Yep Shipsey. Superfund CAN’T sue in the Squo.

I’m
conceding it. Your response wins the issue. And loses the round

Roadmap

Inh

Justifications

Disads – more of them.

Inherency – “Supertax” being reinstated in 2011.

In his Inherency response, Shipsey acknowledged that Supertax would be reinstated in
2011. This gives me a link to a critical DA.

Link: Shipsey reinstates Superfund tax now.

Brink: We’re in an economic crisis.

Impact: Supertax is a JOB KILLER – in this economic crisis, we can’t adopt these bad
policies.

Bill Kovacs (Vice President for the Environment, Technology & Regulatory Affairs Division, U.S. Chamber of Commerce)
Published by National Journal Expert Blogs Energy & Environment at http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2009/03/should-the-us-
resurrect-superf.php.

"Should The U.S. Resurrect Superfund?" Published March 2, 2009; accessed August 29, 2009

In the stimulus package the administration added $600 million for the cleanup of hazardous
waste sites, $200 million for the cleanup of old underground storage tanks, and $100 million for
brownfield sites. Similar programs from the 1980’s fulfilled their usefulness. Now the new
administration wants to impose another $6 billion dollar tax on chemical and petroleum products
to pay for additional waste sites clean ups. All of this is on top of a possible $645 billion tax on
industry to pay for CO2 emissions, and that estimate could be on the low side if the cost of the
auction credits increase over time. These are all big, big monetary costs that are being imposed
on the business community. But let’s just focus on Superfund, Why is it needed and what will it
do? Based on EPA’s own website there are few federal sites left for cleanup to be completed;
most remaining sites are state sites. Of the completed 1063 NPL sites only 61 were federal, the
rest state sites. Of the proposed sites remaining to be cleaned up only 6 of 57 are federal. Of the
remaining final sites only 157 are federal and 1098 are state sites. Those observations
notwithstanding, leaving aside questions about the number and type of sites and the size of the
funding allocation for clean up of these remaining sites, the real issue is that the effort was, is,
and will continue to be a jobs killer.

SQ avoids the disad because Obama will reinstate it in 2011 after the economy recovers.

I’ll give to Shipsey that it hasn’t passed yet but I’m going to turn his responses saying
Senators are trying to get it passed because now all the evidence says it will be passed. So
all the evidence on the subject says that Obama wants to pass the Supertax, senators want
to pass the Supetax, and the democrats want to pass the Supertax. President Obama
currently has a 60 seat majority meaning he can pass anything he wants to pretty much
meaning that Supertax is gonna be passed in 2011 WHEN the economy recovers.

Justification 1. More Cleanups and Justification 2 Preemption effect… and for good
measure we’ll throw in his last ‘justice’ Justification..
Response 1: Shipsey misinterprets my arguments. I was showing that the states are doing a
good job and getting stuff done cleaning 4500 sites every year. My claim here is that
Shipsey has to prove that the increase in cleanups creates some significant benefit.

Response: There is no fundamental policy reason for treating state sites differently than
Federal sites – Impact: there isn’t a fundamental difference between them.

1. No difference between NPL sites and non NPL sites

Springer Berlin / Heidelberg

Published by Environmental Engineering and Policy at
http://www.springerlink.com/content/gtrtq9tenjb4rv5t/.
"Reauthorization of CERCLA and the redevelopment of brownfields: who will pay the
orphan's share?" [page 171-179, Volume 2, Number 4]. Published February 19,
2004; accessed December 21, 2009

"National Priorities List (NPL) sites and "orphaned" brownfield sites. Under both the
existing law and numerous proposals for the reauthorization of CERCLA, while the
Superfund may be used for the remediation of orphaned NPL sites, it may not be used for
the remediation of orphaned brownfield sites. In each situation, however, an absent,
insolvent, defunct, bankrupt or judgment-proof party has created a situation in which
remediation costs must be borne by the public. The study concludes that there is no
fundamental policy reason for treating these orphans differently and presents
recommendations to facilitate the remediation and redevelopment of both NPL sites
and brownfield sites [non NPL sites]."
What we see is that there isn’t any reason to treat state sites and federal sites any
differently. This means that all of my state efficiency statistics do apply as accurate
methods of comparison of efficiency. Result: if we increase cleanups from 40 to 80, we’re
still not having a fundamental impact.

Risks posed by sites not cleaned up virtually non-existent

Impact: There isn’t anything to clean up. Cross apply this under his preemption
justification because it completely guts it also as well as his injustice Justification.

Cato Institute (The Cato Institute was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane. It is a non-profit public policy research foundation
headquartered in Washington, D.C.) Published by Cato Handbook for the 108th Congress at
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-43.pdf.

"CATO HANDBOOK FOR CONGRESS - POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE 108TH CONGRESS" Published 2003--;
accessed August 29, 2009

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA), commonly known as “Superfund,” addresses the potential risks posed by the
past disposal of hazardous wastes. Most scientists and public health officials agree that
the risks posed by sites not yet cleaned up under CERCLA are virtually nonexistent.
Although those sites might pose a hazard if they were converted to different uses—say, if a
school with a dirt playground were built on top of an old Superfund site—such concerns
 are easily addressed by not converting such sites to problematic uses.

Impact 2: Most Superfund "risks" don't pose a threat to human health

Richard L. Stroup (Senior Fellow, Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), and Adjunct Professor of
Economics, North Carolina State University.) Published by Northwestern Law Searle Center on Law, Regulation, and Economic
Growth at http://www.law.northwestern.edu/searlecenter/papers/Stroup_Superfund.pdf.

"Why Good Managers Do Bad Things: The Case of Superfund" Published 2008; accessed August 27, 2009

The grand achievements envisioned from Superfund did not materialize. Five years after
the law was passed, many initially listed sites were still in limbo and a backlog of
additional sites was building up. A frustrated Congress expanded and strengthened EPA’s
authority and budget. Superfund has been a costly program. Despite spending $20 billion
by 1992, the program had shown little gain in the way of human health benefits.
Researchers have concluded that:
• Most assessed Superfund "risks" do not currently pose a threat to human health
and will do so only if people actually inhabit known contaminated sites in the
future.
• Even if exposure did occur, there is less than a one-percent chance that the risks
are as great as EPA estimates, because of the extreme assumptions made by EPA.
• Cancer risk is the main concern at Superfund sites. Yet at the majority of sites,
each cleanup is expected to avert only 0.1 cases of cancer. Estimated median cost
per cancer case averted is over $7 billion; at 87 of the 96 sites having the
necessary data available, the costs per cancer case averted (only some of which
would mean a life saved) was above $100 million.
• Other federal programs commonly consider a life saved to be worth about $5
million. Diverting expenditures from most Superfund sites to other sites or other
risk-reduction missions, using more realistic analyses, could save many more lives
or save the same number of lives at far less cost.”

These couple of cards completely GUT every single reason you could possibly have for
voting affirmative.

1. More cleanups – Cleanups aren’t efficient (cross apply 1NC cards) and don’t solve
anything.

2. Preempts Cleanups – But there wasn’t any risk in the first place – and Superfund
doesn’t bill the people who actually polluted it.

3. Environmental injustice – Shipsey’s original harm evidence states that minority

communities have to wait 10.4 years for cleanups rather than 9.9 years for cleanups. First,
there wasn’t ever any risk IN those sites as proved through the above cards but also there
isn’t any articulated impact to waiting half a year to clean up a site. Make Shipsey prove
that people are going to die because they have to wait a few more months for these sites to
be cleaned up. There’s no threshold. No articulated Impact. No Justification.

Another interesting point is that he slipped Polluter Pays in somewhere under here and he
then made a big deal that with an aff ballot, you end the taxpayer paying. In CX, Shipsey
conceded that the current funding was static and would continue. Further, Patrick doesn’t
cut that funding… ;-)… Impact, he loses that innocent people stop paying…

And before we get to disads, let’s look at Shipsey’s second Justification a little bit closer.
Because this is a pretty important argument. Shipsey says that if the tax is reinstated, he
gets the preemption effect and people will magically stop polluting. This is simply not true
and Shipsey is arguing on the wrong side of 30 years of historical precedent. It’s important
to note that every single card I quote on the disad of injustice comes from before the Trust
Fund dried up – Impact, he still links.

Now, we get Disads. The most important disad is that of injustice. And here’s where it’s
important that I concede that Superfund can’t sue for cleanups without having anything in
the trust fund.

The Link: Shipsey refills the trust fund.

Brink: Shipsey kindly proved this in his last speech – Superfund can’t sue for cleanups
without the trust fund being active.

Uniqueness: Superfund’s trust fund isn’t active which means this disad will ONLY come
about with an affirmative ballot.

Impacts:

1. Superfund trials are arbitrary

Richard L. Stroup (Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, Adjunct Professor of Economica at North Carolina
State University and Professor of Economics at Montana State University)
Published at http://www.perc.org/articles/article640.php.
"The Shortcut That Failed (full)" Published May 1, 1996; accessed December 21, 2009

"The firms required to pay for the cleanups have little chance to defend themselves
against being billed enormous sums, and the EPA doesn't even have to prove that there is
a health risk from the site, but only that its own decisions were not arbitrary or
capricious."
 1. Superfund not restrained by checks and balances

Richard L. Stroup (Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, Adjunct Professor of Economica at North Carolina
State University and Professor of Economics at Montana State University)
Published at http://www.perc.org/articles/article640.php.
"The Shortcut That Failed (full)" Published May 1, 1996; accessed December 21, 2009

But there is no impartial review of EPA decisions. Courts can only decide if officials are
following these procedures and consider whether they have been arbitrary or capricious.
In addition, three special taxes raise money earmarked for Superfund. Superfund is not
restrained by the checks and balances that normally characterize government."

This injustice disad is big enough to weigh out EVERY single other argument in this round
and Shipsey now has absolutely zero chance of linking out, and as Shipsey kindly proved
uniqueness, this disad is going to cost him the round. Shipsey might as well have conceded
the round when he argued that Superfund can’t sue companies without the trust fund.

The most important thing to think about in this round is that Shipsey isn’t doing
ANYTHING new. Everything Shipsey is doing has been tried before and every single
action he’s advocated has FAILED before.

I’d ask you, judge, to discount every card about Superfund being awesome that isn’t pre
1995. Because people today don’t actually look at the history of the program, they think
that the simple solution is to give a fundamentally flawed program more money. Every
piece I’ve read on the issue shows that Superfund is a fundamentally flawed program that
is set up to fail.

Conclusion.

Inh – Shipsey uniquely links to Economics disads because he seeks to implement Superfund
now instead of later.

Justifications: Risks posed are nonexistent. Shipsey can’t provide any unique health
benefits as Superfund doesn’t provide any because the sites aren’t harmful. The EPA’s risk
assessments are fundamentally flawed, and his injustice evidence is incredibly insignificant.

Disads: Shipsey uniquely links with my injustice disad and proves uniqueness in his 2AC.
He just guaranteed that he links to the disad and has NO CHANCE of getting out of it.
Round over. Shipsey has just lost himself the round by showing that my injustice disad
could ONLY take place under an affirmative ballot.
Nuclear War: You’d get Obama and maybe Biden and if you’re lucky Pelosi but still,
Clinton would then smack you with a frying pan and then you’d have been beaten by the
first female president as well as Marshall Yaklin. Wham Bam thank you Ma’am

Because Shipsey gives me the links to my unique offense, he’s lost the round. You’re voting
aff if you don’t want to see Shipsey on the floor at the feet of Hilary and the injustice that’s
only possible with an aff ballot continuing.

Thanks, you’re voting neg.