Roadmap: DA and CP come first, then some new stuff.

Disadvantage 1: Environment
1. He concedes the link. Yup. He said “My plan doesn’t force the states to do
anything, it just removes federal regulations from certain areas.” That’s my whole
point! The DA contends that when the federal government pulls out, and the states
are left to decide whether or not they pick up the slack, they won’t. Net result is a
loss in environmental protection. Let’s look at the budgets.
2. Budgets. He had two points here.
a. Short term problem. No way. The card just says the recession will end, not
that the budgets will recover. In fact, the shortfalls will continue at least
through 2011.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, December 18 2009

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1214#_ftn1
The vast majority of states also faced (or are facing) additional shortfalls projected
for the 2010 fiscal year, which in most states began July 1, 2009. Even more
budget gaps are projected for fiscal year 2011. Total shortfalls for 2010 and 2011
are likely to exceed $350 billion.

b. Budgets don’t matter: Can you say POWER TAGGED? This card just says
that states like to enforce environmental issues. It has zero applicability
because in 2005 (which is the date on the card, just to remind you) states
weren’t running budget shortfalls. Times change, so do priorities.
3. Cost of regulation. Great. He provided 3 cards which say that states are swell at
regulating. It doesn’t say that they can do it for cheap. Plus, cross apply my
response under point 2b. The most recent data in there is from 06 (he has an 09
card, but its referencing 06 occurrences). Pull through my card from the 1NC which
says states can in no way afford to deal with waste cleanup.
4. Priority of environment. His basic response here is that my card wasn’t
definitive, and to look at empirics. First off, it’s impossible to say for certain wether
or not the states will regulate, but logic and the evidence say that they won’t.
Second, let’s look at empirics. Current state efforts are notoriously sparse.

Jonathan Adler, 08
"Existing state-level measures are currently minimal and uncertain, but even
if they were more developed, their potential effectiveness in the absence of
a federal regime remains speculative at best.”

Bottom Line on the CP: He concedes the link, his responses to the budget and priority
points don’t apply, and the impact stands. Under the affirmative plan, environmental
issues will fall through the cracks.
 DA continues on next page 
Let’s talk about scope.
This is something that Peter has skimmed over in the round: scope of regulation and
cleanup. He had some cards in the 2ac talking about effectiveness of state regulation. I
want to make something very clear: State efforts at environmental protection are tiny
and limited, especially when compared to federal efforts. Look at the 1nc card about
waste cleanup: States have been able to clean up small sites; no where near the scale
that the federal government can. It doesn’t matter how good of a job they did; I have a
couple cards on the flow which have shown their limited scope. Do not allow him to come
up with cards about state effectiveness. These cards prove nothing until they establish
scope.

Counterplan
Fine. Condo is bad. I won’t kick the CP, I promise. I won’t need to, because his only other
response is a perm based off a gross misunderstanding of the CP.

The Perm!
He can’t perm the CP because its mutually exclusive with the plan. The plan wants to get
rid of all federal regulation in the areas articulated in CX. Gone. Immediately. My CP
doesn’t eliminate those rules; it just allows states to override them. You can’t get rid of
federal regulations, and keep them in place at the same time. My CP is not his plan.
Remember my example from the 1nc. If Vermont wants to do its own cleanup, then
superfund will cease to operate there. If, however, New Hampshire doesn’t want that job,
superfund is still waiting in the wings. The aff plan would simply abolish superfund and
say “Sorry New Hampshire, you’re on your own.” His perm is bogus because the plans
are mutually exclusive.

Remember kids, no new responses to the CP in the 1ar. It will skew my whole negative
strategy and then I’ll have to send a complaint e-mail to Isaiah.

So, since this is a constructive, and since I finally got that list of stuff from him in cross-x,
I think I’ll run some Das. Starting with
Disadvantage 2: Coal Ash!!!!!!!!!
Oh yeah. That’s right. The aff plan will ruin chances of solving coal ash. First, uniqueness.

A) Uniqueness: EPA is going to fix coal ash

EPA press release, March of 2009
Responding to last year’s massive coal ash spill at a Tennessee Valley Authority facility
in Kingston, Tennessee, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today laid out new
efforts to prevent future threats to human health and the environment. The agency’s
plan includes measures to gather critical coal ash impoundment information from
electrical utilities nationwide, conduct on-site assessments to determine structural
integrity and vulnerabilities, order cleanup and repairs where needed, and develop new
regulations for future safety. “Environmental disasters like the one last December in
Kingston should never happen anywhere in this country,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P.
Jackson. “That is why we are announcing several actions to help us properly protect the
families who live near these facilities and the places where they live, work, play and
learn.”

B) Link: Peter clarified in CX that solid waste (coal ash) would now be a state
responsibility

C) Brink: States can’t solve ash

New York Times, January 7, 2009, “Hundreds of Coal Ash Dumps Lack Regulation,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/us/07sludge.html

Environmentalists are skeptical of the industry’s voluntary self-policing plan and

the states’ ability to tighten controls. “The states have proven that they can’t
regulate this waste adequately, and that’s seen in the damage that is occurring all
over the United States,” said Lisa Evans, a former E.P.A. lawyer who now works on
hazardous-waste issues for the environmental advocacy group Earthjustice. “If the
states could regulate the industry appropriately, they would have done so by now.”
 DA continues 
D) Impact: Death, disease, famine, and sick birdies
I’ll just put in a few of my aff backup cards here.

Ash causes cancer and birth defects

New York Times, (news agency) January 7, 2009, “Hundreds of Coal Ash Dumps Lack
Regulation,” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/us/07sludge.html

Numerous studies have shown that the ash can leach toxic substances that can cause cancer, birth defects and
other health problems in humans.

Ash causes cancer

Washington Post, June 8 2009

One out of every 50 people living near sites used to store ash or sludge from coal-fired power plants has cancer,
according to a just released government report.

Chart: EPA cancer risk assessment

EPA human health and ecological risk assessment, “coal ash” 2007
And, since I have some word count left, why not?
Disadvantage 3 is Industry
Varying regulations in different states hurt business.

Jason Johnston, Professor at University of Pennsylvania school of law, 08

Instead, the Court’s overriding objective in this (as in most every other) area of
constitutional interpretation is to further the development of the interstate, national
market. From this vantage point, federal environmental regulation, while often
misguided, is at least superior to sub-national regulation because it replaces
what might otherwise be a welter of varying and sometimes conflicting state
environmental laws and regulations with a system based on nationally uniform,
technology-based standards. Such nationally uniform standards decrease the
transaction costs of interstate industrial expansion and are, on this view of the
world, desirable.