banking-industry insiders capture the regulatory process and use it to
promote the interests of established banks at the expense of competitors. The result is fewer
banking options for low-income households which makes it harder for them to accumulate
wealth.
A third study by Dustin Chambers, Patrick McLaughlin, and Laura Stanley finds that more
federal regulation is associated with more poverty at the state level. Using a measure of the
federal regulatory burden imposed on each state, they find that at 10% increase in a state’s
regulatory burden is associated with a 2.5% increase in the state’s poverty rate.
In addition to these studies, others show that too much regulation reduces employment growth
and business investment, both of which contribute to lower wages for workers.
Luckily, people are starting to pay closer attention to the costs of too much regulation. Several
state governments have either reduced regulations or set up processes to do so. Kentucky has set
up a red-tape-reduction initiative that has already repealed or amended 27% of the state’s
administrative regulations. Rhode Island is engaged in an ambitious program to reduce its
regulatory burden and the state’s Code of Regulations recently won an innovation award.
Virginia also has a bipartisan plan in place to reduce unnecessary regulation and Idaho is in the
process of analyzing its entire regulatory code after lawmakers failed to reauthorize it.
Not to be outdone, the Trump administration has tried to take similar steps at the federal level. So
far it has been unable to repeal as many regulations as Trump initially hoped, but it has
significantly slowed the growth of new regulations, as shown in the figure below from the
Regulatory Studies Center at George Washington University.
The administration has also pressured states to reform their occupational licensing and reduce
land-use regulations that drive up the cost of housing. The effectiveness of these actions remains
to be seen but since both types of regulation disproportionately hurt low-income people it’s
encouraging to see that the administration is skeptical of them.
Regulation has costs and benefits, but for too long the costs were largely ignored. As a result,
there’s too much regulation at all levels of government and recent research highlights how all this
regulation is particularly harmful to the country’s poor. Regulatory reform efforts in Kentucky,
Rhode Island, Virginia, and other states—along with the federal reforms—are a good step
towards simplifying the maze of regulation entrepreneurs must navigate and more states should
follow their lead.
1AR — No Solvency — Resilience Fails
Resilience inevitably fails – too costly to implement and extreme weather
overwhelms
Rosen 21 [Phil Rosen is a California-based journalist who covers business, culture and travel 6-
3-2021 https://www.greenbiz.com/article/habitable-future-needs-resilient-grid-its-going-cost-us]
Under normal circumstances, the electric grid performs as it should: Operations run smoothly and
technicians resolve power outages without issue. But increasingly, modern infrastructure has had
to endure an uptick in extreme weather, wildfires and other high-impact, low frequency
events.
The Texas freeze earlier this year caused lengthy, widespread power outages that led to food and
water shortages. The cost of the winter storm ran into the billions of dollars — a far steeper price
than the estimated precautionary measure expense.
It is one thing to build something that works when things are going well, but something else
entirely to create something that remains steadfast through a crisis.
And crises are coming unless swift measures are taken to electrify our world and minimize
carbon emissions. Mere reliability must be reinforced with something greater . The power grid
of the future is one that prioritizes grid resilience — getting there won’t come cheap.
Grid resilience means the capacity to withstand externalities while operating more efficiently and
with a reduced carbon footprint. Expanding our means of creating energy through solar, wind or
hydrogen offers a path forward, but this can be costly for both companies and consumers. Storing
this type of green energy in a cost-effective way is also difficult.
Although the Biden administration has set aside billions for clean energy projects, throwing
around money doesn’t guarantee impact. Significantly moving the needle may cost even more
than the government is prepared to dole out.
1AR — Overregulation Turn
Federal overregulation disproportionately hurts the poor — the CP expands
the burden of regulation which results in increased taxing of people living in
poverty — a 10% increase in regulatory burden results in a 2.5% increase in
poverty rates — too much regulation hurts businesses and eliminates jobs —
That’s Millsap
Low-Income households bear the brunt of overregulation.

Chambers et. al. 19 — Dustin Chambers, senior affiliated scholar at the Mercatus Center of
George Mason University, Diane Thomas, associate professor of economics at Creighton
University, and Patrick McLaughlin, senior research fellow at George Mason University, 2019
("The Effect of Regulation on Low-Income Households," Mercatus Center, 1-8-2019, Available
Online at https://www.mercatus.org/publications/regulation/effect-regulation-low-income-
households, Accessed 7-13-2021)
Who Bears the Costs of Regulation?
Even regulation passed with the best of intentions can have regressive effects . It is difficult to
estimate the magnitude of these regressive effects without first knowing the total cost of federal
regulation. Annually, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reports an estimate of the
costs and benefits of federal regulation. In 2017, the OMB reported that “estimated annual costs
are in the aggregate between $59 billion and $88 billion, reported in 2001 dollars.”[xi] However,
the annual reports only include costs associated with major rules passed within the past 10 years
for which agencies monetized benefits and costs. This means that OMB only counted 137 out of
the roughly 36,000 total rules from the past 10 years in this cost estimate.[xii] Consequently,
researchers have sought to calculate the effects of regulation more fully than do the annual OMB
reports. W. Mark Crain and Nicole Crain argue that the actual total cost of regulation (including
indirect costs) is closer to $2 trillion.[xiii] Using the RegData database at George Mason
University, researchers Bentley Coffey, Patrick McLaughlin, and Pietro Peretto estimate that if
“regulation had been held constant at levels observed in 1980, the US economy would have been
about 25 percent larger than it actually was as of 2012.”[xiv] Put another way, regulation led to a
loss of approximately $13,000 per capita on average.[xv]
Regulation’s costs result from higher prices, slower wage growth, and barriers to entry in an
industry. Increasing prices diminish low-income households’ abilities to buy necessary goods in
the present. Slow wage growth reduces these households’ buying power in the future. Barriers to
entry reduce opportunities for low-income families to start new businesses or find jobs. In all
three cases, regulation diminishes the economic prospects of low-income households.
2AC — Links to Federalism
Links to Federalism — states resist actions like the plan. Texas proves.
Fox 7 Austin 21 — Fox 7 Austin, 2021 ("Abbott signs executive order to protect energy
industry from federal overreach," FOX 7 Austin, 1-28-2021, Available Online at
https://www.fox7austin.com/news/gov-abbott-signs-executive-order-to-protect-energy-industry-
from-federal-overreach, Accessed 7-7-2021)
ODESSA, Texas - Governor Greg Abbott held a roundtable discussion in Odessa with energy
workers, leaders, and advocates on how to support energy workers and the energy industry in
Texas.
During the roundtable, Abbott and the participants also discussed enhancing workforce
development in Texas, cutting costly red tape, and expanding broadband access in rural
communities.
Following the discussion, Gov. Abbott issued an executive order to protect Texas' energy industry
from federal overreach. The governor also announced his support for legislation that will prohibit
cities from banning natural gas appliances.
The governor's executive order directs every state agency to use all lawful powers and tools to
challenge any federal action that threatens the continued strength, vitality, and independence of
the energy industry. Each state agency should work to identify potential litigation, notice-and-
comment opportunities, and any other means of preventing federal overreach within the law.
"The men and women who work in the energy industry produce the affordable energy that powers
our lives and they are vital to the Texas economy," said Governor Abbott in a news release.
"Texas is a pro-energy state, and we will not sit idly by and allow the Biden administration or
local governments to destroy jobs and raise energy costs for Texas families. My Executive Order
will help ensure that the federal government cannot take away the livelihoods of Texans who
work so hard to provide our state and our nation with the energy we need."
Abbott's executive order appears to be a response to the slew of executive orders that President
Biden signed on Wednesday. The executive orders are aimed at tackling climate change, cutting
America’s oil, gas and coal emissions and doubling energy production from offshore wind
turbines.
1AR — Links to Federalism
CP links to Federalism — States will resist the CP — Texas proves that states
are willing to fight against federal overreach into the electric industry —
that’s a massive solvency deficit to the CP — That’s Fox 7 Austin
Reforming Disaster Recovery Act (RDRA)
CP Answers
2AC — RDRA CP Answers
2. No Solvency — CP responds to disasters after the fact—wetlands both

prevent and mitigate extreme weather—means storms still become more
common in the world of the CP-- that’s Endter-Wada
3. Moral Hazard DA — disaster relief funds encourage people to live in

vulnerable coastal areas — results in more deaths and less effective
infrastructure.
Shughart 11 - William F. Shughart II is the F. A. P. Barnard Distinguished Professor of
Economics at the University of Mississippi. (“DISASTER RELIEF AS BAD PUBLIC POLICY”,
the Independent Review, Spring 2011,
https://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_15_04_2_shughart.pdf)//ST
The Moral Hazard of Disaster Relief Hurricane Katrina is estimated to have caused more than
$200 billion in economic losses (Burby 2006, 171). The storm is blamed for 1,464 deaths in
Louisiana alone; it displaced 1.4 million people and destroyed approximately 217,000 homes and
18,000 businesses (Wells 2008, 204). The eventual public response was equally massive, but a
full accounting of the resources mobilized and dispatched to the storm’s impact area has yet to be
produced. We do know that more than sixteen thousand federal employees were deployed to the
Gulf Coast, that Congress initially appropriated $88 billion for relief, recovery, and rebuilding,
and that another $20 billion has been requested for future efforts. In addition, the Small Business
Administration has underwritten $5.8 billion in disaster loans, and the term of federal
unemployment insurance eligibility was extended for workers displaced by the storm (Chappell et
al. 2007, 346). Congress also passed legislation requested by President Bush two weeks after
Katrina made landfall, designating a “Gulf Opportunity Zone” to stimulate revitalization efforts
by providing temporary tax reductions, investment incentives, and regulatory relief to “formerly
booming neighborhoods that have lost their economic bases” to Mother Nature’s wrath. The term
moral hazard refers to the reduction in the cost of carelessness as an individual becomes
more fully insured (Eisenach, Higgins, and Shughart 1986). Health economist Mark Pauly
(1968) coined it to describe the behavior of people who have insured themselves against sickness
and injury. Because a large fraction of the costs of visiting the doctor, being hospitalized, or
buying prescription drugs is shifted to other policyholders, individuals who have purchased health
insurance tend to consume more of these goods and services than they would if they had to pay
the bills in full out of their own pockets. Hence, rather than relying on home remedies for simple
colds and minor injuries, they see a doctor or visit an emergency room. The fact that insured
patients pay less than the full cost of care also leads them to demand more extensive diagnostic
testing, more referrals to medical specialists, and more follow-up office visits than otherwise.
This insurance driven overutilization of scarce health-care resources raises the costs of medical
care for everyone, insured and uninsured alike. The same reasoning applies to relief for the
victims of Hurricane Katrina or any other natural disaster. Meeting the disaster victims’
immediate needs is one thing. Providing billions of tax dollars in the form of outright grants, low-
interest loans, and other aid intended to help finance a return to prestorm conditions is quite
another. Shifting a large portion of the cost of recovery to the taxpayers encourages people to
rebuild who would not have chosen to do so if they had to shoulder the full cost themselves. The
prospect of receiving federal and state reconstruction assistance after the next hurricane creates an
incentive for others to relocate their homes and businesses from inland areas of comparative
safety to vulnerable coastal areas . Therefore, over the past several decades “ the coastal
population growth rate was more than double the national growth rate ”; the percentage of
property under development or already developed and the value of real property in coastal zones
have risen pari passu (Ewing, Kruse, and Sutter 2007, 319). People who voluntarily put
themselves in harm’s way, taking on the additional risk of living and working in disaster-prone
areas, adequately insuring their lives and property against wind and flood—and paying actuarially
fair premiums that reflect the greater risk—have every right to expect prompt reimbursement for
the damages they have sustained and every right to rebuild if they wish. But both before and after
Katrina, public policies have significantly lowered the cost of populating areas vulnerable to
natural disaster. For example, after the widespread flooding along the Mississippi River in 1993,
FEMA initiated a “mitigation program,” buying up floodplain property to prevent the rebuilding
of homes and businesses that in due course would be swept away again. That program was one of
the bureaucratic casualties of FEMA’s absorption by the Department of Homeland Security
(Carey et al. 2005). Hoping to score political points with Hurricane Katrina’s victims,
Mississippi’s attorney general Jim Hood filed a lawsuit against three of the affected area’s largest
insurers—State Farm, Allstate, and Nationwide—seeking to force them to pay claims for flood
damage even on policies with riders that explicitly excluded that hazard (Simons 2005).14
Although the attorney general’s lawsuit has not yet been resolved, the threat it poses to private
contracting may have been mooted by Congress’s subsequent enactment of a $29 billion
hurricane relief package for the Gulf Coast, brokered by Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi,
who chaired the Senate’s Appropriations Committee. That package includes $11.5 billion in
nonrepayable “ community development block grants ” for Alabama, Florida, Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Texas, providing payments of up to $150,000 for homeowners who want to
rebuild, whether they were insured or not (Cogswell 2005; Hsu 2005). 14. Populist anger at
private insurance companies was more properly directed at FEMA, which manages the federal
flood insurance program. Since 1983, a program called “Write Your Own” has allowed private
insurers to issue federal flood insurance policies and collect policyholders’ premiums. The
premiums, minus an administrative fee, are then transferred to FEMA, which also pays all claims.
As of 2002, eighty-six private insurance companies participated in the program, accounting for 95
percent of all federal flood insurance policies then in force (Young 2008). 530 The expectation
of receiving publicly financed disaster relief may explain why 69 percent of the residents of
Mississippi’s Gulf Coast did not have federal flood insurance when Katrina hit (Chappell et al.
2007). If history is any guide, many of the uninsured property owners simply may have chosen to
ignore requirements to purchase such insurance (Kunreuther and Pauly 2006).15 In fact, rates of
participation in the federal flood insurance program have consistently been low since it was
created by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (Young 2008). The reluctance of large
numbers of owners of property in hazardous areas to insure against flood, even when required to
do so and even though the insurance is sold at subsidized rates,16 may reflect biases in risk
perception or myopia wherein “ people treat low-probability catastrophe events as if they are
zero-probability events ” (Ewing, Kruse, and Sutter 2007, 318). It is also true, however, that
federal flood insurance is mandatory only for property that is mortgaged and then only for the
outstanding balance on the property owner’s loan. Hence, banks and other lenders, not
property owners per se, are the principal beneficiaries of the flood insurance program as
currently structured. Moreover, because the program now collects only about $2 billion in
premiums every year, it is chronically insolvent (Young 2008). FEMA, with its premium
balances rapidly depleted by Katrina-related claims and its borrowing authority at the statutory
limit, was forced to suspend payments to flood insurance policyholders on November 16, 2005.
The payments were not resumed until the following March, when Congress raised the program’s
debt ceiling (Young 2008). Anticipating that publicly financed compensation for uninsured
casualty losses caused by a major natural disaster such as Katrina will be forthcoming in any
case, property owners in flood-prone regions have little incentive to participate in the insurance
program. Rushing to the aid of the victims of natural disaster is a very human impulse.17 The
lesson of moral hazard is simply that by lowering the costs of populating areas known to be at
risk from hurricanes, taxpayer-financed disaster relief has unintended consequences: more lives
lost and a bigger price tag the next time around . Moreover, if the residents of New Orleans
were to bear more of the cost of flooding, they would have stronger incentives to see that the tax
dollars flow ing to local levee boards and other agencies responsible for building and
maintaining the city’s defenses were actually spent in ways that reduced their vulnerability to
breach.
4. Reactionary Focus DA — Disaster recovery trades off with mitigation and

preparedness efforts—it’s unsustainable.
Weaver 15 – Christopher Weaver, Chief, Emergency Management and Aviation Office at
Bureau of Reclamation; Emergency Management Specialist at the Department of Health and
Human Services and the Department of the Interior. (“HAZARD MITIGATION: AN
ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO REACTIONARY FEDERAL DISASTER SPENDING”, A
capstone submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the
degree of Master of Arts in Public Management, May 2015,
https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/1774.2/39409/WEAVER-CAPSTONE-
2015.pdf?sequence=1)//ST
A significant increase in the frequency of disasters, as well as the costs associated with them , has
been noted in the U.S. Although the federal government has established programs to assist in
mitigating risks associated with disasters, the vast majority of federal disaster spending is
reactionary. The use of DRFs and supplemental appropriations to augment state, local, tribal,
and territorial (SLTT) government efforts have routinely focused on response efforts, with a
recent increase focus on recovery. Although these efforts are critical in reducing loss of life,
minimizing economic losses, and rebuilding communities, mitigating the risks associated with
disasters is the key to reducing federal expenditures going forward. Given the uncertain fiscal
climate that the U.S. continues to face, a focus on response and recovery measures will continue
to prove costly for U.S. taxpayers. Investing in hazard mitigation could have a long-term impact
on federal disaster spending. During the 1980s, the U.S. experienced an average of two severe
weather events that resulted in over $1 billion in damages annually.2 Over the last decade
however, this number has increased to an average of eight weather events resulting in over $1
billion in damages annually.3 This is not a phenomenon only recognized in the U.S., as severe
natural disasters have more than doubled worldwide since the mid-1980s. 4 Loss events in the
U.S. exceeded $50 billion five times from 2004 to 2013, something that never occurred in the
1980s and only happened three times from 1990 to 2003.5 Although every dollar spent on
mitigation efforts has been equated to a net benefit of $4, the U.S. federal government spent only
$10 billion on FEMA-based mitigation efforts from 2011 to 2013.6 7 This is in comparison to
the $136 billion that was spent on response and recovery efforts through Presidential Disaster
Declaration (PDD) and supplemental appropriations in the same period.8 Although federal
resources for response and recovery efforts are necessary, funding in these areas is growing at
an unsustainable rate given the stringent budget the federal government faces. Attempts to
reduce federal spending on disaster relief must be investigated. The scope of this problem
extends from federal to SLTT governments, private sector entities, non-governmental
organizations, and community based coalitions. Federal legislation directly impacts the above-
mentioned entities as disaster mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery relies on a whole
community approach. Decision on federal disaster relief spending directly impact how SLTT
governments prepare for disasters. State and local level efforts must find the balance between
reducing risks, while promoting economic interests. 9 Although all levels of government are
responsible for reducing the risks to their citizens’, this does not leave taxpayers free of
responsibility. Taxpayers foot the bill for utilization of federal disaster spending. The previously
mentioned $136 billion from 2011 to 2013 equated to roughly $400 per household annually.10
While federal spending can assist taxpayers in recuperating the roughly 80% of losses from
natural disasters that are not covered by insurance, the fact that disasters are increasing in
frequency and magnitude make this problematic.11 The scope of this problem will continue to
grow as federal efforts focus on response and recovery, with limited resources being spent
on hazard mitigation.
5. Delay DA — The CP’s federal disaster aid raises costs and delays.
--and links to federalism
Edwards 19 – Chris Edwards is the director of tax policy studies at Cato and editor of Down
sizingGovernment.org. Edwards was a senior economist on the congressional Joint Economic
Committee. (“Restoring Responsible Government by Cutting Federal Aid to the States”, CATO,
5/20/2019, https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/restoring-responsible-government-cutting-
federal-aid-states#2-politics-effect)//ST
12. Timeliness Dependence on federal aid causes delays in state and local projects such as
infrastructure. Governments may stall needed projects for years as they wait for federal grants to
be approved. And then after aid is received, aid‐related regulations can raise costs and delay
completion. Charleston, South Carolina, has long needed to dredge its seaport to accommodate
larger ships. Completion of the project is crucial to the state’s economy, but the project has
moved slowly while the state has been waiting for federal funding.156 The federal government
finally kicked in money for the dredging in 2017. A local news source reported: The Charleston
Harbor deepening project has been allocated $17.5 million in federal funding, enabling
construction to begin.… The project will deepen Charleston Harbor to 52 feet. It is estimated to
cost $509 million; the state already set aside $300 million for it. The federal dollars bring the full
amount of allocated funds to $317.5 million—roughly $192 million short of the total cost. The
federal dollars are crucial, though; construction could not begin this year without them. “The
significance of this funding for the timeline of our deepening project cannot be overstated—it is
tremendous news for Charleston,” S.C. State Ports Authority President and CEO Jim Newsome
said in a news release.157 If the federal government withdrew from seaport dredging entirely,
state and local governments would proceed with projects when needed with their own funding.
Other nations, such as the United Kingdom, have shown that seaports can be funded, operated,
and dredged privately without subsidies.158 But because much of U.S. infrastructure is
dependent on federal subsidies, upgrades and modernization can lag the privatized infrastructure
elsewhere. As another example, the government‐run U.S. air traffic control system lags behind
the privatized Canadian system on technology upgrades because of federal funding shortfalls and
bureaucratic mismanagement.159 Federal aid and related regulations can impede the response to
and recovery from natural disasters.160 FEMA’s main role is to hand out money, but the rules it
imposes can slow and even block state, local, and private disaster response efforts. During
Hurricane Katrina in 2005, federal supply efforts failed, communications broke down, and federal
political appointees were plagued by indecision and confusion about complex federal rules and
procedures. FEMA obstructed the relief efforts of charitable groups, businesses, doctors, and
others who rushed to New Orleans to help. A New York Times article during Katrina said there
was “uncertainty over who was in charge” and “incomprehensible red tape.”161 Today’s disaster‐
response system “fractionates responsibilities” across multiple governments, one expert
noted.162 Another noted that “during the past 50 years, Congress has created a legal edifice of
byzantine complexity to cope with natural disasters.”163 FEMA is an unneeded extra layer of
bureaucracy that impedes first responders, who mainly work for state and local governments.
Rebuilding after disasters can also be slowed as communities wait for federal funding. It
takes FEMA time to review the thousands of projects submitted to it for approval after storms.
Disaster expert James Fossett noted that FEMA “requires local governments to obtain advance
approval for each project and pay for each project up front before getting federal reimbursement
for their costs, which must be exhaustively documented. These lengthy, complex processes
inevitably delay recovery and make it difficult to spend money in a timely fashion.”164 In 2019,
$4 billion of federal aid for Texas to rebuild after a 2017 hurricane was delayed by the usual
bureaucratic slowness in Washington, which caused Texas politicians to be “up in arms,”
according to the Wall Street Journal. The Texas leaders were “increasingly worried that the delay
is leaving Gulf Coast communities still recovering from Hurricane Harvey vulnerable to more
destruction just as another hurricane season is set to begin.”165 But Texas has a massive $1.7
trillion economy, so the state could have easily afforded to fund the $4 billion of improvements
itself, rather than waiting for Washington to act.
Links to farming – farmers won’t plant in order to qualify for relief aid
Brasher and Nuelle 19 - Philip Brasher, Executive Editor at Agri-Pulse. Ben Nuelle,
Associate Editor at Agri-Pulse. (“Questions surround trade, disaster relief as farmers struggle to
plant”, Agri-Pulse, 5/29/2019, https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/12246-questions-surround-
trade-disaster-relief-as-farmers-struggle-to-plant)//ST
The Trump administration’s announcement of a new trade assistance package, plus congressional
agreement on disaster relief for prevented plantings, will put billions of dollars into the struggling
farm economy, but the prospective aid is injecting new uncertainty into the planting
decisions facing growers across the soggy Plains and Midwest. Agriculture Secretary Sonny
Perdue emphasized that the administration doesn't want the $16 billion new trade aid plan to
affect farmers’ decisions, but some economists, lawmakers and farmers themselves say that it
inevitably will. There also are still key unanswered questions, including the size of the new
Market Facilitation Program payments. What is known is that the new MFP payments will be
based on county rates, which will be calculated according to the trade damage USDA estimates
each county has suffered, and that payments will be limited to farmers’ 2019 planted acreage.
Farmers who don’t get acreage planted can file prevented planting claims on their crop insurance,
and they could receive additional help in the form of a disaster relief payment. A provision added
to the disaster bill before the Senate voted on it last week would provide payments for prevented
plantings. The combination of crop insurance benefits and disaster relief could not exceed 90
percent of the planned crop’s value. The promises of trade assistance and disaster relief come as
many farmers are weighing whether to give up on planting corn or to plant soybeans or some
other crop — or to give up on planting entirely . The potential government payments, including
the restriction of MFP payments to planted acreage, is likely figuring into some growers’
decisions. “I know USDA doesn't want to affect farmers' decisions, but what I can see happening
here is that people may give up on corn and 'mud' a bunch of soybeans in just to qualify for the
MFP,” said Scott VanderWal, a farmer in eastern South Dakota who is vice president of the
American Farm Bureau Federation. “That's possibly a bad decision as yields could be very poor,
and we don't really need more acres of beans right now due to record carryout levels anyway.” As
of Sunday, only 58 percent of the nation's projected corn acreage had been planted, up from 49
percent the week before, according to USDA. On average over the past five years, 90 percent of
the corn has been planted at this point. Just 25 percent of South Dakota's expected corn crop, 22
percent of Indiana's and Ohio's, and 35 percent of Illinois' were seeded as of Sunday. Indiana
Corn Growers President Sarah Delbecq, who farms in northeast Indiana near Auburn, said the
trade package raised new questions for farmers. “I think the initial reaction was that this was
introducing another set of variables into the equation.” The revised MFP “doesn’t look like
anything we’ve seen before.” VanderWal said Tuesday he had only planted 10 percent of the corn
acreage he had planned this spring and none of the soybeans. “Our best fields have groundwater
coming up through the surface so they are probably lost already,” he said. The planting restriction
on the new MFP payments makes some growers feel “like they are being kicked while they are
down,” VanderWal said. “They were looking at negative margins in many cases to start with,
then it started to look like the majority of their acres won’t get planted, and they don’t qualify for
the MFP program.” University of Illinois economist Scott Irwin said it’s difficult for farmers to
know what they should do given the uncertainty of how big the MFP payment could be and
whether USDA will relent on restricting the payments to planted acreage. But he also says the
disaster aid package that passed the Senate last week amounts to a “backdoor” MFP payment for
prevented planting acres. In the more recent past, farmers who were unable to plant an insured
crop had no federal relief other than their insurance benefits. “I think it is the clear intention of
Congress … to equalize trade mitigation payments between planted and prevent plant acres,”
Irwin said of the disaster relief bill. The disaster bill is the results of months of negotiations
between congressional Democrats and Republicans and the White House. There is little doubt
that it will become law, but it's not likely to get signed by President Donald Trump until next
week. The Senate passed the bill, 85-8, last Thursday but it still needs final approval from the
House. On Friday and again on Tuesday, House Democratic leaders tried to get the bill passed by
voice vote, but GOP conservatives blocked action on the measure both days. Putting a bill to a
voice vote during a pro forma session requires unanimous consent. House Agriculture Chairman
Collin Peterson, D-Minn., told Agri-Pulse that he tried unsuccessfully to persuade Perdue and
Deputy Agriculture Secretary Steve Censky to delay announcement of the trade package for a
couple of weeks so that it didn’t factor into growers’ decisions. The announcement of a revised
new MFP is “going to affect planting more than if they had used the program they did last year,”
said Peterson. The original MFP payments were based on actual 2018 production, not planted
acres.
Links to federalism -- increasing federal disaster aid funding crowds out state
efforts—and makes preparation and mitigation worse
Edwards 19 – Chris Edwards is the director of tax policy studies at Cato and editor of Down
sizingGovernment.org. Edwards was a senior economist on the congressional Joint Economic
Committee. (“Restoring Responsible Government by Cutting Federal Aid to the States”, CATO,
5/20/2019, https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/restoring-responsible-government-cutting-
federal-aid-states#2-politics-effect)//ST
As a last example, increasing federal aid for natural disasters may be crowding out state, local,
and private efforts. After the 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake, U.S. House and Senate
reports concluded that the availability of federal aid had encouraged state and local governments
to neglect disaster preparation and mitigation .209 Around the same time, a report from Vice
President Al Gore’s “reinventing government” initiative warned that “the ready availability of
federal funds may actually contribute to disaster losses by reducing incentives for hazard
mitigation and preparedness.”210 In the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Florida governor Jeb
Bush warned against increasing federal intervention. He said, “As the governor of a state that has
been hit by seven hurricanes and two tropical storms in the past 13 months, I can say with
certainty that federalizing emergency response to catastrophic events would be a disaster as bad
as Hurricane Katrina.”211 And, he said, “if you federalize, all the innovation, creativity and
knowledge at the local level would subside .”212 When states need help during natural
disasters, a better alternative than federal aid is aid from other states. Indeed, the states do help
each other with manpower and resources under the Emergency Management Assistance Compact
(EMAC), which expedites the legal process of mutual aid. Local governments also share police
and fire assets during emergencies, and electric utilities across the nation routinely aid one
another with crews and equipment after storms. The EMAC is one of more than 200 interstate
compacts in place today.213 When tackling problems that affect multiple states, policymakers
should consider state cooperation first before they call for a top‐down imposition from
Washington. As Governor Bush noted, when the federal government gets involved, it displaces
the innovation, creativity, and knowledge that come with nonfederal efforts.
RDRA increases requirements for state disaster management – links to

federalism
NLIHC 19 – The National Low Income Housing Coalition is dedicated solely to achieving
socially just public policy that ensures people with the lowest incomes in the United States have
affordable and decent homes. (“NLIHC Lauds the Approval of the ‘Reforming Disaster Recovery
Act of 2019’”, National Low Income Housing Coalition, 11/18/2019,
https://nlihc.org/news/nlihc-lauds-approval-reforming-disaster-recovery-act-2019)//ST
The Reforming Disaster Recovery Act, introduced by Representatives Al Green (D-TX) and Ann
Wagner (R-MO), permanently authorizes the Community Development Block Grant-Disaster
Recovery (CDBG-DR) program, the federal government’s primary long-term disaster recovery
program that provides states and communities with the flexible resources needed to rebuild
affordable housing and infrastructure after a disaster. The bill also establishes important
safeguards and tools to help ensure federal disaster recovery and rebuilding efforts reach all
impacted households, including those with the lowest incomes who are often the hardest-hit by
disasters and have the fewest resources to recover. The bill includes measures to help ensure
scarce resources are available to low-income survivors and communities that face the greatest
recovery needs. It requires states to allocate resources equitably between housing and
infrastructure priorities and among homeowners, renters, and people experiencing homelessness.
The bill maintains the requirement that 70% of funds must benefit low - and moderate-income
communities and sets clearer direction to HUD on when it can adjust this requirement.
2AC — Community Disaster Relief Fails
Can’t solve community aid -- doesn’t change FEMA requirements, harming
low-income disaster survivors
Mickelson et al 20 - SARAH MICKELSON, NLIHC Senior Policy Director. NOAH
PATTON, NLIHC Housing Policy Analyst. ADAM GORDON, Fair Share Housing Associate
Director. DAVID RAMMLER, Fair Share Housing Consulting Attorney (“FIXING AMERICA’S
BROKEN DISASTER HOUSING RECOVERY SYSTEM”, Disaster Housing Recovery
Coalition , National Low Income Housing Coalition, 7/28/2020,
https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/Fixing-Americas-Broken-Disaster-Housing-Recovery-
System_P1.pdf?utm_source=NLIHC+All+Subscribers&utm_campaign=e86e18183d-
memo_040521&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e090383b5e-e86e18183d-
293342806&ct=t(memo_040521))//ST
Title documentation requirements have barred low-income survivors from FEMA assistance.
FEMA consistently requires disaster survivors to provide title documentation in order to
prove eligibility for the agency’s IA program and other recovery aid, despite the fact that its
guidance on individual and household assistance specifically allows alternative documentation of
ownership.22 Low-income homeowners , residents of manufactured housing, renters without
written leases, and other individuals frequently lack such documentation or the ability to quickly
procure proper documents. This is an issue that has impacted low-income disaster survivors since
at least 1995, but FEMA has done little to resolve this issue . Following Hurricane Maria,
FEMA denied assistance to at least 77,000 survivors due to title documentation issues. FEMA’s
Office of Chief Counsel worked closely with DHRC members Ayuda Legal Huracan Maria,
Fundación Fondo de Accesso a la Justicia, and Servicios Legales de Puerto Rico to prepare a
“sworn statement” that would allow Puerto Rican homeowners without title documents to prove
ownership of their homes so that they can receive the assistance to which they are entitled. Since
that time, however, FEMA has refused to provide the sworn statement to survivors or even to
make it available on FEMA’s website, social media, or at Disaster Recovery Centers, greatly
limiting the ability of survivors to make use of this new resource. FEMA has stated to
congressional offices that it is not allowed to share such documents, unless they have been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget, but FEMA has not taken sufficient steps to
get the appropriate approval. FEMA staff have indicated that rather than formally adopting a
sworn statement, the agency may instead simply refuse to create such documents after future
disasters. These same issues occurred in North Carolina after Hurricane Florence and in
California after the 2017 and 2018 wildfire seasons. In North Carolina and other parts of the
American South, rural , historically African American communities often do not use title
systems, implementing a system like the one used in Puerto Rico. In California, title issues
largely impacted applications for aid by mobile-home-park residents. A large percentage of
mobile-home owners, often farm workers or other low-income workers , do not have title to
their homes. In each case, FEMA refused to modify its programs to accommodate the situation,
denying eligible candidates for aid instead. Residents of manufactured housing frequently do not
have access to proper or updated title documentation for their homes: tracking former owners can
be challenging; manufacturers often fail to provide title when the home is delivered; mobile-home
parks that control title documents frequently fail to keep records updated; and residents often are
victims of fraud and rent-to-own schemes related to title and registration and do not have proper
documentation. These issues are prevalent in rural communities , where manufactured housing
is a common source of affordable housing. While FEMA has worked with advocates to create
“sworn statements” for homeowners, the agency has not created similar forms for residents of
manufactured housing.
National Climate Bank CP Answers
2AC — National Climate Bank CP Answers
2. Risk DA — Climate bank adds increased risk without increased

investment.
Bydlak 15, Jonathan Bydlak, founder and president of the Institute to Reduce Spending and the
Coalition to Reduce Spending, 7-22-2015, ""Green Banks" Will Drown in the Red," Fee,
https://fee.org/articles/green-banks-are-destined-to-drown-in-the-red, Jtong
Free marketers rightly doubt whether public funds should be used to finance private startups. But
regardless of where one stands in that debate, the states’ struggles serve as a valuable testing
ground for future investments.
The State of Connecticut operates under a fairly significant budget deficit. California has been
calculating its budgets without taking unfunded pension liabilities into account, and it’s gambling
with its ability to service its debt. New York continues to live beyond its means. Rhode Island’s
newest budget does little to rehabilitate its deficit spending addiction, and, despite having a
balanced budget clause in its state constitution, Hawaii has a pattern of operating at a deficit.
In fact, a state solvency report released by the Mercatus Center has each of these five states
ranked in the bottom third of the country, with their solvency described as either “low” or “poor.”
This all raises the question of whether these governments are able to find sound investment
opportunities in the first place. Rhode Island couldn’t even identify a bad investment when
baseball legend Curt Schilling wanted $75 million to make video games about something other
than baseball!
Recently, though, there have been calls to extend the struggling green banking system to the
federal level. Mark Muro and Reed Hundt at the Brookings Institute argued in favor of federal
action in support of green banks. Somewhat paradoxically, they assert that demand for green
banking institutions and the types of companies they finance is so strong that the existing state-
based green banks cannot muster enough capital to meet demand.
Wherever there is potential for profit and a sound business plan, lending institutions are likely to
be found, willing to relinquish a little capital for a consistent and reasonable rate of return. So
where are the private lenders and other investment firms who have taken notice and are
competing for the opportunity to provide loans to such highly sought-after companies and
products?
Even assuming that there is demand for green banking services, recent experience shows that a
federally-subsidized system would likely lead to inefficiency, favor trading, and failure. For
instance, the Department of Energy Loan Program is designed to facilitate and aid clean energy
startup companies. Its portfolio exceeds $30 billion, but following a series of bad investments like
Solyndra, Inc., new loan guarantees have been few and far between. The program has already
lost over $700 million.
Even the rosiest measurements do not show particularly exciting returns from this system. The
Department of Energy itself estimates that over the lifetime of the loans it’s guaranteed, there
exists the potential to see $5 billion in profit. However, those estimates also depend on the
peculiar accounting methods the DoE itself employs.
This problem is apparent in other government sectors. For instance, determining how much profit
the federal government makes off of student loans depends on who is asked. Some say none,
while others say it’s in the billions. Gauging the economic impact or solvency of government
programs is notoriously difficult, and different methods can yield what look like very different
results. Add to that the consistently uncertain nature of the energy market, and profits are hardly
guaranteed.
Examples abound of wasteful federal spending, and the growing green technology and renewable
energy industry is no exception. The DoE Loan Program has already faced issues that go well
beyond Solyndra: Abound Solar, a Colorado-based solar panel manufacturer, was given a $400
million DoE loan guarantee, only to later file for bankruptcy, potentially costing taxpayers $60
million. The Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, a 175,000 unit heliostat array in
California, received a $1.6 billion federal loan and, because it failed to produce the amount of
power estimated, was forced to later request more than $500 million in federal grants from the
Treasury Department. A recent Taxpayers Protection Alliance study showed that risky
investments in heavily subsidized solar energy could even lead to a bubble similar to the
disastrous 2008 housing bubble.
Those who want to expand the government’s role in green banking likely want to see more clean
and renewable energy reach the consumer market, and a lot of people probably applaud that goal
— but the real question is whether the proposed means can reliably achieve that end . A wise
manager with a solid business plan can find investors who will willingly take a chance.
Considering the struggles of several states, trusting the federal government to build an even
bigger system would exponentially increase that risk .
In contrast, the market offers opportunity to entrepreneurs in the green technology and renewable
energy industries. For instance, GreatPoint Energy, a company specializing in clean coal,
successfully went the route that other companies do: Design a product or service, find investors,
and compete in the marketplace.
SolarCity, a California-based and publicly traded corporation of over 2,500 employees, entered
the industry before many government loan programs were established. Thanks to a sound
business model and subsequent horizontal and vertical expansion, it has become a leader in the
industry. SolarCity’s success, however, cannot be touted by the Department of Energy’s Loan
Program, which declined to invest in the company, leading SolarCity to try — and succeed — in
finding private investment.
If GreatPoint or SolarCity had failed, only those who willingly participated in the startup would
suffer the consequences. The issue with green banking — and indeed government
“investments” more generally — is that taxpayers are not party to the negotiations but are
the ones ultimately on the hook for failures.
In absolute terms, these billions of dollars are a lot of money. But in the grand scheme of
government spending, the amount of money invested in green banks and renewable energy
production is relatively small. If Social Security is the Atlantic Ocean, and wasteful defense
appropriations are the Mediterranean, then green energy investments fall somewhere in the range
of the Y-40 pool: easily measurable but certainly not insignificant.
Your odds of drowning may be smaller in the pool than the ocean, but that doesn’t make the
drowning itself any more pleasant. The federal government is already under water; adding
new liabilities on the hope that politicians can guess the future of energy is merely a step
towards the deep end, not the ladder out.
3. No Solvency — climate bank incentives fail.

Tice 21, Paul H. Tice, Adjunct Professor of Finance at the Leonard N. Stern School of Business
at New York University, 5-23-2021, "Opinion," WSJ, https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trouble-
with-bidens-green-bank-11621785877, Jtong
As lawmakers debate the size and scope of President Biden’s proposed infrastructure-related
stimulus plan, not enough attention is being paid to some of the details. Consider the roughly 1%
of the $2.3 trillion spending package designated to create a “Clean Energy and Sustainability
Accelerator,” which would “mobilize private investment” in the “clean energy economy.”
Cut through the greenspeak, and the administration is proposing to establish a bank with a direct
line to the U.S. Treasury that would serve as a permanent financing conduit channeling tax
money to support and subsidize politically favored clean energy projects.
Competing bills are already working their way through both houses of Congress to set up such a
new federal entity, variously referred to as a “United States Green Bank” and a “National Climate
Bank.” Since Democratic lawmakers are effectively negotiating with themselves, the bidding has
started higher than the White House’s request—$50 billion up front and $100 billion over time
under one Senate version. The potential cost to the American public of such a green government
spigot could easily increase nearly 40-fold over the $27 billion currently penciled into Mr.
Biden’s American Jobs Plan.
The argument for a federal green bank is flawed in many respects. For one, there is a truth-in-
advertising problem. Banks are conservatively managed, highly regulated financial institutions
that mainly engage in deposit-taking on the liability side and lending on the asset side of the
balance sheet—neither of which would be central to the business mix of a federal green bank.
Rather, in the Democrats’ imagining, a federal green bank’s core capital-providing business
would include such high-risk activities as taking noncontrolling private-equity stakes in green
energy ventures and funding research on new breakthrough clean technologies.
The green bank’s investment decision-making would be largely driven by noncommercial,
political factors, including the requirement that 40% of capital flows be directed toward
“disadvantaged communities facing climate impacts” and the need for bank-financed projects to
pay prevailing union wage rates.
Providing grants for building weatherization and solar-panel installation, purchasing emissions-
reducing equipment outright, paying regulated electric utilities to shut down coal-fired power
plants immediately, and accepting philanthropic donations from green-minded billionaires would
also form part of the mandate.
It is unlikely that a national climate bank would provide any meaningful incentives for
incremental third-party private-sector capital for green investments, given the lack of
underwriting expertise of a new, politically driven financial institution . Most of the bank’s
senior managers, directors and advisers wouldn’t be required to have any banking, lending or
investment experience; labor, environmental and nonprofit credentials would rank higher on the
qualification list. As such, there would be no “halo effect” for bank-supported green projects as is
often seen with superpriority lending by the World Bank and other supranational and sovereign
credit agencies.
And while a federal green bank wouldn’t enjoy the full-faith-and-credit backing of the U.S.
government, being equity capitalized by the U.S. Treasury and having the secretary serve as
chairman would create a moral hazard for this nonguaranteed quasifederal agency—especially if
the bank were to issue debt in its own name, which would appear to be the plan. In fact, most of
the “private capital” that would be catalyzed by a federal green bank would comprise bank
borrowings to leverage its equity capital base by roughly seven to eight times, implying a nearly
$1 trillion balance sheet within 10 years.
Climate bank links to federalism – bad for state and local governments
Tice 21, Paul H. Tice, Adjunct Professor of Finance at the Leonard N. Stern School of Business
at New York University, 5-23-2021, "Opinion," WSJ, https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trouble-
with-bidens-green-bank-11621785877, Jtong
The combination of weak underwriting standards and an implicit U.S. government guarantee
should call to mind the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage bailouts during the 2008-09
financial crisis.
Contingent green bank liabilities would also become a growing problem for state and local
governments given the Democratic vision of a national climate bank as the linchpin for a new
federalist system of green banks across the country—building on the 21 already operating in 15
states and the District of Columbia.
Finally, there is no pressing financial market gap that needs to be filled by a new federal green
bank. The sustainable or ESG (environmental-social-governance) investment movement
sweeping Wall Street—spurred on by global financial regulators—is already driving a significant
amount of capital toward green and renewable projects of all sizes and levels of commercial and
technological development.
In 2020, capital flows into sustainable funds (most with an environmental bent) totaled some
$350 billion, while global commercial bank lending to renewable energy projects totaled roughly
$100 billion. Since 2007 more than $1 trillion of green bonds have been issued by corporate,
municipal and sovereign borrowers, with the institutional market for such bonds growing at an
average annual rate of about 95%.
With the Federal Reserve suppressing interest rates for the foreseeable future, borrowing costs are
now at historic lows, providing a significant boost to the underlying economics of any green
investment project. In sum, there is no shortage of private capital for economically sound clean
energy projects, and thus no market need for a federal green bank.
1AR — No Solvency
Climate bank doesn’t solve – just more bureaucracy
Onyekwelu 17, Chijioke Onyekwelu, Doctoral Candidate at University of Washington
Michael G. Foster School of Business, 7-28-2017, "Could the U.S. benefit from a national green
bank?," GreenBiz, https://www.greenbiz.com/article/could-us-benefit-national-green-bank, Jtong
Legislators have expressed skepticism about whether a green bank requires the creation of more
government bureaucracy.
Fast-forward to July 2016. Van Hollen was again at the forefront of the campaign to get the act to
sail through Congress with the introduction of H.R. 5802, the United States Green Bank Act of
2016. In September, Murphy introduced a companion bill to the Senate (S. 3382).
Late last month, Esty and Murphy, with co-sponsors from across the country, reintroduced H.R.
2995 and S. 1406, The Green Bank Act of 2017, an updated version of the 2014 and 2016
proposals.
Negotiation
This bank initially was conceived as a national bank with an initial capitalization of $10 billion
and a mandate to underwrite and provide a comprehensive range of financing support to
qualifying clean-energy projects and clean-energy-financing institutions. A number of changes
have since taken place which redefine the objectives of the bank, limit the mechanisms available
to it and set the level of risk it can underwrite.
A key change made in 2016 took away the bank’s ability to directly finance projects. Instead of
that, the bank would be able to lend only to state or municipal green banks or clean-energy-
financing authorities that meet certain criteria. These local institutions would then directly
underwrite qualifying projects.
Another major change involved adjusting the lending limits to state clean-energy-financing
authorities. Previously the limit to individual institutions capped at $500 million, the current bill
seeks to peg this lending at 20 percent of the initial funding requirements of the institutions.
The most recent version of the legislation also removes nuclear-energy projects from the
definition of "Qualified Clean Energy Projects" that are eligible for funding.
Some of these changes reflect the constantly changing clean-energy-financing landscape and the
evolving role of the green banks in soliciting and leveraging private capital. In 2009, when the
idea originally was conceived, just one state had a green bank. Now, about eight such institutions
exist across the country. Notable success stories have taken place in Connecticut and New York.
The bank would only be able to lend to state or municipal green banks or clean-energy-financing
authorities that meet certain criteria. However, stakeholders may be getting worried about the
delays in the passage of this critical legislation. They also may be concerned that the eventual
impact of the act on the initial objectives of job creation and growth might be limited.
Bureaucracy bad – 7 reasons
Regan 15, Richard Regan, Senior Diversity and Inclusion Consultant at the Internal Revenue
Service, 1-19-2015, "9 Reasons Why We Should Kill the Bureaucracy," GovLoop,
https://www.govloop.com/community/blog/9-reasons-kill-bureaucracy/
Management expert Gary Hamel says it is time we kill the bureaucracy. He recommends a
new approach called Management 2.0 where people move from guardians and gatekeepers
to joiners and enablers.
Over Management
Some of us work in suffocating bureaucracies of multiple management layers. It is difficult to get
our high level bosses to listen to us because they are too busy managing other managers.
Creates Friction
Due to these multiple layers of management, our ideas and suggestion have to run a gauntlet of
multiple decision making levels which stymie innovation and creativity.
Distorts Decisions
Bureaucracies concentrate power in senior executives who suffer from functional fixedness bias.
This type of bias limits the use of something only in the way it is traditionally used . You
probably have heard this bias expressed in the phrase, “That is not the way we do things
around here.”
Misallocates Power
Bureaucracies tend to award political savvy. As a result, those who know how to play the game
are often promoted over those who are more capable. Style over substance rules the day in
these kinds of organizations.
Discourages Dissent
Bureaucracies create power structures and relationships that discourage dissent. People are often
afraid to speak up in this type of work environment particularly if it involves bad news. The
emperor has no clothes in a bureaucracy.
Misdirects Competition
Bureaucracies force their members to look at the wrong scoreboard. Since they know that
promotions, career advancement and ideas are based on political advantage, employees
embrace a “look after number 1” mindset. Colleagues end up competing against each other
as teamwork, collaboration, and coordination fall by the wayside.
Thwarts Innovation
Bureaucracies overvalue experience and undervalue unconventional thinking from newcomers
and external sources. Self-preservation takes over in bureaucracies by creating blind spots
that miss opportunities for improvement.
Aff Answers vs. Warming CPs
National Climate Bank CP
2AC — National Climate Bank CP Answers
1. Carbon Bonb DA — disturbed wetlands immediately release vast carbon
stores from vegetation and soil. That happens before a climate bank could
generate investment, spur innovation, and successfully implement tech. That
overwhelms their models resulting in 7-degree nightmare scenarios. That’s
Moomaw and Pearce.
2. Permute: Do Both.
A. Shields Farming DA link — bank investments help farmers offset costs of

increased regulation and replace lost private investment.
B. Shield Politics DA link — national bank creation steals all the attention.
Perm gets perceived as a balanced, bipartisan solution.
3. No Solvency and Turn — a bank won’t spur investment because it’s

already high now, but the bank’s risky, politically-driven investments
collapse the industry.
Tice 21 — Paul H. Tice, Adjunct Professor of Finance at the Stern School of Business at New
York University, Senior Investment Manager at Schroder Investment Management—an asset
management company, former Senior Managing Director and Head of the Energy Capital Group
at U.S. Capital Advisors—a financial services firm, holds an M.B.A. in Finance from New York
University, 2021 (“The Trouble with Biden’s ‘Green Bank,’” Wall Street Journal, May 23rd,
Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via ProQuest)
Competing bills are already working their way through both houses of Congress to set up such a
new federal entity, variously referred to as a "United States Green Bank" and a "National Climate
Bank." Since Democratic lawmakers are effectively negotiating with themselves, the bidding has
started higher than the White House's request -- $50 billion up front and $100 billion over time
under one Senate version. The potential cost to the American public of such a green government
spigot could easily increase nearly 40-fold over the $27 billion currently penciled into Mr.
Biden's American Jobs Plan.
The argument for a federal green bank is flawed in many respects. For one, there is a truth-in-
advertising problem. Banks are conservatively managed, highly regulated financial institutions
that mainly engage in deposit-taking on the liability side and lending on the asset side of the
balance sheet -- neither of which would be central to the business mix of a federal green bank.
Rather, in the Democrats' imagining, a federal green bank's core capital-providing business would
include such high-risk activities as taking noncontrolling private-equity stakes in green energy
ventures and funding research on new breakthrough clean technologies.
The green bank's investment decision-making would be largely driven by noncommercial,
political factors, including the requirement that 40% of capital flows be directed toward
"disadvantaged communities facing climate impacts" and the need for bank-financed projects to
pay prevailing union wage rates.
Providing grants for building weatherization and solar-panel installation, purchasing emissions-
reducing equipment outright, paying regulated electric utilities to shut down coal-fired power
plants immediately, and accepting philanthropic donations from green-minded billionaires would
also form part of the mandate.
It is unlikely that a national climate bank would provide any meaningful incentives for
incremental third-party private-sector capital for green investments, given the lack of
underwriting expertise of a new, politically driven financial institution. Most of the bank's senior
managers, directors and advisers wouldn't be required to have any banking, lending or investment
experience; labor, environmental and nonprofit credentials would rank higher on the qualification
list. As such, there would be no "halo effect" for bank-supported green projects as is often seen
with superpriority lending by the World Bank and other supranational and sovereign credit
agencies.
And while a federal green bank wouldn't enjoy the full-faith-and-credit backing of the U.S.
government, being equity capitalized by the U.S. Treasury and having the secretary serve as
chairman would create a moral hazard for this nonguaranteed quasifederal agency -- especially if
the bank were to issue debt in its own name, which would appear to be the plan. In fact, most of
the "private capital" that would be catalyzed by a federal green bank would comprise bank
borrowings to leverage its equity capital base by roughly seven to eight times, implying a nearly
$1 trillion balance sheet within 10 years.
The combination of weak underwriting standards and an implicit U.S. government guarantee
should call to mind the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage bailouts during the 2008-09
financial crisis.
Contingent green bank liabilities would also become a growing problem for state and local
governments given the Democratic vision of a national climate bank as the linchpin for a new
federalist system of green banks across the country -- building on the 21 already operating in 15
states and the District of Columbia.
Finally, there is no pressing financial market gap that needs to be filled by a new federal green
bank. The sustainable or ESG (environmental-social-governance) investment movement
sweeping Wall Street -- spurred on by global financial regulators -- is already driving a
significant amount of capital toward green and renewable projects of all sizes and levels of
commercial and technological development.
In 2020, capital flows into sustainable funds (most with an environmental bent) totaled some
$350 billion, while global commercial bank lending to renewable energy projects totaled roughly
$100 billion. Since 2007 more than $1 trillion of green bonds have been issued by corporate,
municipal and sovereign borrowers, with the institutional market for such bonds growing at an
average annual rate of about 95%.
With the Federal Reserve suppressing interest rates for the foreseeable future, borrowing costs are
now at historic lows, providing a significant boost to the underlying economics of any green
investment project. In sum, there is no shortage of private capital for economically sound clean
energy projects, and thus no market need for a federal green bank.
But economic and financial arguments are beside the point when it comes to the politics of
climate change. If the past is any guide, a national climate bank is likely to be stapled to broader
infrastructure legislation and passed through reconciliation with only Democratic support.
Eventually, the green bank bill will come due for the American people.
4. Tech Can’t Solve — tech-centric climate remedies overpromise and kills

sense of urgency for regulations like the plan. Prefer nuanced historical analysis.
Duncan McLaren & Nils Markusson 20 — [Duncan McLaren, Dr. and Nils Markusson,
Senior lecturer at Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK;
Published: 04-20-2020; "The co-evolution of technological promises, modelling, policies and
climate change targets", Nature, https://scihub.se/https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-
0740-1, Accessed: 7-7-2021]
The sequence set out above highlights a series of technological promises in which parameters and
capabilities were at least as much ‘constructed’ by models and modellers as by engineers and
scientists25, which then reshaped political aspirations as much as being elicited by them. This
analysis directs attention to the ways in which targets have been reframed or reconstructed over
time. Rather than seeing this as purely a logical consequence of better information and growing
technical capabilities to link climate outcomes and causes, we understand it as co-evolution
between policy and politics, modelling and science-based technological promises. The
technological promises have conditioned, and been conditioned by, the contemporary models,
policies and politics: each element thus influencing the subsequent evolution of the others and
vice versa. In this process, the ‘evolutionary fitness’ of each technological promise is less a
product of its (potential) climate impact than a measure of how well it can be modelled, and how
well it matches the extant framings of climate policy. Each technological promise has
subsequently become embedded in the models despite limited material delivery at the global
scale, in each case transitioning from being an innovative option that promised to enable a
cheaper pathway to meet climate targets, to being an unavoidable component of climate action as
other contributions were delayed. Critically, in this process, each technological promise has
enabled a continued politics of prevarication and inadequate action by raising expectations of
more effective policy options becoming available in the future, in turn justifying existing limited
and gradualist policy choices and thus diminishing the perceived urgency of deploying costly and
unpopular, but better understood and tested, options for policy in the short term. Prevarication is
not necessarily intentional—promises might be made in good faith and the delaying effects may
only become perceptible with hindsight. But we do fear that each promise has, to some degree,
fed systemic ‘moral corruption’26 in which current elites are enabled to pursue self-serving
pathways while passing off risk to vulnerable people in the future and in the Global South. This
dynamic also interacts repeatedly with more durable political regimes27. In this respect, each
technological promise, and its articulation in modelling and so on, reflected the dominant
neoliberal ideology of the entire period in which market-based and technological innovations that
could sustain economic growth were actively preferred over measures that might have threatened
liberal individualism, markets and consumerism, or required early scrapping of equipment or
infrastructure. That for the most part these policies promised future action, rather than immediate
sacrifice, clearly made them more palatable to both industry and politicians. The scene was set for
this in the earliest phase with fears of economically costly interventions and President Bush’s
admonition to the Rio Earth summit that “the American way of life is not up for negotiation”28.
And particularly in the earlier phases, several technological promises—such as nuclear power and
fuel switching—did double duty, both maintaining fossil extractivism and reinforcing a transition
away from labour-constrained sources of energy (notably coal) to capital-constrained forms (gas
and nuclear)29. In these ways, technological promises were at least as responsible for the
formulation of targets, as they were a product of those target framings. It would be less worrying
if the delays could be understood merely as slowness in practical delivery of technological
innovations. But even the earliest promises have materialized at best in limited or geographically
patchy forms. Carbon removals by sinks have perhaps even gone backwards with net releases
from land-use today. Nuclear power has been delivered in only a handful of countries, shown
little growth for decades and remains contentious almost everywhere. Yet promises of future
emissions cuts through nuclear power, both fission and fusion, remain current in the UK and
elsewhere, discouraging investments in efficiency. Additionally, actual efficiency gains have
been widely eroded by the growth they have enabled while many opportunities have remained
untaken6 , and cultural expectations of energy supply and services have expanded30. Fuel
switching has similarly helped some countries reduce emissions intensities but globally has
tended to take the form of additional capacity rather than replacement, while sustaining the fossil
economy in a shift to natural gas. Finally, CCS and BECCS remain negligible in practice and
largely diverted into enhanced oil recovery, while other negative emissions techniques remain
unproven. Some may respond nonetheless that continued delays mean more inventive ways of
meeting our targets will be required. But in the current regime, each such new technique or
promise not only competes with existing ideas (in research funding and in markets as much as in
cost-optimizing models), but also downplays any sense of urgency. Moreover, this process also
enables the repeated deferral of political deadlines for climate action, which may, in turn,
undermine societal commitment to meaningful responses31. It is perhaps commonplace that
politicians (and others) prefer to invoke technological fixes rather than systemic change, whatever
the challenge. Our concern is not only that politicians exaggerate technological promises to
defuse pressure for other climate action, but also with the ways in which such technological
promises are constructed in good faith by scientists and modellers yet act to reframe or redefine
targets in ways that delay action. Most importantly, we suggest this history reveals that the
contemporary climate engineering promises we began with are nothing unique. The exaggerated
promise of BECCS—in which a largely imaginary technology with poorly understood impacts
and resource demands was incorporated into models pushed to demonstrate the achievability of
450 ppm (or 2 °C) but, in turn, enabled policy pathways based not only on high and ultimately
unsustainable levels of BECCS promises but also on lowered mitigation rates18—was not a one-
off problem corrected by sound science, but a symptom of a chronic problem for climate policy.
The promises of geoengineering technologies, through their apparent capacity to reverse
concentrations or impacts, may more obviously enable prevarication, but conventional mitigation
technologies are not exempt from the problem: layers of past unredeemed technological promises
have become sedimented in climate pathway models. Contemporary imaginaries may prove just
as unrealizable as the previous generations of promises, and there is no logical end to the set of
possible technological promises that could be added to ‘resolve’ the models.
5. No Politics Net-Benefit — CP causes massive congressional backlash while
killing climate momentum.
MICHAEL GRUNWALD 06-10 Michael Grunwald, Michael Grunwald is a senior staff
writer for POLITICO Magazine and editor-at-large of The Agenda. Before joining POLITICO in
November 2014, Mike was a staff writer for The Boston Globe, a national staff writer for The
Washington Post and a senior national correspondent for Time magazine. He has won the George
Polk Award for national reporting, the Worth Bingham Prize for investigative reporting and many
other journalism honors. He is also the best-selling author of “The New New Deal: The Hidden
Story of Change in the Obama Era” (Simon & Schuster, 2012) and “The Swamp: The Everglades,
Florida, and the Politics of Paradise” (Simon & Schuster, 2006). “Biden pitched a bold climate
vision. He may be watching it die in Congress.” Politico, June 10, 2021. Accessed 7/10/21.
Nobody doubts that Bidenideally wants an infrastructure bill with full funding for his climate priorities. What climate
advocates fear is that he’ll settle for an infrastructure bill without it, or perhaps end up with no bill after wasting months in the
futile pursuit of bipartisanship. The White House is in a tricky position because Manchin has demanded a genuine effort
to attract Republican support , and Democrats can’t pass anything without Manchin on board.
But Democrats could lose control of the Senate if a single senator gets sick or dies, so environmentalists who have watched Congress spend $6 trillion on
Covid relief bills without addressing climate would like to see a bit more urgency to address it now. They weren’t happy when Biden stripped out the
American Jobs Plan’s investments in clean energy research in a counteroffer to Capito, and they’re anxious about what could be stripped out next.
The more confrontational elements of the climate left are in public freakout mode. The youth-oriented Sunrise Movement, which gave Biden’s initial
climate plan an F-minus grade during the Democratic primary but praised his initial infrastructure plan for its climate ambition, protested his negotiations
with Capito and other Republicans outside the White House last week. Sunrise executive director Varshini Prakash warned on Tuesday that “anything
less than a robust jobs and climate package is a death sentence for our generation.”
Mainstream environmentalists have tried to be more sensitive to the tightrope Biden is walking, but they’re
nervous, too. As much as they’re enjoying Biden’s efforts to reverse Trump’s environmental rollbacks and advance clean energy through executive
action, their top priority is a far-reaching climate bill. They’re glad Biden took a spin in the new electric Ford F-150 Lightning, and they appreciate his
executive order promoting wind farms off the California coast, but they really want him to sign a law putting big money into electric vehicles to
transform transportation and creating a clean electricity standard to transform the grid.
“Look, no one ever thought this would be easy,” said Jamal Raad, executive director of Evergreen Action, an influential group formed by Washington
Gov. Jay Inslee’s former climate aides. “But we’ve got to get this done if we’re serious about meeting the commitments we just made to the international
community, and right now is make-or-break time.”
Global carbon emissions dropped about 6 percent last year because Covid shut down so much economic activity, but that just means the rate at which the
earth is warming temporarily slowed a bit. The International Energy Agency just warned that creating a net-zero energy sector by 2050, a key goal of the
Paris climate accord, will require radical changes: no new oil and gas exploration, no new coal plants that can’t capture their carbon, no more sales of
fossil-fueled boilers after 2025 and no more sales of internal combustion engines after 2035.
Biden’s infrastructure plan embraced some of that radicalism; its clean electricity standard would require 80 percent reductions in electricity emissions by
2030, which would essentially shut down the U.S. coal industry and shut off growth in the natural gas industry. But it was largely compatible with
Biden’s eagerness for bipartisanship, since many
Republican lawmakers reject the scientific consensus that
human activities are broiling the planet, while others reject the need for an expensive and heavy-
handed government response .
Rich Powell, director of ClearPath Action, a group

of conservatives who support climate action, said issues like
carbon capture, battery storage and transmission all had bipartisan support, but not a trillion-dollar effort to decarbonize
the U.S. economy in one fell swoop. He pointed to last week’s announcement of a new zero-emissions advanced nuclear project, featuring
Secretary Granholm along with leading Wyoming Republicans, as the kind of bipartisan work that Republicans might agree to accelerate. He criticized
Biden’s moratorium on oil and gas drilling on public lands, his rejection of the Keystone pipeline and a recent White House report on the environmental
justice impacts of power plants, as the kind of ideological climate advocacy that could alienate Republicans and doom the American Jobs Plan.
“There’s risk in a go-it-alone partisan approach ,” Powell said. “We’d strongly encourage folks to look
at climate policy not as something that needs to be done all at once in this Congress, but something that should
be done in every Congress so that we don’t have these wild swings in momentum . Unfortunately, climate change is a chronic
condition for the planet.”
Zaidi, the deputy White House climate adviser, also mentioned several examples of Republican support for Biden’s climate priorities, including a
government-backed “ green bank ” that would invest in clean energy, incentives that would reward farmers for
cutting emissions and efforts to retool disaster aid programs to emphasize climate resilience. But that kind of talk makes many
climate activists feel nauseous since it suggests that Biden isn't just negotiating with Republicans because he wants to
look magnanimous or humor Manchin, but because he genuinely believes Republicans might be willing to support a
climate-friendly infrastructure bill.
Kigali Amendment CP
2AC — Kigali Amendment CP Answers
1. Doesn’t Solve Wetlands — they’re key, not HFCs.
Patrick J. Michaels & Benjamin Zycher, 6/12/21, Patrick J. Michaels is a senior fellow at
the Competitive Enterprise Institute and CO2 Coalition. Benjamin Zycher is a resident scholar at
the American Enterprise Institute, Washington Examiner, “Would a phaseout of
hydrofluorocarbons avoid half a degree of global warming”,
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/would-a-phaseout-of-hydrofluorocarbons-
avoid-half-a-degree-of-global-warming
In its most recent compendium on climate change in 2013, the United Nations’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated only a 0.13 C effect from HFCs through
2100, under its “business as usual” scenario. So, how did the half-degree number emerge?
Warren Cornwall reported in Science that “the figure has its origins in a 2006 dinner held by five
scientists in a village in the Swiss alps.” The underlying analysis then appeared in a paper
published seven years later. It assumed massive and exclusive adoption of HFC-equipped air
conditioning in the developing world by 2050, with that equipment remaining in place through
2100. In other words, market incentives to produce cheaper, more efficient air conditioning
would be ignored. The authors assumed as well that all those demanding air conditioning would
have it by 2050, a hugely problematic premise applied to Africa, under the premise that in 30
years, the availability of electricity will be widespread and reliable. In reality, solar and wind are
not. In addition, the authors assume that any replacement equipment also will be charged with
HFCs. The 2013 paper reported an estimated warming range mitigated by an HFC ban of 0.35 C
to 0.5 C. Cornwall noted that “advocates and negotiators tended to cite the higher, 0.5 C estimate
in their public remarks.” That latter figure is almost four times larger than the 0.13 C projected by
the IPCC, a figure close to the standard deviation (0.11 C) of global average surface temperatures
from year to year. Accordingly, the effect would be virtually undetectable from the background
variation in temperatures. This means that a policy-driven phaseout of HFCs cannot satisfy any
plausible cost-benefit test if the costs of the phaseout prove greater than trivial. But the current
substitutes for HFCs cost multiple times more, not including costs for equipment, repairs, and the
like. If the substitutes were efficient in terms of costs and performance, no legislation would be
needed to drive the HFC equivalents out of the market. Producers of hydrofluoroolefins and other
substitutes for HFCs, and the complementary equipment and the like, would be free to compete.
A preference for a forced phaseout of HFCs in place of competition suggests that the substitutes
for HFCs are substantially costlier, a reality supported by the available data. Siegel and Smith
noted that “the EPA estimates that the HFC phasedown in the U.S. would eliminate greenhouse
gas emissions equal to 4.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide by 2050.” Does that sound
impressive? Suppose that the entire world were to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050;
emissions that year would be about 27 billion tons. The 4.7-million-ton equivalent reduction
would be 17 one-thousandths of 1%, the temperature effect of which would be undetectable. That
alone demonstrates that the HFC phaseout makes no sense as part of a larger international effort
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. According to the EPA climate model, the Biden net-zero
proposal would yield 0.173 C. A Chinese emissions cut of 100% would yield 0.367 C. A global
75% emissions reduction would yield 0.540 C. Can anyone argue that policies yielding such
reductions in emissions are even remotely plausible as a political matter? Accordingly, it is
incorrect to argue that a phaseout of HFCs would satisfy a cost-benefit test as part of a larger
effort even if it fails it narrowly. Siegel and Smith went on to note, “Industry is welcoming the
proposal.” That is correct if by “industry” they mean the duopoly of two big chemical companies,
Honeywell and Dupont, the expensive products of which would replace HFCs. This phaseout has
nothing to do with environmental protection and everything to do with classic Beltway rent-
seeking by a special interest group. It should be rejected.
2. Permute: Do Both — not mutually exclusive.
3. Status Quo Solves HFCs — the counterplan already passed.

Michael Garry, 01/04/2021, Michael Garry is a reporter for HydroCarbons 21, HydroCarbons
21, “U.S Enacts HFC Phase-Down Law as Part of COVID Relief Bill”,
https://hydrocarbons21.com/articles/9879/u_s_enacts_hfc_phase_down_law_as_part_of_covid_re
lief_bill, //Eagan-AE
In a long-awaited move supported by a coalition of business and environmental stakeholders, the
U.S. government has enacted bipartisan legislation authorizing a 15-year phase down of HFCs in
alignment with the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol. Originally introduced in January
2020 by the U.S. House of Representatives following a similar bill in the Senate, the American
Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020 (AIM) requires the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to implement a phase down of the production and consumption of HFCs in order to reach
approximately 15% of their 2011-2013 average annual levels by 2036. AIM is part of a sweeping
bipartisan legislative package, the Consolidated Appropriation Act, 2021, which includes a $1.4
trillion government spending bill and $900 billion COVID-19 relief package bill. President
Trump, who will be replaced by President-Elect Joe Biden on January 20, signed the Act on
December 27. AIM will: Phase down the production and consumption of HFCs through an
allowance program Authorize the EPA to establish standards for the management of HFCs used
as refrigerants through recovery, reclamation and improved servicing, repair, and disposal
practices. This could reverse an EPA rule enacted in 2020 that rescinded a rule extending
refrigerant leak repair requirements to HFCs and HFOs for equipment containing more than 50lbs
(23kg) of refrigerant, including most supermarket and industrial applications. Create a three-year
grant program for small businesses, allocating $5 million annually toward increasing recovery
and reclamation of refrigerants at end of life. Authorize the EPA to establish sector-based use
restrictions, facilitating the transition to next-generation technologies. The AIM law includes a
list of pure HFCs targeted for phase down that is largely the same as that used in the Kigali
Amendment. For HFCs like R404A, which consists of a blend of pure HFCs, “the allowances
will be for the HFC components,” said Christina Starr, Senior Policy Analyst for the
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA). “So if you were producing or importing R404A,
you'd need allowances for corresponding amounts of R125, R143A, and R134a.” For HFC-HFO
blends, only the HFC portion would be subject to allowance limits, she added. Return to federal
action By implementing these measures, the EPA will resume its regulation of HFCs, which had
been sidelined by the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling in 2017, and then by the EPA’s decision to
expand upon that ruling. In the absence of federal action, a number of states, led by California,
have adopted the SNAP rules on HFCs, among other measures. California’s Air Resources Board
last month approved new regulations that expand the state’s refrigerant restrictions considerably,
including a 150-GWP cap on refrigerants used in new commercial and industrial equipment,
beginning in 2022. AIM would provide a more standard approach to HFC regulation across all
states, though it would not prevent California from following thorugh on its stricter provisions as
they apply to refrigeration and air conditioning, noted Starr. Federal allocation rules would take
over for niche applications deemed an "essential use" for which there are no alternatives, she
added. In general, the AIM law “paves the way for the Biden Administration to increase the
ambition and effectiveness of our domestic federal policy framework to reduce HFCs,” said Starr
in a statement. “It doesn’t go as far as we’d ultimately like in requiring complete elimination of
these gases, but the broader authority it gives EPA to better manage and restrict HFCs throughout
their lifecycle provides more tools to increase emission reductions to meet net-zero emission
targets.” While AIM aligns the U.S. with the 85% phase down of HFCs required under the Kigali
Amendment for developed countries by 2036, the Trump administration has not sent the
Amendment to the U.S. Senate for ratification. However, Biden has said that he intends to
“embrace” the Kigali Amendment in his first 100 days. He also intends to support “refrigeration
and air conditioning using refrigerants with no global warming potential.” (Ammonia (R717) is
the only refrigerant with zero GWP; he may have meant zero or “near-zero” GWP refrigerants
like CO2 (R744) and propane (R290)). Avipsa Mahapatra, Climate Campaign Lead for EIA,
described the AIM law as “the most significant climate legislation to pass in the U.S. congress in
over a decade.” Moreover, she said, “It sends a signal that one of the largest contributors to
climate change, the United States, is back at the global climate action table, after four years of
appalling inaction.”
4. No Farming DA Net-Benefit — the counterplan hurts farmers and causes

the same perception link.
TJ Martinell, March 5, 2019, Martinell does investigative reporting for various community
newspapers in the Puget Sound region has been recognized by the Washington Newspaper
Publishers Association and the Society for Professional Journalists and is a graduate of Eastern
Washington University, he has a B.A. in journalism and was the news editor of EWU’s student
university newspaper, Lens, “State Farmers could take hit on chemical ban”,
https://thelens.news/2019/03/05/state-farmers-could-take-hit-on-chemical-ban/
The state House has successfully passed ESSHB 1112 in a 55-39 vote to gradually phase out the
use of hydrofluorocarbons in products such as air conditioners and refrigeration units in an effort
to reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. Proponents favor alternative chemicals that have
less of an environmental impact, while opponents warned that the regulation could deliver
another blow to farmers and grocers who rely on the products that use the gas. “When you have
an apple in March, April, May, June, July – you’re having something that was stored,” Rep. Chris
Correy (R-14) told colleagues on the House floor prior to the Mar. 1 vote. “They’re not grown
here year-round. They’re stored in a refrigerated environment. The cost is going to be passed on
to the consumer.” Originally created to replace chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) banned by the
Montreal Protocol negotiated by President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, hydrofluorocarbons were
the target of an effort by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requiring manufacturers to
replace the gas with alternatives. However, a federal court ruling last year concluded that the
agency has no authority to regulate it. In response, states such as California have passed their own
laws prohibiting its use. Sponsored by Environment & Energy Committee Chair Joe Fitzgibbon
(D-34), ESSHB 1112 would prohibit the use of hydrofluorocarbons in products by specified
dates. The legislation also directs the state Department of Enterprise Services to create a purchase
and procurement process to ensure state equipment was not made using, nor uses, the gas. At the
same time, the State Building Code Council is directed to adopt new codes that allow the use of
substitutes. The state Department of Ecology will have to submit a study on hydrofluorocarbon
uses and report to the legislature by the end of 2020. An amendment sponsored by Fitzgibbon
allows Ecology to adopt a new rule restricting the use of hydrofluorocarbons in light duty
vehicles within a year of another state creating a similar rule, rather than requiring them to adopt
them. Prior to the House floor vote, Fitzgibbon told colleagues “our state has the opportunity to
really lead the country and lead the world,” citing the success of the Montreal Protocol in
eliminating the use of CFCs. “This is the next step in that journey. There are safer, cost-effective
alternative to these chemicals.” However, Rep. Mary Dye (R-9) warned that if the restrictions are
imposed, “the people that produce your food supply – we’re the ones that are the most impacted.
The machinery we use to grow the crops require some kind of a refrigerant to operate them. The
question is, how much more burden do we want to put on the good people that are out there in the
fields in the heat, working long hours, trying to do a good job in the free market, in the risk
economy? “There’s so many better ways to get from point a to point b than from this body…I’m
sorry. It’s the technology and the innovation that happens in the free market that creates that. It’s
not this body that is the ones that should be driving it down. We should be letting the technology
and innovation come up.” Correy also insisted that “the farmers and the people working in these
environments…be part of this decision. We’re expanding rulemaking without including those
who are most affected.” One lawmaker to drop his support was Rep. Richard DeBolt (R-20), who
had voted yes in committee but opposed the change in the bill regarding grandfathered equipment
under certain conditions that would now stipulate they be retrofitted. “That makes a huge
difference,” he said. Rep. Matt Shea (R-4) told colleagues to “keep the government out of the
way of our small businesses, don’t burden our small business, and let the market come up with
these solutions. We should let American ingenuity determine how our environment gets cleaner.”
No further action is scheduled for the bill at this time.
1AR — Status Quo Solves HFCs
The counterplan is already being enforced.
EIA, Environmental Investigation Agency which works to achieve tangible changes in the
global economy, Dec. 23, 2020, “U.S. Congress passes Bipartisan HFC Legislation”, https://eia-
global.org/press-releases/20201223-congress-hfc-legislation-kigali //Eagan-AE
Washington DC—Legislation passed by the U.S. Congress this week to provide COVID relief
and fund the U.S. government includes a bipartisan climate agreement to phase-down production
and consumption of super-pollutant hydrofluorocarbons (HFC). The bill authorizes the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement the 2016 agreement to phase down HFCs
under the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, and provides broader authority to manage
existing sources of HFC emissions. EIA issued the following in response: “The inclusion of an
HFC phase-down in this bill represents the most significant climate legislation to pass in the U.S.
congress in over a decade. It sends a signal that one of the largest contributors to climate change,
the United States, is back at the global climate action table, after four years of appalling inaction,”
said Avipsa Mahapatra, Climate Campaign Lead, EIA. “The Biden Administration now has its
work cut out. Taking immediate steps to ratify the long overdue Kigali Amendment combined
with rejoining the Paris Agreement can help rebuild the climate credibility of the U.S. in the
world.” Key provisions include an allowance system reducing imports and production by 85% by
2035, restrictions on HFC use in specific sectors, and additional regulations to improve
refrigerant management including through increasing recovery, reclamation and improved
servicing, repair, and disposal practices. It also creates a three-year grant program for small
businesses, allocating $5 million annually toward increasing recovery and reclamation of
refrigerants at end-of-life. “This paves the way for the Biden Administration to increase the
ambition and effectiveness of our domestic federal policy framework to reduce HFCs,” said
Christina Starr, EIA Senior Policy Analyst. “It doesn’t go as far as we’d ultimately like in
requiring complete elimination of these gases, but the broader authority it gives EPA to better
manage and restrict HFCs throughout their lifecycle provides more tools to increase emission
reductions to meet net-zero emission targets.” The Kigali Amendment has yet to be formally
ratified by the U.S. which requires the White House to send a resolution of ratification to the
Senate for advice and consent by a two-thirds majority. HFCs are potent climate pollutants used
in cooling equipment, foam blowing, aerosols, and fire suppression, despite wide availability of
climate-friendly alternatives.
Aff Answers vs. Biodiversity CPs
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) CP
2AC — Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) CP Answers
1. Doesn’t Solve U.S. Wetlands — they’re key to biodiversity.
2. Or, No Net-Benefit — if the counterplan forces follow-on regulations to

protect wetlands, it links to [politics/farming/federalism/etc.].
3. Permute: Do Both — this shields the link. The plan would be perceived as a
compliance measure under the newly-ratified CBD.
4. No Politics Net-Benefit — GOP strongly opposes CBD ratification. They

perceive it as violating U.S. sovereignty.
Jones 21 — Benji Jones, Reporter, former researcher, holds a M.S. from Stanford, 2021 (“Why
the US won’t join the single most important treaty to protect nature,” Vox, May 20th, Available
Online at https://www.vox.com/22434172/us-cbd-treaty-biological-diversity-nature-conservation,
Yet there’s one big problem with this post-Trump environmental renaissance: The US still hasn’t
joined the most important international agreement to conserve biodiversity, known as the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). And it isn’t just a small, inconsequential treaty.
Designed to protect species, ecosystems, and genetic diversity, the treaty has been ratified by
every other country or territory aside from the Holy See. Among other achievements, CBD has
pushed countries to create national biodiversity strategies and to expand their networks of
protected areas.
Since the early 1990s — when CBD was drafted, with input from the US — Republican
lawmakers have blocked ratification, which requires a two-thirds Senate majority. They’ve
argued that CBD would infringe on American sovereignty, put commercial interests at risk, and
impose a financial burden, claims that environmental experts say have no support.
With Biden now in office, some experts see a pathway to ratification — certainly, environmental
groups are calling for it — while others say there’s no chance of wooing enough Republicans .
But they all agree on one thing: The US’s absence from the agreement harms biodiversity
conservation at a time when such efforts are desperately needed.
President Bush refused to sign a biodiversity treaty that the US helped craft
Nearly half a century ago, scientists were already warning that scores of species were at risk of
going extinct — just as they are today. In fact, headlines from the time are eerily familiar:
“Scientists say a million species are in danger,” read one in 1981, which is almost identical to a
headline from 2019.
Those concerns ignited a series of meetings among environmental groups and UN officials, in the
’80s and early ’90s, that laid the groundwork for a treaty to protect biodiversity. US diplomats
were very much involved in these discussions, said William Snape III, an environmental lawyer
and an assistant dean at American University and senior counsel at the Center for Biological
Diversity, an advocacy group.
“It was the United States who championed the idea of a Biodiversity Treaty in the 1980s, and was
influential in getting the effort off the ground in the early 1990s,” Snape wrote in the journal
Sustainable Development Law & Policy in 2010.
In the summer of 1992, CBD opened for signature at a big UN conference in Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil. It laid out three goals: conserve biodiversity (from genes to ecosystems), use its
components in a sustainable way, and share the various benefits of genetic resources fairly.
Dozens of countries signed the agreement then and there, including the UK, China, and Canada.
But the US — then under President George H.W. Bush — was notably not one of them. And it
largely came down to politics: It was an election year that pitted Bush against then-Arkansas
Gov. Bill Clinton, and a number of senators in Bush’s party opposed signing the treaty, citing a
wide range of concerns.
Among them was a fear that US biotech companies would have to share their intellectual property
related to genetics with other countries. There were also widespread concerns that the US would
be responsible for helping poorer nations — financially and otherwise — protect their natural
resources, and that the agreement would put more environmental regulations in place in the US.
(At the time, there was already pushback, among the timber industry and property rights groups,
on existing environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act.)
Some industries also opposed signing. As environmental lawyer Robert Blomquist wrote in a
2002 article for the Golden Gate University Law Review, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers
Association and Industrial Biotechnology Association both sent letters to Bush stating that they
were opposed to the US signing CBD due to concerns related to IP rights.
President Clinton signed the treaty but failed to find support for ratification
In 1992, Clinton won the election and, in a move hailed by conservationists, signed the treaty
shortly after taking office. But there was still a major hurdle to joining CBD — ratification by the
Senate, which requires 67 votes.
Clinton was well aware of the CBD opposition in Congress. So when he sent the treaty to the
Senate for ratification in 1993, he included with it seven “understandings” that sought to dispel
concerns related to IP and sovereignty. Essentially, they make it clear that, as party to the
agreement, the US would not be forced to do anything, and it would retain sovereignty over its
natural resources, Snape writes. Clinton also emphasized that the US already had strong
environmental laws and wouldn’t need to create more of them to meet CBD’s goals.
In a promising step, the bipartisan Senate Foreign Relations Committee overwhelmingly
recommended that the Senate ratify the treaty, making it seem all but certain to pass. At that
point, the biotech industry had also thrown its support behind the agreement, Blomquist wrote.
Nonetheless, then-GOP Sens. Jesse Helms and Bob Dole, along with many of their colleagues,
blocked ratification of the convention from ever coming to a vote, Snape said, repeating the same
arguments. The treaty languished on the Senate floor.
And that pretty much brings us up to speed: No president has introduced the treaty for ratification
since.
GOP lawmakers still resist treaties — any treaties
Two and a half decades later, concerns related to American sovereignty persist, especially within
the Republican Party, and keep the US out of treaties. Conservative lawmakers stand in the way
of not only CBD but also several other treaties awaiting ratification by the Senate, including the
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities.
“Conservative nationalists in the United States (including the Senate) have long mistrusted
international agreements,” Stewart Patrick, director of International Institutions and Global
Governance at the Council on Foreign Relations, said in an email to Vox. They view them, he
added, “as efforts by the United Nations and foreign governments to impose constraints on US
constitutional independence, interfere with US private sector activity, as well as create
redistributionist schemes.”
In other words, not a whole lot has changed.
A week after Biden was sworn into office, the Heritage Foundation, an influential right-wing
think tank, published a report calling on the Senate to oppose a handful of treaties while he’s in
office, “on the grounds that they threaten the sovereignty of the United States.” They include
CBD, the Arms Trade Treaty, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women, among others. (Environmental treaties like CBD tend to draw a
stronger opposition from conservative lawmakers, who often fear environmental regulations,
relative to other agreements, Snape said.)
Legal experts say concerns related to sovereignty aren’t justified. The agreement spells out that
countries retain jurisdiction over their own environment. Indeed, US negotiators made sure of it
when helping craft the agreement in the ’90s, Patrick recently wrote in World Politics Review.
“States have ... the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own
environmental policies,” reads Article 3 of CBD. (Article 3 goes on to say that states are also
responsible for making sure they don’t harm the environment in other countries.)
“The convention poses no threat to U.S. sovereignty,” wrote Patrick, author of The Sovereignty
Wars.
And what about the other concerns? The agreement stipulates that any transfer of genetic
technology to poorer nations must adhere to IP rights in wealthier nations, Patrick writes.
Clinton’s seven understandings also affirmed that joining CBD wouldn’t weaken American IP
rights, and clarified that the treaty can’t force the US to contribute a certain amount of financial
resources.
Joining the CBD is also unlikely to require anything in the way of new domestic environmental
policies, Snape and Patrick said. “The U.S. is already in compliance with the treaty’s substantive
terms: It possesses a highly developed system of protected natural areas, and has policies in place
to reduce biodiversity loss in environmentally sensitive areas,” Patrick wrote.
Then again, given the country’s strong environmental laws, does it even matter if the US joins the
agreement?
It would be a big deal if the US joined CBD
Many environmental groups and researchers say, yes, it does matter and are urging Biden to work
with the Senate to ratify CBD. In a January 8 op-ed published in the Hill, Sarah Saunders, a
researcher at the National Audubon Society, and Mariah Meek, an assistant professor at Michigan
State University, wrote that “global biodiversity policy is at a pivotal crossroads, and the US
needs to have a seat at the table before it is too late.” They also urged the US to fully fund the
CBD secretariat, which oversees the convention.
The convention has its big meeting this coming fall in Kunming, China, at which parties will
build a strategy for biodiversity conservation over the next decade and out to 2050, that’s likely to
include a 30 by 30 pledge. The US plans to send a delegation to the conference, the State
Department confirmed with Vox, but as a non-member, the country doesn’t have the right to vote
(such as on CBD procedures, including the location of a meeting, and in elections for various
leadership roles).
Some experts, including Patrick of the Council on Foreign Relations, say ratification is still
possible. Conservation is among the few issues that have bipartisan support, he writes,
mentioning that nearly a third of US House and Senate members are a part of the bipartisan
International Conservation Caucus (ICC). (Vox reached out to all eight ICC co-chairs, including
four GOP lawmakers. They all declined interview requests or did not respond.)
“Eventual US accession is possible,” Patrick wrote, assuming the treaty is accompanied by
“specific reservations, understandings, and declarations to reinforce the intellectual property
rights of American companies and mollify conservative Republican senators with unrealistic fears
that the convention could undermine U.S. sovereignty.”
That sounds a lot like what Clinton tried to do back in the ’90s, leaving others with little
optimism. Snape, for one, says there’s no chance of ratification in the next two years — and
unlikely in the next 10. That view is shared by Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the
Center for Biological Diversity. There’s simply not enough appetite among GOP lawmakers to
sign treaties of any kind, they said. To get the required 67 votes, you’d need 17 of their votes,
assuming all Democrats voted in favor of ratification.
5. Indigenous People DA — the CBD evicts indigenous peoples. This is an

independent sovereignty impact and it turns biodiversity.
Lurie 21 — Margot Lurie, Thomas J. Watson Foundation Fellow, holds a B.A. in
Environmental Studies from Amherst College, 2021 (“Protecting 30% of the Earth by 2030
would threaten Indigenous peoples,” Open Democracy, June 27th, Available Online at
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/democraciaabierta/protecting-30-of-the-earth-by-2030-
would-threaten-indigenous-peoples/, Accessed 07-10-2021)
Lately, it seems like everyone is talking about ‘30x30’. The US president, Joe Biden, recently
committed the country to protecting 30% of its lands and waters by 2030. At the next meeting of
the Convention on Biological Diversity, world leaders are widely expected to embrace a global
30x30 target for conservation. These moves are in line with a larger community of scientists who
have been calling for 30% of the earth’s lands and waters to be protected by 2030, and 50% by
2050, in order to mitigate the worst effects of climate change.
At first glance, 30x30 seems like a winning proposition. Protected areas, such as national parks
and nature reserves, currently hold about 12% of global land-carbon stocks (at present, about
15% of global land area and 7% of global marine area is protected). Protected areas act as refuges
for biodiversity, protecting many of the planet’s most endangered species. Conserved lands also
provide a number of other important socioecological benefits, from flood mitigation to heat
reduction to cultural meaning.
What the millions of annual visitors to protected areas may not realize, however, is that
conservation has come at a cost. Conserved lands are often presented as untouched wildernesses –
places unsullied by human occupation and influence. In almost every case, this is a profound
mischaracterization. Most of the places we now call national parks, game reserves, and national
monuments were once occupied and managed by humans (sometimes until very recently). As
historian Mark Spence put it over two decades ago, an untouched wilderness needed to be created
before it could be protected. That is, millions of people have been dispossessed in the name of
conservation. 30x30 threatens to dispossess many more.
Conservation via dispossession – the eviction of human inhabitants in order to create a protected
area – was first documented in the Caribbean under British imperialism but was perfected by
settler colonists in the United States. All of the protected lands in the US are stolen lands. The
conservationist project took off in the US after the Civil War, offering a point of pride and
connection to an otherwise divided nation. America’s famed national parks, such as the Grand
Canyon, Yellowstone, and Yosemite, were created through the eviction of Indigenous inhabitants.
The establishment of national parks in the US was often contemporaneous with the enclosure of
Indigenous peoples onto reservations. Dispossession is not limited to the 19th and 20th centuries.
Indigenous communities are still working to restore their access to, and authority over, the US’s
protected lands.
Most of those who have been evicted in the name of conservation are Indigenous
The model of conservation via dispossession was exported from the US around the world and
remains in practice today. Most of those who have been evicted in the name of conservation are
Indigenous. It is no wonder, then, that Indigenous advocacy groups, such as Survival
International, oppose the global plan for 30x30. Doubling the extent of global protected areas
threatens to displace many more communities. The prospect of widespread displacement for
conservation is not only a humanitarian outrage, but also an ecological affront.
Many of the communities that are displaced by protected areas have lived sustainably on the land
for generations. About half of the land chosen for conservation is managed by Indigenous
peoples; in the Americas, that figure is as high as 80%. Conservationists typically seek to protect
lands that maintain a high degree of biodiversity, sequester carbon, and/or support unique
ecosystems. The fact that conservationists choose Indigenous peoples’ lands for protection
evidences the high conservation value and good condition of Indigenous-managed lands (in
addition to a racist political-economic order that makes Indigenous lands ‘available’). Globally,
the UN recognizes that Indigenous peoples protect 80% of the world’s remaining biodiversity.
Scientists have shown that Indigenous management provides the same level of ecosystem support
and protection as any imposed protected area. Conservation via dispossession removes the very
people who take care of our most important ecosystems.
Eviction has been shown to lead to a cascade of deleterious environmental impacts . In 1882,
California state commissioner M.C. Briggs observed that the lack of traditional Indigenous fire
management in the Yosemite Valley following the eviction of the Ahwahneechee had led to an
influx of new young tree growth. Briggs remarked, “While the Indians held possession, the
annual fires kept the whole floor of the valley free from underbrush, leaving only the majestic
oaks and pines to adorn the most beautiful of parks. In this one respect, protection has worked
destruction.” What Briggs observed was far from an isolated phenomenon. Although conserved
lands are depicted as empty and pristine, they are in fact intensively managed landscapes.
Accordingly, the loss of human managers with generations-long relationships to the land is all but
guaranteed to change the ecosystem.
Furthermore, displacement tends to force communities into the lowest rungs of the market
economy, where there are significant incentives for poor, landless people to deforest, poach, and
otherwise depredate the environment. Eviction disrupts established relationships between
communities and the land, including systems to regulate harvesting, sometimes leading to anti-
environmental outcomes.
Indigenous communities already have the solutions to our most urgent socioecological crises
6. No Farming DA Net-Benefit — ratification would require follow-on

regulations including the plan. Farmers perceive ratification as a big increase
in regulations.
7. Doesn’t Solve Demosprudence — only the aff redefines the role of judicial
actors and empowers social movements
Guinier 9 --- LANI GUINIER, Bennett Boskey Professor of Law, Harvard Law School,
“BEYOND LEGISLATURES: SOCIAL MOVEMENTS, SOCIAL CHANGE, AND THE
POSSIBILITIES OF DEMOSPRUDENCE”, BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol.
89:539 2009], http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/guinier/publications/bu-courting.pdf
Why then do I focus on the dialogic relationship between the Supreme Court and other
essential social change actors in the foreword? The foreword is designed to be, and has always
been, about the Court's Term.96 In this venue, I developed the idea of demosprudence in
application to this particular organ of government . The inherent structural limitation of this
particular art form was challenging but ultimately, in my view, productive. It pushed me to
explore the ways that judicial actors, in conjunction with mobilized constituencies, can redefine
their roles consistently with ideas of democratic accountability . Indeed, because the format of
the foreword encouraged me to approach demosprudence from this angle, I discovered something
important about demosprudence: judges, not just lawyers or legislators , speak to
constituencies of accountability in a democratically accountable and democracy-inspired
legal system.
I argued that oral dissents (like Justice Ginsburg’s in Ledbetter) reveal the existence of an
alternative, and relatively unnoticed, source of judicial authority.87 The Court’s legitimacy in a
democracy need not depend on the Court speaking with an “institutional voice” (that is,
unanimously). Here I am influenced by Jane Mansbridge’s idea that democratic power can be
held to account through two-way interactions, a source of authority rooted in “deliberative
accountability.”88 The demosprudential dissenter ideally provides greater transparency to the
Court’s internal deliberative process .89 At the same time, the dissenter may disperse power
“by appealing to the audience’s own experience and by drafting or inspiring them to participate in
a form of collective problem solving.”90 Thus, the Court gains constitutional authority when
dissenters speak in a “democratic voice,” potentially expanding their audience beyond legal
elites. In Mark Tushnet’s words, “the Constitution belongs to all of us collectively, as we act
together.”91
Aff Answers vs. Fish CPs
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) CP Answers
2AC — MPAs CP Frontline
2. Doesn’t solve – MPA research is inconclusive and traditional fisheries are

better for developed countries with large stocks
Dasgupta 18 - Written by Shreya Dasgupta, Research by Amy Fensome - Shreya Dasgupta is
a science and environmental writer based in Bangalore, India. She has written for BBC Earth,
New Scientist, Smithsonian.com, The Guardian, and others. Amy Fensome, PhD, Senior
Scientific Officer at Chief Scientific Advisors Office. (“The ups and downs of marine protected
areas: Examining the evidence”, Mongabay, 1/25/2018, https://news.mongabay.com/2018/01/the-
ups-and-downs-of-marine-protected-areas-examining-the-evidence/)//ST
But do more and larger fish inside a protected area really mean higher catches outside its
boundaries? Our review of the scientific literature retrieved six studies looking at this so-called
“spillover,” including a systematic review published in 2016 that summarized results from 85
studies. The systematic review found evidence of spillover in 80 percent of the studies it
considered. But the researchers added a caveat: “[Twenty] percent of remaining studies that failed
to provide any evidence of spillover is likely to be underestimated … because of publication
bias in ecology, and specifically in marine protected area science,” where positive results are
favored, they wrote. But even if there is some spillover, is it enough to compensate for reduced
fishing areas with increased fishing pressure and thus provide a net benefit to fishers? Our review
captured only one empirical study that looked at this (possibly because our review and search
terms were not exhaustive). This study, published in 2001, found that the biomass of five
commercially important fish families increased both inside and outside marine reserves in the
Caribbean island of St. Lucia within three years of establishment. Moreover, the fish catch
increased substantially — by between 46 and 90 percent, depending on the type of traps the
fishers used. The results of this single study cannot be generalized, of course. So we turned to our
experts, who told us that while there are some empirical studies looking at how marine
protected areas affect fisheries, most of them are not rigorous and their conclusions are
mixed. For example, a 2013 study found that fishers who worked near the Goukamma marine
protected area in South Africa saw a nearly steady increase in the catch of commercially
important Roman seabream (Chrysoblephus laticeps) over the 10 years since the park’s
establishment in 1990. Some studies from the Mediterranean Sea have also found an increase of
fish catch near marine reserves over the years. By contrast, in a 2000 study from Kenya,
researchers found that while the creation of a no-take marine protected area had led to some
spillover, the fish catch was lower than it was before the park’s creation halved the available
fishing area. Similarly, some researchers found that the increase in no-take zones in Australia’s
Great Barrier Reef did not lead to the long-term improvements in fish catch that authorities
had promised. Most positive examples come from marine protected areas that are either very
small (so the fishers lose only a small amount of their previous fishing area), or from parks
located in areas where fish stocks are severely overexploited, said the University of
Washington’s Hilborn. Halpern agreed that the benefits of marine protected areas on fisheries are
very context-dependent and traditional management techniques, such as seasonal fishing closures
or restrictions on certain kinds of fishing equipment, sometimes come out ahead. “ In developed
countries and large stocks, traditional fisheries management has been very effective,
especially more recently,” he said. “In developing nations and highly diverse fisheries — as is
the case with many coral reef fisheries in tropical countries — traditional fisheries management
has not been as effective and marine protected areas are often a much more effective and viable
strategy. But there are many counterexamples and other issues in play — in other words, context
matters.”
3. Turn: MPAs don’t solve and give a false sense of security of environmental
protection:
Brian Payton, 2020 (award-winning author), “Marine Protected Areas: May or May Not
Include Actual Protection,” Jan. 7, 2020. Retrieved Apr. 19, 2021 from
https://www.hakaimagazine.com/features/marine-protected-area-may-or-may-not-include-actual-
protection/?fbclid=IwAR280G9KuOcmUSENHWYwLpGaJfyBJm0cuiBhYR2dSQI06btX3p-
btMODjgA
Dudas and her colleagues must wrap up soon and return to the Vector, a nearly 40-meter Canadian Coast Guard vessel waiting just offshore. Their work
here, part of an expedition to study both intertidal and deep-water ecosystems along the central coast, may help establish new marine
protected areas ( MPAs ). Canada has committed to protecting 10 percent of its territorial waters by this year as part of the United Nations
Convention on Biological Diversity Aichi targets. One hundred ninety-six countries have ratified the convention, making it a truly global push for marine
conservation. Sarah Dudas Sarah Dudas, significant areas program head for Fisheries and Oceans Canada, analyzes samples she and her team collected
from intertidal zones on Goose Island, British Columbia. Photo by Ocean Networks Canada This
sounds like a win for politicians,
coastal communities, and ecosystems alike. But just as governments around the world announce new MPAs, troubling new
research is raising questions about their effectiveness . Do MPAs deliver what’s advertised—protection of the marine
environment—or are they little more than “paper parks,” amounting to protection in name only? Time will tell. For now, the tide is rising. An opportunity
is closing. Dudas focuses in. Clearly, a marine protected area is a region of the ocean—and the marine life therein—set aside to be preserved in its natural
state, kept safe from human exploitation, right? If only it were that simple. MPAs can involve a spectrum of objectives from allowing sustainable fishing
and gathering to protecting biodiversity to conserving sites of scientific or cultural interest. In
the end, unless it is created and managed
in accordance with globally recognized standards, an MPA is whatever a particular jurisdiction
decides it will be. Modern governments have been late to the cause of marine conservation. Back in the 19th century, scientists were
questioning whether the marine environment—and fisheries in particular—could or should be managed. Reports about the scarcity of fish from all around
the United Kingdom’s coasts were sparking concern. Conventional wisdom (and a Royal Commission) held that there were plenty of fish in the sea, but
there was no scientific consensus. In 1883, at the International Fisheries Exhibition in London, naturalist Thomas Henry Huxley declared: “I believe,
then, that the cod fishery, the herring fishery, the pilchard fishery, the mackerel fishery, and probably all the great sea fisheries, are inexhaustible; that is
to say that nothing we do seriously affects the number of fish. And any attempt to regulate these fisheries seem consequently, from the nature of the case,
to be useless.” Despite this sentiment, concern about falling fish stocks continued to grow. This led to a 10-year experiment, launched in 1886, involving
trawling restrictions in the Firth of Forth estuary and Saint Andrews Bay in Scotland. Results were mixed and scientists disagreed on the outcome. Even
as late as 1919, some influential British scientists were still denying that human activity could exhaust the sea’s bounty. researches on Goose Island,
British Columbia Researchers collect marine organisms from Goose Island as part of a larger project studying the biodiversity along British Columbia’s
central coast. Photo by Ocean Networks Canada But fish conservation and management techniques had been in use long before the Victorians. European
royalties have been controlling access to fish in rivers and streams since the Middle Ages. King Philip IV of France was so worried about falling fish
stocks that he decreed his realm’s first fisheries ordinance in 1289. In the South Pacific, Polynesians observed their waitui tabu (prohibited zone) fisheries
management system for untold generations. The tabu dictated who can catch what kind of seafood where and when. British explorer Captain James Cook
brought back news of the tabu system in the 18th century and the word taboo has been a part of the English language ever since. Here on British
Columbia’s central coast, Indigenous peoples have been using a diversity of conservation strategies and techniques for millennia, such as building clam
gardens (rock-walled intertidal beach terraces), to both enhance and manage their marine environments. In the 21st century, our understanding of
fisheries management has come a long way and yet global fish stocks are on the verge of collapse. Two-thirds of predatory fish have vanished from the
world’s oceans over the past century, according to one recent study, and the loss is accelerating. Clearly, knowledge ≠ practice. Is there a way forward?
Many believe MPAs could be a big part of the answer. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) is the world’s oldest and largest
global environmental organization. It has more than 1,200 government and NGO members and almost 11,000 volunteer experts in some 160 countries.
According to the IUCN, a protected area is defined, recognized, and managed to achieve the long-term conservation of nature, natural resources, and
cultural values. This definition makes it difficult to square with industrial resource extraction. Some MPAs allow commercial fishing, for example, in an
area supposedly set aside for protection. Marine protected areas range in size from Marae Moana, a two-million-square-kilometer zone in the South
Pacific, to a tiny 0.4-hectare section of British Columbia’s Echo Bay Marine Provincial Park. Today, nearly 17,000 MPAs cover 7.5 percent of the
world’s marine environment. Research reveals that MPAs can produce abundance—both ecological and economic—as well as social benefits when
designed and managed properly. The revived tabu system in Fiji, for example, re-established local stewardship over the ecosystem, a change that
increased local biodiversity, fish and shellfish stocks, as well as income. In the Irish Sea, a small, protected area off the Isle of Man was declared a no-
trawl zone in 1989 and closely monitored for 14 years. Over that time, researchers found that the overall density of scallops was nearly five times higher
in the protected zone. An adjacent, unprotected area also saw an increase in scallop stocks, likely through what is known as the spillover effect. Engaging
community, industry, governments, and scientists has consistently proven to be the most important factor in the design of successful MPAs, according to
research. One
of the leading causes of failure is the lack of surveillance, which results in poor
enforcement and compliance. The evidence is clear: designating MPAs is not enough—they must be managed,
patrolled, and controlled. Researchers on Goose Island, British Columbia Sarah Dudas and Karen Hunter, an aquatic science biologist with Fisheries and
Oceans Canada, identify and count marine flora and fauna at a survey site on Goose Island. Photo by Ocean Networks Canada Another study surveyed
MPAs with an eye toward determining the best type for reversing the global degradation of marine life. The authors found that no-take marine reserves—
the MPAs at the most protective end of the spectrum, where extractive activities are prohibited—are best for restoring and preserving biodiversity in the
long term. Studies have shown that fish biomass in no-take reserves is on average 670 percent greater than in neighboring unprotected areas. And,
compared with partially protected MPAs, no-take zones have 343 percent more biomass. Partial protection has some value by restricting specific
activities—like trawling, which results in habitat destruction—but is generally less effective overall, the authors found. They concluded that while MPAs
will not solve all the ocean’s problems, they do provide “outstanding ecological and economic benefits within and beyond their boundaries.” Marine
protected area. Three seemingly simple, straightforward words that—in the minds of the general public—mean mission accomplished when applied to a
map of the ocean. Much of the scientific and conservation communities share this view. But as governments around the world rush to announce the
establishment of new MPAs to meet their 2020 Aichi targets, a chance discovery by a shark researcher is upending that perception. Manuel Dureuil is a
postdoctoral fellow at the Worm Lab for Marine Conservation Biology at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and president of Sharks of the
Atlantic Research and Conservation Centre (ShARCC), a nonprofit based in Halifax. For the past 10 years, the 34-year-old has been researching
elasmobranchs (sharks, rays, and skates), focusing on conservation ecology and fisheries science. He wants the world to know that these remarkable
species are in urgent need of protection. Sharks are both formidable survivors and sensitive biodiversity indicators, he says. They appeared more that 400
million years ago—well before the first dinosaurs—and have long played a key role in maintaining the health and balance of marine ecosystems. But
many species of sharks have been driven to near extinction through overfishing and finning, the cruel and wasteful practice of cutting off a shark’s fins
and discarding its body for the sake of shark fin soup. We are killing them faster than they can reproduce. Some populations have declined by more than
90 percent and their loss is likely resulting in drastic—and possibly irreversible—damage to marine ecosystems. It was Dureuil’s shark research that led
to a jaw-dropping conclusion about Europe’s MPAs and landed him his first publication in the esteemed journal Science. CCGS Vector CCGS Vector
transports researchers to intertidal and deep-water study areas along the coast of British Columbia. Photo by Ocean Networks Canada What started as an
investigation into North Atlantic shark populations unearthed a troubling fact about Europe’s MPAs. European Union territorial waters, the largest
maritime territory on Earth, is a global hotspot of industrial fishing and has an extensive network of MPAs (29 percent of the total area). The trend
Dureuil was seeing exploded his expectation that those MPAs were effective in preserving and protecting species sensitive to destructive fishing, such as
sharks, skates, and rays. To help make sense of his findings, he teamed up with colleagues at the Worm lab and the Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research
Kiel in Germany to gather and crunch the data and draw conclusions from the results. Using newly available satellite sensors that allow fine-scale, real-
time quantification of industrial fishing activity from space, the team studied 727 European MPAs. What they discovered was shocking. “We found that
59 percent of MPAs are commercially trawled, and average trawling intensity across MPAs is at least 1.4-fold higher compared with non-protected
areas,” the authors reported in Science. And in those heavily trawled areas, the abundance of sensitive species decreased by nearly 70 percent compared
to areas with low trawling intensity. Dureuil and his coauthors were
not necessarily surprised that fishing was taking
place in MPAs—it was the intensity of fishing that caused alarm. They concluded that widespread industrial
exploitation of MPAs in Europe undermines global conservation targets and casts a shadow over protected
areas worldwide. A variety of MPA types exist in European Union waters and, due to the supremacy of the EU Common Fishing Policy, which sets
quotas for member states, many do not address commercial fisheries. Yet all 727 of the MPAs studied were registered in the IUCN’s World Database on
Protected Areas and counted toward international biodiversity conservation targets. Over 50 percent did not report a management plan, over 90 percent
were not classified according to IUCN criteria, and over 99 percent had no information on no-take areas. The result? Scientists, conservationists, and the
general public were astonished to learn that endangered and critically endangered
species were all more than five times
more abundant outside MPAs. blue shark Researchers found that 59 percent of Europe’s marine protected areas (MPAs) are
commercially trawled and in those heavily trawled areas, the abundance of sensitive species decreased by nearly 70 percent compared to areas with low
trawling intensity. Photo by Luis Quinta/Minden Pictures Europe’s
MPAs give a false sense of security about
government action to protect the oceans. Dureuil and his colleagues revealed that simply declaring a stretch of
water an MPA has little benefit for the species in most need of protection. To truly protect and preserve marine environments,
they recommend MPAs require better reporting, management planning, independent vetting of standards, and a commitment to enforce those standards.
“You really can’t blame the fishermen,” Dureuil says, adding that what they are doing is completely legal. But it goes to show how something
can look very “green,” appear to protect vast areas, but give a false sense of security . “I think we should not call
something a marine protected area [if it doesn’t] exclude harmful fishing practices.” Not all MPAs necessarily need to ban activities like local, small-
scale, sustainable fishing, Dureuil explains, they just need to prohibit destructive and unsustainable industrial fishing. Canada, for its part, recently
announced a ban on industrial activities inside federally designated MPAs, including bottom trawling, oil and gas development, mining, and dumping.
MPAs can work very well for both marine environments and the local human populations that depend on them, he says. “We just have to have guidelines
and follow them.” The guidelines, he says, should be those of the IUCN. No country has a longer coastline than Canada. At 243,042 kilometers, it is 12
times longer than the United States’. In 2016, Canada announced a plan to protect 10 percent of its vast marine and coastal areas as part of its 2020 Aichi
targets. At the time, less than one percent was protected. The National Advisory Panel on Marine Protected Areas Standards was convened. The panel
consulted experts and groups with a stake in the process, researched best practices, and delivered a final report in September 2018. Among its
recommendations were ensuring respect for Indigenous knowledge and practice and the establishment of Indigenous protected areas in addition to MPAs.
When it came to adopting standards, the panel was clear: Canada should adopt IUCN standards and guidelines for all marine protected areas. In his
response to the report, Jonathan Wilkinson, Canada’s minister of fisheries, oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, committed the federal government to
implementing protection standards in its new MPAs but did not specifically cite the IUCN’s standards. A spokesperson for the minister later clarified
Canada’s position. “The government has adopted protection standards that are consistent with IUCN recommendations.” International agreements such as
the Convention on Biological Diversity only exist at the whim of the governments of the day. Look no further than the announced withdrawal of the
United States from the 2016 Paris Agreement on climate change mitigation. And yet these agreements, and the standards they set, are vital because they
offer a way to hold governments accountable. While it is significant that Canada has adopted standards that are “consistent with” IUCN recommendations
for MPAs, it falls short of a commitment to adhere to the IUCN’s Global Conservation Standards. Researchers on Goose Island, British Columbia
Researchers collect fish on Goose Island as part of a biodiversity survey that may inform the creation of new MPAs. Photo by Ocean Networks Canada
Canada has resolved to meet the most important condition for MPA success: engaging those most affected—Indigenous groups, local communities, and
fishers. Mindful that a leading cause of failure is lack of enforcement, Canada has pledged to invest more than CAN $50-million in the national fisheries
enforcement program and hire 100 new fishery officers nationwide. Stephen Woodley, a member of the IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas
and an intervener on Canada’s national advisory panel, worked to ensure that the government would adhere to IUCN standards. “I always want the
language to be stronger and our commitment to nature conservation to be greater,” he says of Canada’s guidelines. “This is not perfect with me, but I can
live with it. Proof is in actions.” Around the world, those concerned with marine conservation are already looking beyond 2020 and the 10 percent Aichi
targets. In 2016, the IUCN joined scientists in calling for a new and more ambitious goal—the full protection of at least 30 percent of the world’s oceans
by 2030. This is what scientists now deem necessary to reverse the damage already done, to increase the planet’s resilience to climate change, and to
leave us with any hope of passing on a healthy, sustainable marine environment to future generations. It is this duty—this hope—that calls researchers
like Sarah Dudas to remote intertidal zones far from home. Back on Goose Island, the tide is high. It’s time to go. Dudas and her colleagues have packed
their gear and specimens for the short ride to the bright red-and-white Canadian Coast Guard vessel standing by to take them to the next research site.
During their voyage of discovery, they will bring back hard, scientific data from British Columbia’s remote central coast—evidence that could make the
case for future MPAs. One of the boats on hand to ferry the researchers and their gear back to the waiting ship is operated by Robert Johnson, a Heiltsuk
watchman. The Coastal Guardian Watchmen are a network of Indigenous peoples who monitor, steward, and protect their traditional territories. Coastal
Guardian Watchmen boat The Coastal Guardian Watchmen are a group of Indigenous peoples who patrol and protect their traditional territories. At the
end of an intertidal survey on Goose Island, a watchman takes researchers and their gear back to CCGS Vector, seen here in the distance. Photo by Ocean
Networks Canada Once all the gear and passengers are aboard, Johnson offers coffee, adjusts his baseball cap, and settles in behind the wheel. Like other
members of the Heiltsuk Nation, he grew up on the water. He has watched outsiders come and go, and use and abuse his people’s traditional territory for
much of his life. He has watched well-meaning scientists and government people pass through too. “These areas are all shellfish gardens and part of our
trapline systems,” Johnson says of the intertidal zone. He was brought up on the cockles, geoducks, herring roe, and seaweed found here. For the
Heiltsuk, traplines are territories that have been passed down through hereditary lines and come with rights and responsibilities related to stewardship of
the land and water. “These family rights are still honored today.” When it comes to designating new protected areas, Johnson wants to ensure they respect
Indigenous peoples’ territories and cultures. People have been a part of this marine ecosystem for a very long time, he says. On nearby Triquet Island,
researchers recently found artifacts at a village site that have been radiocarbon dated to around 14,000 years—making it one of the oldest human
settlements in North America. If local involvement is one of the keys to the success of MPAs, then the Hakai Lúxvbálís Conservancy, which covers
Goose Island, is off to a good start. Created through an agreement between British Columbia and the Heiltsuk Nation, it acknowledges that Indigenous
peoples have been a part of this ecosystem since at least the last ice age. Industrial fishing—by and for those who live far away—is a relatively new
problem. Whatever promises are made elsewhere, Johnson doesn’t wonder who will ultimately be left to keep an eye on things around here. Even if the
government doesn’t get around to publishing a management plan or step up monitoring and enforcement he and his fellow watchmen will be on the job,
working to preserve and protect the natural world. Because these beaches, these islands, and the water in between provide more than his subsistence. This
is his ancestors’ home.
4. No jurisdiction – over 60% of the ocean lies outside national jurisdiction—

the plan cannot solve.
Dan Laffoley, et al 2019 (International Union for Conservation of Nature), 2019. Retrieved
Apr. 19, 2021 from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330047018_Marine_Protected_Areas
Over 60% of the world’s ocean lies in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ)—in the high
seas water column and on the sea bed. The marine biodiversity in these areas is rich and unique,
particularly in the deep-sea benthic ecosystems of the ocean floor and provides important
ecosystem services (Rogers, Sumaila, Hussain, & Baulcomb, 2014). While MPAs have been
established in many countries to protect marine biodiversity within their national 200 nautical
mile EEZ boundaries , over two-thirds of the ocean lies beyond the protection of national
governance frameworks where there is no cohesive international governance regime, including a
mechanism to create fully protected MPAs. Consequently, biodiversity beyond national
jurisdiction (BBNJ) remains largely unregulated and unprotected.
1AR — Doesn’t Solve
Belize proves—MPA’s alone are inadequate to protect fish & coral species:
Courtney E Cox et al, 2016 (Director of Applied Marine Science, Rare, “Establishment of
marine protected areas alone does not restore coral reef communities in Belize,”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310838254_Establishment_of_marine_protected_
areas_alone_does_not_restore_coral_reef_communities_in_Belize
A variety of factors have caused the loss of corals and fishes on coral reefs, resulting in
ecological, social, and economic consequences for reef ecosystems and the people who depend on
them. A widely employed management action to restore reef communities is the implementation
of marine protected areas (MPAs). We measured the effectiveness of the MPA network in Belize
in promoting increases in fish and coral populations and identified key ecological and
environmental factors that influence reef community structure and potentially protection success.
From 2009 to 2013, we annually surveyed 16 reefs in Belize, including 8 MPA sites (where ex -
tractive fishing is limited or prohibited) and 8 unprotected sites. At each site, we quantified the
biomass of reef fishes, coral and macroalgal cover, and several biotic and abiotic variables that
are known to affect reef inhabitants. High predatory reef fish and parrotfish biomass values were
associated with high reef structural complexity and low wave exposure. Mean macroalgal cover
was negatively associated with parrotfish biomass in 1 protected zone. However, mean
macroalgal cover remained above 40% across all sites, and no change in coral cover was
observed during the study. Our results indicate that fisheries restrictions alone do not lead to
increases in coral cover even when successful for fishes. We speculate that both illegal and legal
fishing may be compromising Belize's MPA network goals. Furthermore, we suggest that
species composition as well as local environmental conditions play key roles in coral reef
recovery and should be considered when evaluating management strategies.
MPAs are not a panacea for ocean health.

Margaret Cooney, 2019 (campaign manager for Ocean Policy at American Progress), June 3,
2019. Retrieved Apr. 20, 2021 from
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2019/06/03/470585/marine-protected-
areas-help-fisheries-ocean-ecosystems/
MPAs—even those that are highly to fully protected—are not a panacea for ocean health or even
improved fisheries. They cannot, for instance, protect against invasive species , pollution , or
climate change other than through increased ecosystem resilience.58 For that reason, MPAs are
most effective when they are designed and scaled properly to solve a specific goal.
1AR — Turn
No take MPAs trade-off resources with more effective solutions to climate
change:
Ray Hilborn, 11/17/2020 (Professor of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences at the University of
Washington, “Hilborn presentation on Title II of the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions,”
https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Hilborn%20Testimony%20FC%20Leg
%20Hrg%2011.17.20.pdf, Retrieved 6/12/2021)
MPA advocates argue that MPAs are more resilient to climate change than fished areas; however
a recent review article (8) entitled “Climate change, coral loss, and the curious case of the parrotfish paradigm: Why don't marine protected areas
improve reef resilience?” has shown no evidence for this. Furthermore, the MPA advocates ignore that fact that 30x30 would cause 70% of
U.S. oceans to see increased fishing pressure from the vessels that moved out of the 30% closed, and thus potentially be less resilient to climate change. Do we
For none of these issues are no take MPAs the

really want to make 70% of our oceans less resilient to climate change?
most appropriate tool, but the proposed legislation would draw staff time , resources and
industry engagement away from the really effective tools . The oceans in the U.S. are under many threats
beyond climate change, including ocean acidification, exotic species, land based runoff, plastics and illegal fishing. There are solutions to each of these problems, but
it is not no-take MPAs – they do nothing to mitigate these problems. I certainly agree with my colleagues in the environmental movement that we need to
protect our oceans, but we can do much better if we apply the same 6 resources to the
Title II takes the wrong approach and
No take areas are

tools that will work. Let Councils use the effective tools to protect 100% of U.S. oceans, not apply an ineffective tool to 30%.
an inflexible, static tool, whereas agency management we already have can respond to climate
change in real time.
European MPAs prove—they don’t solve and promote a false sense of

security that trades off with other conservation efforts:
Karen McVeigh, 12/3/2020 (senior news reporter for the Guardian, “Auditors decry 'marine
protected areas' that fail to protect ocean,”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/03/auditors-slam-eu-for-marine-protected-
areas-that-fail-to-protect-ocean, Retrieved 6/12/2021)
Europe’s marine protected areas ( MPAs), set up to prevent biodiversity loss at sea, are failing to protect the oceans
according to an excoriating report from auditors. Examining actions to protect marine life over the past decade, the European court of auditors raised a
“red flag” warning the
EU had failed to halt marine biodiversity loss in Europe’s waters and restore
fishing to sustainable levels. Its report concluded there had been “ no meaningful signs of progress ” in
the Mediterranean, the most overfished sea in the world, where the report said fishing is now at twice the sustainable level. The news follows
Guardian Seascape revelations on the so-called “ paper parks ” that marine conservationists say allow
bottom trawling and other activities harmful to vulnerable marine habitats . The report’s findings echoed a
recent assessment by the European Environment Agency (EEA), which found fewer than 1% of European MPAs were fully protected by fishing bans,
and urged better management of protected areas. The auditors, who visited Italy, Spain, Portugal and France, found these states had used only 6% of a
€6bn (£5.42bn) European Maritime and Fisheries Fund aimed at supporting environmental protection. Porto Cesareo on the Salento coast The protected
Porto Cesareo on the Salento coast. The Mediterranean Sea is the most overfished in the world. Photograph: Giuseppe Colasanto/Alamy “Due to their
economic, social and environmental importance, seas are a real treasure. However, EU action has so far been unable to restore European seas to good
environmental status, nor fishing to sustainable levels”, said João Figueiredo, the member of the European court of auditors responsible for the report.
“Our audit clearly raises the red flag over the EU’s sea protection,” he said. The EU marine protection framework established an “emblematic” network
of more than 3,000 MPAs, which cast a “wide protective net” around Europe’s seas, the auditors said. But they stressed that the network “does not run
deep”, and was insufficient to restrict overfishing. To be effective, MPAs would need to sufficiently cover the EU’s most vulnerable marine species and
their habitats, include fishing restrictions where needed and be well managed. “This is far from being the case,” the report said. EU and US block plans to
protect world's fastest shark Read more The report documented a “decade of failure by key fishing nations to address the Mediterranean crisis”, said
Domitilla Senni of MedReAct. While the commission was committed to restoring seas to good environmental status and reducing overfishing, she said,
the problem lay with individual member states. “The findings of the independent report are painfully clear: in the Mediterranean, there
were no meaningful signs of progress,” she said. “While the dire state of the Mediterranean calls for urgent and bold recovery
actions, certain member states continue to block progress on the establishment of key conservation measures, including fisheries restricted areas closed to
bottom fishing.” Advertisement European MPAs were mostly small, “and the majority still allow fishing”, Senni said. The report also found that EU
fisheries management lags behind scientific advice. It recommended renewed action towards the establishment of new fisheries restricted areas by 2023.
Last week 11 NGOs, including MedReAct and Oceana, wrote to the European commissioner for the environment, oceans and fisheries, Virginijus
Sinkevičius, to urge him to press member states to create a properly protected network of fish habitats across the Mediterranean, to protect spawning
grounds and marine ecosystems. They said that overfishing of hake, one of the most important species commercially, had reached levels 15 times above
what is considered to be sustainable in one area, the Gulf of Lion, on the French coast. Earlier this year, the EEA reported that loss of marine biodiversity
in Europe’s seas had not been halted, with a high proportion of marine species and habitats assessments showing an unfavourable conservation status.
And last
year a study found that 59% of the MPAs in Europe were actually trawled by commercial
vessels at higher levels than unprotected areas. “Much of the EU’s spatially impressive MPA
network provides a false sense of security about positive conservation actions being taken,” it
concluded.
1AR — No Jurisdiction
MPA’s can’t solve because too much of the ocean is beyond national
jurisdiction:
INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE, 2021
(“Governing areas beyond national jurisdiction,”
https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/governing-areas-beyond-national-jurisdiction,
Retrieved 6/12/2021)
Governing areas beyond national jurisdiction Nearly two-thirds of the world’s ocean lies in areas
beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), which are home to unique species and ecosystems.
Fragmented legal frameworks leave biodiversity in ABNJ vulnerable to growing threats. The
degradation of biodiversity in ABNJ affects the ocean’s capacity to provide resources
necessary for human survival. Negotiations are underway to create a new international instrument
under the UN Convention on the Law, which would help close the existing ABNJ governance
gap. A new international instrument can provide a global framework for marine protected areas in
ABNJ, ensure states assess impacts of potentially harmful activities, and facilitate inclusive
scientific research that enables the equitable sharing of benefits from marine genetic resources.
test What is the issue? test Why is it important ? test What can be done? What is the issue
? Nearly two-thirds of the world’s ocean is beyond national jurisdiction – where no single state
has authority. This area reaches depths of over 10 km and represents 95% of the Earth’s total
habitat by volume. Areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) are home to significant
biodiversity, including unique species that have evolved to survive extreme heat, cold, salinity,
pressure and darkness. The dark blue areas of the map represent areas beyond national
jurisdiction © Wikimedia Commons Less than 0.0001 percent of this immense area has been
explored, but there is evidence that ecosystems and species in ABNJ have become seriously
degraded because of human activities. There is no comprehensive global framework for the
conservation and sustainable use of marine areas beyond national jurisdiction to halt and prevent
further degradation from human activities. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) provides an international legal regime that governs the ocean. It creates an obligation
to conserve the marine environment, but it does not provide specific mechanisms or processes
for conserving marine biodiversity in ABNJ. Other legal instruments address parts of the
problem, such as unsustainable fishing or pollution from ships, or specific geographical areas,
such as the Antarctic. However, a sectoral approach cannot address the multiple pressures on
the ocean, and the different ways they interact. Regional approaches will not be sufficient either
given the large-scale connectivity of the marine ecosystem, including long migratory pathways
for species such as sharks, sea turtles, whales and salmon, as well as large-scale ocean currents.
Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) Amendment
CP
2AC — Magnusen-Stevens Act (MSA) Amendment CP
Answers
1. Doesn’t Solve Freshwater Fishing — that’s the internal link to our

advantage. MSA only addresses saltwater fishing in the EEZ.
NOAA, No Date, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is an American
scientific agency within the United States Department of Commerce that focuses on the
conditions of the oceans, major waterways, and the atmosphere, "Laws & Policies,"
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/laws-policies, Accessed July 5, 2021, HYZ
The Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) is the primary law
that governs marine fisheries management in U.S. federal waters. First passed in 1976, the MSA
fosters the long-term biological and economic sustainability of marine fisheries. Its objectives
include: Prior to 1976, international waters began at just 12 miles from shore and were fished by
unregulated foreign fleets. The MSA extended U.S. jurisdiction to 200 nautical miles and
established eight regional fishery management councils with representation from the coastal
states and fishery stakeholders. The councils develop fishery management plans that comply with
the MSA's conservation and management requirements, including 10 national standards to
promote sustainable fisheries management. The Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Reauthorization Act of 2006, which amended the High Seas Driftnet Fishing
Moratorium Protection Act, directs the United States to strengthen international fisheries
management organizations and to address illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing and
bycatch of protected living marine resources. The Moratorium Protection Act was further
amended in 2011 by the Shark Conservation Act to improve the conservation of sharks
domestically and internationally.
2. Permute: Do Both — not mutually exclusive.
3. No Politics Net-Benefit — Congress wants to gut the MSA. Counterplan

causes a big fight and costs PC.
Molly Masterton, 7-10-2018, Molly Masterton is the staff attorney at NRDC, "Congress Is
About to Gut the Law That Restored Our Fisheries," NRDC, https://www.nrdc.org/experts/molly-
masterton/congress-about-gut-law-restored-our-fisheries, Accessed July 9, 2021, HYZ
But for some lawmakers, the success of the MSA, strangely enough, is evidence that it’s time to
weaken those protections that have actually made it such a success. It’s like arguing for relaxing
the workplace-safety rules in a factory that hasn’t reported a single accident in years. According
to this line of thinking, the factory’s doing just fine these days—who needs all those pesky rules
for a “safe workplace” when the workplace is already safe? Cleverly, lawmakers who want to gut
the protections at the heart of the modern MSA claim they want to make the law more “flexible”
and cede more of its rulemaking and rule-enforcing power to the states or to local fisheries. With
the backing of certain special interests and industry groups, these lawmakers have been trying to
hobble the law for years, especially its provisions for imposing annual catch limits and
establishing and enforcing time lines for rebuilding. And now they’re closer than ever to realizing
their goal. On Wednesday the U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote on H.R. 200, a
bill that would reauthorize but also severely weaken the MSA. H.R. 200 has grabbed the attention
of a diverse and growing coalition of concerned citizens, including seafood producers and
distributors, commercial fishermen, conservation groups, and hundreds of scientists who have
spoken up to oppose it. This is because H.R. 200 is riddled with so many carve-outs and
loopholes that lawmakers will effectively be voting to reauthorize a version of the MSA that runs
completely counter to its protective, science-based aims. So devastating would the proposed
changes be to the MSA’s effectiveness that many have taken to referring to it as the “Empty
Oceans Act.” If passed in its current form, it would, among other things, let regional fishery
management councils raise the annual catch limits for certain stocks at will—allowing local
politics and public pressure to encroach on management decisions that ought to be based on data
and the scientific principles of fish conservation. It would also obliterate the idea of any time line
for the rebuilding of stocks, effectively telling fishery managers that they can take as much time
as they want. Combined with the first change, such a laissez-faire attitude toward preventing
overfishing and restoring fisheries is a (seafood) recipe for disaster.
4. Kills Fishing Industry — the counterplan’s restrictions crush rural

fisheries in the short-term.
Margaret Cooney, 6/3/2019 (campaign manager for Ocean Policy at American Progress), June
3, 2019. Retrieved Apr. 20, 2021 from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports
/2019/06/03/470585/marine-protected-areas-help-fisheries-ocean-ecosystems/, Retrieved
6/12/2021)
Recognize and mitigate the short-term costs to fisheries MPA supporters tend to focus on the
potential long-term benefits to the environment and the economy. However, the short-term
costs experienced most acutely by the fishing community are very real and can lead to
income losses.61 One way to gain support from the fishing community is to acknowledge the
role of short-term costs; work to mitigate the transitional economic risks associated with highly to
fully protected MPAs; and make clear that the long-term viability of fishing is not threatened by
designations. The fishing community often views the long-term benefits of MPAs as high risk
since there is no guarantee that the increased productivity associated with MPAs will provide a
benefit within a time frame that allows them to remain in business . Moreover, there is little
that can be done to prevent some of the major negative effects that can, and often do, result from
a temporary loss of income—for example, housing troubles and insurance issues.62 However,
studies have shown that post-designation, income can equal and even surpass pre-designation
income within as little as five years.63 One approach to alleviating short-term income loss is
benefit-sharing between stakeholders. In this method, user fees from nonextractive groups such as
tourists provide a source of stabilizing income to local fishermen during the first seasons of
designation.64 For example, in Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park in the Philippines, the benefit share
was financed through user fees from divers and dive operators, as well as through grant payments
from outside donors.65 These fees included compensation payments to local fishermen for lost
access to the fully protected MPA. Another crucial component of this model is that local
fishermen were granted exclusive access rights to fish in the areas outside the MPA in exchange
for their support in enforcing the fully protected MPA.66 Other risk-mitigating finance
mechanisms can come in the form of short-term government subsidies, low-interest loans, or
buyouts. During the late 1990s and early 2000s, as local MPAs were becoming more prevalent,
the various states and commonwealths in Australia implemented programs to alleviate lost
income due to displaced fishing efforts. Some programs amended fisheries regulations to include
compensation programs; others offered voluntary fishing license buyouts; and a few developed
complicated structural adjustment programs, which were a combination of financial assistance
packages that targeted short-term losses and license buyouts with longer-term effects.67
Understand the problems with buyouts and compensation programs Fishermen are not the only
stakeholders in these areas. Seafood processors, equipment suppliers, and related industries
within the community may also experience negative outcomes from a designation. As with
fishery disaster designation, potential compensation programs must therefore consider how large
a social safety net should be cast. The opportunity costs of not designating MPAs should also be
considered—for example, how much income the tourism industry is forgoing or the impact that
the closure could have on the local indigenous community. The designation process should
therefore include all stakeholders and determine the most fair methods for meeting their needs
and addressing their concerns.68 Take time to build trust Including local communities and
fishermen in the designation process is key. As discussed above, the fishing community was part
of the success of Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park in the Philippines. After a few years of faltering
success post-designation, stakeholder workshops and listening sessions were able to move past
grievances and begin to lay the groundwork for eventual buy-in.69 In the case of the highly
protected Marianas Trench Marine National Monument, designation was done with significant
support from indigenous and local communities as well as the government.70 After substantial
public input, the monument was designed to allow for subsistence, recreational, and traditional
indigenous fishing as long as the activity was determined to be sustainable. Although it was not
unanimous, many small-boat fishermen in the islands were supportive of this level of
protection.71 However, the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WESPAC),
which largely represents the interests of the Pacific longline fleet, was not supportive, despite
minimal levels of commercial fishing in the monument area.72 There was also pushback from the
Washington, D.C.-based recreational fishing lobby.73 The successful designation of the Marianas
Trench Marine National Monument shows that strong local support can overcome resistance from
nonlocal interests. However, local process has its limits. The designation of the Northeast
Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument was a huge step forward for protection in
the New England region, which up until that point, had no highly to fully protected areas.
Following numerous meetings with representatives of the commercial fishing industry,
designators incorporated fishermen’s suggestions, including the removal of the Cashes Ledge
area from monument status consideration; the division of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts
area into two separate components rather than a single unit; a 60 percent decrease in the size of
the Canyon Unit compared with the original proposal; and an unprecedented seven-year phase-in
of regulations for lobstermen and crabbers.74 Yet despite these significant changes, there was and
continues to be considerable pushback from the local fishing community, with one fishing
association even questioning the legality of the monument in court.75 Even with strong scientific
evidence for the benefits for MPAs and integrated consultation, there will likely always be those
who cannot be persuaded to support MPA designations. In the Pacific, WESPAC has argued that
vessels have lost tens of millions of dollars as a result of these protected areas, but since the tuna
fleets have consistently maximized their fishing capacity and caught all the fish they are allowed
to catch each year, the data do not support these claims.76 In the case of Northeast Canyons and
Seamounts, there is deep-rooted, long-standing animosity between federal regulators and
commercial fishing interests in New England, so any kind of government action—MPA
designation or otherwise—would most likely lack the fishing community’s support.
5. Overfishing Not Key — it’s at an all-time low in the U.S.

Nicholas Reimann, 7-28-2020, Nicholas Reimann is a news reporter for Forbes covering the
U.S. South and breaking news, "Overfishing In U.S. Reaches All-Time Low, NOAA Says,"
Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2020/07/28/overfishing-in-us-reaches-all-
time-low-noaa-says/?sh=1bf4754c4290, Accessed July 5, 2021, HYZ
While overfishing continues to remain a serious problem globally, its rate in the U.S. has reached
an all-time low, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which said
the outlooks for fish populations “continue to be strong, successful and achieving long-term
sustainability goals.” US-ENVIRONMENT-ECONOMY-LABOR-FISHING-OMEGA Omega
Protein fisherman Anthony Hodges, riding in a purse boat, looks down at a school of
Menhaden ... [+] ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES KEY
FACTS 7% of fish stocks, populations of fish in specific areas, with a known status, were subject
to overfishing in 2019, according to NOAA—the lowest rate ever reported. Overfishing occurs
when the harvest rate for a fish stock is too high. The scientific knowledge of fishing impacts has
continued to improve, according to NOAA, which appears to be a major reason behind the
American progress in rebuilding fisheries over the years. The overall outlook for fish stocks in
the U.S. is strong, according to NOAA, though the fishing industry in the U.S. and around the
world has taken a hit from the coronavirus pandemic. In the CARES Act, the coronavirus
stimulus package signed into law in March, $300 million was set aside specifically to help the
fishing community. CRITICAL QUOTE “It’s important we acknowledge the achievements in
sustainable fisheries made in recent years by fishermen, industries, scientists, managers and
conservationists across our nation. These updates are a testament to their outstanding work,” said
Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross. BIG NUMBER 1.74 million. That’s how many jobs the
fishing industry provides in the U.S., according to NOAA, with the industry accounting for over
$240 billion in annual sales.
1AR — Overfishing Not Key
Overfishing is declining and is not an issue
Sophia Warfield, 2020, Sophia Warfield is a writer, "The Issue of Overfishing in the United
States," No Publication, https://english.umd.edu/research-innovation/journals/interpolations/fall-
2020/issue-overfishing-united-states, Accessed July 5, 2021, HYZ
Due to these increasingly harmful instances of overfishing, a method of monitoring fish stocks
was developed globally called the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). The MSY is the absolute
maximum harvest of fish that should be taken annually from a certain population of fish for the
species to regenerate to the previous amount or higher for the next year, yet many people see it as
a goal rather than a limit. Because this did not work to end overfishing, the United States passed
the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCM) in 1976 to initiate
an annual catch limit for fisheries. This act also extended U.S jurisdiction, which required that
foreign ships follow the conservation laws (Powell, 2019). In 1976 before the MSFCM was
passed, foreign ships were catching 10 times as much as the US fishermen, which greatly
contributed to the overfishing of the entire area. Just after one year of the act passing, the United
States started creating more fishing vessels to catch fish in this area since foreign competitors left
and did not want to abide by the regulations. By 1992, the entire area was being controlled with
U.S. vessels following strict regulations, and all foreign vessels were gone, choosing to fish in an
unregulated area instead (Powell 2019). This proved to be beneficial because in 2016, only 8%
out of the 390 annual catch limits were exceeded. However, even with maximum sustainable
yields and the catch limits, the world’s total fishing yield continued to decrease after it reached
the highest yield in 1989 of about 90 million tons (“Overfishing”). Considering overfishing is not
the only problem leading to decreased yields, establishing a strict MSY will not be enough by
itself to accomplish reaching the supply of fish we once had.
COVID helped fish stocks bounce back – extra regulations are unnecessary
Tristram Korten, 4-8-2020, Tristram Korten is a journalist and author, "With Boats Stuck in
Harbor Because of COVID-19, Will Fish Bounce Back?," Smithsonian Magazine,
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/fish-stop-covid-19-180974623/, Accessed July
5, 2021, HYZ
The commercial fishing industry has hit rough seas. In Croatia, fishing boats bob listlessly at the
docks while 80 percent of the country's whitefish remains unsold. In France, safety rules designed
to stop the spread of COVID-19, coupled with reduced demand because of unemployment and
closed restaurants, have forced fleets to stay in port. Border closings prevent Greek fishermen
from getting their fish to market. Satellite data and observations indicate activity is down as much
as 80 percent in China and West Africa. “The demand for fresh fish as well as the selling prices
have collapsed,” the Mediterranean Advisory Council, a European NGO that advises on fisheries,
announced in a March 23 report. Even where there is demand, such as for canned tuna in the
U.S., travel constrains on crews, supplies and equipment keep the boats in the dock. “And some
ports where the boats would offload or transship fish are simply closed to them,” Bill Gibbons-
Fly, with the American Tunaboat Association said in a statement. A global slowdown of the
commercial fishing industry is bad news for anyone who makes their livelihood from the sea, and
fishermen will no doubt suffer. However, for the world’s beleaguered fish populations—and the
scientists trying to revive them—this unplanned fishing pause presents a research opportunity,
one that could demonstrate a better, more sustainable way to manage the oceans in the post-
COVID-19 era. In the past few decades, several trends have conspired to reduce the world’s fish
stocks to record-low levels. A 2019 study published in Science determined that climate change
was diminishing fish populations in some areas by 35 percent and reducing the global catch by 4
percent. Meanwhile, overfishing has reduced stocks of large high-demand predators such as the
Pacific bluefin tuna and Mediterranean Swordfish by about 90 percent compared to their pre-
industrial fishing populations. According to annual United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization figures, fishing fleets stay out longer and return with fewer fish while consumption
increases every year. Many scientists have in the past called for moratoriums on certain species to
allow their numbers to recover. For example, Daniel Pauly, an influential marine biologist and a
professor at the University of British Columbia, has previously advocated for a global
moratorium on high-seas fishing outside a country's exclusive economic zone to allow
populations to grow back. “Let's stop and let the stocks recover,” he told me before the pandemic.
“It will lead to more cost-effective fishing because we won't have to search all over for fish.” The
spread of COVID-19 has forced such a stop upon the world. The question now is what effects, if
any, a slowdown will have on fish populations. A slowdown that lasts a couple of months would
not have much long-lasting impact. However, if demand for fish dropped because of a wider
recession, operations could take longer to restart. A slowdown of at least a year would allow most
fish to go through their spawning cycle—and that may be enough for some species to flourish.
“Most European fish stocks (whitefish, flatfish, herring) will nearly double their biomass within
one year without fishing. So, reduction in catch caused by coronavirus will lead to an increase in
fish biomass,” says Rainer Froese of the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in
Germany. Froese says this could benefit about 40 percent of the stocks currently being
overfished. “This involuntary closure of fisheries will certainly have a beneficial effect on fish
stocks, and later on fisheries,” UBC's Pauly added in an email. “The same thing happened during
World War I and World War II: Our wars (another disease we have) are good for the fish.”
Indeed, past catastrophes illustrate what occurs when fishing is suddenly impossible. During
WWII, many European and North American fishing boats were pressed into military service as
supply or patrol vessels. For the rest, mines and submarine attacks often made it too dangerous to
venture out. “The war brought temporary reprieve for ocean life and allowed commercial stocks
of cod, haddock and plaice to replenish after heavy fishing pressures during the interwar period,”
says a 2012 paper in Environment and Society. In Europe, catch records for some fish dropped 60
to 80 percent. After the war, though, fishermen reaped the bounty as catch records exceeding the
prewar years. The fish they caught were bigger and older, a sign of a healthy population, but the
gains were short-lived—and not only because fishing resumed after the fighting stopped. The war
spawned technologies like sonar that were soon applied to fishing, and catch records grew
through the ensuing decades. Where We’re Headed In the short time commercial fishing has
slowed down because of COVID-19, fish behavior has begun to change. Pauly's colleagues in
China have reported that because of the decrease in fishing boats, smaller fish are appearing on
the ocean surface and predators are becoming more active. Tuna that originally followed the
Kuroshio Current through the China Sea to Japanese fishing grounds appear to be stopping in the
China Sea for feeding. The majority of the enormous Chinese commercial fishing fleet has been
docked for a month, according to David Kroodsma, director of research and innovation at Global
Fishing Watch, which monitors fishing activity via satellite. Chinese activity traditionally drops
off around the Chinese New Year in January or February. This year, that slowdown coincided
with the pandemic lockdown and activity never restarted. “They are down by about a million
fishing hours,” Kroodsma says, adding that they are starting to see a small uptick of activity. The
pandemic shutdown presents specific overfishing dangers, according to Bradley Soule, chief
analyst for the non-profit Ocean Mind. Large fishing boats that can process and freeze fish are
staying out at sea. Meanwhile, the patrols that monitor them have been reduced. “We're in the
process of reviewing data right now, but anecdotally it looks like there are slowdowns in more
coastal fisheries,” Soule said. “However, some off-shore fisheries look like they are going very
strong. Certain fleets that are designed to stay out are not coming home and they will fish more.
The cops aren't watching as closely in some areas, and everyone knows this.” Soule remains
skeptical that any benefit from a fishing slowdown would have a lasting impact because it doesn't
change the main driver of overfishing: increasing human consumption. The slowdown “is a
bump,” Soule said. It's not likely that a temporary and involuntary shutdown would
fundamentally alter the behavior of an entire industry. But it does offer a glimpse of what could
be—and a moment's pause to consider what’s ahead.
Aff Answers vs. Rural Economy CP
Agriculture Resilience Act (ARA) CP
2AC — ARA CP
1. Perm – do both – not mutually exclusive
2. Doesn’t solve – ARA invests in climate resilience for farms but zero
evidence that creates broader rural growth or fisheries protection key to the
advantage
3. Fish are the vital internal link to rural growth

Hughes 15 --- Robert M. Hughes, Amnis Opes Institute and Department of Fisheries and
Wildlife, Oregon State University, “Recreational fisheries in the USA: economics, management
strategies, and ecological threats’, Fisheries Science volume 81, pages1–9 (2015)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12562-014-0815-x
Recreational fishing is an economically and culturally important activity in the USA (Table 1). Based on
national census data, an estimated 33 million anglers in 2011 participated in over 443,000 fishing trips and
generated over $40 billion in retail sales. Because of economic multiplier effects, these
expenditures produced an estimated $115 billion economic impact and over 800,000 jobs. Based
on marine survey data, an estimated 12 million marine anglers took about 85,000 fishing trips in 2012 and spent nearly $31 billion,
which had an $82 billion economic impact and provided 500,000 jobs. Although there are more freshwater anglers,
marine anglers have a relatively greater economic impact because of the need for larger and more expensive gear and boats. In
northern latitude USA states where recreational fishing is economically important, 14–43 % of the population fishes, producing
10,000–38,000 jobs and a $1.1–4.3 billion economic impact (Table 2). In
two river basins in Idaho and Wyoming
with high-quality catch-and-release trout fisheries, 341–851 jobs and $12–29 million in county
income were created
(https://henrysfork.org/files/Completed%20Research%20Projects/Economic_Value_of_Recreational_to_Communities-Loomis.pdf).
Although this paper focuses on recreational fisheries, it is useful to compare them with the USA commercial seafood fisheries
(including harvesting, processing, distributing, and sales); in 2012, that industry provided 1.3 million jobs and a $239
billion economic impact (NMFS Web:
http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/economics/documents/feus/2012/FEUS2012_NationalOverview.pdf, accessed June 2014).
4. Links to Farming DA – regulates farmland emissions to get to net zero

emissions by 2040 – triggers their regulation links

Advantage CPs - SDI 2021 Scholars

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Advantage CPs - SDI 2021 Scholars

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advantage CPs - SDI 2021 Scholars

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

==NEGATIVE COUNTERPLANS==

Advantage CPs vs. Carbon

Climate action helps farmers economically – farmers themselves want it

The status quo cannot solve and an infrastructure package is needed

The CEAA is needed to fight the climate crisis

Biden’s agenda includes infrastructure to cut emissions

Plan is bipartisan but still needs some work

Tax incentives cut emissions and create jobs

Tax incentives solve transportation emissions – electric vehicles

ACP revenue can be used to drive clean energy

Climate action helps farmers economically – farmers themselves want it

Renewable energy key to empowering impoverished rural communities

CES will empower state efforts to advance clean energy

Existing pathways can limit carbon pollution; Biden Administration

Energy Efficiency Targets Linked to a CES

CES can be passed through budget reconciliation

The CP solves water quality — infrastructure investment.

The CP Solves Hawaii.

The CP solves wastewater systems.

***CLEAN + Bank + RDRA CP Notes***

***CLEAN Future Act CP Notes***

What does the CP do?

What does the CP do?

What does the EMP CP do?

Upsides of reading this CP —

Downsides of reading this CP —

FYI — EMPs, HEMPs, E1, E2, E3

What does the CP do?

***National Climate Bank CP Notes***

What does the CP do?

When should I run each CP?

The CP solves — it’s a comprehensive solution to strengthen climate policies

1. Design national climate policies to reduce pollution in front-line communities

The CP solves the climate, environmental justice, and economy scenarios — it

The DSPGA solves blackouts by increasing funding, grid resilience, and

* Gives special priority to smaller, rural electric companies.

The CP solves the blackouts scenario — it overcomes bureaucratic barriers

The RDRA solves by mitigating disasters and aiding recovery.

The CP solves — it increases investments towards clean energy, community

International Follow-On — the CP’s ambitious climate reduction could build

Industrial Practices — the CFA reduces industrial emissions while supporting

Power — the CP increases clean energy use while strengthening power.

Transportation — the CP’s clean transportation programs would cut pollution.

Grid Stability — clean energy mitigates blackouts and reduces costs.

Community Justice — the CP’s grid resilience programs directly aid

Disaster Recovery — the bill mitigates damage caused by natural disasters.

Energy Poverty — grid resilience would allow low-income homes to save

National EMP action is key — otherwise, bureaucrats will continue

Resource Allocation — the RDRA adjusts disaster relief to be more cost-effective

Climate Change — the bank could maximize a reduction in emissions, making

Community Revitalization — a bank could provide capital supporting fence-line

Economic Returns — numerous stakeholders could benefit.

Employment — investment toward front-line communities would provide

Furthermore, a National Green Bank should be authorized to accelerate the clean-energy

Infrastructure — a bank could transform power generation and transportation.

Meanwhile, transportation remains the highest contributor to U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. A

Investment Growth — banks could increase returns towards clean energy.

Local Support — a bank would enhance current local green initiatives.

Tech Modernization — a bank could advance grid resilience, alternative vehicle

CLEAN + Bank + RDRA CP Notes

CLEAN Future Act CP Notes

National Climate Bank CP Notes