Gas Tax Aff -- SCFI 12 - Paper.pdf

Document Sample
Gas Tax Aff -- SCFI 12 - Paper.pdf Powered By Docstoc
					SCFI	
  2012	
                                                   1	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                           	
     Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  
AFF	
                                                              2	
  
1AC	
                                                              3	
  
2AC	
                                                             29	
  
INH	
  EXT.	
                                                     30	
  
AUTO-­‐INDUSTRY	
  EXT.	
                                         31	
  
WARMING	
  !	
  EXT.	
  (1/2)	
                                   32	
  
EXT.	
  CONSUMER	
  HABITS	
  (1/2)	
                             34	
  
A2:	
  REGRESSIVE	
  (1/)	
                                       36	
  
RUSSIA	
  ADD-­‐ON	
  (1/2)	
                                     38	
  
TERRORISM	
  ADD-­‐ON	
  (1/2)	
                                  40	
  
HEG	
  ADD-­‐ON	
  (1/2)	
                                        42	
  
OIL	
  ADD-­‐ON	
                                                 44	
  
A2:	
  SQUO	
  SOLVES	
                                           45	
  
A2:	
  SPENDING	
  DA	
                                           46	
  
OIL	
  DEPENDENCE	
  T/	
  K	
                                    47	
  
A2:	
  STATES	
  CP	
  (1/2)	
                                    48	
  
AT:	
  VMT	
  CP	
  (1/2)	
                                       50	
  
A2:	
  T	
  -­‐	
  INFRA	
                                        52	
  
NEG	
                                                             53	
  
CASE	
                                                            54	
  
A2:	
  SOLVENCY	
                                                 55	
  
A2:	
  ACCIDENTS	
  (1/)	
                                        56	
  
A2:	
  ECON	
  (1/2)	
                                            58	
  
A2:	
  WARMING	
  (1/)	
                                          60	
  
A2:	
  ADD-­‐ONS	
                                                64	
  
A2:	
  RUSSIA	
                                                   65	
  
A2:	
  TERROR	
  (1/3)	
                                          66	
  
A2:	
  HEG	
                                                      69	
  
A2:	
  OIL	
                                                      70	
  
VEHICLE	
  MILE	
  FEE	
  CP	
                                    71	
  
1NC	
  VEHICLE	
  MILE	
  FEE	
  CP	
                             72	
  
SOLVENCY	
  –	
  CONGESTION	
                                     73	
  
SOLVENCY	
  –	
  EMPIRICS	
                                       74	
  
A2:	
  LINKS	
  TO	
  POLITICS	
                                  75	
  
A2:	
  GPS	
  EXPENSIVE	
                                         76	
  
A2:	
  HURTS	
  THE	
  POOR	
                                     77	
  
REVENUE	
  NEUTRAL	
                                              78	
  
STATES	
  CP	
                                                    79	
  
SOLVENCY	
                                                        80	
  
POLITICS	
                                                        81	
  
UNPOPULAR	
                                                       82	
  
PUBLIC	
                                                          83	
  
WOMEN	
  &GOP	
                                                   84	
  
DEMOCRATS	
                                                       85	
  
NORQUIST	
  LINK	
                                                86	
  
SMALL	
  BUSINESS	
  LOBBY	
                                      87	
  
POPULAR	
                                                         88	
  
PUBLIC	
                                                          89	
  
COC	
                                                             90	
  
GOP	
                                                             91	
  
BIPARTISAN	
                                                      92	
  
OLD	
  EV	
  DOESN’T	
  APPLY	
                                   93	
  
MISC	
                                                            94	
  
PUBLIC	
  BACKLASH	
  INEVITABLE	
                                95	
  
NO	
  LINK—OBAMA	
  WON’T	
  PUSH	
                               96	
  
ELECTIONS:	
  PLAN	
  HURTS	
  OBAMA	
                            97	
  
	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                2	
  
Starter	
  Set	
       	
      Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  




                     Aff	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                3	
  
Starter	
  Set	
        	
     Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  


                     1AC	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                   4	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                	
                                                Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                       1AC	
  –	
  Plan	
  
Plan:	
  The	
  United	
  States	
  Federal	
  Government	
  should	
  increase	
  the	
  gas	
  tax	
  by	
  $1	
  and	
  use	
  
all	
  revenues	
  for	
  transportation	
  infrastructure.	
  	
  	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               5	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                                                        	
                                                                                                    Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                              1AC	
  –	
  Warming	
  Adv	
  (1/10)	
  
Contention	
  __	
  is	
  Warming	
  
Warming	
  is	
  real	
  and	
  anthropogenic—models	
  and	
  scientific	
  consensus	
  are	
  on	
  our	
  side	
  
Rahmstorf	
  8	
  (Richard.	
  Professor	
  of	
  Physics	
  of	
  the	
  Oceans	
  at	
  Potsdam	
  University.	
  Global	
  Warming:	
  
Looking	
  Beyond	
  Kyoto.	
  Edited	
  by	
  Ernesto	
  Zedillo.	
  “Anthropogenic	
  Climate	
  Change?”	
  Page	
  42-­‐49)	
  
It	
  is	
  time	
  to	
  turn	
  to	
  statement	
  B:	
  human	
  activities	
  are	
  altering	
  the	
  climate.	
  This	
  can	
  be	
  broken	
  into	
  two	
  parts.	
  The	
  first	
  is	
  as	
  follows:	
  global	
  climate	
  is	
  	
  warming.	
  This	
  

is	
  by	
  now	
  a	
  generally	
  undisputed	
  point	
  (except	
  by	
  novelist	
  Michael	
  Crichton),	
  so	
  we	
  deal	
  with	
  it	
  only	
  briefly.	
  The	
  two	
  leading	
  compilations	
  of	
  data	
  measured	
  
with	
  thermometers	
  are	
  shown	
  in	
  figure	
  3-­‐3,	
  that	
  of	
  the	
  National	
  Aeronautics	
  and	
  Space	
  Administration	
  (NASA)	
  and	
  that	
  of	
  the	
  British	
  Hadley	
  Centre	
  for	
  Climate	
  

Change.	
  Although	
  they	
  differ	
  in	
  the	
  details,	
  due	
  to	
  the	
  inclusion	
  of	
  different	
  data	
  sets	
  and	
  use	
  of	
  different	
  spatial	
  averaging	
  and	
  quality	
  control	
  procedures,	
  they	
  both	
  show	
  a	
  

consistent	
  picture,	
  with	
  a	
  global	
  mean	
  warming	
  of	
  0.8°C	
  since	
  the	
  late	
  nineteenth	
  century.	
  Temperatures	
  over	
  the	
  past	
  ten	
  years	
  clearly	
  were	
  
the	
  warmest	
  since	
  measured	
  records	
  have	
  been	
  available.	
  The	
  year	
  1998	
  sticks	
  out	
  well	
  above	
  the	
  longterm	
  trend	
  due	
  to	
  the	
  occurrence	
  of	
  a	
  major	
  El	
  Nino	
  event	
  that	
  year	
  (the	
  last	
  El	
  

Nino	
  so	
  far	
  and	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  strongest	
  on	
  record).	
  These	
  events	
  are	
  examples	
  of	
  the	
  largest	
  natural	
  climate	
  variations	
  on	
  multiyear	
  time	
  

scales	
  and,	
  by	
  releasing	
  heat	
  from	
  the	
  ocean,	
  generally	
  cause	
  positive	
  anomalies	
  in	
  global	
  mean	
  

temperature.	
  It	
  is	
  remarkable	
  that	
  the	
  year	
  2005	
  rivaled	
  the	
  heat	
  of	
  1998	
  even	
  though	
  no	
  El	
  Nino	
  event	
  occurred	
  that	
  year.	
  (A	
  bizarre	
  curiosity,	
  perhaps	
  worth	
  mentioning,	
  is	
  that	
  
several	
  prominent	
  "climate	
  skeptics"	
  recently	
  used	
  the	
  extreme	
  year	
  1998	
  to	
  claim	
  in	
  the	
  media	
  that	
  global	
  warming	
  had	
  ended.	
  In	
  Lindzen's	
  words,	
  "Indeed,	
  the	
  absence	
  of	
  any	
  record	
  
breakers	
  during	
  the	
  past	
  seven	
  years	
  is	
  statistical	
  evidence	
  that	
  temperatures	
  are	
  not	
  increasing.")33	
  In	
  addition	
  to	
  the	
  surface	
  measurements,	
  the	
  more	
  recent	
  portion	
  of	
  the	
  global	
  warming	
  
trend	
  (since	
  1979)	
  is	
  also	
  documented	
  by	
  satellite	
  data.	
  It	
  is	
  not	
  straightforward	
  to	
  derive	
  a	
  reliable	
  surface	
  temperature	
  trend	
  from	
  satellites,	
  as	
  they	
  measure	
  radiation	
  coming	
  from	
  
throughout	
  the	
  atmosphere	
  (not	
  just	
  near	
  the	
  surface),	
  including	
  the	
  stratosphere,	
  which	
  has	
  strongly	
  cooled,	
  and	
  the	
  records	
  are	
  not	
  homogeneous'	
  due	
  to	
  the	
  short	
  life	
  span	
  of	
  individual	
  
                                                                                                                                                         Current	
  analyses	
  of	
  these	
  satellite	
  data	
  
satellites,	
  the	
  problem	
  of	
  orbital	
  decay,	
  observations	
  at	
  different	
  times	
  of	
  day,	
  and	
  drifts	
  in	
  instrument	
  calibration.'	
  

show	
  trends	
  that	
  are	
  fully	
  consistent	
  with	
  surface	
  measurements	
  and	
  model	
  simulations."	
  If	
  no	
  reliable	
  
temperature	
  measurements	
  existed,	
  could	
  we	
  be	
  sure	
  that	
  the	
  climate	
  is	
  warming?	
  The	
  "canaries	
  in	
  the	
  coal	
  mine"	
  of	
  
climate	
  change	
  (as	
  glaciologist	
  Lonnie	
  Thompson	
  puts	
  it)	
  ~are	
  mountain	
  glaciers.	
  We	
  know,	
  both	
  from	
  old	
  photographs	
  and	
  from	
  the	
  position	
  of	
  the	
  

terminal	
  moraines	
  heaped	
  up	
  by	
  the	
  flowing	
  ice,	
  that	
  mountain	
  glaciers	
  have	
  been	
  in	
  retreat	
  all	
  over	
  the	
  world	
  during	
  the	
  
past	
  century.	
  There	
  are	
  precious	
  few	
  exceptions,	
  and	
  they	
  are	
  associated	
  with	
  a	
  strong	
  increase	
  in	
  precipitation	
  or	
  local	
  cooling.36	
  I	
  have	
  inspected	
  examples	
  of	
  shrinking	
  glaciers	
  myself	
  in	
  field	
  
trips	
  to	
  Switzerland,	
  Norway,	
  and	
  New	
  Zealand.	
  As	
  glaciers	
  respond	
  sensitively	
  to	
  temperature	
  changes,	
  data	
  on	
  the	
  extent	
  of	
  glaciers	
  have	
  been	
  used	
  to	
  reconstruct	
  a	
  history	
  of	
  Northern	
  
Hemisphere	
  temperature	
  over	
  the	
  past	
  four	
  centuries	
  (see	
  figure	
  3-­‐4).	
  Cores	
  drilled	
  in	
  tropical	
  glaciers	
  show	
  signs	
  of	
  recent	
  melting	
  that	
  is	
  unprecedented	
  at	
  least	
  throughout	
  the	
  Holocene-­‐the	
  
                 Another	
  powerful	
  sign	
  of	
  warming,	
  visible	
  clearly	
  from	
  satellites,	
  is	
  the	
  shrinking	
  Arctic	
  sea	
  ice	
  cover	
  (figure	
  3-­‐
past	
  10,000	
  years.	
  

5),	
  which	
  has	
  declined	
  20	
  percent since                                      1979
                                                                                         	
          	
  satellite	
  observations	
  began	
  in	
                       .	
  	
  While	
  climate	
  clearly	
  became	
  warmer	
  in	
  the	
  twentieth	
  century,	
  much	
  
discussion	
  particularly	
  in	
  the	
  popular	
  media	
  has	
  focused	
  on	
  the	
  question	
  of	
  how	
  "unusual"	
  this	
  warming	
  is	
  in	
  a	
  longer-­‐term	
  context.	
  While	
  this	
  is	
  an	
  interesting	
  question,	
  it	
  has	
  often	
  been	
  
mixed	
  incorrectly	
  with	
  the	
  question	
  of	
  causation.	
  Scientifically,	
  how	
  unusual	
  recent	
  warming	
  is-­‐say,	
  compared	
  to	
  the	
  past	
  millennium-­‐in	
  itself	
  contains	
  little	
  information	
  about	
  its	
  cause.	
  Even	
  a	
  
                                                                           even	
  a	
  warming	
  within	
  the	
  bounds	
  of	
  past	
  
highly	
  unusual	
  warming	
  could	
  have	
  a	
  natural	
  cause	
  (for	
  example,	
  an	
  exceptional	
  increase	
  in	
  solar	
  activity).	
  And	
  

natural	
  variations	
  could	
  have	
  a	
  predominantly	
  anthropogenic	
  cause.	
  I	
  come	
  to	
  the	
  question	
  of	
  causation	
  shortly,	
  after	
  briefly	
  visiting	
  
the	
  evidence	
  for	
  past	
  natural	
  climate	
  variations.	
  Records	
  from	
  the	
  time	
  before	
  systematic	
  temperature	
  measurements	
  were	
  collected	
  are	
  based	
  on	
  "proxy	
  data,"	
  coming	
  from	
  tree	
  rings,	
  ice	
  
cores,	
  corals,	
  and	
  other	
  sources.	
  These	
  proxy	
  data	
  are	
  generally	
  linked	
  to	
  local	
  temperatures	
  in	
  some	
  way,	
  but	
  they	
  may	
  be	
  influenced	
  by	
  other	
  parameters	
  as	
  well	
  (for	
  example,	
  precipitation),	
  
they	
  may	
  have	
  a	
  seasonal	
  bias	
  (for	
  example,	
  the	
  growth	
  season	
  for	
  tree	
  rings),	
  and	
  high-­‐quality	
  long	
  records	
  are	
  difficult	
  to	
  obtain	
  and	
  therefore	
  few	
  in	
  number	
  and	
  geographic	
  coverage.	
  
Therefore,	
  there	
  is	
  still	
  substantial	
  uncertainty	
  in	
  the	
  evolution	
  of	
  past	
  global	
  or	
  hemispheric	
  temperatures.	
  (Comparing	
  only	
  local	
  or	
  regional	
  temperature;	
  as	
  in	
  Europe,	
  is	
  of	
  limited	
  value	
  for	
  
our	
  purposes,'	
  as	
  regional	
  variations	
  can	
  be	
  much	
  larger	
  than	
  global	
  ones	
  and	
  can	
  have	
  many	
  regional	
  causes,	
  unrelated	
  to	
  global-­‐scale	
  forcing	
  and	
  climate	
  change.)	
  The	
  first	
  quantitative	
  
reconstruction	
  for	
  the	
  Northern	
  Hemisphere	
  temperature	
  of	
  the	
  past	
  millennium,	
  including	
  an	
  error	
  estimation,	
  was	
  presented	
  by	
  Mann,	
  Bradley,	
  and	
  Hughes	
  and	
  rightly	
  highlighted	
  in	
  the	
  
                                                                                                                twentieth-­‐century	
  
2001	
  IPCC	
  report	
  as	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  major	
  new	
  findings	
  since	
  its	
  1995	
  report;	
  it	
  is	
  shown	
  in	
  figure	
  3_6.39	
  The	
  analysis	
  suggests	
  that,	
  despite	
  the	
  large	
  error	
  bars,	
  

warming	
  is	
  indeed	
  highly	
  unusual	
  and	
  probably	
  was	
  unprecedented	
  during	
  the	
  past	
  millennium.	
  This	
  result,	
  
presumably	
  because	
  of	
  its	
  symbolic	
  power,	
  has	
  attracted	
  much	
  criticism,	
  to	
  some	
  extent	
  in	
  scientific	
  journals,	
  but	
  even	
  more	
  so	
  in	
  the	
  popular	
  media.	
  The	
  hockey	
  stick-­‐shaped	
  curve	
  became	
  a	
  
symbol	
  for	
  the	
  IPCC,	
  .and	
  criticizing	
  this	
  particular	
  data	
  analysis	
  became	
  an	
  avenue	
  for	
  some	
  to	
  question	
  the	
  credibility	
  of	
  the	
  IPCC.	
  Three	
  important	
  things	
  have	
  been	
  overlooked	
  in	
  much	
  of	
  the	
  
media	
  coverage.	
  First,	
  even	
  if	
  the	
  scientific	
  critics	
  had	
  been	
  right,	
  this	
  would	
  not	
  have	
  called	
  into	
  question	
  the	
  very	
  cautious	
  conclusion	
  drawn	
  by	
  the	
  IPCC	
  from	
  the	
  reconstruction	
  by	
  Mann,	
  
Bradley,	
  and	
  Hughes:	
  "New	
  analyses	
  of	
  proxy	
  data	
  for	
  the	
  Northern	
  Hemisphere	
  indicate	
  that	
  the	
  increase	
  in	
  temperature	
  in	
  the	
  twentieth	
  century	
  is	
  likely	
  to	
  have	
  been	
  the	
  largest	
  of	
  any	
  
                       ."	
  This	
  conclusion	
  has	
  since	
  been	
  supported	
  further	
  by	
  every	
  single	
  one	
  of	
  close	
  to	
  a	
  
century	
  during	
  the	
  past	
  1,000	
  years

dozen	
  new	
  reconstructions	
  (two	
  of	
  which	
  are	
  shown	
  in	
  figure	
  3-­‐6).	
  Second,	
  by	
  far	
  the	
  most	
  serious	
  scientific	
  criticism	
  raised	
  against	
  Mann,	
  Hughes,	
  and	
  Bradley	
  was	
  
simply	
  based	
  on	
  a	
  mistake.	
  40	
  The	
  prominent	
  paper	
  of	
  von	
  Storch	
  and	
  others,	
  which	
  claimed	
  (based	
  on	
  a	
  model	
  test)	
  that	
  the	
  method	
  of	
  Mann,	
  Bradley,	
  and	
  Hughes	
  systematically	
  
underestimated	
  variability,	
  "was	
  [itself]	
  based	
  on	
  incorrect	
  implementation	
  of	
  the	
  reconstruction	
  procedure."41	
  With	
  correct	
  implementation,	
  climate	
  field	
  reconstruction	
  procedures	
  such	
  as	
  
                                                                                                                                              If	
  
the	
  one	
  used	
  by	
  Mann,	
  Bradley,	
  and	
  Hughes	
  have	
  been	
  shown	
  to	
  perform	
  well	
  in	
  similar	
  model	
  tests.	
  Third,	
  whether	
  their	
  reconstruction	
  is	
  accurate	
  or	
  not	
  has	
  no	
  bearing	
  on	
  policy.	
  

their	
  analysis	
  underestimated	
  past	
  natural	
  climate	
  variability,	
  this	
  would	
  certainly	
  not	
  argue	
  for	
  a	
  
smaller	
  climate	
  sensitivity	
  and	
  thus	
  a	
  lesser	
  concern	
  about	
  the	
  consequences	
  of	
  our	
  emissions.	
  	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            6	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                                                        	
                                                                                                                 Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                              1AC	
  –	
  Warming	
  Adv	
  (2/10)	
  
	
  
Some	
  have	
  argued	
  that,	
  in	
  contrast,	
  it	
  would	
  point	
  to	
  a	
  larger	
  climate	
  sensitivity.	
  While	
  this	
  is	
  a	
  valid	
  point	
  in	
  principle,	
  it	
  does	
  not	
  apply	
  in	
  practice	
  to	
  the	
  climate	
  sensitivity	
  estimates	
  discussed	
  
herein	
  or	
  to	
  the	
  range	
  given	
  by	
  IPCC,	
  since	
  these	
  did	
  not	
  use	
  the	
  reconstruction	
  of	
  Mann,	
  Hughes,	
  and	
  Bradley	
  or	
  any	
  other	
  proxy	
  records	
  of	
  the	
  past	
  millennium.	
  Media	
  claims	
  that	
  "a	
  pillar	
  of	
  
the	
  Kyoto	
  Protocol"	
  had	
  been	
  called	
  into	
  question	
  were	
  therefore	
  misinformed.	
  As	
  an	
  aside,	
  the	
  protocol	
  was	
  agreed	
  in	
  1997,	
  before	
  the	
  reconstruction	
  in	
  question	
  even	
  existed.	
  The	
  
overheated	
  public	
  debate	
  on	
  this	
  topic	
  has,	
  at	
  least,	
  helped	
  to	
  attract	
  more	
  researchers	
  and	
  funding	
  to	
  this	
  area	
  of	
  paleoclimatology;	
  its	
  methodology	
  has	
  advanced	
  significantly,	
  and	
  a	
  number	
  
of	
  new	
  reconstructions	
  have	
  been	
  presented	
  in	
  recent	
  years.	
  While	
  the	
  science	
  has	
  moved	
  forward,	
  the	
  first	
  seminal	
  reconstruction	
  by	
  Mann,	
  Hughes,	
  and	
  Bradley	
  has	
  held	
  up	
  remarkably	
  well,	
  
with	
  its	
  main	
  features	
  reproduced	
  by	
  morerecent	
  work.	
  Further	
  progress	
  probably	
  will	
  require	
  substantial	
  amounts	
  of	
  new	
  proxy	
  data,	
  rather	
  than	
  further	
  refinement	
  of	
  the	
  statistical	
  
                                                                                                                                                                   most	
  of	
  the	
  
techniques	
  pioneered	
  by	
  Mann,	
  Hughes,	
  and	
  Bradley.	
  Developing	
  these	
  data	
  sets	
  will	
  require	
  time	
  and	
  substantial	
  effort.	
  It	
  is	
  time	
  to	
  address	
  the	
  final	
  statement:	
  

observed	
  warming	
  over	
  the	
  past	
  fifty	
  years	
  is	
  anthropogenic.	
  A	
  large	
  number	
  of	
  studies	
  exist	
  that	
  have	
  taken	
  different	
  approaches	
  to	
  
analyze	
  this	
  issue,	
  which	
  is	
  generally	
  called	
  the	
  "attribution	
  problem."	
  I	
  do	
  not	
  discuss	
  the	
  exact	
  share	
  of	
  the	
  anthropogenic	
  contribution	
  (although	
  this	
  is	
  an	
  interesting	
  question).	
  By	
  "most"	
  I	
  

   mean	
  "more	
  than	
  50	
  percent.”	
  The	
  first	
  and	
  crucial	
  piece	
  of	
  evidence	
  is,	
  of	
  course,	
  that	
  the	
  magnitude	
  of	
  the	
  warming	
  is	
  
imply	
  

what	
  is	
  expected	
  from	
  the	
  anthropogenic	
  perturbation	
  of	
  the	
  radiation	
  balance,	
  so	
  anthropogenic	
  
forcing	
  is	
  able	
  to	
  explain	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  temperature	
  rise.	
  As	
  discussed	
  here,	
  the	
  rise	
  in	
  greenhouse	
  gases	
  alone	
  corresponds	
  to	
  2.6	
  W/tn2	
  of	
  forcing.	
  
This	
  by	
  itself,	
  after	
  subtraction	
  of	
  the	
  observed	
  0'.6	
  W/m2	
  of	
  ocean	
  heat	
  uptake,	
  would	
  Cause	
  1.6°C	
  of	
  warming	
  since	
  preindustrial	
  times	
  for	
  medium	
  climate	
  sensitivity	
  (3"C).	
  With	
  a	
  current	
  
"best	
  guess';	
  aerosol	
  forcing	
  of	
  1	
  W/m2,	
  the	
  expected	
  warming	
  is	
  O.8°c.	
  The	
  point	
  here	
  is	
  not	
  that	
  it	
  is	
  possible	
  to	
  obtain	
  the	
  'exact	
  observed	
  number-­‐this	
  is	
  fortuitous	
  because	
  the	
  amount	
  of	
  
aerosol'	
  forcing	
  is	
  still	
  very'	
  uncertain-­‐but	
  that	
  the	
  expected	
  magnitude	
  is	
  roughly	
  right.	
  There	
  can	
  be	
  little	
  doubt	
  that	
  the	
  anthropogenic	
  forcing	
  is	
  large	
  enough	
  to	
  explain	
  most	
  of	
  the	
  

warming .	
  Depending	
  on	
  aerosol	
  forcing	
  and	
  climate	
  sensitivity,	
  it	
  could	
  explain	
  a	
  large	
  fraction	
  of	
  the	
  
warming,	
  or	
  all	
  of	
  it,	
  or	
  even	
  more	
  warming	
  than	
  has	
  been	
  observed	
  (leaving	
  room	
  for	
  natural	
  processes	
  to	
  counteract	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  
warming).	
  The	
  second	
  important	
  piece	
  of	
  evidence	
  is	
  clear:	
  there	
  is	
  no	
  viable	
  alternative	
  explanation.	
  In	
  the	
  scientific	
  literature,	
  no	
  serious	
  alternative	
  

hypothesis	
  has	
  been	
  proposed	
  to	
  explain	
  the	
  observed	
  global	
  warming.	
  Other	
  possible	
  causes,	
  such	
  as	
  solar	
  activity,	
  volcanic	
  activity,	
  

cosmic	
  rays,	
  or	
  orbital	
  cycles,	
  are	
  well	
  observed,	
  but	
  they	
  do	
  not	
  show	
  trends	
  capable	
  of	
  explaining	
  
the	
  observed	
  warming.	
  Since	
  1978,	
  solar	
  irradiance	
  has	
  been	
  measured	
  directly	
  from	
  satellites	
  and	
  shows	
  the	
  well-­‐known	
  eleven-­‐year	
  solar	
  cycle,	
  but	
  no	
  trend.	
  There	
  are	
  
various	
  estimates	
  of	
  solar	
  variability	
  before	
  this	
  time,	
  based	
  on	
  sunspot	
  numbers,	
  solar	
  cycle	
  length,	
  the	
  geomagnetic	
  AA	
  index,	
  neutron	
  monitor	
  data,	
  and,	
  carbon-­‐14	
  data.	
  These	
  indicate	
  that	
  
solar	
  activity	
  probably	
  increased	
  somewhat	
  up	
  to	
  1940.	
  While	
  there	
  is	
  disagreement	
  about	
  the	
  variation	
  in	
  previous	
  centuries,	
  different	
  authors	
  agree	
  that	
  solar	
  activity	
  did	
  not	
  significantly	
  
increase	
  during	
  the	
  last	
  sixty-­‐five	
  years.	
  Therefore,	
  this	
  cannot	
  explain	
  the	
  warming,	
  and	
  neither	
  can	
  any	
  of	
  the	
  other	
  factors	
  mentioned.	
  Models	
  driven	
  by	
  natural	
  factors	
  only,	
  leaving	
  the	
  
anthropogenic	
  forcing	
  aside,	
  show	
  a	
  cooling	
  in	
  the	
  second	
  half	
  of	
  the	
  twentieth	
  century	
  (for	
  an	
  example,	
  See	
  figure	
  2-­‐2,	
  panel	
  a,	
  in	
  chapter	
  2	
  of	
  this	
  volume).	
  The	
  trend	
  in	
  the	
  sum	
  of	
  natural	
  

                                                                                  some	
  as	
  yet	
  undiscovered	
  unknown	
  forcing	
  or	
  a	
  warming	
  trend	
  that	
  arises	
  by	
  
forcings	
  is	
  downward.	
  The	
  only	
  way	
  out	
  would	
  be	
  either	
  

chance	
  from	
  an	
  unforced	
  internal	
  variability	
  in	
  the	
  climate	
  system.	
  The	
  latter	
  cannot	
  be	
  completely	
  ruled	
  out,	
  but	
  has	
  to	
  be	
  considered	
  highly	
  unlikely.	
  No	
  

evidence	
  in	
  the	
  observed	
  record,	
  proxy	
  data,	
  or	
  current	
  models	
  suggest	
  that	
  such	
  internal	
  variability	
  
could	
  cause	
  a	
  sustained	
  trend	
  of	
  global	
  warming	
  of	
  the	
  observed	
  magnitude.	
  As	
  discussed,	
  twentieth	
  century	
  warming	
  is	
  unprecedented	
  over	
  the	
  
past	
  1,000	
  years	
  (or	
  even	
  2,000	
  years,	
  as	
  the	
  few	
  longer	
  reconstructions	
  available	
  now	
  suggest),	
  which	
  does	
  not	
  'support	
  the	
  idea	
  of	
  large	
  internal	
  fluctuations.	
  Also,	
  those	
  past	
  variations	
  
correlate	
  well	
  with	
  past	
  forcing	
  (solar	
  variability,	
  volcanic	
  activity)	
  and	
  thus	
  appear	
  to	
  be	
  largely	
  forced	
  rather	
  than	
  due	
  to	
  unforced	
  internal	
  variability."	
  And	
  indeed,	
  it	
  would	
  be	
  difficult	
  for	
  a	
  
large	
  and	
  sustained	
  unforced	
  variability	
  to	
  satisfy	
  the	
  fundamental	
  physical	
  law	
  of	
  energy	
  conservation.	
  Natural	
  internal	
  variability	
  generally	
  shifts	
  heat	
  around	
  different	
  parts	
  of	
  the	
  climate	
  
system-­‐for	
  example,	
  the	
  large	
  El	
  Nino	
  event	
  of	
  1998,	
  which	
  warmed,	
  the	
  atmosphere	
  by	
  releasing	
  heat	
  stored	
  in	
  the	
  ocean.	
  This	
  mechanism	
  implies	
  that	
  the	
  ocean	
  heat	
  content	
  drops	
  as	
  the	
  
atmosphere	
  warms.	
  For	
  past	
  decades,	
  as	
  discussed,	
  we	
  observed	
  the	
  atmosphere	
  warming	
  and	
  the	
  ocean	
  heat	
  content	
  increasing,	
  which	
  rules	
  out	
  heat	
  release	
  from	
  the	
  ocean	
  as	
  a	
  cause	
  of	
  
surface	
  warming.	
  The	
  heat	
  content	
  of	
  the	
  whole	
  climate	
  system	
  is	
  increasing,	
  and	
  there	
  is	
  no	
  plausible	
  source	
  of	
  this	
  heat	
  other	
  than	
  the	
  heat	
  trapped	
  by	
  greenhouse	
  gases.	
  '	
  A	
  completely	
  
different	
  approach	
  to	
  attribution	
  is	
  to	
  analyze	
  the	
  spatial	
  patterns	
  of	
  climate	
  change.	
  This	
  is	
  done	
  in	
  so-­‐called	
  fingerprint	
  studies,	
  which	
  associate	
  particular	
  patterns	
  or	
  "fingerprints"	
  with	
  
different	
  forcings.	
  It	
  is	
  plausible	
  that	
  the	
  pattern	
  of	
  a	
  solar-­‐forced	
  climate	
  change	
  differs	
  from	
  the	
  pattern	
  of	
  a	
  change	
  caused	
  by	
  greenhouse	
  gases.	
  For	
  example,	
  a	
  characteristic	
  of	
  greenhouse	
  
gases	
  is	
  that	
  heat	
  is	
  trapped	
  closer	
  to	
  the	
  Earth's	
  surface	
  and	
  that,	
  unlike	
  solar	
  variability,	
  greenhouse	
  gases	
  tend	
  to	
  warm	
  more	
  in	
  winter,	
  and	
  at	
  night.	
  Such	
  studies	
  have	
  used	
  different	
  data	
  
sets	
  and	
  have	
  been	
  performed	
  by	
  different	
  groups	
  of	
  researchers	
  with	
  different	
  statistical	
  methods.	
  They	
  consistently	
  conclude	
  that	
  the	
  observed	
  spatial	
  pattern	
  of	
  warming	
  can	
  only	
  be	
  
explained	
  by	
  greenhouse	
  gases.49	
  Overall,	
  it	
  has	
  to	
  be	
  considered,	
  highly	
  likely'	
  that	
  the	
  observed	
  warming	
  is	
  indeed	
  predominantly	
  due	
  to	
  the	
  human-­‐caused	
  increase	
  in	
  greenhouse	
  gases.	
  '	
  
This	
  paper	
  discussed	
  the	
  evidence	
  for	
  the	
  anthropogenic	
  increase	
  in	
  atmospheric	
  CO2	
  concentration	
  and	
  the	
  effect	
  of	
  CO2	
  on	
  climate,	
  finding	
  that	
  this	
  anthropogenic	
  increase	
  is	
  proven	
  

                                                  mass	
  of	
  evidence	
  points	
  to	
  a	
  CO2	
  effect	
  on	
  climate	
  of	
  3C	
  ±	
  1.59C	
  global-­‐warming	
  for	
  a	
  
beyond	
  reasonable	
  doubt	
  and	
  that	
  a	
  

doubling	
  of	
  concentration.	
  (This	
  is,	
  the	
  classic	
  IPCC	
  range;	
  my	
  personal	
  assessment	
  is	
  that,	
  in-­‐the	
  light	
  of	
  new	
  studies	
  since	
  the	
  IPCC	
  Third	
  Assessment	
  Report,	
  the	
  
uncertainty	
  range	
  can	
  now	
  be	
  narrowed	
  somewhat	
  to	
  3°C	
  ±	
  1.0C)	
  This	
  is	
  based	
  on	
  consistent	
  results	
  from	
  theory,	
  models,	
  and	
  data	
  

analysis,	
  and,	
  even	
  in	
  the	
  absence-­‐of	
  any	
  computer	
  models,	
  the	
  same	
  result	
  would	
  still	
  hold	
  based	
  on	
  
physics	
  and	
  on	
  data	
  from	
  climate	
  history	
  alone.	
  Considering	
  the	
  plethora	
  of	
  consistent	
  evidence,	
  the	
  chance	
  that	
  these	
  conclusions	
  are	
  wrong	
  has	
  to	
  be	
  
considered	
  minute.	
  If	
  the	
  preceding	
  is	
  accepted,	
  then	
  it	
  follows	
  logically	
  and	
  incontrovertibly	
  that	
  a	
  further	
  increase	
  in	
  CO2	
  concentration	
  will	
  lead	
  to	
  further	
  warming.	
  The	
  magnitude	
  of	
  our	
  
emissions	
  depends	
  on	
  human	
  behavior,	
  but	
  the	
  climatic	
  response	
  to	
  various	
  emissions	
  scenarios	
  can	
  be	
  computed	
  from	
  the	
  information	
  presented	
  here.	
  The	
  result	
  is	
  the	
  famous	
  range	
  of	
  
future	
  global	
  temperature	
  scenarios	
  shown	
  in	
  figure	
  3_6.50	
  Two	
  additional	
  steps	
  are	
  involved	
  in	
  these	
  computations:	
  the	
  consideration	
  of	
  anthropogenic	
  forcings	
  other	
  than	
  CO2	
  (for	
  example,	
  
other	
  greenhouse	
  gases	
  and	
  aerosols)	
  and	
  the	
  computation	
  of	
  concentrations	
  from	
  the	
  emissions.	
  Other	
  gases	
  are	
  not	
  discussed	
  here,	
  although	
  they	
  are	
  important	
  to	
  get	
  quantitatively	
  

accurate	
  results.	
     CO2	
  is	
  the	
  largest	
  and	
  most	
  important	
  forcing.	
  Concerning	
  concentrations,	
  the	
  scenarios	
  shown	
  basically	
  
assume	
  that	
  ocean	
  and	
  biosphere	
  take	
  up	
  a	
  similar	
  share	
  of	
  our	
  emitted	
  CO2	
  as	
  in	
  the	
  past.	
  This	
  could	
  turn	
  out	
  to	
  be	
  an	
  
optimistic	
  assumption;	
  some	
  models	
  indicate	
  the	
  possibility	
  of	
  a	
  positive	
  feedback,	
  with	
  the	
  biosphere	
  turning	
  into	
  a	
  carbon	
  source	
  rather	
  than	
  a	
  sink	
  under	
  growing	
  
climatic	
  stress.	
  It	
  is	
  clear	
  that	
  even	
  in	
  the	
  more	
  optimistic	
  of	
  the	
  shown	
  (non-­‐mitigation)	
  scenarios,	
  global	
  

temperature	
  would	
  rise	
  by	
  2-­‐3°C	
  above	
  its	
  preindustrial	
  level	
  by	
  the	
  end	
  of	
  this	
  century.	
  	
  
	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         7	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                                                      	
                                                                                                                Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                                    1AC	
  –	
  Warming	
  Adv	
  (3/10)	
  
	
  
Even	
  for	
  a	
  paleoclimatologist	
  like	
  myself,	
  this	
  is	
  an	
  extraordinarily	
  high	
  temperature,	
  which	
  is	
  very	
  likely	
  unprecedented	
  in	
  at	
  least	
  the	
  past	
  100,000	
  years.	
  As	
  far	
  as	
  the	
  data	
  show,	
  we	
  would	
  
have	
  to	
  go	
  back	
  about	
  3	
  million	
  years,	
  to	
  the	
  Pliocene,	
  for	
  comparable	
  temperatures.	
  The	
  rate	
  of	
  this	
  warming	
  (which	
  is	
  important	
  for	
  the	
  ability	
  of	
  ecosystems	
  to	
  cope)	
  is	
  also	
  highly	
  unusual	
  
and	
  unprecedented	
  probably	
  for	
  an	
  even	
  longer	
  time.	
  The	
  last	
  major	
  global	
  warming	
  trend	
  occurred	
  when	
  the	
  last	
  great	
  Ice	
  Age	
  ended	
  between	
  15,000	
  and	
  10,000	
  years	
  ago:	
  this	
  was	
  a	
  

                                                                                                      The	
  expected	
  magnitude	
  and	
  rate	
  of	
  planetary	
  warming	
  is	
  
warming	
  of	
  about	
  5°C	
  over	
  5,000	
  years,	
  that	
  is,	
  a	
  rate	
  of	
  only	
  0.1	
  °C	
  per	
  century.	
  52	
  

highly	
  likely	
  to	
  come	
  with	
  major	
  risk	
  and	
  impacts	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  sea	
  level	
  rise	
  (Pliocene	
  sea	
  level	
  was	
  25-­‐35	
  meters	
  higher	
  than	
  
now	
  due	
  to	
  smaller	
  Greenland	
  and	
  Antarctic	
  ice	
  sheets),	
  extreme	
  events	
  (for	
  example,	
  hurricane	
  activity	
  is	
  expected	
  to	
  increase	
  in	
  a	
  warmer	
  climate),	
  and	
  

ecosystem	
  loss.	
  The	
  second	
  part	
  of	
  this	
  paper	
  examined	
  the	
  evidence	
  for	
  the	
  current	
  warming	
  of	
  the	
  planet	
  and	
  discussed	
  what	
  is	
  known	
  about	
  its	
  causes.	
  This	
  part	
  showed	
  that	
  
global	
  warming	
  is	
  already	
  a	
  measured	
  and-­‐well-­‐established	
  fact,	
  not	
  a	
  theory.	
  Many	
  different	
  lines	
  of	
  evidence	
  consistently	
  show	
  that	
  most	
  of	
  the	
  observed	
  warming	
  of	
  the	
  past	
  fifty	
  years	
  was	
  
caused	
  by	
  human	
  activity.	
  Above	
  all,	
  this	
  warming	
  is	
  exactly	
  what	
  would	
  be	
  expected	
  given	
  the	
  anthropogenic	
  rise	
  in	
  greenhouse	
  gases,	
  and	
  no	
  viable	
  alternative	
  explanation	
  for	
  this	
  warming	
  
                                                                                    the	
  very	
  strong	
  evidence	
  accumulated	
  from	
  thousands	
  of	
  
has	
  been	
  proposed	
  in	
  the	
  scientific	
  literature.	
  Taken	
  together.,	
  

independent	
  studies,	
  has	
  over	
  the	
  past	
  decades	
  convinced	
  virtually	
  every	
  climatologist	
  around	
  the	
  world	
  (many	
  of	
  
whom	
  were	
  initially	
  quite	
  skeptical,	
  including	
  myself)	
  that	
  anthropogenic	
  global	
  warming	
  is	
  a	
  reality	
  with	
  which	
  we	
  need	
  to	
  

deal.	
  	
  

Warming	
  magnifies	
  every	
  impact	
  and	
  causes	
  extinction	
  
Burke	
  8	
  (Sharon,	
  sr	
  fellow	
  and	
  dir	
  of	
  the	
  energy	
  security	
  project	
  at	
  the	
  Center	
  for	
  a	
  New	
  American	
  
Security,	
  Chapter	
  6	
  of	
  Climatic	
  Cataclysm:	
  The	
  Foreign	
  Policy	
  and	
  National	
  Security	
  Implications	
  of	
  
Climate	
  Change,	
  edited	
  by	
  Kurt	
  Campbell,	
  p	
  157-­‐165)	
  	
  
At	
  the	
  same	
  time,	
  however,	
  the	
  implications	
  of	
  both	
  trends	
  for	
  human	
  society	
  and	
  survival	
  raise	
  the	
  stakes;	
  it	
  is	
  crucial	
  to	
  try	
  to	
  understand	
  what	
  
the	
  future	
  might	
  look	
  like	
  in	
  one	
  hundred	
  years	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  act	
  accordingly	
  today.	
  This	
  scenario,	
  therefore,	
  builds	
  a	
  picture	
  of	
  the	
  plausible	
  effects	
  of	
  catastrophic	
  climate	
  change,	
  and	
  the	
  
implications	
  for	
  national	
  security,	
  on	
  the	
  basis	
  of	
  what	
  we	
  know	
  about	
  the	
  past	
  and	
  the	
  present.	
  The	
  purpose	
  is	
  not	
  to	
  "one	
  up"	
  the	
  previous	
  scenarios	
  in	
  awfulness,	
  but	
  rather	
  to	
  attempt	
  to	
  

                                                                                                                                                                             	
  the	
  year	
  2040	
  marks	
  
imagine	
  the	
  unimaginable	
  future	
  that	
  is,	
  after	
  all,	
  entirely	
  plausible.	
  Assumed	
  Climate	
  Effects	
  of	
  the	
  Catastrophic	
  Scenario.	
  In	
  the	
  catastrophic	
  scenario,

an	
  important	
  tipping	
  point.	
  Large-­‐scale,	
  singular	
  events	
  of	
  abrupt	
  climate	
  change	
  will	
  start	
  occurring,	
  
greatly	
  exacerbated	
  by	
  the	
  collapse	
  of	
  the	
  Atlantic	
  meridional	
  overturning	
  circulation	
  (MOC),	
  which	
  is	
  believed	
  to	
  play	
  and	
  important	
  role	
  in	
  
regulating	
  global	
  climate,	
  particularly	
  in	
  Europe.8	
  There	
  will	
  be	
  a	
  rapid	
  loss	
  of	
  polar	
  ice,	
  a	
  sudden	
  rise	
  in	
  sea	
  levels,	
  totaling	
  2	
  meters	
  (6.6	
  

feet),	
  and	
  a	
  temperature	
  increase	
  of	
  almost	
  5.6°C	
  (10.1°F)	
  by	
  2095.	
  Developing	
  countries,	
  particularly	
  those	
  at	
  low	
  latitudes	
  and	
  those	
  reliant	
  on	
  subsistence,	
  
rain-­‐fed	
  farming,	
  will	
  be	
  hardest	
  and	
  earliest	
  hit.	
  All	
  nations,	
  however,	
  will	
  find	
  it	
  difficult	
  to	
  deal	
  with	
  the	
  unpredictable,	
  abrupt,	
  and	
  severe	
  nature	
  of	
  climate	
  change	
  after	
  2040.	
  These	
  changes	
  
will	
  be	
  difficult	
  to	
  anticipate,	
  and	
  equally	
  difficult	
  to	
  mitigate	
  or	
  recover	
  from,	
  particularly	
  as	
  they	
  will	
  recur,	
  possibly	
  on	
  a	
  frequent	
  basis.	
  First,	
  the	
  rise	
  in	
  temperatures	
  alone	
  will	
  present	
  a	
  
fundamental	
  challenge	
  for	
  human	
  health.	
  Indeed,	
  even	
  now,	
  about	
  250	
  people	
  die	
  of	
  heatstroke	
  every	
  year	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States.	
  In	
  a	
  prolonged	
  heat	
  wave	
  in	
  1980,	
  more	
  than	
  10,000	
  people	
  
died	
  of	
  heat-­‐related	
  illnesses,	
  and	
  between	
  5,000	
  and	
  10,00	
  in	
  1988.9	
  In	
  2003,	
  record	
  heat	
  waves	
  in	
  Europe,	
  with	
  temperatures	
  in	
  Paris	
  hitting	
  40.4°C	
  (104.7°F)	
  and	
  47.3°C	
  (116.3°F)	
  in	
  parts	
  of	
  
Portugal,	
  are	
  estimated	
  to	
  have	
  cost	
  more	
  than	
  37,000	
  lives;	
  in	
  the	
  same	
  summer	
  there	
  were	
  at	
  least	
  2,000	
  heat-­‐related	
  deaths	
  in	
  India.	
  Average	
  temperatures	
  will	
  increase	
  in	
  most	
  regions,	
  
and	
  the	
  western	
  United	
  States,	
  southern	
  Europe,	
  and	
  southern	
  Australia	
  will	
  be	
  particularly	
  vulnerable	
  to	
  prolonged	
  heat	
  spells.	
  The	
  rise	
  in	
  temperatures	
  will	
  complicated	
  daily	
  life	
  around	
  the	
  
world.	
  In	
  Washington,	
  D.C.,	
  the	
  average	
  summer	
  temperature	
  is	
  in	
  the	
  low	
  30s	
  C	
  (high	
  80s	
  F),	
  getting	
  as	
  high	
  as	
  40°C	
  (104°F).	
  With	
  a	
  5.6°C	
  (10.1°F)	
  increase,	
  that	
  could	
  mean	
  temperatures	
  as	
  
high	
  as	
  45.6°C	
  (114.5°F).	
  In	
  New	
  Delhi,	
  summer	
  temperatures	
  can	
  reach	
  45°C	
  (113°F)	
  already,	
  opening	
  the	
  possibility	
  of	
  new	
  highs	
  approaching	
  sO.sOC	
  (123°F).	
  In	
  general,	
  the	
  level	
  of	
  safe	
  
exposure	
  is	
  considered	
  to	
  be	
  about	
  38°C	
  (lOO°F);	
  at	
  hotter	
  temperatures,	
  activity	
  has	
  to	
  be	
  limited	
  and	
  the	
  very	
  old	
  and	
  the	
  very	
  young	
  are	
  especially	
  vulnerable	
  to	
  heat-­‐related	
  illness	
  and	
  
mortality.	
     Sudden	
  shifts	
  in	
  temperature,	
  which	
  are	
  expected	
  in	
  this	
  scenario,	
  are	
  particularly	
  lethal.	
  As	
  a	
  result	
  of	
  higher	
  temperatures	
  and	
  
lower,	
  unpredictable	
  precipitation,	
           severe	
  and	
  persistent	
  wildfires	
  will	
  become	
  more	
  common,	
  freshwater	
  will	
  be	
  
more	
  scarce,	
  and	
  agricultural	
  productivity	
  will	
  fall,	
  particularly	
  in	
  Southern	
  Europe	
  and	
  the	
  Mediterranean,	
  and	
  the	
  western	
  United	
  States.	
  The	
  
World	
  Health	
  Organization	
  estimates	
  that	
  water	
  scarcity	
  already	
  affects	
  two-­‐	
  fifths	
  of	
  the	
  world	
  population-­‐s-­‐some	
  2.6	
  billion	
  people.	
  In	
  this	
  scenario,	
  half	
  the	
  world	
  

population	
  will	
  experience	
  persistent	
  water	
  scarcity.	
  Regions	
  that	
  depend	
  on	
  annual	
  snowfall	
  and	
  glaciers	
  for	
  water	
  lose	
  their	
  supply;	
  hardest	
  hit	
  
will	
  be	
  Central	
  Asia,	
  the	
  Andes,	
  Europe,	
  and	
  western	
  North	
  America.	
  Some	
  regions	
  may	
  become	
  uninhabitable	
  due	
  to	
  lack	
  of	
  water:	
  the	
  Mediterranean,	
  
much	
  of	
  Central	
  Asia,	
  northern	
  Mexico,	
  and	
  South	
  America.	
  The	
  southwestern	
  United	
  States	
  will	
  lose	
  its	
  current	
  sources	
  of	
  fresh	
  water,	
  but	
  that	
  may	
  be	
  mitigated	
  by	
  an	
  increase	
  in	
  
precipitation	
  due	
  to	
  the	
  MOC	
  collapse,	
  though	
  precipitation	
  patterns	
  may	
  be	
  irregular.	
  Regional	
  water	
  scarcity	
  will	
  also	
  be	
  mitigated	
  by	
  increases	
  in	
  precipitation	
  in	
  East	
  Africa	
  and	
  East	
  and	
  

                                                                   The	
  lack	
  of	
  rainfall	
  will	
  also	
  threaten	
  tropical	
  forests	
  and	
  their	
  dependent	
  
Southeast	
  Asia,	
  though	
  the	
  risk	
  of	
  floods	
  will	
  increase.	
  

species	
  with	
  extinction.	
  Declining	
  agricultural	
  productivity	
  will	
  be	
  an	
  acute	
  challenge.	
  The	
  heat,	
  together	
  with	
  shifting	
  and	
  
unpredictable	
  precipitation	
  patterns	
  and	
  melting	
  glaciers,	
  will	
  dry	
  out	
  many	
  areas,	
  including	
  today's	
  grain-­‐exporting	
  
regions.	
  The	
  largest	
  decreases	
  in	
  precipitation	
  will	
  be	
  in	
  North	
  Africa,	
  the	
  Middle	
  East,	
  Cen	
  tral	
  America,	
  the	
  Caribbean,	
  and	
  northeastern	
  South	
  America,	
  including	
  Amazonia.	
  The	
  World	
  
Food	
  Program	
  estimates	
  that	
  nearly	
  1	
  billion	
  people	
  suffer	
  from	
  chronic	
  hunger	
  today,	
  almost	
  15	
  million	
  of	
  them	
  refugees	
  from	
  conflict	
  and	
  natural	
  disasters.	
  According	
  to	
  the	
  World	
  Food	
  
Program,	
  "More	
  than	
  nine	
  out	
  of	
  ten	
  of	
  those	
  who	
  die	
  I	
  of	
  chronic	
  hunger]	
  are	
  simply	
  trapped	
  by	
  poverty	
  in	
  remote	
  rural	
  areas	
  or	
  urban	
  slums.	
  They	
  do	
  not	
  make	
  the	
  news.	
  They	
  just	
  die."	
  

Mortality	
  rates	
  from	
  hunger	
  and	
  lack	
  of	
  water	
  will	
  skyrocket	
  over	
  the	
  next	
  century,	
  and	
  given	
  all	
  that	
  wiII	
  be	
  happening,	
  that	
  will	
  probably	
  
not	
  make	
  the	
  news,	
  either-­‐-­‐people	
  will	
  just	
  die.	
  Over	
  the	
  next	
  one	
  hundred	
  years,	
  the	
  "breadbasket"	
  regions	
  of	
  the	
  world	
  will	
  shift	
  northward.	
  Consequently,	
  formerly	
  subarctic	
  regions	
  will	
  be	
  
able	
  to	
  support	
  farming,	
  but	
  these	
  regions'	
  traditionally	
  small	
  human	
  populations	
  and	
  lack	
  of	
  infrastructure,	
  including	
  roads	
  and	
  utilities,	
  will	
  make	
  the	
  dramatic	
  expansion	
  of	
  agriculture	
  a	
  

challenge.	
  Moreover,	
           extreme	
  year-­‐to-­‐year	
  climate	
  variability	
  may	
  make	
  sustainable	
  agriculture	
  unlikely,	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   8	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                                                  	
                                                                                                              Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                           1AC	
  –	
  Warming	
  Adv	
  (4/10)	
  
	
  at	
  least	
  on	
  the	
  scale	
  needed.	
  Northwestern	
  Europe,	
  too,	
  will	
  see	
  shorter	
  growing	
  seasons	
  and	
  declining	
  crop	
  yields	
  because	
  it	
  will	
  actually	
  experience	
  colder	
  winters,	
  due	
  to	
  the	
  collapse	
  of	
  the	
  

                                                                                                                                                                               Ten	
  percent	
  of	
  the	
  world	
  population	
  
MOC.	
  At	
  the	
  same	
  time	
  that	
  the	
  resource	
  base	
  to	
  support	
  humanity	
  is	
  shrinking,	
  there	
  will	
  be	
  less	
  inhabitable	
  land.	
  

now	
  lives	
  in	
  low-­‐elevation	
  coastal	
  zones	
  (all	
  land	
  contiguous	
  with	
  the	
  coast	
  that	
  is	
  10	
  meters	
  or	
  less	
  in	
  elevation)	
  that	
  will	
  experience	
  
sea	
  level	
  rises	
  of	
  6.6	
  feet	
  (2	
  meters)	
  in	
  this	
  scenario	
  and	
  9.8	
  feet	
  (3	
  meters)	
  in	
  the	
  North	
  Atlantic,	
  given	
  the	
  loss	
  of	
  the	
  MOC.	
  Most	
  major	
  cities	
  at	
  or	
  near	
  sea	
  level	
  have	
  
some	
  kind	
  of	
  flood	
  protection,	
  so	
  high	
  tides	
  alone	
  will	
  not	
  lead	
  to	
  the	
  inundation	
  of	
  these	
  cities.	
  Consider,	
  however,	
  that	
  the	
  combined	
  effects	
  of	
  more	
  

frequent	
  and	
  severe	
  weather	
  events	
  and	
  higher	
  sea	
  levels	
  could	
  well	
  lead	
  to	
  increased	
  flooding	
  from	
  
coastal	
  storms	
  and	
  coastal	
  erosion.	
  In	
  any	
  case,	
  there	
  will	
  be	
  saltwater	
  intrusion	
  into	
  coastal	
  water	
  supplies,	
  rising	
  water	
  tables,	
  and	
  the	
  loss	
  of	
  coastal	
  and	
  
upstream	
  wetlands,	
  with	
  impacts	
  on	
  fisheries.	
  The	
  rise	
  could	
  well	
  occur	
  in	
  several	
  quick	
  pulses,	
  with	
  relatively	
  stable	
  periods	
  in	
  between,	
  which	
  will	
  complicate	
  

planning	
  and	
  adaptation	
  and	
  make	
  any	
  kind	
  of	
  orderly	
  or	
  managed	
  evacuation	
  unlikely.	
  Inundation	
  plus	
  the	
  combined	
  effects	
  of	
  higher	
  sea	
  

levels	
  and	
  more	
  frequent	
  tropical	
  storms	
  may	
  leave	
  many	
  large	
  coastal	
  cities	
  uninhabitable,	
  including	
  
the	
  largest	
  American	
  cities,	
  New	
  York	
  City	
  and	
  Los	
  Angeles,	
  focal	
  points	
  for	
  the	
  national	
  economy	
  with	
  a	
  combined	
  total	
  of	
  almost	
  
33	
  million	
  people	
  in	
  their	
  metropolitan	
  areas	
  today.	
  Resettling	
  coastal	
  populations	
  will	
  be	
  a	
  crippling	
  challenge,	
  even	
  for	
  the	
  United	
  States.	
  Sea	
  level	
  rises	
  also	
  will	
  affect	
  food	
  security.	
  

                                                                                                                                                                                       .	
  Fisheries	
  and	
  marine	
  
Significant	
  fertile	
  deltas	
  will	
  become	
  largely	
  uncultivable	
  because	
  of	
  inundation	
  and	
  more	
  frequent	
  and	
  higher	
  storm	
  surges	
  that	
  reach	
  farther	
  inland

ecosystems,	
  particularly	
  in	
  the	
  North	
  Atlantic,	
  will	
  collapse.	
  Locally	
  devastating	
  weather	
  events	
  will	
  be	
  the	
  new	
  norm	
  for	
  coastal	
  and	
  mid-­‐latitude	
  locations-­‐wind	
  and	
  
flood	
  damage	
  will	
  be	
  much	
  more	
  intense.	
  There	
  will	
  be	
  frequent	
  losses	
  of	
  life,	
  property,	
  and	
  infrastructure-­‐and	
  this	
  will	
  

happen	
  every	
  year.	
  Although	
  water	
  scarcity	
  and	
  food	
  security	
  will	
  disproportionately	
  affect	
  poor	
  countries-­‐they	
  already	
  do-­‐extreme	
  weather	
  events	
  will	
  be	
  more	
  or	
  less	
  
evenly	
  distributed	
  around	
  the	
  world.	
  Regions	
  affected	
  by	
  tropical	
  storms,	
  including	
  typhoons	
  and	
  hurricanes,	
  will	
  include	
  all	
  three	
  coasts	
  of	
  the	
  United	
  States;	
  all	
  of	
  Mexico	
  and	
  Central	
  
America;	
  the	
  Caribbean	
  islands;	
  East,	
  Southeast	
  and	
  South	
  Asia;	
  and	
  many	
  South	
  Pacific	
  and	
  Indian	
  Ocean	
  islands.	
  Recent	
  isolated	
  events	
  when	
  coastal	
  storms	
  made	
  landfall	
  in	
  the	
  South	
  
Atlantic,	
  Europe,	
  and	
  the	
  Arabian	
  Sea	
  in	
  the	
  last	
  few	
  years	
  suggest	
  that	
  these	
  regions	
  will	
  also	
  experience	
  a	
  rise	
  in	
  the	
  incidence	
  of	
  extreme	
  storms.	
  In	
  these	
  circumstances,	
  there	
  will	
  be	
  an	
  
across-­‐the-­‐board	
  decline	
  in	
  human	
  development	
  indicators.	
  Life	
  spans	
  will	
  shorten,	
  incomes	
  will	
  drop,	
  health	
  will	
  deteriorate-­‐including	
  as	
  a	
  result	
  of	
  proliferating	
  diseases-­‐infant	
  mortality	
  will	
  
        there	
  will	
  be	
  a	
  decline	
  in	
  personal	
  freedoms	
  as	
  states	
  fall	
  to	
  anocracy	
  (a	
  situation	
  where	
  central	
  authority	
  in	
  a	
  state	
  is	
  weak	
  or	
  
rise,	
  and	
  

nonexistent	
  and	
  power	
  has	
  devolved	
  to	
  more	
  regional	
  or	
  local	
  actors,	
  such	
  as	
  tribes)	
  and	
  autocracy.	
  The	
  Age	
  of	
  Survival:	
  Imagining	
  the	
  

Unimaginable	
  Future	
  If	
  New	
  Orleans	
  is	
  one	
  harbinger	
  of	
  the	
  future,	
  Somalia	
  is	
  another.	
  With	
  a	
  weak	
  and	
  barely	
  functional	
  central	
  government	
  that	
  does	
  not	
  enjoy	
  the	
  trust	
  
and	
  confidence	
  of	
  the	
  public,	
  the	
  nation	
  has	
  descended	
  into	
  clan	
  warfare.	
  Mortality	
  rates	
  for	
  combatants	
  and	
  noncombatants	
  are	
  high.	
  Neighboring	
  Ethiopia	
  has	
  intervened,	
  with	
  troops	
  on	
  the	
  
ground	
  in	
  Mogadishu	
  and	
  elsewhere,	
  a	
  small	
  African	
  Union	
  peacekeeping	
  force	
  is	
  present	
  in	
  the	
  country,	
  and	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  has	
  conducted	
  military	
  missions	
  in	
  Somalia	
  within	
  the	
  last	
  year,	
  
including	
  air	
  strikes	
  aimed	
  at	
  terrorist	
  groups	
  that	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  government	
  has	
  said	
  are	
  finding	
  safe	
  haven	
  in	
  the	
  chaos."	
  In	
  a	
  July	
  2007	
  report,	
  the	
  UN	
  Monitoring	
  Group	
  on	
  Somalia	
  
reported	
  that	
  the	
  nation	
  is	
  "literally	
  awash	
  in	
  arms"	
  and	
  factional	
  groups	
  are	
  targeting	
  not	
  only	
  all	
  combatants	
  in	
  the	
  country	
  but	
  also	
  noncombatants,	
  including	
  aid	
  groups.	
  Drought	
  is	
  a	
  regular	
  
feature	
  of	
  life	
  in	
  Somalia	
  that	
  even	
  in	
  the	
  best	
  of	
  times	
  has	
  been	
  difficult	
  to	
  deal	
  with.	
  These	
  are	
  bad	
  times,	
  indeed,	
  for	
  Somalia,	
  and	
  the	
  mutually	
  reinforcing	
  cycle	
  of	
  drought,	
  famine,	
  and	
  
conflict	
  has	
  left	
  some	
  750,000	
  Somalis	
  internally	
  displaced	
  and	
  about	
  1.5	
  million	
  people-­‐17	
  percent	
  of	
  the	
  population-­‐in	
  dire	
  need	
  of	
  humanitarian	
  relief.	
  The	
  relief	
  is	
  difficult	
  to	
  provide,	
  
however,	
  given	
  the	
  lawlessness	
  and	
  violence	
  consuming	
  the	
  country.	
  For	
  example,	
  nearly	
  all	
  food	
  assistance	
  to	
  Somalia	
  is	
  shipped	
  by	
  sea,	
  but	
  with	
  the	
  rise	
  of	
  piracy,	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  vessels	
  
willing	
  to	
  carry	
  food	
  to	
  the	
  country	
  fell	
  by	
  50	
  percent	
  in	
  2007.u	
  Life	
  expectancy	
  is	
  forty-­‐eight	
  years,	
  infant	
  mortality	
  has	
  skyrocketed,	
  and	
  annual	
  per	
  capita	
  GDP	
  is	
  estimated	
  to	
  be	
  about	
  six	
  
hundred	
  dollars.	
  The	
  conflict	
  has	
  also	
  had	
  a	
  negative	
  effect	
  on	
  the	
  stability	
  of	
  surrounding	
  nations.	
  In	
  the	
  catastrophic	
  climate	
  change	
  scenario,	
  situations	
  like	
  that	
  in	
  Somalia	
  will	
  be	
  

commonplace:	
        there	
  will	
  be	
  a	
  sharp	
  rise	
  in	
  failing	
  and	
  failed	
  states	
  and	
  therefore	
  in	
  intrastate	
  war.	
  According	
  to	
  International	
  
Alert ,	
  there	
  are	
  forty-­‐six	
  countries,	
  home	
  to	
  2,7	
  billion	
  people,	
  at	
  a	
  high	
  risk	
  of	
  violent	
  conflict	
  as	
  a	
  result	
  
of	
  climate	
  change.	
  The	
  group	
  lists	
  an	
  additional	
  fifty-­‐six	
  nations,	
  accounting	
  for	
  another	
  1.2	
  billion	
  people,	
  that	
  will	
  have	
  difficulty	
  dealing	
  with	
  climate	
  change,	
  given	
  other	
  
challenges.	
  12	
  Over	
  the	
  next	
  hundred	
  years,	
  in	
  a	
  catastrophic	
  future,	
  that	
  means	
  there	
  are	
  likely	
  to	
  be	
  at	
  least	
  102	
  failing	
  and	
  failed	
  states,	
  

consumed	
  by	
  internal	
  conflict,	
  spewing	
  desperate	
  refugees,	
  and	
  harboring	
  and	
  spawning	
  violent	
  
extremist	
  movements.	
  Moreover,	
  nations	
  all	
  over	
  the	
  world	
  will	
  be	
  destabilized	
  as	
  a	
  result,	
  either	
  by	
  the	
  
crisis	
  on	
  their	
  borders	
  or	
  the	
  significant	
  numbers	
  of	
  refugees	
  and	
  in	
  some	
  cases	
  armed	
  or	
  extremist	
  
groups	
  migrating	
  into	
  their	
  territories.	
  Over	
  the	
  course	
  of	
  the	
  century,	
  this	
  will	
  mean	
  a	
  collapse	
  of	
  globalization	
  and	
  
transnational	
  institutions	
  and	
  an	
  increase	
  in	
  all	
  types	
  of	
  conflict-­‐most	
  dramatically,	
  intrastate	
  and	
  
asymmetric.	
  The	
  global	
  nature	
  of	
  the	
  conflicts	
  and	
  the	
  abruptness	
  of	
  the	
  climate	
  effects	
  will	
  challenge	
  the	
  ability	
  of	
  governments	
  all	
  over	
  the	
  world	
  to	
  respond	
  to	
  the	
  disasters,	
  
mitigate	
  the	
  effects,	
  or	
  to	
  contain	
  the	
  violence	
  along	
  their	
  borders.	
  There	
  will	
  be	
  civil	
  unrest	
  in	
  every	
  nation	
  as	
  a	
  result	
  of	
  popular	
  anger	
  toward	
  

governments,	
  scapegoating	
  of	
  migrant	
  and	
  minority	
  populations,	
  and	
  a	
  rise	
  in	
  charismatic	
  end-­‐of-­‐days	
  cults,	
  which	
  will	
  deepen	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  

hopelessness	
  as	
  these	
  cults	
  tend	
  to	
  see	
  no	
  end	
  to	
  misery	
  other	
  than	
  extinction	
  followed	
  by	
  divine	
  
salvation.	
  Given	
  that	
  the	
  failing	
  nations	
  account	
  for	
  half	
  of	
  the	
  global	
  population,	
  this	
  will	
  also	
  be	
  a	
  cataclysmic	
  humanitarian	
  disaster,	
  
with	
  hundreds	
  of	
  millions	
  of	
  people	
  dying	
  from	
  climate	
  effects	
  and	
  conflict,	
  totally	
  overwhelming	
  the	
  ability	
  of	
  international	
  institutions	
  and	
  donor	
  nations	
  to	
  respond.	
  This	
  failure	
  of	
  the	
  

                                                                                                               There	
  will	
  be	
  a	
  worldwide	
  economic	
  
international	
  relief	
  system	
  will	
  be	
  total	
  after	
  2040	
  as	
  donor	
  nations	
  are	
  forced	
  to	
  turn	
  their	
  resources	
  inward.	
  

depression	
  and	
  a	
  reverse	
  in	
  the	
  gains	
  in	
  standards	
  of	
  living	
  made	
  in	
  the	
  twentieth	
  and	
  early	
  twenty-­‐
first	
  centuries.	
  At	
  the	
  same	
  time,	
  the	
  probability	
  of	
  conflict	
  between	
  nations	
  will	
  rise.	
  Although	
  global	
  interstate	
  resource	
  wars	
  are	
  
generally	
  unlikely;"	
  simmering	
  conflicts	
  between	
  nations,	
  such	
  as	
  that	
  between	
  India	
  and	
  Pakistan,	
  are	
  likely	
  to	
  boil	
  over,	
  

particularly	
  if	
  both	
  nations	
  are	
  failing.	
  	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             9	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                                                        	
                                                                                                                  Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                              1AC	
  –	
  Warming	
  Adv	
  (5/10)	
  
Both	
  India	
  and	
  Pakistan,	
  of	
  course,	
  have	
  nuclear	
  weapons,	
  and	
  a	
  nuclear	
  exchange	
  is	
  possible,	
  perhaps	
  likely,	
  either	
  
by	
  failing	
  central	
  governments	
  or	
  by	
  extremist	
  and	
  ethnic	
  groups	
  that	
  seize	
  control	
  of	
  nuclear	
  
weapons.	
  There	
  will	
  also	
  be	
  competition	
  for	
  the	
  Arctic	
  region,	
  where	
  natural	
  resources,	
  including	
  oil	
  and	
  arable	
  land,	
  will	
  be	
  increasingly	
  
accessible	
  and	
  borders	
  are	
  ill	
  defined.	
  It	
  is	
  possible	
  that	
  agreements	
  over	
  Arctic	
  territories	
  will	
  be	
  worked	
  out	
  among	
  Russia,	
  Canada,	
  Norway,	
  the	
  United	
  States,	
  Iceland,	
  and	
  Denmark	
  in	
  the	
  
next	
  two	
  decades,	
  before	
  the	
  truly	
  catastrophic	
  climate	
  effects	
  manifest	
  themselves	
  in	
  those	
  nations.	
  If	
  not,	
                there	
  is	
  a	
  strong	
  probability	
  of	
  conflict	
  over	
  
the	
  Arctic,	
  possibly	
  even	
  armed	
  conflict.	
  In	
  general,	
  though,	
  nations	
  will	
  be	
  preoccupied	
  with	
  maintaining	
  internal	
  stability	
  and	
  will	
  have	
  difficulty	
  mustering	
  the	
  
resources	
  for	
  war.	
  Indeed,	
  the	
  greater	
  danger	
  is	
  that	
  states	
  will	
  fail	
  to	
  muster	
  the	
  resources	
  for	
  interstate	
  cooperation.	
  Finally,	
  all	
  nations	
  are	
  likely	
  to	
  experience	
  violent	
  conflict	
  as	
  a	
  result	
  of	
  
migration	
  patterns.	
  There	
  will	
  be	
  increasingly	
  few	
  arable	
  parts	
  of	
  the	
  world,	
  and	
  few	
  nations	
  able	
  to	
  respond	
  to	
  climate	
  change	
  effects,	
  and	
  hundreds	
  of	
  millions	
  of	
  desperate	
  people	
  looking	
  for	
  
a	
  safe	
  haven-­‐a	
  volatile	
  mix.	
  This	
  will	
  cause	
  considerable	
  unrest	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States,	
  Canada,	
  Europe,	
  and	
  Russia,	
  and	
  will	
  likely	
  involve	
  inhumane	
  border	
  control	
  practices.	
  Imagining	
  what	
  this	
  

                                                                                                   coastal	
  cities	
  in	
  hurricane	
  alley	
  along	
  the	
  Gulf	
  Coast	
  will	
  have	
  
will	
  actually	
  mean	
  at	
  a	
  national	
  level	
  is	
  disheartening.	
  For	
  the	
  United	
  States,	
  

to	
  be	
  abandoned,	
  possibly	
  as	
  soon	
  as	
  the	
  first	
  half	
  of	
  the	
  century,	
  certainly	
  by	
  the	
  end	
  of	
  the	
  century.	
  New	
  Orleans	
  will	
  obviously	
  be	
  first,	
  but	
  Pascagoula	
  and	
  Bay	
  St.	
  Louis,	
  
Mississippi,	
  and	
  Houston	
  and	
  Beaumont,	
  Texas,	
  and	
  other	
  cities	
  will	
  be	
  close	
  behind.	
  After	
  the	
  first	
  couple	
  of	
  episodes	
  of	
  flooding	
  and	
  destructive	
  winds,	
  starting	
  with	
  Hurricanes	
  Katrina	
  and	
  
                                                                 the	
  third	
  major	
  incident	
  will	
  make	
  it	
  clear	
  that	
  the	
  risk	
  of	
  renewed	
  
Rita	
  in	
  2005,	
  the	
  cities	
  will	
  be	
  partially	
  rebuilt;	
  

destruction	
  is	
  too	
  high	
  to	
  justify	
  the	
  cost	
  of	
  reconstruction.	
  The	
  abandonment	
  of	
  oil	
  and	
  natural	
  gas	
  
production	
  facilities	
  in	
  the	
  Gulf	
  region	
  will	
  push	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  into	
  a	
  severe	
  recession	
  or	
  even	
  depression,	
  probably	
  
before	
  the	
  abrupt	
  climate	
  effects	
  take	
  hold	
  in	
  2040.	
  Mexico's	
  economy	
  will	
  be	
  devastated,	
  which	
  will	
  increase	
  
illegal	
  immigration	
  into	
  the	
  United	
  States.	
  Other	
  major	
  U.S.	
  cities	
  are	
  likely	
  to	
  become	
  uninhabitable	
  after	
  2040,	
  including	
  

New	
  York	
  City	
  and	
  Los	
  Angeles,	
  with	
  a	
  combined	
  metropolitan	
  population	
  of	
  nearly	
  33	
  million	
  people.	
  Resettling	
  these	
  populations	
  will	
  be	
  a	
  massive	
  challenge	
  that	
  
will	
  preoccupy	
  the	
  United	
  States,	
  cause	
  tremendous	
  popular	
  strife,	
  and	
  absorb	
  all	
  monies,	
  including	
  private	
  donations,	
  which	
  would	
  have	
  previously	
  gone	
  to	
  foreign	
  aid.	
  The	
  United	
  States,	
  
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ,	
  this	
  
Canada,	
  China,	
  Europe,	
  and	
  Japan	
  will	
  have	
  little	
  choice	
  but	
  to	
  become	
  aggressively	
  isolationist,	
  with	
  militarized	
  borders.	
  Given	
  how	
  dependent	
  all	
  these	
  nations	
  are	
  on	
  global	
  trade

will	
  provoke	
  a	
  deep,	
  persistent	
  economic	
  crisis.	
  Standards	
  of	
  living	
  across	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  will	
  fall	
  dramatically,	
  which	
  will	
  provoke	
  civil	
  unrest	
  across	
  
the	
  country.	
  The	
  imposition	
  of	
  martial	
  law	
  is	
  a	
  possibility.	
  Though	
  the	
  poor	
  and	
  middle	
  class	
  will	
  be	
  hit	
  the	
  hardest,	
  no	
  one	
  will	
  be	
  immune.	
  The	
  fact	
  that	
  wealthier	
  
Americans	
  will	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  manage	
  the	
  effects	
  better,	
  however,	
  will	
  certainly	
  provoke	
  resentment	
  and	
  probably	
  violence	
  and	
  higher	
  crime	
  rates.	
  Gated	
  communities	
  are	
  likely	
  to	
  be	
  

                       the	
  level	
  of	
  popular	
  anger	
  toward	
  the	
  United	
  States,	
  as	
  the	
  leading	
  historical	
  contributor	
  
commonplace.	
  Finally,	
  

to	
  climate	
  change,	
  will	
  be	
  astronomical.	
  There	
  will	
  be	
  an	
  increase	
  in	
  asymmetric	
  attacks	
  on	
  the	
  
American	
  homeland.	
  India	
  will	
  cease	
  to	
  function	
  as	
  a	
  nation,	
  but	
  before	
  this	
  occurs,	
  Pakistan	
  and	
  
Bangladesh	
  will	
  implode	
  and	
  help	
  spur	
  India's	
  demise.	
  This	
  implosion	
  will	
  start	
  with	
  prolonged	
  regional	
  heat	
  waves,	
  which	
  will	
  
quietly	
  kill	
  hundreds	
  of	
  thousands	
  of	
  people.	
  It	
  will	
  not	
  immediately	
  be	
  apparent	
  that	
  these	
  are	
  climate	
  change	
  casualties.	
  Massive	
  

agricultural	
  losses	
  late	
  in	
  the	
  first	
  half	
  of	
  the	
  century,	
  along	
  with	
  the	
  collapse	
  of	
  fisheries	
  as	
  a	
  result	
  of	
  sea	
  level	
  rise,	
  
rising	
  oceanic	
  temperatures,	
  and	
  hypoxic	
  conditions,	
  will	
  put	
  the	
  entire	
  region	
  into	
  a	
  food	
  emergency.	
  
At	
  first,	
  the	
  United	
  States,	
  Australia,	
  China,	
  New	
  Zealand,	
  and	
  the	
  Nordic	
  nations	
  will	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  coordinate	
  emergency	
  food	
  aid	
  and	
  work	
  with	
  Indian	
  scientists	
  to	
  introduce	
  drought-­‐	
  and	
  
saltwater-­‐resistant	
  plant	
  species.	
  Millions	
  of	
  lives	
  will	
  be	
  saved,	
  and	
  India	
  will	
  be	
  stabilized	
  for	
  a	
  time.	
  But	
  a	
  succession	
  of	
  crippling	
  droughts	
  and	
  heat	
  waves	
  in	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  donor	
  nations	
  and	
  the	
  
inundation	
  of	
  several	
  populous	
  coastal	
  cities	
  will	
  force	
  these	
  nations	
  to	
  concentrate	
  on	
  helping	
  their	
  own	
  populations.	
  The	
  World	
  Food	
  Program	
  and	
  other	
  international	
  aid	
  agencies	
  will	
  first	
  
                                                                                                                                                        Existing	
  internal	
  tensions	
  in	
  India	
  will	
  explode	
  
have	
  trouble	
  operating	
  in	
  increasingly	
  violent	
  areas,	
  and	
  then,	
  as	
  donations	
  dry	
  up,	
  will	
  cease	
  operations.	
  

in	
  the	
  latter	
  half	
  of	
  the	
  century,	
  as	
  hundreds	
  of	
  millions	
  of	
  starving	
  people	
  begin	
  to	
  move,	
  trying	
  to	
  find	
  a	
  way	
  to	
  
survive.	
  As	
  noted	
  above,	
  a	
  nuclear	
  exchange	
  between	
  either	
  the	
  national	
  governments	
  or	
  subnational	
  groups	
  in	
  

the	
  region	
  is	
  possible	
  and	
  perhaps	
  even	
  likely.	
  By	
  mid-­‐century,	
  communal	
  genocide	
  will	
  rage	
  unchecked	
  in	
  several	
  
African	
  states,	
  most	
  notably	
  Sudan	
  and	
  Senegal,	
  where	
  agriculture	
  will	
  completely	
  collapse	
  and	
  the	
  populations	
  will	
  depend	
  on	
  food	
  imports.	
  
Both	
  nations	
  will	
  be	
  covered	
  with	
  ghost	
  towns,	
  where	
  entire	
  populations	
  have	
  either	
  perished	
  or	
  fled;	
  this	
  will	
  increasingly	
  be	
  true	
  across	
  Africa,	
  

South	
  Asia,	
  Central	
  Asia,	
  Central	
  America,	
  the	
  Caribbean,	
  South	
  America,	
  and	
  Southeast	
  Asia.	
  Europe	
  will	
  have	
  
the	
  oddity	
  of	
  having	
  to	
  deal	
  with	
  far	
  colder	
  winters,	
  given	
  the	
  collapse	
  of	
  the	
  MOC,	
  which	
  will	
  compromise	
  agricultural	
  productivity.	
  	
  
	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                         10	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                  	
                                                                                     Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                       1AC	
  –	
  Warming	
  Adv	
  (6/10)	
  
And,	
  tipping	
  points	
  are	
  coming	
  soon	
  –	
  must	
  start	
  decreasing	
  emissions	
  to	
  prevent	
  
runaway	
  warming	
  	
  
Hamilton	
  10	
  –	
  Professor	
  of	
  Public	
  Ethics	
  @	
  ANU	
  Clive	
  Hamilton,	
  Professor	
  of	
  Public	
  Ethics	
  in	
  Australia,	
  
2010,	
  “Requiem	
  for	
  a	
  Species:	
  Why	
  We	
  Resist	
  the	
  Truth	
  About	
  Climate	
  Change,”	
  pg.	
  1-­‐2	
  
One	
  of	
  the	
  most	
  striking	
  features	
  of	
  the	
  global	
  warming	
  debate	
  has	
  been	
  how,	
  with	
  each	
  advance	
  in	
  climate	
  science,	
  the	
  news	
  keeps	
  getting	
  
worse.	
  Although	
  temporarily	
  slowed	
  by	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  the	
  2008	
  global	
  financial	
  crisis,	
  the	
  world's	
  greenhouse	
  gas	
  emissions	
  have	
  been	
  growing	
  
much	
  faster	
  than	
  predicted	
  in	
  the	
  1990s.	
  In	
  addition,	
  since	
  2005	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  scientific	
  papers	
  have	
  described	
  the	
  
likelihood	
  of	
  the	
  climate	
  system	
  passing	
  significant	
  'tipping	
  points'	
  beyond	
  which	
  the	
  warming	
  process	
  
is	
  reinforced	
  by	
  positive	
  feedback	
  mechanisms—small	
  perturbations	
  that	
  cause	
  large	
  changes.1	
  This	
  new	
  
understanding	
  has	
  upset	
  the	
  comforting	
  idea	
  of	
  a	
  'dose—response'	
  relationship	
  between	
  the	
  amount	
  of	
  greenhouse	
  gases	
  we	
  put	
  into	
  the	
  
atmosphere	
  and	
  the	
  amount	
  of	
  global	
  warming	
  that	
  follows.	
  That	
  idea	
  has	
  allowed	
  us	
  to	
  believe	
  that,	
  although	
  we	
  may	
  be	
  slow	
  to	
  respond,	
  
once	
  we	
  decide	
  to	
  act	
  we	
  will	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  rescue	
  the	
  situation.	
  In	
  truth,	
  it	
  is	
  likely	
  that	
  in	
  the	
  next	
  decade	
  or	
  so,	
  beginning	
  with	
  the	
  
melting	
  of	
  the	
  Arctic's	
  summer	
  sea-­‐ice,	
  the	
  Earth's	
  climate	
  will	
  shift	
  onto	
  a	
  new	
  trajectory	
  driven	
  by	
  'natural'	
  
processes	
  that	
  will	
  take	
  millenniums	
  to	
  work	
  themselves	
  out.	
  The	
  paleoclimate	
  record	
  shows	
  the	
  
Earth's	
  climate	
  often	
  changing	
  abruptly,	
  flipping	
  from	
  one	
  state	
  to	
  another,	
  sometimes	
  within	
  a	
  few	
  
years.2	
  It	
  now	
  seems	
  almost	
  certain	
  that,	
  if	
  it	
  has	
  not	
  occurred	
  already,	
  within	
  the	
  next	
  several	
  years	
  enough	
  warming	
  
will	
  be	
  locked	
  in	
  to	
  the	
  system	
  to	
  set	
  in	
  train	
  feedback	
  processes	
  that	
  will	
  overwhelm	
  any	
  attempts	
  we	
  
make	
  to	
  cut	
  back	
  on	
  our	
  carbon	
  emissions.	
  We	
  will	
  be	
  powerless	
  to	
  stop	
  the	
  jump	
  to	
  a	
  new	
  climate	
  on	
  Earth,	
  one	
  much	
  less	
  
sympathetic	
  to	
  life.	
  The	
  kind	
  of	
  climate	
  that	
  has	
  allowed	
  civilisation	
  to	
  flourish	
  will	
  be	
  gone	
  and	
  humans	
  will	
  
enter	
  a	
  long	
  struggle	
  just	
  to	
  survive.	
  
	
  


98%	
  of	
  economists	
  agree	
  the	
  plan	
  will	
  solve—creates	
  demand	
  for	
  fuel	
  efficient	
  transit	
  
and	
  decreases	
  driving	
  
Global	
  Network	
  Consulting	
  ’12	
  <a	
  strategy	
  consulting	
  firm	
  and	
  member	
  of	
  Monitor	
  Group,	
  that	
  helps	
  
businesses,	
  NGOs,	
  and	
  governments	
  use	
  scenario	
  planning	
  to	
  plan	
  for	
  multiple	
  possible	
  futures>	
  
“Carbon	
  Emissions:	
  Is	
  gas	
  tax	
  the	
  answer?”	
  
http://gnconsulting.com.br/site/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=3857:carbon-­‐emissions-­‐
is-­‐a-­‐gas-­‐tax-­‐the-­‐answer&Itemid=245)	
  
According	
  to	
  a	
  recent	
  report	
  by	
  Reuters,	
  “…new	
  cars	
  with	
  traditional	
  engines	
  are	
  showing	
  striking	
  fuel	
  efficiency	
  gains	
  thanks	
  to	
  technologies	
  
such	
  as	
  turbochargers,	
  direct	
  injection,	
  and	
  engines	
  that	
  shut	
  down	
  when	
  the	
  vehicle	
  stops,	
  then	
  spring	
  back	
  to	
  life	
  when	
  the	
  driver	
  presses	
  the	
  
accelerator.”	
  To	
  put	
  a	
  number	
  on	
  all	
  this	
  progress,	
  cars	
  on	
  the	
  road	
  today	
  are	
  60	
  percent	
  more	
  fuel	
  efficiency	
  than	
  what	
  we	
  were	
  driving	
  just	
  20	
  
years	
  ago.	
  Yet	
  for	
  some	
  reason,	
  the	
  average	
  driver	
  has	
  yet	
  to	
  see	
  it	
  translate	
  into	
  a	
  significant	
  boost	
  in	
  gas	
  mileage.	
  For	
  instance,	
  in	
  1980,	
  the	
  
country’s	
  fleet	
  of	
  autos	
  offered	
  car	
  owners	
  an	
  average	
  of	
  about	
  23	
  miles	
  per	
  gallon,	
  whereas	
  by	
  2006	
  that	
  average	
  increased	
  just	
  slightly	
  to	
  
around	
  27	
  mpg.	
  So	
  what	
  gives?	
  Christopher	
  Knittel,	
  an	
  economist	
  at	
  MIT,	
  has	
  sifted	
  through	
  many	
  of	
  these	
  
confounding	
  figures	
  and	
  came	
  up	
  with	
  an	
  explanation.	
  All	
  these	
  gains	
  in	
  fuel	
  economy,	
  he	
  says,	
  have	
  been	
  offset	
  by	
  
the	
  fact	
  that	
  cars	
  on	
  the	
  road	
  today	
  have	
  also	
  become	
  bigger	
  and	
  more	
  powerful.	
  His	
  analysis	
  found	
  that	
  
during	
  that	
  26	
  year	
  period,	
  the	
  average	
  curb	
  weight	
  of	
  vehicles	
  increased	
  26	
  percent,	
  while	
  their	
  horsepower	
  rose	
  107	
  percent.	
  And	
  had	
  that	
  
not	
  been	
  the	
  case,	
  a	
  typical	
  vehicle	
  today	
  would	
  boast	
  an	
  average	
  mileage	
  rating	
  of	
  37	
  mpg.	
  I	
  know	
  it	
  sounds	
  a	
  bit	
  counter-­‐intuitive	
  but	
  here’s	
  
additional	
  evidence	
  of	
  consumers	
  trending	
  toward	
  ever-­‐more	
  muscular	
  cars:	
  In	
  1980,	
  light	
  trucks	
  represented	
  about	
  20	
  percent	
  of	
  passenger	
  
vehicles	
  sold	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States.	
  By	
  2004,	
  light	
  trucks	
  —	
  including	
  SUVs	
  —	
  accounted	
  for	
  51	
  percent	
  of	
  passenger-­‐vehicle	
  sales.	
  To	
  conduct	
  the	
  
study,	
  detailed	
  in	
  the	
  journal	
  American	
  Economic	
  Review	
  as	
  part	
  of	
  a	
  report	
  titled	
  “Automobiles	
  on	
  Steroids,”	
  Knittel	
  drew	
  upon	
  data	
  from	
  the	
  
National	
  Highway	
  Transportation	
  Safety	
  Administration,	
  auto	
  manufacturers	
  and	
  trade	
  journals.	
  “I	
  find	
  little	
  fault	
  with	
  the	
  auto	
  manufacturers,	
  
because	
  there	
  has	
  been	
  no	
  incentive	
  to	
  put	
  technologies	
  into	
  overall	
  fuel	
  economy,”	
  Knittel	
  said.	
  “Firms	
  
are	
  going	
  to	
  give	
  consumers	
  what	
  they	
  want,	
  and	
  if	
  gas	
  prices	
  are	
  low,	
  consumers	
  are	
  going	
  to	
  want	
  big,	
  fast	
  cars.”	
  Even	
  from	
  a	
  mile	
  away,	
  we	
  
can	
  all	
  see	
  what	
  he’s	
  getting	
  at.	
  While	
  the	
  benefits	
  of	
  better	
  gas	
  mileage	
  and	
  reduced	
  emissions	
  are	
  attractive	
  selling	
  points,	
  it	
  appears	
  that	
  
most	
  consumers	
  would	
  still	
  rather	
  eschew	
  them	
  for	
  something	
  along	
  the	
  lines	
  of	
  an	
  SUV	
  or	
  Dodge	
  Ram.	
  So	
  there	
  you	
  have	
  it.	
  Once	
  again,	
  just	
  
more	
  proof	
  that	
  free	
  market	
  forces	
  are	
  at	
  odds	
  with	
  the	
  environmental	
  imperative.	
  Still,	
  the	
  solution	
  Knittel	
  
proposes,	
  which	
  works	
  similarly	
  in	
  principle	
  to	
  taxing	
  cigarette	
  smokers,	
  does	
  come	
  off	
  as	
  somewhat	
  radical.	
  	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                          11	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                   	
                                                                                     Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                       1AC	
  –	
  Warming	
  Adv	
  (7/10)	
  
“When	
  it	
  comes	
  to	
  climate	
  change,	
  leaving	
  the	
  market	
  alone	
  isn’t	
  going	
  to	
  lead	
  to	
  the	
  efficient	
  
outcome,”	
  Knittel	
  said.	
  “The	
  right	
  starting	
  point	
  is	
  a	
  gas	
  tax.”	
  So	
  far,	
  government	
  has	
  opted	
  for	
  a	
  less	
  meddlesome	
  approach	
  
to	
  curb	
  emissions	
  by	
  putting	
  the	
  impetus	
  on	
  car	
  manufacturers	
  instead	
  of	
  the	
  consumers.	
  The	
  Obama	
  administration	
  has	
  required	
  that	
  the	
  
industry	
  design	
  vehicles	
  that	
  meet	
  certain	
  fuel	
  economy	
  benchmarks	
  known	
  as	
  the	
  Corporate	
  Average	
  Fuel	
  Economy	
  or	
  CAFE	
  standards.	
  For	
  
instance,	
  future	
  models	
  are	
  expected	
  to	
  travel	
  an	
  average	
  of	
  35.5	
  mpg	
  by	
  2016,	
  and	
  54.5	
  mpg	
  by	
  2025.	
  These	
  rules,	
  according	
  to	
  Knittel’s	
  
calculations,	
  may	
  lead	
  to	
  car	
  companies	
  rolling	
  back	
  the	
  weight	
  and	
  horsepower	
  capacity	
  in	
  future	
  models	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  potentially	
  spurring	
  further	
  
innovation	
  in	
  fuel	
  efficiency	
  technologies.	
  But	
  even	
  so,	
  Knittel	
  foresees	
  any	
  such	
  gains	
  being	
  further	
  offset	
  by	
  what	
  he	
  calls	
  a	
  “rebound	
  effect,”	
  
where	
  an	
  apparently	
  ideal	
  scenario	
  ends	
  up	
  encouraging	
  people	
  to	
  drive	
  even	
  more.	
  A	
  gas	
  tax,	
  he	
  believes,	
  would	
  create	
  demand	
  
for	
  more	
  fuel-­‐efficient	
  cars	
  without	
  as	
  much	
  rebound,	
  the	
  phenomenon	
  through	
  which	
  greater	
  
efficiency	
  leads	
  to	
  potentially	
  greater	
  consumption.	
  “I	
  think	
  98	
  percent	
  of	
  economists	
  would	
  say	
  that	
  
we	
  need	
  higher	
  gas	
  taxes,”	
  he	
  added.	
  

The	
  plan	
  would	
  uniquely	
  solve	
  warming—would	
  result	
  in	
  a	
  5	
  year	
  halt	
  of	
  emissions	
  
within	
  the	
  first	
  year	
  
Davis	
  and	
  Kilian,	
  9	
  [Lucas	
  Davis	
  and	
  Lutz	
  Kilian,	
  January	
  2009,	
  National	
  Bureau	
  Of	
  Economic	
  Research,	
  “ESTIMATING	
  THE	
  
EFFECT	
  OF	
  A	
  GASOLINE	
  TAX	
  ON	
  CARBON	
  EMISSIONS”	
  (http://www.nber.org/papers/w14685.pdf?new_window=1)]	
  
Several	
  policymakers	
  and	
  economists	
  have	
  proposed	
  the	
  adoption	
  of	
  a	
  carbon	
  tax	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States.1	
  In	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  33.8%	
  of	
  
carbon	
  dioxide	
  emissions	
  are	
  derived	
  from	
  the	
  transportation	
  sector,	
  so	
  the	
  responsiveness	
  of	
  gasoline	
  
consumption	
  to	
  tax	
  changes	
  will	
  play	
  a	
  significant	
  role	
  in	
  determining	
  the	
  evolution	
  of	
  overall	
  carbon	
  dioxide	
  emissions	
  in	
  response	
  to	
  policy	
  
interventions.2	
  It	
  is	
  widely	
  recognized	
  that	
  a	
  carbon	
  tax	
  in	
  practice	
  must	
  take	
  the	
  form	
  of	
  a	
  tax	
  on	
  the	
  consumption	
  of	
  energy	
  products	
  such	
  as	
  
gasoline	
  (e.g.	
  Fullerton	
  and	
  West,	
  2002).	
  A	
  tax	
  of	
  $10.00	
  per	
  ton	
  of	
  carbon	
  dioxide,	
  as	
  suggested	
  by	
  Nordhaus	
  (2007),	
  for	
  example,	
  would	
  
increase	
  gasoline	
  taxes	
  by	
  approximately	
  9	
  cents.3	
  In	
  this	
  paper,	
  we	
  evaluate	
  how	
  effective	
  a	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  increase	
  would	
  be	
  in	
  reducing	
  
gasoline	
  consumption.	
  Our	
  most	
  credible	
  estimates	
  imply	
  that	
  a	
  10	
  cent	
  tax	
  increase	
  would	
  decrease	
  U.S.	
  carbon	
  
emissions	
  from	
  the	
  transportation	
  sector	
  by	
  about	
  1.5%	
  and	
  decrease	
  total	
  U.S.	
  carbon	
  emissions	
  by	
  
about	
  0.5%.	
  To	
  put	
  this	
  estimate	
  in	
  context,	
  total	
  U.S.	
  carbon	
  dioxide	
  emissions	
  increased	
  by	
  1.1%	
  
annually	
  between	
  1990	
  and	
  2007,	
  so	
  a	
  10	
  cent	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  increase	
  would	
  approximately	
  offset	
  half	
  a	
  
year	
  of	
  growth	
  in	
  total	
  U.S.	
  emissions.4	
  This	
  estimate	
  captures	
  only	
  the	
  short-­‐run	
  response	
  resulting	
  from	
  reduced	
  discretionary	
  
driving	
  and	
  reduced	
  driving	
  speed,	
  for	
  example.	
  The	
  long-­‐run	
  response	
  is	
  likely	
  to	
  be	
  considerably	
  larger	
  as	
  drivers	
  substitute	
  toward	
  more	
  fuel-­‐
efficient	
  vehicles.	
  Despite	
  the	
  policy	
  relevance	
  of	
  the	
  question	
  to	
  be	
  addressed	
  in	
  this	
  paper,	
  empirical	
  evidence	
  on	
  the	
  effectiveness	
  of	
  gasoline	
  
taxes	
  on	
  carbon	
  emissions	
  is	
  virtually	
  nonexistent.	
  …	
  Even	
  this	
  panel	
  approach,	
  however,	
  does	
  not	
  fully	
  address	
  the	
  issue	
  of	
  price	
  endogeneity.	
  
An	
  alternative	
  approach	
  to	
  this	
  endogeneity	
  problem	
  has	
  been	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  instruments	
  for	
  gasoline	
  prices.	
  While	
  this	
  approach	
  is	
  appealing,	
  the	
  
challenge	
  has	
  been	
  to	
  find	
  instruments	
  that	
  are	
  both	
  truly	
  exogenous	
  and	
  strong	
  in	
  the	
  econometric	
  sense	
  (see	
  Stock,	
  Wright	
  and	
  Yogo,	
  2002).6	
  
In	
  this	
  paper	
  we	
  use	
  changes	
  in	
  gasoline	
  taxes	
  by	
  state	
  and	
  month	
  as	
  an	
  instrument.	
  Even	
  though	
  tax	
  legislation	
  may	
  respond	
  to	
  current	
  prices,	
  
the	
  implementation	
  of	
  tax	
  changes	
  typically	
  occurs	
  with	
  a	
  lag	
  making	
  it	
  reasonable	
  to	
  believe	
  that	
  changes	
  in	
  tax	
  rates	
  are	
  uncorrelated	
  with	
  
unobserved	
  changes	
  in	
  demand.	
  In	
  constructing	
  our	
  instrument	
  we	
  are	
  careful	
  to	
  exclude	
  ad	
  valorem	
  gasoline	
  taxes	
  (used	
  in	
  many	
  states)	
  
because	
  they	
  are	
  functionally	
  related	
  to	
  price,	
  violating	
  the	
  endogeneity	
  assumption.	
  For	
  the	
  national	
  data	
  our	
  instrumental	
  variable	
  (IV)	
  
estimates	
  rely	
  on	
  the	
  historical	
  variation	
  in	
  gasoline	
  taxes	
  over	
  time.	
  We	
  find	
  a	
  price	
  elasticity	
  that	
  is	
  much	
  larger,	
  but	
  not	
  statistically	
  
distinguishable	
  from	
  zero,	
  even	
  after	
  accounting	
  for	
  weak	
  instruments.	
  An	
  alternative	
  IV	
  approach	
  is	
  to	
  exploit	
  additional	
  variation	
  in	
  gasoline	
  
taxes	
  across	
  states.	
  The	
  resulting	
  panel	
  IV	
  estimates	
  are	
  substantially	
  larger	
  than	
  the	
  OLS	
  panel	
  estimates.	
  In	
  our	
  preferred	
  estimates	
  that	
  
restrict	
  attention	
  to	
  dates	
  of	
  nominal	
  state	
  tax	
  increases,	
  we	
  find	
  a	
  statistically	
  significant	
  price	
  elasticity	
  of	
  −0.46.	
  We	
  examine	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  
alternative	
  IV	
  specifications	
  including	
  specifications	
  that	
  control	
  for	
  factors	
  potentially	
  correlated	
  with	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  changes	
  and	
  we	
  consider	
  
alternative	
  estimators.	
  The	
  results	
  are	
  remarkably	
  similar	
  across	
  specifications.	
  In	
  addition,	
  we	
  contrast	
  the	
  IV	
  estimates	
  to	
  alternative	
  elasticity	
  
estimates	
  obtained	
  from	
  recursively	
  identified	
  vector	
  autoregressions	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  percent	
  change	
  in	
  gasoline	
  prices	
  (or	
  alternatively	
  the	
  
percent	
  change	
  in	
  gasoline	
  taxes)	
  is	
  ordered	
  first	
  and	
  the	
  percent	
  change	
  in	
  gasoline	
  consumption	
  is	
  ordered	
  second.	
  With	
  this	
  approach	
  the	
  
elasticity	
  is	
  identified	
  under	
  the	
  assumption	
  that	
  changes	
  in	
  gasoline	
  prices	
  (or	
  taxes)	
  are	
  predetermined	
  with	
  respect	
  to	
  all	
  factors	
  driving	
  U.S.	
  
gasoline	
  consumption.7	
  Overall,	
  our	
  results	
  indicate	
  that	
  gasoline	
  consumption	
  is	
  more	
  sensitive	
  to	
  gasoline	
  taxes	
  than	
  would	
  be	
  implied	
  by	
  
recent	
  estimates	
  of	
  the	
  gasoline	
  price	
  elasticity.	
  A	
  likely	
  reason	
  is	
  that	
  price	
  changes	
  induced	
  by	
  tax	
  changes	
  are	
  more	
  persistent	
  
than	
  other	
  price	
  changes	
  and	
  thus	
  induce	
  larger	
  behavioral	
  changes.	
  In	
  addition,	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  increases	
  are	
  
often	
  accompanied	
  by	
  extensive	
  media	
  coverage.	
  Even	
  under	
  the	
  largest	
  plausible	
  estimates,	
  however,	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  
increases	
  of	
  the	
  magnitude	
  that	
  have	
  been	
  discussed	
  would	
  have	
  only	
  a	
  moderate	
  short-­‐run	
  impact	
  on	
  total	
  U.S.	
  gasoline	
  consumption	
  and	
  
carbon	
  emissions	
  based	
  on	
  our	
  estimates.	
  A	
  natural	
  conjecture	
  is	
  that	
  the	
  long-­‐run	
  elasticities	
  will	
  be	
  larger,	
  but	
  standard	
  econometric	
  models	
  
based	
  on	
  historical	
  data	
  do	
  not	
  allow	
  us	
  to	
  predict	
  such	
  long-­‐run	
  effects.	
  The	
  format	
  of	
  the	
  paper	
  is	
  as	
  follows.	
  Section	
  2	
  describes	
  the	
  data	
  used	
  
for	
  the	
  analysis	
  and	
  describes	
  the	
  evolution	
  of	
  gasoline	
  taxes	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  over	
  the	
  period	
  1989-­‐2008.	
  Section	
  3	
  presents	
  least	
  squares	
  
and	
  IV	
  estimates	
  from	
  log	
  differenced	
  single-­‐equation	
  specifications.	
  Section	
  4	
  presents	
  results	
  from	
  structural	
  VAR	
  models.	
  Section	
  5	
  assesses	
  
the	
  effects	
  of	
  the	
  proposed	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  on	
  carbon	
  emissions,	
  and	
  section	
  6	
  summarizes	
  the	
  policy	
  implications.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                           12	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                      	
                                                                                   Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                         1AC	
  –	
  Warming	
  Adv	
  (8/10)	
  
Plan	
  spills	
  over,	
  creating	
  a	
  global	
  effort	
  
Summers,	
  7	
  [Lawrence	
  Summers,	
  former	
  U.S.	
  Treasury	
  Secretary,	
  currently	
  Professor	
  at	
  Harvard	
  
University	
  (from	
  Practical	
  Steps	
  to	
  Climate	
  Control,	
  The	
  Financial	
  Times	
  May	
  28,	
  2007)	
  
taxblog.com/jealdy/tax-­‐based-­‐approach-­‐slowing-­‐global-­‐climate-­‐change/]	
  
The	
  U.S.	
  must	
  engage	
  in	
  an	
  energy	
  efficiency	
  program	
  that	
  takes	
  effect	
  without	
  delay	
  and	
  has	
  
meaningful	
  bite.	
  As	
  long	
  as	
  developing	
  countries	
  can	
  point	
  to	
  the	
  U.S.	
  as	
  a	
  free	
  rider	
  there	
  will	
  not	
  be	
  
serious	
  dialogue	
  about	
  what	
  they	
  are	
  willing	
  to	
  do.	
  I	
  prefer	
  carbon	
  and/or	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  measures	
  to	
  
permit	
  systems	
  or	
  heavy	
  regulatory	
  approaches	
  because	
  the	
  latter	
  are	
  more	
  likely	
  to	
  be	
  economically	
  
inefficient	
  and	
  to	
  be	
  regressive.”	
  

It’s	
  not	
  too	
  late	
  to	
  solve	
  warming–	
  even	
  if	
  temporarily	
  over	
  the	
  tipping	
  point,	
  can	
  be	
  
brought	
  back	
  down	
  
Dyer	
  9	
  –	
  PhD	
  in	
  ME	
  History	
  Gwynne,	
  MA	
  in	
  Military	
  History	
  and	
  PhD	
  in	
  Middle	
  Eastern	
  History	
  former	
  	
  
@	
  Senior	
  Lecturer	
  in	
  War	
  Studies	
  at	
  the	
  Royal	
  Military	
  Academy	
  Sandhurst,	
  Climate	
  Wars	
  
There	
  is	
  no	
  need	
  to	
  despair.	
  The	
  slow-­‐feedback	
  effects	
  take	
  a	
  long	
  time	
  to	
  work	
  their	
  way	
  through	
  the	
  
climate	
  system,	
  and	
  if	
  we	
  could	
  manage	
  to	
  get	
  the	
  carbon	
  dioxide	
  concentration	
  back	
  down	
  to	
  a	
  safe	
  
level	
  before	
  they	
  have	
  run	
  their	
  course,	
  they	
  might	
  be	
  stopped	
  in	
  their	
  tracks.	
  As	
  Hansen	
  et	
  al.	
  put	
  it	
  in	
  their	
  paper:	
  	
  	
  A	
  point	
  
of	
  no	
  return	
  can	
  be	
  avoided,	
  even	
  if	
  the	
  tipping	
  level	
  [which	
  puts	
  us	
  on	
  course	
  for	
  an	
  ice-­‐free	
  world]	
  is	
  temporarily	
  exceeded.	
  
Ocean	
  and	
  ice-­‐sheet	
  inertia	
  permit	
  overshoot,	
  provided	
  the	
  [concentration	
  of	
  carbon	
  dioxide]	
  is	
  
returned	
  below	
  the	
  tipping	
  level	
  before	
  initiating	
  irreversible	
  dynamic	
  change	
  ....	
  However,	
  if	
  overshoot	
  is	
  in	
  
place	
  for	
  centuries,	
  the	
  thermal	
  perturbation	
  will	
  so	
  penetrate	
  the	
  ocean	
  that	
  recovery	
  without	
  dramatic	
  effects,	
  such	
  as	
  ice-­‐sheet	
  
disintegration,	
  becomes	
  unlikely.	
  	
  	
  The	
  real,	
  long-­‐term	
  target	
  is	
  350	
  parts	
  per	
  million	
  or	
  lower,	
  if	
  we	
  want	
  the	
  Holocene	
  
to	
  last	
  into	
  the	
  indefinite	
  future,	
  but	
  for	
  the	
  remainder	
  of	
  this	
  book	
  I	
  am	
  going	
  to	
  revert	
  to	
  the	
  450	
  parts	
  per	
  million	
  ceiling	
  that	
  has	
  become	
  
common	
  currency	
  among	
  most	
  of	
  those	
  who	
  are	
  involved	
  in	
  climate	
  change	
  issues.	
  If	
  we	
  manage	
  to	
  stop	
  the	
  rise	
  in	
  the	
  carbon	
  
dioxide	
  concentration	
  at	
  or	
  not	
  far	
  beyond	
  that	
  figure,	
  then	
  we	
  must	
  immediately	
  begin	
  the	
  equally	
  
urgent	
  and	
  arduous	
  task	
  of	
  getting	
  it	
  back	
  down	
  to	
  a	
  much	
  lower	
  level	
  that	
  is	
  safe	
  for	
  the	
  long	
  term,	
  
but	
  one	
  step	
  at	
  a	
  time	
  will	
  have	
  to	
  suffice.	
  I	
  suspect	
  that	
  few	
  now	
  alive	
  will	
  see	
  the	
  day	
  when	
  we	
  seriously	
  start	
  work	
  on	
  
bringing	
  the	
  concentration	
  back	
  down	
  to	
  350,	
  so	
  let	
  us	
  focus	
  here	
  on	
  how	
  to	
  stop	
  it	
  rising	
  past	
  450.	
  	
  
	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                       13	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                 	
                                                                                    Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                      1AC	
  –	
  Warming	
  Adv	
  (9/10)	
  
You	
  should	
  err	
  on	
  the	
  side	
  of	
  solving	
  warming	
  because	
  climate	
  change	
  could	
  be	
  
irreversible	
  even	
  if	
  the	
  evidence	
  is	
  debatable	
  	
  
Sunstein	
  7	
  –	
  Professor	
  of	
  Political	
  Science	
  Cass	
  R.,	
  Professor	
  in	
  the	
  Department	
  of	
  Political	
  Science	
  and	
  
at	
  the	
  Law	
  School	
  of	
  the	
  University	
  of	
  Chicago,	
  2007,	
  “Worst-­‐Case	
  Scenarios”,	
  Harvard	
  University	
  Press	
  
Most	
  worst-­‐case	
  scenarios	
  appear	
  to	
  have	
  an	
  element	
  of	
  irreversibility.	
  Once	
  a	
  species	
  is	
  lost,	
  it	
  is	
  lost	
  forever.	
  The	
  special	
  concern	
  for	
  
endangered	
  species	
  stems	
  from	
  the	
  permanence	
  of	
  their	
  loss	
  (outside	
  of	
  Jurassic	
  Park).	
  One	
  of	
  the	
  most	
  serious	
  fears	
  associated	
  with	
  
genetically	
  modified	
  organisms	
  is	
  that	
  they	
  might	
  lead	
  to	
  irreversible	
  ecological	
  harm.	
  Because	
  some	
  greenhouse	
  gases	
  stay	
  in	
  the	
  
atmosphere	
  for	
  centuries,	
  the	
  problem	
  of	
  climate	
  change	
  may	
  be	
  irreversible,	
  at	
  least	
  for	
  all	
  practical	
  
purposes.	
  Transgenic	
  crops	
  can	
  impose	
  irreversible	
  losses	
  too,	
  because	
  they	
  can	
  make	
  pests	
  more	
  resistant	
  to	
  pesticides.	
  If	
  we	
  invest	
  
significant	
  wealth	
  in	
  one	
  source	
  of	
  energy	
  and	
  neglect	
  others,	
  we	
  may	
  be	
  effectively	
  stuck	
  forever,	
  or	
  at	
  least	
  for	
  a	
  long	
  time.	
  One	
  objection	
  to	
  
capital	
  punishment	
  is	
  that	
  errors	
  cannot	
  be	
  reversed.	
  In	
  ordinary	
  life,	
  our	
  judgments	
  about	
  worst-­‐case	
  scenarios	
  have	
  
everything	
  to	
  do	
  with	
  irreversibility.	
  Of	
  course	
  an	
  action	
  may	
  be	
  hard	
  but	
  not	
  impossible	
  to	
  undo,	
  and	
  so	
  there	
  may	
  be	
  a	
  
continuum	
  of	
  cases,	
  with	
  different	
  degrees	
  of	
  difficulty	
  in	
  reversing.	
  A	
  marriage	
  can	
  be	
  reversed,	
  but	
  divorce	
  is	
  rarely	
  easy;	
  having	
  a	
  child	
  is	
  very	
  
close	
  to	
  irreversible;	
  moving	
  from	
  New	
  York	
  to	
  Paris	
  is	
  reversible,	
  but	
  moving	
  back	
  may	
  be	
  difficult.	
  People	
  often	
  take	
  steps	
  to	
  avoid	
  courses	
  of	
  
action	
  that	
  are	
  burdensome	
  rather	
  than	
  literally	
  impossible	
  to	
  reverse.	
  In	
  this	
  light,	
  we	
  might	
  identify	
  an	
  Irreversible	
  Harm	
  
Precautionary	
  Principle,	
  applicable	
  to	
  a	
  subset	
  of	
  risks.'	
  As	
  a	
  rough	
  first	
  approximation,	
  the	
  principle	
  says	
  this:	
  Special	
  
steps	
  should	
  be	
  taken	
  to	
  avoid	
  irreversible	
  harms,	
  through	
  precautions	
  that	
  go	
  well	
  beyond	
  those	
  that	
  
would	
  be	
  taken	
  if	
  irreversibility	
  were	
  not	
  a	
  problem.	
  The	
  general	
  attitude	
  here	
  is	
  "act,	
  then	
  learn,"	
  as	
  
opposed	
  to	
  the	
  tempting	
  alternative	
  of	
  "wait	
  and	
  learn."	
  In	
  the	
  case	
  of	
  climate	
  change,	
  some	
  people	
  
believe	
  that	
  research	
  should	
  be	
  our	
  first	
  line	
  of	
  defense.	
  In	
  their	
  view,	
  we	
  should	
  refuse	
  to	
  commit	
  
substantial	
  resources	
  to	
  the	
  problem	
  until	
  evidence	
  of	
  serious	
  harm	
  is	
  unmistakably	
  clear.'	
  But	
  even	
  
assuming	
  that	
  the	
  evidence	
  is	
  not	
  so	
  clear,	
  research	
  without	
  action	
  allows	
  greenhouse	
  gas	
  emissions	
  
to	
  continue,	
  which	
  might	
  produce	
  risks	
  that	
  are	
  irreversible,	
  or	
  at	
  best	
  difficult	
  and	
  expensive	
  to	
  reverse.	
  For	
  this	
  
reason,	
  the	
  best	
  course	
  of	
  action	
  might	
  well	
  be	
  to	
  take	
  precautions	
  now	
  as	
  a	
  way	
  of	
  preserving	
  flexibility	
  
for	
  future	
  generations.	
  In	
  the	
  environmental	
  context	
  in	
  general,	
  this	
  principle	
  suggests	
  that	
  regulators	
  
should	
  proceed	
  with	
  far	
  more	
  aggressive	
  measures	
  than	
  would	
  otherwise	
  seem	
  justified	
  

There	
  should	
  be	
  an	
  extremely	
  high	
  standard	
  of	
  evidence	
  in	
  debates	
  about	
  global	
  
warming	
  –	
  current	
  climate	
  skepticism	
  ignores	
  peer-­‐review,	
  comes	
  from	
  unspecialized	
  
writers,	
  cherry	
  picks	
  evidence	
  and	
  is	
  informed	
  by	
  ideology	
  
Somerville	
  11	
  –	
  Professor	
  of	
  Oceanography	
  @	
  UCSD	
  Richard	
  Somerville,	
  Distinguished	
  Professor	
  
Emeritus	
  and	
  Research	
  Professor	
  at	
  Scripps	
  Institution	
  of	
  Oceanography	
  at	
  the	
  University	
  of	
  California,	
  
San	
  Diego,	
  Coordinating	
  Lead	
  Author	
  in	
  Working	
  Group	
  I	
  for	
  the	
  2007	
  Fourth	
  Assessment	
  Report	
  of	
  
the	
  Intergovernmental	
  Panel	
  on	
  Climate	
  Change,	
  3-­‐8-­‐2011,	
  “CLIMATE	
  SCIENCE	
  AND	
  EPA'S	
  
GREENHOUSE	
  GAS	
  REGULATIONS,”	
  CQ	
  Congressional	
  Testimony,	
  Lexis	
  
Although	
  the	
  expert	
  community	
  is	
  in	
  wide	
  agreement	
  on	
  the	
  basic	
  results	
  of	
  climate	
  change	
  science,	
  
as	
  assessed	
  in	
  AR4	
  and	
  The	
  Copenhagen	
  Diagnosis,	
  much	
  confusion	
  exists	
  among	
  the	
  general	
  public	
  
and	
  politicians	
  in	
  many	
  countries,	
  as	
  polling	
  data	
  convincingly	
  shows.	
  In	
  my	
  opinion,	
  many	
  people	
  need	
  
to	
  learn	
  more	
  about	
  the	
  nature	
  of	
  junk	
  or	
  fake	
  science,	
  so	
  they	
  will	
  be	
  better	
  equipped	
  to	
  recognize	
  
and	
  reject	
  it.	
  There	
  are	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  warning	
  signs	
  that	
  can	
  help	
  identify	
  suspicious	
  claims.	
  One	
  is	
  
failure	
  to	
  rely	
  on	
  and	
  cite	
  published	
  research	
  results	
  from	
  peer-­‐	
  reviewed	
  journals.	
  Trustworthy	
  
science	
  is	
  not	
  something	
  that	
  appears	
  first	
  on	
  television	
  or	
  the	
  Internet.	
  Reputable	
  scientists	
  first	
  
announce	
  the	
  results	
  of	
  their	
  research	
  by	
  peer-­‐reviewed	
  publication	
  in	
  well-­‐regarded	
  scientific	
  
journals.	
  Peer	
  review	
  is	
  not	
  a	
  guarantee	
  of	
  excellent	
  science,	
  but	
  the	
  lack	
  of	
  it	
  is	
  a	
  red	
  flag.	
  Peer	
  review	
  
is	
  a	
  necessary	
  rather	
  than	
  a	
  sufficient	
  criterion.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                             14	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                	
                                                           Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                1AC	
  –	
  Warming	
  Adv	
  (10/10)	
  
	
  Another	
  warning	
  sign	
  is	
  a	
  lack	
  of	
  relevant	
  credentials	
  on	
  the	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  person	
  making	
  assertions,	
  
especially	
  education	
  and	
  research	
  experience	
  in	
  the	
  specialized	
  field	
  in	
  question.	
  For	
  example,	
  it	
  is	
  not	
  
essential	
  to	
  have	
  earned	
  a	
  Ph.	
  D.	
  degree	
  or	
  to	
  hold	
  a	
  university	
  professorship.	
  It	
  is	
  important,	
  however,	
  
that	
  the	
  person	
  be	
  qualified,	
  not	
  in	
  some	
  general	
  broad	
  scientific	
  area,	
  such	
  as	
  physics	
  or	
  chemistry,	
  but	
  
in	
  the	
  relevant	
  specialty.	
  Accomplishments	
  and	
  even	
  great	
  distinction	
  in	
  one	
  area	
  of	
  science	
  do	
  not	
  
qualify	
  anybody	
  to	
  speak	
  authoritatively	
  in	
  a	
  very	
  different	
  area.	
  We	
  would	
  not	
  ask	
  even	
  an	
  expert	
  
cardiologist	
  for	
  advice	
  on,	
  say,	
  dentistry.	
  One	
  should	
  inquire	
  whether	
  the	
  person	
  claiming	
  expertise	
  in	
  
some	
  area	
  of	
  climate	
  science	
  has	
  done	
  first-­‐person	
  research	
  on	
  the	
  topic	
  under	
  consideration	
  and	
  
published	
  it	
  in	
  reputable	
  peer-­‐reviewed	
  journals.	
  Is	
  the	
  person	
  actively	
  participating	
  in	
  the	
  research	
  
area	
  in	
  question,	
  or	
  simply	
  criticizing	
  it	
  from	
  the	
  vantage	
  point	
  of	
  an	
  outsider?	
  One	
  should	
  be	
  suspicious	
  
of	
  a	
  lack	
  of	
  detailed	
  familiarity	
  with	
  the	
  specific	
  scientific	
  topic	
  and	
  its	
  research	
  literature.	
  Good	
  science	
  
takes	
  account	
  of	
  what	
  is	
  already	
  known	
  and	
  acknowledges	
  and	
  builds	
  on	
  earlier	
  research	
  by	
  others.	
  
Other	
  warning	
  signs	
  include	
  a	
  blatant	
  failure	
  to	
  be	
  objective	
  and	
  to	
  consider	
  all	
  relevant	
  research	
  
results,	
  both	
  pro	
  and	
  con	
  a	
  given	
  position.	
  Scientific	
  honesty	
  and	
  integrity	
  require	
  wide-­‐	
  ranging	
  and	
  
thorough	
  consideration	
  of	
  all	
  the	
  evidence	
  that	
  might	
  bear	
  on	
  a	
  particular	
  question.	
  Choosing	
  to	
  make	
  
selective	
  choices	
  among	
  competing	
  evidence,	
  so	
  as	
  to	
  emphasize	
  those	
  results	
  that	
  support	
  a	
  given	
  
position,	
  while	
  ignoring	
  or	
  dismissing	
  any	
  findings	
  that	
  do	
  not	
  support	
  it,	
  is	
  a	
  practice	
  known	
  as	
  "cherry	
  
picking"	
  and	
  is	
  a	
  hallmark	
  of	
  poor	
  science	
  or	
  pseudo-­‐science.	
  Mixing	
  science	
  with	
  ideology	
  or	
  policy	
  or	
  
personalities	
  is	
  never	
  justified	
  in	
  research.	
  Scientific	
  validity	
  has	
  nothing	
  to	
  do	
  with	
  political	
  viewpoints.	
  
There	
  are	
  no	
  Republican	
  or	
  Democratic	
  thermometers.	
  Whether	
  a	
  given	
  politician	
  agrees	
  or	
  disagrees	
  
with	
  a	
  research	
  finding	
  is	
  absolutely	
  unimportant	
  scientifically.	
  Science	
  can	
  usefully	
  inform	
  the	
  making	
  of	
  
policy,	
  but	
  only	
  if	
  policy	
  considerations	
  have	
  not	
  infected	
  the	
  science.	
  Similarly,	
  one	
  should	
  always	
  be	
  
alert	
  to	
  the	
  risk	
  of	
  bias	
  due	
  to	
  political	
  viewpoints,	
  ideological	
  preferences,	
  or	
  connections	
  with	
  
interested	
  parties.	
  All	
  sources	
  of	
  funding,	
  financial	
  interests	
  and	
  other	
  potential	
  reasons	
  for	
  bias	
  should	
  
be	
  openly	
  disclosed.	
  Finally,	
  we	
  must	
  always	
  be	
  alert	
  for	
  any	
  hint	
  of	
  delusions	
  of	
  grandeur	
  on	
  the	
  part	
  
of	
  those	
  who	
  would	
  insist	
  that	
  they	
  themselves	
  are	
  correct,	
  while	
  nearly	
  everyone	
  else	
  in	
  the	
  entire	
  
field	
  of	
  climate	
  science	
  is	
  badly	
  mistaken.	
  Scientific	
  progress	
  is	
  nearly	
  always	
  incremental,	
  with	
  very	
  
few	
  exceptions.	
  Occasionally,	
  an	
  unknown	
  lone	
  genius	
  in	
  a	
  humble	
  position,	
  such	
  as	
  the	
  young	
  Einstein	
  
doing	
  theoretical	
  physics	
  while	
  working	
  as	
  a	
  clerk	
  in	
  a	
  patent	
  office,	
  does	
  indeed	
  revolutionize	
  a	
  
scientific	
  field,	
  dramatically	
  overthrowing	
  conventional	
  wisdom.	
  However,	
  such	
  events	
  are	
  exceedingly	
  
rare,	
  and	
  claims	
  to	
  be	
  such	
  a	
  lone	
  genius	
  deserve	
  the	
  most	
  severe	
  scrutiny.	
  For	
  every	
  authentic	
  Einstein,	
  
there	
  must	
  be	
  thousands	
  of	
  outright	
  charlatans,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  many	
  more	
  ordinary	
  mortals	
  who	
  are	
  simply	
  
very	
  badly	
  mistaken.	
  	
  
	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                              15	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                     	
                                                                                       Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                          1AC	
  –	
  Economy	
  Adv	
  (1/7)	
  
Contention	
  __	
  is	
  the	
  Economy	
  
There	
  are	
  __	
  internal	
  links	
  

1.	
  Oil	
  Shocks	
  
Increased	
  gas	
  tax	
  would	
  shield	
  our	
  economy	
  from	
  the	
  impacts	
  of	
  price	
  shocks	
  
Williford 11	
  –	
  College	
  of	
  Charleston	
  (10	
  February	
  2011,	
  Sam	
  Williford,	
  “Oil	
  
Dependence	
  Threatens	
  Economic	
  Stability”,	
  http://economyincrisis.org/content/oil-­‐
dependence-­‐threatens-­‐economic-­‐stability)	
  
The	
  recent	
  protests	
  in	
  the	
  Middle	
  East	
  prove	
  yet	
  again	
  that	
  our	
  economy	
  is	
  too	
  heavily	
  dependent	
  upon	
  foreign	
  oil	
  for	
  
its	
  survival	
  and	
  that	
  we	
  must	
  takes	
  steps	
  to	
  correct	
  this	
  issue.	
  While	
  Egypt	
  is	
  a	
  relatively	
  small	
  provider	
  of	
  oil	
  (only	
  700,000	
  
barrels	
  per	
  day,	
  compared	
  to	
  more	
  than	
  8	
  million	
  per	
  day	
  from	
  Saudi	
  Arabia),	
  the	
  Suez	
  Canal	
  is	
  a	
  vital	
  lifeline	
  between	
  Asia	
  
and	
  Europe.	
  If	
  disturbances	
  were	
  to	
  affect	
  the	
  flow	
  of	
  traffic	
  through	
  this	
  corridor,	
  it	
  would	
  greatly	
  disrupt	
  international	
  
commerce,	
  causing	
  oil	
  prices	
  to	
  spike	
  further	
  than	
  they	
  have	
  already.	
  This	
  is	
  due	
  to	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  America	
  imports	
  a	
  
vast	
  amount	
  of	
  black	
  gold	
  everyday.	
  Our	
  reliance	
  on	
  gasoline	
  powered	
  personal	
  transportation	
  and	
  shipping	
  are	
  the	
  largest	
  causes.	
  Thus,	
  to	
  
minimize	
  the	
  impact	
  of	
  price	
  shocks,	
  we	
  must	
  implement	
  measures	
  to	
  reduce	
  demand.	
  Goals	
  to	
  increase	
  
usage	
  of	
  electric	
  vehicles	
  is	
  a	
  start,	
  but	
  alone	
  will	
  do	
  too	
  little,	
  too	
  late	
  in	
  dealing	
  with	
  the	
  problem.	
  A	
  gradual	
  raising	
  of	
  the	
  
gasoline	
  tax	
  that	
  would	
  go	
  to	
  fund	
  public	
  transportation	
  alternatives	
  would	
  encourage	
  people	
  to	
  drive	
  
less.	
  

Even	
  a	
  10%	
  disruption	
  in	
  oil	
  would	
  economic	
  collapse	
  of	
  unprecedented	
  magnitude—
no	
  available	
  safeguards	
  
Black 12	
  (Edwin	
  Black,	
  American	
  syndicated	
  columnist,	
  and	
  journalist	
  specializing	
  in	
  the	
  
historical	
  interplay	
  between	
  economics	
  and	
  politics	
  in	
  the	
  Middle	
  East,	
  “When	
  the	
  Pump	
  
Runs	
  Dry,	
  February	
  27)<	
  http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-­‐02-­‐27/news/bs-­‐ed-­‐
oil-­‐interruption-­‐20120227_1_crude-­‐abqaiq-­‐international-­‐energy-­‐agency	
  
The	
  crude	
  realities:	
  America	
  uses	
  approximately	
  19	
  million	
  to	
  20	
  million	
  barrels	
  of	
  oil	
  per	
  day,	
  almost	
  half	
  of	
  
which	
  is	
  imported.	
  If	
  we	
  lose	
  just	
  1	
  million	
  barrels	
  per	
  day,	
  or	
  suffer	
  the	
  type	
  of	
  damage	
  sustained	
  from	
  Hurricane	
  Katrina,	
  the	
  
government	
  will	
  open	
  the	
  Strategic	
  Petroleum	
  Reserve,	
  which	
  offers	
  a	
  mere	
  six-­‐	
  to	
  eight-­‐week	
  supply	
  of	
  unrefined	
  crude	
  oil.	
  If	
  we	
  lose	
  1.5	
  
million	
  barrels	
  per	
  day,	
  or	
  approximately	
  7.5	
  percent,	
  we	
  will	
  ask	
  our	
  allies	
  in	
  the	
  28-­‐member	
  International	
  Energy	
  Agency	
  to	
  open	
  their	
  SPRs	
  
and	
  otherwise	
  assist.	
  If	
  we	
  lose	
  2	
  million	
  barrels	
  per	
  day,	
  or	
  10	
  percent,	
  for	
  a	
  protracted	
  period,	
  government	
  crisis	
  
monitors	
  say	
  the	
  chaos	
  will	
  be	
  so	
  catastrophic,	
  they	
  cannot	
  even	
  model	
  it.	
  One	
  government	
  oil	
  crisis	
  source	
  told	
  
me:	
  "We	
  cannot	
  put	
  a	
  price	
  tag	
  on	
  it.	
  If	
  it	
  happens,	
  just	
  cash	
  in	
  your	
  401(k)."	
  Exactly	
  how	
  could	
  America	
  be	
  
subjected	
  to	
  a	
  protracted	
  oil	
  interruption	
  —	
  that	
  is,	
  a	
  10	
  percent	
  shortfall	
  lasting	
  longer	
  than	
  several	
  weeks?	
  It	
  will	
  not	
  come	
  from	
  hurricane	
  
action	
  in	
  the	
  Gulf	
  of	
  Mexico,	
  or	
  even	
  major	
  refinery	
  accidents	
  or	
  other	
  oil	
  infrastructure	
  damage.	
  Such	
  damage	
  would	
  be	
  repaired	
  within	
  days	
  
and	
  the	
  temporary	
  losses	
  absorbed	
  by	
  the	
  small,	
  half-­‐million-­‐barrel-­‐per-­‐day	
  global	
  cushion	
  available.	
  But	
  a	
  disruption	
  of	
  the	
  vital	
  Persian	
  
Gulf	
  chokepoints	
  —	
  the	
  Abqaiq	
  processing	
  plant	
  in	
  eastern	
  Saudi	
  Arabia,	
  the	
  Ras	
  Tanura	
  terminal	
  on	
  the	
  Saudi	
  Arabian	
  coast,	
  or	
  the	
  two-­‐mile-­‐
wide	
  sea	
  lane	
  of	
  the	
  Strait	
  of	
  Hormuz	
  —	
  would	
  be	
  devastating.	
  If	
  one,	
  two	
  or	
  three	
  of	
  them	
  is	
  hit	
  by	
  terrorists	
  flying	
  hijacked	
  jumbo	
  jets	
  
or	
  shut	
  down	
  by	
  Iranian	
  military	
  action,	
  as	
  much	
  as	
  40	
  percent	
  of	
  all	
  seaborne	
  oil	
  will	
  be	
  stopped,	
  as	
  much	
  as	
  18	
  percent	
  of	
  all	
  global	
  supply	
  will	
  
be	
  interrupted,	
  and	
  more	
  than	
  10	
  percent	
  of	
  the	
  U.S.	
  supply	
  will	
  be	
  cut	
  off.	
  Estimates	
  on	
  the	
  U.S.	
  shortfall	
  suggest	
  the	
  percentage	
  lost	
  could	
  be	
  
far	
  higher.	
  Repeat	
  attacks,	
  and	
  the	
  difficulty	
  of	
  anti-­‐mine	
  operations	
  in	
  a	
  hostile	
  environment,	
  could	
  prolong	
  the	
  crisis	
  for	
  many	
  months	
  —	
  
which	
  is	
  exactly	
  what	
  al-­‐Qaeda	
  and	
  the	
  Iranian	
  regime	
  have	
  promised.	
  Yet,	
  apparently,	
  there	
  is	
  no	
  government	
  plan.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                     16	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                	
                                                                                   Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                       1AC	
  –	
  Economy	
  Adv	
  (2/7)	
  
	
  The	
  best	
  experts	
  predict	
  that	
  if	
  we	
  suffer	
  as	
  much	
  as	
  a	
  10	
  percent	
  shortfall	
  for	
  any	
  period	
  of	
  time,	
  let	
  alone	
  
20	
  percent,	
  it	
  will	
  be	
  a	
  neighbor-­‐against-­‐neighbor,	
  "Mad	
  Max"	
  scenario	
  as	
  food	
  shortages	
  swell	
  and	
  a	
  
storm	
  of	
  economic	
  collapse	
  surges	
  across	
  the	
  country.	
  Indeed,	
  experts	
  have	
  been	
  warning	
  about	
  this	
  looming	
  calamity	
  for	
  years.	
  
But	
  the	
  government	
  and	
  presidential	
  candidates	
  refuse	
  to	
  even	
  consider	
  the	
  possibility	
  or	
  develop	
  a	
  
contingency	
  plan.	
  Even	
  if	
  a	
  secret	
  plan	
  exists,	
  who	
  would	
  execute	
  such	
  a	
  monumental	
  undertaking?	
  Yet	
  American	
  allies	
  have	
  developed	
  
oil	
  contingency	
  legislation	
  and	
  other	
  administrative	
  plans	
  that	
  will	
  permit	
  their	
  nations	
  to	
  survive	
  a	
  stoppage.	
  These	
  measures	
  include	
  
severe	
  vehicle	
  traffic	
  reductions,	
  enabling	
  fast	
  alternative	
  fuel	
  production	
  and	
  mass	
  vehicle	
  fuel	
  retrofitting,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  rush	
  public	
  
transit	
  enhancement	
  and	
  mandated	
  changes	
  in	
  driving	
  habits.	
  Unquestionably,	
  for	
  America	
  to	
  survive	
  such	
  a	
  catastrophe	
  
would	
  require	
  a	
  very	
  painful,	
  multi-­‐layered	
  program	
  of	
  immediate-­‐term,	
  short-­‐term,	
  mid-­‐term	
  and	
  
long-­‐term	
  fixes	
  that	
  would	
  change	
  our	
  society	
  and	
  transform	
  it	
  off	
  of	
  dependency	
  on	
  oil.	
  Currently,	
  
the	
  nation	
  has	
  no	
  real	
  alternative	
  fuel	
  delivery	
  or	
  retrofitting	
  infrastructure.	
  Lawmakers,	
  mayors,	
  governors	
  and	
  
candidates	
  have	
  not	
  developed	
  such	
  a	
  plan	
  during	
  the	
  half	
  decade	
  the	
  interruption	
  has	
  been	
  looming.	
   The	
  notion	
  that	
  Saudi	
  Arabia	
  can	
  make	
  
up	
  the	
  shortfall	
  from	
  an	
  Iranian	
  disruption	
  is	
  impossible.	
  Saudi	
  oil	
  too	
  must	
  pass	
  through	
  the	
  narrow	
  sea	
  lanes	
  of	
  the	
  Strait.	
  The	
  trans-­‐Arabian	
  
Petroline	
  that	
  terminates	
  at	
  Yanbu	
  can	
  carry	
  only	
  a	
  few	
  million	
  barrels	
  per	
  day,	
  and	
  a	
  rush	
  project	
  to	
  double	
  its	
  capacity	
  would	
  require	
  an	
  
estimated	
  $600	
  million	
  and	
  some	
  two	
  years	
  of	
  construction	
  and	
  chemical	
  changes;	
  this	
  presupposes	
  Iran	
  would	
  not	
  simply	
  attack	
  the	
  line	
  with	
  a	
  
barrage	
  of	
  medium	
  range	
  missiles	
  from	
  its	
  Red	
  Sea	
  forward	
  ports.	
  For	
  America	
  to	
  have	
  prepared	
  intelligently	
  for	
  a	
  Persian	
  Gulf	
  oil	
  interruption	
  
would	
  have	
  required	
  a	
  decade	
  of	
  planning.	
  To	
  absorb	
  the	
  hit	
  from	
  a	
  sudden	
  oil	
  stoppage,	
  as	
  is	
  now	
  once	
  again	
  
threatened,	
  will	
  be	
  very	
  painful	
  indeed.	
  

2.	
  Auto	
  industry	
  competitiveness	
  
Bail-­‐outs	
  won’t	
  work	
  next	
  time	
  –	
  the	
  survival	
  of	
  the	
  auto-­‐industry	
  depends	
  on	
  a	
  shift	
  
in	
  consumer	
  demand	
  	
  
Grand Rapid Press	
  (Michigan),	
  “Will	
  Obama	
  have	
  the	
  guts	
  to	
  raise	
  the	
  gas	
  tax?”	
  12-­‐
30,	
  2008	
  lexis	
  
The	
  two	
  most	
  important	
  rules	
  about	
  energy	
  innovation	
  are:	
  1.)	
  Price	
  matters	
  -­‐-­‐	
  when	
  prices	
  go	
  up	
  people	
  change	
  their	
  habits.	
  2.)	
  You	
  need	
  a	
  
systemic	
  approach.	
  It	
  makes	
  no	
  sense	
  for	
  Congress	
  to	
  pump	
  $13.4	
  billion	
  into	
  bailing	
  out	
  Detroit	
  –	
  and	
  
demand	
  that	
  the	
  auto	
  companies	
  use	
  this	
  cash	
  to	
  make	
  more	
  fuel-­‐efficient	
  cars	
  –	
  and	
  then	
  do	
  nothing	
  
to	
  shape	
  consumer	
  behavior	
  with	
  a	
  gas	
  tax	
  so	
  more	
  Americans	
  will	
  want	
  to	
  buy	
  those	
  cars.	
  As	
  long	
  as	
  
gas	
  is	
  cheap,	
  people	
  will	
  go	
  out	
  and	
  buy	
  used	
  SUVs	
  and	
  Hummers.	
  There	
  has	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  system	
  that	
  
permanently	
  changes	
  consumer	
  demand,	
  which	
  would	
  permanently	
  change	
  what	
  Detroit	
  makes,	
  
which	
  would	
  attract	
  more	
  investment	
  in	
  battery	
  technology	
  to	
  make	
  electric	
  cars,	
  which	
  would	
  hugely	
  help	
  the	
  
expansion	
  of	
  the	
  wind	
  and	
  solar	
  industries	
  -­‐-­‐	
  where	
  the	
  biggest	
  drawback	
  is	
  the	
  lack	
  of	
  batteries	
  to	
  store	
  electrons	
  
when	
  the	
  wind	
  isn't	
  blowing	
  or	
  the	
  sun	
  isn't	
  shining.	
  A	
  higher	
  gas	
  tax	
  would	
  drive	
  all	
  these	
  systemic	
  
benefits.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                               17	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                            	
                                                                                 Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                     1AC	
  –	
  Economy	
  Adv	
  (3/7)	
  
Peer-­‐reviewed	
  studies	
  conclude	
  that	
  gasoline	
  taxes	
  drive	
  up	
  fuel	
  efficiency	
  by	
  almost	
  
50%	
  
Li,	
  11	
  [Shanjun	
  Li,	
  Joshua	
  Linn,	
  Erich	
  Muehlegger,	
  March,	
  2011,	
  JFK	
  School	
  of	
  Government,	
  a	
  panel	
  of	
  
annual	
  data	
  on	
  gasoline	
  consumption,	
  VMT	
  and	
  vehicle	
  purchase	
  decisions,	
  data	
  at	
  the	
  state-­‐level	
  
from	
  1966-­‐2008.	
  “Gasoline	
  Taxes	
  and	
  Consumer	
  Behavior”	
  
(http://economics.stanford.edu/files/muehlegger3_15.pdf)]	
  
Table	
  4	
  examines	
  the	
  relationship	
  between	
  new	
  vehicle	
  sales,	
  tax-­‐exclusive	
  gasoline	
  prices	
  and	
  gasoline	
  taxes.	
  Column	
  (1)	
  presents	
  estimation	
  
results	
  where	
  we	
  include	
  the	
  tax-­‐inclusive	
  gasoline	
  price	
  rather	
  than	
  separately	
  estimate	
  coefficient	
  for	
  the	
  tax-­‐exclusive	
  price	
  and	
  gasoline	
  
taxes.	
  The	
  first	
  two	
  parameters	
  capture	
  the	
  effect	
  of	
  gasoline	
  prices	
  on	
  vehicle	
  demand.The	
  first	
  coefficient	
  is	
  positive	
  while	
  the	
  second	
  one	
  is	
  
negative,	
  implying	
  that	
  higher	
  gasoline	
  prices	
  decrease	
  the	
  sales	
  of	
  low-­‐mpg	
  vehicles	
  and	
  increase	
  those	
  of	
  
high-­‐mpg	
  vehicles.	
  The	
  results	
  from	
  this	
  specification	
  suggest	
  the	
  elasticity	
  of	
  average	
  mpg	
  with	
  
respect	
  to	
  gasoline	
  prices	
  to	
  be	
  4.28%,	
  implying	
  that	
  a	
  one-­‐dollar	
  increase	
  in	
  gasoline	
  prices	
  would	
  
increase	
  the	
  average	
  mpg	
  of	
  new	
  vehicles	
  sold	
  by	
  5.37%	
  (about	
  1.20	
  mpg).	
  The	
  estimate	
  of	
  fuel	
  economy	
  elasticity	
  
of	
  new	
  vehicles	
  to	
  gasoline	
  prices	
  often	
  varies	
  significantly	
  depending	
  on	
  model	
  assumptions	
  and	
  data	
  used.	
  Our	
  elasticity	
  estimate	
  is	
  close	
  to	
  
those	
  in	
  several	
  recent	
  studies:	
  Austin	
  and	
  Dinan	
  (2005)	
  estimate	
  a	
  long	
  run	
  elasticity	
  of	
  0.22;	
  Gillingham	
  (2010)	
  finds	
  a	
  medium-­‐run	
  (2-­‐year)	
  
fuel	
  economy	
  elasticity	
  of	
  0.09;	
  Klier	
  and	
  Linn	
  (2010)	
  estimate	
  an	
  elasticity	
  of	
  about	
  0.12	
  using	
  monthly	
  data.	
  However,	
  tax-­‐exclusive	
  gasoline	
  
prices	
  have	
  much	
  smaller	
  effects	
  than	
  gasoline	
  taxes	
  on	
  vehicle	
  demand.	
  The	
  coefficient	
  estimates	
  from	
  column	
  (2)	
  suggest	
  the	
  elasticity	
  of	
  fuel	
  
economy	
  to	
  tax-­‐exclusive	
  gasoline	
  price	
  changes	
  to	
  be	
  0.057	
  and	
  that	
  to	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  changes	
  to	
  be	
  0.198.	
  Because	
  tax-­‐exclusive	
  gasoline	
  prices	
  
are	
  much	
  larger	
  than	
  gasoline	
  taxes	
  from	
  1999	
  to	
  2006,	
  it	
  is	
  useful	
  to	
  compare	
  the	
  two	
  effects	
  based	
  on	
  semi-­‐elasticities.	
  A	
  one-­‐dollar	
  
increase	
  in	
  tax-­‐exclusive	
  gasoline	
  prices	
  would	
  increase	
  the	
  average	
  mpg	
  of	
  new	
  vehicles	
  sold	
  by	
  only	
  3.6%,	
  the	
  same	
  increase	
  in	
  
gasoline	
  taxes	
  would	
  increase	
  the	
  average	
  mpg	
  of	
  new	
  vehicles	
  by	
  47.7%.This	
  finding	
  is	
  robust	
  across	
  
different	
  specifications	
  of	
  fixed	
  effects.	
  In	
  the	
  three	
  other	
  specifications,	
  we	
  find	
  that	
  sales	
  of	
  high	
  fuel	
  
economy	
  vehicles	
  rise	
  more	
  with	
  a	
  tax	
  increase	
  than	
  with	
  a	
  tax-­‐exclusive	
  price	
  increase	
  of	
  comparable	
  magnitude.	
  

Vitality	
  of	
  Economy	
  Dependent	
  on	
  Auto	
  Industry	
  
John	
  D.	
  Stoll,	
  6/26/08,	
  The	
  Wall	
  Street	
  Journal,	
  ‘Obama	
  Meets	
  With	
  Auto	
  CEOs	
  In	
  
Move	
  That	
  Could	
  Ease	
  Strains’)	
  	
  
Detroit's	
  auto	
  executives	
  are	
  getting	
  face	
  time	
  this	
  week	
  with	
  Barack	
  Obama,	
  a	
  development	
  that	
  
could	
  thaw	
  festering	
  tension	
  between	
  the	
  presidential	
  candidate	
  and	
  the	
  Big	
  Three	
  auto	
  makers.	
  Ford	
  
Motor	
  Co.	
  Chief	
  Executive	
  Alan	
  Mulally	
  was	
  among	
  a	
  group	
  of	
  several	
  executives	
  from	
  various	
  industries	
  who	
  met	
  with	
  Sen.	
  Obama,	
  the	
  likely	
  
Democratic	
  nominee,	
  in	
  Chicago	
  Wednesday.	
  A	
  person	
  close	
  to	
  Mr.	
  Mulally	
  said	
  the	
  executive	
  "appreciated"	
  being	
  extended	
  the	
  opportunity	
  to	
  
meet,	
  seeing	
  it	
  as	
  a	
  gesture	
  by	
  the	
  candidate	
  aimed	
  at	
  learning	
  more	
  about	
  the	
  beleaguered	
  auto	
  industry.	
  "It	
  
was	
  a	
  very	
  productive	
  meeting,"	
  Ford	
  said.	
  "The	
  vitality	
  of	
  our	
  economy	
  will	
  depend	
  on	
  our	
  government	
  seeking	
  
a	
  partnership	
  with	
  [our]	
  industry.	
  I	
  was	
  pleased	
  to	
  share	
  the	
  perspective	
  on	
  the	
  important	
  role	
  American	
  manufacturers	
  play."	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                             18	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                    	
                                                                                       Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                          1AC	
  –	
  Economy	
  Adv	
  (4/7)	
  
3.	
  Green	
  Tech	
  Industry	
  
Increasing	
  gas	
  tax	
  provides	
  sustainable	
  green	
  jobs	
  and	
  mitigates	
  climate	
  change	
  
Freidman ’11	
  <New	
  York	
  Times	
  Staff	
  Writer,	
  Pulitzer	
  Prize	
  winner>	
  “Is	
  it	
  weird	
  
enough	
  yet?”	
  The	
  New	
  York	
  Times	
  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/opinion/friedman-­‐is-­‐
it-­‐weird-­‐enough-­‐yet.html?_r=2&ref=opinion	
  
There	
  is	
  only	
  one	
  effective,	
  sustainable	
  way	
  to	
  produce	
  “green	
  jobs,”	
  and	
  that	
  is	
  with	
  a	
  fixed,	
  durable,	
  
long-­‐term	
  price	
  signal	
  that	
  raises	
  the	
  price	
  of	
  dirty	
  fuels	
  and	
  thereby	
  creates	
  sustained	
  consumer	
  
demand	
  for,	
  and	
  sustained	
  private	
  sector	
  investment	
  in,	
  renewables.	
  Without	
  a	
  carbon	
  tax	
  or	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  or	
  cap-­‐and-­‐trade	
  
system	
  that	
  makes	
  renewable	
  energies	
  competitive	
  with	
  dirty	
  fuels,	
  while	
  they	
  achieve	
  scale	
  and	
  move	
  down	
  the	
  cost	
  curve,	
  green	
  jobs	
  
will	
  remain	
  a	
  hobby.	
  President	
  Obama	
  has	
  chosen	
  not	
  to	
  push	
  for	
  a	
  price	
  signal	
  for	
  political	
  reasons.	
  He	
  has	
  opted	
  for	
  using	
  regulations	
  
and	
  government	
  funding.	
  In	
  the	
  area	
  of	
  regulation,	
  he	
  deserves	
  great	
  credit	
  for	
  just	
  pushing	
  through	
  new	
  fuel	
  economy	
  standards	
  that	
  will	
  
ensure	
  that	
  by	
  2025	
  the	
  average	
  U.S.	
  car	
  will	
  get	
  the	
  mileage	
  (and	
  have	
  the	
  emissions)	
  of	
  today’s	
  Prius	
  hybrid.	
  But	
  elsewhere,	
  Obama	
  has	
  relied	
  
on	
  green	
  subsidies	
  rather	
  than	
  a	
  price	
  signal.	
  Some	
  of	
  this	
  has	
  really	
  helped	
  start-­‐ups	
  leverage	
  private	
  capital,	
  but	
  you	
  also	
  get	
  Solyndras.	
  The	
  
G.O.P.	
  has	
  blocked	
  any	
  price	
  signal	
  and	
  fought	
  every	
  regulation.	
  The	
  result	
  too	
  often	
  is	
  taxpayer	
  money	
  subsidizing	
  wonderful	
  green	
  innovation,	
  
but	
  with	
  no	
  sustainable	
  market	
  within	
  which	
  these	
  companies	
  can	
  scale.	
  Let’s	
  fix	
  that.	
  We	
  need	
  revenue	
  to	
  balance	
  the	
  budget.	
  
We	
  need	
  sustainable	
  clean-­‐tech	
  jobs.	
  We	
  need	
  less	
  dependence	
  on	
  Mideast	
  oil.	
  And	
  we	
  need	
  to	
  take	
  
steps	
  to	
  mitigate	
  climate	
  change	
  —	
  just	
  in	
  case	
  Governor	
  Perry	
  is	
  wrong.	
  The	
  easiest	
  way	
  to	
  do	
  all	
  of	
  this	
  at	
  once	
  
is	
  with	
  a	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  or	
  price	
  on	
  carbon.	
  Would	
  you	
  rather	
  cut	
  Social	
  Security	
  and	
  Medicare	
  or	
  pay	
  a	
  little	
  more	
  per	
  gallon	
  of	
  gas	
  and	
  
make	
  the	
  country	
  stronger,	
  safer	
  and	
  healthier?	
  It	
  still	
  amazes	
  me	
  that	
  our	
  politicians	
  have	
  the	
  courage	
  to	
  send	
  our	
  citizens	
  to	
  war	
  but	
  not	
  to	
  
ask	
  the	
  public	
  that	
  question.	
  


Higher	
  gas	
  prices	
  spur	
  small	
  business	
  growth	
  in	
  alt	
  energy	
  –	
  emp.	
  proven	
  
Spors, 2012	
  Kelly	
  Spors,	
  former	
  small-­‐business	
  and	
  entrepreneurship	
  reporter	
  The	
  
Wall	
  Street	
  Journal,	
  May	
  21,	
  2012,	
  “Can	
  a	
  Gas	
  Tax	
  Fuel	
  Clean	
  Energy	
  Innovation?”,	
  
Small	
  Business	
  Trends,	
  accessed	
  June	
  28,	
  2012	
  from	
  
http://smallbiztrends.com/2012/05/gas-­‐tax-­‐fuel-­‐clean-­‐energy-­‐innovation.html	
  
Tax	
  and	
  deficit	
  issues	
  aside,	
  there’s	
  another	
  reason	
  for	
  business	
  owners	
  to	
  think	
  about	
  the	
  gas	
  tax:	
  Higher	
  gas	
  prices	
  may	
  help	
  
encourage	
  clean	
  energy	
  innovation	
  and	
  support	
  environmentally	
  sustainable	
  behaviors	
  among	
  
business	
  owners	
  and	
  consumers	
  –	
  such	
  as	
  the	
  purchase	
  and	
  development	
  of	
  eco-­‐friendlier	
  vehicles	
  
and	
  driving	
  less.	
  While	
  it	
  may	
  raise	
  business	
  costs,	
  it	
  may	
  spur	
  business	
  owners	
  think	
  about	
  how	
  to	
  reduce	
  their	
  
gas	
  usage	
  and	
  be	
  more	
  sustainable.	
  Christopher	
  Knittel,	
  an	
  energy	
  economics	
  professor	
  at	
  MIT,	
  has	
  
studied	
  how	
  gas	
  prices	
  affect	
  behaviors.	
  He	
  and	
  researchers	
  from	
  Northwestern	
  University	
  found	
  that	
  a	
  $1	
  increase	
  
in	
  prices	
  between	
  1998	
  and	
  2008	
  led	
  people	
  to	
  buy	
  21%	
  more	
  fuel-­‐efficient	
  vehicles.	
  (Not	
  surprisingly,	
  the	
  
CEO	
  of	
  General	
  Motors	
  has	
  come	
  out	
  in	
  support	
  of	
  a	
  gas	
  tax	
  increase.)	
  Knittel	
  also	
  found	
  that	
  less	
  driving	
  led	
  to	
  less	
  local	
  air	
  pollution	
  and	
  
related	
  health	
  problems.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                          19	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                   	
                                                                                     Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                         1AC	
  –	
  Economy	
  Adv	
  (5/7)	
  
Green	
  tech	
  is	
  key	
  to	
  US	
  economic	
  competitiveness	
  	
  
Holliday 12	
  (Stuart	
  W.,	
  President	
  and	
  CEO	
  of	
  Meridian	
  International,	
  “Green	
  
Technology:	
  The	
  Key	
  to	
  More	
  Jobs,	
  Higher	
  Exports,	
  Cleaner	
  Environment,	
  Better	
  
Reputation?”	
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stuart-­‐w-­‐holliday/green-­‐
technology_b_1224096.html)	
  
We	
  all	
  agree	
  that	
  America	
  needs	
  to	
  create	
  more	
  jobs,	
  although	
  there	
  is	
  certainly	
  less	
  agreement	
  on	
  how	
  to	
  do	
  so.	
  A	
  few	
  years	
  
ago,	
  green	
  technology	
  was	
  the	
  solution	
  to	
  our	
  problems,	
  but	
  energy	
  prices	
  sagged,	
  investment	
  dried	
  up,	
  and	
  our	
  patience	
  for	
  
innovation	
  waned.	
  Though	
  it	
  seems	
  the	
  polish	
  of	
  green	
  technology	
  has	
  dulled,	
  let	
  us	
  not	
  forget	
  that	
  the	
  factors	
  driving	
  the	
  rush	
  
have	
  not	
  disappeared,	
  and	
  will	
  reemerge	
  sooner	
  than	
  we	
  think.	
  Instead	
  of	
  waiting	
  for	
  the	
  next	
  energy	
  crisis	
  to	
  strike,	
  let	
  us	
  use	
  
the	
  current	
  economic	
  situation	
  as	
  the	
  catalyst	
  for	
  renewed	
  investment.	
  While	
  the	
  days	
  of	
  a	
  quick	
  fix	
  through	
  
quotas	
  and	
  100	
  MPG	
  retrofitted	
  Priuses	
  are	
  largely	
  behind	
  us,	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  reasoned	
  engineers,	
  businesspeople,	
  and	
  government	
  leaders	
  
have	
  quietly	
  moved	
  forward	
  using	
  the	
  spirit	
  of	
  the	
  boom	
  and	
  the	
  lessons	
  of	
  the	
  bust	
  to	
  their	
  
advantage.	
  At	
  a	
  recent	
  seminar	
  convened	
  by	
  Meridian	
  International	
  Center,	
  an	
  interesting	
  discussion	
  took	
  place	
  among	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  
diplomatic,	
  public,	
  and	
  private	
  sectors	
  on	
  this	
  subject.	
  All	
  agreed	
  that	
  investing	
  in	
  green	
  technologies	
  is	
  "common	
  sense"	
  -­‐-­‐	
  but	
  the	
  reasons	
  
went	
  well	
  beyond	
  environmental	
  concerns.	
  Research	
  has	
  shown	
  that	
  returns	
  on	
  investment	
  in	
  green	
  tech	
  are	
  nearly	
  
certain	
  to	
  include	
  large-­‐scale	
  job	
  creation,	
  increased	
  American	
  exports,	
  add	
  a	
  desperately	
  needed	
  
growth	
  sector	
  of	
  the	
  economy,	
  and	
  provide	
  substantial	
  long-­‐term	
  (and	
  often	
  short	
  term)	
  cost	
  savings	
  for	
  
companies	
  of	
  all	
  size.	
  Reinvestment	
  anyone?	
  Yet	
  the	
  group	
  also	
  acknowledged	
  the	
  important	
  diplomatic	
  
function	
  that	
  green	
  technology	
  plays.	
  Our	
  discussion	
  included	
  representatives	
  from	
  the	
  United	
  States,	
  Finland,	
  Georgia,	
  
and	
  Nigeria	
  -­‐-­‐	
  all	
  of	
  whom	
  noted	
  that	
  environmental	
  collaboration	
  must	
  represent	
  part	
  of	
  its	
  overall	
  
diplomatic	
  strategy.	
  The	
  realization	
  that	
  we	
  have	
  a	
  common	
  responsibility	
  to	
  protect	
  the	
  world	
  we	
  all	
  
share	
  is	
  the	
  first	
  step	
  in	
  tackling	
  larger	
  issues.	
  Borders	
  are	
  man-­‐made	
  -­‐-­‐	
  and	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  environmental	
  damage	
  and	
  over	
  
use	
  rarely	
  have	
  the	
  decency	
  to	
  stop	
  at	
  check-­‐points.	
  Working	
  together	
  to	
  tackle	
  the	
  manageable	
  issues	
  
of	
  energy	
  consumption	
  is	
  crucial,	
  and	
  the	
  US	
  has	
  both	
  the	
  opportunity	
  and	
  obligation	
  to	
  take	
  a	
  
leadership	
  position	
  in	
  the	
  world.	
  

The	
  impact	
  is	
  global	
  nuclear	
  war	
  
Freidberg	
  &	
  Schonfeld,	
  8	
  -­‐-­‐-­‐	
  *Professor	
  of	
  Politics	
  and	
  IR	
  at	
  Princeton’s	
  Woodrow	
  Wilson	
  School,	
  AND	
  
**senior	
  editor	
  of	
  Commentary	
  and	
  a	
  visiting	
  scholar	
  at	
  the	
  Witherspoon	
  Institute	
  in	
  Princeton	
  
(10/21/2008,	
  Aaron	
  and	
  Gabriel,	
  “The	
  Dangers	
  of	
  a	
  Diminished	
  America”,	
  Wall	
  Street	
  Journal,	
  
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455074012352571.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)	
  
With	
  the	
  global	
  financial	
  system	
  in	
  serious	
  trouble,	
  is	
  America's	
  geostrategic	
  dominance	
  likely	
  to	
  
diminish?	
  If	
  so,	
  what	
  would	
  that	
  mean?¶	
  One	
  immediate	
  implication	
  of	
  the	
  crisis	
  that	
  began	
  on	
  Wall	
  Street	
  and	
  spread	
  across	
  the	
  world	
  is	
  
that	
  the	
  primary	
  instruments	
  of	
  U.S.	
  foreign	
  policy	
  will	
  be	
  crimped.	
  The	
  next	
  president	
  will	
  face	
  an	
  entirely	
  new	
  and	
  
adverse	
  fiscal	
  position.	
  Estimates	
  of	
  this	
  year's	
  federal	
  budget	
  deficit	
  already	
  show	
  that	
  it	
  has	
  jumped	
  $237	
  billion	
  from	
  last	
  year,	
  to	
  $407	
  billion.	
  
With	
  families	
  and	
  businesses	
  hurting,	
  there	
  will	
  be	
  calls	
  for	
  various	
  and	
  expensive	
  domestic	
  relief	
  programs.¶	
  In	
  the	
  face	
  of	
  this	
  onrushing	
  river	
  
of	
  red	
  ink,	
  both	
  Barack	
  Obama	
  and	
  John	
  McCain	
  have	
  been	
  reluctant	
  to	
  lay	
  out	
  what	
  portions	
  of	
  their	
  programmatic	
  wish	
  list	
  they	
  might	
  defer	
  
or	
  delete.	
  Only	
  Joe	
  Biden	
  has	
  suggested	
  a	
  possible	
  reduction	
  -­‐-­‐	
  foreign	
  aid.	
  This	
  would	
  be	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  few	
  popular	
  cuts,	
  but	
  in	
  budgetary	
  terms	
  it	
  
is	
  a	
  mere	
  grain	
  of	
  sand.	
  Still,	
  Sen.	
  Biden's	
  comment	
  hints	
  at	
  where	
  we	
  may	
  be	
  headed:	
  toward	
  a	
  major	
  reduction	
  in	
  
America's	
  world	
  role,	
  and	
  perhaps	
  even	
  a	
  new	
  era	
  of	
  financially-­‐induced	
  isolationism.¶	
  Pressures	
  to	
  
cut	
  defense	
  spending,	
  and	
  to	
  dodge	
  the	
  cost	
  of	
  waging	
  two	
  wars,	
  already	
  intense	
  before	
  this	
  crisis,	
  are	
  
likely	
  to	
  mount.	
  Despite	
  the	
  success	
  of	
  the	
  surge,	
  the	
  war	
  in	
  Iraq	
  remains	
  deeply	
  unpopular.	
  Precipitous	
  withdrawal	
  -­‐-­‐	
  attractive	
  to	
  a	
  
sizable	
  swath	
  of	
  the	
  electorate	
  before	
  the	
  financial	
  implosion	
  -­‐-­‐	
  might	
  well	
  become	
  even	
  more	
  popular	
  with	
  annual	
  war	
  bills	
  running	
  in	
  the	
  
hundreds	
  of	
  billions.¶	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                    20	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                               	
                                                                                   Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                       1AC	
  –	
  Economy	
  Adv	
  (6/7)	
  
	
  Protectionist	
  sentiments	
  are	
  sure	
  to	
  grow	
  stronger	
  as	
  jobs	
  disappear	
  in	
  the	
  coming	
  slowdown.	
  Even	
  before	
  our	
  
current	
  woes,	
  calls	
  to	
  save	
  jobs	
  by	
  restricting	
  imports	
  had	
  begun	
  to	
  gather	
  support	
  among	
  many	
  Democrats	
  and	
  some	
  Republicans.	
  In	
  a	
  
prolonged	
  recession,	
  gale-­‐force	
  winds	
  of	
  protectionism	
  will	
  blow.¶	
  Then	
  there	
  are	
  the	
  dolorous	
  
consequences	
  of	
  a	
  potential	
  collapse	
  of	
  the	
  world's	
  financial	
  architecture.	
  For	
  decades	
  now,	
  
Americans	
  have	
  enjoyed	
  the	
  advantages	
  of	
  being	
  at	
  the	
  center	
  of	
  that	
  system.	
  The	
  worldwide	
  use	
  of	
  
the	
  dollar,	
  and	
  the	
  stability	
  of	
  our	
  economy,	
  among	
  other	
  things,	
  made	
  it	
  easier	
  for	
  us	
  to	
  run	
  huge	
  budget	
  
deficits,	
  as	
  we	
  counted	
  on	
  foreigners	
  to	
  pick	
  up	
  the	
  tab	
  by	
  buying	
  dollar-­‐denominated	
  assets	
  as	
  a	
  safe	
  
haven.	
  Will	
  this	
  be	
  possible	
  in	
  the	
  future?¶	
  Meanwhile,	
  traditional	
  foreign-­‐policy	
  challenges	
  are	
  multiplying.	
  The	
  
threat	
  from	
  al	
  Qaeda	
  and	
  Islamic	
  terrorist	
  affiliates	
  has	
  not	
  been	
  extinguished.	
  Iran	
  and	
  North	
  Korea	
  
are	
  continuing	
  on	
  their	
  bellicose	
  paths,	
  while	
  Pakistan	
  and	
  Afghanistan	
  are	
  progressing	
  smartly	
  down	
  the	
  road	
  to	
  chaos.	
  
Russia's	
  new	
  militancy	
  and	
  China's	
  seemingly	
  relentless	
  rise	
  also	
  give	
  cause	
  for	
  concern.¶	
  If	
  America	
  
now	
  tries	
  to	
  pull	
  back	
  from	
  the	
  world	
  stage,	
  it	
  will	
  leave	
  a	
  dangerous	
  power	
  vacuum.	
  The	
  stabilizing	
  
effects	
  of	
  our	
  presence	
  in	
  Asia,	
  our	
  continuing	
  commitment	
  to	
  Europe,	
  and	
  our	
  position	
  as	
  defender	
  of	
  
last	
  resort	
  for	
  Middle	
  East	
  energy	
  sources	
  and	
  supply	
  lines	
  could	
  all	
  be	
  placed	
  at	
  risk.¶	
  In	
  such	
  a	
  scenario	
  
there	
  are	
  shades	
  of	
  the	
  1930s,	
  when	
  global	
  trade	
  and	
  finance	
  ground	
  nearly	
  to	
  a	
  halt,	
  the	
  peaceful	
  
democracies	
  failed	
  to	
  cooperate,	
  and	
  aggressive	
  powers	
  led	
  by	
  the	
  remorseless	
  fanatics	
  who	
  rose	
  up	
  
on	
  the	
  crest	
  of	
  economic	
  disaster	
  exploited	
  their	
  divisions.	
  Today	
  we	
  run	
  the	
  risk	
  that	
  rogue	
  states	
  
may	
  choose	
  to	
  become	
  ever	
  more	
  reckless	
  with	
  their	
  nuclear	
  toys,	
  just	
  at	
  our	
  moment	
  of	
  maximum	
  
vulnerability.¶	
  The	
  aftershocks	
  of	
  the	
  financial	
  crisis	
  will	
  almost	
  certainly	
  rock	
  our	
  principal	
  strategic	
  
competitors	
  even	
  harder	
  than	
  they	
  will	
  rock	
  us.	
  The	
  dramatic	
  free	
  fall	
  of	
  the	
  Russian	
  stock	
  market	
  has	
  demonstrated	
  the	
  fragility	
  of	
  a	
  
state	
  whose	
  economic	
  performance	
  hinges	
  on	
  high	
  oil	
  prices,	
  now	
  driven	
  down	
  by	
  the	
  global	
  slowdown.	
  China	
  is	
  perhaps	
  even	
  more	
  fragile,	
  its	
  
economic	
  growth	
  depending	
  heavily	
  on	
  foreign	
  investment	
  and	
  access	
  to	
  foreign	
  markets.	
  Both	
  will	
  now	
  be	
  constricted,	
  inflicting	
  economic	
  
pain	
  and	
  perhaps	
  even	
  sparking	
  unrest	
  in	
  a	
  country	
  where	
  political	
  legitimacy	
  rests	
  on	
  progress	
  in	
  the	
  long	
  march	
  to	
  prosperity.¶	
  None	
  of	
  
this	
  is	
  good	
  news	
  if	
  the	
  authoritarian	
  leaders	
  of	
  these	
  countries	
  seek	
  to	
  divert	
  attention	
  from	
  internal	
  
travails	
  with	
  external	
  adventures.¶	
  As	
  for	
  our	
  democratic	
  friends,	
  the	
  present	
  crisis	
  comes	
  when	
  many	
  European	
  nations	
  are	
  
struggling	
  to	
  deal	
  with	
  decades	
  of	
  anemic	
  growth,	
  sclerotic	
  governance	
  and	
  an	
  impending	
  demographic	
  crisis.	
  Despite	
  its	
  past	
  dynamism,	
  Japan	
  
faces	
  similar	
  challenges.	
  India	
  is	
  still	
  in	
  the	
  early	
  stages	
  of	
  its	
  emergence	
  as	
  a	
  world	
  economic	
  and	
  geopolitical	
  power.¶	
  What	
  does	
  this	
  all	
  mean?	
  
There	
  is	
  no	
  substitute	
  for	
  America	
  on	
  the	
  world	
  stage.	
  The	
  choice	
  we	
  have	
  before	
  us	
  is	
  between	
  the	
  potentially	
  disastrous	
  
effects	
  of	
  disengagement	
  and	
  the	
  stiff	
  price	
  tag	
  of	
  continued	
  American	
  leadership.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                           21	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                          	
                                                                               Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                   1AC	
  –	
  Economy	
  Adv	
  (7/7)	
  
Global	
  economic	
  crisis	
  causes	
  war-­‐-­‐-­‐strong	
  statistical	
  support—also	
  causes	
  great	
  
power	
  transitions	
  
Royal	
  10	
  –	
  Jedediah	
  Royal,	
  Director	
  of	
  Cooperative	
  Threat	
  Reduction	
  at	
  the	
  U.S.	
  Department	
  of	
  
Defense,	
  2010,	
  “Economic	
  Integration,	
  Economic	
  Signaling	
  and	
  the	
  Problem	
  of	
  Economic	
  Crises,”	
  in	
  
Economics	
  of	
  War	
  and	
  Peace:	
  Economic,	
  Legal	
  and	
  Political	
  Perspectives,	
  ed.	
  Goldsmith	
  and	
  Brauer,	
  p.	
  
213-­‐214	
  
Less	
  intuitive	
  is	
  how	
  periods	
  of	
  economic	
  decline	
  may	
  increase	
  the	
  likelihood	
  of	
  external	
  conflict.	
  Political	
  science	
  
literature	
  has	
  contributed	
  a	
  moderate	
  degree	
  of	
  attention	
  to	
  the	
  impact	
  of	
  economic	
  decline	
  and	
  the	
  security	
  and	
  defence	
  behaviour	
  of	
  
interdependent	
  states.	
  Research	
  in	
  this	
  vein	
  has	
  been	
  considered	
  at	
  systemic,	
  dyadic	
  and	
  national	
  levels.	
  Several	
  notable	
  contributions	
  follow.	
  
First,	
  on	
  the	
  systemic	
  level,	
  Pollins	
  (2008)	
  advances	
  Modelski	
  and	
  Thompson’s	
  (1996)	
  work	
  on	
  leadership	
  cycle	
  theory,	
  finding	
  that	
  rhythms	
  
in	
  the	
  global	
  economy	
  are	
  associated	
  with	
  the	
  rise	
  and	
  fall	
  of	
  pre-­‐eminent	
  power	
  and	
  the	
  often	
  bloody	
  
transition	
  from	
  one	
  pre-­‐eminent	
  leader	
  to	
  the	
  next.	
  As	
  such,	
  exogenous	
  shocks	
  such	
  as	
  economic	
  crises	
  
could	
  usher	
  in	
  a	
  redistribution	
  of	
  relative	
  power	
  (see	
  also	
  Gilpin,	
  10981)	
  that	
  leads	
  to	
  uncertainty	
  about	
  power	
  
balances,	
  increasing	
  the	
  risk	
  of	
  miscalculation	
  (Fearon,	
  1995).	
  Alternatively,	
  even	
  a	
  relatively	
  certain	
  
redistribution	
  of	
  power	
  could	
  lead	
  to	
  a	
  permissive	
  environment	
  for	
  conflict	
  as	
  a	
  rising	
  power	
  may	
  seek	
  
to	
  challenge	
  a	
  declining	
  power	
  (Werner,	
  1999).	
  Seperately,	
  Polllins	
  (1996)	
  also	
  shows	
  that	
  global	
  economic	
  cycles	
  combined	
  with	
  
parallel	
  leadership	
  cycles	
  impact	
  the	
  likelihood	
  of	
  conflict	
  among	
  major,	
  medium,	
  and	
  small	
  powers,	
  although	
  he	
  suggests	
  that	
  the	
  causes	
  and	
  
connections	
  between	
  global	
  economic	
  conditions	
  and	
  security	
  conditions	
  remain	
  unknown.	
  Second,	
  on	
  a	
  dyadic	
  level,	
  Copeland’s	
  (1996,2000)	
  
theory	
  of	
  trade	
  expectations	
  suggests	
  that	
  ‘future	
  expectation	
  of	
  trade’	
  is	
  a	
  significant	
  variable	
  in	
  understanding	
  economic	
  conditions	
  and	
  
security	
  behavior	
  of	
  states.	
  He	
  argues	
  that	
  interdependent	
  states	
  are	
  likely	
  to	
  gain	
  pacific	
  benefits	
  from	
  trade	
  so	
  
long	
  as	
  they	
  have	
  an	
  optimistic	
  view	
  of	
  future	
  trade	
  relations.	
  However,	
  if	
  the	
  expectation	
  of	
  future	
  trade	
  
decline,	
  particularly	
  for	
  difficult	
  to	
  replace	
  items	
  such	
  as	
  energy	
  resources,	
  the	
  likelihood	
  for	
  conflict	
  increases	
  ,	
  as	
  states	
  
will	
  be	
  inclined	
  to	
  use	
  force	
  to	
  gain	
  access	
  to	
  those	
  resources.	
  Crises	
  could	
  potentially	
  be	
  the	
  trigger	
  for	
  
decreased	
  trade	
  expectations	
  either	
  on	
  its	
  own	
  or	
  because	
  it	
  triggers	
  protectionist	
  moves	
  by	
  interdependent	
  states.	
  Third,	
  others	
  
have	
  considered	
  the	
  link	
  between	
  economic	
  decline	
  and	
  external	
  armed	
  conflict	
  at	
  a	
  national	
  level.	
  Blomberg	
  and	
  Hess	
  (2002)	
  find	
  
a	
  strong	
  correlation	
  between	
  internal	
  conflict	
  and	
  external	
  conflict,	
  particularly	
  during	
  periods	
  of	
  
economic	
  downturn.	
  They	
  write,	
  The	
  linkages	
  between	
  internal	
  and	
  external	
  conflict	
  and	
  prosperity	
  are	
  strong	
  and	
  mutually	
  
reinforcing.	
  Economic	
  conflict	
  tends	
  to	
  spawn	
  internal	
  conflict,	
  which	
  in	
  turn	
  returns	
  the	
  favour.	
  Moreover,	
  the	
  presence	
  of	
  a	
  
recession	
  tends	
  to	
  amplify	
  the	
  extent	
  to	
  which	
  international	
  and	
  external	
  conflicts	
  self-­‐reinforce	
  each	
  
other.	
  (Blomberg	
  &	
  Hess,	
  2002,	
  p.89).	
  Economic	
  decline	
  has	
  also	
  been	
  linked	
  with	
  an	
  increase	
  in	
  the	
  likelihood	
  of	
  terrorism	
  (Blomberg,	
  Hess,	
  
&	
  Weerapana,	
  2004),	
  which	
  has	
  the	
  capacity	
  to	
  spill	
  across	
  borders	
  and	
  lead	
  to	
  external	
  tensions.	
  Furthermore,	
  crises	
  generally	
  reduce	
  the	
  
popularity	
  of	
  a	
  sitting	
  government.	
  ‘Diversionary	
  theory’	
  suggests	
  that,	
  when	
  facing	
  unpopularity	
  arising	
  from	
  
economic	
  decline,	
  sitting	
  governments	
  have	
  increased	
  incentives	
  to	
  create	
  a	
  ‘rally	
  round	
  the	
  flag’	
  
effect.	
  Wang	
  (1996),	
  DeRouen	
  (1995),	
  and	
  Blomberg,	
  Hess	
  and	
  Thacker	
  (2006)	
  find	
  supporting	
  evidence	
  showing	
  that	
  economic	
  decline	
  and	
  
use	
  of	
  force	
  are	
  at	
  least	
  indirectly	
  correlated.	
  Gelpi	
  (1997)	
  Miller	
  (1999)	
  and	
  Kisanganie	
  and	
  Pickering	
  (2009)	
  suggest	
  that	
  the	
  tendency	
  towards	
  
diversionary	
  tactics	
  are	
  greater	
  for	
  democratic	
  states	
  than	
  autocratic	
  states,	
  due	
  to	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  democratic	
  leaders	
  are	
  generally	
  more	
  
susceptible	
  to	
  being	
  removed	
  from	
  office	
  due	
  to	
  lack	
  of	
  domestic	
  support.	
  DeRouen	
  (2000)	
  has	
  provided	
  evidence	
  showing	
  that	
  periods	
  of	
  
weak	
  economic	
  performance	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States,	
  and	
  thus	
  weak	
  presidential	
  popularity,	
  are	
  statistically	
  linked	
  to	
  an	
  
increase	
  in	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  force..	
  
	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      22	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                                                    	
                                                                                                                Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                          1AC	
  –	
  Car	
  Crashes	
  Adv	
  (1/6)	
  
Contention	
  __	
  is	
  car	
  crashes	
  
Car	
  crashes	
  are	
  at	
  a	
  peak	
  now,	
  killing	
  30,000	
  Americans	
  every	
  year.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
AAA 12	
  [AAA	
  Foundation	
  For	
  Traffic	
  Safety	
  a	
  government	
  institute	
  responsible	
  for	
  traffic	
  safety	
  
“Distracted	
  Driving”	
  June	
  26,	
  2012	
  AAA	
  Foundation	
  For	
  Traffic	
  Safety	
  is	
  the	
  publisher	
  
http://www.aaafoundation.org/multimedia/Distracteddriving.cfm]	
  
The	
  AAA	
  Foundation	
  for	
  Traffic	
  Safety	
  and	
  AAA	
  are	
  concerned	
  about	
  your	
  safety	
  on	
  our	
  nation’s	
  roads.	
  That’s	
  why	
  we	
  are	
  calling	
  on	
  drivers	
  to	
  
eliminate	
  distractions	
  in	
  the	
  car.	
  We	
  want	
  drivers	
  to	
  put	
  away	
  distractions	
  and	
  focus	
  only	
  on	
  the	
  road.	
  Multi-­‐tasking	
  is	
  undoubtedly	
  a	
  regular	
  
activity	
  for	
  most	
  people	
  but	
  it	
  is	
  critical	
  that	
  we	
  remind	
  ourselves	
  of	
  the	
  most	
  important	
  task	
  behind	
  the	
  wheel	
  –	
  driving	
  safely.	
  Share	
  the	
  
message,	
  spread	
  the	
  word,	
  and	
  help	
  us	
  create	
  safer	
  roads	
  for	
  everyone.	
  	
  Distracted	
  driving	
  contributes	
  to	
  up	
  to	
  8,000	
  
crashes	
  every	
  single	
  day	
  –	
  the	
  facts	
  speak	
  for	
  themselves.	
  	
  More	
  than	
  one	
  million	
  people	
  have	
  died	
  in	
  
car	
  crashes	
  over	
  the	
  past	
  25	
  years	
  in	
  the	
  U.S.,	
  with	
  33,788	
  lives	
  lost	
  in	
  2010	
  alone.	
  	
  Drivers	
  spend	
  more	
  
than	
  half	
  their	
  time	
  behind	
  the	
  wheel	
  engaged	
  in	
  distracted	
  behavior.	
  Using	
  a	
  cell	
  phone	
  while	
  driving	
  
quadruples	
  your	
  risk	
  of	
  crashing.	
  Eating,	
  smoking,	
  adjusting	
  music	
  or	
  rubbernecking	
  while	
  driving	
  can	
  
be	
  just	
  as	
  dangerous	
  as	
  texting,	
  emailing	
  or	
  talking	
  on	
  a	
  cell	
  phone.	
  	
  Passengers	
  are	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  most	
  
frequently	
  reported	
  causes	
  of	
  distraction,	
  with	
  young	
  children	
  being	
  four	
  times	
  more	
  distracting	
  than	
  
adults	
  and	
  infants	
  being	
  eight	
  times	
  more	
  distracting.	
  	
  A	
  majority	
  of	
  drivers	
  –	
  94%	
  –	
  agree	
  that	
  texting	
  
or	
  emailing	
  while	
  driving	
  is	
  unacceptable	
  and	
  87%	
  support	
  laws	
  against	
  reading,	
  typing	
  or	
  sending	
  text	
  
messages	
  or	
  emails	
  while	
  driving,	
  according	
  to	
  the	
  AAA	
  Foundation’s	
  2011	
  Traffic	
  Safety	
  Culture	
  Index,	
  yet	
  more	
  than	
  one-­‐third	
  of	
  drivers	
  
reported	
  texting	
  or	
  emailing	
  while	
  driving	
  in	
  the	
  previous	
  month.	
  This	
  “do	
  as	
  I	
  say,	
  not	
  as	
  I	
  do”	
  attitude	
  is	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  greatest	
  obstacles	
  
preventing	
  us	
  from	
  improving	
  safety	
  on	
  our	
  roads.Multi-­‐tasking	
  is	
  a	
  fact	
  of	
  life	
  –	
  we	
  all	
  face	
  constant	
  demands	
  for	
  our	
  time,	
  and	
  we	
  all	
  have	
  to	
  
juggle	
  more	
  now	
  than	
  ever	
  before.	
  Unfortunately,	
  many	
  people	
  try	
  to	
  multi-­‐task	
  while	
  driving,	
  which	
  is	
  NEVER	
  a	
  good	
  idea.	
  In	
  fact,	
  a	
  recent	
  
study	
  by	
  the	
  University	
  of	
  Utah	
  has	
  reconfirmed	
  that	
  our	
  brains	
  are	
  simply	
  not	
  wired	
  to	
  multi-­‐task.	
  	
  Being	
  distracted	
  behind	
  the	
  wheel	
  for	
  even	
  
just	
  a	
  few	
  seconds	
  greatly	
  increases	
  your	
  chance	
  of	
  a	
  crash.	
  Take	
  a	
  look	
  at	
  our	
  10	
  quick	
  and	
  easy	
  ways	
  to	
  minimize	
  distractions	
  to	
  keep	
  yourself	
  
and	
  all	
  of	
  us	
  safer	
  on	
  the	
  roads.	
  It’s	
  time	
  that	
  we	
  all	
  stop	
  ignoring	
  the	
  facts	
  and	
  take	
  action	
  to	
  change	
  our	
  roads.	
  The	
  first	
  step	
  is	
  changing	
  our	
  
own	
  attitudes,	
  and	
  more	
  importantly	
  driving	
  our	
  own	
  behaviors.	
  	
  Distracted	
  driving	
  is	
  the	
  cause	
  of	
  thousands	
  of	
  preventable	
  injuries	
  each	
  year	
  
and	
  has	
  cost	
  many	
  families	
  the	
  life	
  of	
  a	
  loved	
  one.	
  You	
  can	
  start	
  solving	
  the	
  problem	
  by	
  pledging	
  to	
  change	
  your	
  own	
  behavior	
  and	
  drive	
  
distraction-­‐free	
  from	
  now	
  on	
  and	
  then	
  sharing	
  this	
  pledge	
  with	
  friends	
  and	
  family.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                  23	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                              	
                                                                                  Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                  1AC	
  –	
  Car	
  Crashes	
  Adv	
  (2/6)	
  
The	
  discourse	
  of	
  individual	
  responsibility	
  causes	
  us	
  to	
  displace	
  the	
  blame	
  for	
  car	
  
crashes	
  on	
  deviant	
  behavior	
  rather	
  than	
  recognizing	
  that	
  crashes	
  are	
  an	
  inevitable	
  
consequence	
  of	
  the	
  cultural	
  system	
  we	
  inhabit.	
  The	
  very	
  act	
  of	
  objectively	
  calculating	
  
the	
  car	
  crash	
  participates	
  in	
  a	
  voyeuristic	
  celebration	
  that	
  always	
  treats	
  it	
  as	
  
something	
  that	
  only	
  happens	
  to	
  other	
  people	
  –	
  we	
  must	
  refuse	
  this	
  gesture	
  and	
  
confront	
  the	
  problem	
  in	
  its	
  immediacy	
  
O’Brien 02	
  [Wendy	
  O'Brien	
  is	
  a	
  lecturer	
  in	
  Literary	
  and	
  Cultural	
  Studies	
  at	
  Central	
  Queensland	
  
University,	
  No	
  specific	
  date	
  in	
  2002	
  “No	
  Title”	
  Publisher	
  Cercles	
  
http://www.cercles.com/review/r6/brottman.html]	
  
Throughout	
  the	
  volume	
  the	
  automobile	
  is	
  read,	
  predictably	
  enough,	
  as	
  symbolising	
  freedom,	
  
independence,	
  phallic	
  display,	
  technological	
  progress,	
  and	
  wealth.	
  These	
  symbolic	
  understandings	
  of	
  
the	
  motor	
  vehicle	
  are	
  certainly	
  not	
  new,	
  but	
  the	
  volume	
  does	
  offer	
  divergent	
  and	
  more	
  interesting	
  
theories	
  on	
  the	
  significance	
  of	
  the	
  automobile	
  in	
  modern	
  culture.	
  Read	
  variously	
  as	
  a	
  womb	
  (where	
  passengers	
  are	
  
reduced	
  to	
  passive	
  state	
  of	
  infantilism),	
  a	
  witness	
  to	
  trial	
  (in	
  the	
  case	
  of	
  the	
  whitewashed	
  evidence	
  in	
  JFK’s	
  assassination),	
  and	
  an	
  instrument	
  of	
  
execution,	
  crucifixion,	
  torture	
  or	
  auto-­‐erotic	
  pleasure,	
  the	
  eclectic	
  approaches	
  of	
  the	
  contributors	
  indicates	
  that	
  the	
  cultural	
  significance	
  of	
  the	
  
car	
  cannot	
  be	
  located	
  simply	
  or	
  unequivocally.	
  Despite	
  this	
  diversity	
  of	
  approach,	
  there	
  are	
  overriding	
  threads	
  of	
  
argument	
  and	
  methodology	
  in	
  the	
  volume	
  that	
  appropriate	
  the	
  car	
  crash	
  as	
  something.	
  It	
  is	
  in	
  light	
  of	
  
this	
  explanatory	
  temptation	
  that	
  I	
  might	
  concur	
  with	
  Royal’s	
  caveat	
  that	
  we	
  should	
  resist	
  
interpretations	
  of	
  the	
  car	
  death	
  that	
  are	
  “too	
  intellectually	
  tidy.”	
  Of	
  those	
  chapters	
  that	
  do	
  offer	
  a	
  cultural	
  critique,	
  
many	
  suggest	
  that	
  the	
  voyeuristic	
  engagement	
  with	
  vehicular	
  carnage	
  serves	
  to	
  locate	
  the	
  “accident”	
  as	
  a	
  form	
  of	
  order.	
  The	
  consolatory	
  
nature	
  of	
  the	
  ritual,	
  the	
  repetition	
  and	
  the	
  familiarity	
  of	
  images	
  of	
  mangled	
  wrecks	
  and	
  the	
  iconic	
  
status	
  of	
  the	
  celebrity	
  crash	
  place	
  distance	
  between	
  the	
  reader	
  and	
  vehicular	
  destruction;	
  as	
  a	
  
talisman	
  we	
  ward	
  off	
  death	
  with	
  the	
  assurance	
  that	
  car	
  crashes	
  happen	
  to	
  other	
  people.	
  By	
  its	
  own	
  
logic	
  then,	
  a	
  reading	
  of	
  the	
  volume	
  caters	
  to	
  our	
  desire	
  for	
  the	
  preventative.	
  The	
  voyeuristic	
  and	
  
vicarious	
  celebration	
  of	
  the	
  car	
  crash	
  that	
  takes	
  place	
  in	
  the	
  name	
  of	
  pathological	
  objectivity	
  
structures	
  the	
  chaotic	
  and	
  random	
  events	
  of	
  the	
  crash	
  as	
  a	
  series	
  of	
  causal	
  and	
  cautionary	
  factors.	
  If	
  
we	
  don’t	
  speed,	
  drive	
  recklessly,	
  drink	
  while	
  driving,	
  or	
  follow	
  through	
  with	
  suicidal	
  impulses	
  we	
  are	
  
safe	
  from	
  the	
  horror	
  of	
  the	
  car	
  crash.	
  In	
  this	
  sense,	
  the	
  volume	
  can’t	
  help	
  but	
  perform	
  the	
  function	
  that	
  many	
  of	
  the	
  contributors	
  
are	
  at	
  pains	
  to	
  critique.	
  The	
  ritualised	
  experience	
  of	
  the	
  deaths	
  of	
  Others	
  is	
  ultimately	
  reassuring.	
  Car	
  crash	
  culture	
  might	
  do	
  well	
  
to	
  embrace	
  the	
  “crash”	
  of	
  the	
  culture,	
  the	
  random	
  and	
  chaotic	
  destruction	
  of	
  boundaries	
  as	
  discrete	
  
objects	
  or	
  subjects	
  collide	
  violently	
  in	
  a	
  destruction/creation	
  of	
  something	
  new.	
  Car	
  crashes	
  are	
  not	
  a	
  
conspiracy	
  of	
  the	
  drunk,	
  the	
  maniacal,	
  the	
  patriarchal	
  or	
  the	
  sexually	
  rapacious.	
  To	
  emphasise	
  
conspiracy,	
  causality	
  or	
  prevention	
  is	
  to	
  apply	
  a	
  false	
  logic,	
  as	
  Ulmer	
  reminds	
  us,	
  “traffic	
  fatalities	
  are	
  
not	
  an	
  anomaly	
  in	
  an	
  otherwise	
  rational	
  order”	
  [336].	
  Perhaps,	
  as	
  Darius	
  explicates	
  in	
  his	
  excellent	
  article	
  “Car	
  Crash	
  
Crucifixion	
  Culture”,	
  all	
  of	
  this	
  is	
  to	
  deny	
  that	
  “the	
  car	
  crash	
  is	
  not	
  only	
  commonplace	
  but	
  also	
  embodies	
  the	
  futility	
  
of	
  a	
  death	
  or	
  injury	
  seemingly	
  without	
  point	
  of	
  poignancy”	
  [308].Despite	
  the	
  phenomenological	
  emphasis,	
  the	
  eclectic	
  
mix	
  of	
  pathology,	
  forensics,	
  cultural	
  criticism,	
  psychiatry	
  and	
  legal	
  discourses	
  do	
  offer	
  an	
  interesting,	
  albeit	
  safe,	
  tour	
  through	
  aspects	
  of	
  car	
  
crash	
  culture.	
  For	
  those	
  interested	
  in	
  the	
  complex	
  cultural	
  nexus	
  of	
  the	
  car	
  crash,	
  parts	
  of	
  this	
  volume	
  are	
  well	
  worth	
  the	
  ride.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                      24	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                	
                                                                                    Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                    1AC	
  –	
  Car	
  Crashes	
  Adv	
  (3/6)	
  
Our	
  willingness	
  to	
  accept	
  this	
  structural	
  violence	
  is	
  the	
  proximate	
  cause	
  of	
  all	
  war	
  -­‐	
  
creates	
  priming	
  that	
  psychologically	
  structures	
  escalation	
  
Scheper-Hughes and Bourgois ‘4	
  (Prof	
  of	
  Anthropology	
  @	
  Cal-­‐Berkeley;	
  Prof	
  of	
  Anthropology	
  @	
  
UPenn)	
  (Nancy	
  and	
  Philippe,	
  Introduction:	
  Making	
  Sense	
  of	
  Violence,	
  in	
  Violence	
  in	
  War	
  and	
  Peace,	
  pg.	
  19-­‐22)	
  	
  
This	
  large	
  and	
  at	
  first	
  sight	
  “messy”	
  Part	
  VII	
  is	
  central	
  to	
  this	
  anthology’s	
  thesis.	
  It	
  encompasses	
  everything	
  from	
  the	
  routinized,	
  bureaucratized,	
  
and	
  utterly	
  banal	
  violence	
  of	
  children	
  dying	
  of	
  hunger	
  and	
  maternal	
  despair	
  in	
  Northeast	
  Brazil	
  (Scheper-­‐Hughes,	
  Chapter	
  33)	
  to	
  elderly	
  African	
  
Americans	
  dying	
  of	
  heat	
  stroke	
  in	
  Mayor	
  Daly’s	
  version	
  of	
  US	
  apartheid	
  in	
  Chicago’s	
  South	
  Side	
  (Klinenberg,	
  Chapter	
  38)	
  to	
  the	
  racialized	
  class	
  
hatred	
  expressed	
  by	
  British	
  Victorians	
  in	
  their	
  olfactory	
  disgust	
  of	
  the	
  “smelly”	
  working	
  classes	
  (Orwell,	
  Chapter	
  36).	
  In	
  these	
  readings	
  violence	
  
is	
  located	
  in	
  the	
  symbolic	
  and	
  social	
  structures	
  that	
  overdetermine	
  and	
  allow	
  the	
  criminalized	
  drug	
  addictions,	
  interpersonal	
  bloodshed,	
  and	
  
racially	
  patterned	
  incarcerations	
  that	
  characterize	
  the	
  US	
  “inner	
  city”	
  to	
  be	
  normalized	
  (Bourgois,	
  Chapter	
  37	
  and	
  Wacquant,	
  Chapter	
  39).	
  
Violence	
  also	
  takes	
  the	
  form	
  of	
  class,	
  racial,	
  political	
  self-­‐hatred	
  and	
  adolescent	
  self-­‐destruction	
  (Quesada,	
  Chapter	
  35),	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  of	
  useless	
  (i.e.	
  	
  
preventable),	
  rawly	
  embodied	
  physical	
  suffering,	
  and	
  death	
  (Farmer,	
  Chapter	
  34).	
  	
  Absolutely	
  central	
  to	
  our	
  approach	
  is	
  a	
  
blurring	
  of	
  categories	
  and	
  distinctions	
  between	
  wartime	
  and	
  peacetime	
  violence.	
  Close	
  attention	
  to	
  
the	
  “little”	
  violences	
  produced	
  in	
  the	
  structures,	
  habituses,	
  and	
  mentalites	
  of	
  everyday	
  life	
  shifts	
  our	
  
attention	
  to	
  pathologies	
  of	
  class,	
  race,	
  and	
  gender	
  inequalities.	
  More	
  important,	
  it	
  interrupts	
  the	
  voyeuristic	
  
tendencies	
  of	
  “violence	
  studies”	
  that	
  risk	
  publicly	
  humiliating	
  the	
  powerless	
  who	
  are	
  often	
  forced	
  into	
  complicity	
  with	
  social	
  and	
  individual	
  
pathologies	
  of	
  power	
  because	
  suffering	
  is	
  often	
  a	
  solvent	
  of	
  human	
  integrity	
  and	
  dignity.	
  Thus,	
  in	
  this	
  anthology	
  we	
  are	
  positing	
  a	
  violence	
  
continuum	
  comprised	
  of	
  a	
  multitude	
  of	
  “small	
  wars	
  and	
  invisible	
  genocides”	
  (see	
  also	
  Scheper-­‐	
  Hughes	
  1996;	
  1997;	
  2000b)	
  conducted	
  in	
  the	
  
normative	
  social	
  spaces	
  of	
  public	
  schools,	
  clinics,	
  emergency	
  rooms,	
  hospital	
  wards,	
  nursing	
  homes,	
  courtrooms,	
  public	
  registry	
  offices,	
  prisons,	
  
detention	
  centers,	
  and	
  public	
  morgues.	
  The	
  violence	
  continuum	
  also	
  refers	
  to	
  the	
  ease	
  with	
  which	
  humans	
  are	
  
capable	
  of	
  reducing	
  the	
  socially	
  vulnerable	
  into	
  expendable	
  nonpersons	
  and	
  assuming	
  the	
  license	
  -­‐	
  
even	
  the	
  duty	
  -­‐	
  to	
  kill,	
  maim,	
  or	
  soul-­‐murder.	
  We	
  realize	
  that	
  in	
  referring	
  to	
  a	
  violence	
  and	
  a	
  genocide	
  continuum	
  we	
  are	
  
flying	
  in	
  the	
  face	
  of	
  a	
  tradition	
  of	
  genocide	
  studies	
  that	
  argues	
  for	
  the	
  absolute	
  uniqueness	
  of	
  the	
  Jewish	
  Holocaust	
  and	
  for	
  vigilance	
  with	
  
respect	
  to	
  restricted	
  purist	
  use	
  of	
  the	
  term	
  genocide	
  itself	
  (see	
  Kuper	
  1985;	
  Chaulk	
  1999;	
  Fein	
  1990;	
  Chorbajian	
  1999).	
  But	
  we	
  hold	
  an	
  opposing	
  
and	
  alternative	
  view	
  that,	
  to	
  the	
  contrary,	
  it	
  is	
  absolutely	
  necessary	
  to	
  make	
  just	
  such	
  existential	
  leaps	
  in	
  
purposefully	
  linking	
  violent	
  acts	
  in	
  normal	
  times	
  to	
  those	
  of	
  abnormal	
  times.	
  Hence	
  the	
  title	
  of	
  our	
  volume:	
  
Violence	
  in	
  War	
  and	
  in	
  Peace.	
  If	
  (as	
  we	
  concede)	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  moral	
  risk	
  in	
  overextending	
  the	
  concept	
  of	
  “genocide”	
  into	
  spaces	
  and	
  corners	
  of	
  
everyday	
  life	
  where	
  we	
  might	
  not	
  ordinarily	
  think	
  to	
  find	
  it	
  (and	
  there	
  is),	
  an	
  even	
  greater	
  risk	
  lies	
  in	
  failing	
  to	
  sensitize	
  
ourselves,	
  in	
  misrecognizing	
  protogenocidal	
  practices	
  and	
  sentiments	
  daily	
  enacted	
  as	
  normative	
  
behavior	
  by	
  “ordinary”	
  good-­‐enough	
  citizens.	
  Peacetime	
  crimes,	
  such	
  as	
  prison	
  construction	
  sold	
  as	
  economic	
  
development	
  to	
  impoverished	
  communities	
  in	
  the	
  mountains	
  and	
  deserts	
  of	
  California,	
  or	
  the	
  evolution	
  of	
  the	
  criminal	
  industrial	
  complex	
  into	
  
the	
  latest	
  peculiar	
  institution	
  for	
  managing	
  race	
  relations	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  (Waquant,	
  Chapter	
  39),	
  constitute	
  the	
  “small	
  wars	
  
and	
  invisible	
  genocides”	
  to	
  which	
  we	
  refer.	
  This	
  applies	
  to	
  African	
  American	
  and	
  Latino	
  youth	
  mortality	
  statistics	
  in	
  Oakland,	
  
California,	
  Baltimore,	
  Washington	
  DC,	
  and	
  New	
  York	
  City.	
  These	
  are	
  “invisible”	
  genocides	
  not	
  because	
  they	
  are	
  
secreted	
  away	
  or	
  hidden	
  from	
  view,	
  but	
  quite	
  the	
  opposite.	
  	
  As	
  Wittgenstein	
  observed,	
  the	
  things	
  that	
  are	
  
hardest	
  to	
  perceive	
  are	
  those	
  which	
  are	
  right	
  before	
  our	
  eyes	
  and	
  therefore	
  taken	
  for	
  granted.	
  In	
  this	
  
regard,	
  Bourdieu’s	
  partial	
  and	
  unfinished	
  theory	
  of	
  violence	
  (see	
  Chapters	
  32	
  and	
  42)	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  his	
  concept	
  of	
  misrecognition	
  is	
  crucial	
  to	
  our	
  
task.	
  By	
  including	
  the	
  normative	
  everyday	
  forms	
  of	
  violence	
  hidden	
  in	
  the	
  minutiae	
  of	
  “normal”	
  social	
  practices	
  -­‐	
  in	
  the	
  architecture	
  of	
  homes,	
  
in	
  gender	
  relations,	
  in	
  communal	
  work,	
  in	
  the	
  exchange	
  of	
  gifts,	
  and	
  so	
  forth	
  -­‐	
  Bourdieu	
  forces	
  us	
  to	
  reconsider	
  the	
  broader	
  meanings	
  and	
  
status	
  of	
  violence,	
  especially	
  the	
  links	
  between	
  the	
  violence	
  of	
  everyday	
  life	
  and	
  explicit	
  political	
  terror	
  and	
  state	
  repression,	
  Similarly,	
  
Basaglia’s	
  notion	
  of	
  “peacetime	
  crimes”	
  -­‐	
  crimini	
  di	
  pace	
  -­‐	
  imagines	
  a	
  direct	
  relationship	
  between	
  wartime	
  and	
  peacetime	
  violence.	
  
Peacetime	
  crimes	
  suggests	
  the	
  possibility	
  that	
  war	
  crimes	
  are	
  merely	
  ordinary,	
  everyday	
  crimes	
  of	
  
public	
  consent	
  applied	
  systematic-­‐	
  ally	
  and	
  dramatically	
  in	
  the	
  extreme	
  context	
  of	
  war.	
  Consider	
  the	
  parallel	
  
uses	
  of	
  rape	
  during	
  peacetime	
  and	
  wartime,	
  or	
  the	
  family	
  resemblances	
  between	
  the	
  legalized	
  violence	
  of	
  US	
  immigration	
  and	
  naturalization	
  
border	
  raids	
  on	
  “illegal	
  aliens”	
  versus	
  the	
  US	
  government-­‐	
  engineered	
  genocide	
  in	
  1938,	
  known	
  as	
  the	
  Cherokee	
  “Trail	
  of	
  Tears.”	
  Peacetime	
  
crimes	
  suggests	
  that	
  everyday	
  forms	
  of	
  state	
  violence	
  make	
  a	
  certain	
  kind	
  of	
  domestic	
  peace	
  possible.	
  	
  Internal	
  “stability”	
  is	
  purchased	
  with	
  the	
  
currency	
  of	
  peacetime	
  crimes,	
  many	
  of	
  which	
  take	
  the	
  form	
  of	
  professionally	
  applied	
  “strangle-­‐holds.”	
  Everyday	
  forms	
  of	
  state	
  violence	
  during	
  
peacetime	
  make	
  a	
  certain	
  kind	
  of	
  domestic	
  “peace”	
  possible.	
  It	
  is	
  an	
  easy-­‐to-­‐identify	
  peacetime	
  crime	
  that	
  is	
  usually	
  maintained	
  as	
  a	
  public	
  
secret	
  by	
  the	
  government	
  and	
  by	
  a	
  scared	
  or	
  apathetic	
  populace.	
  Most	
  subtly,	
  but	
  no	
  less	
  politically	
  or	
  structurally,	
  the	
  phenomenal	
  growth	
  in	
  
the	
  United	
  States	
  of	
  a	
  new	
  military,	
  postindustrial	
  prison	
  industrial	
  complex	
  has	
  taken	
  place	
  in	
  the	
  absence	
  of	
  broad-­‐based	
  opposition,	
  let	
  alone	
  
collective	
  acts	
  of	
  civil	
  disobedience.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   25	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                                 	
                                                                                                Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                              1AC	
  –	
  Car	
  Crashes	
  Adv	
  (4/6)	
  
	
  The	
  public	
  consensus	
  is	
  based	
  primarily	
  on	
  a	
  new	
  mobilization	
  of	
  an	
  old	
  fear	
  of	
  the	
  mob,	
  the	
  mugger,	
  
the	
  rapist,	
  the	
  Black	
  man,	
  the	
  undeserving	
  poor.	
  How	
  many	
  public	
  executions	
  of	
  mentally	
  deficient	
  
prisoners	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  are	
  needed	
  to	
  make	
  life	
  feel	
  more	
  secure	
  for	
  the	
  affluent?	
  What	
  can	
  it	
  
possibly	
  mean	
  when	
  incarceration	
  becomes	
  the	
  “normative”	
  socializing	
  experience	
  for	
  ethnic	
  minority	
  youth	
  in	
  a	
  society,	
  i.e.,	
  over	
  33	
  percent	
  
of	
  young	
  African	
  American	
  men	
  (Prison	
  Watch	
  2002).	
  	
  In	
  the	
  end	
  it	
  is	
  essential	
  that	
  we	
  recognize	
  the	
  existence	
  of	
  a	
  
genocidal	
  capacity	
  among	
  otherwise	
  good-­‐enough	
  humans	
  and	
  that	
  we	
  need	
  to	
  exercise	
  a	
  defensive	
  
hypervigilance	
  to	
  the	
  less	
  dramatic,	
  permitted,	
  and	
  even	
  rewarded	
  everyday	
  acts	
  of	
  violence	
  that	
  
render	
  participation	
  in	
  genocidal	
  acts	
  and	
  policies	
  possible	
  (under	
  adverse	
  political	
  or	
  economic	
  conditions),	
  perhaps	
  
more	
  easily	
  than	
  we	
  would	
  like	
  to	
  recognize.	
  Under	
  the	
  violence	
  continuum	
  we	
  include,	
  therefore,	
  all	
  expressions	
  
of	
  radical	
  social	
  exclusion,	
  dehumanization,	
  depersonal-­‐	
  ization,	
  pseudospeciation,	
  and	
  reification	
  
which	
  normalize	
  atrocious	
  behavior	
  and	
  violence	
  toward	
  others.	
  A	
  constant	
  self-­‐mobilization	
  for	
  
alarm,	
  a	
  state	
  of	
  constant	
  hyperarousal	
  is,	
  perhaps,	
  a	
  reasonable	
  response	
  to	
  Benjamin’s	
  view	
  of	
  late	
  
modern	
  history	
  as	
  a	
  chronic	
  “state	
  of	
  emergency”	
  (Taussig,	
  Chapter	
  31).	
  We	
  are	
  trying	
  to	
  recover	
  here	
  the	
  classic	
  anagogic	
  
thinking	
  that	
  enabled	
  Erving	
  Goffman,	
  Jules	
  Henry,	
  C.	
  Wright	
  Mills,	
  and	
  Franco	
  Basaglia	
  among	
  other	
  mid-­‐twentieth-­‐century	
  radically	
  critical	
  
thinkers,	
  to	
  perceive	
  the	
  symbolic	
  and	
  structural	
  relations,	
  i.e.,	
  between	
  inmates	
  and	
  patients,	
  between	
  concentration	
  camps,	
  prisons,	
  mental	
  
hospitals,	
  nursing	
  homes,	
  and	
  other	
  “total	
  institutions.”	
  Making	
  that	
  decisive	
  move	
  to	
  recognize	
  the	
  continuum	
  of	
  
violence	
  allows	
  us	
  to	
  see	
  the	
  capacity	
  and	
  the	
  willingness	
  -­‐	
  if	
  not	
  enthusiasm	
  -­‐	
  of	
  ordinary	
  people,	
  the	
  
practical	
  technicians	
  of	
  the	
  social	
  consensus,	
  to	
  enforce	
  genocidal-­‐like	
  crimes	
  against	
  categories	
  of	
  
rubbish	
  people.	
  There	
  is	
  no	
  primary	
  impulse	
  out	
  of	
  which	
  mass	
  violence	
  and	
  genocide	
  are	
  born,	
  it	
  is	
  
ingrained	
  in	
  the	
  common	
  sense	
  of	
  everyday	
  social	
  life.	
  	
  The	
  mad,	
  the	
  differently	
  abled,	
  the	
  mentally	
  
vulnerable	
  have	
  often	
  fallen	
  into	
  this	
  category	
  of	
  the	
  unworthy	
  living,	
  as	
  have	
  the	
  very	
  old	
  and	
  infirm,	
  
the	
  sick-­‐poor,	
  and,	
  of	
  course,	
  the	
  despised	
  racial,	
  religious,	
  sexual,	
  and	
  ethnic	
  groups	
  of	
  the	
  moment.	
  
Erik	
  Erikson	
  referred	
  to	
  “pseudo-­‐	
  speciation”	
  as	
  the	
  human	
  tendency	
  to	
  classify	
  some	
  individuals	
  or	
  social	
  groups	
  as	
  less	
  than	
  fully	
  human	
  -­‐	
  a	
  
prerequisite	
  to	
  genocide	
  and	
  one	
  that	
  is	
  carefully	
  honed	
  during	
  the	
  unremark-­‐	
  able	
  peacetimes	
  that	
  precede	
  the	
  sudden,	
  “seemingly	
  
unintelligible”	
  outbreaks	
  of	
  mass	
  violence.	
  Collective	
  denial	
  and	
  misrecognition	
  are	
  prerequisites	
  for	
  mass	
  
violence	
  and	
  genocide.	
  But	
  so	
  are	
  formal	
  bureaucratic	
  structures	
  and	
  professional	
  roles.	
  The	
  practical	
  technicians	
  of	
  everyday	
  violence	
  
in	
  the	
  backlands	
  of	
  Northeast	
  Brazil	
  (Scheper-­‐Hughes,	
  Chapter	
  33),	
  for	
  example,	
  include	
  the	
  clinic	
  doctors	
  who	
  prescribe	
  powerful	
  tranquilizers	
  
to	
  fretful	
  and	
  frightfully	
  hungry	
  babies,	
  the	
  Catholic	
  priests	
  who	
  celebrate	
  the	
  death	
  of	
  “angel-­‐babies,”	
  and	
  the	
  municipal	
  bureaucrats	
  who	
  
dispense	
  free	
  baby	
  coffins	
  but	
  no	
  food	
  to	
  hungry	
  families.	
  	
  Everyday	
  violence	
  encompasses	
  the	
  implicit,	
  legitimate,	
  and	
  
routinized	
  forms	
  of	
  violence	
  inherent	
  in	
  particular	
  social,	
  economic,	
  and	
  political	
  formations.	
  It	
  is	
  close	
  to	
  
what	
  Bourdieu	
  (1977,	
  1996)	
  means	
  by	
  “symbolic	
  violence,”	
  the	
  violence	
  that	
  is	
  often	
  “nus-­‐recognized”	
  for	
  something	
  else,	
  usually	
  something	
  good.	
  Everyday	
  
violence	
  is	
  similar	
  to	
  what	
  Taussig	
  (1989)	
  calls	
  “terror	
  as	
  usual.”	
  All	
  these	
  terms	
  are	
  meant	
  to	
  reveal	
  a	
  public	
  secret	
  -­‐	
  the	
  hidden	
  links	
  between	
  violence	
  in	
  war	
  and	
  
violence	
  in	
  peace,	
  and	
  between	
  war	
  crimes	
  and	
  “peace-­‐time	
  crimes.”	
  Bourdieu	
  (1977)	
  finds	
  domination	
  and	
  violence	
  in	
  the	
  least	
  likely	
  places	
  -­‐	
  in	
  courtship	
  and	
  
marriage,	
  in	
  the	
  exchange	
  of	
  gifts,	
  in	
  systems	
  of	
  classification,	
  in	
  style,	
  art,	
  and	
  culinary	
  taste-­‐	
  the	
  various	
  uses	
  of	
  culture.	
  Violence,	
  Bourdieu	
  insists,	
  is	
  everywhere	
  in	
  
social	
  practice.	
  It	
  is	
  misrecognized	
  because	
  its	
  very	
  everydayness	
  and	
  its	
  familiarity	
  render	
  it	
  invisible.	
  Lacan	
  identifies	
  “rneconnaissance”	
  as	
  the	
  prerequisite	
  of	
  the	
  
social.	
  The	
  exploitation	
  of	
  bachelor	
  sons,	
  robbing	
  them	
  of	
  autonomy,	
  independence,	
  and	
  progeny,	
  within	
  the	
  structures	
  of	
  family	
  farming	
  in	
  the	
  European	
  
countryside	
  that	
  Bourdieu	
  escaped	
  is	
  a	
  case	
  in	
  point	
  (Bourdieu,	
  Chapter	
  42;	
  see	
  also	
  Scheper-­‐Hughes,	
  2000b;	
  Favret-­‐Saada,	
  1989).	
  	
  Following	
  Gramsci,	
  Foucault,	
  
Sartre,	
  Arendt,	
  and	
  other	
  modern	
  theorists	
  of	
  power-­‐vio-­‐	
  lence,	
  Bourdieu	
  treats	
  direct	
  aggression	
  and	
  physical	
  violence	
  as	
  a	
  crude,	
  uneconomical	
  mode	
  of	
  
domination;	
  it	
  is	
  less	
  efficient	
  and,	
  according	
  to	
  Arendt	
  (1969),	
  it	
  is	
  certainly	
  less	
  legitimate.	
  	
  While	
  power	
  and	
  symbolic	
  domination	
  are	
  not	
  to	
  be	
  equated	
  with	
  
violence	
  -­‐	
  and	
  Arendt	
  argues	
  persuasively	
  that	
  violence	
  is	
  to	
  be	
  understood	
  as	
  a	
  failure	
  of	
  power	
  -­‐	
  violence,	
  as	
  we	
  are	
  presenting	
  it	
  here,	
  is	
  more	
  than	
  simply	
  the	
  
expression	
  of	
  illegitimate	
  physical	
  force	
  against	
  a	
  person	
  or	
  group	
  of	
  persons.	
  Rather,	
  we	
  need	
  to	
  understand	
  violence	
  as	
  encompassing	
  all	
  forms	
  of	
  “controlling	
  
processes”	
  (Nader	
  1997b)	
  that	
  assault	
  basic	
  human	
  freedoms	
  and	
  individual	
  or	
  collective	
  survival.	
  Our	
  task	
  is	
  to	
  recognize	
  these	
  gray	
  zones	
  of	
  violence	
  which	
  are,	
  by	
  
definition,	
  not	
  obvious.	
  Once	
  again,	
  the	
  point	
  of	
  bringing	
  into	
  the	
  discourses	
  on	
  genocide	
  everyday,	
  normative	
  experiences	
  of	
  reification,	
  depersonalization,	
  
institutional	
  confinement,	
  and	
  acceptable	
  death	
  is	
  to	
  help	
  answer	
  the	
  question:	
  What	
  makes	
  mass	
  violence	
  and	
  genocide	
  possible?	
  In	
  this	
  volume	
  we	
  are	
  suggesting	
  
that	
  mass	
  violence	
  is	
  part	
  of	
  a	
  continuum,	
  and	
  that	
  it	
  is	
  socially	
  incremental	
  and	
  often	
  experienced	
  by	
  
perpetrators,	
  collaborators,	
  bystanders	
  -­‐	
  and	
  even	
  by	
  victims	
  themselves	
  -­‐	
  as	
  expected,	
  routine,	
  even	
  
justified.	
  The	
  preparations	
  for	
  mass	
  killing	
  can	
  be	
  found	
  in	
  social	
  sentiments	
  and	
  institutions	
  from	
  the	
  family,	
  to	
  schools,	
  churches,	
  hospitals,	
  
and	
  the	
  military.	
  They	
  harbor	
  the	
  early	
  “warning	
  signs”	
  (Charney	
  1991),	
  the	
  “priming”	
  (as	
  Hinton,	
  ed.,	
  2002	
  calls	
  it),	
  or	
  the	
  “genocidal	
  
continuum”	
  (as	
  we	
  call	
  it)	
  that	
  push	
  social	
  consensus	
  toward	
  devaluing	
  certain	
  forms	
  of	
  human	
  life	
  and	
  lifeways	
  
from	
  the	
  refusal	
  of	
  social	
  support	
  and	
  humane	
  care	
  to	
  vulnerable	
  “social	
  parasites”	
  (the	
  nursing	
  home	
  elderly,	
  “welfare	
  queens,”	
  
undocumented	
  immigrants,	
  drug	
  addicts)	
  to	
  the	
  militarization	
  of	
  everyday	
  life	
  (super-­‐maximum-­‐security	
  prisons,	
  capital	
  punishment;	
  the	
  
technologies	
  of	
  heightened	
  personal	
  security,	
  including	
  the	
  house	
  gun	
  and	
  gated	
  communities;	
  and	
  reversed	
  feelings	
  of	
  victimization).	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                     26	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                	
                                                                                   Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                   1AC	
  –	
  Car	
  Crashes	
  Adv	
  (5/6)	
  
The	
  status	
  quo	
  approach	
  to	
  car	
  crashes	
  degrades	
  the	
  quality	
  of	
  our	
  lives	
  
Mckenna 12	
  [Laine	
  McKenna	
  author	
  on	
  EzineArticles	
  and	
  multiple	
  current	
  event	
  blogs	
  2012	
  “The	
  
Impact	
  of	
  Drunk	
  Driving	
  Accidents	
  and	
  How	
  a	
  Personal	
  Injury	
  Lawyer	
  Can	
  Help”	
  EDF	
  publishing	
  
http://www.abcarticledirectory.com/Article/...Accidents.../1456114]	
  
Car	
  accidents	
  can	
  be	
  devastating	
  mentally,	
  physically,	
  psychologically,	
  and	
  financially.	
  Even	
  more	
  
devastating	
  –	
  when	
  the	
  accident	
  was	
  caused	
  by	
  a	
  drunk	
  driver	
  or	
  a	
  driver	
  under	
  the	
  influence	
  of	
  
drugs.	
  These	
  accidents	
  can	
  have	
  a	
  substantial	
  impact	
  on	
  peoples’	
  lives,	
  and	
  a	
  personal	
  injury	
  lawyer	
  can	
  help	
  you	
  
during	
  a	
  very	
  turbulent,	
  uncertain	
  time	
  in	
  your	
  life.	
  	
  In	
  2009,	
  of	
  the	
  6,788	
  car	
  accidents	
  in	
  the	
  city	
  of	
  Tampa,	
  480	
  of	
  
them	
  (7%)	
  involved	
  drivers	
  impaired	
  by	
  alcohol.	
  While	
  that	
  doesn’t	
  seem	
  like	
  a	
  large	
  number,	
  nearly	
  
40%	
  of	
  the	
  area’s	
  900+	
  traffic	
  fatalities	
  involved	
  drunk	
  drivers.	
  That	
  is	
  because	
  alcohol	
  impairs	
  the	
  body’s	
  ability	
  to	
  
react	
  and	
  rationalize.	
  Add	
  in	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  fatigue	
  from	
  a	
  late	
  night,	
  and	
  it’s	
  a	
  recipe	
  for	
  disaster.	
  	
  Those	
  statistics	
  don’t	
  even	
  factor	
  
in	
  the	
  serious	
  injuries	
  sustained	
  from	
  drunk	
  driving	
  accidents,	
  injuries	
  that	
  can	
  have	
  implications	
  for	
  
victims	
  and	
  their	
  families	
  for	
  the	
  rest	
  of	
  their	
  lives.	
  Some	
  drunk	
  driving	
  accident	
  victims	
  suffer	
  such	
  
severe	
  injuries	
  that	
  they	
  no	
  longer	
  can	
  care	
  for	
  themselves	
  and	
  require	
  round-­‐the-­‐clock,	
  daily	
  care	
  
from	
  nurses	
  and	
  family	
  members,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  rehabilitative	
  therapy.	
  	
  Perhaps	
  you	
  were	
  able	
  to	
  recover	
  from	
  your	
  
injuries,	
  to	
  an	
  extent.	
  You	
  don’t	
  require	
  round-­‐the-­‐clock	
  medical	
  care,	
  but	
  you	
  can	
  no	
  longer	
  work	
  or	
  are	
  limited	
  as	
  to	
  how	
  much	
  you	
  can	
  work.	
  
Your	
  quality	
  of	
  life	
  has	
  been	
  impacted	
  severely.	
  You	
  can’t	
  sit	
  for	
  longer	
  than	
  30	
  minutes	
  at	
  a	
  time.	
  You	
  can’t	
  imagine	
  a	
  day	
  
without	
  back	
  or	
  leg	
  pain.	
  Your	
  personal	
  relationships,	
  including	
  your	
  friendships	
  and	
  your	
  marriage	
  have	
  
suffered.	
  Perhaps	
  you	
  are	
  a	
  college	
  student	
  who	
  cannot	
  attend	
  school	
  full-­‐time	
  any	
  more	
  because	
  the	
  course	
  load	
  is	
  too	
  physically	
  draining,	
  
or	
  because	
  your	
  short-­‐term	
  memory	
  is	
  still	
  affected	
  by	
  the	
  accident.	
  Perhaps	
  the	
  highly-­‐sought	
  independence	
  you	
  once	
  had	
  as	
  a	
  college	
  
student,	
  living	
  on	
  your	
  own	
  in	
  the	
  dorms	
  has	
  been	
  taken	
  from	
  you	
  because	
  you	
  need	
  help	
  getting	
  around	
  the	
  house	
  and	
  need	
  to	
  be	
  closer	
  to	
  
doctors	
  and	
  your	
  concerned	
  parents.Do	
  any	
  of	
  these	
  scenarios	
  sound	
  familiar?	
  Whether	
  it’s	
  you	
  or	
  a	
  loved	
  one,	
  you	
  deserve	
  to	
  be	
  compensated	
  
for	
  your	
  suffering	
  and	
  the	
  impact	
  the	
  accident	
  has	
  had	
  on	
  your	
  life.	
  That	
  is	
  why	
  it	
  is	
  advised	
  that	
  you	
  contact	
  a	
  personal	
  injury	
  lawyer,	
  
particularly	
  an	
  attorney	
  with	
  experience	
  representing	
  the	
  victims	
  of	
  drunk	
  driving	
  accidents.	
  	
  A	
  personal	
  injury	
  attorney	
  can	
  work	
  with	
  your	
  
insurance	
  company,	
  doctors,	
  and	
  therapists	
  to	
  ensure	
  you’re	
  receiving	
  the	
  proper	
  medical	
  care,	
  particularly	
  when	
  insurance	
  companies	
  are	
  
looking	
  to	
  cut	
  corners	
  any	
  way	
  they	
  can.	
  An	
  attorney	
  can	
  see	
  that	
  you’re	
  compensated	
  for	
  the	
  pain	
  and	
  suffering	
  you	
  and	
  your	
  loved	
  ones	
  have	
  
endured,	
  and	
  see	
  to	
  it	
  that	
  you’re	
  cared	
  for	
  in	
  the	
  future.	
  An	
  attorney	
  can	
  also	
  see	
  that	
  you’re	
  compensated	
  for	
  lost	
  wages	
  and	
  future	
  lost	
  
wages	
  because	
  of	
  your	
  inability	
  or	
  limited	
  ability	
  to	
  work.	
  	
  Most	
  of	
  all,	
  a	
  personal	
  injury	
  attorney	
  can	
  advocate	
  for	
  your	
  rights	
  and	
  seek	
  justice	
  
for	
  you	
  during	
  a	
  very	
  turbulent	
  time	
  in	
  your	
  life.	
  Most	
  of	
  the	
  time	
  they	
  don’t	
  collect	
  money	
  unless	
  you	
  do,	
  which	
  means	
  you	
  have	
  nothing	
  to	
  
lose	
  and	
  everything	
  to	
  gain	
  by	
  contacting	
  one.	
  


Car	
  culture	
  is	
  unsustainable	
  –	
  the	
  only	
  question	
  is	
  when	
  and	
  how	
  we	
  make	
  the	
  
transition	
  
Graves-Brown’97 (	
  Graves-­‐Brown,	
  P	
  ,	
  “From	
  Highway	
  to	
  Superhighway:	
  The	
  Sustainability,	
  
Symbolism	
  and	
  Situated	
  Practices	
  of	
  Car	
  Culture	
  Social	
  Analysis.	
  Vol.	
  41,	
  pp.	
  64-­‐75.	
  1997”,	
  
http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=ENV&recid=5182080&q=car+
culture&uid=789848837&setcookie=yes)	
  
Car	
  culture	
  is	
  unsustainable:	
  not	
  only	
  are	
  the	
  emissions	
  harmful	
  to	
  the	
  environment,	
  but	
  vast	
  
resources	
  are	
  required	
  in	
  their	
  manufacture.	
  For	
  cars	
  to	
  be	
  sustainable,	
  a	
  new	
  community	
  of	
  practice	
  
focusing	
  on	
  repairing	
  &	
  recycling	
  used	
  parts	
  must	
  be	
  created.	
  Cars	
  also	
  foster	
  individual	
  alienation,	
  
making	
  them	
  socially	
  unsustainable.	
  While	
  some	
  have	
  argued	
  that	
  cyberspace	
  offers	
  an	
  alternative	
  to	
  
car	
  culture,	
  it	
  is	
  contended	
  that	
  cyberspace	
  intensifies	
  alienation	
  created	
  by	
  car	
  culture.	
  Thus,	
  neither	
  
the	
  automobile	
  highway	
  or	
  the	
  electronic	
  superhighway	
  will	
  prove	
  to	
  be	
  culturally	
  sustainable	
  
technologies	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                           27	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                          	
                                                                               Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                1AC	
  –	
  Car	
  Crashes	
  Adv	
  (6/6)	
  
Gasoline	
  taxes	
  are	
  the	
  best	
  way	
  to	
  reduce	
  accidents	
  and	
  congestion,	
  saving	
  up	
  to	
  
40,000	
  lives	
  per	
  year	
  
Parry	
  2002	
  (Ian	
  W.H.	
  RFF	
  Fellow,	
  “Is	
  Gasoline	
  Undertaxed	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States?”	
  Resources	
  Issue	
  148,	
  
Summer)	
  
Nonetheless,	
  peak-­‐period	
  fees	
  and	
  mileage	
  related	
  taxes	
  have	
  not	
  been	
  widely	
  implemented	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  (though	
  there	
  have	
  been	
  
limited	
  experiments	
  with	
  congestion	
  pricing	
  in	
  California	
  and	
  Texas).	
  Gasoline	
  taxes	
  might	
  be	
  the	
  next-­‐best	
  response	
  for	
  
curbing	
  congestion	
  and	
  accidents,	
  so	
  it	
  is	
  still	
  appropriate	
  to	
  consider	
  congestion	
  and	
  accident	
  benefits	
  in	
  an	
  overall	
  assessment	
  of	
  
gasoline	
  taxes.	
  For	
  congestion,	
  this	
  would	
  require	
  estimating	
  marginal	
  congestion	
  costs	
  averaged	
  across	
  both	
  urban	
  and	
  rural	
  roads	
  and	
  peak	
  
and	
  off-­‐peak	
  travel	
  periods,	
  for	
  the	
  whole	
  United	
  States.	
  Congestion	
  costs	
  are	
  measured	
  by	
  the	
  extra	
  time	
  it	
  takes	
  to	
  drive	
  under	
  congested	
  
conditions	
  compared	
  with	
  free-­‐flowing	
  traffic,	
  multiplied	
  by	
  the	
  monetary	
  value	
  of	
  travel	
  time	
  (usually	
  taken	
  to	
  be	
  about	
  half	
  the	
  market	
  wage).	
  
Based	
  on	
  the	
  available	
  evidence,	
  Kenneth	
  Small	
  and	
  I	
  concluded	
  that	
  the	
  best	
  estimate	
  for	
  the	
  “averaged”	
  congestion	
  cost	
  is	
  about	
  3.5¢	
  per	
  
mile,	
  or	
  70¢	
  per	
  gallon.	
  The	
  cost	
  to	
  society	
  from	
  traffic	
  accidents	
  largely	
  depends	
  on	
  human	
  fatalities	
  and	
  
injuries—in	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  around	
  40,000	
  people	
  are	
  killed	
  on	
  the	
  roads	
  each	
  year.	
  Other	
  costs	
  include	
  
traffic	
  hold-­‐ups	
  and	
  property	
  damage.	
  The	
  costs	
  of	
  fatalities	
  and	
  injuries	
  include	
  not	
  only	
  economic	
  costs	
  (such	
  as	
  medical	
  expenses)	
  but	
  also	
  
the	
  personal	
  or	
  “quality-­‐of-­‐life”	
  costs;	
  economists	
  usually	
  measure	
  people’s	
  willingness	
  to	
  pay	
  for	
  improved	
  safety	
  at	
  the	
  equivalent	
  of	
  several	
  
million	
  dollars	
  per	
  fatality	
  avoided.	
  


Higher	
  gas	
  taxes	
  can	
  decrease	
  traffic	
  deaths	
  by	
  almost	
  20%	
  
VTPI:	
  5/30	
  (Victory	
  Transport	
  Policy	
  Institute	
  “Fuel	
  Taxes:	
  Increasing	
  Fuel	
  Taxes	
  and	
  Fees”	
  5.30.12.	
  Web.	
  
http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm17.htm)	
  
Grabowski	
  and	
  Morrisey	
  (2004)	
  estimate	
  that	
  each	
  10%	
  fuel	
  price	
  increase	
  reduces	
  total	
  automobile	
  
deaths	
  by	
  2.3%,	
  with	
  about	
  twice	
  as	
  large	
  an	
  impact	
  on	
  younger	
  drivers,	
  who	
  tend	
  to	
  be	
  more	
  
sensitive	
  to	
  fuel	
  prices.	
  Sivak	
  (2008)	
  found	
  that	
  a	
  2.7%	
  decline	
  in	
  vehicle	
  travel	
  caused	
  by	
  fuel	
  price	
  
increases	
  and	
  a	
  weak	
  economy	
  during	
  2007-­‐08	
  resulted	
  in	
  much	
  larger	
  17.9%	
  to	
  22.1%	
  month-­‐to-­‐
month	
  declines	
  in	
  traffic	
  deaths,	
  probably	
  due	
  to	
  disproportionate	
  reductions	
  in	
  vehicle	
  travel	
  by	
  
lower	
  income	
  drivers	
  (who	
  tend	
  to	
  be	
  young	
  and	
  old,	
  and	
  therefore	
  higher	
  than	
  average	
  risk)	
  and	
  speed	
  
reductions	
  to	
  save	
  fuel.	
  	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      28	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                                           	
                                                                                                         Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                                     1AC	
  –	
  Solvency	
  (1/)	
  
Have	
  to	
  increase	
  the	
  tax	
  by	
  a	
  dollar	
  to	
  solve	
  	
  
Mankiw ’06	
  (Professor	
  of	
  Economics	
  at	
  Harvard>	
  “Raise	
  the	
  Gas	
  Tax”	
  Greg	
  Mankiw	
  October	
  2006	
                                                         http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/pigou-­‐club-­‐manifesto.html)                  	
  
With	
  the	
  midterm	
  election	
  around	
  the	
  corner,	
  here's	
  a	
  wacky	
  idea	
  you	
  won't	
  often	
  hear	
  from	
  our	
  elected	
  leaders:	
  We	
  should	
  raise	
  the	
  
tax	
  on	
  gasoline.	
  Not	
  quickly,	
  but	
  substantially.	
  I	
  would	
  like	
  to	
  see	
  Congress	
  increase	
  the	
  gas	
  tax	
  by	
  $1	
  per	
  gallon,	
  
phased	
  in	
  gradually	
  by	
  10	
  cents	
  per	
  year	
  over	
  the	
  next	
  decade.	
  Campaign	
  consultants	
  aren't	
  fond	
  of	
  this	
  kind	
  of	
  
proposal,	
  but	
  policy	
  wonks	
  keep	
  pushing	
  for	
  it.	
  Here's	
  why:	
  The	
  environment.	
  The	
  burning	
  of	
  gasoline	
  emits	
  several	
  
pollutants.	
  These	
  include	
  carbon	
  dioxide,	
  a	
  cause	
  of	
  global	
  warming.	
  Higher	
  gasoline	
  taxes,	
  perhaps	
  as	
  part	
  
of	
  a	
  broader	
  carbon	
  tax,	
  would	
  be	
  the	
  most	
  direct	
  and	
  least	
  invasive	
  policy	
  to	
  address	
  environmental	
  concerns.	
  Road	
  
congestion.	
  Every	
  time	
  I	
  am	
  stuck	
  in	
  traffic,	
  I	
  wish	
  my	
  fellow	
  motorists	
  would	
  drive	
  less,	
  perhaps	
  by	
  living	
  closer	
  to	
  where	
  they	
  work	
  or	
  by	
  taking	
  
public	
  transport.	
  A	
  higher	
  gas	
  tax	
  would	
  give	
  all	
  of	
  us	
  the	
  incentive	
  to	
  do	
  just	
  that,	
  reducing	
  congestion	
  on	
  streets	
  and	
  highways.	
  Regulatory	
  
relief.	
  Congress	
  has	
  tried	
  to	
  reduce	
  energy	
  dependence	
  with	
  corporate	
  average	
  fuel	
  economy	
  standards.	
  These	
  CAFE	
  rules	
  are	
  heavy-­‐
handed	
  government	
  regulations	
  replete	
  with	
  unintended	
  consequences:	
  They	
  are	
  partly	
  responsible	
  for	
  the	
  growth	
  
of	
  SUVs,	
  because	
  light	
  trucks	
  have	
  laxer	
  standards	
  than	
  cars.	
  In	
  addition,	
  by	
  making	
  the	
  car	
  fleet	
  more	
  fuel-­‐efficient,	
  the	
  regulations	
  encourage	
  
people	
  to	
  drive	
  more,	
  offsetting	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  conservation	
  benefits	
  and	
  exacerbating	
  road	
  congestion.	
  A	
  higher	
  gas	
  tax	
  would	
  
accomplish	
  everything	
  CAFE	
  standards	
  do,	
  but	
  without	
  the	
  adverse	
  side	
  effects.	
  The	
  budget.	
  Everyone	
  who	
  has	
  
studied	
  the	
  numbers	
  knows	
  that	
  the	
  federal	
  budget	
  is	
  on	
  an	
  unsustainable	
  path.	
  When	
  baby-­‐boomers	
  retire	
  and	
  become	
  eligible	
  for	
  Social	
  
Security	
  and	
  Medicare,	
  either	
  benefits	
  for	
  the	
  elderly	
  will	
  have	
  to	
  be	
  cut	
  or	
  taxes	
  raised.	
  The	
  most	
  likely	
  political	
  compromise	
  will	
  include	
  some	
  
of	
  each.	
  A	
  $1	
  per	
  gallon	
  hike	
  in	
  gas	
  tax	
  would	
  bring	
  in	
  $100	
  billion	
  a	
  year	
  in	
  government	
  revenue	
  and	
  
make	
  a	
  dent	
  in	
  the	
  looming	
  fiscal	
  gap.	
  Tax	
  incidence.	
  A	
  basic	
  principle	
  of	
  tax	
  analysis	
  -­‐-­‐	
  taught	
  in	
  most	
  freshman	
  economics	
  
courses	
  -­‐-­‐	
  is	
  that	
  the	
  burden	
  of	
  a	
  tax	
  is	
  shared	
  by	
  consumer	
  and	
  producer.	
  In	
  this	
  case,	
  as	
  a	
  higher	
  gas	
  tax	
  discouraged	
  oil	
  
consumption,	
  the	
  price	
  of	
  oil	
  would	
  fall	
  in	
  world	
  markets.	
  As	
  a	
  result,	
  the	
  price	
  of	
  gas	
  to	
  consumers	
  would	
  rise	
  by	
  less	
  than	
  the	
  increase	
  in	
  the	
  
tax.	
  Some	
  of	
  the	
  tax	
  would	
  in	
  effect	
  be	
  paid	
  by	
  Saudi	
  Arabia	
  and	
  Venezuela.	
  Economic	
  growth.	
  Public	
  finance	
  experts	
  have	
  long	
  preached	
  that	
  consumption	
  taxes	
  are	
  better	
  than	
  income	
  taxes	
  
for	
  long-­‐run	
  economic	
  growth,	
  because	
  income	
  taxes	
  discourage	
  saving	
  and	
  investment.	
  Gas	
  is	
  a	
  component	
  of	
  consumption.	
  An	
  increased	
  reliance	
  on	
  gas	
  taxes	
  over	
  income	
  taxes	
  would	
  make	
  
                                    It	
  would	
  also	
  encourage	
  firms	
  to	
  devote	
  more	
  R&D	
  spending	
  to	
  the	
  search	
  for	
  
the	
  tax	
  code	
  more	
  favorable	
  to	
  growth.	
  

gasoline	
  substitutes.	
  National	
  security.	
  Alan	
  Greenspan	
  called	
  for	
  higher	
  gas	
  taxes	
  recently.	
  "It's	
  a	
  national	
  
security	
  issue,"	
  he	
  said.	
  It	
  is	
  hard	
  to	
  judge	
  how	
  much	
  high	
  oil	
  consumption	
  drives	
  U.S.	
  involvement	
  in	
  
Middle	
  Eastern	
  politics.	
  But	
  Mr.	
  Greenspan	
  may	
  well	
  be	
  right	
  that	
  the	
  gas	
  tax	
  is	
  an	
  economic	
  policy	
  
with	
  positive	
  spillovers	
  to	
  foreign	
  affairs.	
  Is	
  it	
  conceivable	
  that	
  the	
  policy	
  wonks	
  will	
  ever	
  win	
  the	
  battle	
  with	
  the	
  campaign	
  
consultants?	
  I	
  think	
  it	
  is.	
  Even	
  after	
  a	
  $1	
  hike,	
  the	
  U.S.	
  gas	
  tax	
  would	
  still	
  be	
  less	
  than	
  half	
  the	
  level	
  in,	
  say,	
  Great	
  Britain,	
  which	
  last	
  I	
  checked	
  is	
  
still	
  a	
  democracy.	
  But	
  don't	
  expect	
  those	
  vying	
  for	
  office	
  to	
  come	
  around	
  until	
  the	
  American	
  people	
  recognize	
  that	
  while	
  higher	
  gas	
  taxes	
  are	
  
unattractive,	
  the	
  alternatives	
  are	
  even	
  worse.	
  	
  


$1	
  is	
  enough	
  to	
  alter	
  consumption	
  behavior	
  –	
  the	
  price	
  would	
  be	
  adjusted	
  upward	
  if	
  
necessary.	
  
Charles	
  Krauthammer,	
  a	
  Pulitzer	
  Prize-­‐winning	
  syndicated	
  columnist	
  and	
  commentator,	
  political	
  science	
  and	
  economics,	
  Oxford	
  
University	
  and	
  Harvard	
  (M.D.),	
  The	
  Weekly	
  Standard,	
  “The	
  Net-­‐Zero	
  Gas	
  Tax;	
  A	
  once-­‐in-­‐a-­‐generation	
  chance”	
  1-­‐12,	
  2009	
  lexis	
  
It	
  might	
  therefore	
  be	
  objected	
  that	
  a	
  $1	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  won't	
  be	
  enough.	
  If	
  $4	
  was	
  the	
  price	
  point	
  that	
  precipitated	
  a	
  
major	
  decrease	
  in	
  driving	
  and	
  a	
  collapse	
  of	
  SUV	
  sales,	
  an	
  immediate	
  imposition	
  of	
  a	
  $1	
  gas	
  tax	
  would	
  only	
  bring	
  the	
  average	
  price	
  to	
  $2.65.	
  To	
  
which	
  I	
  have	
  two	
  answers.	
  First,	
  my	
  preliminary	
  assumption	
  is	
  that	
  it	
  takes	
  $4	
  to	
  break	
  the	
  habit	
  of	
  gas-­‐guzzling	
  
profligacy.	
  But	
  once	
  that	
  is	
  done,	
  it	
  might	
  take	
  something	
  less,	
  only	
  in	
  the	
  range	
  of	
  $3,	
  to	
  maintain	
  the	
  
new	
  habit.	
  It	
  may	
  turn	
  out	
  that	
  these	
  guesses	
  are	
  slightly	
  off.	
  The	
  virtue	
  of	
  a	
  gas	
  tax	
  is	
  that	
  these	
  conjectures	
  can	
  be	
  
empirically	
  tested	
  and	
  refined,	
  and	
  the	
  precise	
  amount	
  of	
  the	
  tax	
  adjusted	
  to	
  consumer	
  response.	
  
Second,	
  my	
  personal	
  preference	
  would	
  be	
  a	
  $1.25	
  tax	
  today	
  (at	
  $1.65	
  gasoline)	
  or	
  even	
  a	
  $1.50	
  tax	
  if	
  gas	
  prices	
  begin	
  to	
  slide	
  below	
  $1.50-­‐-­‐
the	
  target	
  being	
  near-­‐$3	
  gasoline.	
  (The	
  payroll	
  tax	
  rebate	
  would,	
  of	
  course,	
  be	
  adjusted	
  accordingly:	
  If	
  the	
  tax	
  is	
  $1.50,	
  the	
  rebate	
  is	
  $21	
  a	
  
week.)	
  The	
  $1	
  proposal	
  is	
  offered	
  because	
  it	
  seems	
  more	
  politically	
  palatable.	
  My	
  personal	
  preference	
  for	
  a	
  higher	
  
initial	
  tax	
  stems	
  from	
  my	
  assumption	
  that	
  the	
  more	
  sharply	
  and	
  quickly	
  the	
  higher	
  prices	
  are	
  imposed,	
  the	
  greater	
  and	
  more	
  lasting	
  the	
  effect	
  
on	
  consumption.	
  But	
  whatever	
  one's	
  assumptions	
  and	
  choice	
  of	
  initial	
  tax,	
  the	
  net-­‐zero	
  tax	
  swap	
  remains	
  
flexible,	
  adjustable,	
  testable,	
  and	
  nonbureaucratic.	
  Behavior	
  is	
  changed,	
  driving	
  is	
  curtailed,	
  fuel	
  efficiency	
  is	
  increased,	
  
without	
  any	
  of	
  the	
  arbitrary,	
  shifting,	
  often	
  mindless	
  mandates	
  decreed	
  by	
  Congress.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                               29	
  
Starter	
  Set	
        	
     Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  


                     2AC	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                          30	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                       	
                                                                 Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                              Inh	
  Ext.	
  
The	
  federal	
  gas	
  tax	
  hasn’t	
  been	
  raised	
  since	
  1983-­‐now	
  is	
  key	
  to	
  generate	
  the	
  revenue	
  
to	
  revitalize	
  crumbling	
  US	
  infrastructure.	
  
Heydorn	
  2k10	
  (Allan,	
  editor	
  of	
  Pavement	
  Maintenance	
  &	
  Reconstruction,	
  	
  “Time	
  to	
  raise	
  the	
  Gas	
  Tax...	
  
But	
  by	
  How	
  Much?”	
  http://www.forconstructionpros.com/blog/10363206/time-­‐to-­‐raise-­‐the-­‐gas-­‐taxbut-­‐by-­‐how-­‐much,	
  )	
  
Last	
  week	
  Toby	
  Mack,	
  president	
  and	
  CEO	
  of	
  AED,	
  told	
  a	
  group	
  of	
  construction	
  industry	
  writers	
  that	
  it's	
  
time	
  to	
  raise	
  the	
  federal	
  tax	
  on	
  a	
  gallon	
  of	
  gasoline.	
  And	
  as	
  much	
  as	
  no	
  one	
  seems	
  to	
  like	
  a	
  tax	
  increase	
  
Mack	
  is	
  right	
  and	
  this	
  tax	
  increase	
  is	
  long	
  overdue.	
  As	
  Mack	
  pointed	
  out	
  the	
  tax	
  was	
  originally	
  set	
  at	
  
18.4	
  cents	
  per	
  gallon	
  in	
  1983	
  -­‐-­‐	
  and	
  hasn't	
  been	
  raised	
  since	
  -­‐-­‐	
  so	
  the	
  buying	
  power	
  it	
  generates	
  has	
  
declined	
  when	
  inflation	
  is	
  factored	
  in	
  (not	
  to	
  mention	
  the	
  improved	
  gas	
  mileage	
  vehicles	
  now	
  get,	
  which	
  
also	
  reduces	
  what	
  the	
  tax	
  brings	
  in).	
  No	
  wonder	
  the	
  feds	
  don't	
  have	
  enough	
  in	
  the	
  Highway	
  Fund	
  to	
  
repair	
  the	
  nation's	
  infrastructure	
  -­‐-­‐	
  which	
  by	
  all	
  accounts	
  is	
  in	
  dismal	
  shape.	
  And	
  while	
  the	
  new	
  
Congress	
  might	
  not	
  have	
  the	
  stomach	
  to	
  raise	
  the	
  tax	
  they	
  need	
  to	
  look	
  down	
  the	
  road	
  and	
  find	
  the	
  will	
  
to	
  do	
  it	
  anyway.	
  But	
  how	
  much	
  should	
  they	
  raise	
  it?	
  The	
  answer	
  should	
  be	
  "as	
  much	
  as	
  possible,"	
  but	
  
here	
  are	
  a	
  couple	
  of	
  recommendations:	
  Fred	
  Barnes,	
  executive	
  editor	
  of	
  "The	
  Weekly	
  Standard"	
  and	
  a	
  
conservative	
  journalist,	
  advocates	
  for	
  a	
  10-­‐15	
  cents	
  per	
  gallon	
  increase.	
  "What’s	
  required	
  to	
  restore	
  a	
  
great	
  highway	
  system	
  is	
  a	
  hike	
  of	
  10	
  to	
  15	
  cents	
  in	
  the	
  gas	
  tax,"	
  he	
  wrote	
  in	
  an	
  article	
  titled	
  Coercing	
  
People	
  Out	
  of	
  Their	
  Cars.	
  "Sounds	
  like	
  a	
  lot,	
  doesn’t	
  it?	
  The	
  gain—more	
  and	
  better	
  highways,	
  less	
  
congestion—makes	
  the	
  trade-­‐off	
  worthwhile."	
  Read	
  his	
  full	
  explanation	
  here.	
  A	
  more	
  drastic	
  and	
  
better-­‐sounding	
  (to	
  the	
  construction	
  industry	
  anyway)	
  increase	
  was	
  suggested	
  by	
  a	
  blue	
  ribbon	
  panel,	
  
The	
  Esquire	
  Commission	
  to	
  Balance	
  the	
  Federal	
  Budget	
  in	
  the	
  November	
  issue	
  of	
  Esquire	
  magazine.	
  
Though	
  probably	
  a	
  pie-­‐in-­‐the-­‐sky	
  suggestion,	
  the	
  commission	
  recommends	
  a	
  gradual	
  increase	
  to	
  $1.18	
  
per	
  gallon	
  (a	
  total	
  increase	
  of	
  $1	
  per	
  gallon)	
  by	
  2020.	
  Such	
  an	
  increase	
  would	
  generate	
  $130	
  billion	
  in	
  
revenue	
  -­‐-­‐	
  and	
  guarantee	
  steady	
  road	
  and	
  highway	
  construction	
  work	
  for	
  the	
  foreseeable	
  future.	
  	
  

No	
  attempts	
  are	
  being	
  made	
  to	
  increase	
  the	
  gas	
  tax	
  now	
  
CSG	
  2k12(Council	
  of	
  State	
  Governments	
  ,	
  
http://www.csg.org/pubs/capitolideas/july_august_2011/StateGasTaxes.asp)	
  
The	
  federal	
  gas	
  tax	
  hasn’t	
  been	
  raised	
  since	
  1993,	
  and	
  has	
  never	
  been	
  adjusted	
  for	
  inflation.	
  But	
  60	
  
percent	
  of	
  Americans	
  believe	
  the	
  gas	
  tax	
  is	
  raised	
  automatically	
  every	
  year,	
  according	
  to	
  a	
  2009	
  survey	
  
conducted	
  by	
  Building	
  America’s	
  Future	
  and	
  others.	
  While	
  many	
  states	
  have	
  increased	
  their	
  state	
  gas	
  
taxes	
  during	
  the	
  last	
  20	
  years,	
  12	
  states	
  and	
  Puerto	
  Rico	
  have	
  not	
  done	
  so	
  in	
  more	
  than	
  20	
  years.	
  No	
  
legislature	
  voted	
  to	
  increase	
  a	
  state	
  gas	
  tax	
  in	
  2010	
  or	
  thus	
  far	
  in	
  2011,	
  although	
  several	
  have	
  tried.	
  
Gas	
  tax	
  hikes	
  took	
  effect	
  in	
  January	
  2010	
  in	
  Nebraska	
  and	
  Florida.	
  The	
  fluctuations	
  in	
  the	
  price	
  of	
  oil	
  this	
  
year	
  have	
  even	
  prompted	
  several	
  states	
  to	
  consider	
  temporary	
  or	
  permanent	
  reductions	
  in	
  their	
  gas	
  
taxes.	
  That’s	
  despite	
  the	
  escalating	
  costs	
  of	
  road	
  construction	
  and	
  a	
  growing	
  backlog	
  of	
  maintenance	
  in	
  
many	
  states.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                     31	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                	
                                                                                   Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                   Auto-­‐Industry	
  Ext.	
  
Key	
  to	
  auto-­‐industry	
  –	
  a	
  gas	
  tax	
  would	
  allow	
  auto	
  competitiveness.	
  
Charles	
  Krauthammer,	
  a	
  Pulitzer	
  Prize-­‐winning	
  syndicated	
  columnist	
  and	
  
commentator,	
  political	
  science	
  and	
  economics,	
  Oxford	
  University	
  and	
  Harvard	
  (M.D.),	
  
The	
  Weekly	
  Standard,	
  “The	
  Net-­‐Zero	
  Gas	
  Tax;	
  A	
  once-­‐in-­‐a-­‐generation	
  chance”	
  
1/12/09	
  lexis	
  
This	
  is	
  a	
  major	
  benefit	
  of	
  the	
  gas	
  tax	
  that	
  is	
  generally	
  overlooked.	
  It	
  is	
  not	
  just	
  an	
  alternative	
  to	
  regulation;	
  because	
  it	
  is	
  so	
  
much	
  more	
  efficient,	
  it	
  is	
  a	
  killer	
  of	
  regulation.	
  The	
  most	
  egregious	
  of	
  these	
  regulations	
  are	
  the	
  fleet	
  fuel	
  efficiency	
  
(CAFE)	
  standards	
  forced	
  on	
  auto	
  companies.	
  Rather	
  than	
  creating	
  market	
  conditions	
  that	
  encourage	
  people	
  to	
  voluntarily	
  buy	
  greener	
  
cars,	
  the	
  CAFE	
  standards	
  simply	
  impose	
  them.	
  And	
  once	
  the	
  regulations	
  are	
  written-­‐-­‐with	
  their	
  arbitrary	
  miles-­‐per-­‐gallon	
  numbers	
  and	
  target	
  
dates-­‐-­‐they	
  are	
  not	
  easily	
  changed.	
  If	
  they	
  are	
  changed,	
  moreover,	
  they	
  cause	
  massive	
  dislocation,	
  and	
  yet	
  more	
  
inefficiency,	
  in	
  the	
  auto	
  industry.	
  CAFE	
  standards	
  have	
  proven	
  devastating	
  to	
  Detroit.	
  When	
  oil	
  prices	
  were	
  
relatively	
  low,	
  they	
  forced	
  U.S.	
  auto	
  companies	
  to	
  produce	
  small	
  cars	
  that	
  they	
  could	
  only	
  sell	
  at	
  a	
  loss.	
  
They	
  were	
  essentially	
  making	
  unsellable	
  cars	
  to	
  fulfill	
  mandated	
  quotas,	
  like	
  steel	
  producers	
  in	
  socialist	
  countries	
  meeting	
  five-­‐year	
  plan	
  
production	
  targets	
  with	
  equal	
  disregard	
  for	
  demand.	
  Yet	
  the	
  great	
  2008	
  run-­‐up	
  in	
  world	
  oil	
  prices	
  showed	
  what	
  happens	
  without	
  any	
  
government	
  coercion.	
  As	
  the	
  price	
  of	
  gas	
  approached	
  $4	
  a	
  gallon,	
  there	
  was	
  a	
  collapse	
  of	
  big-­‐car	
  sales	
  that	
  
caused	
  U.S.	
  manufacturers	
  to	
  begin	
  cutting	
  SUV	
  production	
  and	
  restructuring	
  the	
  composition	
  of	
  their	
  fleets.	
  
GM's	
  CEO,	
  for	
  example,	
  declared	
  in	
  June,	
  "these	
  prices	
  are	
  changing	
  consumer	
  behavior	
  and	
  changing	
  it	
  rapidly,"	
  and	
  announced	
  the	
  closing	
  of	
  
four	
  SUV	
  plants	
  and	
  the	
  addition	
  of	
  a	
  third	
  shift	
  in	
  two	
  plants	
  making	
  smaller	
  cars.	
  Which	
  is	
  precisely	
  why	
  a	
  gas	
  tax	
  would	
  render	
  these	
  
government-­‐dictated	
  regulations	
  irrelevant	
  and	
  obsolete.	
  If	
  you	
  want	
  to	
  shift	
  to	
  fuel-­‐efficient	
  cars,	
  don't	
  mandate,	
  don't	
  
scold,	
  don't	
  appeal	
  to	
  the	
  better	
  angels	
  of	
  our	
  nature.	
  Find	
  the	
  price	
  point,	
  reach	
  it	
  with	
  a	
  tax,	
  and	
  let	
  the	
  market	
  do	
  
the	
  rest.	
  Yes,	
  a	
  high	
  gas	
  tax	
  constitutes	
  a	
  very	
  serious	
  government	
  intervention.	
  But	
  it	
  has	
  the	
  virtue	
  of	
  simplicity.	
  It	
  is	
  clean,	
  adaptable,	
  and	
  
easy	
  to	
  administer.	
  Admittedly,	
  it	
  takes	
  a	
  massive	
  external	
  force	
  to	
  alter	
  behavior	
  and	
  tastes.	
  But	
  given	
  the	
  national	
  security	
  and	
  the	
  economic	
  
need	
  for	
  more	
  fuel	
  efficiency,	
  and	
  given	
  the	
  leverage	
  that	
  environmental	
  considerations	
  will	
  have	
  on	
  the	
  incoming	
  Democratic	
  administration	
  
and	
  Democratic	
  Congress,	
  that	
  change	
  in	
  behavior	
  and	
  taste	
  will	
  occur	
  one	
  way	
  or	
  the	
  other.	
  Better	
  a	
  gas	
  tax	
  that	
  activates	
  free	
  
market	
  mechanisms	
  rather	
  than	
  regulation	
  that	
  causes	
  cascading	
  market	
  distortions.	
  The	
  net-­‐zero	
  gas	
  tax	
  not	
  only	
  obviates	
  
the	
  need	
  for	
  government	
  regulation.	
  It	
  obviates	
  the	
  need	
  for	
  government	
  spending	
  as	
  well.	
  Expensive	
  gas	
  
creates	
  the	
  market	
  for	
  the	
  fuel-­‐efficient	
  car	
  without	
  Washington	
  having	
  to	
  pick	
  winners	
  and	
  losers	
  with	
  massive	
  
government	
  "investment"	
  and	
  arbitrary	
  grants.	
  No	
  regulations,	
  no	
  mandates,	
  no	
  spending	
  programs	
  to	
  prop	
  up	
  the	
  production	
  of	
  green	
  cars	
  
that	
  consumer	
  demand	
  would	
  not	
  otherwise	
  support.	
  And	
  if	
  we	
  find	
  this	
  transition	
  going	
  too	
  quickly	
  or	
  too	
  slowly,	
  we	
  can	
  alter	
  it	
  with	
  the	
  
simple	
  expedient	
  of	
  altering	
  the	
  gas	
  tax,	
  rather	
  than	
  undertaking	
  the	
  enormously	
  complicated	
  review	
  and	
  rewriting	
  of	
  fuel-­‐efficiency	
  
regulations.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                         32	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                  	
                                                                                     Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                 Warming	
  !	
  Ext.	
  (1/2)	
  
Runaway	
  warming	
  causes	
  extinction—it’s	
  the	
  only	
  existential	
  threat	
  	
  
Mazo	
  10	
  –	
  PhD	
  in	
  Paleoclimatology	
  from	
  UCLA	
  (Jeffrey	
  Mazo,	
  Managing	
  Editor,	
  Survival	
  and	
  Research	
  
Fellow	
  for	
  Environmental	
  Security	
  and	
  Science	
  Policy	
  at	
  the	
  International	
  Institute	
  for	
  Strategic	
  
Studies	
  in	
  London,	
  3-­‐2010,	
  “Climate	
  Conflict:	
  How	
  global	
  warming	
  threatens	
  security	
  and	
  what	
  to	
  do	
  
about	
  it,”	
  pg.	
  122)	
  
The	
  best	
  estimates	
  for	
  global	
  warming	
  to	
  the	
  end	
  of	
  the	
  century	
  range	
  from	
  2.5-­‐4.~C	
  above	
  pre-­‐industrial	
  levels,	
  depending	
  on	
  the	
  scenario.	
  
Even	
  in	
  the	
  best-­‐case	
  scenario,	
  the	
  low	
  end	
  of	
  the	
  likely	
  range	
  is	
  1.goC,	
  and	
  in	
  the	
  worst	
  'business	
  as	
  usual'	
  projections,	
  which	
  actual	
  emissions	
  
have	
  been	
  matching,	
  the	
  range	
  of	
  likely	
  warming	
  runs	
  from	
  3.1-­‐-­‐7.1°C.	
  Even	
  keeping	
  emissions	
  at	
  constant	
  2000	
  levels	
  (which	
  have	
  already	
  
been	
  exceeded),	
  global	
  temperature	
  would	
  still	
  be	
  expected	
  to	
  reach	
  1.2°C	
  (O'9""1.5°C)above	
  pre-­‐industrial	
  levels	
  by	
  the	
  end	
  of	
  the	
  century."	
  
Without	
  early	
  and	
  severe	
  reductions	
  in	
  emissions,	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  climate	
  change	
  in	
  the	
  second	
  half	
  of	
  
the	
  twenty-­‐first	
  century	
  are	
  likely	
  to	
  be	
  catastrophic	
  for	
  the	
  stability	
  and	
  security	
  of	
  countries	
  in	
  the	
  developing	
  world	
  -­‐	
  
not	
  to	
  mention	
  the	
  associated	
  human	
  tragedy.	
  Climate	
  change	
  could	
  even	
  undermine	
  the	
  strength	
  and	
  stability	
  of	
  emerging	
  and	
  
advanced	
  economies,	
  beyond	
  the	
  knock-­‐on	
  effects	
  on	
  security	
  of	
  widespread	
  state	
  failure	
  and	
  
collapse	
  in	
  developing	
  countries.'	
  And	
  although	
  they	
  have	
  been	
  condemned	
  as	
  melodramatic	
  and	
  alarmist,	
  many	
  informed	
  
observers	
  believe	
  that	
  unmitigated	
  climate	
  change	
  beyond	
  the	
  end	
  of	
  the	
  century	
  could	
  pose	
  an	
  existential	
  threat	
  to	
  
civilisation."	
  What	
  is	
  certain	
  is	
  that	
  there	
  is	
  no	
  precedent	
  in	
  human	
  experience	
  for	
  such	
  rapid	
  change	
  or	
  such	
  
climatic	
  conditions,	
  and	
  even	
  in	
  the	
  best	
  case	
  adaptation	
  to	
  these	
  extremes	
  would	
  mean	
  profound	
  social,	
  cultural	
  
and	
  political	
  changes.	
  


Global	
  warming	
  leads	
  to	
  mass	
  and	
  unending	
  international	
  conflict	
  
Klare	
  6	
  –	
  Professor	
  of	
  Peace	
  and	
  World	
  Security	
  Studies	
  Michael,	
  professor	
  of	
  peace	
  and	
  world	
  
security	
  studies	
  at	
  Hampshire	
  College,	
  The	
  Coming	
  Resource	
  Wars,	
  3-­‐10-­‐2006,	
  
http://www.alternet.org/environment/33243	
  
It's	
  official:	
  the	
  era	
  of	
  resource	
  wars	
  is	
  upon	
  us.	
  In	
  a	
  major	
  London	
  address,	
  British	
  Defense	
  Secretary	
  John	
  Reid	
  
warned	
  that	
  global	
  climate	
  change	
  and	
  dwindling	
  natural	
  resources	
  are	
  combining	
  to	
  increase	
  the	
  
likelihood	
  of	
  violent	
  conflict	
  over	
  land,	
  water	
  and	
  energy.	
  Climate	
  change,	
  he	
  indicated,	
  "will	
  make	
  scarce	
  
resources,	
  clean	
  water,	
  viable	
  agricultural	
  land	
  even	
  scarcer"	
  -­‐-­‐	
  and	
  this	
  will	
  "make	
  the	
  emergence	
  of	
  violent	
  
conflict	
  more	
  rather	
  than	
  less	
  likely."	
  Although	
  not	
  unprecedented,	
  Reid's	
  prediction	
  of	
  an	
  upsurge	
  in	
  resource	
  conflict	
  is	
  significant	
  
both	
  because	
  of	
  his	
  senior	
  rank	
  and	
  the	
  vehemence	
  of	
  his	
  remarks.	
  "The	
  blunt	
  truth	
  is	
  that	
  the	
  lack	
  of	
  water	
  and	
  
agricultural	
  land	
  is	
  a	
  significant	
  contributory	
  factor	
  to	
  the	
  tragic	
  conflict	
  we	
  see	
  unfolding	
  in	
  Darfur,"	
  he	
  declared.	
  
"We	
  should	
  see	
  this	
  as	
  a	
  warning	
  sign."	
  Resource	
  conflicts	
  of	
  this	
  type	
  are	
  most	
  likely	
  to	
  arise	
  in	
  the	
  developing	
  world,	
  Reid	
  indicated,	
  but	
  the	
  
more	
  advanced	
  and	
  affluent	
  countries	
  are	
  not	
  likely	
  to	
  be	
  spared	
  the	
  damaging	
  and	
  destabilizing	
  effects	
  of	
  global	
  climate	
  change.	
  With	
  sea	
  
levels	
  rising,	
  water	
  and	
  energy	
  becoming	
  increasingly	
  scarce	
  and	
  prime	
  agricultural	
  lands	
  turning	
  into	
  deserts,	
  internecine	
  warfare	
  over	
  access	
  
to	
  vital	
  resources	
  will	
  become	
  a	
  global	
  phenomenon.	
  Reid's	
  speech,	
  delivered	
  at	
  the	
  prestigious	
  Chatham	
  House	
  in	
  London	
  (Britain's	
  equivalent	
  
of	
  the	
  Council	
  on	
  Foreign	
  Relations),	
  is	
  but	
  the	
  most	
  recent	
  expression	
  of	
  a	
  growing	
  trend	
  in	
  strategic	
  circles	
  to	
  view	
  environmental	
  and	
  
resource	
  effects	
  -­‐-­‐	
  rather	
  than	
  political	
  orientation	
  and	
  ideology	
  -­‐-­‐	
  as	
  the	
  most	
  potent	
  source	
  of	
  armed	
  conflict	
  in	
  the	
  decades	
  to	
  come.	
  With	
  the	
  
world	
  population	
  rising,	
  global	
  consumption	
  rates	
  soaring,	
  energy	
  supplies	
  rapidly	
  disappearing	
  and	
  climate	
  change	
  eradicating	
  valuable	
  
farmland,	
  the	
  stage	
  is	
  being	
  set	
  for	
  persistent	
  and	
  worldwide	
  struggles	
  over	
  vital	
  resources.	
  Religious	
  and	
  political	
  strife	
  will	
  not	
  
disappear	
  in	
  this	
  scenario,	
  but	
  rather	
  will	
  be	
  channeled	
  into	
  contests	
  over	
  valuable	
  sources	
  of	
  water,	
  food	
  and	
  
energy.	
  Prior	
  to	
  Reid's	
  address,	
  the	
  most	
  significant	
  expression	
  of	
  this	
  outlook	
  was	
  a	
  report	
  prepared	
  for	
  the	
  U.S.	
  Department	
  of	
  Defense	
  by	
  
a	
  California-­‐based	
  consulting	
  firm	
  in	
  October	
  2003.	
  Entitled	
  "An	
  Abrupt	
  Climate	
  Change	
  Scenario	
  and	
  Its	
  Implications	
  for	
  United	
  States	
  National	
  
Security,"	
  the	
  report	
  warned	
  that	
  global	
  climate	
  change	
  is	
  more	
  likely	
  to	
  result	
  in	
  sudden,	
  cataclysmic	
  
environmental	
  events	
  than	
  a	
  gradual	
  (and	
  therefore	
  manageable)	
  rise	
  in	
  average	
  temperatures.	
  Such	
  events	
  could	
  
include	
  a	
  substantial	
  increase	
  in	
  global	
  sea	
  levels,	
  intense	
  storms	
  and	
  hurricanes	
  and	
  continent-­‐wide	
  
"dust	
  bowl"	
  effects.	
  This	
  would	
  trigger	
  pitched	
  battles	
  between	
  the	
  survivors	
  of	
  these	
  effects	
  for	
  access	
  to	
  food,	
  
water,	
  habitable	
  land	
  and	
  energy	
  supplies.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                      33	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                	
                                                                                    Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                Warming	
  !	
  Ext	
  (2/2)	
  
"Violence	
  and	
  disruption	
  stemming	
  from	
  the	
  stresses	
  created	
  by	
  abrupt	
  changes	
  in	
  the	
  climate	
  pose	
  a	
  
different	
  type	
  of	
  threat	
  to	
  national	
  security	
  than	
  we	
  are	
  accustomed	
  to	
  today,"	
  the	
  2003	
  report	
  noted.	
  "Military	
  
confrontation	
  may	
  be	
  triggered	
  by	
  a	
  desperate	
  need	
  for	
  natural	
  resources	
  such	
  as	
  energy,	
  food	
  and	
  water	
  rather	
  than	
  by	
  conflicts	
  over	
  
ideology,	
  religion	
  or	
  national	
  honor."	
  Until	
  now,	
  this	
  mode	
  of	
  analysis	
  has	
  failed	
  to	
  command	
  the	
  attention	
  of	
  top	
  American	
  and	
  British	
  
policymakers.	
  For	
  the	
  most	
  part,	
  they	
  insist	
  that	
  ideological	
  and	
  religious	
  differences	
  -­‐-­‐	
  notably,	
  the	
  clash	
  between	
  values	
  
of	
  tolerance	
  and	
  democracy	
  on	
  one	
  hand	
  and	
  extremist	
  forms	
  of	
  Islam	
  on	
  the	
  other	
  -­‐-­‐	
  remain	
  the	
  main	
  drivers	
  of	
  international	
  
conflict.	
  But	
  Reid's	
  speech	
  at	
  Chatham	
  House	
  suggests	
  that	
  a	
  major	
  shift	
  in	
  strategic	
  thinking	
  may	
  be	
  under	
  way.	
  Environmental	
  
perils	
  may	
  soon	
  dominate	
  the	
  world	
  security	
  agenda.	
  This	
  shift	
  is	
  due	
  in	
  part	
  to	
  the	
  growing	
  weight	
  of	
  
evidence	
  pointing	
  to	
  a	
  significant	
  human	
  role	
  in	
  altering	
  the	
  planet's	
  basic	
  climate	
  systems.	
  Recent	
  studies	
  
showing	
  the	
  rapid	
  shrinkage	
  of	
  the	
  polar	
  ice	
  caps,	
  the	
  accelerated	
  melting	
  of	
  North	
  American	
  glaciers,	
  the	
  increased	
  frequency	
  of	
  severe	
  
hurricanes	
  and	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  other	
  such	
  effects	
  all	
  suggest	
  that	
  dramatic	
  and	
  potentially	
  harmful	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  global	
  climate	
  have	
  begun	
  to	
  
occur.	
  More	
  importantly,	
  they	
  conclude	
  that	
  human	
  behavior	
  -­‐-­‐	
  most	
  importantly,	
  the	
  burning	
  of	
  fossil	
  fuels	
  in	
  factories,	
  power	
  plants,	
  and	
  
motor	
  vehicles	
  -­‐-­‐	
  is	
  the	
  most	
  likely	
  cause	
  of	
  these	
  changes.	
  This	
  assessment	
  may	
  not	
  have	
  yet	
  penetrated	
  the	
  White	
  House	
  and	
  other	
  bastions	
  
of	
  head-­‐in-­‐the-­‐sand	
  thinking,	
  but	
  it	
  is	
  clearly	
  gaining	
  ground	
  among	
  scientists	
  and	
  thoughtful	
  analysts	
  around	
  the	
  world.	
  For	
  the	
  most	
  part,	
  
public	
  discussion	
  of	
  global	
  climate	
  change	
  has	
  tended	
  to	
  describe	
  its	
  effects	
  as	
  an	
  environmental	
  problem	
  -­‐-­‐	
  as	
  a	
  threat	
  to	
  safe	
  water,	
  arable	
  
soil,	
  temperate	
  forests,	
  certain	
  species	
  and	
  so	
  on.	
  And,	
  of	
  course,	
  climate	
  change	
  is	
  a	
  potent	
  threat	
  to	
  the	
  environment;	
  in	
  fact,	
  the	
  greatest	
  
threat	
  imaginable.	
  But	
  viewing	
  climate	
  change	
  as	
  an	
  environmental	
  problem	
  fails	
  to	
  do	
  justice	
  to	
  the	
  magnitude	
  of	
  the	
  peril	
  it	
  poses.	
  As	
  Reid's	
  
speech	
  and	
  the	
  2003	
  Pentagon	
  study	
  make	
  clear,	
  the	
  greatest	
  danger	
  posed	
  by	
  global	
  climate	
  change	
  is	
  not	
  the	
  degradation	
  of	
  ecosystems	
  per	
  
se,	
  but	
  rather	
  the	
  disintegration	
  of	
  entire	
  human	
  societies,	
  producing	
  wholesale	
  starvation,	
  mass	
  migrations	
  and	
  recurring	
  conflict	
  over	
  
resources.	
  "As	
  famine,	
  disease,	
  and	
  weather-­‐related	
  disasters	
  strike	
  due	
  to	
  abrupt	
  climate	
  change,"	
  the	
  
Pentagon	
  report	
  notes,	
  "many	
  countries'	
  needs	
  will	
  exceed	
  their	
  carrying	
  capacity"	
  -­‐-­‐	
  that	
  is,	
  their	
  ability	
  to	
  provide	
  the	
  
minimum	
  requirements	
  for	
  human	
  survival.	
  This	
  "will	
  create	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  desperation,	
  which	
  is	
  likely	
  to	
  lead	
  to	
  
offensive	
  aggression"	
  against	
  countries	
  with	
  a	
  greater	
  stock	
  of	
  vital	
  resources.	
  "Imagine	
  eastern	
  
European	
  countries,	
  struggling	
  to	
  feed	
  their	
  populations	
  with	
  a	
  falling	
  supply	
  of	
  food,	
  water,	
  and	
  
energy,	
  eyeing	
  Russia,	
  whose	
  population	
  is	
  already	
  in	
  decline,	
  for	
  access	
  to	
  its	
  grain,	
  minerals,	
  and	
  energy	
  
supply."	
  Similar	
  scenarios	
  will	
  be	
  replicated	
  all	
  across	
  the	
  planet,	
  as	
  those	
  without	
  the	
  means	
  to	
  survival	
  invade	
  or	
  
migrate	
  to	
  those	
  with	
  greater	
  abundance	
  -­‐-­‐	
  producing	
  endless	
  struggles	
  between	
  resource	
  "haves"	
  and	
  "have-­‐
nots."	
  It	
  is	
  this	
  prospect,	
  more	
  than	
  anything,	
  that	
  worries	
  John	
  Reid.	
  In	
  particular,	
  he	
  expressed	
  concern	
  over	
  the	
  
inadequate	
  capacity	
  of	
  poor	
  and	
  unstable	
  countries	
  to	
  cope	
  with	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  climate	
  change,	
  and	
  
the	
  resulting	
  risk	
  of	
  state	
  collapse,	
  civil	
  war	
  and	
  mass	
  migration.	
  "More	
  than	
  300	
  million	
  people	
  in	
  Africa	
  currently	
  lack	
  
access	
  to	
  safe	
  water,"	
  he	
  observed,	
  and	
  "climate	
  change	
  will	
  worsen	
  this	
  dire	
  situation"	
  -­‐-­‐	
  provoking	
  more	
  wars	
  like	
  Darfur.	
  And	
  even	
  if	
  these	
  
social	
  disasters	
  will	
  occur	
  primarily	
  in	
  the	
  developing	
  world,	
  the	
  wealthier	
  countries	
  will	
  also	
  be	
  caught	
  up	
  in	
  them,	
  whether	
  by	
  participating	
  in	
  
peacekeeping	
  and	
  humanitarian	
  aid	
  operations,	
  by	
  fending	
  off	
  unwanted	
  migrants	
  or	
  by	
  fighting	
  for	
  access	
  to	
  overseas	
  supplies	
  of	
  food,	
  oil,	
  and	
  
minerals.	
  When	
  reading	
  of	
  these	
  nightmarish	
  scenarios,	
  it	
  is	
  easy	
  to	
  conjure	
  up	
  images	
  of	
  desperate,	
  starving	
  people	
  killing	
  one	
  another	
  with	
  
knives,	
  staves	
  and	
  clubs	
  -­‐-­‐	
  as	
  was	
  certainly	
  often	
  the	
  case	
  in	
  the	
  past,	
  and	
  could	
  easily	
  prove	
  to	
  be	
  so	
  again.	
  But	
  these	
  scenarios	
  also	
  
envision	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  more	
  deadly	
  weapons.	
  "In	
  this	
  world	
  of	
  warring	
  states,"	
  the	
  2003	
  Pentagon	
  report	
  
predicted,	
  "nuclear	
  arms	
  proliferation	
  is	
  inevitable."	
  As	
  oil	
  and	
  natural	
  gas	
  disappears,	
  more	
  and	
  more	
  countries	
  
will	
  rely	
  on	
  nuclear	
  power	
  to	
  meet	
  their	
  energy	
  needs	
  -­‐-­‐	
  and	
  this	
  "will	
  accelerate	
  nuclear	
  proliferation	
  
as	
  countries	
  develop	
  enrichment	
  and	
  reprocessing	
  capabilities	
  to	
  ensure	
  their	
  national	
  
security."	
  Although	
  speculative,	
  these	
  reports	
  make	
  one	
  thing	
  clear:	
  when	
  thinking	
  about	
  the	
  calamitous	
  
effects	
  of	
  global	
  climate	
  change,	
  we	
  must	
  emphasize	
  its	
  social	
  and	
  political	
  consequences	
  as	
  much	
  as	
  
its	
  purely	
  environmental	
  effects.	
  Drought,	
  flooding	
  and	
  storms	
  can	
  kill	
  us,	
  and	
  surely	
  will	
  -­‐-­‐	
  but	
  so	
  will	
  wars	
  
among	
  the	
  survivors	
  of	
  these	
  catastrophes	
  over	
  what	
  remains	
  of	
  food,	
  water	
  and	
  shelter.	
  As	
  Reid's	
  
comments	
  indicate,	
  no	
  society,	
  however	
  affluent,	
  will	
  escape	
  involvement	
  in	
  these	
  forms	
  of	
  conflict.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                   34	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                               	
                                                                                  Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                       Ext.	
  Consumer	
  Habits	
  (1/2)	
  
Consumers	
  will	
  perceive	
  the	
  tax	
  and	
  change	
  their	
  driving	
  behaviors	
  	
  
Worstall	
  	
  2012	
  (Fellow	
  at	
  the	
  Adam	
  Smith	
  Institute	
  in	
  London,	
  Of	
  Course	
  Politicians	
  Prefer	
  CAFE	
  to	
  Gas	
  
Taxes	
  http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/02/22/of-­‐course-­‐politicians-­‐prefer-­‐cafe-­‐to-­‐gas-­‐
taxes/)	
  
Which	
  rather	
  leads	
  us	
  to	
  the	
  observation	
  that	
  gas	
  taxes	
  are	
  better	
  at	
  changing	
  behavior	
  than	
  CAFE	
  standards	
  are.	
  But	
  why	
  is	
  that	
  a	
  politician	
  
would	
  prefer	
  something	
  inefficient	
  to	
  something	
  efficient?	
  A	
  considerable	
  body	
  of	
  economic	
  research	
  suggests	
  that	
  if	
  
your	
  policy	
  goal	
  is	
  to	
  reduce	
  petroleum	
  consumption,	
  a	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  or	
  a	
  carbon	
  tax	
  accomplishes	
  the	
  goal	
  
at	
  a	
  far	
  lower	
  social	
  cost	
  than	
  fuel	
  economy	
  standards–although	
  for	
  politicians	
  the	
  explicitness	
  of	
  that	
  cost	
  seems	
  to	
  make	
  
it	
  a	
  nonstarter.	
  Well	
  quite.	
  A	
  hefty	
  gas	
  tax	
  may	
  well	
  be	
  more	
  efficient	
  but	
  the	
  consumer,	
  who	
  is	
  of	
  course	
  also	
  the	
  voter,	
  can	
  see	
  that	
  
efficiency	
  bearing	
  down	
  on	
  them	
  every	
  time	
  they	
  visit	
  the	
  pump.	
  Thus	
  the	
  preference	
  by	
  the	
  
politicians	
  for	
  the	
  more	
  expensive,	
  less	
  effective,	
  game	
  of	
  playing	
  with	
  fleet	
  standards	
  where	
  the	
  costs	
  are	
  
unseen.	
  I	
  do	
  have	
  to	
  admit	
  that	
  I’ve	
  been	
  most	
  puzzled,	
  even	
  from	
  a	
  political	
  point	
  of	
  view,	
  by	
  the	
  recent	
  moves	
  over	
  the	
  CAFE	
  standards.	
  
The	
  Federal	
  budget	
  is	
  crying	
  out	
  for	
  more	
  revenue	
  and	
  a	
  decent	
  sized,	
  say	
  $1	
  a	
  gallon,	
  gas	
  tax	
  would	
  raise	
  a	
  
reasonably	
  large	
  amount	
  even	
  when	
  compared	
  to	
  the	
  budget	
  deficit.	
  It	
  would	
  also	
  be	
  more	
  efficient	
  than	
  the	
  CAFE	
  
standards	
  in	
  increasing	
  the	
  mpg	
  of	
  the	
  US	
  car	
  fleet	
  


Economic	
  models	
  of	
  elasticity	
  fail	
  and	
  always	
  under-­‐represent	
  the	
  degree	
  to	
  which	
  gas	
  
tax	
  increases	
  would	
  influence	
  behavior	
  
Kilian	
  2009	
  
(Michigan	
  Economics	
  Dept,	
  Estimating	
  the	
  Effect	
  of	
  a	
  Gasoline	
  Tax	
  on	
  Carbon	
  Emissions	
  http://www-­‐
personal.umich.edu/~lkilian/gasoline27.pdf)	
  
It	
  is	
  worth	
  reemphasizing	
  that	
  these	
  estimates	
  capture	
  only	
  the	
  short-­‐run	
  response.	
  In	
  the	
  short-­‐run,	
  drivers	
  can	
  adjust	
  
discretionary	
  driving	
  patterns,	
  drive	
  slower,	
  for	
  example,	
  or	
  improve	
  fuel	
  efficiency	
  by	
  increasing	
  tire	
  
pressure.	
  The	
  long-­‐run	
  price	
  elasticity	
  is	
  likely	
  to	
  be	
  larger	
  as	
  agents	
  may	
  employ	
  additional	
  margins	
  of	
  
adjustment.	
  For	
  example,	
  one	
  would	
  expect	
  to	
  see	
  widespread	
  substitution	
  toward	
  more	
  fuel-­‐efficient	
  
vehicles,	
  some	
  of	
  which	
  may	
  not	
  even	
  be	
  available	
  when	
  the	
  tax	
  is	
  first	
  implemented.Likewise	
  households	
  may	
  choose	
  to	
  
relocate	
  closer	
  to	
  their	
  workplace	
  in	
  an	
  effort	
  to	
  cut	
  down	
  on	
  commuting	
  or	
  they	
  may	
  demand	
  
improved	
  public	
  transportation.	
  Predicting	
  such	
  long-­‐run	
  effects	
  is	
  beyond	
  the	
  scope	
  of	
  any	
  
econometric	
  model	
  based	
  on	
  historical	
  data.	
  

A	
  raise	
  in	
  gas	
  taxes	
  would	
  lower	
  oil	
  demand—empirical	
  data	
  proves.	
  
Muehlegger,	
  2012.	
  Erich	
  Muehlegger,	
  Harvey	
  Kennedy	
  School.	
  Gasoline	
  Taxes	
  and	
  Consumer	
  
behavior,	
  Harvard	
  Kennedy	
  School.	
  February	
  2012.	
  
Gasoline	
  taxes	
  can	
  be	
  employed	
  to	
  correct	
  externalities	
  associated	
  with	
  automobile	
  use,	
  to	
  reduce	
  
dependency	
  on	
  foreign	
  oil,	
  and	
  to	
  raise	
  government	
  revenue.	
  Our	
  understanding	
  of	
  the	
  optimal	
  
gasoline	
  tax	
  and	
  the	
  efficacy	
  of	
  existing	
  taxes	
  is	
  largely	
  based	
  on	
  empirical	
  analysis	
  of	
  consumer	
  
responses	
  to	
  gasoline	
  price	
  changes.	
  In	
  this	
  paper,	
  we	
  directly	
  examine	
  how	
  gasoline	
  taxes	
  affect	
  consumer	
  behavior	
  as	
  distinct	
  
from	
  tax-­‐exclusive	
  gasoline	
  prices.	
  
	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                      35	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                	
                                                                                    Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                     Ext.	
  Consumer	
  Habits	
  (2/2)	
  
Increasing	
  the	
  gas	
  tax	
  leads	
  to	
  greater	
  efficiency	
  –	
  Katrina	
  proves	
  
Krauthammer,	
  05.	
  Charles	
  Krauthammer,	
  an	
  American	
  Pulitzer	
  Prize–winning	
  syndicated	
  columnist,	
  
political	
  commentator,	
  and	
  physician.	
  Pump	
  Some	
  Seriousness	
  Into	
  Energy	
  Policy,	
  Washington	
  Post.	
  
2005	
  
It	
  makes	
  much	
  more	
  sense	
  to	
  reduce	
  consumption,	
  drive	
  the	
  world	
  price	
  down,	
  and	
  let	
  the	
  premium	
  we	
  force	
  ourselves	
  to	
  pay	
  at	
  the	
  pump	
  
(which	
  begins	
  the	
  conservation	
  cycle)	
  go	
  to	
  the	
  U.S.	
  Treasury:	
  If	
  the	
  price	
  drops	
  to	
  $2,	
  plow	
  that	
  $1	
  tax	
  right	
  back	
  into	
  
the	
  U.S.	
  economy	
  by	
  reducing	
  other	
  taxes.	
  The	
  beauty	
  of	
  a	
  higher	
  gas	
  tax	
  is	
  that	
  it	
  would	
  make	
  fuel-­‐
efficiency	
  standards	
  unnecessary.	
  Just	
  let	
  the	
  market	
  decide.	
  Consumers	
  are	
  not	
  stupid.	
  Within	
  weeks	
  
of	
  Hurricane	
  Katrina,	
  SUV	
  sales	
  were	
  already	
  in	
  decline	
  and	
  hybrids	
  were	
  flying	
  off	
  the	
  lots.	
  Supply	
  .	
  For	
  
decades	
  we've	
  been	
  dithering	
  over	
  drilling	
  in	
  a	
  tiny	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  Arctic	
  National	
  Wildlife	
  Refuge.	
  Look,	
  I	
  too	
  love	
  the	
  caribou.	
  They	
  are	
  sweet,	
  
picturesque	
  and	
  reputedly	
  harmless.	
  But	
  dire	
  predictions	
  about	
  the	
  devastation	
  that	
  Prudhoe	
  Bay	
  oil	
  development	
  would	
  visit	
  upon	
  the	
  caribou	
  
proved	
  false.	
  They	
  have	
  thrived.	
  


A	
  higher	
  Gas	
  Tax	
  would	
  reduce	
  our	
  dependence	
  on	
  foreign	
  oil	
  and	
  dampen	
  oil	
  shocks	
  
Samuelson,	
  2011.	
  (Robert	
  J.	
  Samuelson,	
  Economic	
  Columnist.	
  Egypt	
  and	
  the	
  Gas	
  Pump,	
  World	
  News.	
  
February	
  6,	
  2011)	
  
What	
  can	
  we	
  do?	
  Well,	
  two	
  things:	
  decrease	
  oil	
  consumption,	
  preferably	
  by	
  a	
  stiffer	
  gasoline	
  tax,	
  and	
  
increase	
  production,	
  preferably	
  by	
  less	
  hostile	
  regulation.	
  The	
  Obama	
  administration	
  isn’t	
  doing	
  either.	
  Instead,	
  it’s	
  
touting	
  a	
  goal	
  of	
  1	
  million	
  plug-­‐in	
  electric	
  hybrids	
  by	
  2015.	
  This	
  is	
  more	
  public	
  relations	
  than	
  policy.	
  The	
  goal	
  is	
  probably	
  unrealistic;	
  first-­‐year	
  
sales	
  of	
  the	
  Chevy	
  Volt	
  may	
  reach	
  25,000.	
  Even	
  if	
  the	
  1	
  million	
  were	
  attained,	
  the	
  oil	
  savings	
  would	
  be	
  tiny—perhaps	
  40,000	
  barrels	
  a	
  day,	
  
about	
  two	
  tenths	
  of	
  1	
  percent	
  of	
  U.S.	
  consumption	
  of	
  19	
  million	
  barrels	
  a	
  day.	
  There	
  are	
  already	
  240	
  million	
  cars	
  and	
  light	
  trucks	
  using	
  gasoline.	
  
A	
  higher	
  gasoline	
  tax—gradually	
  introduced	
  to	
  avoid	
  wrecking	
  the	
  economic	
  recovery—would	
  
dampen	
  wild	
  swings	
  in	
  fuel	
  prices	
  and	
  push	
  consumers	
  to	
  buy	
  the	
  more	
  fuel-­‐efficient	
  vehicles	
  that	
  the	
  
government	
  is	
  ordering	
  auto	
  companies	
  to	
  make.	
  Americans	
  have	
  traditionally	
  preferred	
  bigger	
  
vehicles	
  and,	
  without	
  the	
  prod,	
  might	
  cling	
  to	
  old	
  habits.	
  There	
  is	
  a	
  convergence	
  here	
  between	
  energy	
  
and	
  budget	
  policy.	
  An	
  energy	
  tax	
  would	
  help	
  both.	
  It	
  would	
  improve	
  oil	
  security	
  and,	
  with	
  spending	
  
cuts,	
  curb	
  budget	
  deficits.	
  Neither	
  the	
  Obama	
  administration	
  nor	
  congressional	
  Republicans	
  seem	
  willing	
  to	
  grasp	
  the	
  possibilities.	
  
Oil	
  isn’t	
  going	
  quietly	
  into	
  the	
  night.	
  We	
  need	
  to	
  contain	
  our	
  addiction,	
  even	
  if	
  we	
  can’t	
  end	
  it.	
  A	
  recent	
  
ExxonMobil	
  study	
  projects	
  that	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  light-­‐duty	
  vehicles	
  worldwide	
  will	
  grow	
  50	
  percent	
  to	
  1.2	
  billion	
  by	
  2030,	
  with	
  two	
  fifths	
  of	
  the	
  
increase	
  in	
  China.	
  Most	
  will	
  use	
  gasoline.	
  Competition	
  for	
  global	
  oil	
  supplies	
  will	
  intensify.	
  We	
  cannot	
  escape	
  that	
  reality,	
  even	
  if	
  we	
  ignore	
  it.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          36	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                                                       	
                                                                                                                 Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                                               A2:	
  Regressive	
  (1/)	
  
Increased	
  gas	
  taxes	
  are	
  not	
  as	
  regressive	
  as	
  the	
  alternatives	
  and	
  actually	
  benefit	
  the	
  
poor	
  in	
  many	
  ways	
  
Wachs	
  2003	
  (Martin,	
  “A	
  dozen	
  reasons	
  for	
  raising	
  gas	
  taxes”,	
  Research	
  Reports,	
  Institute	
  of	
  Transportation	
  Studies	
  (UCB),	
  UC	
  
Berkeley,	
  http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2000f8t0#page-­‐4)	
  
People	
  almost	
  instinctively	
  ask	
  whether	
  higher	
  fuel	
  taxes	
  wouldn’t	
  harm	
  the	
  poor.	
  Upon	
  close	
  reflection,	
  this	
  concern	
  would	
  appear	
  to	
  be	
  
exaggerated	
  and,	
  depending	
  upon	
  specific	
  circumstances,	
  higher	
  fuel	
  taxes	
  might	
  even	
  benefit	
  lower	
  income	
  
communities.	
  This	
  is	
  so,	
  in	
  part,	
  because	
  the	
  fairness	
  of	
  a	
  tax	
  is	
  a	
  complex	
  matter.	
  Regressivity	
  is	
  one	
  aspect	
  of	
  the	
  fairness	
  of	
  a	
  tax.	
  Regressivity	
  is	
  usually	
  measured	
  by	
  the	
  extent	
  to	
  
which	
  the	
  proportion	
  of	
  a	
  population’s	
  income	
  is	
  taken	
  by	
  the	
  tax	
  as	
  income	
  rises.	
  When	
  the	
  poor	
  have	
  a	
  larger	
  fraction	
  of	
  their	
  income	
  taken	
  by	
  a	
  tax	
  than	
  do	
  higher	
  income	
  groups,	
  the	
  tax	
  is	
  
said	
  to	
  be	
  regressive;	
  a	
  progressive	
  tax	
  is	
  one	
  that	
  takes	
  a	
  greater	
  fraction	
  of	
  income	
  from	
  richer	
  people.	
  Fuel	
  taxes	
  and	
  sales	
  taxes	
  are	
  both	
  moderately	
  regressive.	
  Regressivity	
  is	
  by	
  itself	
  an	
  
inadequate	
  test	
  of	
  fairness.	
  The	
  income	
  tax	
  provides	
  a	
  perfect	
  example	
  of	
  this.	
  Income	
  taxes	
  are	
  in	
  principle	
  very	
  progressive	
  because	
  richer	
  people	
  occupy	
  higher	
  tax	
  brackets	
  and	
  pay	
  higher	
  
income	
  tax	
  rates	
  than	
  poorer	
  people.	
  On	
  the	
  other	
  hand,	
  polls	
  have	
  shown	
  that	
  a	
  majority	
  of	
  Americans	
  think	
  the	
  income	
  tax	
  is	
  unfair	
  because	
  the	
  rich	
  benefit	
  from	
  tax	
  deductions	
  that	
  are	
  not	
  
available	
  to	
  the	
  poor.	
  While	
  a	
  flat	
  income	
  tax	
  would	
  be	
  less	
  progressive,	
  many	
  people	
  consider	
  it	
  to	
  be	
  fairer	
  than	
  our	
  graduated	
  income	
  tax.	
  An	
  analogous	
  situation	
  exists	
  with	
  respect	
  to	
  the	
  

          Rich	
  people	
  and	
  truckers	
  drive	
  more	
  than	
  poor	
  people,	
  and	
  thus	
  pay	
  a	
  larger	
  share	
  of	
  fuel	
  tax	
  
fuel	
  tax.	
  

collections.	
  Nevertheless,	
  the	
  fuel	
  tax	
  is	
  fairly	
  regressive	
  because	
  the	
  poor	
  do	
  pay	
  a	
  higher	
  proportion	
  of	
  their	
  income	
  in	
  fuel	
  tax	
  than	
  the	
  
rich.	
  On	
  the	
  other	
  hand,	
  there	
  are	
  at	
  least	
  three	
  ways	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  fuel	
  tax	
  appears	
  to	
  be	
  fairer	
  than	
  
alternative	
  ways	
  of	
  funding	
  transportation.	
  First,	
  only	
  those	
  poor	
  people	
  who	
  drive	
  actually	
  pay	
  the	
  fuel	
  
tax,	
  so	
  only	
  the	
  poor	
  who	
  benefit	
  from	
  the	
  road	
  system	
  pay	
  the	
  tax,	
  while	
  those	
  whose	
  poverty	
  
precludes	
  them	
  from	
  driving	
  are	
  not	
  charged.	
  Second,	
  the	
  users	
  of	
  public	
  transit	
  as	
  a	
  group	
  have	
  much	
  lower	
  incomes	
  than	
  
highway	
  users;	
  to	
  the	
  extent	
  that	
  fuel	
  taxes	
  are	
  “diverted”	
  to	
  transit	
  expenditures,	
  lower	
  income	
  people	
  
are	
  the	
  primary	
  beneficiaries.	
  Third	
  in	
  most	
  jurisdictions	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  fuel	
  tax	
  is	
  kept	
  low,	
  the	
  most	
  
rapidly	
  rising	
  alternative	
  source	
  of	
  transportation	
  finance	
  is	
  sales	
  taxes,	
  which,	
  according	
  to	
  most	
  measures,	
  are	
  
roughly	
  as	
  regressive	
  as	
  gasoline	
  taxes.	
  But,	
  sales	
  taxes	
  are	
  paid	
  by	
  people	
  whether	
  or	
  not	
  they	
  use	
  
highways,	
  and	
  are	
  less	
  fair	
  because	
  they	
  charge	
  the	
  non-­‐driving	
  poor	
  as	
  much	
  for	
  highways	
  as	
  they	
  charge	
  the	
  poor	
  
who	
  do	
  drive.	
  Fourth,	
  it	
  is	
  reasonable	
  to	
  expect	
  that	
  jurisdictions	
  that	
  increase	
  fuel	
  taxes	
  earmarked	
  for	
  transportation	
  are	
  less	
  likely	
  to	
  raise	
  
general	
  sales	
  taxes	
  specifically	
  to	
  use	
  their	
  proceeds	
  for	
  transportation	
  improvements.	
  Since	
  most	
  jurisdictions	
  have	
  some	
  practical	
  upper	
  
bound	
  on	
  their	
  sales	
  taxing	
  capacity,	
  greater	
  reliance	
  on	
  fuel	
  taxes	
  for	
  transportation	
  allows	
  governments	
  to	
  
devote	
  their	
  general	
  sales	
  taxing	
  capacity	
  to	
  the	
  support	
  of	
  non-­‐transportation	
  programs	
  that	
  could	
  
benefit	
  everyone	
  including	
  the	
  non-­‐driving	
  poor	
  —	
  such	
  as	
  education,	
  police	
  services,	
  and	
  health	
  care.	
  
In	
  many	
  circumstances,	
  therefore,	
  reliance	
  on	
  earmarked	
  transportation	
  fuel	
  taxes	
  would	
  benefit	
  the	
  poor	
  by	
  providing	
  them	
  with	
  both	
  lower	
  
general	
  sales	
  taxes	
  and	
  a	
  higher	
  level	
  of	
  non-­‐transportation	
  services	
  that	
  rely	
  for	
  funding	
  upon	
  general	
  sales	
  taxes.	
  


The	
  best	
  economic	
  studies	
  destroy	
  the	
  notion	
  that	
  gas	
  taxes	
  are	
  regressive—
proportionately,	
  the	
  poor	
  are	
  hurt	
  the	
  least	
  by	
  gas	
  taxes	
  
Poterba	
  1991	
  (MIT	
  Economist,	
  Is	
  the	
  Gasoline	
  Tax	
  Regressive?	
  Tax	
  Policy	
  and	
  the	
  Economy,	
  Volume	
  5,	
  ed.	
  David	
  Bradford,	
  
http://www.nber.org/chapters/c11271.pdf)	
  
This	
  paper	
  argues	
  that	
  annual	
  expenditure	
  provides	
  a	
  more	
  reliable	
  indicator	
  of	
  household	
  well-­‐being	
  than	
  annual	
  income.	
  Whether	
  a	
  given	
  tax	
  
is	
  regressive	
  should	
  therefore	
  be	
  analyzed	
  by	
  testing	
  whether	
  it	
  places	
  higher	
  burden	
  on	
  low-­‐expenditure	
  households	
  than	
  on	
  their	
  high-­‐
expenditure	
  counterparts.	
  My	
  empirical	
  analysis	
  uses	
  data	
  from	
  the	
  Consumer	
  Expenditure	
  Survey	
  to	
  compute	
  the	
  
share	
  of	
  total	
  expenditures	
  that	
  high-­‐spending	
  and	
  low-­‐spending	
  households	
  devote	
  to	
  retail	
  gasoline	
  purchases.	
  This	
  alternative	
  
approach	
  to	
  measuring	
  the	
  distributional	
  burden	
  of	
  gasoline	
  taxes	
  yields	
  results	
  that	
  are	
  strikingly	
  
different	
  from	
  those	
  using	
  the	
  traditional	
  approach	
  based	
  on	
  annual	
  income.	
  Low-­‐expenditure	
  
households	
  devote	
  a	
  smaller	
  share	
  of	
  their	
  budget	
  to	
  gasoline	
  than	
  do	
  their	
  counterparts	
  in	
  the	
  middle	
  of	
  
the	
  expenditure	
  distribution.	
  Although	
  households	
  in	
  the	
  top	
  5%	
  of	
  the	
  total	
  spending	
  distribution	
  spend	
  significantly	
  less	
  o n	
  gasoline	
  (as	
  a	
  
share	
  of	
  expenditures)	
  than	
  those	
  who	
  are	
  less	
  well	
  off,	
  gasoline's	
  expenditure	
  share	
  is	
  much	
  more	
  stable	
  across	
  the	
  
population	
  than	
  the	
  ratio	
  of	
  gasoline	
  outlays	
  to	
  current	
  income.	
  The	
  reduced	
  estimate	
  of	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  
regressivity	
  is	
  not	
  an	
  inherent	
  feature	
  of	
  using	
  expenditures	
  rather	
  than	
  income	
  as	
  a	
  basis	
  for	
  assessing	
  incidence.	
  Some	
  other	
  
energy	
  expenditures,	
  such	
  as	
  electricity,	
  exhibit	
  different	
  cross-­‐sectional	
  patterns	
  with	
  much	
  higher	
  expenditure	
  shares	
  for	
  low-­‐	
  rather	
  than	
  
high-­‐income	
  households.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                            37	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                            	
                                                                              Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                              AT:	
  Regressive	
  (2/)	
  
The	
  poor	
  actually	
  spend	
  less	
  on	
  gasoline	
  proportionate	
  to	
  other	
  classes—the	
  best	
  
economic	
  studies	
  prove	
  
Poterba	
  1991	
  (MIT	
  Economist,	
  Is	
  the	
  Gasoline	
  Tax	
  Regressive?	
  Tax	
  Policy	
  and	
  the	
  Economy,	
  Volume	
  5,	
  
ed.	
  David	
  Bradford,	
  http://www.nber.org/chapters/c11271.pdf)	
  
Claims	
  of	
  the	
  regressivity	
  of	
  gasoline	
  taxes	
  typically	
  rely	
  on	
  annual	
  surveys	
  of	
  consumer	
  income	
  and	
  expenditures,	
  which	
  show	
  that	
  gasoline	
  
expenditures	
  are	
  a	
  larger	
  fraction	
  of	
  income	
  for	
  very	
  low-­‐income	
  households	
  than	
  for	
  middle-­‐	
  or	
  high-­‐income	
  households.	
  This	
  paper	
  argues	
  
that	
  annual	
  expenditure	
  provides	
  a	
  more	
  reliable	
  indicator	
  of	
  household	
  well-­‐being	
  than	
  annual	
  income.	
  It	
  uses	
  data	
  from	
  the	
  Consumer	
  
Expenditure	
  Survey	
  to	
  reassess	
  the	
  claim	
  that	
  gasoline	
  taxes	
  are	
  regressive	
  by	
  computing	
  the	
  share	
  of	
  total	
  expenditures	
  that	
  high-­‐spending	
  
and	
  lowspending	
  households	
  devote	
  to	
  retail	
  gasoline	
  purchases.	
  This	
  alternative	
  approach	
  shows	
  that	
  low-­‐expenditure	
  households	
  
devote	
  a	
  smaller	
  share	
  of	
  their	
  budget	
  to	
  gasoline	
  than	
  do	
  their	
  counterparts	
  in	
  the	
  middle	
  of	
  the	
  
expenditure	
  distribution.	
  Although	
  households	
  in	
  the	
  top	
  5%	
  of	
  the	
  total	
  spending	
  distribution	
  spend	
  less	
  on	
  gasoline	
  than	
  those	
  who	
  
are	
  less	
  well	
  off,	
  the	
  share	
  of	
  expenditure	
  devoted	
  to	
  gasoline	
  is	
  much	
  more	
  stable	
  across	
  the	
  population	
  
than	
  the	
  ratio	
  of	
  gasoline	
  outlays	
  to	
  current	
  income.	
  The	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  thus	
  appears	
  far	
  less	
  regressive	
  
than	
  conventional	
  analyses	
  suggest.	
  

No	
  link—lifetime	
  analysis	
  finds	
  that	
  gas	
  taxes	
  compassionately	
  serve	
  low-­‐income	
  
households	
  
Aldy,	
  12	
  [Joseph	
  E.	
  Aldy,	
  Assistant	
  Professor	
  of	
  Public	
  Policy,	
  Harvard	
  Kennedy	
  School,	
  Cambridge,	
  
USA,	
  March	
  1,	
  2012,	
  “A	
  Tax-­‐Based	
  Approach	
  to	
  Slowing	
  Global	
  Climate	
  Change”	
  
(http://taxblog.com/jealdy/tax-­‐based-­‐approach-­‐slowing-­‐global-­‐climate-­‐change/)]	
  
Low-­‐income	
  households	
  are	
  more	
  vulnerable	
  to	
  increases	
  in	
  the	
  price	
  of	
  energy-­‐intensive	
  goods,	
  such	
  as	
  electricity,	
  home	
  heating	
  fuels,	
  and	
  
gasoline,	
  because	
  they	
  spend	
  a	
  larger	
  share	
  of	
  their	
  budget	
  on	
  these	
  items	
  compared	
  with	
  wealthier	
  households.	
  The	
  regressivity	
  of	
  CO2	
  
taxes—reflected	
  by	
  the	
  greater	
  burden-­‐to-­‐income	
  ratio	
  for	
  lower-­‐income	
  groups	
  than	
  for	
  higher-­‐	
  income	
  groups—varies	
  by	
  the	
  time	
  frame	
  of	
  
measurement.	
  Generally,	
  analysts	
  prefer	
  using	
  a	
  measure	
  of	
  lifetime	
  income	
  in	
  incidence	
  analysis,	
  as	
  this	
  
better	
  reflects	
  households’	
  long-­‐run	
  consumption	
  possibilities,	
  though	
  measuring	
  lifetime	
  income	
  presents	
  difficult	
  
technical	
  and	
  data	
  challenges.	
  Studies	
  that	
  use	
  a	
  measure	
  of	
  lifetime,	
  as	
  opposed	
  to	
  annual,	
  income	
  find	
  that	
  
CO2	
  taxes	
  are	
  less	
  regressive	
  than	
  static	
  analyses	
  suggest	
  (see	
  Parry	
  et	
  al.	
  2006	
  for	
  a	
  review).	
  Traditional	
  cap-­‐and-­‐trade	
  
systems	
  with	
  free	
  allowance	
  allocation	
  provide	
  no	
  mechanism	
  for	
  addressing	
  concerns	
  about	
  the	
  disproportionate	
  burden	
  of	
  higher	
  energy	
  
prices	
  on	
  lower-­‐	
  income	
  households.	
  In	
  fact,	
  they	
  make	
  the	
  problem	
  worse	
  by	
  widening	
  the	
  disparity	
  in	
  burden-­‐	
  to-­‐income	
  ratios	
  among	
  lower-­‐	
  
and	
  higher-­‐income	
  households.	
  The	
  distribution	
  of	
  free	
  allowances	
  with	
  market	
  value	
  raises	
  firm	
  profits	
  and	
  equity	
  values;	
  this	
  ultimately	
  
benefits	
  shareholders,	
  who	
  tend	
  to	
  be	
  concentrated	
  in	
  upper-­‐income	
  groups.	
  In	
  fact,	
  Dinan	
  and	
  Rogers	
  (2002)	
  find	
  that	
  a	
  cap-­‐and-­‐trade	
  system	
  
with	
  free	
  allocation	
  mitigating	
  CO2	
  emissions	
  by	
  15	
  percent	
  overcompensates	
  the	
  wealthiest	
  households,	
  as	
  their	
  additional	
  capital	
  income	
  
substantially	
  exceeds	
  the	
  burden	
  on	
  them	
  from	
  higher	
  energy	
  prices.	
  In	
  contrast,	
  under	
  a	
  CO2	
  tax	
  or	
  auctioned	
  allowance	
  system,	
  
policymakers	
  can	
  address	
  fairness	
  concerns,	
  at	
  least	
  in	
  part,	
  by	
  recycling	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  revenue	
  in	
  ways	
  that	
  
disproportionately	
  benefit	
  low-­‐income	
  households,	
  such	
  as	
  reductions	
  in	
  payroll	
  taxes,	
  or	
  increases	
  in	
  
income	
  tax	
  thresholds.	
  For	
  example,	
  Metcalf	
  (2007)	
  outlines	
  a	
  scheme	
  for	
  a	
  $15	
  per	
  ton	
  tax	
  on	
  CO2	
  emissions	
  ($55	
  per	
  ton	
  of	
  
carbon)	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States,	
  with	
  revenues	
  funding	
  payroll	
  tax	
  rebates	
  in	
  a	
  manner	
  that	
  imposes	
  the	
  same	
  
approximate	
  burden-­‐to-­‐income	
  ratio	
  across	
  income	
  deciles.	
  Some	
  elderly	
  or	
  other	
  nonworking	
  households,	
  however,	
  
do	
  not	
  benefit	
  from	
  payroll	
  tax	
  reductions	
  and	
  may	
  require	
  compensation	
  through	
  other	
  means,	
  such	
  as	
  targeted	
  energy	
  assistance	
  programs.	
  
Recycling	
  CO2	
  tax	
  revenues	
  in	
  ways	
  that	
  disproportionately	
  help	
  lower-­‐income	
  households	
  may	
  involve	
  some	
  
sacrifice	
  of	
  economic	
  efficiency	
  compared	
  with	
  across-­‐the-­‐board	
  reductions	
  in	
  distortionary	
  taxes,	
  although	
  the	
  potential	
  empirical	
  
magnitude	
  of	
  these	
  losses	
  has	
  not	
  received	
  attention	
  in	
  the	
  literature.	
  
	
  
	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                              38	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                     	
                                                                                       Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                   Russia	
  Add-­‐On	
  (1/2)	
  
Gas	
  tax	
  checks	
  Russian	
  adventurism.	
  
Charles	
  Krauthammer,	
  a	
  Pulitzer	
  Prize-­‐winning	
  syndicated	
  columnist	
  and	
  
commentator,	
  political	
  science	
  and	
  economics,	
  Oxford	
  University	
  and	
  Harvard	
  (M.D.),	
  
The	
  Weekly	
  Standard,	
  “The	
  Net-­‐Zero	
  Gas	
  Tax;	
  A	
  once-­‐in-­‐a-­‐generation	
  chance”	
  
1/12/09	
  lexis	
  
Then	
  there	
  are	
  the	
  so-­‐called	
  externalities:	
  national	
  security,	
  balance	
  of	
  payments,	
  and	
  the	
  environment.	
  The	
  most	
  important	
  of	
  these	
  is	
  national	
  
security.	
  In	
  July,	
  when	
  gasoline	
  was	
  at	
  $4,	
  a	
  full	
  $3	
  was	
  going	
  to	
  the	
  oil	
  producer.	
  (On	
  average	
  thus	
  far	
  this	
  year,	
  70	
  percent	
  of	
  pump	
  prices	
  went	
  
to	
  pay	
  for	
  the	
  crude.)	
  And	
  God	
  in	
  his	
  infinite	
  wisdom	
  has	
  put	
  oil	
  in	
  many	
  unfortunate	
  places.	
  The	
  American	
  people	
  understand	
  that	
  these	
  dollars	
  
were	
  going	
  out	
  of	
  the	
  U.S.	
  economy	
  and	
  into	
  the	
  treasuries	
  of	
  Hugo	
  Chávez,	
  Vladimir	
  Putin,	
  the	
  Iranian	
  mullahs	
  (indirectly,	
  since	
  the	
  oil	
  is	
  
fungible),	
  and	
  various	
  other	
  miscreants.	
  The	
  point	
  of	
  a	
  high	
  U.S.	
  gas	
  tax	
  is	
  to	
  suppress	
  domestic	
  demand	
  and	
  thus	
  suppress	
  the	
  
world	
  price.	
  Low	
  world	
  prices	
  are	
  a	
  huge	
  blow	
  to	
  overseas	
  producers,	
  particularly	
  ones	
  with	
  relatively	
  large	
  populations,	
  
nationalized	
  industries	
  that	
  are	
  increasingly	
  inefficient,	
  and	
  budgetary	
  obligations	
  built	
  on	
  the	
  expectation	
  of	
  a	
  continuing	
  energy	
  bonanza.	
  
Countries	
  such	
  as	
  Russia,	
  Venezuela,	
  and	
  Iran.	
  A	
  UBS	
  analysis	
  estimates	
  that	
  Iran	
  and	
  Venezuela	
  need	
  $90	
  oil	
  to	
  balance	
  their	
  budgets.	
  And	
  at	
  
$70,	
  according	
  to	
  Russian	
  finance	
  minister	
  Alexei	
  Kudrin,	
  Russia	
  goes	
  into	
  deficit.	
  It	
  is	
  now	
  draining	
  the	
  reserves	
  built	
  up	
  during	
  the	
  fat	
  years.	
  At	
  
current	
  oil	
  prices,	
  Russia	
  will	
  soon	
  become	
  a	
  debtor	
  nation.	
  The	
  World	
  Bank's	
  lead	
  economist	
  for	
  Russia,	
  Zeljko	
  Bogetic,	
  said	
  on	
  December	
  19	
  
that	
  at	
  $30	
  a	
  barrel,	
  "financing	
  constraint	
  would	
  become	
  so	
  sharp	
  that	
  it's	
  possible	
  even	
  to	
  envisage	
  Russia's	
  return	
  from	
  a	
  creditor	
  to	
  
international	
  organizations	
  to	
  [that	
  of]	
  a	
  borrower."	
  This	
  will	
  be	
  a	
  far	
  humbler	
  Russia	
  than	
  the	
  one	
  that	
  invaded	
  
Georgia,	
  built	
  a	
  nuclear	
  reactor	
  in	
  Iran,	
  threatens	
  Poland	
  and	
  the	
  Czech	
  Republic,	
  and	
  is	
  reestablishing	
  
naval	
  bases	
  in	
  such	
  former	
  Soviet	
  satellites	
  as	
  Syria.	
  The	
  Russian	
  navy	
  just	
  made	
  calls	
  in	
  Nicaragua	
  and	
  Cuba.	
  It	
  has	
  
conducted	
  joint	
  exercises	
  with	
  Venezuela	
  in	
  an	
  open	
  challenge	
  to	
  America.	
  These	
  are,	
  as	
  yet,	
  not	
  serious	
  threats.	
  But	
  with	
  a	
  
stronger	
  Russia	
  and	
  Venezuela,	
  they	
  could	
  be.	
  The	
  projection	
  of	
  power	
  is	
  very	
  expensive,	
  as	
  Americans	
  very	
  well	
  know.	
  Oil	
  at	
  $39	
  would	
  
simply	
  starve	
  Russia	
  and	
  Venezuela	
  of	
  the	
  means	
  to	
  sustain	
  this	
  adventurism.	
  Similarly	
  Iran,	
  which	
  is	
  already	
  under	
  
sanctions,	
  already	
  suffering	
  high	
  inflation,	
  already	
  the	
  subject	
  of	
  popular	
  discontent	
  over	
  corruption	
  and	
  economic	
  mismanagement.	
  All	
  this	
  
was	
  cushioned	
  by	
  high	
  oil	
  prices.	
  They	
  allowed	
  the	
  Islamic	
  republic	
  to	
  act	
  like	
  the	
  regional	
  superpower,	
  giving	
  military	
  and	
  financial	
  support	
  to	
  
Hezbollah	
  in	
  Lebanon,	
  Hamas	
  in	
  Gaza,	
  "special	
  groups"	
  and	
  Sadrist	
  militias	
  in	
  Iraq,	
  and	
  various	
  other	
  terrorists.	
  And,	
  of	
  course,	
  oil	
  revenues	
  
permit	
  the	
  continued	
  large-­‐scale	
  operation	
  of	
  Iran's	
  nuclear	
  weapons	
  development	
  program.	
  


Imperialism	
  from	
  falling	
  energy-­‐prices	
  causes	
  NATO	
  to	
  bring	
  in	
  Ukraine.	
  
Alexander	
  J.	
  Motyl,	
  Professor	
  of	
  Political	
  Science	
  at	
  Rutgers	
  University,	
  Columbia	
  
University	
  Press,	
  “Imperial	
  Ends:	
  The	
  Decay,	
  Collapse,	
  and	
  Revival	
  of	
  Empires”	
  July	
  
2001	
  
More	
  important,	
  so	
  brittle	
  an	
  imperial	
  entity	
  will	
  be	
  especially	
  susceptible	
  to	
  all	
  manner	
  of	
  shocks,	
  even	
  relatively	
  
minor	
  ones.	
  Although	
  it	
  is	
  impossible	
  to	
  predict	
  when	
  such	
  stress	
  surges	
  will	
  strike,	
  we	
  can	
  imagine	
  that	
  they	
  will	
  involve	
  drastic	
  reductions	
  in	
  
easy	
  money,	
  perhaps	
  as	
  a	
  result	
  of	
  falling	
  energy	
  prices,	
  and/or	
  in	
  the	
  continued,	
  or	
  growing,	
  refusal	
  of	
  the	
  Russian	
  Federa-­‐	
  
tion’s	
  regions	
  and	
  republics	
  to	
  pay	
  taxes	
  to	
  a	
  core	
  that	
  may	
  not	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  compel	
  them	
  to	
  do	
  so	
  anyway.	
  Either	
  way,	
  such	
  an	
  empire	
  would	
  not	
  
survive.	
  Indeed,	
  it	
  is	
  not	
  inconceivable	
  that	
  an	
  imperial	
  state	
  so	
  brittle	
  yet	
  so	
  over-­‐	
  extended	
  could	
  even	
  disintegrate.	
  4	
  Only	
  if	
  partial	
  
reimperialization	
  were	
  to	
  creep	
  into	
  place	
  during	
  the	
  next	
  two	
  to	
  three	
  decades,	
  thereby	
  enabling	
  Russia	
  to	
  grow	
  stronger	
  relative	
  to	
  the	
  non-­‐
Russians,	
  could	
  it	
  avoid	
  advanced	
  decay,	
  brittleness,	
  and	
  well-­‐nigh	
  inevitable	
  collapse.	
  Although	
  the	
  Russian	
  state’s	
  collapse	
  may	
  be	
  good	
  news	
  
for	
  non-­‐Russian	
  nationalists,	
  the	
  disintegration	
  of	
  a	
  decaying	
  empire	
  and	
  huge	
  state	
  is	
  un-­‐	
  likely	
  to	
  be	
  entirely	
  peaceful.	
  One	
  need	
  not	
  be	
  a	
  
pessimist	
  to	
  suspect	
  that	
  the	
  stability	
  and	
  security	
  of	
  Russia,	
  its	
  neighbors,	
  and	
  Western	
  Europe	
  can	
  only	
  deteriorate.	
  5	
  Is	
  there	
  no	
  alternative	
  to	
  
this	
  gloomy	
  forecast?	
  Several,	
  even	
  gloomier,	
  possibilities	
  exist.	
  If	
  the	
  Czech	
  Republic,	
  Hungary,	
  and	
  especially	
  Poland	
  fail	
  to	
  join	
  the	
  European	
  
Union	
  before,	
  say,	
  2005,	
  the	
  total	
  overlap	
  of	
  political	
  and	
  economic	
  institutions	
  I	
  referred	
  to	
  earlier	
  may	
  be	
  delayed	
  for	
  some	
  years.	
  6	
  If	
  the	
  
European	
  Monetary	
  Union	
  produces	
  social	
  distress,	
  economic	
  dislocations,	
  and	
  political	
  infighting,	
  Euroland	
  could	
  turn	
  into	
  an	
  awkward	
  
amalgam	
  of	
  squabbling	
  states.	
  7	
  And	
  if,	
  in	
  ad-­‐	
  dition	
  to	
  Bosnia	
  and	
  Kosovo,	
  NATO	
  experiences	
  a	
  few	
  more	
  blows	
  to	
  its	
  self-­‐esteem,	
  it	
  too	
  might	
  
lose	
  its	
  élan.	
  8	
  If	
  any	
  or	
  all	
  of	
  these	
  eventualities	
  come	
  to	
  pass—and	
  the	
  odds	
  may	
  not	
  be	
  quite	
  as	
  long	
  as	
  they	
  seem—	
  Euroland’s	
  expansion	
  
would	
  be	
  far	
  less	
  significant	
  institutionally	
  than	
  I	
  have	
  suggested.	
  Alternatively,	
  if	
  Russia	
  becomes	
  outwardly	
  imperialist,	
  
NATO	
  is	
  likely	
  to	
  respond	
  by	
  bringing	
  the	
  Baltic	
  states	
  and	
  even	
  Ukraine	
  into	
  its	
  fold.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                              39	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                     	
                                                                                       Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                   Russia	
  Add-­‐On	
  (2/2)	
  
Nuclear	
  war.	
  
George	
  Friedman,	
  Ph.D.,	
  internationally	
  recognized	
  expert	
  in	
  security	
  and	
  intelligence	
  
issues	
  relating	
  to	
  national	
  security,	
  and	
  founder,	
  chairman	
  and	
  Chief	
  Intelligence	
  
Officer	
  of	
  STRATFOR,	
  "Finding	
  Russia's	
  Limit"	
  December	
  3,	
  2004	
  
If	
  Ukraine	
  were	
  part	
  of	
  NATO,	
  Russia	
  would	
  become	
  indefensible.	
  This	
  does	
  not	
  mean	
  NATO	
  would	
  have	
  the	
  
intention	
  of	
  invading	
  Russia.	
  It	
  would	
  mean	
  that	
  if	
  NATO's	
  intentions	
  were	
  to	
  change	
  -­‐-­‐	
  and	
  nations	
  must	
  always	
  assume	
  the	
  worst	
  about	
  the	
  
intentions	
  of	
  others	
  -­‐-­‐	
  Russia	
  would	
  find	
  itself	
  fighting	
  along	
  nearly	
  the	
  lines	
  of	
  Adolf	
  Hitler's	
  deepest	
  penetration	
  into	
  
the	
  country	
  in	
  World	
  War	
  II.	
  And	
  they	
  would	
  find	
  themselves	
  fighting	
  on	
  those	
  lines	
  on	
  the	
  first	
  day	
  of	
  the	
  war.	
  They	
  would	
  lose	
  the	
  
ability	
  to	
  defend	
  themselves	
  conventionally.	
  Looking	
  at	
  the	
  map	
  more	
  closely,	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  solid	
  NATO	
  salient	
  in	
  the	
  west,	
  
growing	
  U.S.	
  influence	
  and	
  presence	
  in	
  the	
  Caucasus	
  and	
  a	
  growing	
  U.S.	
  economic	
  presence	
  in	
  Kazakhstan	
  and	
  the	
  Muslim	
  republics	
  in	
  the	
  
south.	
  U.S.	
  troops	
  already	
  are	
  in	
  Uzbekistan	
  and	
  Kyrgyzstan.	
  Southern	
  Russia	
  to	
  the	
  Caucasus	
  would	
  be	
  accessible	
  to	
  Moscow	
  only	
  through	
  the	
  
300	
  mile-­‐wide	
  Volgograd	
  corridor.	
  The	
  ability	
  of	
  the	
  Russians	
  to	
  project	
  credible	
  power	
  into	
  the	
  Caucasus	
  dramatically	
  would	
  decline.	
  The	
  Black	
  
Sea	
  would	
  be	
  virtually	
  surrounded	
  by	
  U.S.	
  allies	
  and	
  become	
  an	
  American	
  lake.	
  There	
  would	
  be	
  U.S.	
  naval	
  bases	
  in	
  Odessa	
  and	
  the	
  Crimea.	
  
Russian	
  ability	
  to	
  influence	
  events	
  in	
  the	
  Caucasus	
  would	
  evaporate.	
  Under	
  these	
  circumstances,	
  the	
  ability	
  of	
  Russia	
  to	
  resist	
  centrifugal	
  forces	
  
inside	
  the	
  federation	
  would	
  simply	
  disintegrate.	
  It	
  would	
  not	
  be	
  a	
  matter	
  of	
  Chechnya	
  alone.	
  Secessionist	
  movements	
  in	
  the	
  Russian	
  Pacific	
  
Maritime	
  Provinces,	
  Karelia	
  and	
  in	
  other	
  regions	
  would	
  surge.	
  Resistance	
  could	
  prove	
  particularly	
  robust	
  in	
  Russia's	
  titular	
  republics	
  such	
  as	
  
Tatarstan	
  and	
  Bashkortostan,	
  which	
  incidentally	
  not	
  only	
  provide	
  a	
  sizable	
  portion	
  of	
  Russia's	
  oil	
  output,	
  but	
  also	
  sit	
  astride	
  the	
  only	
  
infrastructure	
  that	
  pumps	
  Siberian	
  oil	
  to	
  the	
  rest	
  of	
  Russia	
  and	
  the	
  rest	
  of	
  the	
  world.	
  Moscow	
  -­‐-­‐	
  and	
  President	
  Vladimir	
  Putin	
  -­‐-­‐	
  would	
  find	
  itself	
  
presiding	
  over	
  the	
  second	
  wave	
  of	
  disintegration.	
  Serious	
  force	
  projection	
  even	
  inside	
  Russia	
  would	
  become	
  difficult,	
  
leaving	
  Russia	
  with	
  a	
  nuclear	
  option	
  and	
  not	
  much	
  else.	
  If	
  Ukraine	
  were	
  to	
  move	
  decisively	
  to	
  the	
  west	
  and	
  join	
  NATO,	
  we	
  do	
  not	
  
think	
  it	
  too	
  extreme	
  to	
  raise	
  the	
  question	
  of	
  whether	
  the	
  Russian	
  Federation	
  could	
  survive.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                              40	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                     	
                                                                                       Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                             Terrorism	
  Add-­‐On	
  (1/2)	
  
Gas	
  tax	
  key	
  to	
  checking	
  terror	
  funding.	
  
Charles	
  Krauthammer,	
  a	
  Pulitzer	
  Prize-­‐winning	
  syndicated	
  columnist	
  and	
  
commentator,	
  political	
  science	
  and	
  economics,	
  Oxford	
  University	
  and	
  Harvard	
  (M.D.),	
  
The	
  Weekly	
  Standard,	
  “The	
  Net-­‐Zero	
  Gas	
  Tax;	
  A	
  once-­‐in-­‐a-­‐generation	
  chance”	
  1-12,	
  
2009	
  lexis	
  
Then	
  there	
  are	
  the	
  so-­‐called	
  externalities:	
  national	
  security,	
  balance	
  of	
  payments,	
  and	
  the	
  environment.	
  The	
  most	
  important	
  of	
  these	
  is	
  national	
  
security.	
  In	
  July,	
  when	
  gasoline	
  was	
  at	
  $4,	
  a	
  full	
  $3	
  was	
  going	
  to	
  the	
  oil	
  producer.	
  (On	
  average	
  thus	
  far	
  this	
  year,	
  70	
  percent	
  of	
  pump	
  prices	
  went	
  
to	
  pay	
  for	
  the	
  crude.)	
  And	
  God	
  in	
  his	
  infinite	
  wisdom	
  has	
  put	
  oil	
  in	
  many	
  unfortunate	
  places.	
  The	
  American	
  people	
  understand	
  that	
  these	
  
dollars	
  were	
  going	
  out	
  of	
  the	
  U.S.	
  economy	
  and	
  into	
  the	
  treasuries	
  of	
  Hugo	
  Chávez,	
  Vladimir	
  Putin,	
  the	
  Iranian	
  
mullahs	
  (indirectly,	
  since	
  the	
  oil	
  is	
  fungible),	
  and	
  various	
  other	
  miscreants.	
  The	
  point	
  of	
  a	
  high	
  U.S.	
  gas	
  tax	
  is	
  to	
  suppress	
  
domestic	
  demand	
  and	
  thus	
  suppress	
  the	
  world	
  price.	
  Low	
  world	
  prices	
  are	
  a	
  huge	
  blow	
  to	
  overseas	
  producers,	
  particularly	
  ones	
  with	
  
relatively	
  large	
  populations,	
  nationalized	
  industries	
  that	
  are	
  increasingly	
  inefficient,	
  and	
  budgetary	
  obligations	
  built	
  on	
  the	
  expectation	
  of	
  a	
  
continuing	
  energy	
  bonanza.	
  Countries	
  such	
  as	
  Russia,	
  Venezuela,	
  and	
  Iran.	
  A	
  UBS	
  analysis	
  estimates	
  that	
  Iran	
  and	
  Venezuela	
  need	
  $90	
  oil	
  to	
  
balance	
  their	
  budgets.	
  And	
  at	
  $70,	
  according	
  to	
  Russian	
  finance	
  minister	
  Alexei	
  Kudrin,	
  Russia	
  goes	
  into	
  deficit.	
  It	
  is	
  now	
  draining	
  the	
  reserves	
  
built	
  up	
  during	
  the	
  fat	
  years.	
  At	
  current	
  oil	
  prices,	
  Russia	
  will	
  soon	
  become	
  a	
  debtor	
  nation.	
  The	
  World	
  Bank's	
  lead	
  economist	
  for	
  Russia,	
  Zeljko	
  
Bogetic,	
  said	
  on	
  December	
  19	
  that	
  at	
  $30	
  a	
  barrel,	
  "financing	
  constraint	
  would	
  become	
  so	
  sharp	
  that	
  it's	
  possible	
  even	
  to	
  envisage	
  Russia's	
  
return	
  from	
  a	
  creditor	
  to	
  international	
  organizations	
  to	
  [that	
  of]	
  a	
  borrower."	
  This	
  will	
  be	
  a	
  far	
  humbler	
  Russia	
  than	
  the	
  one	
  that	
  invaded	
  
Georgia,	
  built	
  a	
  nuclear	
  reactor	
  in	
  Iran,	
  threatens	
  Poland	
  and	
  the	
  Czech	
  Republic,	
  and	
  is	
  reestablishing	
  naval	
  bases	
  in	
  such	
  former	
  Soviet	
  
satellites	
  as	
  Syria.	
  The	
  Russian	
  navy	
  just	
  made	
  calls	
  in	
  Nicaragua	
  and	
  Cuba.	
  It	
  has	
  conducted	
  joint	
  exercises	
  with	
  Venezuela	
  in	
  an	
  open	
  challenge	
  
to	
  America.	
  These	
  are,	
  as	
  yet,	
  not	
  serious	
  threats.	
  But	
  with	
  a	
  stronger	
  Russia	
  and	
  Venezuela,	
  they	
  could	
  be.	
  The	
  projection	
  of	
  power	
  is	
  very	
  
expensive,	
  as	
  Americans	
  very	
  well	
  know.	
  Oil	
  at	
  $39	
  would	
  simply	
  starve	
  Russia	
  and	
  Venezuela	
  of	
  the	
  means	
  to	
  sustain	
  this	
  adventurism.	
  
Similarly	
  Iran,	
  which	
  is	
  already	
  under	
  sanctions,	
  already	
  suffering	
  high	
  inflation,	
  already	
  the	
  subject	
  of	
  popular	
  discontent	
  over	
  corruption	
  and	
  
economic	
  mismanagement.	
  All	
  this	
  was	
  cushioned	
  by	
  high	
  oil	
  prices.	
  They	
  allowed	
  the	
  Islamic	
  republic	
  to	
  act	
  like	
  the	
  
regional	
  superpower,	
  giving	
  military	
  and	
  financial	
  support	
  to	
  Hezbollah	
  in	
  Lebanon,	
  Hamas	
  in	
  Gaza,	
  
"special	
  groups"	
  and	
  Sadrist	
  militias	
  in	
  Iraq,	
  and	
  various	
  other	
  terrorists.	
  And,	
  of	
  course,	
  oil	
  revenues	
  permit	
  the	
  
continued	
  large-­‐scale	
  operation	
  of	
  Iran's	
  nuclear	
  weapons	
  development	
  program.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                  41	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                              	
                                                                                  Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                         Terrorism	
  Add-­‐On	
  (2/2)	
  
The	
  impact	
  is	
  extinction.	
  
Yonah	
  Alexander,	
  professor	
  and	
  director	
  of	
  the	
  Inter-­‐University	
  for	
  Terrorism	
  Studies	
  
in	
  Israel	
  and	
  the	
  United	
  States,	
  The	
  Washington	
  Times,	
  “Terrorism	
  myths	
  and	
  
realities”	
  August	
  28,	
  2003	
  lexis	
  
Last	
  week's	
  brutal	
  suicide	
  bombings	
  in	
  Baghdad	
  and	
  Jerusalem	
  have	
  once	
  again	
  illustrated	
  dramatically	
  that	
  the	
  international	
  
community	
  failed,	
  thus	
  far	
  at	
  least,	
  to	
  understand	
  the	
  magnitude	
  and	
  implications	
  of	
  the	
  terrorist	
  threats	
  to	
  the	
  very	
  
survival	
  of	
  civilization	
  itself.	
  Even	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  and	
  Israel	
  have	
  for	
  decades	
  tended	
  to	
  regard	
  terrorism	
  as	
  a	
  mere	
  tactical	
  
nuisance	
  or	
  irritant	
  rather	
  than	
  a	
  critical	
  strategic	
  challenge	
  to	
  their	
  national	
  security	
  concerns.	
  It	
  is	
  not	
  surprising,	
  therefore,	
  that	
  on	
  September	
  
11,	
  2001,	
  Americans	
  were	
  stunned	
  by	
  the	
  unprecedented	
  tragedy	
  of	
  19	
  al	
  Qaeda	
  terrorists	
  striking	
  a	
  devastating	
  blow	
  at	
  the	
  center	
  of	
  the	
  
nation's	
  commercial	
  and	
  military	
  powers.	
  Likewise,	
  Israel	
  and	
  its	
  citizens,	
  despite	
  the	
  collapse	
  of	
  the	
  Oslo	
  Agreements	
  of	
  1993	
  and	
  numerous	
  
acts	
  of	
  terrorism	
  triggered	
  by	
  the	
  second	
  intifada	
  that	
  began	
  almost	
  three	
  years	
  ago,	
  are	
  still	
  "shocked"	
  by	
  each	
  suicide	
  attack	
  at	
  a	
  time	
  of	
  
intensive	
  diplomatic	
  efforts	
  to	
  revive	
  the	
  moribund	
  peace	
  process	
  through	
  the	
  now	
  revoked	
  cease-­‐fire	
  arrangements	
  [hudna].	
  Why	
  are	
  the	
  
United	
  States	
  and	
  Israel,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  scores	
  of	
  other	
  countries	
  affected	
  by	
  the	
  universal	
  nightmare	
  of	
  modern	
  terrorism	
  surprised	
  by	
  new	
  terrorist	
  
"surprises"?	
  There	
  are	
  many	
  reasons,	
  including	
  misunderstanding	
  of	
  the	
  manifold	
  specific	
  factors	
  that	
  contribute	
  to	
  terrorism's	
  expansion,	
  such	
  
as	
  lack	
  of	
  a	
  universal	
  definition	
  of	
  terrorism,	
  the	
  religionization	
  of	
  politics,	
  double	
  standards	
  of	
  morality,	
  weak	
  punishment	
  of	
  terrorists,	
  and	
  the	
  
exploitation	
  of	
  the	
  media	
  by	
  terrorist	
  propaganda	
  and	
  psychological	
  warfare.	
  Unlike	
  their	
  historical	
  counterparts,	
  contemporary	
  terrorists	
  have	
  
introduced	
  a	
  new	
  scale	
  of	
  violence	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  conventional	
  and	
  unconventional	
  threats	
  and	
  impact.	
  The	
  internationalization	
  and	
  brutalization	
  
of	
  current	
  and	
  future	
  terrorism	
  make	
  it	
  clear	
  we	
  have	
  entered	
  an	
  Age	
  of	
  Super	
  Terrorism	
  [e.g.	
  biological,	
  chemical,	
  
radiological,	
  nuclear	
  and	
  cyber]	
  with	
  its	
  serious	
  implications	
  concerning	
  national,	
  regional	
  and	
  global	
  security	
  
concerns.	
  Two	
  myths	
  in	
  particular	
  must	
  be	
  debunked	
  immediately	
  if	
  an	
  effective	
  counterterrorism	
  "best	
  practices"	
  strategy	
  can	
  be	
  developed	
  
[e.g.,	
  strengthening	
  international	
  cooperation].	
  The	
  first	
  illusion	
  is	
  that	
  terrorism	
  can	
  be	
  greatly	
  reduced,	
  if	
  not	
  eliminated	
  completely,	
  provided	
  
the	
  root	
  causes	
  of	
  conflicts	
  -­‐	
  political,	
  social	
  and	
  economic	
  -­‐	
  are	
  addressed.	
  The	
  conventional	
  illusion	
  is	
  that	
  terrorism	
  must	
  be	
  justified	
  by	
  
oppressed	
  people	
  seeking	
  to	
  achieve	
  their	
  goals	
  and	
  consequently	
  the	
  argument	
  advanced	
  by	
  "freedom	
  fighters"	
  anywhere,	
  "give	
  me	
  liberty	
  
and	
  I	
  will	
  give	
  you	
  death,"	
  should	
  be	
  tolerated	
  if	
  not	
  glorified.	
  This	
  traditional	
  rationalization	
  of	
  "sacred"	
  violence	
  often	
  conceals	
  that	
  the	
  real	
  
purpose	
  of	
  terrorist	
  groups	
  is	
  to	
  gain	
  political	
  power	
  through	
  the	
  barrel	
  of	
  the	
  gun,	
  in	
  violation	
  of	
  fundamental	
  human	
  rights	
  of	
  the	
  
noncombatant	
  segment	
  of	
  societies.	
  For	
  instance,	
  Palestinians	
  religious	
  movements	
  [e.g.,	
  Hamas,	
  Islamic	
  Jihad]	
  and	
  secular	
  entities	
  [such	
  as	
  
Fatah's	
  Tanzim	
  and	
  Aqsa	
  Martyr	
  Brigades]]	
  wish	
  not	
  only	
  to	
  resolve	
  national	
  grievances	
  [such	
  as	
  Jewish	
  settlements,	
  right	
  of	
  return,	
  Jerusalem]	
  
but	
  primarily	
  to	
  destroy	
  the	
  Jewish	
  state.	
  Similarly,	
  Osama	
  bin	
  Laden's	
  international	
  network	
  not	
  only	
  opposes	
  the	
  presence	
  of	
  American	
  
military	
  in	
  the	
  Arabian	
  Peninsula	
  and	
  Iraq,	
  but	
  its	
  stated	
  objective	
  is	
  to	
  "unite	
  all	
  Muslims	
  and	
  establish	
  a	
  government	
  that	
  follows	
  the	
  rule	
  of	
  
the	
  Caliphs."	
  The	
  second	
  myth	
  is	
  that	
  strong	
  action	
  against	
  terrorist	
  infrastructure	
  [leaders,	
  recruitment,	
  funding,	
  propaganda,	
  training,	
  
weapons,	
  operational	
  command	
  and	
  control]	
  will	
  only	
  increase	
  terrorism.	
  The	
  argument	
  here	
  is	
  that	
  law-­‐enforcement	
  efforts	
  and	
  military	
  
retaliation	
  inevitably	
  will	
  fuel	
  more	
  brutal	
  acts	
  of	
  violent	
  revenge.	
  Clearly,	
  if	
  this	
  perception	
  continues	
  to	
  prevail,	
  particularly	
  in	
  democratic	
  
societies,	
  there	
  is	
  the	
  danger	
  it	
  will	
  paralyze	
  governments	
  and	
  thereby	
  encourage	
  further	
  terrorist	
  attacks.	
  In	
  sum,	
  past	
  experience	
  provides	
  
useful	
  lessons	
  for	
  a	
  realistic	
  future	
  strategy.	
  The	
  prudent	
  application	
  of	
  force	
  has	
  been	
  demonstrated	
  to	
  be	
  an	
  effective	
  tool	
  for	
  short-­‐	
  and	
  long-­‐
term	
  deterrence	
  of	
  terrorism.	
  For	
  example,	
  Israel's	
  targeted	
  killing	
  of	
  Mohammed	
  Sider,	
  the	
  Hebron	
  commander	
  of	
  the	
  Islamic	
  Jihad,	
  defused	
  a	
  
"ticking	
  bomb."	
  The	
  assassination	
  of	
  Ismail	
  Abu	
  Shanab	
  -­‐	
  a	
  top	
  Hamas	
  leader	
  in	
  the	
  Gaza	
  Strip	
  who	
  was	
  directly	
  responsible	
  for	
  several	
  suicide	
  
bombings	
  including	
  the	
  latest	
  bus	
  attack	
  in	
  Jerusalem	
  -­‐	
  disrupted	
  potential	
  terrorist	
  operations.	
  Similarly,	
  the	
  U.S.	
  military	
  operation	
  in	
  Iraq	
  
eliminated	
  Saddam	
  Hussein's	
  regime	
  as	
  a	
  state	
  sponsor	
  of	
  terror.	
  Thus,	
  it	
  behooves	
  those	
  countries	
  victimized	
  by	
  terrorism	
  to	
  
understand	
  a	
  cardinal	
  message	
  communicated	
  by	
  Winston	
  Churchill	
  to	
  the	
  House	
  of	
  Commons	
  on	
  May	
  13,	
  1940:	
  "Victory	
  at	
  
all	
  costs,	
  victory	
  in	
  spite	
  of	
  terror,	
  victory	
  however	
  long	
  and	
  hard	
  the	
  road	
  may	
  be:	
  For	
  without	
  
victory,	
  there	
  is	
  no	
  survival."	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                         42	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                  	
                                                                                     Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                     Heg	
  Add-­‐On	
  (1/2)	
  
Only	
  a	
  gas	
  tax	
  gives	
  Obama	
  the	
  leverage	
  he	
  needs	
  to	
  protect	
  U.S.	
  interests	
  abroad	
  –	
  it	
  
increases	
  global	
  respect	
  and	
  would	
  be	
  the	
  most	
  effective	
  measure	
  to	
  promote	
  U.S	
  
strength.	
  AND	
  –	
  more	
  evidence	
  –	
  in	
  the	
  face	
  of	
  inevitable	
  upcoming	
  problems	
  it's	
  the	
  
only	
  way	
  we	
  come	
  off	
  positively	
  
Senator	
  Christopher	
  Dodd,	
  The	
  Boston	
  Globe,	
  “A	
  corporate	
  carbon	
  tax”	
  April	
  27,	
  2007	
  
Some	
  argue	
  that	
  corporations	
  would	
  simply	
  pass	
  on	
  costs	
  of	
  a	
  corporate	
  carbon	
  tax	
  to	
  consumers.	
  But	
  in	
  an	
  era	
  where	
  the	
  price	
  of	
  gasoline	
  
already	
  jumps	
  30	
  to	
  40	
  cents	
  in	
  only	
  a	
  few	
  weeks’	
  time,	
  such	
  arguments	
  ring	
  decidedly	
  hollow.	
  You	
  cannot	
  be	
  serious	
  about	
  acting	
  on	
  the	
  
urgent	
  threat	
  of	
  global	
  warming,	
  about	
  making	
  us	
  less	
  captive	
  to	
  Middle	
  East	
  oil,	
  or	
  investing	
  in	
  renewable	
  energy,	
  unless	
  you	
  have	
  a	
  corporate	
  
carbon	
  tax	
  that	
  eliminates	
  the	
  last	
  incentive	
  to	
  pollute:	
  that	
  it’s	
  cheaper.	
  With	
  all	
  we	
  are	
  facing	
  –	
  from	
  health	
  and	
  environmental	
  concerns	
  to	
  
war	
  abroad	
  –	
  making	
  dirty	
  energy	
  a	
  less	
  attractive	
  option	
  to	
  consumers	
  and	
  business	
  is	
  nothing	
  to	
  be	
  afraid	
  of.	
  But	
  it’s	
  particularly	
  attractive	
  
because	
  the	
  revenues	
  of	
  a	
  corporate	
  carbon	
  tax	
  can	
  be	
  used	
  to	
  bring	
  the	
  cost	
  of	
  clean	
  energy	
  down.	
  Used	
  to	
  fast-­‐track	
  renewable	
  energy	
  
research	
  and	
  development	
  and	
  deployment	
  of	
  clean	
  energy	
  and	
  energy	
  efficient	
  technologies,	
  a	
  corporate	
  carbon	
  tax	
  would	
  generate	
  more	
  
than	
  $50	
  billion	
  annually,	
  helping	
  us	
  get	
  technologies	
  out	
  of	
  the	
  laboratories	
  and	
  onto	
  our	
  roads	
  and	
  into	
  our	
  homes	
  and	
  businesses,	
  
jumpstarting	
  America’s	
  global	
  competitiveness	
  in	
  the	
  process.	
  But	
  above	
  all	
  else,	
  a	
  corporate	
  carbon	
  tax	
  sends	
  a	
  powerful	
  message:	
  
that	
  America	
  will	
  lead	
  the	
  world	
  on	
  climate	
  change,	
  helping	
  polluting	
  countries	
  from	
  developing	
  nations	
  to	
  China	
  
take	
  the	
  steps	
  they	
  need	
  to	
  get	
  this	
  crisis	
  under	
  control.	
  With	
  the	
  right	
  leadership,	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  will	
  
emerge	
  as	
  that	
  leader.	
  But	
  if	
  the	
  last	
  six	
  years	
  is	
  any	
  indication,	
  it	
  won’t	
  happen	
  on	
  its	
  own.	
  It	
  will	
  take	
  choices	
  that	
  are	
  not	
  only	
  tough	
  
but	
  smart	
  and	
  a	
  president	
  who	
  is	
  honest	
  with	
  the	
  American	
  people	
  about	
  the	
  stakes.	
  A	
  president	
  who	
  shows	
  us	
  that	
  with	
  the	
  right	
  
leadership,	
  America	
  will	
  not	
  suffer	
  by	
  tackling	
  global	
  warming	
  and	
  ridding	
  ourselves	
  of	
  Middle	
  East	
  oil,	
  
but	
  prosper.	
  Getting	
  this	
  challenge	
  right	
  comes	
  down	
  to	
  a	
  simple,	
  fundamental	
  belief	
  about	
  America	
  –	
  that	
  we	
  have	
  always	
  drawn	
  our	
  
strength	
  from	
  our	
  unique	
  ability	
  to	
  come	
  together	
  around	
  our	
  best,	
  most	
  innovative	
  ideas	
  in	
  common	
  purpose,	
  making	
  our	
  country	
  and	
  world	
  
stronger.	
  With	
  the	
  stakes	
  of	
  global	
  warming	
  so	
  high,	
  the	
  American	
  people	
  are	
  ready	
  to	
  do	
  that	
  again.	
  They’re	
  ready	
  to	
  change	
  course	
  –	
  to	
  move	
  
away	
  from	
  polluting	
  energy	
  sources	
  and	
  toward	
  a	
  cleaner	
  future.	
  And	
  with	
  the	
  right	
  leadership,	
  they	
  will	
  be	
  ready	
  for	
  a	
  corporate	
  carbon	
  tax.	
  
It’s	
  a	
  big	
  idea	
  whose	
  time	
  has	
  come.	
  


Heg	
  Internal	
  
Grand Rapid Press	
  (Michigan),	
  “Will	
  Obama	
  have	
  the	
  guts	
  to	
  raise	
  the	
  gas	
  tax?”	
  12-­‐
30,	
  2008	
  lexis	
  
The	
  same	
  is	
  true	
  in	
  geopolitics.	
  A	
  gas	
  tax	
  reduces	
  gasoline	
  demand	
  and	
  keeps	
  dollars	
  in	
  America,	
  dries	
  up	
  funding	
  for	
  terrorists	
  
and	
  reduces	
  the	
  clout	
  of	
  Iran	
  and	
  Russia	
  at	
  a	
  time	
  when	
  Obama	
  will	
  be	
  looking	
  for	
  greater	
  leverage	
  
against	
  petro-­‐dictatorships.	
  It	
  reduces	
  our	
  current	
  account	
  deficit,	
  which	
  strengthens	
  the	
  dollar.	
  It	
  reduces	
  U.S.	
  carbon	
  
emissions	
  driving	
  climate	
  change,	
  which	
  means	
  more	
  global	
  respect	
  for	
  America.	
  And	
  it	
  increases	
  the	
  incentives	
  
for	
  U.S.	
  innovation	
  on	
  clean	
  cars	
  and	
  clean-­‐tech.	
  Which	
  one	
  of	
  these	
  things	
  wouldn't	
  we	
  want?	
  A	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  "is	
  not	
  just	
  win-­‐win;	
  it's	
  win,	
  win,	
  
win,	
  win,	
  win,"	
  says	
  the	
  Johns	
  Hopkins	
  author	
  and	
  foreign	
  policy	
  specialist	
  Michael	
  Mandelbaum.	
  "A	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  would	
  do	
  more	
  
for	
  American	
  prosperity	
  and	
  strength	
  than	
  any	
  other	
  measure	
  Obama	
  could	
  propose."	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                43	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                                                 	
                                                                                                             Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                                               Heg	
  Addon	
  (2/2)	
  
Lack	
  of	
  leadership	
  on	
  environmental	
  issues	
  is	
  crippling	
  American	
  hegemony.	
  Increased	
  
fuel	
  efficiency	
  standards	
  send	
  a	
  crucial	
  message	
  that	
  reasserts	
  our	
  position	
  
Norbert	
  Walter	
  (chief	
  economist	
  at	
  Deutsche	
  Bank	
  Group)	
  “An	
  American	
  Abdication,”	
  August	
  28,	
  2002	
  
At	
  present	
  there	
  is	
  much	
  talk	
  about	
  the	
  unparalleled	
  strength	
  of	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  on	
  the	
  world	
  stage.	
  Yet	
  at	
  this	
  very	
  moment	
  the	
  most	
  
powerful	
  country	
  in	
  the	
  world	
  stands	
  to	
  forfeit	
  much	
  political	
  capital,	
  moral	
  authority	
  and	
  international	
  good	
  
will	
  by	
  dragging	
  its	
  feet	
  on	
  the	
  next	
  great	
  global	
  issue:	
  the	
  environment.	
  Before	
  long,	
  the	
  administration's	
  
apparent	
  unwillingness	
  to	
  take	
  a	
  leadership	
  role	
  -­‐-­‐	
  or,	
  at	
  the	
  very	
  least,	
  to	
  stop	
  acting	
  as	
  a	
  brake	
  -­‐-­‐	
  in	
  fighting	
  
global	
  environmental	
  degradation	
  will	
  threaten	
  the	
  very	
  basis	
  of	
  the	
  American	
  supremacy	
  that	
  many	
  now	
  seem	
  to	
  assume	
  will	
  last	
  
forever.	
  American	
  authority	
  is	
  already	
  in	
  some	
  danger	
  as	
  a	
  result	
  of	
  the	
  Bush	
  administration's	
  decision	
  to	
  send	
  a	
  low-­‐level	
  delegation	
  to	
  the	
  World	
  Summit	
  on	
  Sustainable	
  Development	
  in	
  
Johannesburg	
  -­‐-­‐	
  low-­‐level,	
  that	
  is,	
  relative	
  to	
  America's	
  share	
  of	
  both	
  the	
  world	
  economy	
  and	
  global	
  pollution.	
  The	
  absence	
  of	
  President	
  Bush	
  from	
  Johannesburg	
  symbolizes	
  this	
  decline	
  in	
  
authority.	
  In	
  recent	
  weeks,	
  newspapers	
  around	
  the	
  world	
  have	
  been	
  dominated	
  by	
  environmental	
  headlines:	
  In	
  central	
  Europe,	
  flooding	
  killed	
  dozens,	
  displaced	
  tens	
  of	
  thousands	
  and	
  caused	
  
billions	
  of	
  dollars	
  in	
  damages.	
  In	
  South	
  Asia,	
  the	
  United	
  Nations	
  reports	
  a	
  brown	
  cloud	
  of	
  pollution	
  that	
  is	
  responsible	
  for	
  hundreds	
  of	
  thousands	
  of	
  deaths	
  a	
  year	
  from	
  respiratory	
  disease.	
  The	
  
pollution	
  (80	
  percent	
  man-­‐made)	
  also	
  cuts	
  sunlight	
  penetration,	
  thus	
  reducing	
  rainfall,	
  affecting	
  agriculture	
  and	
  otherwise	
  altering	
  the	
  climate.	
  Many	
  other	
  examples	
  of	
  environmental	
  
degradation,	
  often	
  related	
  to	
  the	
  warming	
  of	
  the	
  atmosphere,	
  could	
  be	
  cited.	
  What	
  they	
  all	
  have	
  in	
  common	
  is	
  that	
  they	
  severely	
  affect	
  countries	
  around	
  the	
  world	
  and	
  are	
  fast	
  becoming	
  a	
  

                                                                                                                                                             when	
  a	
  country	
  that	
  emits	
  
chief	
  concern	
  for	
  people	
  everywhere.	
  Nobody	
  is	
  suggesting	
  that	
  these	
  disasters	
  are	
  directly	
  linked	
  to	
  anything	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  is	
  doing.	
  But	
  

25	
  percent	
  of	
  the	
  world's	
  greenhouse	
  gases	
  acts	
  as	
  an	
  uninterested,	
  sometimes	
  hostile	
  bystander	
  in	
  
the	
  environmental	
  debate,	
  it	
  looks	
  like	
  unbearable	
  arrogance	
  to	
  many	
  people	
  abroad.	
  The	
  administration	
  seems	
  to	
  
believe	
  it	
  is	
  merely	
  an	
  observer	
  -­‐-­‐	
  that	
  environmental	
  issues	
  are	
  not	
  its	
  issues.	
  But	
  not	
  doing	
  anything	
  amounts	
  to	
  ignoring	
  a	
  
key	
  source	
  of	
  world	
  tension,	
  and	
  no	
  superpower	
  that	
  wants	
  to	
  preserve	
  its	
  status	
  can	
  go	
  on	
  dismissing	
  
such	
  a	
  pivotal	
  dimension	
  of	
  political	
  and	
  economic	
  -­‐-­‐	
  if	
  not	
  existential	
  -­‐-­‐	
  conflict.	
  In	
  my	
  view,	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  clear-­‐cut	
  
price	
  to	
  be	
  paid	
  for	
  ignoring	
  the	
  views	
  of	
  just	
  about	
  every	
  other	
  country	
  in	
  the	
  world	
  today.	
  The	
  United	
  States	
  
is	
  jettisoning	
  its	
  hard-­‐won	
  moral	
  and	
  intellectual	
  authority	
  and	
  perhaps	
  the	
  strategic	
  advantages	
  that	
  
come	
  with	
  being	
  a	
  good	
  steward	
  of	
  the	
  international	
  political	
  order.	
  The	
  United	
  States	
  may	
  no	
  longer	
  
be	
  viewed	
  as	
  a	
  leader	
  or	
  reliable	
  partner	
  in	
  policymaking:	
  necessary,	
  perhaps	
  inevitable,	
  but	
  not	
  desirable,	
  as	
  it	
  has	
  been	
  
for	
  decades.	
  All	
  of	
  this	
  because	
  America's	
  current	
  leaders	
  are	
  not	
  willing	
  to	
  acknowledge	
  the	
  very	
  real	
  concerns	
  of	
  
many	
  people	
  about	
  global	
  environmental	
  issues.	
  No	
  one	
  can	
  expect	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  to	
  provide	
  any	
  
quick	
  fixes,	
  but	
  one	
  would	
  like	
  to	
  see	
  America	
  make	
  a	
  credible	
  and	
  sustained	
  effort,	
  along	
  with	
  other	
  countries,	
  to	
  
address	
  global	
  environmental	
  problems.	
  This	
  should	
  happen	
  on	
  two	
  fronts.	
  The	
  first	
  is	
  at	
  home	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States,	
  through	
  
more	
  environmentally	
  friendly	
  policies,	
  for	
  example	
  greater	
  fuel-­‐efficiency	
  standards	
  for	
  cars	
  and	
  light	
  trucks	
  and	
  better	
  insulation	
  for	
  buildings.	
  
The	
  second	
  is	
  international,	
  through	
  a	
  more	
  cooperative	
  approach	
  to	
  multilateral	
  attempts	
  at	
  safeguarding	
  the	
  environment.	
  Simply	
  rejecting	
  
international	
  treaties	
  (like	
  the	
  Kyoto	
  Protocol)	
  then	
  failing	
  to	
  offer	
  a	
  better	
  proposal	
  cannot	
  be	
  an	
  acceptable	
  option	
  for	
  American	
  policymakers.	
  
Much	
  of	
  the	
  world	
  has	
  come	
  together	
  to	
  help	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  in	
  the	
  fight	
  against	
  terrorism,	
  out	
  of	
  the	
  realization	
  that	
  a	
  common	
  threat	
  can	
  
only	
  be	
  beaten	
  through	
  a	
  cooperative	
  effort.	
  It	
  is	
  high	
  time	
  for	
  the	
  United	
  States,	
  metaphorically	
  speaking,	
  to	
  get	
  out	
  of	
  its	
  oversized,	
  gas-­‐
guzzling	
  S.U.V.	
  -­‐-­‐	
  and	
  join	
  the	
  rest	
  of	
  the	
  world	
  in	
  doing	
  more	
  to	
  combat	
  global	
  warming	
  and	
  protecting	
  the	
  planet.	
  	
  


Solves	
  hegemony	
  fast.	
  
Richard	
  G.	
  Lugar,	
  member	
  of	
  the	
  Senate	
  Foreign	
  Relations	
  Committee,	
  The	
  Washington	
  
Post,	
  “Raise	
  the	
  Gas	
  Tax;	
  A	
  Revenue-­‐Neutral	
  Way	
  to	
  Treat	
  Our	
  Oil	
  Addiction”	
  2/1/09	
  
lexis	
  
No	
  tax	
  is	
  perfect,	
  and	
  some	
  special	
  provisions	
  may	
  be	
  necessary	
  for	
  individuals	
  and	
  groups	
  disproportionately	
  affected.	
  But	
  we	
  as	
  a	
  nation	
  are	
  
already	
  suffering	
  every	
  day	
  from	
  our	
  oil	
  dependence,	
  and	
  decisive	
  measures	
  are	
  needed.	
  The	
  alternative	
  to	
  a	
  net-­‐zero	
  gas	
  tax	
  is	
  ever-­‐greater	
  
regulation,	
  with	
  more	
  bureaucracy	
  and	
  the	
  inevitable	
  temptations	
  for	
  lobbyists	
  to	
  exploit	
  regulatory	
  loopholes.	
  Krauthammer's	
  net-­‐zero	
  gas	
  tax	
  
proposal	
  identifies	
  common	
  ground	
  for	
  fiscal	
  conservatives,	
  security	
  hawks,	
  environmentalists	
  and	
  America's	
  lowest-­‐paid	
  workers.	
  New	
  York	
  
Times	
  columnist	
  Thomas	
  Friedman	
  has	
  argued	
  for	
  similar	
  steps.	
  Whether	
  it	
  is	
  a	
  $1-­‐a-­‐gallon	
  tax	
  or	
  some	
  greater	
  amount	
  commensurate	
  with	
  the	
  
true	
  cost	
  of	
  oil,	
  a	
  net-­‐zero	
  gas	
  tax	
  is	
  the	
  type	
  of	
  transformational	
  policy	
  that	
  we	
  could	
  implement	
  quickly	
  and	
  that	
  
would	
  have	
  immediate	
  impact.	
  One	
  of	
  the	
  simplest	
  and	
  most	
  effective	
  means	
  available	
  for	
  strengthening	
  
U.S.	
  national	
  security	
  is	
  to	
  dramatically	
  reduce	
  our	
  oil	
  dependence.	
  A	
  gas	
  tax	
  that	
  returns	
  money	
  to	
  Americans	
  
would	
  take	
  us	
  a	
  long	
  way	
  toward	
  that	
  goal.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           44	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                                                       	
                                                                                                                  Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                                                               Oil	
  Add-­‐On	
  
Solves	
  oil	
  dependence.	
  
Charles	
  Krauthammer,	
  a	
  Pulitzer	
  Prize-­‐winning	
  syndicated	
  columnist	
  and	
  
commentator,	
  political	
  science	
  and	
  economics,	
  Oxford	
  University	
  and	
  Harvard	
  (M.D.),	
  
The	
  Weekly	
  Standard,	
  “The	
  Net-­‐Zero	
  Gas	
  Tax;	
  A	
  once-­‐in-­‐a-­‐generation	
  chance”	
  
1/12/09	
  lexis	
  
So	
  why	
  even	
  think	
  about	
  it?	
  Because	
  the	
  virtues	
  of	
  a	
  gas	
  tax	
  remain	
  what	
  they	
  have	
  always	
  been.	
  A	
  tax	
  that	
  suppresses	
  U.S.	
  gas	
  
consumption	
  can	
  have	
  a	
  major	
  effect	
  on	
  reducing	
  world	
  oil	
  prices.	
  And	
  the	
  benefits	
  of	
  low	
  world	
  oil	
  
prices	
  are	
  obvious:	
  They	
  put	
  tremendous	
  pressure	
  on	
  OPEC,	
  as	
  evidenced	
  by	
  its	
  disarray	
  during	
  the	
  current	
  collapse;	
  
they	
  deal	
  serious	
  economic	
  damage	
  to	
  energy-­‐exporting	
  geopolitical	
  adversaries	
  such	
  as	
  Russia,	
  Venezuela,	
  and	
  Iran;	
  and	
  they	
  reduce	
  
the	
  enormous	
  U.S.	
  imbalance	
  of	
  oil	
  trade	
  which	
  last	
  year	
  alone	
  diverted	
  a	
  quarter	
  of	
  $1	
  trillion	
  abroad.	
  
Furthermore,	
  a	
  reduction	
  in	
  U.S.	
  demand	
  alters	
  the	
  balance	
  of	
  power	
  between	
  producer	
  and	
  consumer,	
  
making	
  us	
  less	
  dependent	
  on	
  oil	
  exporters.	
  It	
  begins	
  weaning	
  us	
  off	
  foreign	
  oil,	
  and,	
  if	
  combined	
  with	
  nuclear	
  
power	
  and	
  renewed	
  U.S.	
  oil	
  and	
  gas	
  drilling,	
  puts	
  us	
  on	
  the	
  road	
  to	
  energy	
  independence.	
  


Oil	
  dependency	
  leads	
  to	
  extinction	
  
Michael	
  T.	
  Klare	
  (professor	
  of	
  peace	
  and	
  world	
  security	
  studies	
  at	
  Hampshire	
  College)	
  
2008	
  “The	
  end	
  of	
  the	
  world	
  as	
  you	
  know	
  it”	
  
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174919	
  
A	
  growing	
  risk	
  of	
  conflict:	
  Throughout	
  history,	
  major	
  shifts	
  in	
  power	
  have	
  normally	
  been	
  accompanied	
  by	
  violence	
  -­‐-­‐	
  
in	
  some	
  cases,	
  protracted	
  violent	
  upheavals.	
  Either	
  states	
  at	
  the	
  pinnacle	
  of	
  power	
  have	
  struggled	
  to	
  prevent	
  the	
  loss	
  
of	
  their	
  privileged	
  status,	
  or	
  challengers	
  have	
  fought	
  to	
  topple	
  those	
  at	
  the	
  top	
  of	
  the	
  heap.	
  Will	
  that	
  happen	
  now?	
  Will	
  energy-­‐deficit	
  
states	
  launch	
  campaigns	
  to	
  wrest	
  the	
  oil	
  and	
  gas	
  reserves	
  of	
  surplus	
  states	
  from	
  their	
  control	
  -­‐-­‐	
  the	
  Bush	
  administration's	
  war	
  in	
  Iraq	
  might	
  
already	
  be	
  thought	
  of	
  as	
  one	
  such	
  attempt	
  -­‐-­‐	
  or	
  to	
  eliminate	
  competitors	
  among	
  their	
  deficit-­‐state	
  rivals?	
  The	
  high	
  costs	
  and	
  risks	
  of	
  
modern	
  warfare	
  are	
  well	
  known	
  and	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  widespread	
  perception	
  that	
  energy	
  problems	
  can	
  best	
  
be	
  solved	
  through	
  economic	
  means,	
  not	
  military	
  ones.	
  Nevertheless,	
  the	
  major	
  powers	
  are	
  employing	
  
military	
  means	
  in	
  their	
  efforts	
  to	
  gain	
  advantage	
  in	
  the	
  global	
  struggle	
  for	
  energy,	
  and	
  no	
  one	
  should	
  be	
  
deluded	
  on	
  the	
  subject.	
  These	
  endeavors	
  could	
  easily	
  enough	
  lead	
  to	
  unintended	
  escalation	
  and	
  conflict.	
  One	
  
conspicuous	
  use	
  of	
  military	
  means	
  in	
  the	
  pursuit	
  of	
  energy	
  is	
  obviously	
  the	
  regular	
  transfer	
  of	
  arms	
  and	
  military-­‐support	
  services	
  by	
  the	
  major	
  energy-­‐importing	
  states	
  to	
  their	
  principal	
  
suppliers.	
  Both	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  and	
  China,	
  for	
  example,	
  have	
  stepped	
  up	
  their	
  deliveries	
  of	
  arms	
  and	
  equipment	
  to	
  oil-­‐producing	
  states	
  like	
  Angola,	
  Nigeria,	
  and	
  Sudan	
  in	
  Africa	
  and,	
  in	
  the	
  
Caspian	
  Sea	
  basin,	
  Azerbaijan,	
  Kazakhstan,	
  and	
  Kyrgyzstan.	
  The	
  United	
  States	
  has	
  placed	
  particular	
  emphasis	
  on	
  suppressing	
  the	
  armed	
  insurgency	
  in	
  the	
  vital	
  Niger	
  Delta	
  region	
  of	
  Nigeria,	
  
where	
  most	
  of	
  the	
  country's	
  oil	
  is	
  produced;	
  Beijing	
  has	
  emphasized	
  arms	
  aid	
  to	
  Sudan,	
  where	
  Chinese-­‐led	
  oil	
  operations	
  are	
  threatened	
  by	
  insurgencies	
  in	
  both	
  the	
  South	
  and	
  Darfur.	
  Russia	
  is	
  
also	
  using	
  arms	
  transfers	
  as	
  an	
  instrument	
  in	
  its	
  efforts	
  to	
  gain	
  influence	
  in	
  the	
  major	
  oil-­‐	
  and	
  gas-­‐producing	
  regions	
  of	
  the	
  Caspian	
  Sea	
  basin	
  and	
  the	
  Persian	
  Gulf.	
  Its	
  urge	
  is	
  not	
  to	
  procure	
  
energy	
  for	
  its	
  own	
  use,	
  but	
  to	
  dominate	
  the	
  flow	
  of	
  energy	
  to	
  others.	
  In	
  particular,	
  Moscow	
  seeks	
  a	
  monopoly	
  on	
  the	
  transportation	
  of	
  Central	
  Asian	
  gas	
  to	
  Europe	
  via	
  Gazprom's	
  vast	
  pipeline	
  
                                                                                                 The	
  danger,	
  of	
  course,	
  is	
  that	
  such	
  
network;	
  it	
  also	
  wants	
  to	
  tap	
  into	
  Iran's	
  mammoth	
  gas	
  fields,	
  further	
  cementing	
  Russia's	
  control	
  over	
  the	
  trade	
  in	
  natural	
  gas.	
  

endeavors,	
  multiplied	
  over	
  time,	
  will	
  provoke	
  regional	
  arms	
  races,	
  exacerbate	
  regional	
  tensions,	
  and	
  
increase	
  the	
  danger	
  of	
  great-­‐power	
  involvement	
  in	
  any	
  local	
  conflicts	
  that	
  erupt.	
  History	
  has	
  all	
  too	
  
many	
  examples	
  of	
  such	
  miscalculations	
  leading	
  to	
  wars	
  that	
  spiral	
  out	
  of	
  control.	
  Think	
  of	
  the	
  years	
  leading	
  up	
  
to	
  World	
  War	
  I.	
  In	
  fact,	
  Central	
  Asia	
  and	
  the	
  Caspian	
  today,	
  with	
  their	
  multiple	
  ethnic	
  disorders	
  and	
  great-­‐power	
  rivalries,	
  bear	
  more	
  than	
  a	
  
glancing	
  resemblance	
  to	
  the	
  Balkans	
  in	
  the	
  years	
  leading	
  up	
  to	
  1914.	
  What	
  this	
  adds	
  up	
  to	
  is	
  simple	
  and	
  sobering:	
  the	
  end	
  
of	
  the	
  world	
  as	
  you've	
  known	
  it.	
  In	
  the	
  new,	
  energy-­‐centric	
  world	
  we	
  have	
  all	
  now	
  entered,	
  the	
  price	
  of	
  oil	
  
will	
  dominate	
  our	
  lives	
  and	
  power	
  will	
  reside	
  in	
  the	
  hands	
  of	
  those	
  who	
  control	
  its	
  global	
  distribution.	
  
In	
  this	
  new	
  world	
  order,	
  energy	
  will	
  govern	
  our	
  lives	
  in	
  new	
  ways	
  and	
  on	
  a	
  daily	
  basis.	
  It	
  will	
  determine	
  when,	
  and	
  for	
  
what	
  purposes,	
  we	
  use	
  our	
  cars;	
  how	
  high	
  (or	
  low)	
  we	
  turn	
  our	
  thermostats;	
  when,	
  where,	
  or	
  even	
  if,	
  we	
  travel;	
  increasingly,	
  what	
  foods	
  we	
  eat	
  
(given	
  that	
  the	
  price	
  of	
  producing	
  and	
  distributing	
  many	
  meats	
  and	
  vegetables	
  is	
  profoundly	
  affected	
  by	
  the	
  cost	
  of	
  oil	
  or	
  the	
  allure	
  of	
  growing	
  
corn	
  for	
  ethanol);	
  for	
  some	
  of	
  us,	
  where	
  to	
  live;	
  for	
  others,	
  what	
  businesses	
  we	
  engage	
  in;	
  for	
  all	
  of	
  us,	
  when	
  and	
  under	
  what	
  circumstances	
  we	
  
go	
  to	
  war	
  or	
  avoid	
  foreign	
  entanglements	
  that	
  could	
  end	
  in	
  war.	
  This	
  leads	
  to	
  a	
  final	
  observation:	
  The	
  most	
  pressing	
  decision	
  
facing	
  the	
  next	
  president	
  and	
  Congress	
  may	
  be	
  how	
  best	
  to	
  accelerate	
  the	
  transition	
  from	
  a	
  fossil-­‐fuel-­‐based	
  
energy	
  system	
  to	
  a	
  system	
  based	
  on	
  climate-­‐friendly	
  energy	
  alternatives.	
  	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                     45	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                	
                                                                                   Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                      A2:	
  Squo	
  Solves	
  
Gasoline	
  will	
  still	
  dominate	
  the	
  market	
  for	
  domestic	
  transportation	
  for	
  at	
  least	
  the	
  
next	
  3	
  decades	
  
Wachs	
  2003	
  (Martin,	
  “A	
  dozen	
  reasons	
  for	
  raising	
  gas	
  taxes”,	
  Research	
  Reports,	
  Institute	
  of	
  
Transportation	
  Studies	
  (UCB),	
  UC	
  Berkeley,	
  http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2000f8t0#page-­‐4)	
  
Over	
  the	
  long	
  term	
  it	
  is	
  probably	
  not	
  wise	
  to	
  rely	
  on	
  fuel	
  taxes	
  to	
  finance	
  roads	
  or	
  transit	
  systems.	
  The	
  current	
  development	
  of	
  hybrid	
  engines	
  
which	
  dramatically	
  improve	
  fuel	
  economy	
  is	
  only	
  a	
  hint	
  of	
  changes	
  likely	
  to	
  occur	
  over	
  the	
  coming	
  two	
  to	
  three	
  decades.	
  The	
  world’s	
  supply	
  of	
  
petroleum	
  is	
  finite,	
  and	
  we	
  are	
  already	
  developing	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  bio-­‐fuels	
  and	
  other	
  synthetic	
  fuels.	
  Fuel	
  cells	
  are	
  seen	
  by	
  many	
  as	
  the	
  likely	
  
source	
  of	
  motive	
  power	
  for	
  the	
  future,	
  and	
  they	
  may	
  not	
  in	
  the	
  longer	
  term	
  use	
  petroleum-­‐based	
  fuels.	
  At	
  the	
  very	
  least,	
  over	
  a	
  longer	
  period	
  
of	
  time	
  we	
  can	
  foresee	
  a	
  changing	
  and	
  uncertain	
  relationship	
  between	
  travel	
  and	
  the	
  consumption	
  of	
  petroleum	
  based	
  fuels.	
  We	
  could,	
  of	
  
course,	
  tax	
  hydrogen	
  or	
  biofuels	
  as	
  we	
  do	
  gasoline.	
  Doing	
  so,	
  however,	
  would	
  likely	
  conflict	
  with	
  other	
  policy	
  goals	
  like	
  reducing	
  pollution	
  and	
  
achieving	
  energy	
  independence,	
  so	
  in	
  the	
  long	
  term	
  we	
  will	
  undoubtedly	
  charge	
  on	
  the	
  basis	
  of	
  road	
  use	
  rather	
  than	
  fuel	
  use.	
  Dramatic	
  
improvements	
  in	
  fuel	
  economy,	
  whatever	
  their	
  source,	
  make	
  fuel	
  taxes	
  less	
  promising	
  in	
  the	
  future	
  as	
  
the	
  fundamental	
  instrument	
  of	
  transportation	
  finance.	
  But,	
  every	
  reasonable	
  projection	
  of	
  technological	
  
change	
  would	
  indicate	
  that	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  gasoline	
  and	
  diesel	
  fuel	
  will	
  dominate	
  the	
  market	
  for	
  surface	
  
transportation	
  fuel	
  for	
  at	
  least	
  two	
  decades,	
  and	
  probably	
  three.	
  
	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                46	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                	
                                                                              Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                      A2:	
  Spending	
  DA	
  
Gas	
  tax	
  creates	
  $100	
  billion	
  of	
  revenue	
  every	
  year,	
  allows	
  for	
  realistic	
  deficit	
  reduction	
  
Ferguson	
  08	
  <Ph.D	
  candidate	
  at	
  University	
  of	
  Northern	
  Iowa	
  “Should	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  
Increase	
  the	
  Federal	
  Gasoline	
  Tax?”	
  University	
  of	
  Northern	
  Iowa	
  
http://business.uni.edu/economics/Themes/ferguson.pdf>	
  
With	
  the	
  ever	
  growing	
  budget	
  deficit,	
  politicians	
  are	
  searching	
  for	
  ways	
  to	
  raise	
  revenue	
  for	
  the	
  government.	
  Some	
  
have	
  proposed	
  to	
  use	
  revenue	
  from	
  an	
  increased	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  to	
  cover	
  government	
  spending.	
  Mankiw	
  believes	
  that	
  if	
  the	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  is	
  
increased	
  by	
  one	
  dollar,	
  $100	
  billion	
  will	
  be	
  generated	
  in	
  one	
  year	
  in	
  increased	
  revenue	
  [Mankiw,	
  2006b,	
  
A12].	
  This	
  increased	
  revenue	
  can	
  be	
  used	
  to	
  start	
  covering	
  the	
  deficit	
  currently	
  facing	
  the	
  U.	
  S.	
  
government.	
  Those	
  who	
  oppose	
  the	
  increase	
  in	
  the	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  believe	
  it	
  will	
  only	
  increase	
  the	
  government’s	
  spending.	
  They	
  believe	
  that	
  
if	
  the	
  government	
  generates	
  more	
  revenue,	
  the	
  government	
  will	
  increase	
  its	
  spending.	
  If	
  this	
  is	
  the	
  case,	
  increasing	
  the	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  will	
  not	
  
help	
  decrease	
  the	
  deficit	
  but	
  may	
  make	
  it	
  worse.	
  Government	
  spending	
  is	
  not	
  as	
  simple	
  as	
  opponents	
  of	
  the	
  
gasoline	
  tax	
  make	
  it	
  seem.	
  The	
  amount	
  of	
  government	
  expenditures	
  is	
  dependent	
  on	
  many	
  factors	
  including	
  current	
  economic	
  
conditions,	
  which	
  party	
  is	
  in	
  office,	
  the	
  current	
  military	
  situation,	
  and	
  other	
  factors.	
  	
  


Refusal	
  to	
  raise	
  gas	
  taxes	
  contributes	
  to	
  deficit	
  spending	
  and	
  excessive	
  borrowing	
  
Wachs	
  2003	
  (Martin,	
  “A	
  dozen	
  reasons	
  for	
  raising	
  gas	
  taxes”,	
  Research	
  Reports,	
  Institute	
  of	
  
Transportation	
  Studies	
  (UCB),	
  UC	
  Berkeley,	
  http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2000f8t0#page-­‐4)	
  
In	
  the	
  absence	
  of	
  growing	
  fuel	
  tax	
  revenues,	
  the	
  fastest-­‐growing	
  source	
  of	
  money	
  for	
  transportation	
  
projects	
  and	
  programs	
  has	
  been	
  borrowing.	
  Between	
  1995	
  and	
  1999,	
  while	
  collections	
  of	
  user	
  fees	
  (taxes	
  and	
  tolls)	
  rose	
  by	
  
only	
  18%,	
  borrowing	
  for	
  transportation	
  projects	
  rose	
  by	
  92%.	
  Proponents	
  of	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  forms	
  of	
  borrowing	
  prefer	
  to	
  call	
  this	
  approach	
  
“creative	
  financing.”	
  A	
  few	
  states	
  have	
  created	
  “infrastructure	
  banks,”	
  and	
  others	
  have	
  developed	
  financial	
  instruments	
  
that	
  enable	
  them	
  to	
  borrow	
  against	
  anticipated	
  future	
  federal	
  appropriations	
  and	
  future	
  revenues	
  
from	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  taxes	
  earmarked	
  for	
  transportation.	
  But	
  in	
  the	
  end,	
  borrowed	
  money	
  is	
  not	
  really	
  revenue	
  at	
  all,	
  since	
  it	
  
must	
  later	
  be	
  repaid	
  using	
  revenues	
  from	
  taxes	
  or	
  user	
  fees.	
  In	
  addition	
  to	
  repaying	
  the	
  borrowed	
  funds,	
  the	
  state	
  must	
  
bear	
  the	
  cost	
  of	
  interest,	
  which,	
  if	
  funds	
  are	
  held	
  for	
  twenty	
  or	
  thirty	
  years,	
  often	
  exceeds	
  the	
  value	
  of	
  
the	
  principal.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                      47	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                              	
                                                                      Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                   Oil	
  Dependence	
  T/	
  K	
  
Oil	
  dependence	
  makes	
  the	
  impact	
  inevitable	
  
Lefton	
  and	
  Weiss,	
  2010	
  Rebecca	
  Lefton	
  is	
  a	
  Researcher	
  for	
  Progressive	
  Media	
  and	
  Daniel	
  J.	
  Weiss	
  is	
  a	
  
Senior	
  Fellow	
  and	
  Director	
  Climate	
  Strategy	
  at	
  the	
  Center	
  for	
  American	
  Progress,	
  January	
  13,	
  2010,	
  
Center	
  for	
  American	
  Progress,	
  “Oil	
  Dependent	
  Is	
  a	
  Dangerous	
  Habit”,	
  accessed	
  June	
  28,	
  2012	
  from	
  
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/oil_imports_security.html	
  
As	
  a	
  major	
  contributor	
  to	
  the	
  global	
  demand	
  for	
  oil	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  is	
  paying	
  to	
  finance	
  and	
  sustain	
  unfriendly	
  
regimes.	
  Our	
  demand	
  drives	
  up	
  oil	
  prices	
  on	
  the	
  global	
  market,	
  which	
  oftentimes	
  benefits	
  oil-­‐
producing	
  nations	
  that	
  don’t	
  sell	
  to	
  us.	
  The	
  Center	
  for	
  American	
  Progress	
  finds	
  in	
  “Securing	
  America’s	
  Future:	
  Enhancing	
  Our	
  
National	
  Security	
  by	
  Reducing	
  oil	
  Dependence	
  and	
  Environmental	
  Damage,”	
  that	
  “because	
  of	
  this,	
  anti-­‐Western	
  nations	
  such	
  
as	
  Iran—with	
  whom	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  by	
  law	
  cannot	
  trade	
  or	
  buy	
  oil—benefit	
  regardless	
  of	
  who	
  the	
  end	
  buyer	
  of	
  the	
  
fuel	
  is.”	
  Further,	
  the	
  regimes	
  and	
  elites	
  that	
  economically	
  benefit	
  from	
  rich	
  energy	
  resources	
  rarely	
  share	
  
oil	
  revenues	
  with	
  their	
  people,	
  which	
  worsens	
  economic	
  disparity	
  in	
  the	
  countries	
  and	
  at	
  times	
  
creates	
  resource-­‐driven	
  tension	
  and	
  crises.	
  The	
  State	
  Department	
  cites	
  oil-­‐related	
  violence	
  in	
  
particular	
  as	
  a	
  danger	
  in	
  Nigeria,	
  where	
  more	
  than	
  54	
  national	
  oil	
  workers	
  or	
  businesspeople	
  have	
  been	
  kidnapped	
  at	
  oil-­‐related	
  
facilities	
  and	
  other	
  infrastructure	
  since	
  January	
  2008.	
  Attacks	
  by	
  insurgents	
  on	
  the	
  U.S.	
  military	
  and	
  civilians	
  continue	
  
to	
  be	
  a	
  danger	
  in	
  Iraq.	
  
	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                     48	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                       	
                                                                            Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                           A2:	
  States	
  CP	
  (1/2)	
  
States	
  can’t	
  control	
  highways	
  –	
  won’t	
  have	
  necessary	
  money	
  and	
  puts	
  our	
  entire	
  
transportation	
  system	
  at	
  risk	
  
Kain,	
  2011	
  Ron	
  Kain,	
  a	
  former	
  chief	
  of	
  staff	
  to	
  Vice	
  President	
  Joe	
  Biden	
  and	
  senior	
  adviser	
  to	
  President	
  
Barack	
  Obama	
  on	
  the	
  Recovery	
  Act,	
  Bloomberg	
  News,	
  August	
  22,	
  2011,	
  “Tea	
  Party	
  Gas	
  Tax	
  Fix	
  Is	
  Bad	
  
Economics,	
  Worse	
  History:	
  Ron	
  Klain”,	
  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-­‐08-­‐23/tea-­‐party-­‐gas-­‐
tax-­‐fix-­‐is-­‐bad-­‐economics-­‐worse-­‐history-­‐ron-­‐klain.html	
  
As	
  transportation	
  policy,	
  the	
  notion	
  of	
  the	
  states	
  taking	
  over	
  federal	
  highway	
  work	
  is	
  even	
  more	
  misguided.	
  
We	
  have	
  a	
  national	
  road	
  system	
  because	
  we	
  have	
  national	
  transportation	
  needs	
  -­‐-­‐	
  to	
  move	
  people	
  and	
  goods	
  
from	
  state	
  to	
  state,	
  region	
  to	
  region.	
  States	
  with	
  many	
  miles	
  of	
  highways	
  and	
  few	
  people	
  are	
  likely	
  to	
  have	
  less	
  
revenue	
  to	
  keep	
  up	
  these	
  national	
  roads	
  and	
  less	
  interest	
  in	
  doing	
  so,	
  because	
  many	
  of	
  the	
  goods	
  and	
  visitors	
  are	
  
just	
  passing	
  through	
  on	
  their	
  way	
  to	
  someplace	
  else.	
  Trucks	
  carrying	
  goods	
  from	
  Chicago	
  to	
  Seattle,	
  Atlanta	
  to	
  San	
  Francisco	
  and	
  
Philadelphia	
  to	
  Los	
  Angeles	
  travel	
  through	
  large,	
  lightly	
  populated	
  Mountain	
  West	
  states	
  that	
  may	
  be	
  unable	
  
to	
  finance	
  a	
  world-­‐class	
  highway	
  system	
  for	
  such	
  long-­‐distance	
  needs.	
  Just	
  “letting	
  the	
  states	
  do	
  it”	
  
puts	
  our	
  national	
  transportation	
  system	
  at	
  risk.	
  The	
  idea	
  is	
  so	
  misguided	
  that	
  calling	
  it	
  a	
  Third	
  World	
  
transportation	
  system	
  is	
  unfair	
  to	
  the	
  Third	
  World:	
  Developing	
  countries	
  are	
  virtually	
  all	
  striving	
  to	
  
build	
  the	
  sort	
  of	
  national	
  infrastructure	
  that	
  the	
  Tea	
  Party	
  wants	
  to	
  unwind	
  in	
  the	
  U.S.	
  

Some	
  states	
  only	
  use	
  20	
  cents	
  per	
  dollar	
  on	
  transportation	
  infrastructure	
  –	
  means	
  the	
  
cp	
  only	
  has	
  20	
  percent	
  solvency	
  
Dutzik	
  and	
  Davis	
  11	
  (Tony	
  Dutzik	
  and	
  Ben	
  Davis	
  (Frontier	
  Group	
  Ph.D.	
  Education	
  Fund)	
  “Do	
  Roads	
  Pay	
  
for	
  Themselves?”	
  	
  Frontier	
  Group	
  January	
  2011	
  
http://www.frontiergroup.org/sites/default/files/reports/Do-­‐Roads-­‐Pay-­‐for-­‐Themselves_-­‐wUS.pdf)	
  
Many	
  states	
  use	
  gas	
  tax	
  revenue	
  for	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  purposes	
  –	
  While	
  many	
  states	
  have	
  historically	
  dedicated	
  their	
  own	
  
state	
  gasoline	
  taxes	
  to	
  highways,	
  that	
  decision	
  has	
  not	
  been	
  universal.	
  According	
  to	
  Federal	
  Highway	
  Administration	
  data,	
  
roughly	
  20	
  cents	
  of	
  every	
  dollar	
  collected	
  in	
  state	
  gas	
  taxes,	
  motor	
  vehicle	
  fees	
  or	
  tolls	
  nationwide	
  is	
  used	
  for	
  
public	
  transportation	
  and	
  other	
  governmental	
  purposes.	
  Many	
  of	
  the	
  states	
  that	
  do	
  use	
  gasoline	
  taxes	
  solely	
  for	
  
highways	
  do	
  so	
  because	
  they	
  remain	
  bound	
  by	
  constitutional	
  earmarks	
  of	
  gasoline	
  taxes	
  imposed	
  three-­‐quarters	
  of	
  a	
  century	
  ago,	
  regardless	
  of	
  
whether	
  those	
  decisions	
  still	
  make	
  sense	
  today.	
  


Revenue	
  from	
  states	
  gas	
  tax	
  increases	
  end	
  up	
  in	
  its	
  general	
  fund	
  and	
  not	
  spent	
  on	
  
transportation	
  
Phaneuf	
  3/28	
  (Keith	
  M.	
  Phaneuf	
  	
  (CT	
  state	
  budget	
  reporter)	
  “Legislature	
  adopts	
  'circuit	
  breaker'	
  on	
  
gas	
  tax”	
  The	
  CT	
  Mirror	
  March	
  28	
  2012	
  http://www.ctmirror.org/story/15847/democrats-­‐drop-­‐plan-­‐
sunset-­‐cap-­‐gas-­‐tax)	
  
But	
  Daily	
  didn't	
  mention	
  a	
  point	
  that	
  critics	
  of	
  those	
  gas	
  tax	
  hikes	
  have	
  raised	
  repeatedly	
  since	
  then:	
  fuel	
  tax	
  revenue	
  frequently	
  is	
  
spent	
  on	
  non-­‐transportation	
  programs.	
  	
  According	
  to	
  state	
  budget	
  records,	
  in	
  the	
  first	
  five	
  years	
  after	
  
those	
  tax	
  increases	
  were	
  ordered,	
  60	
  percent	
  of	
  the	
  nearly	
  $1.5	
  billion	
  raised	
  by	
  the	
  wholesale	
  tax	
  was	
  
not	
  spent	
  on	
  transportation.	
  	
  Though	
  Malloy	
  has	
  worked	
  to	
  wean	
  non-­‐transportation	
  programs	
  off	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  revenue	
  since	
  he	
  
took	
  office	
  last	
  year,	
  nearly	
  40	
  percent	
  of	
  the	
  tax	
  from	
  this	
  year's	
  wholesale	
  levy,	
  about	
  $146	
  million,	
  still	
  is	
  
expected	
  to	
  end	
  up	
  in	
  the	
  general	
  fund.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                       49	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                               	
                                                                      Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                      A2	
  States	
  CP	
  (2/2)	
  
Less	
  media	
  oversight	
  makes	
  state	
  contracts	
  corrupt	
  
NEWMAN	
  2011	
  (http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-­‐newman/2011/09/23/why-­‐federal-­‐
government-­‐trumps-­‐the-­‐states	
  Why	
  Federal	
  Government	
  Trumps	
  the	
  States	
  (	
  Society	
  of	
  Professional	
  
Journalists	
  Award	
  for	
  Public	
  Service	
  |	
  National	
  Press	
  Club	
  Consumer	
  Journalism	
  Award)	
  )	
  
It's	
  worth	
  keeping	
  in	
  mind	
  that	
  the	
  national	
  press	
  corps	
  is	
  centered	
  in	
  Washington	
  and	
  New	
  York,	
  and	
  for	
  all	
  its	
  
flaws,	
  there	
  are	
  still	
  hundreds	
  of	
  dogged	
  journalists	
  eager	
  to	
  ferret	
  out	
  wrongdoing	
  and	
  pounce	
  on	
  
scandalous	
  behavior.	
  The	
  same	
  goes	
  for	
  interest	
  groups	
  like	
  Common	
  Cause	
  and	
  Consumers	
  Union,	
  which	
  tend	
  to	
  focus	
  their	
  limited	
  
efforts	
  on	
  national	
  issues	
  rather	
  than	
  local	
  ones.	
  All	
  of	
  that	
  oversight	
  helps	
  keep	
  Washington	
  more	
  honest	
  than	
  it	
  
would	
  otherwise	
  be.	
  In	
  state	
  capitals,	
  by	
  contrast,	
  there's	
  far	
  less	
  oversight	
  and	
  a	
  thin	
  press	
  corps	
  that	
  
can't	
  possibly	
  keep	
  tabs	
  on	
  every	
  shady	
  deal.	
  
	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                               50	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                 	
                                                            Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                             AT:	
  VMT	
  CP	
  (1/2)	
  
CP	
  Doesn’t	
  solve	
  fuel	
  efficiency	
  as	
  well—no	
  access	
  to	
  the	
  oil	
  advantage	
  
VTPI:	
  5/30	
  (Victory	
  Transport	
  Policy	
  Institute	
  “Fuel	
  Taxes:	
  Increasing	
  Fuel	
  Taxes	
  and	
  Fees”	
  5.30.12.	
  Web.	
  
http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm17.htm)	
  
Higher	
  fuel	
  prices	
  cause	
  a	
  combination	
  of	
  reduced	
  driving	
  and	
  increased	
  vehicle	
  fuel	
  efficiency	
  
(Institute	
  for	
  Transport	
  Studies	
  2004;	
  CBO	
  2008).	
  Short-­‐term	
  fuel	
  savings	
  consist	
  of	
  reduced	
  driving	
  and	
  
a	
  shift	
  toward	
  more	
  fuel-­‐efficient	
  vehicles	
  owned	
  in	
  multi-­‐vehicle	
  households.	
  Over	
  the	
  long-­‐term,	
  
higher	
  fuel	
  prices	
  encourage	
  consumers	
  to	
  purchase	
  more	
  fuel-­‐efficient	
  vehicles.	
  About	
  two-­‐thirds	
  of	
  
long-­‐term	
  fuel	
  savings	
  typically	
  come	
  from	
  increased	
  fuel	
  efficiency	
  and	
  one	
  third	
  from	
  reduced	
  
vehicle	
  travel.	
  As	
  a	
  result,	
  increased	
  fuel	
  taxes	
  cause	
  greater	
  fuel	
  savings	
  but	
  less	
  vehicle	
  travel	
  
reductions	
  then	
  the	
  same	
  amount	
  of	
  revenue	
  collected	
  through	
  per-­‐mile	
  fees,	
  road	
  tolls	
  or	
  parking	
  
charges.	
  

VMT	
  bad-­‐Costly,	
  hackable,	
  and	
  large	
  timeframe	
  	
  
DeWitte	
  2011	
  (UI	
  study:	
  drivers	
  would	
  accept	
  new	
  kind	
  of	
  highway	
  tax	
  
http://thegazette.com/2011/03/17/ui-­‐study-­‐drivers-­‐would-­‐accept-­‐new-­‐kind-­‐of-­‐highway-­‐tax/)	
  
The	
  type	
  of	
  electronic	
  equipment	
  used	
  in	
  the	
  system	
  likely	
  couldn’t	
  be	
  implemented	
  on	
  a	
  nationwide	
  
basis	
  for	
  five	
  to	
  10	
  years,	
  Hanley	
  said.	
  The	
  type	
  of	
  cellular	
  service	
  used	
  to	
  transmit	
  the	
  data	
  is	
  too	
  
expensive	
  at	
  present	
  rates,	
  and	
  the	
  high	
  cost	
  of	
  deploying	
  the	
  equipment	
  in	
  more	
  than	
  600	
  million	
  
existing	
  vehicles	
  could	
  also	
  outweigh	
  the	
  benefits,	
  Hanley	
  said.	
  Requiring	
  that	
  the	
  systems	
  be	
  installed	
  
as	
  original	
  equipment	
  in	
  new	
  vehicles	
  would	
  significantly	
  reduce	
  the	
  cost,	
  Hanley	
  said,	
  and	
  reduce	
  the	
  
vulnerability	
  of	
  systems	
  to	
  tampering.	
  

Can’t	
  solve	
  inefficacies	
  through	
  fuel	
  tax-­‐not	
  a	
  large	
  enough	
  dent	
  in	
  gas	
  costs	
  
Whitty	
  2007	
  (http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/RUFPP/docs/rufpp_finalreport.pdf	
  Oregon’s	
  Mileage	
  
Fee	
  Concept	
  and	
  Road	
  User	
  Fee	
  Pilot	
  Program	
  (James	
  M.	
  Whotty	
  Manager,	
  Office	
  of	
  Innovative	
  
Partnerships	
  and	
  Alternative	
  Funding)	
  
The	
  most	
  common	
  issue	
  raised	
  about	
  a	
  flat	
  mileage	
  fee	
  rate	
  structure	
  concerns	
  removal	
  of	
  the	
  
incentive	
  for	
  motorists	
  owning	
  gas	
  guzzling	
  vehicles	
  to	
  trade	
  up	
  to	
  fuel	
  efficient	
  vehicles.	
  This	
  point	
  
derives	
  from	
  distress	
  about	
  the	
  environmental	
  impact	
  of	
  driving	
  for	
  reasons	
  of	
  climate	
  change	
  and	
  air	
  
quality.	
  Considering	
  the	
  mileage	
  fee	
  rate	
  issue	
  from	
  the	
  perspective	
  of	
  environmental	
  sensitivity	
  alone,	
  
this	
  point	
  has	
  some	
  validity.	
  Two	
  counter	
  arguments	
  tend	
  to	
  soften	
  the	
  point.	
  First,	
  road	
  charges	
  
imposed	
  on	
  vehicles—whether	
  gas	
  taxes	
  or	
  mileage	
  fees—comprise	
  only	
  a	
  minor	
  portion	
  of	
  total	
  fuel	
  
costs	
  for	
  operation.	
  This	
  counterpoint	
  argues	
  the	
  change	
  to	
  a	
  flat	
  mileage	
  fee	
  rate	
  would	
  have	
  a	
  
negligible	
  impact—cost	
  per	
  mile	
  driven—on	
  vehicle	
  choices.	
  Recent	
  research	
  by	
  Oregon	
  State	
  
University	
  provides	
  evidence	
  supporting	
  this	
  point.	
  83	
  This	
  argument	
  observes	
  that	
  people	
  trade	
  up	
  for	
  
greater	
  fuel	
  efficiency	
  primarily	
  because	
  of	
  fuel	
  cost	
  not	
  tax	
  or	
  fee	
  cost.	
  	
  
	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                  51	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                              	
                                                                                  Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                   AT:	
  VMP	
  CP	
  (2/2)	
  
A	
  VMT	
  tax	
  ignores	
  the	
  needs	
  of	
  rural	
  areas	
  
Lumis	
  11.	
  
Cynthia	
  Lumis,	
  Congresswoman	
  from	
  Wyoming.	
  Lummis:	
  Vehicle	
  Miles	
  Traveled	
  Tax	
  Would	
  Be	
  Unfair	
  to	
  
Rural	
  Americans,	
  Roll	
  Call.	
  July	
  21,	
  2011.	
  	
  
http://www.rollcall.com/features/Transportation-­‐2011_Policy-­‐Briefing/policy_briefings/Cynthia-­‐
Lummis-­‐VMT-­‐Tax-­‐Would-­‐Be-­‐Unfair-­‐to-­‐Rural-­‐Americans-­‐207560-­‐1.html	
  
	
  
Lawmakers	
  on	
  both	
  sides	
  of	
  the	
  aisle	
  agree	
  that	
  something	
  must	
  be	
  done	
  to	
  restore	
  the	
  integrity	
  of	
  the	
  country’s	
  transportation	
  infrastructure.	
  
But	
  as	
  Washington	
  considers	
  new	
  revenue-­‐raisers	
  for	
  the	
  Highway	
  Trust	
  Fund,	
  as	
  we	
  have	
  seen	
  time	
  and	
  again,	
  some	
  of	
  Washington’s	
  worst	
  
ideas	
  can’t	
  seem	
  to	
  be	
  put	
  to	
  rest.	
  This	
  is	
  the	
  case	
  with	
  the	
  disclosure	
  of	
  recent	
  Congressional	
  Budget	
  Office	
  recommendations	
  that	
  would	
  
impose	
  a	
  pay-­‐by-­‐the-­‐mile	
  tax	
  to	
  make	
  up	
  for	
  the	
  declining	
  gas	
  tax	
  revenue.	
  Although	
  the	
  vehicle	
  miles	
  traveled	
  tax	
  has	
  been	
  shot	
  down	
  several	
  
times	
  in	
  recent	
  years,	
  the	
  CBO	
  memo	
  suggests	
  that	
  this	
  misguided	
  approach	
  is	
  a	
  viable	
  alternative.	
  The	
  VMT	
  tax	
  sounds	
  like	
  music	
  
to	
  the	
  ears	
  of	
  Washington	
  bureaucrats	
  and	
  city	
  dwellers	
  —	
  people	
  who	
  drive	
  little	
  and	
  have	
  access	
  to	
  
a	
  multitude	
  of	
  options	
  when	
  it	
  comes	
  to	
  public	
  transportation.	
  Unfortunately,	
  this	
  proposal	
  puts	
  rural-­‐living	
  
Americans,	
  who	
  have	
  no	
  other	
  alternative,	
  in	
  the	
  back	
  seat.	
  For	
  those	
  of	
  us	
  living	
  in	
  rural	
  areas,	
  the	
  VMT	
  tax	
  approach	
  
would	
  be	
  downright	
  hostile	
  to	
  our	
  everyday	
  life.	
  It’s	
  typical	
  for	
  people	
  living	
  in	
  nonurban	
  areas	
  to	
  drive	
  
100	
  miles	
  to	
  go	
  to	
  work,	
  to	
  the	
  grocery	
  store	
  or	
  to	
  the	
  doctor.	
  It	
  is	
  not	
  difficult	
  to	
  imagine	
  how	
  
damaging	
  this	
  tax	
  would	
  be	
  for	
  rural	
  America.	
  As	
  the	
  state	
  with	
  the	
  smallest	
  population	
  but	
  which	
  is	
  ninth-­‐largest,	
  my	
  home	
  
state	
  of	
  Wyoming	
  would	
  be	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  hardest	
  hit	
  by	
  a	
  VMT	
  tax.	
  Wyoming’s	
  most	
  recent	
  data	
  report	
  that	
  on	
  an	
  annual	
  
basis,	
  the	
  average	
  person	
  in	
  the	
  state	
  drives	
  17,735	
  miles,	
  putting	
  Wyoming	
  at	
  the	
  top	
  of	
  the	
  list	
  in	
  
terms	
  of	
  miles	
  driven.	
  Undoubtedly,	
  the	
  VMT	
  tax	
  was	
  thought	
  up	
  by	
  people	
  who	
  were	
  raised	
  east	
  of	
  
the	
  Mississippi	
  and	
  who	
  do	
  not	
  understand	
  the	
  miles	
  people	
  need	
  to	
  drive	
  in	
  states	
  west	
  of	
  the	
  
Mississippi.	
  	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               52	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                                                                                                                         	
                                                                                                                                                                    Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                                                                                                                     A2:	
  T	
  -­‐	
  Infra	
  
	
  
The	
  gas	
  tax	
  directly	
  funds	
  mass	
  transit	
  and	
  highways	
  
Bloomberg	
  et	
  al	
  ’11	
  [Michael,	
  “Transportation	
  Infrastructure	
  Report	
  2011”	
  Building	
  America’s	
  Future	
  
Educational	
  Fund	
  (BAF	
  Ed	
  Fund)	
  is	
  a	
  bipartisan	
  coalition	
  of	
  elected	
  officials	
  
http://www.bafuture.org/sites/default/files/Report_0.pdf]	
  
Government	
  transportation	
  spending,	
  at	
  all	
  levels	
  of	
  government,	
  is	
  overwhelmingly	
  directed	
  toward	
  roads.	
  
Since	
  1956,	
  the	
  largest	
  portion	
  of	
  public	
  funding	
  for	
  transportation	
  infrastructure	
  was	
  dedicated	
  to	
  building	
  and	
  maintaining	
  highways.	
  
Although	
  a	
  small	
  portion	
  (15%)	
  of	
  the	
  federal	
  gas	
  tax	
  is	
  dedicated	
  to	
  a	
  fund	
  for	
  mass	
  transit,	
  the	
  vast	
  majority	
  
of	
  federal	
  gas	
  tax	
  revenue	
  is	
  spent	
  on	
  highways.	
  The	
  same	
  is	
  true	
  for	
  state	
  gas	
  taxes:	
  30	
  states	
  are	
  actually	
  constitutionally	
  
or	
  statutorily	
  required	
  to	
  spend	
  100%	
  of	
  their	
  gas	
  tax	
  revenues	
  on	
  roads.	
  The	
  disproportionate	
  channeling	
  of	
  transportation	
  dollars	
  toward	
  
highways	
  has	
  encouraged	
  more	
  and	
  more	
  construction	
  of	
  roads,	
  even	
  as	
  the	
  demand	
  rises	
  for	
  other	
  forms	
  of	
  transportation.	
  	
  


Transportation	
  infrastructure	
  investment	
  is	
  funded	
  by	
  the	
  gas	
  tax	
  
Bloomberg	
  et	
  al	
  ’11	
  [Michael,	
  “Transportation	
  Infrastructure	
  Report	
  2011”	
  Building	
  America’s	
  Future	
  
Educational	
  Fund	
  (BAF	
  Ed	
  Fund)	
  is	
  a	
  bipartisan	
  coalition	
  of	
  elected	
  officials	
  
http://www.bafuture.org/sites/default/files/Report_0.pdf]	
  
In	
  addition	
  to	
  lacking	
  vision,	
  the	
  size	
  and	
  scale	
  of	
  our	
  infrastructure	
  investment	
  is	
  far	
  below	
  adequate.	
  The	
  American	
  
transportation	
  network	
  has	
  been	
  under-­‐funded	
  for	
  decades.	
  Only	
  about	
  1.7%	
  of	
  U.S.	
  GDP	
  is	
  spent	
  on	
  transportation	
  infrastructure.	
  American	
  infrastructure	
  spending	
  in	
  real	
  inflation-­‐adjusted	
  

                                                                                                     Transportation	
  spending	
  is	
  a	
  complicated	
  patchwork	
  of	
  dollars	
  
dollars	
  is	
  about	
  the	
  same	
  level	
  now	
  as	
  it	
  was	
  in	
  1968—when	
  the	
  economy	
  was	
  far	
  smaller.	
  4	
  

distributed	
  by	
  federal,	
  state,	
  and	
  local	
  governments,	
  financed	
  by	
  a	
  mix	
  of	
  gas	
  taxes,	
  other	
  motor	
  vehicle	
  and	
  
commercial	
  truck	
  taxes,	
  and	
  general	
  revenue	
  funds.	
  About	
  a	
  quarter	
  of	
  transportation	
  dollars	
  are	
  provided	
  by	
  the	
  federal	
  
government,	
  with	
  the	
  rest	
  covered	
  by	
  state	
  and	
  local	
  governments.	
  5	
  Federal	
  dollars	
  for	
  transportation	
  infrastructure	
  are	
  
largely	
  generated	
  by	
  the	
  federal	
  gasoline	
  tax,	
  which	
  has	
  stood	
  at	
  18.4	
  cents	
  a	
  gallon	
  since	
  1993.	
  
Federal	
  gas	
  taxes	
  are	
  deposited	
  in	
  the	
  Highway	
  Trust	
  Fund,	
                                                                                                                                                                    which	
  was	
  established	
  in	
  1956	
  to	
  provide	
  ongoing	
  revenue	
  for	
  federal	
  highway	
  construction.	
  Because	
  the	
  federal	
  gas	
  tax	
  
is	
  not	
  tied	
  to	
  inflation,	
  its	
  purchasing	
  power	
  has	
  dwindled	
  substantially	
  over	
  the	
  years.	
  And	
  because	
  American	
  cars	
  have	
  become	
  so	
  m uch	
  m ore	
  fuel	
  efficient	
  in	
  recent	
  decades,	
  federal	
  gas	
  taxes	
  have	
  raised	
  fewer	
  and	
  fewer	
  funds,	
  even	
  as	
  Americans	
  drive	
  m ore	
  and	
  m ore.	
  As	
  a	
  result,	
  the	
  
Highway	
  Trust	
  Fund,	
  w hich	
  is	
  almost	
  entirely	
  comprised	
  of	
  gas	
  tax	
  receipts,	
  no	
  longer	
  covers	
  the	
  costs	
  of	
  operating	
  and	
  m aintaining	
  our	
  highway	
  system.	
  Over	
  the	
  past	
  two	
  years,	
  Congress	
  has	
  bailed	
  it	
  out	
  with	
  $34.5	
  b illion	
  of	
  general	
  revenue	
  funds	
  to	
  cover	
  its	
  outlays.	
  6	
  Our	
  government	
  
commitment	
  to	
  infrastructure	
  as	
  a	
  share	
  of	
  GDP	
  has	
  shrunk	
  over	
  the	
  years,	
  and	
  now	
  our	
  primary	
  funding	
  stream	
  is	
  drying	
  up.	
  W hat	
  m ade	
  sense	
  in	
  the	
  Eisenhower	
  Era	
  does	
  not	
  seem	
  sustainable	
  today	
  




Gasoline	
  tax	
  is	
  infrastructure	
  investment	
  
O’Malley	
  ’12	
  [Martin,	
  governor	
  of	
  Maryland,	
  “Gas	
  tax	
  increase	
  is	
  a	
  necessary	
  investment”	
  2/23/12	
  
http://www.thesentinel.com/pgs/opinion/gas-­‐tax-­‐necessary”]	
  
To	
  create	
  jobs,	
  a	
  modern	
  economy	
  requires	
  modern	
  investments:	
  investments	
  by	
  all	
  of	
  us	
  for	
  all	
  of	
  us.	
  That’s	
  not	
  a	
  Democratic	
  
or	
  a	
  Republican	
  idea;	
  it	
  is	
  an	
  economic	
  and	
  historic	
  truth.	
  It	
  was	
  true	
  for	
  our	
  parents,	
  it	
  was	
  true	
  for	
  our	
  grandparents,	
  and	
  it	
  is	
  a	
  truth	
  that	
  has	
  
built	
  our	
  state	
  and	
  has	
  built	
  our	
  country.	
  There	
  is	
  a	
  connection	
  between	
  the	
  investments	
  we	
  make	
  today	
  in	
  our	
  
infrastructure	
  and	
  our	
  ability	
  to	
  create	
  jobs,	
  expand	
  opportunity	
  and	
  move	
  forward	
  on	
  the	
  road	
  to	
  recovery.	
  Infrastructure	
  investments	
  
not	
  only	
  create	
  and	
  save	
  jobs	
  —	
  they	
  help	
  us	
  strengthen	
  our	
  competitiveness,	
  attract	
  foreign	
  investment	
  and	
  bring	
  new	
  businesses	
  to	
  
Maryland.	
  Right	
  now,	
  the	
  pace	
  of	
  our	
  transportation	
  infrastructure	
  investments	
  is	
  not	
  sufficient	
  to	
  meet	
  the	
  
needs	
  of	
  our	
  state.	
  And	
  our	
  inadequate	
  transportation	
  systems	
  are	
  presenting	
  a	
  growing	
  threat	
  to	
  safety	
  on	
  our	
  roads,	
  to	
  our	
  quality	
  of	
  
life,	
  and	
  to	
  our	
  economic	
  competitiveness.	
  Maryland	
  has	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  worst	
  traffic	
  in	
  America.	
  We	
  pay	
  a	
  heavy	
  price	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  the	
  time	
  we	
  
spend	
  idling	
  in	
  bumper-­‐to-­‐bumper	
  traffic	
  when	
  we	
  could	
  be	
  at	
  home	
  with	
  our	
  families.	
  With	
  a	
  growing	
  population	
  and	
  aging	
  infrastructure,	
  we	
  
might	
  soon	
  pay	
  an	
  even	
  steeper	
  price	
  —	
  because	
  unlike	
  trees,	
  bridges	
  do	
  not	
  grow	
  stronger	
  with	
  age.	
  Today,	
  with	
  gasoline	
  above	
  
$3.50	
  per	
  gallon,	
  our	
  primary	
  source	
  of	
  revenue	
  for	
  transportation	
  is	
  the	
  same	
  flat	
  23	
  cents	
  it	
  was	
  
during	
  Gov.	
  Schaefer’s	
  second	
  term,	
  when	
  gas	
  was	
  $1.08	
  per	
  gallon.	
  Meanwhile,	
  it	
  costs	
  more	
  to	
  paint	
  the	
  Bay	
  
Bridge	
  today	
  than	
  it	
  did	
  to	
  build	
  the	
  first	
  span.	
  	
  As	
  the	
  Baltimore	
  Sun	
  editorializes,	
  “If	
  Maryland	
  continues	
  to	
  embrace	
  a	
  1992	
  tax	
  rate,	
  it	
  will	
  
have	
  to	
  settle	
  for	
  crumbling	
  1992-­‐era	
  infrastructure.”To	
  help	
  meet	
  our	
  infrastructure	
  funding	
  needs,	
  I	
  recently	
  
introduced	
  legislation	
  to	
  repeal	
  the	
  current	
  sales	
  tax	
  exemption	
  on	
  a	
  gallon	
  of	
  gasoline,	
  phasing	
  it	
  out	
  by	
  two	
  
percent	
  a	
  year,	
  with	
  a	
  “braking	
  mechanism”	
  to	
  protect	
  consumers	
  in	
  the	
  event	
  that	
  the	
  price	
  of	
  gas	
  spikes.	
  Our	
  legislation	
  also	
  strengthens	
  protections	
  to	
  better	
  
safeguard	
  these	
  new	
  investments	
  in	
  the	
  Trust	
  Fund.An	
  enhanced	
  investment	
  on	
  this	
  scale	
  would	
  allow	
  us	
  to	
  create	
  7,500	
  new	
  jobs	
  building	
  needed	
  roads,	
  bridges	
  
and	
  public	
  transit	
  throughout	
  our	
  state.	
  And	
  it	
  would	
  give	
  us	
  greater	
  flexibility	
  to	
  move	
  forward	
  with	
  projects	
  like	
  the	
  Purple	
  Line,	
  which	
  would	
  operate	
  between	
  
New	
  Carrollton	
  and	
  Bethesda,	
  connecting	
  riders	
  to	
  four	
  branches	
  of	
  the	
  WMATA	
  Metro	
  system.	
  With	
  the	
  right	
  approvals	
  and	
  funding,	
  we	
  could	
  begin	
  construction	
  
in	
  2015,	
  and	
  the	
  Purple	
  Line	
  could	
  be	
  up	
  and	
  running	
  by	
  2020.I	
  know	
  that	
  every	
  family	
  is	
  still	
  feeling	
  the	
  hurt	
  of	
  this	
  recession.	
  And	
  I	
  know	
  this	
  is	
  a	
  very	
  difficult	
  ask.	
  
But	
  nobody	
  else	
  is	
  going	
  to	
  do	
  this	
  for	
  us.	
  We’re	
  all	
  in	
  this	
  together,	
  and	
  we	
  need	
  to	
  work	
  together	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  move	
  our	
  state	
  forward	
  to	
  the	
  better	
  and	
  more	
  
prosperous	
  times	
  that	
  lay	
  ahead.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                               53	
  
Starter	
  Set	
        	
     Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  




                     Neg	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                54	
  
Starter	
  Set	
        	
      Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  


                     Case	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         55	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                                             	
                                                                                                          Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                                                    A2:	
  Solvency	
  
A	
  gas	
  tax	
  increase	
  only	
  costs	
  4	
  dollars	
  more	
  a	
  month	
  for	
  the	
  average	
  driver	
  
Reinhardt,	
  2011	
  (William	
  G.	
  Reinhardt,	
  Editor,	
  Public	
  Works	
  Financing	
  Before	
  the	
  National	
  Council	
  for	
  
Public-­‐Private	
  Partnerships,	
  October	
  5,	
  2011,	
  
http://www.ncppp.org/resources/papers/Reinhardt_111005.pdf	
  )	
  
One	
  good	
  argument	
  for	
  a	
  gas	
  tax	
  increase	
  goes	
  like	
  this:	
  the	
  federal	
  gas	
  tax	
  runs	
  about	
  $19	
  per	
  month	
  for	
  the	
  average	
  
driver.	
  A	
  10	
  cent	
  per	
  gallon	
  increase	
  equals	
  about	
  $4	
  per	
  month.	
  So,	
  the	
  question	
  gas	
  tax	
  supporters	
  ask	
  is:	
  “will	
  
America	
  let	
  its	
  most	
  important	
  public	
  investments	
  crumble	
  rather	
  than	
  pay	
  $4	
  per	
  month?”	
  Apparently	
  yes.	
  The	
  last	
  federal	
  gas	
  tax	
  increase	
  
was	
  in	
  1993	
  and	
  that	
  was	
  a	
  nickel.	
  That	
  nickel	
  is	
  worth	
  about	
  2	
  cents	
  today.	
  


That	
  number	
  is	
  a	
  drop	
  in	
  the	
  bucket	
  in	
  comparison	
  to	
  current	
  annual	
  cost	
  of	
  gasoline	
  
on	
  households...less	
  than	
  .015%	
  
TUTTLE	
  2011	
  
(2011	
  Is	
  Priciest	
  Year	
  Ever	
  for	
  Gasoline:	
  $3.53	
  Per	
  Gallon,	
  Over	
  $4K	
  Spent	
  Per	
  
Householdhttp://moneyland.time.com/2011/12/20/2011-­‐is-­‐priciest-­‐year-­‐ever-­‐for-­‐gasoline-­‐3-­‐53-­‐per-­‐
gallon-­‐over-­‐4k-­‐spent-­‐per-­‐household/)	
  
Consumer	
  Reports	
  states	
  that	
  gas	
  prices	
  have	
  dropped	
  6¢,	
  on	
  average,	
  in	
  the	
  last	
  week	
  alone,	
  and	
  as	
  much	
  as	
  10¢	
  a	
  gallon	
  in	
  the	
  Rocky	
  
Mountain	
  states.	
  Slightly	
  over	
  a	
  month	
  ago,	
  the	
  average	
  gallon	
  of	
  regular	
  cost	
  $3.41.	
  But	
  guess	
  what?	
  Even	
  though	
  gasoline	
  has	
  gotten	
  
cheaper,	
  it’s	
  not	
  cheap.	
  That	
  $3.41-­‐per-­‐gallon	
  average	
  in	
  mid-­‐November	
  represented	
  the	
  highest-­‐ever	
  price	
  for	
  gas	
  for	
  that	
  time	
  of	
  year.	
  As	
  
the	
  year	
  comes	
  to	
  a	
  close,	
  the	
  Associated	
  Press	
  reports	
  that	
  the	
  typical	
  U.S.	
  household	
  will	
  have	
  spent	
  $4,155	
  filling	
  up	
  
at	
  the	
  pump	
  in	
  2011.	
  That’s	
  an	
  all-­‐time	
  high.	
  It’s	
  also	
  8.4%	
  of	
  the	
  median	
  household	
  income—the	
  highest	
  percentage	
  coughed	
  up	
  for	
  
gasoline	
  since	
  1981,	
  when	
  oil	
  prices	
  had	
  soared	
  due	
  to	
  complications	
  in	
  the	
  Middle	
  East	
  


Plan	
  only	
  costs	
  households	
  nine	
  dollars	
  per	
  month—not	
  enough	
  to	
  impact	
  driving	
  
behavior	
  
National	
  Surface	
  Transportation	
  Infrastructure	
  Commission	
  2009	
  
(“Paying	
  our	
  way:	
  A	
  New	
  Framework	
  for	
  Transportation	
  Finance”,	
  http://financecommission.dot.gov/Documents/NSTIF_Commission_Final_Report_Mar09FNL.pdf	
  )	
  
The	
  impact	
  on	
  individual	
  households	
  of	
  the	
  recommended	
  gas	
  tax	
  increase	
  is	
  that	
  on	
  average	
  they	
  would	
  
pay	
  approximately	
  $9	
  per	
  month	
  more	
  in	
  federal	
  gas	
  taxes	
  (individual	
  households	
  now	
  pay	
  on	
  average	
  $17	
  per	
  month).	
  
By	
  comparison,	
  the	
  average	
  household	
  pays	
  about	
  $300	
  per	
  month	
  to	
  operate	
  and	
  maintain	
  its	
  cars	
  (and	
  about	
  $800	
  per	
  month	
  to	
  own	
  and	
  
operate	
  them).	
  	
  


Studies	
  by	
  economists	
  and	
  behavior	
  experts	
  prove	
  that	
  even	
  a	
  33%	
  increase	
  in	
  prices	
  
wouldn’t	
  make	
  a	
  dent	
  in	
  pollution	
  or	
  miles	
  driven.	
  
Sipes	
  and	
  Mendelsohn	
  2001	
  (Kristin	
  and	
  Robert,	
  Yale	
  School	
  of	
  Forestry	
  and	
  Environmental	
  Studies,	
  “The	
  effectiveness	
  of	
  gasoline	
  
taxation	
  to	
  manage	
  air	
  pollution”,	
  Ecological	
  Economics	
  36	
  (2001)	
  299–309)	
  
Surveys	
  in	
  California	
  and	
  Connecticut	
  suggest	
  that	
  households	
  have	
  similar	
  responses	
  to	
  gasoline	
  taxation.	
  The	
  results	
  suggest	
  that	
  higher	
  gasoline	
  prices	
  would	
  encourage	
  people	
  to	
  drive	
  
fewer	
  miles	
  and	
  to	
  purchase	
  cars	
  that	
  are	
  more	
  fuel-­‐efficient.	
  Both	
  of	
  these	
  responses	
  are	
  in	
  a	
  desirable	
  direction	
  and	
  may	
  encourage	
  policy	
  makers	
  to	
  consider	
  environmental	
  gas	
  taxes.	
  

      the	
  results	
  from	
  several	
  demand	
  models	
  for	
  Los	
  Angeles	
  and	
  Connecticut	
  consistently	
  demonstrate	
  that	
  
However,	
  

gasoline	
  demand	
  is	
  price	
  inelastic	
  over	
  both	
  the	
  short	
  and	
  long	
  run.	
  That	
  is,	
  people	
  will	
  make	
  only	
  
relatively	
  small	
  changes	
  in	
  their	
  behavior	
  in	
  response	
  to	
  higher	
  prices.	
  These	
  survey	
  results	
  are	
  further	
  
supported	
  by	
  actual	
  behavior.	
  Studies	
  of	
  panel	
  and	
  cross-­‐sectional	
  data	
  sets	
  from	
  the	
  literature	
  reveal	
  low	
  price	
  elasticities	
  in	
  actual	
  driving	
  behavior.	
  This	
  study,	
  
however,	
  reports	
  price	
  elasticity	
  results	
  that	
  are	
  slightly	
  lower	
  than	
  the	
  bulk	
  of	
  the	
  empirical	
  literature.	
  The	
  income	
  elasticities	
  in	
  this	
  study	
  are	
  conspicuously	
  lower	
  than	
  the	
  estimates	
  from	
  
other	
  studies.	
  This	
  discrepancy	
  may	
  be	
  a	
  flaw	
  of	
  hypothetical	
  survey	
  methods.	
  People	
  may	
  find	
  it	
  difficult	
  to	
  imagine	
  the	
  hypothetical	
  situation	
  and	
  how	
  they	
  would	
  actually	
  respond	
  to	
  it.	
  They	
  
tend	
  to	
  underestimate	
  how	
  they	
  will	
  adapt.	
  Several	
  people	
  verbalized	
  this	
  dilemma	
  saying	
  they	
  could	
  not	
  imagine	
  how	
  they	
  could	
  survive	
  if	
  gasoline	
  prices	
  increased.	
  It	
  would	
  be	
  interesting	
  to	
  

                                                                                                                                                                                                         if	
  an	
  environmental	
  
see	
  how	
  these	
  people	
  have	
  actually	
  reacted	
  to	
  the	
  gasoline	
  price	
  increases	
  that	
  have	
  occurred	
  since	
  the	
  survey	
  was	
  completed.	
  Our	
  results	
  indicate	
  that	
  

surcharge	
  is	
  added	
  to	
  gasoline	
  taxes,	
  then	
  the	
  additional	
  tax	
  will	
  decrease	
  gasoline	
  consumption	
  only	
  
slightly	
  and,	
  therefore,	
  will	
  have	
  little	
  effect	
  on	
  air	
  pollution.	
  For	
  example,	
  the	
  price	
  elasticity	
  estimates	
  
suggest	
  that	
  a	
  33%	
  increase	
  in	
  gasoline	
  prices	
  (a	
  $0.50	
  per	
  gallon	
  tax)	
  would	
  decrease	
  gasoline	
  consumption	
  
by	
  only	
  13–23%.	
  Given	
  the	
  political	
  opposition	
  that	
  followed	
  from	
  the	
  modest	
  $0.05	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  proposed	
  by	
  the	
  Clinton	
  administration	
  in	
  the	
  early	
  1990s,	
  it	
  is	
  not	
  apparent	
  that	
  
it	
  would	
  be	
  worth	
  pursuing	
  such	
  an	
  unpopular	
  environmental	
  tax	
  for	
  such	
  a	
  small	
  improvement	
  in	
  the	
  environment.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                 56	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                             	
                                                                                  Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                  A2:	
  Accidents	
  (1/)	
  
Solving	
  structural	
  violence	
  doesn’t	
  solve	
  war	
  –	
  solving	
  war	
  solves	
  structural	
  violence.	
  
Quester,	
  Professor	
  of	
  Government	
  and	
  Politics	
  at	
  the	
  University	
  of	
  Maryland,	
  PhD	
  from	
  Harvard,	
  
1989	
  (George	
  H.,	
  July,	
  “International-­‐Security	
  Criticisms	
  of	
  Peace	
  Research,”	
  Annals	
  of	
  the	
  American	
  Academy	
  of	
  Political	
  
and	
  Social	
  Science,	
  Vol.	
  504,	
  Peace	
  Studies:	
  Past	
  and	
  Future,	
  p.	
  101)	
  
More	
  broadly,	
  the	
  peace	
  researcher	
  is	
  convinced	
  that	
  the	
  elimination	
  of	
  social	
  ills	
  will	
  almost	
  always	
  tend	
  
to	
  reduce	
  the	
  risks	
  of	
  war	
  as	
  well.	
  No	
  one	
  in	
  the	
  more	
  realistic	
  international-­‐securities	
  community	
  is	
  op-­‐posed	
  to	
  the	
  spread	
  of	
  
literacy	
  or	
  to	
  the	
  eradication	
  of	
  disease	
  and	
  starvation	
  and	
  poverty.	
  Yet	
  what	
  are	
  we	
  to	
  make	
  of	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  the	
  Mediterranean	
  
country	
  with	
  the	
  highest	
  per	
  capita	
  income	
  has	
  been	
  Cyprus?	
  There	
  is,	
  unhappily,	
  no	
  real	
  evidence	
  that	
  
the	
  conflicts	
  that	
  cause	
  a	
  nation	
  to	
  be	
  ready	
  to	
  go	
  to	
  violent	
  warfare	
  disappear	
  when	
  other	
  problems	
  
disappear;	
  the	
  link-­‐age	
  often	
  seems	
  to	
  be	
  the	
  reverse.	
  	
  

Refuse	
  their	
  definitional	
  games	
  –	
  only	
  focusing	
  on	
  structural	
  violence	
  makes	
  us	
  less	
  
likely	
  to	
  work	
  to	
  combat	
  macro-­‐violence	
  
Quester,	
  Professor	
  of	
  Government	
  and	
  Politics	
  at	
  the	
  University	
  of	
  Maryland,	
  PhD	
  from	
  Harvard,	
  
1989	
  (George	
  H.,	
  July,	
  “International-­‐Security	
  Criticisms	
  of	
  Peace	
  Research,”	
  Annals	
  of	
  the	
  American	
  
Academy	
  of	
  Political	
  and	
  Social	
  Science,	
  Vol.	
  504,	
  Peace	
  Studies:	
  Past	
  and	
  Future,	
  p.	
  103)	
  
A	
  third	
  major	
  problem	
  to	
  be	
  raised	
  about	
  some	
  forms	
  of	
  peace	
  research	
  and	
  peace	
  studies,	
  again	
  related	
  to	
  what	
  we	
  have	
  al-­‐ready	
  
discussed,	
  arises	
  in	
  the	
  tendency	
  to	
  define	
  peace	
  as	
  much	
  more	
  than	
  an	
  absence	
  of	
  the	
  organized	
  
violence	
  of	
  warfare,	
  to	
  define	
  it	
  indeed	
  as	
  the	
  elimination	
  also	
  of	
  poverty	
  and	
  injustice	
  and	
  of	
  
prejudice	
  and	
  tyranny,	
  and	
  so	
  on-­‐namely,	
  to	
  define	
  peace	
  simply	
  as	
  a	
  synonym	
  for	
  what	
  is	
  good,	
  for	
  what	
  an	
  economist	
  
would	
  call	
  utility.	
  Sometimes	
  we	
  are	
  thus	
  told	
  that	
  an	
  op-­‐position	
  to	
  violence	
  must	
  include	
  an	
  opposition	
  to	
  
"structural	
  violence,"7	
  with	
  the	
  latter	
  phrase	
  presumably	
  meaning	
  any	
  organizational	
  or	
  power	
  relationships	
  that	
  violate	
  the	
  moral	
  
standards	
  of	
  the	
  beholder,	
  or	
  we	
  are	
  also	
  told	
  that	
  we	
  must	
  be	
  in	
  favor	
  of	
  "positive	
  peace,"	
  which	
  will	
  include	
  all	
  of	
  these	
  
good	
  things,	
  accomplished	
  some-­‐how	
  simultaneously,	
  rather	
  than	
  being	
  content	
  with	
  a	
  "negative	
  peace,"	
  limited	
  merely	
  to	
  an	
  absence	
  of	
  
warfare.	
  Surely	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  great	
  deal	
  that	
  is	
  lost	
  from	
  all	
  of	
  these	
  definitional	
  innovations,	
  but	
  what	
  is	
  there	
  to	
  be	
  gained?	
  If	
  someone	
  
assumed,	
  as	
  noted	
  previously,	
  that	
  consciousnesses	
  somehow	
  have	
  to	
  be	
  raised,	
  then	
  it	
  may	
  well	
  seem	
  important,	
  as	
  an	
  educational	
  and	
  
motivational	
  vehicle,	
  to	
  insist	
  that	
  peace	
  includes	
  an	
  end	
  to	
  poverty	
  or	
  racism.	
  If	
  one	
  assumes	
  that	
  there	
  can	
  never	
  be	
  an	
  
avoidance	
  of	
  war	
  unless	
  one	
  simultaneously	
  has	
  an	
  avoidance	
  of	
  poverty	
  or	
  racism	
  or	
  other	
  social	
  
evils,	
  then	
  this	
  causal	
  link	
  will	
  also	
  suggest	
  a	
  definitional	
  link.	
  But,	
  if	
  there	
  is	
  indeed	
  no	
  such	
  one-­‐to-­‐
one	
  link	
  in	
  causal	
  relationships	
  and	
  if	
  motivation	
  is	
  not	
  the	
  entirety	
  of	
  the	
  problem	
  of	
  war	
  and	
  peace,	
  
then	
  we	
  surely	
  will	
  have	
  thrown	
  away	
  a	
  great	
  deal	
  of	
  clarity	
  if	
  we	
  insist	
  on	
  calling	
  everything	
  bad	
  
"war"	
  or	
  "violence"	
  and	
  if	
  we	
  insist	
  on	
  referring	
  to	
  everything	
  we	
  favor	
  as	
  "peace."	
  This	
  would	
  be	
  a	
  little	
  like	
  
telling	
  the	
  American	
  Cancer	
  Society	
  that	
  every	
  disease	
  now	
  has	
  to	
  be	
  referred	
  to	
  as	
  "cancer,"	
  including	
  heart	
  disease	
  and	
  cholera	
  and	
  
meningitis.	
  Can	
  medicine	
  make	
  any	
  progress	
  at	
  all	
  if	
  it	
  is	
  not	
  allowed	
  to	
  use	
  different	
  words	
  for	
  different	
  ailments?	
  Is	
  it	
  really	
  true	
  that	
  
to	
  use	
  different	
  words	
  for	
  war	
  and	
  dictator-­‐ship	
  and	
  poverty	
  is	
  to	
  weaken	
  our	
  motivation	
  or	
  to	
  accept	
  
the	
  inevitability	
  of	
  some	
  evils	
  or	
  actually	
  to	
  favor	
  the	
  existence	
  of	
  such	
  evils?	
  If	
  one	
  goes	
  far	
  enough	
  in	
  accepting	
  
the	
  definitional	
  innovations	
  produced	
  by	
  some	
  peace	
  studies	
  curricula,	
  it	
  becomes	
  possible	
  then	
  to	
  define	
  violent	
  attacks	
  as	
  peaceful,	
  as	
  long	
  as	
  
they	
  are	
  intended	
  to	
  eliminate	
  racism	
  or	
  injustice,	
  because	
  these	
  attacks	
  are	
  to	
  oppose	
  "structural	
  violence."	
  At	
  the	
  worst,	
  this	
  kind	
  of	
  
redefinition	
  is	
  deliberately	
  misleading,	
  as	
  war	
  and	
  violence	
  are	
  defined	
  as	
  being	
  inappropriate	
  for	
  any	
  
cause	
  except	
  one's	
  own.	
  At	
  a	
  less	
  duplicitous	
  level,	
  we	
  simply	
  have	
  some	
  need-­‐less	
  confusion	
  brought	
  into	
  the	
  process,	
  by	
  some	
  
relatively	
  honest	
  and	
  well-­‐meaning	
  people	
  	
  
	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                     57	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                	
                                                                                   Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                 A2:	
  Accidents	
  (2/2)	
  
Their	
  root	
  cause	
  arguments	
  are	
  flawed	
  –	
  ending	
  the	
  means/ability	
  to	
  wage	
  nuclear	
  
war	
  can	
  still	
  solve	
  war	
  –	
  focusing	
  on	
  structural	
  violence	
  makes	
  war	
  more	
  likely	
  
Quester,	
  Professor	
  of	
  Government	
  and	
  Politics	
  at	
  the	
  University	
  of	
  Maryland,	
  PhD	
  from	
  Harvard,	
  
1989	
  (George	
  H.,	
  July,	
  “International-­‐Security	
  Criticisms	
  of	
  Peace	
  Research,”	
  Annals	
  of	
  the	
  American	
  Academy	
  of	
  Political	
  
and	
  Social	
  Science,	
  Vol.	
  504,	
  Peace	
  Studies:	
  Past	
  and	
  Future,	
  p.	
  103-­‐104)	
  
Advocates	
  of	
  peace	
  research	
  sometimes	
  justify	
  their	
  approach	
  by	
  asserting	
  that	
  they	
  alone	
  are	
  addressing	
  
the	
  ultimate	
  or	
  root	
  causes	
  of	
  conflict.	
  Unless	
  one	
  eliminates	
  injustice	
  or	
  racism	
  or	
  prejudice	
  or	
  tyranny,	
  they	
  
contend,	
  there	
  can	
  never	
  be	
  a	
  real	
  peace	
  or	
  positive	
  peace.	
  This	
  argument	
  runs	
  the	
  risk,	
  however,	
  of	
  becoming	
  a	
  play	
  on	
  
words.	
  Real	
  peace	
  can	
  mean	
  that	
  we	
  approve	
  of	
  every	
  step	
  of	
  the	
  causal	
  chain,	
  going	
  back	
  as	
  far	
  as	
  it	
  
can	
  be	
  traced,	
  which	
  might	
  indeed	
  be	
  ideal;	
  but	
  this	
  might	
  hardly	
  be	
  so	
  essential	
  for	
  some-­‐one	
  caught	
  
in	
  the	
  crossfire	
  of	
  Beirut,	
  some-­‐one	
  who	
  is	
  merely	
  pleading	
  and	
  praying	
  that	
  the	
  shooting	
  might	
  stop.	
  To	
  imply	
  that	
  a	
  
termination	
  of	
  conventional	
  war	
  and	
  an	
  avoidance	
  of	
  nuclear	
  war	
  and	
  an	
  abatement	
  of	
  terrorism	
  are	
  
not	
  somehow	
  real	
  would	
  be	
  to	
  blur	
  our	
  understanding	
  of	
  a	
  great	
  deal	
  of	
  what	
  most	
  men	
  and	
  women	
  indeed	
  care	
  about.	
  
Similarly,	
  to	
  refer	
  to	
  such	
  an	
  absence	
  of	
  warfare	
  as	
  "negative	
  peace"-­‐as	
  compared	
  with	
  something	
  more	
  positive	
  in	
  
"positive	
  peace"-­‐is	
  to	
  use	
  these	
  words	
  of	
  our	
  English	
  language	
  in	
  a	
  manner	
  that	
  substantially	
  underrates	
  the	
  human	
  priority	
  of	
  
eliminating	
  warfare,	
  whatever	
  its	
  causes	
  and	
  whatever	
  the	
  remedy.	
  Critics	
  of	
  peace	
  studies	
  would	
  thus	
  come	
  back	
  
to	
  argue	
  that	
  these	
  ultimate	
  and	
  genuine	
  reforms	
  of	
  human	
  arrangements	
  for	
  which	
  peace	
  researchers	
  claim	
  such	
  priority	
  are	
  all	
  well	
  and	
  good,	
  
but	
  that	
  these	
  may	
  not	
  be	
  capable	
  of	
  being	
  attained	
  in	
  anything	
  less	
  than	
  several	
  centuries.	
  Rather	
  than	
  eliminating	
  all	
  ideological	
  suspicions	
  
between	
  Marxists	
  and	
  non-­‐Marxists	
  or	
  eliminating	
  all	
  ethnic	
  dislikes	
  between	
  Greeks	
  and	
  Turks,	
  would	
  it	
  not	
  be	
  a	
  major	
  
accomplishment	
  in	
  the	
  meantime	
  to	
  eliminate	
  those	
  kinds	
  of	
  weapons	
  that	
  tend	
  to	
  make	
  wars	
  
between	
  such	
  contending	
  factions	
  more	
  likely,	
  and	
  to	
  stress	
  instead	
  the	
  defensive	
  types	
  that	
  
discourage	
  military	
  forces	
  from	
  launching	
  attacks?	
  Peace	
  researchers	
  then	
  often	
  reply	
  that	
  any	
  such	
  resignation	
  to	
  
intermediate	
  and	
  proximate	
  improvements	
  implies	
  a	
  welcoming	
  of	
  permanent	
  conflict	
  or	
  even	
  a	
  relishing	
  of	
  it	
  or	
  at	
  least	
  an	
  assumption	
  that	
  
conflict	
  and	
  hostility	
  are	
  in	
  the	
  natural	
  order	
  of	
  things.	
  But	
  the	
  real	
  issue	
  is	
  surely	
  much	
  more	
  one	
  of	
  whether	
  certain	
  kinds	
  of	
  improvements	
  can	
  
be	
  made	
  over	
  certain	
  ranges	
  of	
  time.	
  	
  


Stopping	
  structural	
  violence	
  does	
  not	
  translate	
  into	
  stopping	
  personal	
  violence-­‐	
  they	
  
are	
  not	
  intimately	
  linked	
  
Johan	
  Galtung,	
  Professor	
  of	
  Sociology	
  @	
  Colombia	
  &	
  Oslo,	
  founder	
  of	
  the	
  discipline	
  of	
  Peace	
  and	
  
conflict	
  studies,	
  “Violence,	
  Peace,	
  and	
  Peace	
  Research,”	
  Journal	
  of	
  Peace	
  Research,	
  Vol.	
  6,	
  No.	
  3	
  
(1969),	
  pp.	
  181	
  
Structural	
  violence	
  is	
  sufficient	
  to	
  abolish	
  personal	
  violence.	
  This	
  thesis	
  seems	
  to	
  have	
  a	
  certain	
  
limited	
  and	
  short-­‐term	
  validity.	
  If	
  all	
  the	
  methods	
  mentioned	
  above	
  for	
  sustaining	
  structural	
  violence	
  are	
  
implemented,	
  then	
  it	
  seems	
  quite	
  possible	
  that	
  personal	
  violence	
  between	
  the	
  groups	
  segregated	
  by	
  the	
  structure	
  
is	
  abolished.	
  The	
  underdogs	
  are	
  too	
  isolated	
  and	
  too	
  awed	
  by	
  the	
  topdogs,	
  the	
  topdogs	
  have	
  nothing	
  to	
  fear.	
  But	
  this	
  only	
  holds	
  
between	
  those	
  groups;	
  within	
  the	
  groups	
  the	
  feudal	
  structure	
  is	
  not	
  practised.	
  And	
  although	
  the	
  structure	
  
probably	
  is	
  among	
  the	
  most	
  stable	
  social	
  structures	
  imaginable,	
  it	
  is	
  not	
  stable	
  in	
  perpetuity.	
  There	
  are	
  many	
  ways	
  in	
  
which	
  it	
  may	
  be	
  upset,	
  and	
  result	
  in	
  tremendous	
  outbursts	
  of	
  personal	
  violence.	
  Hence,	
  it	
  may	
  
perhaps	
  be	
  said	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  structure	
  that	
  serves	
  to	
  compartmentalize	
  personal	
  violence	
  in	
  time,	
  leading	
  to	
  
successions	
  of	
  periods	
  of	
  absence	
  and	
  pre-­‐	
  sence	
  of	
  personal	
  violence.	
  2.	
  Structural	
  violence	
  is	
  
necessary	
  to	
  abolish	
  personal	
  violence.	
  This	
  is	
  obviously	
  not	
  true,	
  since	
  personal	
  violence	
  will	
  cease	
  
the	
  moment	
  the	
  decision	
  not	
  to	
  practise	
  it	
  is	
  taken.	
  But	
  this	
  is	
  of	
  course	
  begging	
  the	
  question:	
  under	
  what	
  condition	
  is	
  that	
  
decision	
  made	
  and	
  really	
  sustained?	
  That	
  structural	
  vio-­‐	
  lence	
  represents	
  an	
  alternative	
  in	
  the	
  sense	
  that	
  much	
  of	
  the	
  'order'	
  obtained	
  by	
  
means	
  of	
  (the	
  threat	
  of)	
  personal	
  violence	
  can	
  also	
  be	
  obtained	
  by	
  (the	
  threat	
  of)	
  structural	
  violence	
  is	
  clear	
  enough.	
  But	
  to	
  state	
  a	
  
relation	
  of	
  necessity	
  is	
  to	
  go	
  far	
  outside	
  our	
  limited	
  empirical	
  experience.	
  
	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                              58	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                            	
                                                                                Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                      A2:	
  Econ	
  (1/2)	
  
No	
  impact	
  to	
  oil	
  shocks	
  –	
  flexible	
  economy,	
  more	
  experienced,	
  and	
  better	
  policy	
  
Balke,	
  Brown,	
  and	
  Yucel	
  8	
  (Nathan	
  S.	
  Balke	
  SMU	
  and	
  Federal	
  Reserve	
  Bank	
  of	
  Dallas	
  Stephen	
  P.	
  A.	
  
Brown	
  Federal	
  Reserve	
  Bank	
  of	
  Dallas	
  Mine	
  K.	
  Yücel,	
  “An	
  International	
  Perspective	
  on	
  Oil	
  Price	
  Shocks	
  
and	
  U.S.	
  Economic	
  Activity”,	
  September)	
  
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/skarimi2/www/MEEA/Paper%20by%20Balke%20%26%20Brown%20%26%2
0Yucel.pdf>	
  
The	
  effect	
  of	
  oil	
  price	
  shocks	
  on	
  U.S.	
  economic	
  activity	
  seems	
  to	
  have	
  changed	
  since	
  the	
  mid-­‐1990s.	
  A	
  variety	
  of	
  
explanations	
  have	
  been	
  offered	
  for	
  the	
  seeming	
  change—including	
  better	
  luck,	
  the	
  reduced	
  energy	
  intensity	
  of	
  the	
  
U.S.	
  economy,	
  a	
  more	
  flexible	
  economy,	
  more	
  experience	
  with	
  oil	
  price	
  shocks	
  and	
  better	
  monetary	
  
policy.	
  These	
  explanations	
  point	
  to	
  a	
  weakening	
  of	
  the	
  relationship	
  between	
  oil	
  prices	
  shocks	
  and	
  
economic	
  activity	
  rather	
  than	
  the	
  fundamentally	
  different	
  response	
  that	
  may	
  be	
  evident	
  since	
  the	
  mid-­‐1990s.	
  Using	
  a	
  dynamic	
  stochastic	
  
general	
  equilibrium	
  model	
  of	
  world	
  economic	
  activity,	
  we	
  employ	
  Bayesian	
  methods	
  to	
  assess	
  how	
  economic	
  activity	
  responds	
  to	
  oil	
  price	
  
shocks	
  arising	
  from	
  supply	
  shocks	
  and	
  demand	
  shocks	
  originating	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  or	
  elsewhere	
  in	
  the	
  world.	
  We	
  find	
  that	
  both	
  oil	
  supply	
  
and	
  oil	
  demand	
  shocks	
  have	
  contributed	
  significantly	
  to	
  oil	
  price	
  fluctuations	
  and	
  that	
  U.S.	
  output	
  fluctuations	
  are	
  derived	
  largely	
  from	
  
domestic	
  shocks.	
  


Oil	
  shocks	
  increase	
  US	
  GDP	
  –	
  increases	
  efficiency	
  and	
  productivity	
  	
  
RFF	
  10	
  (Resources	
  for	
  the	
  Future,	
  improves	
  environmental	
  and	
  natural	
  resource	
  policymaking	
  
worldwide	
  through	
  objective	
  social	
  science	
  research	
  of	
  the	
  highest	
  caliber,	
  “Oil	
  Price	
  Shocks	
  and	
  The	
  
US	
  Economy”,	
  July	
  28)	
  
<	
  http://www.rff.org/News/Features/Pages/How-­‐Oil-­‐Price-­‐Shocks-­‐Influence-­‐Americas-­‐
Economy.aspx>	
  
New	
  RFF	
  analysis	
  finds	
  global	
  influences,	
  such	
  as	
  oil	
  price	
  shocks,	
  may	
  be	
  secondary	
  to	
  domestic	
  influences	
  when	
  it	
  comes	
  to	
  
understanding	
  the	
  causes	
  of	
  U.S.	
  economic	
  fluctuation.	
  Economists	
  have	
  examined	
  the	
  relationship	
  between	
  
oil	
  price	
  shocks	
  and	
  U.S.	
  economic	
  activity	
  since	
  the	
  1970s	
  and	
  early	
  1980s—when	
  oil	
  prices	
  rose	
  sharply	
  and	
  the	
  
United	
  States	
  plunged	
  into	
  recession.	
  The	
  early	
  research	
  quantified	
  the	
  relationship	
  between	
  oil	
  prices	
  and	
  U.S.	
  
economic	
  activity	
  and	
  examined	
  the	
  avenues	
  through	
  which	
  oil	
  price	
  shocks	
  might	
  affect	
  U.S.	
  economic	
  activity.	
  More	
  than	
  two	
  decades	
  
later,	
  however,	
  the	
  relationship	
  between	
  oil	
  prices	
  and	
  the	
  U.S.	
  economy	
  seemed	
  to	
  have	
  changed	
  
dramatically.	
  Throughout	
  much	
  of	
  the	
  2000s	
  both	
  oil	
  prices	
  and	
  U.S.	
  economic	
  activity	
  rose	
  strongly	
  
until	
  the	
  recession	
  hit	
  in	
  early	
  2008.	
  Some	
  researchers	
  have	
  attributed	
  the	
  differences	
  to	
  such	
  factors	
  as	
  
increased	
  global	
  financial	
  integration,	
  greater	
  flexibility	
  of	
  the	
  U.S.	
  economy	
  (including	
  labor	
  and	
  financial	
  
markets),	
  the	
  reduced	
  energy	
  intensity	
  of	
  the	
  U.S.	
  economy,	
  increased	
  experience	
  with	
  energy	
  price	
  shocks,	
  better	
  monetary	
  policy,	
  and	
  good	
  
luck—that	
  is,	
  smaller	
  and	
  less	
  frequent	
  shocks.	
  Other	
  researchers	
  assert	
  that	
  the	
  relationship	
  between	
  oil	
  price	
  
shocks	
  and	
  U.S.	
  economic	
  activity	
  is	
  much	
  smaller	
  than	
  previously	
  thought,	
  and	
  that	
  other	
  factors	
  must	
  have	
  
shaped	
  U.S.	
  economic	
  activity.	
  In	
  Oil	
  Price	
  Shocks	
  and	
  U.S.	
  Economic	
  Activity:	
  An	
  International	
  Perspective,	
  Nathan	
  S.	
  Balke,	
  Stephen	
  P.A.	
  
Brown,	
  and	
  Mine	
  K.	
  Yücel	
  analyze	
  these	
  differing	
  views.	
  They	
  develop	
  a	
  world	
  economic	
  model	
  that	
  captures	
  the	
  influence	
  of	
  oil	
  supply	
  shocks	
  
and	
  other	
  economic	
  shocks.	
  Their	
  estimation	
  of	
  the	
  model	
  identifies	
  the	
  various	
  sources	
  of	
  world	
  oil	
  price	
  movements	
  and	
  economic	
  
fluctuation	
  and	
  the	
  consequent	
  effects	
  on	
  U.S.	
  economic	
  activity.	
  Their	
  findings?	
  World	
  oil	
  price	
  shocks	
  in	
  the	
  1970s	
  and	
  early	
  
1980s	
  reflected	
  different	
  combinations	
  of	
  shifts	
  in	
  oil	
  supply	
  and	
  demand	
  than	
  the	
  early	
  2000s,	
  which	
  
accordingly	
  meant	
  differing	
  effects	
  on	
  oil	
  markets	
  and	
  U.S.	
  economic	
  activity.	
  In	
  addition,	
  they	
  confirm	
  that	
  domestic	
  
shocks—such	
  as	
  those	
  to	
  productivity	
  and	
  investment—dominate	
  the	
  movements	
  in	
  U.S.	
  economic	
  activity.	
  U.S.	
  GDP	
  
fell	
  sharply	
  after	
  the	
  oil	
  price	
  increases	
  in	
  the	
  1970s	
  and	
  early	
  1980s,	
  primarily	
  because	
  domestic	
  productivity	
  shocks	
  reduced	
  output.	
  Oil	
  supply	
  
shocks	
  only	
  mildly	
  reinforced	
  that	
  economic	
  weakness.	
  In	
  the	
  2000s,	
  however,	
  U.S.	
  GDP	
  continued	
  to	
  rise	
  as	
  oil	
  prices	
  rose	
  
because	
  changes	
  in	
  U.S.	
  investment	
  efficiency,	
  total	
  factor	
  productivity,	
  and	
  preferences	
  completely	
  overwhelmed	
  the	
  
extremely	
  mild	
  drag	
  contributed	
  by	
  oil	
  supply	
  shocks.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          59	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                                                                	
                                                                                                                        Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                                                               A2:	
  Econ	
  (2/2)	
  
Competitiveness	
  theory	
  is	
  false	
  
Krugman	
  94	
  (Paul,	
  “Competitiveness:	
  A	
  Dangerous	
  Obsession,”	
  April	
  1994,	
  Paul	
  Krugman	
  joined	
  The	
  
New	
  York	
  Times	
  in	
  1999	
  as	
  a	
  columnist	
  on	
  the	
  Op-­‐Ed	
  Page	
  and	
  continues	
  as	
  professor	
  of	
  Economics	
  
and	
  International	
  Affairs	
  at	
  Princeton	
  University.	
  At	
  MIT	
  he	
  became	
  the	
  Ford	
  International	
  Professor	
  
of	
  Economics.	
  Mr.	
  Krugman	
  is	
  the	
  author	
  or	
  editor	
  of	
  20	
  books	
  and	
  more	
  than	
  200	
  papers	
  in	
  
professional	
  journals	
  and	
  edited	
  volumes.	
  His	
  professional	
  reputation	
  rests	
  largely	
  on	
  work	
  in	
  
international	
  trade	
  and	
  finance;	
  he	
  is	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  founders	
  of	
  the	
  "new	
  trade	
  theory,"	
  a	
  major	
  
rethinking	
  of	
  the	
  theory	
  of	
  international	
  trade.	
  In	
  recognition	
  of	
  that	
  work,	
  in	
  1991	
  the	
  American	
  
Economic	
  Association	
  awarded	
  him	
  its	
  John	
  Bates	
  Clark	
  medal)	
  
By	
  contrast,	
  even	
  the	
  largest	
  corporation	
  sells	
  hardly	
  any	
  of	
  its	
  output	
  to	
  its	
  own	
  workers;	
  the	
  "exports"	
  of	
  General	
  Motors	
  -­‐-­‐	
  its	
  sales	
  to	
  people	
  who	
  do	
  not	
  work	
  there	
  -­‐-­‐	
  are	
  virtually	
  all	
  of	
  its	
  

                                                                                                   countries	
  do	
  not	
  compete	
  with	
  each	
  other	
  the	
  way	
  
sales,	
  which	
  are	
  more	
  than	
  2.5	
  times	
  the	
  corporation's	
  value-­‐added.	
  Moreover,	
  

corporations	
  do.	
  Coke	
  and	
  Pepsi	
  are	
  almost	
  purely	
  rivals:	
  only	
  a	
  negligible	
  fraction	
  of	
  Coca-­‐Cola's	
  sales	
  go	
  to	
  Pepsi	
  workers,	
  only	
  a	
  negligible	
  fraction	
  of	
  the	
  goods	
  Coca-­‐Cola	
  
workers	
  buy	
  are	
  Pepsi	
  products.	
  So	
  if	
  Pepsi	
  is	
  successful,	
  it	
  tends	
  to	
  be	
  at	
  Coke's	
  expense.	
  But	
  the	
  major	
  industrial	
  countries,	
  while	
  they	
  sell	
  products	
  that	
  compete	
  with	
  each	
  other,	
  are	
  also	
  
each	
  other's	
  main	
  export	
  markets	
  and	
  each	
  other's	
  main	
  suppliers	
  of	
  useful	
  imports.	
        If	
  the	
  European	
  economy	
  does	
  well,	
  it	
  need	
  not	
  be	
  at	
  
U.S.	
  expense;	
  indeed,	
  if	
  anything	
  a	
  successful	
  European	
  economy	
  is	
  likely	
  to	
  help	
  the	
  U.S.	
  economy	
  by	
  
providing	
  it	
  with	
  larger	
  markets	
  and	
  selling	
  it	
  goods	
  of	
  superior	
  quality	
  at	
  lower	
  prices.	
  International	
  
trade,	
  then,	
  is	
  not	
  a	
  zero-­‐sum	
  game.	
  When	
  productivity	
  rises	
  in	
  Japan,	
  the	
  main	
  result	
  is	
  a	
  rise	
  in	
  
Japanese	
  real	
  wages;	
  American	
  or	
  European	
  wages	
  are	
  in	
  principle	
  at	
  least	
  as	
  likely	
  to	
  rise	
  as	
  to	
  fall,	
  and	
  
in	
  practice	
  seem	
  to	
  be	
  virtually	
  unaffected.	
  It	
  would	
  be	
  possible	
  to	
  belabor	
  the	
  point,	
  but	
  the	
  moral	
  is	
  clear:	
  while	
  competitive	
  problems	
  could	
  arise	
  in	
  

principle,	
  as	
  a	
  practical,	
  empirical	
  matter	
  the	
  major	
  nations	
  of	
  the	
  world	
  are	
  not	
  to	
  any	
  significant	
  
degree	
  in	
  economic	
  competition	
  with	
  each	
  other.	
  Of	
  course,	
  there	
  is	
  always	
  a	
  rivalry	
  for	
  status	
  and	
  power	
  -­‐-­‐	
  
countries	
  that	
  grow	
  faster	
  will	
  see	
  their	
  political	
  rank	
  rise.	
  So	
  it	
  is	
  always	
  interesting	
  to	
  compare	
  countries.	
  But	
  asserting	
  that	
  Japanese	
  growth	
  
diminishes	
  U.S.	
  status	
  is	
  very	
  different	
  from	
  saying	
  that	
  it	
  reduces	
  the	
  U.S.	
  standard	
  of	
  living	
  -­‐-­‐	
  and	
  it	
  is	
  the	
  latter	
  that	
  the	
  rhetoric	
  of	
  competitiveness	
  asserts.	
  One	
  can,	
  of	
  course,	
  take	
  the	
  
position	
  that	
  words	
  mean	
  what	
  we	
  want	
  them	
  to	
  mean,	
  that	
  all	
  are	
  free,	
  if	
  they	
  wish,	
  to	
  use	
  the	
  term	
  "competitiveness"	
  as	
  a	
  poetic	
  way	
  of	
  saying	
  productivity,	
  without	
  actually	
  implying	
  that	
  
international	
  competition	
  has	
  anything	
  to	
  do	
  with	
  it.	
  But	
  few	
  writers	
  on	
  competitiveness	
  would	
  accept	
  this	
  view.	
  They	
  believe	
  that	
  the	
  facts	
  tell	
  a	
  very	
  different	
  story,	
  that	
  we	
  live,	
  as	
  Lester	
  
Thurow	
  put	
  it	
  in	
  his	
  best-­‐selling	
  book,	
  Head	
  to	
  Head,	
  in	
  a	
  world	
  of	
  "win-­‐lose"	
  competition	
  between	
  the	
  leading	
  economies.	
  How	
  is	
  this	
  belief	
  possible?	
  

	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                60	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                             	
                                                                                 Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                  A2:	
  Warming	
  (1/)	
  
Increasing	
  the	
  gas	
  tax	
  only	
  offsets	
  half	
  the	
  yearly	
  increase	
  in	
  CO2	
  for	
  every	
  10	
  cents.	
  
National	
  Surface	
  Transportation	
  Infrastructure	
  Commission	
  2009	
  (“Paying	
  our	
  way:	
  A	
  New	
  Framework	
  
for	
  Transportation	
  Finance”,	
  
http://financecommission.dot.gov/Documents/NSTIF_Commission_Final_Report_Mar09FNL.pdf	
  )	
  
Our	
  most	
  credible	
  estimates	
  imply	
  that	
  a	
  10	
  cent	
  tax	
  increase	
  would	
  decrease	
  U.S.	
  carbon	
  emissions	
  from	
  the	
  
transportation	
  sector	
  by	
  about	
  1.5%	
  and	
  decrease	
  total	
  U.S.	
  carbon	
  emissions	
  by	
  about	
  0.5%.	
  To	
  put	
  
this	
  estimate	
  in	
  context,	
  total	
  U.S.	
  carbon	
  dioxide	
  emissions	
  increased	
  by	
  1.1%	
  annually	
  between	
  1990	
  
and	
  2007,	
  so	
  a	
  10	
  cent	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  increase	
  would	
  approximately	
  offset	
  half	
  a	
  year	
  of	
  growth	
  in	
  total	
  
U.S.	
  emissions.	
  4	
  This	
  estimate	
  captures	
  only	
  the	
  short-­‐run	
  response	
  resulting	
  from	
  reduced	
  discretionary	
  driving	
  and	
  reduced	
  driving	
  
speeds,	
  for	
  example.	
  The	
  long-­‐run	
  response	
  is	
  likely	
  to	
  be	
  considerably	
  larger	
  as	
  drivers	
  substitute	
  toward	
  more	
  fuel-­‐efficient	
  vehicles.	
  


Plan	
  can’t	
  solve	
  enough	
  emissions	
  to	
  make	
  a	
  dent—overseas	
  polluters	
  
National	
  Surface	
  Transportation	
  Infrastructure	
  Commission	
  2009	
  (“Paying	
  our	
  way:	
  A	
  New	
  Framework	
  
for	
  Transportation	
  Finance”,	
  
http://financecommission.dot.gov/Documents/NSTIF_Commission_Final_Report_Mar09FNL.pdf	
  )	
  
Carbon	
  emissions	
  are	
  a	
  global	
  problem.	
  In	
  order	
  to	
  put	
  these	
  results	
  into	
  perspective,	
  the	
  third	
  and	
  fourth	
  rows	
  of	
  Table	
  10	
  
report	
  the	
  implied	
  change	
  in	
  OECD	
  and	
  world	
  emissions.	
  These	
  percentage	
  changes	
  are	
  calculated	
  by	
  multiplying	
  the	
  percentage	
  effect	
  in	
  the	
  
United	
  States	
  (shown	
  in	
  row	
  2)	
  by	
  0.45	
  and	
  0.21,	
  respectively,	
  the	
  fraction	
  of	
  OECD	
  and	
  world	
  emissions	
  represented	
  by	
  the	
  United	
  States.	
  27	
  
A	
  10	
  cent	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  reduces	
  OECD	
  and	
  world	
  emissions	
  by	
  considerably	
  less	
  than	
  
1%.	
  This	
  reflects	
  the	
  facts	
  that	
  vehicles	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  represent	
  a	
  small	
  and	
  decreasing	
  fraction	
  
of	
  total	
  OECD	
  and	
  global	
  carbon	
  dioxide	
  emissions.	
  Carbon	
  dioxide	
  emissions	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  are	
  
growing	
  less	
  quickly	
  than	
  emissions	
  in	
  other	
  countries,	
  most	
  notably	
  China,	
  India	
  and	
  Brazil.	
  By	
  2030,	
  
according	
  to	
  predictions	
  from	
  the	
  U.S.	
  Department	
  of	
  Energy,	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  will	
  represent	
  only	
  16.1%	
  of	
  total	
  world	
  carbon	
  
dioxide	
  emissions.	
  	
  

95%	
  chance	
  gas	
  tax	
  reduces	
  emissions	
  an	
  inconsequential	
  amount	
  
Davis	
  ’09	
  (Lucas	
  W.	
  Davis,	
  “Estimating	
  the	
  Effect	
  of	
  a	
  Gasoline	
  Tax	
  on	
  Carbon	
  
Emissions,”	
  University	
  of	
  Michigan	
  
September	
  2009,	
  http://www-­‐personal.umich.edu/~lkilian/gasoline27.pdf)	
  
Estimating	
  the	
  effect	
  of	
  raising	
  gas	
  taxes	
  on	
  gasoline	
  consumption,	
  while	
  interesting	
  for	
  other	
  purposes,	
  is	
  only	
  a	
  first	
  step	
  in	
  computing	
  the	
  
effect	
  of	
  such	
  a	
  policy	
  on	
  carbon	
  emissions.	
  The	
  percentage	
  change	
  in	
  total	
  carbon	
  dioxide	
  emissions	
  in	
  the	
  U.S.	
  is	
  calculated	
  by	
  multiplying	
  the	
  
gasoline	
  consumption	
  effect	
  by	
  0.338,	
  the	
  fraction	
  of	
  carbon	
  dioxide	
  emissions	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  derived	
  from	
  the	
  transportation	
  sector:25	
  
Here	
  -­‐1.43%	
  is	
  the	
  change	
  in	
  gasoline	
  consumption	
  from	
  a	
  10	
  cent	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  increase	
  based	
  on	
  the	
  
estimate	
  from	
  Table	
  6.	
  A	
  10	
  cent	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  increase	
  reduces	
  carbon	
  emissions	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  by	
  
0.48%	
  (see	
  row	
  2	
  of	
  Table	
  10).26	
  Although	
  not	
  negligible,	
  this	
  is	
  small	
  when	
  compared	
  to,	
  for	
  example,	
  recent	
  annual	
  
increases	
  in	
  carbon	
  emissions.	
  Sampling	
  variation	
  implies	
  that	
  the	
  true	
  effect	
  could	
  be	
  much	
  smaller.	
  
The	
  effect	
  could	
  also	
  be	
  much	
  larger,	
  though	
  it	
  is	
  unlikely	
  to	
  exceed	
  a	
  few	
  percentage	
  points.	
  For	
  example,	
  one	
  can	
  
rule	
  out	
  carbon	
  emission	
  decreases	
  in	
  excess	
  of	
  1.0%	
  with	
  95%	
  confidence.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                    61	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                               	
                                                                                   Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                    A2:	
  Warming	
  (2/)	
  
Can’t	
  make	
  a	
  serious	
  dent	
  in	
  emissions—the	
  percentages	
  just	
  don’t	
  work	
  out	
  
Reynolds	
  ‘6	
  (Senior	
  Fellow	
  at	
  the	
  Cato	
  Institute	
  and	
  was	
  formerly	
  Director	
  of	
  Economic	
  Research	
  at	
  
the	
  Hudson	
  Institute.	
  Orginially	
  in	
  the	
  Washinton	
  post	
  in	
  ‘6	
  “Gas	
  Tax	
  Trial	
  Balloon”	
  CATO	
  Institute.	
  
Accessed	
  on	
  6/26/12.	
  http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gas-­‐tax-­‐trial-­‐balloon)	
  
A	
  2004	
  Congressional	
  Budget	
  Office	
  paper	
  concluded	
  that	
  if	
  CAFE	
  standards	
  were	
  raised	
  3.8	
  miles	
  per	
  gallon,	
  it	
  would	
  take	
  15	
  years	
  for	
  gasoline	
  
consumption	
  to	
  fall	
  just	
  10	
  percent,	
  and	
  the	
  economic	
  cost	
  would	
  be	
  high.	
  Raising	
  the	
  gas	
  tax	
  46	
  cents	
  would	
  also	
  cut	
  fuel	
  use	
  by	
  10	
  percent,	
  
but	
  do	
  so	
  much	
  more	
  promptly.	
  Mr.	
  Mankiw's	
  other	
  arguments	
  are	
  expressed	
  in	
  high-­‐sounding	
  terms	
  as	
  a	
  case	
  of	
  "Pigovian	
  taxes,"	
  named	
  for	
  
economist	
  Alfred	
  Pigou.	
  A	
  Pigovian	
  tax	
  assumes	
  politicians	
  and	
  their	
  economists	
  have	
  the	
  knowledge	
  and	
  motivation	
  to	
  discern	
  when	
  people	
  
are	
  buying	
  too	
  much	
  of	
  something	
  because	
  the	
  buyers	
  fail	
  to	
  take	
  account	
  of	
  the	
  "social	
  costs"	
  their	
  purchase	
  imposes	
  on	
  others.	
  Assuming	
  
such	
  wisdom	
  exists,	
  the	
  government	
  can	
  supposedly	
  use	
  selective	
  sales	
  taxes	
  to	
  modify	
  consumer	
  behavior.	
  Yet	
  the	
  CBO	
  noted	
  a	
  2002	
  National	
  
Research	
  Council	
  estimate	
  of	
  the	
  Pigovian	
  "external	
  costs"	
  of	
  consuming	
  gasoline	
  amounted	
  to	
  just	
  26	
  cents	
  a	
  gallon	
  -­‐-­‐	
  less	
  than	
  the	
  average	
  
federal-­‐state	
  tax	
  of	
  41	
  cents.	
  The	
  real	
  motive	
  behind	
  high	
  taxes	
  on	
  liquor,	
  tobacco	
  and	
  gasoline	
  is	
  more	
  plausibly	
  related	
  to	
  "Ramsey	
  taxes,"	
  
named	
  for	
  philosopher	
  Frank	
  Ramsey.	
  Pigou	
  might	
  have	
  argued	
  we	
  should	
  tax	
  wine	
  to	
  discourage	
  excess	
  drinking.	
  Ramsey	
  would	
  argue	
  we	
  
should	
  tax	
  wine	
  precisely	
  because	
  the	
  demand	
  for	
  it	
  is	
  relatively	
  unresponsive	
  (inelastic)	
  to	
  a	
  higher	
  price.	
  Because	
  taxing	
  wine,	
  tobacco	
  or	
  
gasoline	
  does	
  not	
  affect	
  consumption	
  strongly,	
  such	
  taxes	
  are	
  "efficient"	
  in	
  yielding	
  the	
  most	
  revenue	
  with	
  the	
  least	
  distortion	
  of	
  resource	
  uses	
  
(unless	
  they	
  result	
  in	
  black	
  markets).	
  Governments	
  like	
  to	
  claim	
  they	
  raise	
  these	
  "sin	
  taxes"	
  to	
  discourage	
  drinking,	
  smoking	
  and	
  driving	
  -­‐-­‐	
  as	
  if	
  
driving	
  to	
  work	
  is	
  a	
  sin.	
  In	
  reality,	
  governments	
  like	
  these	
  taxes	
  because	
  their	
  effect	
  on	
  consumption	
  is	
  weak.	
  And	
  the	
  real	
  reason	
  the	
  federal	
  
government	
  has	
  not	
  pushed	
  this	
  tax	
  much	
  higher	
  is	
  that	
  doing	
  so	
  would	
  pre-­‐empt	
  and	
  reduce	
  an	
  important	
  source	
  of	
  state	
  revenue.	
  Mr.	
  
Mankiw	
  wants	
  to	
  raise	
  the	
  gas	
  tax	
  twice	
  as	
  much	
  as	
  the	
  CBO	
  estimated,	
  which	
  might	
  cut	
  gasoline	
  consumption	
  
20	
  percent	
  from	
  where	
  it	
  would	
  otherwise	
  be	
  a	
  decade	
  from	
  now.	
  But	
  that	
  would	
  be	
  only	
  a	
  5	
  percent	
  
cut	
  from	
  current	
  consumption.	
  That	
  couldn't	
  make	
  a	
  noticeable	
  difference	
  in	
  global	
  warming	
  because	
  
U.S.	
  passenger	
  vehicles	
  account	
  for	
  only	
  20	
  percent	
  of	
  carbon	
  dioxide	
  emissions.	
  Even	
  a	
  20	
  percent	
  cut	
  
in	
  20	
  percent	
  is	
  only	
  4	
  percent,	
  and	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  is	
  only	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  globe.	
  

Fuel	
  efficient	
  cars	
  will	
  make	
  gas	
  taxes	
  moot	
  and	
  solves	
  for	
  the	
  warming	
  adv.	
  	
  
Henson	
  2012	
  
Real	
  Time	
  Traffic	
  Expert.	
  “As	
  drivers	
  use	
  less	
  gas,	
  Florida	
  considers	
  gas-­‐tax	
  replacements.”	
  Baynews	
  9.	
  
6/20/12.	
  Accessed	
  on	
  6/26/12.	
  Web.	
  
http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/bn9/
2012/6/19/florida_may_be_looki.html	
  
As	
  the	
  public	
  buys	
  more	
  fuel-­‐efficient	
  vehicles	
  and	
  markets	
  for	
  electric	
  and	
  hybrid	
  cars	
  continue	
  to	
  
grow,	
  a	
  pair	
  of	
  trends	
  seem	
  to	
  bode	
  well	
  for	
  the	
  environment	
  along	
  with	
  drivers'	
  wallets.	
  Despite	
  the	
  
growth,	
  the	
  state	
  of	
  Florida	
  is	
  concerned	
  about	
  the	
  impact	
  of	
  these	
  trends	
  on	
  its	
  shrinking	
  
Transportation	
  Trust	
  Fund,	
  which	
  gets	
  its	
  money	
  from	
  the	
  tax	
  paid-­‐per-­‐gallon	
  of	
  gas	
  purchased	
  by	
  
drivers.	
  The	
  money	
  from	
  that	
  fund	
  is	
  then	
  used	
  to	
  pay	
  for	
  highway	
  infrastructure	
  improvements.	
  "The	
  
increase	
  in	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  fuel-­‐efficient	
  vehicles	
  has	
  just	
  exploded,"	
  said	
  Mark	
  Reichert,	
  the	
  assistant	
  
executive	
  director	
  of	
  the	
  Florida	
  Transportation	
  Commission.	
  "Even	
  though	
  people	
  are	
  starting	
  to	
  
drive	
  more,	
  they're	
  trading	
  in	
  their	
  vehicles	
  that	
  got	
  say,	
  15	
  to	
  20	
  miles	
  to	
  the	
  gallon,	
  for	
  vehicles	
  that	
  
get	
  anywhere	
  from	
  20	
  to	
  50	
  miles	
  per	
  gallon	
  now."	
  The	
  less	
  gas	
  pumped,	
  the	
  less	
  money	
  flowing	
  to	
  
the	
  Transportation	
  Trust	
  Fund.	
  The	
  State	
  needs	
  to	
  make	
  a	
  change;	
  a	
  change	
  that	
  is	
  fair	
  to	
  everyone.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             62	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                                      	
                                                                                                     Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                                     A2:	
  Warming	
  (3/)	
  
Economic	
  crisis	
  doesn’t	
  cause	
  war—prefer	
  statistical	
  studies	
  over	
  abstract	
  IR	
  theories	
  
Miller,	
  PhD	
  in	
  economics,	
  2k	
  (PhD	
  in	
  economics	
  from	
  McGill	
  U,	
  MSc	
  in	
  economics	
  from	
  the	
  London	
  School	
  of	
  Economics,	
  fmr	
  adjunct	
  professor	
  at	
  U	
  
of	
  Ottawa,	
  fmr	
  executive	
  director	
  of	
  the	
  World	
  Bank	
  in	
  Washington	
  D.C.	
  (Morris,	
  August	
  2000,	
  “Poverty	
  as	
  a	
  Cause	
  of	
  Wars?”,	
  University	
  of	
  Ottawa	
  Center	
  on	
  
Governance,	
  http://www.management.uottawa.ca/miller/poverty.htm,	
  AL))	
  
It	
  seems	
  reasonable	
  to	
  believe	
  that	
  a	
  powerful	
  "shock"	
  factor	
  might	
  act	
  as	
  a	
  catalyst	
  for	
  a	
  violent	
  reaction	
  on	
  
the	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  people	
  or	
  on	
  the	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  political	
  leadership.	
  The	
  leadership,	
  finding	
  that	
  this	
  sudden	
  adverse	
  economic	
  and	
  social	
  impact	
  
destabilizing,	
  would	
  possibly	
  be	
  tempted	
  to	
  seek	
  a	
  diversion	
  by	
  finding	
  or,	
  if	
  need	
  be,	
  fabricating	
  an	
  enemy	
  and	
  setting	
  in	
  train	
  the	
  process	
  leading	
  to	
  war.	
  

There	
  would	
  not	
  appear	
  to	
  be	
  any	
  merit	
  in	
  this	
  hypothesis	
  according	
  to	
  a	
  study	
  undertaken	
  by	
  Minxin	
  Pei	
  and	
  Ariel	
  Adesnik	
  of	
  the	
  Carnegie	
  
Endowment	
  for	
  International	
  Peace.	
  After	
  studying	
  93	
  episodes	
  of	
  economic	
  crisis	
  in	
  22	
  countries	
  in	
  Latin	
  America	
  and	
  Asia	
  in	
  the	
  years	
  since	
  World	
  War	
  
II	
  they	
  concluded	
  that	
  
Much	
  of	
  the	
  conventional	
  wisdom	
  about	
  the	
  political	
  impact	
  of	
  economic	
  crises	
  may	
  be	
  wrong	
  …..The	
  severity	
  
of	
  economic	
  crisis	
  -­‐	
  as	
  measured	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  inflation	
  and	
  negative	
  growth	
  –	
  bore	
  no	
  relationship	
  to	
  the	
  collapse	
  of	
  regimes….(or,	
  in	
  democratic	
  
states,	
  rarely)	
  to	
  an	
  outbreak	
  of	
  violence…In	
  the	
  cases	
  of	
  dictatorships	
  and	
  semi-­‐democracies,	
  the	
  ruling	
  elites	
  responded	
  to	
  crises	
  by	
  

increasing	
  repression	
  (thereby	
  using	
  one	
  form	
  of	
  violence	
  to	
  abort	
  another.)	
  

No	
  consensus	
  for	
  warming—their	
  authors	
  are	
  less-­‐qualified	
  doomsayers	
  who	
  have	
  a	
  
financial	
  incentive	
  to	
  cherrypick	
  studies	
  and	
  have	
  inaccurate	
  instruments	
  
Horn,	
  meteorologist,	
  11—degree	
  in	
  meteorology	
  with	
  honors	
  from	
  Lyndon	
  State	
  College,	
  regular	
  speaker	
  at	
  the	
  annual	
  International	
  Climate	
  Change	
  
Conference,	
  fmr	
  meteorologist	
  for	
  the	
  Weather	
  Services	
  Corporation	
  (11/30,	
  Art,	
  “The	
  Confused	
  Climate	
  Change	
  Consensus”,	
  Energy	
  Tribune,	
  
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/9264/The-­‐Confused-­‐Climate-­‐Change-­‐Consensus,	
  AL)	
  
                                the	
  much	
  claimed	
  consensus	
  among	
  leading	
  climate	
  scientists	
  is	
  not	
  in	
  such	
  general	
  
It	
  would	
  appear	
  that	
  

agreement	
  these	
  days.	
  If	
  there	
  really	
  is	
  such	
  a	
  consensus,	
  then	
  the	
  opinions	
  from	
  leading	
  climate	
  scientists	
  should	
  
be	
  reasonably	
  consistent	
  among	
  them.	
  What	
  I	
  am	
  seeing	
  instead	
  is	
  an	
  increasing	
  divergence	
  among	
  the	
  man	
  made	
  
climate	
  doom	
  community.	
  Let’s	
  set	
  one	
  thing	
  straight	
  from	
  the	
  get	
  go.	
  The	
  data	
  from	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  sources	
  of	
  earth’s	
  measured	
  
average	
  global	
  temperature	
  clearly	
  show	
  that	
  there	
  has	
  been	
  a	
  pause	
  in	
  global	
  temperature	
  increase	
  
since	
  1998.	
  People	
  who	
  claim	
  otherwise	
  simply	
  don’t	
  look	
  at	
  the	
  data	
  or	
  believe	
  someone	
  who	
  wrote	
  a	
  story	
  that	
  said	
  warming	
  is	
  
accelerating	
  and	
  it’s	
  really,	
  really	
  bad.	
  Don’t	
  trust	
  me	
  on	
  this,	
  look	
  for	
  yourself.	
  There	
  are	
  those	
  who	
  see	
  the	
  pause	
  and	
  as	
  a	
  reaction	
  to	
  it,	
  have	
  now	
  begun	
  to	
  focus	
  

on	
  “extreme	
  weather	
  events”	
  to	
  keep	
  the	
  public	
  engaged	
  and	
  convinced	
  that	
  civilization	
  is	
  gagging	
  
Mother	
  Earth	
  with	
  its	
  carbon	
  dioxide	
  pollution.	
  Since	
  the	
  temperature	
  is	
  no	
  longer	
  increasing	
  some	
  other	
  scare	
  tactic	
  needs	
  to	
  be	
  
employed	
  to	
  keep	
  the	
  research	
  funding	
  from	
  drying	
  up.	
  In	
  a	
  time	
  of	
  economic	
  turmoil	
  research	
  funding	
  is	
  threatened.	
  For	
  instance	
  at	
  Penn	
  
State	
  University	
  funds	
  allocated	
  for	
  research	
  for	
  2010/11	
  were	
  $805,000,000,	
  more	
  than	
  half	
  of	
  that	
  lofty	
  sum,	
  $470,000,000	
  was	
  Federal	
  grants	
  and	
  contracts.	
  An	
  undetermined	
  amount	
  of	
  
that	
  money	
  goes	
  to	
  climate	
  research	
  at	
  Penn	
  State.	
      If	
  the	
  lack	
  of	
  warming	
  for	
  over	
  a	
  decade	
  begins	
  to	
  influence	
  how	
  congress	
  
doles	
  out	
  money	
  for	
  global	
  warming	
  research,	
  large	
  cuts	
  in	
  grants	
  and	
  contracts	
  could	
  result.	
  Claims	
  of	
  
increases	
  in	
  “extreme	
  weather”	
  due	
  to	
  global	
  warming	
  could	
  be	
  the	
  prod	
  that	
  keeps	
  the	
  government	
  funding	
  spigot	
  
open.	
  The	
  problem	
  with	
  trying	
  to	
  compare	
  weather	
  events	
  today	
  to	
  the	
  past	
  is	
  that	
  observational	
  networks	
  have	
  improved	
  dramatically	
  in	
  the	
  years	
  after	
  World	
  War	
  Two.	
  Weather	
  events	
  
in	
  the	
  past	
  were	
  vastly	
  underreported	
  due	
  to	
  a	
  lack	
  of	
  reporting	
  stations	
  and	
  primitive	
  communications	
  technologies.	
  In	
  its	
  2007	
  report	
  the	
  United	
  Nations	
  

Intergovernmental	
  Panel	
  on	
  Climate	
  Change	
  (IPCC)	
  said	
  "At	
  continental,	
  regional,	
  and	
  ocean	
  basin	
  scales,	
  numerous	
  long-­‐

term	
  changes	
  in	
  climate	
  have	
  been	
  observed.	
  These	
  include	
  changes	
  in	
  Arctic	
  temperatures	
  and	
  ice,	
  widespread	
  changes	
  in	
  precipitation	
  amounts,	
  
ocean	
  salinity,	
  wind	
  patterns	
  and	
  aspects	
  of	
  extreme	
  weather	
  including	
  droughts,	
  heavy	
  precipitation,	
  heat	
  waves	
  and	
  the	
  intensity	
  of	
  tropical	
  cyclones."	
  W hat	
  the	
  report	
  

does	
  not	
  say	
  is	
  that	
  multi-­‐decadal	
  ocean	
  temperature	
  oscillations	
  lasting	
  60	
  years	
  or	
  more	
  reveal	
  climate	
  
fluctuates	
  on	
  time	
  scales	
  that	
  overwhelm	
  our	
  relatively	
  short	
  period	
  of	
  reliable	
  observations.	
  What	
  the	
  report	
  also	
  does	
  
not	
  say	
  is	
  that	
  changes	
  in	
  Arctic	
  temperature	
  and	
  ice,	
  widespread	
  changes	
  in	
  precipitation	
  amounts,	
  ocean	
  salinity,	
  wind	
  patterns	
  and	
  aspects	
  of	
  extreme	
  weather	
  including	
  

droughts,	
  heavy	
  precipitation,	
  heat	
  waves	
  and	
  the	
  intensity	
  of	
  tropical	
  cyclones	
  are	
  just	
  as	
  likely	
  to	
  be	
  from	
  natural	
  variability	
  as	
  any	
  man	
  

made	
  global	
  warming.	
  The	
  attempt	
  to	
  attribute	
  changes	
  in	
  weather	
  over	
  decadal	
  time	
  scales	
  to	
  man	
  made	
  
global	
  warming	
  is	
  extremely	
  limited	
  by	
  our	
  short	
  period	
  of	
  reliable	
  weather	
  records	
  and	
  a	
  fundamental	
  lack	
  of	
  understanding	
  what	
  causes	
  

climate	
  to	
  change	
  in	
  the	
  first	
  place.	
  
	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     63	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                                                    	
                                                                                                               Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                                               A2:	
  Warming	
  (4/)	
  
Clouds	
  make	
  feedback	
  loops	
  turn	
  net	
  negative—halts	
  warming	
  
Watts	
  11—American	
  meteorologist	
  (AMS	
  seal	
  holder,	
  retired),	
  editor	
  of	
  the	
  blog,	
  Watts	
  Up	
  With	
  
That?	
  (WUWT),	
  owner	
  of	
  the	
  weather	
  graphics	
  company	
  ItWorks,	
  and	
  founder	
  of	
  the	
  
SurfaceStations.org	
  project	
  that	
  documents	
  the	
  siting	
  of	
  weather	
  stations	
  across	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  
(Anthony,	
  9/20,	
  “New	
  peer	
  reviewed	
  paper:	
  clouds	
  have	
  large	
  negative	
  cooling	
  effect	
  on	
  Earth’s	
  
radiation	
  budget”,	
  Watts	
  Up	
  With	
  That	
  Blog,	
  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/20/new-­‐peer-­‐
reviewed-­‐paper-­‐clouds-­‐have-­‐large-­‐negative-­‐feedback-­‐cooling-­‐effect-­‐on-­‐earths-­‐radiation-­‐budget/,	
  AL)	
  
Oh	
  dear,	
  now	
  we	
  have	
  three	
  peer	
  reviewed	
  papers	
  (Lindzen	
  and	
  Choi,	
  Spencer	
  and	
  Braswell,	
  and	
  now	
  Richard	
  P.	
  Allan)	
  based	
  on	
  

observations	
  that	
  show	
  a	
  net	
  negative	
  feedback	
  for	
  clouds,	
  and	
  a	
  strong	
  one	
  at	
  that.	
  What	
  will	
  Trenberth	
  and	
  Dessler	
  
do	
  next?	
  Maybe	
  the	
  editor	
  of	
  Meteorological	
  Applications	
  can	
  be	
  persuaded	
  to	
  commit	
  professional	
  suicide	
  and	
  resign?	
  The	
  key	
  paragraph	
  from	
  the	
  new	
  paper:	
  …the	
  cloud	
  radiative	
  cooling	
  
effect	
  through	
  reflection	
  of	
  short	
  wave	
  radiation	
  is	
  found	
  to	
  dominate	
  over	
  the	
  long	
  wave	
  heating	
  effect,	
  resulting	
  in	
  a	
  net	
  cooling	
  of	
  the	
  climate	
  system	
  of	
  −21	
  Wm−2.	
  After	
  all	
  the	
  wailing	
  and	
  
gnashing	
  of	
  teeth	
  over	
  the	
  Spencer	
  and	
  Braswell	
  paper	
  in	
  Remote	
  Sensing,	
  and	
  the	
  stunt	
  pulled	
  by	
  its	
  former	
  editor	
  who	
  resigned	
  saying	
  the	
  peer	
  review	
  process	
  failed,	
  another	
  paper	
  was	
  

published	
  last	
  week	
  in	
  the	
  journal	
  Meteorological	
  Applications	
  that	
  agrees	
  well	
  with	
  Spencer	
  and	
  Braswell.	
            This	
  new	
  paper	
  by	
  Richard	
  P.	
  Allan	
  of	
  the	
  
University	
  of	
  Reading	
  discovers	
  via	
  a	
  combination	
  of	
  satellite	
  observations	
  and	
  models	
  that	
  the	
  
cooling	
  effect	
  of	
  clouds	
  far	
  outweighs	
  the	
  long-­‐wave	
  or	
  “greenhouse”	
  warming	
  effect.	
  While	
  Dessler	
  and	
  Trenberth	
  
(among	
  others)	
  claim	
  clouds	
  have	
  an	
  overall	
  positive	
  feedback	
  warming	
  effect	
  upon	
  climate	
  due	
  to	
  the	
  long-­‐wave	
  back-­‐radiation,	
  this	
  new	
  paper	
  shows	
  that	
  clouds	
  have	
  a	
  

large	
  net	
  cooling	
  effect	
  by	
  blocking	
  incoming	
  solar	
  radiation	
  and	
  increasing	
  radiative	
  cooling	
  outside	
  the	
  
tropics.	
  This	
  is	
  key,	
  because	
  since	
  clouds	
  offer	
  a	
  negative	
  feedback	
  as	
  shown	
  by	
  this	
  paper	
  and	
  Spencer	
  and	
  Braswell	
  plus	
  Lindzen	
  and	
  Choi,	
  it	
  throws	
  a	
  huge	
  monkey	
  

wrench	
  in	
  climate	
  model	
  machinery	
  that	
  predict	
  catastrophic	
  levels	
  of	
  positive	
  feedback	
  enhanced	
  
global	
  warming	
  due	
  to	
  increased	
  CO2.	
  
	
  


Livestock	
  emissions	
  are	
  more	
  than	
  51%	
  of	
  total	
  GHG	
  emissions	
  
Goodland	
  and	
  Anhang	
  9	
  (*retired	
  as	
  lead	
  environmental	
  adviser	
  at	
  theWorld	
  Bank	
  Group	
  after	
  serving	
  
there	
  for	
  23	
  years.	
  In	
  2008	
  he	
  was	
  awarded	
  the	
  first	
  Coolidge	
  Memorial	
  Medal	
  by	
  the	
  IUCN	
  for	
  
outstanding	
  contributions	
  to	
  environmental	
  conservation,	
  **research	
  officer	
  and	
  environmental	
  
specialist	
  at	
  theWorld	
  Bank	
  Group’s	
  International	
  Finance	
  Corporation,	
  which	
  provides	
  private-­‐sector	
  
financing	
  and	
  advice	
  in	
  developing	
  countries	
  (*Robert,	
  **Jeff,	
  November/December,	
  “Livestock	
  and	
  
Climate	
  Change:	
  What	
  if	
  the	
  key	
  actors	
  in	
  climate	
  change	
  are…cows,	
  pigs,	
  and	
  chickens”,	
  WorldWatch,	
  
http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf,	
  AL))	
  
Livestock	
  are	
  already	
  well-­‐known	
  to	
  contribute	
  to	
  GHG	
  emissions.	
  Livestock’s	
  Long	
  Shadow,	
  the	
  widely-­‐cited	
  2006	
  report	
  by	
  the	
  
United	
  Nations	
  Food	
  and	
  Agriculture	
  Organization	
  (FAO),	
  estimates	
  that	
  7,516	
  million	
  metric	
  tons	
  per	
  year	
  of	
  
CO2	
  equivalents	
  (CO2e),	
  or	
  18	
  percent	
  of	
  annual	
  worldwide	
  GHG	
  emissions,	
  are	
  attributable	
  to	
  cattle,	
  buffalo,	
  sheep,	
  goats,	
  camels,	
  horses,	
  pigs,	
  and	
  
poultry.	
  That	
  amount	
  would	
  easily	
  qualify	
  livestock	
  for	
  a	
  hard	
  look	
  indeed	
  in	
  the	
  search	
  for	
  ways	
  to	
  address	
  climate	
  change.	
  But	
  our	
  analysis	
  shows	
  that	
  livestock	
  

and	
  their	
  byproducts	
  actually	
  account	
  for	
  at	
  least	
  32,564million	
  tons	
  of	
  CO2e	
  per	
  year,	
  or	
  51	
  percent	
  
of	
  annual	
  worldwide	
  GHG	
  emissions.	
  This	
  is	
  a	
  strong	
  claim	
  that	
  requires	
  strong	
  evidence,	
  so	
  we	
  will	
  thoroughly	
  review	
  the	
  direct	
  and	
  indirect	
  sources	
  of	
  GHG	
  
emissions	
  from	
  livestock.	
  Some	
  of	
  these	
  are	
  obvious	
  but	
  underestimated,	
  some	
  are	
  simply	
  overlooked,	
  and	
  some	
  are	
  emissions	
  sources	
  that	
  are	
  already	
  counted	
  but	
  have	
  been	
  assigned	
  to	
  the	
  

          Data	
  on	
  livestock	
  vary	
  from	
  place	
  to	
  place	
  and	
  are	
  affected	
  by	
  unavoidable	
  imprecision;	
  where	
  it	
  was	
  
wrong	
  sectors.	
  

impossible	
  to	
  avoid	
  imprecision	
  in	
  estimating	
  any	
  sum	
  of	
  GHGs,	
  we	
  strove	
  to	
  minimize	
  the	
  sum	
  so	
  our	
  overall	
  estimate	
  could	
  
be	
  understood	
  as	
  conservative.	
  	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                            64	
  
Starter	
  Set	
              	
            Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  


                     A2:	
  Add-­‐Ons	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                 65	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                              	
                                                                                 Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                              A2:	
  Russia	
  
No	
  Russian	
  threat-­‐	
  the	
  recession	
  crippled	
  them	
  
Mead,	
  Henry	
  A.	
  Kissinger	
  Senior	
  Fellow	
  in	
  U.S.	
  Foreign	
  Policy	
  at	
  the	
  Council	
  on	
  Foreign	
  Relations,	
  2K9	
  (Walter,	
  “Only	
  Makes	
  You	
  
Stronger:	
  Why	
  the	
  recession	
  bolstered	
  America”,	
  2/4,	
  The	
  New	
  Republic)	
  	
  
Today,	
  a	
  much-­‐diminished	
  Russia	
  cannot	
  realistically	
  aspire	
  to	
  fill	
  the	
  shoes	
  of	
  czarist	
  Russia,	
  much	
  less	
  those	
  of	
  
the	
  Soviet	
  Union.	
  In	
  Europe,	
  the	
  post-­‐cold	
  war	
  loss	
  of	
  the	
  Baltic	
  republics,	
  most	
  of	
  Georgia,	
  Armenia,	
  Azerbaijan,	
  and	
  above	
  all	
  
Ukraine	
  has	
  pushed	
  Russia	
  back	
  to	
  its	
  boundaries	
  at	
  the	
  time	
  of	
  Ivan	
  the	
  Terrible,	
  leaving	
  Russia	
  shorn	
  of	
  half	
  its	
  
population	
  and	
  most	
  of	
  its	
  agricultural	
  potential.	
  Now	
  Russia	
  is	
  struggling,	
  with	
  only	
  partial	
  success,	
  simply	
  to	
  
maintain	
  its	
  Soviet-­‐era	
  infrastructure	
  and	
  educational	
  system,	
  unable	
  to	
  build	
  the	
  base	
  for	
  a	
  modern	
  
economy.	
  Pushed	
  from	
  the	
  center	
  to	
  the	
  far	
  fringes	
  of	
  European	
  geography,	
  lagging	
  well	
  behind	
  Western	
  norms	
  in	
  economic	
  and	
  social	
  
productivity,	
  and	
  challenged	
  by	
  the	
  rising	
  powers	
  to	
  its	
  east,	
  Russia	
  retains	
  only	
  shards	
  of	
  the	
  power	
  potential	
  that	
  once	
  
made	
  it	
  a	
  credible	
  rival	
  of	
  the	
  United	
  States.	
  	
  It	
  was	
  in	
  this	
  context	
  that	
  the	
  financial	
  crisis	
  hit	
  last	
  fall.	
  The	
  Georgia	
  invasion	
  
itself	
  had	
  already	
  spooked	
  foreign	
  and	
  domestic	
  investors	
  into	
  pulling	
  their	
  money	
  out	
  of	
  Russia.	
  That	
  capital	
  flight	
  
only	
  accelerated	
  as	
  the	
  price	
  of	
  oil	
  and	
  gas	
  fell	
  by	
  more	
  than	
  two-­‐thirds.	
  Soon	
  it	
  became	
  apparent	
  that	
  Russia's	
  vaunted	
  
economic	
  recovery	
  rested	
  on	
  little	
  more	
  than	
  the	
  high	
  price	
  of	
  petrochemicals.	
  In	
  2007,	
  oil,	
  fuel,	
  and	
  gas	
  exports	
  accounted	
  for	
  65	
  percent	
  of	
  
Russia's	
  export	
  revenues.	
  With	
  its	
  currency	
  falling,	
  its	
  export	
  earnings	
  crashing,	
  and	
  its	
  foreign	
  exchange	
  
reserves	
  melting	
  away,	
  an	
  increasingly	
  cash-­‐strapped	
  Russian	
  state	
  now	
  faces	
  enormous	
  difficulties	
  in	
  maintaining	
  
its	
  military	
  spending.	
  	
  The	
  assertive	
  foreign	
  policy	
  propounded	
  by	
  Putin	
  and	
  Dmitry	
  Medvedev	
  was	
  presented	
  
as	
  the	
  consequence	
  of	
  a	
  rising	
  Russia;	
  in	
  actuality,	
  it	
  was	
  a	
  high-­‐stakes	
  bluff	
  by	
  a	
  ruling	
  elite	
  which	
  knows	
  that	
  its	
  
power	
  base	
  continues	
  to	
  erode.	
  During	
  Bush's	
  second	
  term,	
  Russia	
  had	
  a	
  rare	
  opportunity:	
  The	
  prices	
  of	
  oil	
  and	
  gas	
  were	
  rising;	
  the	
  
United	
  States	
  was,	
  apparently,	
  bogged	
  down	
  in	
  a	
  losing	
  war	
  in	
  Iraq	
  and	
  needed	
  Russian	
  help	
  at	
  the	
  Security	
  Council	
  to	
  deal	
  with	
  Iran;	
  and	
  the	
  
gap	
  between	
  Europe	
  and	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  was	
  wider	
  than	
  at	
  any	
  time	
  since	
  World	
  War	
  II.	
  With	
  the	
  future	
  looking	
  bleak,	
  Russia	
  chose	
  to	
  assert	
  
itself	
  at	
  this	
  moment	
  of	
  maximum	
  strength.	
  	
  But	
  now	
  the	
  Russian	
  economy	
  looks	
  shakier	
  than	
  ever;	
  foreign	
  investors	
  
have	
  lost	
  faith	
  in	
  the	
  country's	
  legal	
  and	
  financial	
  systems;	
  Washington	
  has	
  drawn	
  closer	
  to	
  European	
  
capitals;	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  appears	
  headed	
  for	
  an	
  honorable	
  and	
  timely	
  exit	
  from	
  the	
  war	
  in	
  Iraq;	
  and	
  rising	
  European	
  concern	
  
over	
  Iran	
  may	
  enable	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  to	
  address	
  its	
  nuclear	
  program	
  without	
  Russian	
  support	
  at	
  the	
  United	
  
Nations.	
  The	
  fall	
  in	
  oil	
  prices,	
  Chavez's	
  own	
  political	
  troubles	
  at	
  home,	
  and	
  the	
  economic	
  troubles	
  in	
  Cuba	
  make	
  the	
  Russian	
  fleet's	
  presence	
  in	
  
the	
  Caribbean	
  a	
  curiosity	
  rather	
  than	
  a	
  threat	
  of	
  any	
  kind.	
  Russia	
  has	
  or	
  can	
  develop	
  additional	
  opportunities,	
  perhaps	
  in	
  Ukraine,	
  but	
  its	
  weak	
  
economic	
  base	
  and	
  dismal	
  future	
  prospects	
  suggest	
  that	
  the	
  natural	
  limits	
  of	
  its	
  power	
  are	
  easily	
  reached.	
  The	
  much	
  touted	
  "Russian	
  
renaissance"	
  is	
  likely	
  to	
  be	
  counted	
  a	
  casualty	
  of	
  the	
  Panic	
  of	
  2008.	
  	
  	
  

Peace	
  negotiations	
  check	
  US-­‐Russian	
  escalation	
  
Colonel	
  General	
  Leonid	
  Ivashov,	
  President	
  of	
  the	
  Academy	
  of	
  Geopolitical	
  Problems.	
  July	
  2007	
  “WILL	
  
AMERICA	
  FIGHT	
  RUSSIA”.	
  Defense	
  and	
  Security,	
  No	
  78.	
  LN	
  	
  	
  
Ivashov:	
  Numerous	
  scenarios	
  and	
  options	
  are	
  possible.	
  Everything	
  may	
  begin	
  as	
  a	
  local	
  conflict	
  that	
  will	
  rapidly	
  
deteriorate	
  into	
  a	
  total	
  confrontation.	
  An	
  ultimatum	
  will	
  be	
  sent	
  to	
  Russia:	
  say,	
  change	
  the	
  domestic	
  policy	
  
because	
  human	
  rights	
  are	
  allegedly	
  encroached	
  on,	
  or	
  give	
  Western	
  businesses	
  access	
  to	
  oil	
  and	
  gas	
  fields.	
  Russia	
  will	
  refuse	
  and	
  its	
  
objects	
  (radars,	
  air	
  defense	
  components,	
  command	
  posts,	
  infrastructure)	
  will	
  be	
  wiped	
  out	
  by	
  guided	
  missiles	
  with	
  
conventional	
  warheads	
  and	
  by	
  aviation.	
  Once	
  this	
  phase	
  is	
  over,	
  an	
  even	
  stiffer	
  ultimatum	
  will	
  be	
  presented	
  -­‐	
  demanding	
  
something	
  up	
  to	
  the	
  deployment	
  of	
  NATO	
  "peacekeepers"	
  on	
  the	
  territory	
  of	
  Russia.	
  	
  Refusal	
  to	
  bow	
  to	
  the	
  demands	
  will	
  be	
  
met	
  with	
  a	
  mass	
  aviation	
  and	
  missile	
  strike	
  at	
  Army	
  and	
  Navy	
  assets,	
  infrastructure,	
  and	
  objects	
  of	
  defense	
  industry.	
  NATO	
  
armies	
  will	
  invade	
  Belarus	
  and	
  western	
  Russia.	
  Two	
  turns	
  of	
  events	
  may	
  follow	
  that.	
  Moscow	
  may	
  accept	
  the	
  
ultimatum	
  through	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  some	
  device	
  that	
  will	
  help	
  it	
  save	
  face.	
  The	
  acceptance	
  will	
  be	
  followed	
  by	
  talks	
  over	
  the	
  
estrangement	
  of	
  the	
  Kaliningrad	
  enclave,	
  parts	
  of	
  the	
  Caucasus	
  and	
  Caspian	
  region,	
  international	
  control	
  over	
  the	
  Russian	
  gas	
  and	
  oil	
  complex,	
  
and	
  NATO	
  control	
  over	
  Russian	
  nuclear	
  forces.	
  The	
  second	
  scenario	
  involves	
  a	
  warning	
  from	
  the	
  
Kremlin	
  to	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  that	
  continuation	
  of	
  the	
  aggression	
  will	
  trigger	
  retaliation	
  with	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  all	
  
weapons	
  in	
  nuclear	
  arsenals.	
  It	
  will	
  stop	
  the	
  war	
  and	
  put	
  negotiations	
  into	
  motion.	
  
	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        66	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                                                      	
                                                                                                                Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                                                    A2:	
  Terror	
  (1/3)	
  
Al-­‐Qaeda	
  weak	
  –	
  Bin	
  Laden’s	
  death,	
  Abbottabad	
  intelligence,	
  no	
  safe	
  haven	
  	
  
WILLIAM	
  MCCANTS	
  -­‐	
  Center	
  for	
  Strategic	
  Studies	
  /	
  Johns	
  Hopkins	
  –	
  Sept/Oct	
  2011,	
  Al	
  Qaeda's	
  Challenge,	
  Foreign	
  
Affairs,	
  http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/68160/william-­‐mccants/al-­‐qaedas-­‐challenge?page=show	
  
Al	
  Qaeda	
  now	
  stands	
  at	
  a	
  precipice.	
  The	
  Arab	
  Spring	
  and	
  the	
  success	
  of	
  Islamist	
  parliamentarians	
  throughout	
  the	
  
Middle	
  East	
  have	
  challenged	
  its	
  core	
  vision	
  just	
  as	
  the	
  group	
  has	
  lost	
  its	
  founder.	
  Al	
  Qaeda	
  has	
  also	
  
lost	
  access	
  to	
  bin	
  Laden's	
  personal	
  connections	
  in	
  Afghanistan,	
  Pakistan,	
  and	
  the	
  Persian	
  Gulf,	
  which	
  
had	
  long	
  provided	
  it	
  with	
  resources	
  and	
  protection.	
  Bin	
  Laden's	
  death	
  has	
  deprived	
  al	
  Qaeda	
  of	
  its	
  most	
  media-­‐savvy	
  icon;	
  
and	
  most	
  important,	
  al	
  Qaeda	
  has	
  lost	
  its	
  commander	
  in	
  chief.	
  The	
  raid	
  that	
  killed	
  bin	
  Laden	
  revealed	
  that	
  he	
  had	
  not	
  been	
  
reduced	
  to	
  a	
  figurehead,	
  as	
  many	
  Western	
  analysts	
  had	
  suspected;	
  he	
  had	
  continued	
  to	
  direct	
  the	
  operations	
  of	
  al	
  Qaeda	
  and	
  its	
  franchises.	
  
Yet	
  the	
  documents	
  seized	
  from	
  bin	
  Laden's	
  home	
  in	
  Abbottabad,	
  Pakistan,	
  reveal	
  how	
  weak	
  al	
  Qaeda	
  
had	
  become	
  even	
  under	
  his	
  ongoing	
  leadership.	
  Correspondence	
  found	
  in	
  the	
  raid	
  shows	
  bin	
  Laden	
  and	
  his	
  
lieutenants	
  lamenting	
  al	
  Qaeda's	
  lack	
  of	
  funds	
  and	
  the	
  constant	
  casualties	
  from	
  U.S.	
  drone	
  strikes.	
  
These	
  papers	
  have	
  made	
  the	
  organization	
  even	
  more	
  vulnerable	
  by	
  exposing	
  its	
  general	
  command	
  
structure,	
  putting	
  al	
  Qaeda's	
  leadership	
  at	
  greater	
  risk	
  of	
  extinction	
  than	
  ever	
  before.	
  Al	
  Qaeda	
  has	
  elected	
  
Zawahiri	
  as	
  its	
  new	
  chief,	
  at	
  least	
  for	
  now.	
  But	
  the	
  transition	
  will	
  not	
  be	
  seamless.	
  Some	
  members	
  of	
  al	
  Qaeda's	
  old	
  guard	
  feel	
  
little	
  loyalty	
  to	
  Zawahiri,	
  whom	
  they	
  view	
  as	
  a	
  relative	
  newcomer.	
  Al	
  Qaeda's	
  members	
  from	
  the	
  Persian	
  Gulf,	
  for	
  their	
  part,	
  may	
  feel	
  
alienated	
  by	
  having	
  an	
  Egyptian	
  at	
  their	
  helm,	
  especially	
  if	
  Zawahiri	
  chooses	
  another	
  Egyptian	
  as	
  his	
  deputy.	
  Despite	
  these	
  potential	
  sources	
  of	
  friction,	
  al	
  Qaeda	
  is	
  not	
  likely	
  to	
  split	
  under	
  
Zawahiri's	
  reign.	
  Its	
  senior	
  leadership	
  will	
  still	
  want	
  to	
  unite	
  jihadist	
  groups	
  under	
  its	
  banner,	
  and	
  its	
  franchises	
  will	
  have	
  little	
  reason	
  to	
  relinquish	
  the	
  recognition	
  and	
  resources	
  that	
  come	
  with	
  
al	
  Qaeda	
  affiliation.	
  Yet	
  those	
  affiliates	
  cannot	
  offer	
  al	
  Qaeda's	
  senior	
  commanders	
  shelter.	
  Indeed,	
  should	
  Pakistan	
  become	
  too	
  dangerous	
  a	
  refuge	
  for	
  the	
  organization's	
  leaders,	
  they	
  will	
  find	
  
                         The	
  Islamic	
  governments	
  that	
  previously	
  protected	
  and	
  assisted	
  al	
  Qaeda,	
  such	
  as	
  
themselves	
  with	
  few	
  other	
  options.	
  

those	
  in	
  Afghanistan	
  and	
  Sudan	
  in	
  the	
  1990s,	
  either	
  no	
  longer	
  exist	
  or	
  are	
  inhospitable	
  (although	
  Somalia	
  might	
  become	
  a	
  
candidate	
  if	
  the	
  militant	
  group	
  al	
  Shabab	
  consolidates	
  its	
  hold	
  there).	
  In	
  the	
  midst	
  of	
  grappling	
  with	
  all	
  these	
  challenges,	
  al	
  Qaeda	
  must	
  also	
  decide	
  how	
  to	
  respond	
  to	
  the	
  uprisings	
  in	
  the	
  Arab	
  
world.	
  Thus	
  far,	
  its	
  leaders	
  have	
  indicated	
  that	
  they	
  want	
  to	
  support	
  Islamist	
  insurgents	
  in	
  unstable	
  revolutionary	
  countries	
  and	
  lay	
  the	
  groundwork	
  for	
  the	
  creation	
  of	
  Islamic	
  states	
  once	
  the	
  
existing	
  regimes	
  have	
  fallen,	
  similar	
  to	
  what	
  they	
  attempted	
  in	
  Iraq.	
  But	
  al	
  Qaeda's	
  true	
  strategic	
  dilemma	
  lies	
  in	
  Egypt	
  and	
  Tunisia.	
  In	
  these	
  countries,	
  local	
  tyrants	
  have	
  been	
  ousted,	
  but	
  
parliamentary	
  elections	
  will	
  be	
  held	
  soon,	
  and	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  remains	
  influential.	
  The	
  outcome	
  in	
  Egypt	
  is	
  particularly	
  personal	
  for	
  Zawahiri,	
  who	
  began	
  his	
  fight	
  to	
  depose	
  the	
  Egyptian	
  
                                                   Egypt,	
  given	
  its	
  geostrategic	
  importance	
  and	
  its	
  status	
  as	
  the	
  leading	
  
government	
  as	
  a	
  teenager.	
  Zawahiri	
  also	
  understands	
  that	
  

Arab	
  nation,	
  is	
  the	
  grand	
  prize	
  in	
  the	
  contest	
  between	
  al	
  Qaeda	
  and	
  the	
  United	
  States.	
  In	
  his	
  recent	
  six-­‐part	
  message	
  
to	
  the	
  Egyptian	
  people	
  and	
  in	
  his	
  eulogy	
  for	
  bin	
  Laden,	
  Zawahiri	
  suggested	
  that	
  absent	
  outside	
  interference,	
  the	
  Egyptians	
  and	
  the	
  Tunisians	
  would	
  establish	
  Islamic	
  states	
  that	
  would	
  be	
  hostile	
  
to	
  Western	
  interests.	
  But	
  the	
  United	
  States,	
  he	
  said,	
  will	
  likely	
  work	
  to	
  ensure	
  that	
  friendly	
  political	
  forces,	
  including	
  secularists	
  and	
  moderate	
  Islamists,	
  win	
  Egypt's	
  upcoming	
  elections.	
  And	
  
even	
  if	
  the	
  Islamists	
  succeed	
  in	
  establishing	
  an	
  Islamic	
  state	
  there,	
  Zawahiri	
  argued,	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  will	
  retain	
  enough	
  leverage	
  to	
  keep	
  it	
  in	
  line.	
  To	
  prevent	
  such	
  an	
  outcome,	
  Zawahiri	
  called	
  
on	
  Islamist	
  activists	
  in	
  Egypt	
  and	
  Tunisia	
  to	
  start	
  a	
  popular	
  (presumably	
  nonviolent)	
  campaign	
  to	
  implement	
  sharia	
  as	
  the	
  sole	
  source	
  of	
  legislation	
  and	
  to	
  pressure	
  the	
  transitional	
  governments	
  
                                          Yet	
  Zawahiri's	
  attempt	
  to	
  sway	
  local	
  Islamists	
  is	
  unlikely	
  to	
  succeed.	
  Although	
  
to	
  end	
  their	
  cooperation	
  with	
  Washington.	
  

some	
  Islamists	
  in	
  the	
  two	
  countries	
  rhetorically	
  support	
  al	
  Qaeda,	
  many,	
  especially	
  the	
  Muslim	
  
Brotherhood,	
  are	
  now	
  organizing	
  for	
  their	
  countries'	
  upcoming	
  elections	
  -­‐-­‐	
  that	
  is,	
  they	
  are	
  becoming	
  
Islamist	
  parliamentarians.	
  Even	
  Egyptian	
  Salafists,	
  who	
  share	
  Zawahiri's	
  distaste	
  for	
  parliamentary	
  politics,	
  are	
  forming	
  their	
  own	
  political	
  parties.	
  Most	
  ominous	
  for	
  
Zawahiri's	
  agenda,	
  the	
  Egyptian	
  Islamist	
  organization	
  al-­‐Gama'a	
  al-­‐Islamiyya	
  (the	
  Islamic	
  Group),	
  parts	
  of	
  which	
  were	
  once	
  allied	
  with	
  al	
  Qaeda,	
  has	
  forsworn	
  violence	
  and	
  recently	
  announced	
  

                                                                                                                   Al	
  Qaeda,	
  then,	
  is	
  losing	
  sway	
  even	
  among	
  its	
  natural	
  
that	
  it	
  was	
  creating	
  a	
  political	
  party	
  to	
  compete	
  in	
  Egypt's	
  parliamentary	
  elections.	
  

allies.	
  This	
  dynamic	
  limits	
  Zawahiri's	
  options.	
  For	
  fear	
  of	
  alienating	
  the	
  Egyptian	
  people,	
  he	
  is	
  not	
  likely	
  to	
  end	
  his	
  efforts	
  to	
  reach	
  out	
  to	
  Egypt's	
  Islamist	
  parliamentarians	
  or	
  to	
  break	
  with	
  
them	
  by	
  calling	
  for	
  attacks	
  in	
  the	
  country	
  before	
  the	
  elections.	
  Instead,	
  he	
  will	
  continue	
  urging	
  the	
  Islamists	
  to	
  advocate	
  for	
  sharia	
  and	
  to	
  try	
  to	
  limit	
  U.S.	
  influence.	
  In	
  the	
  meantime,	
  

Zawahiri	
  will	
  continue	
  trying	
  to	
  attack	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  and	
  continue	
  exploiting	
  less	
  stable	
  
postrevolutionary	
  countries,	
  such	
  as	
  Libya,	
  Syria,	
  and	
  Yemen,	
  which	
  may	
  prove	
  more	
  susceptible	
  to	
  al	
  Qaeda's	
  
influence.	
  Yet	
  to	
  operate	
  in	
  these	
  countries,	
  al	
  Qaeda	
  will	
  need	
  to	
  subordinate	
  its	
  political	
  agenda	
  to	
  those	
  of	
  the	
  insurgents	
  there	
  or	
  risk	
  
destroying	
  itself,	
  as	
  Zarqawi's	
  group	
  did	
  in	
  Iraq.	
  If	
  those	
  insurgents	
  take	
  power,	
  they	
  will	
  likely	
  refuse	
  to	
  offer	
  al	
  
Qaeda	
  safe	
  haven	
  for	
  fear	
  of	
  alienating	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  or	
  its	
  allies	
  in	
  the	
  region.	
  Thanks	
  to	
  the	
  continued	
  
predominance	
  of	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  and	
  the	
  growing	
  appeal	
  of	
  Islamist	
  parliamentarians	
  in	
  the	
  Muslim	
  world,	
  even	
  supporters	
  of	
  al	
  Qaeda	
  now	
  doubt	
  that	
  it	
  will	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  replace	
  existing	
  
regimes	
  with	
  Islamic	
  states	
  anytime	
  soon.	
  In	
  a	
  recent	
  joint	
  statement,	
  several	
  jihadist	
  online	
  forums	
  expressed	
  concern	
  that	
  if	
  Muammar	
  al-­‐Qaddafi	
  is	
  defeated	
  in	
  Libya,	
  the	
  Islamists	
  there	
  will	
  

participate	
  in	
  U.S.-­‐backed	
  elections,	
  ending	
  any	
  chance	
  of	
  establishing	
  a	
  true	
  Islamic	
  state.	
  As	
  a	
  result	
  of	
  all	
  these	
  forces,	
     al	
  Qaeda	
  is	
  no	
  longer	
  the	
  vanguard	
  of	
  
the	
  Islamist	
  movement	
  in	
  the	
  Arab	
  world.	
  Having	
  defined	
  the	
  terms	
  of	
  Islamist	
  politics	
  for	
  the	
  last	
  decade	
  by	
  raising	
  fears	
  
about	
  Islamic	
  political	
  parties	
  and	
  giving	
  Arab	
  rulers	
  a	
  pretext	
  to	
  limit	
  their	
  activity	
  or	
  shut	
  them	
  down,	
  al	
  Qaeda's	
  goal	
  of	
  removing	
  those	
  rulers	
  
is	
  now	
  being	
  fulfilled	
  by	
  others	
  who	
  are	
  unlikely	
  to	
  share	
  its	
  political	
  vision.	
  Should	
  these	
  revolutions	
  fail	
  and	
  al	
  Qaeda	
  survives,	
  it	
  will	
  be	
  ready	
  
to	
  reclaim	
  the	
  mantle	
  of	
  Islamist	
  resistance.	
  But	
  for	
  now,	
  the	
  forces	
  best	
  positioned	
  to	
  capitalize	
  on	
  the	
  Arab	
  Spring	
  are	
  
the	
  Islamist	
  parliamentarians,	
  who,	
  unlike	
  al	
  Qaeda,	
  are	
  willing	
  and	
  able	
  to	
  engage	
  in	
  the	
  messy	
  
business	
  of	
  politics.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                 67	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                             	
                                                                                  Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                     A2:	
  Terror	
  (2/3)	
  
No	
  threat	
  of	
  nuclear	
  terrorism	
  –	
  bin	
  Laden	
  documents	
  prove	
  terrorists	
  have	
  no	
  money	
  
John	
  Mueller-­‐	
  Prof	
  poli	
  sci,	
  Ohio	
  State,	
  August	
  2,	
  2011,	
  The	
  Truth	
  About	
  al	
  Qaeda,	
  Foreign	
  Affairs,	
  
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/68012/john-­‐mueller/the-­‐truth-­‐about-­‐al-­‐qaeda?page=show	
  
The	
  chief	
  lesson	
  of	
  9/11	
  should	
  have	
  been	
  that	
  small	
  bands	
  of	
  terrorists,	
  using	
  simple	
  methods,	
  can	
  exploit	
  loopholes	
  in	
  existing	
  security	
  
systems.	
  But	
  instead,	
  many	
  preferred	
  to	
  engage	
  in	
  massive	
  extrapolation:	
  If	
  19	
  men	
  could	
  hijack	
  four	
  airplanes	
  simultaneously,	
  the	
  thinking	
  
went,	
  then	
  surely	
  al	
  Qaeda	
  would	
  soon	
  make	
  an	
  atomic	
  bomb.	
  As	
  a	
  misguided	
  Turkish	
  proverb	
  holds,	
  "If	
  your	
  enemy	
  be	
  an	
  ant,	
  imagine	
  him	
  to	
  
be	
  an	
  elephant."	
  The	
  new	
  information	
  unearthed	
  in	
  Osama	
  bin	
  Laden's	
  hideout	
  in	
  Abbottabad,	
  Pakistan,	
  suggests	
  that	
  
the	
  United	
  States	
  has	
  been	
  doing	
  so	
  for	
  a	
  full	
  decade.	
  Whatever	
  al	
  Qaeda's	
  threatening	
  rhetoric	
  and	
  occasional	
  
nuclear	
  fantasies,	
  its	
  potential	
  as	
  a	
  menace,	
  particularly	
  as	
  an	
  atomic	
  one,	
  has	
  been	
  much	
  inflated.	
  The	
  
public	
  has	
  now	
  endured	
  a	
  decade	
  of	
  dire	
  warnings	
  about	
  the	
  imminence	
  of	
  a	
  terrorist	
  atomic	
  attack.	
  In	
  
2004,	
  the	
  former	
  CIA	
  spook	
  Michael	
  Scheuer	
  proclaimed	
  on	
  television's	
  60	
  Minutes	
  that	
  it	
  was	
  "probably	
  a	
  near	
  thing,"	
  and	
  in	
  2007,	
  the	
  
physicist	
  Richard	
  Garwin	
  assessed	
  the	
  likelihood	
  of	
  a	
  nuclear	
  explosion	
  in	
  an	
  American	
  or	
  a	
  European	
  city	
  by	
  terrorism	
  or	
  other	
  means	
  in	
  the	
  
next	
  ten	
  years	
  to	
  be	
  87	
  percent.	
  By	
  2008,	
  Defense	
  Secretary	
  Robert	
  Gates	
  mused	
  that	
  what	
  keeps	
  every	
  senior	
  government	
  leader	
  awake	
  at	
  
night	
  is	
  "the	
  thought	
  of	
  a	
  terrorist	
  ending	
  up	
  with	
  a	
  weapon	
  of	
  mass	
  destruction,	
  especially	
  nuclear."	
  Few,	
  it	
  seems,	
  found	
  much	
  solace	
  
in	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  an	
  al	
  Qaeda	
  computer	
  seized	
  in	
  Afghanistan	
  in	
  2001	
  indicated	
  that	
  the	
  group's	
  budget	
  
for	
  research	
  on	
  weapons	
  of	
  mass	
  destruction	
  (almost	
  all	
  of	
  it	
  focused	
  on	
  primitive	
  chemical	
  weapons	
  work)	
  was	
  some	
  
$2,000	
  to	
  $4,000.	
  In	
  the	
  wake	
  of	
  the	
  killing	
  of	
  Osama	
  bin	
  Laden,	
  officials	
  now	
  have	
  more	
  al	
  Qaeda	
  computers,	
  which	
  
reportedly	
  contain	
  a	
  wealth	
  of	
  information	
  about	
  the	
  workings	
  of	
  the	
  organization	
  in	
  the	
  intervening	
  decade.	
  A	
  
multi-­‐agency	
  task	
  force	
  has	
  completed	
  its	
  assessment,	
  and	
  according	
  to	
  first	
  reports,	
  it	
  has	
  found	
  that	
  al	
  Qaeda	
  members	
  have	
  
primarily	
  been	
  engaged	
  in	
  dodging	
  drone	
  strikes	
  and	
  complaining	
  about	
  how	
  cash-­‐strapped	
  they	
  are.	
  
Some	
  reports	
  suggest	
  they've	
  also	
  been	
  looking	
  at	
  quite	
  a	
  bit	
  of	
  pornography.	
  The	
  full	
  story	
  is	
  not	
  out	
  yet,	
  but	
  it	
  seems	
  breathtakingly	
  
unlikely	
  that	
  the	
  miserable	
  little	
  group	
  has	
  had	
  the	
  time	
  or	
  inclination,	
  let	
  alone	
  the	
  money,	
  to	
  set	
  up	
  
and	
  staff	
  a	
  uranium-­‐seizing	
  operation,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  a	
  fancy,	
  super-­‐high-­‐tech	
  facility	
  to	
  fabricate	
  a	
  bomb.	
  
It	
  is	
  a	
  process	
  that	
  requires	
  trusting	
  corrupted	
  foreign	
  collaborators	
  and	
  other	
  criminals,	
  obtaining	
  and	
  
transporting	
  highly	
  guarded	
  material,	
  setting	
  up	
  a	
  machine	
  shop	
  staffed	
  with	
  top	
  scientists	
  and	
  
technicians,	
  and	
  rolling	
  the	
  heavy,	
  cumbersome,	
  and	
  untested	
  finished	
  product	
  into	
  position	
  to	
  be	
  detonated	
  by	
  a	
  
skilled	
  crew,	
  all	
  the	
  while	
  attracting	
  no	
  attention	
  from	
  outsiders.	
  The	
  documents	
  also	
  reveal	
  that	
  after	
  fleeing	
  Afghanistan,	
  
bin	
  Laden	
  maintained	
  what	
  one	
  member	
  of	
  the	
  task	
  force	
  calls	
  an	
  "obsession"	
  with	
  attacking	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  again,	
  even	
  though	
  9/11	
  was	
  
in	
  many	
  ways	
  a	
  disaster	
  for	
  the	
  group.	
  It	
  led	
  to	
  a	
  worldwide	
  loss	
  of	
  support,	
  a	
  major	
  attack	
  on	
  it	
  and	
  on	
  its	
  
Taliban	
  hosts,	
  and	
  a	
  decade	
  of	
  furious	
  and	
  dedicated	
  harassment.	
  And	
  indeed,	
  bin	
  Laden	
  did	
  repeatedly	
  and	
  publicly	
  
threaten	
  an	
  attack	
  on	
  the	
  United	
  States.	
  He	
  assured	
  Americans	
  in	
  2002	
  that	
  "the	
  youth	
  of	
  Islam	
  are	
  preparing	
  things	
  that	
  will	
  fill	
  your	
  hearts	
  
with	
  fear";	
  and	
  in	
  2006,	
  he	
  declared	
  that	
  his	
  group	
  had	
  been	
  able	
  "to	
  breach	
  your	
  security	
  measures"	
  and	
  that	
  "operations	
  are	
  under	
  
preparation,	
  and	
  you	
  will	
  see	
  them	
  on	
  your	
  own	
  ground	
  once	
  they	
  are	
  finished."	
  Al	
  Qaeda's	
  animated	
  spokesman,	
  Adam	
  Gadahn,	
  proclaimed	
  in	
  
2004	
  that	
  "the	
  streets	
  of	
  America	
  shall	
  run	
  red	
  with	
  blood"	
  and	
  that	
  "the	
  next	
  wave	
  of	
  attacks	
  may	
  come	
  at	
  any	
  moment."	
  The	
  obsessive	
  desire	
  
notwithstanding,	
  such	
  fulminations	
  have	
  clearly	
  lacked	
  substance.	
  Although	
  hundreds	
  of	
  millions	
  of	
  people	
  enter	
  the	
  
United	
  States	
  legally	
  every	
  year,	
  and	
  countless	
  others	
  illegally,	
  no	
  true	
  al	
  Qaeda	
  cell	
  has	
  been	
  found	
  in	
  
the	
  country	
  since	
  9/11	
  and	
  exceedingly	
  few	
  people	
  have	
  been	
  uncovered	
  who	
  even	
  have	
  any	
  sort	
  of	
  
"link"	
  to	
  the	
  organization.	
  The	
  closest	
  effort	
  at	
  an	
  al	
  Qaeda	
  operation	
  within	
  the	
  country	
  was	
  a	
  
decidedly	
  nonnuclear	
  one	
  by	
  an	
  Afghan-­‐American,	
  Najibullah	
  Zazi,	
  in	
  2009.	
  Outraged	
  at	
  the	
  U.S.-­‐led	
  war	
  on	
  his	
  home	
  
country,	
  Zazi	
  attempted	
  to	
  join	
  the	
  Taliban	
  but	
  was	
  persuaded	
  by	
  al	
  Qaeda	
  operatives	
  in	
  Pakistan	
  to	
  set	
  off	
  some	
  bombs	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  
instead.	
  Under	
  surveillance	
  from	
  the	
  start,	
  he	
  was	
  soon	
  arrested,	
  and,	
  however	
  "radicalized,"	
  he	
  has	
  been	
  talking	
  to	
  investigators	
  ever	
  since,	
  
turning	
  traitor	
  to	
  his	
  former	
  colleagues.	
  Whatever	
  training	
  Zazi	
  received	
  was	
  inadequate;	
  he	
  repeatedly	
  and	
  
desperately	
  sought	
  further	
  instruction	
  from	
  his	
  overseas	
  instructors	
  by	
  phone.	
  At	
  one	
  point,	
  he	
  purchased	
  bomb	
  
material	
  with	
  a	
  stolen	
  credit	
  card,	
  guaranteeing	
  that	
  the	
  purchase	
  would	
  attract	
  attention	
  and	
  that	
  security	
  video	
  recordings	
  would	
  be	
  
scrutinized.	
  Apparently,	
  his	
  handlers	
  were	
  so	
  strapped	
  that	
  they	
  could	
  not	
  even	
  advance	
  him	
  a	
  bit	
  of	
  cash	
  to	
  
purchase	
  some	
  hydrogen	
  peroxide	
  for	
  making	
  a	
  bomb.	
  	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   68	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                        	
                                                                                         Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                             A2:	
  Terror	
  (3/3)	
  
For	
  al	
  Qaeda,	
  then,	
  the	
  operation	
  was	
  a	
  failure	
  in	
  every	
  way	
  -­‐-­‐	
  except	
  for	
  the	
  ego	
  boost	
  it	
  got	
  by	
  inspiring	
  the	
  usual	
  dire	
  litany	
  about	
  the	
  group's	
  
supposedly	
  existential	
  challenge	
  to	
  the	
  United	
  States,	
  to	
  the	
  civilized	
  world,	
  to	
  the	
  modern	
  state	
  system.	
  Indeed,	
  no	
  Muslim	
  extremist	
  
has	
  succeeded	
  in	
  detonating	
  even	
  a	
  simple	
  bomb	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  in	
  the	
  last	
  ten	
  years,	
  and	
  except	
  for	
  
the	
  attacks	
  on	
  the	
  London	
  Underground	
  in	
  2005,	
  neither	
  has	
  any	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  Kingdom.	
  It	
  seems	
  wildly	
  unlikely	
  that	
  al	
  Qaeda	
  
is	
  remotely	
  ready	
  to	
  go	
  nuclear.	
  Outside	
  of	
  war	
  zones,	
  the	
  amount	
  of	
  killing	
  carried	
  out	
  by	
  al	
  Qaeda	
  and	
  al	
  Qaeda	
  linkees,	
  maybes,	
  
and	
  wannabes	
  throughout	
  the	
  entire	
  world	
  since	
  9/11	
  stands	
  at	
  perhaps	
  a	
  few	
  hundred	
  per	
  year.	
  That's	
  a	
  few	
  hundred	
  too	
  many,	
  of	
  course,	
  but	
  
it	
  scarcely	
  presents	
  an	
  existential,	
  or	
  elephantine,	
  threat.	
  And	
  the	
  likelihood	
  that	
  an	
  American	
  will	
  be	
  killed	
  
by	
  a	
  terrorist	
  of	
  any	
  ilk	
  stands	
  at	
  one	
  in	
  3.5	
  million	
  per	
  year,	
  even	
  with	
  9/11	
  included.	
  That	
  probability	
  
will	
  remain	
  unchanged	
  unless	
  terrorists	
  are	
  able	
  to	
  increase	
  their	
  capabilities	
  massively	
  -­‐-­‐	
  and	
  obtaining	
  
nuclear	
  weapons	
  would	
  allow	
  them	
  to	
  do	
  so.	
  Although	
  al	
  Qaeda	
  may	
  have	
  dreamed	
  from	
  time	
  to	
  time	
  
about	
  getting	
  such	
  weapons,	
  no	
  other	
  terrorist	
  group	
  has	
  even	
  gone	
  so	
  far	
  as	
  to	
  indulge	
  in	
  such	
  
dreams,	
  with	
  the	
  exception	
  of	
  the	
  Japanese	
  cult	
  Aum	
  Shinrikyo,	
  which	
  leased	
  the	
  mineral	
  rights	
  to	
  an	
  Australian	
  sheep	
  ranch	
  that	
  sat	
  on	
  
uranium	
  deposits,	
  purchased	
  some	
  semi-­‐relevant	
  equipment,	
  and	
  tried	
  to	
  buy	
  a	
  finished	
  bomb	
  from	
  the	
  Russians.	
  That	
  experience,	
  however,	
  
cannot	
  be	
  very	
  encouraging	
  to	
  the	
  would-­‐be	
  atomic	
  terrorist.	
  Even	
  though	
  it	
  was	
  flush	
  with	
  funds	
  and	
  undistracted	
  by	
  
drone	
  attacks	
  (or	
  even	
  by	
  much	
  surveillance),	
  Aum	
  Shinrikyo	
  abandoned	
  its	
  atomic	
  efforts	
  in	
  frustration	
  
very	
  early	
  on.	
  It	
  then	
  moved	
  to	
  biological	
  weapons,	
  another	
  complete	
  failure	
  that	
  inspired	
  its	
  leader	
  to	
  suggest	
  that	
  fears	
  expressed	
  in	
  the	
  
United	
  States	
  of	
  a	
  biological	
  attack	
  were	
  actually	
  a	
  ruse	
  to	
  tempt	
  terrorist	
  groups	
  to	
  pursue	
  the	
  weapons.	
  The	
  group	
  did	
  finally	
  manage	
  to	
  
release	
  some	
  sarin	
  gas	
  in	
  a	
  Tokyo	
  subway	
  that	
  killed	
  13	
  and	
  led	
  to	
  the	
  group's	
  terminal	
  shutdown,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  to	
  16	
  years	
  (and	
  counting)	
  of	
  
pronouncements	
  that	
  WMD	
  terrorism	
  is	
  the	
  wave	
  of	
  the	
  future.	
  No	
  elephants	
  there,	
  either.	
  


Obama	
  won’t	
  retaliate	
  	
  
Crowley ‘10	
  (Michael,	
  Senior	
  Editor	
  the	
  New	
  Republic,	
  “Obama	
  and	
  Nuclear	
  Deterrence”,	
  
http://www.tnr.com/node/72263)	
  
Others	
  argue	
  that	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  should	
  promise	
  that	
  it	
  would	
  never	
  use	
  nuclear	
  weapons	
  first,	
  but	
  only	
  in	
  response	
  to	
  a	
  nuclear	
  attack.	
  As	
  
the	
  story	
  notes,	
  some	
  experts	
  don't	
  place	
  much	
  weight	
  on	
  how	
  our	
  publicly-­‐stated	
  doctrine	
  emerges	
  because	
  they	
  
don't	
  expect	
  foreign	
  nations	
  to	
  take	
  it	
  literally.	
  And	
  the	
  reality	
  is	
  that	
  any	
  decisions	
  about	
  using	
  nukes	
  will	
  certainly	
  be	
  
case-­‐by-­‐case.	
  But	
  I'd	
  still	
  like	
  to	
  see	
  some	
  wider	
  discussion	
  of	
  the	
  underlying	
  questions,	
  which	
  are	
  among	
  the	
  most	
  consequential	
  that	
  
policymakers	
  can	
  consider.	
  The	
  questions	
  are	
  particularly	
  vexing	
  when	
  it	
  comes	
  to	
  terrorist	
  groups	
  and	
  rogue	
  
states.	
  Would	
  we,	
  for	
  instance,	
  actually	
  nuke	
  Pyongyang	
  if	
  it	
  sold	
  a	
  weapon	
  to	
  terrorists	
  who	
  used	
  it	
  in	
  
America?	
  That	
  implied	
  threat	
  seems	
  to	
  exist,	
  but	
  I	
  actually	
  doubt	
  that	
  a	
  President	
  Obama-­‐-­‐or	
  any	
  president,	
  for	
  that	
  
matter-­‐-­‐would	
  go	
  through	
  with	
  it.	
  
	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 69	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                                                  	
                                                                                                             Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                                                                  A2:	
  Heg	
  
There’s	
  no	
  correlation	
  between	
  hegemony	
  and	
  stability	
  
Fettweis, ’10
[Christopher	
  J.	
  Fettweis,	
  Assistant	
  Professor	
  of	
  Political	
  Science	
  at	
  Tulane	
  University,	
  “Threat	
  and	
  Anxiety	
  in	
  US	
  Foreign	
  Policy,”	
  Survival,	
  52:2,	
  
59-­‐82,	
  March	
  25th	
  2010,	
  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00396331003764603]	
  
One	
  potential	
  explanation	
  for	
  the	
  growth	
  of	
  global	
  peace	
  can	
  be	
  dismissed	
  fairly	
  quickly:	
  US	
  actions	
  
do	
  not	
  seem	
  to	
  have	
  contributed	
  much.	
  The	
  limited	
  evidence	
  suggests	
  that	
  there	
  is	
  little	
  reason	
  to	
  
believe	
  in	
  the	
  stabilising	
  power	
  of	
  the	
  US	
  hegemon,	
  and	
  that	
  there	
  is	
  no	
  relation	
  between	
  the	
  relative	
  
level	
  of	
  American	
  activism	
  and	
  international	
  stability.	
  During	
  the	
  1990s,	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  cut	
  back	
  on	
  
its	
  defence	
  spending	
  fairly	
  substantially.	
  By	
  1998,	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  was	
  spending	
  $100	
  billion	
  less	
  on	
  defence	
  in	
  real	
  terms	
  
than	
  it	
  had	
  in	
  1990,	
  a	
  25%	
  reduction.29	
  To	
  internationalists,	
  defence	
  hawks	
  and	
  other	
  believers	
  in	
  hegemonic	
  stability,	
  this	
  
irresponsible	
  ‘peace	
  dividend’	
  endangered	
  both	
  national	
  and	
  global	
  security.	
  ‘No	
  serious	
  analyst	
  of	
  American	
  
military	
  capabilities’,	
  argued	
  neo-­‐conservatives	
  William	
  Kristol	
  and	
  Robert	
  Kagan	
  in	
  1996,	
  ‘doubts	
  that	
  the	
  defense	
  budget	
  has	
  been	
  cut	
  much	
  
too	
  far	
  to	
  meet	
  America’s	
  responsibilities	
  to	
  itself	
  and	
  to	
  world	
  peace’.30	
  And	
  yet	
  the	
  verdict	
  from	
  the	
  1990s	
  is	
  fairly	
  plain:	
  
the	
  world	
  grew	
  more	
  peaceful	
  while	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  cut	
  its	
  forces.	
  No	
  state	
  seemed	
  to	
  believe	
  that	
  
its	
  security	
  was	
  endangered	
  by	
  a	
  less-­‐capable	
  US	
  military,	
  or	
  at	
  least	
  none	
  took	
  any	
  action	
  that	
  would	
  
suggest	
  such	
  a	
  belief.	
  No	
  militaries	
  were	
  enhanced	
  to	
  address	
  power	
  vacuums;	
  no	
  security	
  dilemmas	
  
drove	
  insecurity	
  or	
  arms	
  races;	
  no	
  regional	
  balancing	
  occurred	
  once	
  the	
  stabilising	
  presence	
  of	
  the	
  US	
  
military	
  was	
  diminished.	
  The	
  rest	
  of	
  the	
  world	
  acted	
  as	
  if	
  the	
  threat	
  of	
  international	
  war	
  was	
  not	
  a	
  
pressing	
  concern,	
  despite	
  the	
  reduction	
  in	
  US	
  military	
  capabilities.	
  Most	
  of	
  all,	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  was	
  no	
  
less	
  safe.	
  The	
  incidence	
  and	
  magnitude	
  of	
  global	
  conflict	
  declined	
  while	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  cut	
  its	
  military	
  
spending	
  under	
  President	
  Bill	
  Clinton,	
  and	
  kept	
  declining	
  as	
  the	
  George	
  W.	
  Bush	
  administration	
  ramped	
  the	
  
spending	
  back	
  up.	
  Complex	
  statistical	
  analysis	
  is	
  unnecessary	
  to	
  reach	
  the	
  conclusion	
  that	
  world	
  peace	
  
and	
  US	
  military	
  expenditure	
  are	
  unrelated.	
  

No	
  impact	
  to	
  hegemony	
  
Friedman 10—research	
  fellow	
  in	
  defense	
  and	
  homeland	
  security,	
  Cato.	
  PhD	
  candidate	
  in	
  pol	
  sci,	
  MIT	
  (Ben,	
  Military	
  
Restraint	
  and	
  Defense	
  Savings,	
  20	
  July	
  2010,	
  http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-­‐bf-­‐07202010.html,	
  AMiles)	
  
Another	
  argument	
  for	
  high	
  military	
  spending	
  is	
  that	
  U.S.	
  military	
  hegemony	
  underlies	
  global	
  stability.	
  Our	
  forces	
  and	
  alliance	
  commitments	
  dampen	
  
conflict	
  between	
  potential	
  rivals	
  like	
  China	
  and	
  Japan,	
  we	
  are	
  told,	
  preventing	
  them	
  from	
  fighting	
  wars	
  that	
  would	
  disrupt	
  trade	
  and	
  cost	
  us	
  more	
  than	
  the	
  military	
  spending	
  that	
  would	
  have	
  

prevented	
  war.	
  The	
  theoretical	
  and	
  empirical	
  foundation	
  for	
  this	
  claim	
  is	
  weak.	
    It	
  overestimates	
  both	
  the	
  American	
  military's	
  contribution	
  to	
  
international	
  stability	
  and	
  the	
  danger	
  that	
  instability	
  abroad	
  poses	
  to	
  Americans.	
  In	
  Western	
  Europe,	
  
U.S.	
  forces	
  now	
  contribute	
  little	
  to	
  peace,	
  at	
  best	
  making	
  the	
  tiny	
  odds	
  of	
  war	
  among	
  states	
  there	
  slightly	
  more	
  so.7	
  Even	
  in	
  
Asia,	
  where	
  there	
  is	
  more	
  tension,	
  the	
  history	
  of	
  international	
  relations	
  suggests	
  that	
  without	
  U.S.	
  military	
  
deployments	
  potential	
  rivals,	
  especially	
  those	
  separated	
  by	
  sea	
  like	
  Japan	
  and	
  China,	
  will	
  generally	
  
achieve	
  a	
  stable	
  balance	
  of	
  power	
  rather	
  than	
  fight.	
  In	
  other	
  cases,	
  as	
  with	
  our	
  bases	
  in	
  Saudi	
  Arabia	
  between	
  the	
  Iraq	
  wars,	
  U.S.	
  forces	
  probably	
  
create	
  more	
  unrest	
  than	
  they	
  prevent.	
  Our	
  force	
  deployments	
  can	
  also	
  generate	
  instability	
  by	
  prompting	
  states	
  to	
  develop	
  nuclear	
  weapons.	
  Even	
  when	
  wars	
  occur,	
  

their	
  economic	
  impact	
  is	
  likely	
  to	
  be	
  limited	
  here.8	
  By	
  linking	
  markets,	
  globalization	
  provides	
  supply	
  alternatives	
  for	
  the	
  
goods	
  we	
  consume,	
  including	
  oil.	
  If	
  political	
  upheaval	
  disrupts	
  supply	
  in	
  one	
  location,	
  suppliers	
  elsewhere	
  will	
  
take	
  our	
  orders.	
  Prices	
  may	
  increase,	
  but	
  markets	
  adjust.	
  That	
  makes	
  American	
  consumers	
  less	
  dependent	
  on	
  any	
  particular	
  supply	
  source,	
  undermining	
  the	
  claim	
  that	
  we	
  need	
  
to	
  use	
  force	
  to	
  prevent	
  unrest	
  in	
  supplier	
  nations	
  or	
  secure	
  trade	
  routes.9	
  Part	
  of	
  the	
  confusion	
  about	
  the	
  value	
  of	
  hegemony	
  comes	
  

from	
  misunderstanding	
  the	
  Cold	
  War.	
  People	
  tend	
  to	
  assume,	
  falsely,	
  that	
  our	
  activist	
  foreign	
  policy,	
  with	
  troops	
  forward	
  supporting	
  allies,	
  not	
  only	
  caused	
  
the	
  Soviet	
  Union's	
  collapse	
  but	
  is	
  obviously	
  a	
  good	
  thing	
  even	
  without	
  such	
  a	
  rival.	
  Forgotten	
  is	
  the	
  sensible	
  notion	
  that	
  alliances	
  are	
  a	
  necessary	
  evil	
  occasionally	
  tolerated	
  to	
  balance	
  a	
  
particularly	
  threatening	
  enemy.	
  The	
  main	
  justification	
  for	
  creating	
  our	
  Cold	
  War	
  alliances	
  was	
  the	
  fear	
  that	
  Communist	
  nations	
  could	
  conquer	
  or	
  capture	
  by	
  insurrection	
  the	
  industrial	
  centers	
  
in	
  Western	
  Europe	
  and	
  Japan	
  and	
  then	
  harness	
  enough	
  of	
  that	
  wealth	
  to	
  threaten	
  us	
  —	
  either	
  directly	
  or	
  by	
  forcing	
  us	
  to	
  become	
  a	
  garrison	
  state	
  at	
  ruinous	
  cost.	
  We	
  kept	
  troops	
  in	
  South	
  

                                                                                              During	
  the	
  Cold	
  War,	
  Japan,	
  
Korea	
  after	
  1953	
  for	
  fear	
  that	
  the	
  North	
  would	
  otherwise	
  overrun	
  it.	
  But	
  these	
  alliances	
  outlasted	
  the	
  conditions	
  that	
  caused	
  them.	
  

Western	
  Europe	
  and	
  South	
  Korea	
  grew	
  wealthy	
  enough	
  to	
  defend	
  themselves.	
  We	
  should	
  let	
  them.	
  
These	
  alliances	
  heighten	
  our	
  force	
  requirements	
  and	
  threaten	
  to	
  drag	
  us	
  into	
  wars,	
  while	
  providing	
  no	
  obvious	
  benefit.	
  
	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                            70	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                           	
                                                                               Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                                 A2:	
  Oil	
  
Increase	
  in	
  gas	
  tax	
  has	
  no	
  affect	
  on	
  OPEC,	
  they	
  just	
  adjust	
  the	
  supply	
  
Ferguson,	
  7	
  (Jake	
  Ferguson,	
  PhD	
  Economics.	
  Should	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  Increase	
  The	
  Federal	
  Gasoline	
  
Tax,	
  Northern	
  Iowa	
  University.	
  2007)	
  
Even	
  though	
  OPEC	
  has	
  price	
  setting	
  power,	
  Mankiw	
  believes	
  the	
  price	
  of	
  oil	
  would	
  fall	
  in	
  world	
  markets	
  and	
  the	
  burden	
  of	
  the	
  tax	
  would	
  
be	
  shared	
  by	
  U.	
  S.	
  consumers	
  and	
  foreign	
  suppliers	
  [Mankiw,	
  2006b,	
  A12].	
  One	
  source	
  warns	
  that	
  the	
  OPEC	
  countries	
  
could	
  adjust	
  their	
  prices	
  downward	
  to	
  maintain	
  demand	
  in	
  the	
  face	
  of	
  an	
  increased	
  U.	
  S.	
  
gasoline	
  tax	
  [Corcoran,	
  2006a,	
  1].	
  If	
  the	
  price	
  of	
  oil	
  falls,	
  the	
  price	
  of	
  gasoline	
  also	
  falls,	
  which	
  
would	
  return	
  the	
  quantity	
  demanded	
  of	
  gasoline	
  to	
  near	
  its	
  original	
  level.	
  

States	
  will	
  offset	
  the	
  plan	
  by	
  reducing	
  their	
  gas	
  taxes	
  
National	
  Surface	
  Transportation	
  Infrastructure	
  Commission	
  2009	
  (“Paying	
  our	
  way:	
  A	
  New	
  Framework	
  
for	
  Transportation	
  Finance”,	
  
http://financecommission.dot.gov/Documents/NSTIF_Commission_Final_Report_Mar09FNL.pdf	
  )	
  
These	
  increases	
  in	
  federal	
  revenues	
  are	
  critical	
  to	
  immediately	
  bolster	
  the	
  Highway	
  Trust	
  Fund	
  and	
  enable	
  investments	
  to	
  at	
  least	
  slow	
  
system	
  degradation.	
  Further,	
  efforts	
  by	
  state	
  and	
  local	
  governments	
  to	
  maintain	
  and	
  increase	
  non-­‐federal	
  revenues	
  for	
  surface	
  
transportation—whether	
  through	
  targeted	
  tolling	
  and	
  pricing,	
  fuel	
  taxes,	
  or	
  other	
  strategies—will	
  enable	
  an	
  even	
  higher	
  level	
  of	
  overall	
  
investment,	
  thereby	
  supporting	
  even	
  more	
  critical	
  investments.	
  All	
  levels	
  of	
  government	
  have	
  important	
  roles	
  to	
  play	
  in	
  ensuring	
  a	
  
strong	
  surface	
  transportation	
  system.	
  The	
  Commission	
  recognizes	
  that	
  some	
  states	
  may	
  view	
  increases	
  in	
  federal	
  fuel	
  
taxes	
  and	
  funding	
  as	
  an	
  opportunity	
  to	
  reduce	
  state	
  fuel	
  taxes	
  and	
  spending	
  or	
  to	
  avoid	
  
future	
  state-­‐level	
  increases.	
  The	
  Commission	
  encourages	
  Congress	
  and	
  the	
  U.S.	
  Department	
  of	
  Transportation	
  (DOT)	
  to	
  
consider	
  ways	
  to	
  address	
  this	
  “maintenance	
  of	
  effort”	
  issue	
  when	
  formulating	
  new	
  programs	
  and	
  managing	
  the	
  intergovernmental	
  
funding	
  partnership	
  balance.	
  Continuing	
  to	
  require	
  a	
  non-­‐federal	
  match	
  will	
  help	
  address	
  this	
  concern.	
  


Better	
  fuel	
  economy	
  just	
  spurs	
  people	
  to	
  drive	
  more—undermines	
  the	
  gains	
  of	
  the	
  
plan	
  
MORRIS	
  2009	
  (Eric,	
  Clemson	
  University	
  Professor	
  of	
  City	
  and	
  Regional	
  Planning,	
  The	
  Rebound	
  Effect	
  of	
  
Higher	
  M.P.G.	
  http://www.freakonomics.com/2009/02/03/the-­‐rebound-­‐effect-­‐of-­‐higher-­‐MPG/	
  )	
  
A	
  couple	
  of	
  perceptive	
  commenters	
  (good	
  call,	
  Richard	
  Sprague)	
  identified	
  the	
  reason	
  why	
  all	
  of	
  this	
  will	
  take	
  place.	
  It	
  is	
  known	
  to	
  
economists	
  as	
  the	
  “rebound	
  effect,”	
  and	
  it	
  applies	
  to	
  all	
  forms	
  of	
  energy	
  efficiency,	
  not	
  just	
  fuel	
  economy.	
  The	
  theory	
  is	
  
pretty	
  simple.	
  A	
  car	
  that	
  gets	
  better	
  mileage	
  needs	
  less	
  gas,	
  needing	
  less	
  gas	
  makes	
  driving	
  
cheaper,	
  and	
  when	
  something	
  gets	
  cheaper	
  the	
  demand	
  for	
  it	
  rises.	
  Better	
  fuel	
  economy	
  will	
  
cause	
  us	
  to	
  travel	
  more	
  than	
  we	
  otherwise	
  would	
  have,	
  with	
  all	
  the	
  good	
  and	
  bad	
  this	
  implies.	
  The	
  question,	
  of	
  
course,	
  is	
  how	
  big	
  the	
  rebound	
  effect	
  truly	
  is.	
  In	
  2000,	
  Lorna	
  A.	
  Greening	
  of	
  the	
  International	
  Resources	
  Group,	
  David	
  L.	
  Greene	
  of	
  the	
  Oak	
  
Ridge	
  National	
  Laboratory,	
  and	
  Carmen	
  Difiglio	
  of	
  the	
  International	
  Energy	
  Agency	
  reviewed	
  22	
  studies	
  on	
  this	
  issue.	
  The	
  research	
  
suggested	
  that	
  miles	
  driven	
  would	
  increase	
  by	
  10	
  to	
  30	
  percent	
  of	
  the	
  percent	
  increase	
  in	
  fuel	
  economy	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                        71	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                    	
                  Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  


                     Vehicle	
  Mile	
  Fee	
  CP	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                      72	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                	
                                                                                    Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                          1NC	
  Vehicle	
  Mile	
  Fee	
  CP	
  
Text:	
  The	
  United	
  States	
  federal	
  government	
  should	
  establish	
  uniform	
  standards	
  for	
  
vehicle-­‐mile	
  fees	
  and	
  phase	
  out	
  the	
  federal	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  over	
  a	
  6-­‐year	
  period.	
  
We	
  have	
  a	
  solvency	
  advocate	
  
O’Toole,	
  Senior	
  Fellow	
  Cato	
  Institute,	
  5-15-­‐’12	
  (Randal,	
  “Ending	
  Congestion	
  by	
  
Refinancing	
  Highways”	
  Cato	
  Policy	
  Analysis,	
  
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA695.pdf)	
  
Institutional	
  Implementation	
  The	
  main	
  obstacle	
  to	
  implementing	
  vehicle-­‐mile	
  fees	
  is	
  that	
  there	
  are	
  so	
  many	
  jurisdictions	
  involved,	
  including	
  the	
  
federal	
  government,	
  50	
  states,	
  and	
  all	
  the	
  local	
  governments	
  (including	
  the	
  District	
  of	
  Columbia)	
  that	
  subsidize	
  roads	
  out	
  of	
  general	
  funds.	
  
Complete	
  conversion	
  from	
  gas	
  taxes	
  to	
  vehicle-­‐mile	
  fees	
  requires	
  the	
  following	
  three	
  steps:¶	
  1.	
  The	
  
American	
  Association	
  of	
  State	
  Highway	
  and	
  Transportation	
  Officials	
  (AASHTO)	
  should	
  establish	
  uniform	
  
standards	
  for	
  vehicle-­‐mile	
  fees.	
  This	
  does	
  not	
  mean	
  that	
  states	
  all	
  need	
  to	
  adopt	
  exactly	
  the	
  same	
  technologies,	
  but	
  the	
  
technologies	
  they	
  do	
  adopt	
  should	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  function	
  in	
  every	
  other	
  state.¶	
  2.	
  Congress	
  should	
  phase	
  out	
  the	
  
federal	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  over	
  a	
  6-­‐year	
  period	
  under	
  the	
  rapid-­‐implementation	
  plan,	
  or	
  18	
  years	
  under	
  the	
  slow	
  plan.	
  
This	
  could	
  be	
  done	
  in	
  a	
  way	
  that	
  rewards	
  states	
  for	
  replacing	
  their	
  gas	
  taxes	
  with	
  vehicle-­‐mile	
  fees,	
  for	
  
example,	
  by	
  giving	
  the	
  first	
  states	
  to	
  implement	
  such	
  fees	
  a	
  slightly	
  higher	
  share	
  of	
  federal	
  gas	
  taxes	
  
while	
  those	
  gas	
  taxes	
  are	
  still	
  being	
  collected.¶	
  3.	
  Individual	
  state	
  legislatures	
  could	
  implement	
  either	
  the	
  fast	
  or	
  slow	
  plan	
  at	
  
their	
  discretion.	
  As	
  they	
  do	
  so,	
  they	
  should	
  invite	
  local	
  governments	
  to	
  join	
  in	
  but	
  make	
  the	
  elimination	
  of	
  subsidies	
  out	
  of	
  general	
  funds	
  a	
  
condition	
  for	
  joining.	
  States	
  should	
  also	
  dedicate	
  all	
  vehiclemile	
  fees	
  to	
  the	
  road	
  networks	
  that	
  generated	
  those	
  fees	
  and	
  not	
  divert	
  any	
  to	
  
transit	
  or	
  other	
  uses.	
  


Vehicle	
  mile	
  fees	
  solve	
  congestion	
  and	
  highway	
  infrastructure	
  –	
  comparatively	
  better	
  
than	
  the	
  current	
  gas	
  tax	
  system	
  and	
  avoids	
  political	
  backlash	
  
O’Toole,	
  Senior	
  Fellow	
  Cato	
  Institute,	
  5-15-­‐’12	
  (Randal,	
  “Ending	
  Congestion	
  by	
  
Refinancing	
  Highways”	
  Cato	
  Policy	
  Analysis,	
  
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA695.pdf)	
  
Instead	
  of	
  raising	
  gas	
  taxes,	
  this	
  paper	
  proposes	
  to	
  finance	
  highways,	
  roads,	
  and	
  streets	
  through	
  an	
  
entirely	
  new	
  system.	
  This	
  system	
  would	
  replace	
  gasoline	
  taxes	
  with	
  vehicle-­‐mile	
  fees	
  collected	
  
electronically	
  while	
  preserving	
  traveler	
  privacy.	
  The	
  revenue	
  from	
  these	
  fees	
  would	
  be	
  directed	
  to	
  the	
  
actual	
  owners	
  of	
  the	
  roads	
  used,	
  thus	
  ensuring	
  that	
  local	
  governments	
  or	
  other	
  road	
  owners	
  have	
  
sufficient	
  funds	
  to	
  maintain	
  and	
  operate	
  roads	
  without	
  subsidies.	
  Fees	
  could	
  vary	
  by	
  time	
  of	
  day	
  in	
  
order	
  to	
  prevent	
  congestion	
  by	
  encouraging	
  people	
  to	
  drive	
  at	
  less	
  congested	
  times,	
  thus	
  making	
  
better	
  use	
  of	
  the	
  road	
  system.	
  Making	
  state	
  and	
  local	
  road	
  agencies	
  self-­‐sufficient	
  would	
  help	
  insulate	
  
them	
  from	
  political	
  pressure	
  from	
  groups	
  who	
  mistakenly	
  view	
  highways	
  as	
  a	
  cultural	
  issue.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                     73	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                	
                                                                                   Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                            Solvency	
  –	
  Congestion	
  
Pricing	
  solves	
  congestion	
  
O’Toole,	
  Senior	
  Fellow	
  Cato	
  Institute,	
  5-15-­‐’12	
  (Randal,	
  “Ending	
  Congestion	
  by	
  
Refinancing	
  Highways”	
  Cato	
  Policy	
  Analysis,	
  
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA695.pdf)	
  
Economists	
  have	
  long	
  proposed	
  to	
  use	
  pricing	
  to	
  relieve	
  congestion	
  because	
  congestion	
  pricing	
  would	
  avoid	
  the	
  shift-­‐back	
  
problem.	
  If	
  tolls	
  increase	
  as	
  the	
  usage	
  rate	
  increases,	
  and	
  the	
  maximum	
  tolls	
  are	
  high	
  enough	
  that	
  
actual	
  flows	
  never	
  exceed	
  the	
  maximum	
  capacities,	
  then	
  road	
  capacities	
  are	
  nearly	
  doubled	
  for	
  those	
  
hours	
  that	
  flows	
  would	
  otherwise	
  break	
  down	
  into	
  stop-­‐andgo	
  traffic.	
  An	
  additional	
  benefit	
  is	
  that	
  the	
  revenue	
  
generated	
  from	
  the	
  tolls	
  would	
  be	
  used	
  to	
  operate,	
  maintain,	
  and	
  expand	
  the	
  roadway	
  where	
  the	
  toll	
  
was	
  collected.	
  This	
  policy	
  is	
  usually	
  presented	
  as	
  a	
  choice:	
  people	
  can	
  sit	
  in	
  traffic,	
  which	
  is	
  a	
  deadweight-­‐loss	
  to	
  society,	
  or	
  they	
  can	
  pay	
  a	
  
toll	
  and	
  avoid	
  congestion	
  and	
  know	
  that	
  their	
  toll	
  fee	
  is	
  doing	
  some	
  good,	
  such	
  as	
  improving	
  roads	
  to	
  relieve	
  congestion.	
  Yes,	
  tolls	
  would	
  lead	
  
some	
  people	
  to	
  change	
  their	
  departure	
  times	
  to	
  avoid	
  the	
  tolls,	
  but	
  people	
  are	
  already	
  changing	
  their	
  departure	
  times	
  to	
  avoid	
  the	
  congestion.	
  
Congestion-­‐pricing	
  advocates	
  rarely	
  mention	
  the	
  subtle	
  effect	
  of	
  congestion:	
  the	
  hours	
  of	
  delay	
  after	
  
traffic	
  flows	
  fall	
  below	
  the	
  maximum	
  flow	
  capacities.	
  By	
  using	
  tolls	
  to	
  prevent	
  congestion,	
  highway	
  
capacities	
  can	
  be	
  nearly	
  doubled	
  for	
  several	
  hours	
  of	
  the	
  day,	
  thus	
  making	
  it	
  possible	
  for	
  many	
  people	
  to	
  shift	
  their	
  
departure	
  times	
  back	
  to	
  times	
  they	
  would	
  have	
  considered	
  preferable	
  were	
  it	
  not	
  for	
  the	
  congestion.	
  In	
  other	
  words,	
  paradoxically,	
  tolls	
  
actually	
  increase	
  highway	
  capacities	
  and	
  allow	
  more	
  people	
  to	
  travel	
  when	
  they	
  want	
  to	
  travel.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                     74	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                	
                                                                                   Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                 Solvency	
  –	
  Empirics	
  
Empirically	
  support	
  for	
  a	
  user	
  fee	
  system	
  
O’Toole,	
  Senior	
  Fellow	
  Cato	
  Institute,	
  5-15-­‐’12	
  (Randal,	
  “Ending	
  Congestion	
  by	
  
Refinancing	
  Highways”	
  Cato	
  Policy	
  Analysis,	
  
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA695.pdf)	
  
Electronically	
  collected	
  vehicle-­‐mile	
  fees	
  are	
  as	
  close	
  to	
  a	
  perfect	
  user	
  fee	
  as	
  possible.	
  With	
  vehicle-­‐mile	
  fees,	
  users	
  pay	
  for	
  just	
  
the	
  roads	
  they	
  use,	
  when	
  they	
  use	
  them	
  (with	
  the	
  potential	
  for	
  appropriate	
  exceptions	
  as	
  noted	
  below).	
  In	
  this	
  way,	
  vehicle-­‐
mile	
  fees	
  solve	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  problems	
  with	
  gasoline	
  taxes,	
  and	
  they	
  can	
  do	
  so	
  without	
  any	
  intrusions	
  in	
  traveler	
  privacy.	
  The	
  
fees	
  can	
  be	
  adjusted	
  to	
  account	
  for	
  inflation,	
  and	
  because	
  they	
  are	
  collected	
  per	
  mile	
  of	
  driving,	
  they	
  avoid	
  problems	
  with	
  fuel-­‐efficiency	
  or	
  the	
  
type	
  of	
  fuel	
  that	
  powers	
  the	
  automobile.	
  The	
  state	
  of	
  Oregon	
  has	
  successfully	
  tested	
  the	
  vehicle-­‐mile	
  fee	
  concept	
  on	
  
a	
  small	
  number	
  of	
  vehicles.	
  In	
  the	
  test,	
  about	
  200	
  volunteers	
  had	
  Global	
  Positioning	
  System	
  (GPS)	
  devices	
  attached	
  
to	
  their	
  cars.	
  The	
  devices	
  kept	
  track	
  of	
  how	
  many	
  miles	
  the	
  vehicles	
  traveled	
  and	
  on	
  what	
  roads.	
  The	
  
state	
  also	
  equipped	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  gasoline	
  stations	
  with	
  special	
  pumps	
  capable	
  of	
  detecting	
  and	
  communicating	
  with	
  the	
  GPS	
  devices.	
  When	
  
the	
  operator	
  of	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  test	
  vehicles	
  purchased	
  gasoline	
  at	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  special	
  stations,	
  the	
  GPS	
  
device	
  transmitted	
  to	
  the	
  pump	
  how	
  much	
  money	
  the	
  operator	
  owed	
  based	
  on	
  how	
  many	
  miles	
  the	
  
vehicle	
  had	
  driven	
  since	
  its	
  last	
  fuel	
  purchase.	
  The	
  only	
  information	
  transmitted	
  to	
  the	
  pump	
  was	
  the	
  total	
  charge;	
  
information	
  on	
  when	
  and	
  where	
  the	
  vehicle	
  was	
  driven	
  was	
  not	
  transmitted	
  nor,	
  in	
  the	
  Oregon	
  experiment,	
  even	
  stored	
  in	
  the	
  on-­‐board	
  GPS	
  
device.	
  Miles	
  driven	
  outside	
  the	
  state	
  of	
  Oregon	
  were	
  excluded.	
  The	
  charge	
  for	
  miles	
  driven	
  in	
  the	
  state	
  varied	
  depending	
  on	
  what	
  road	
  the	
  
vehicle	
  used	
  and	
  when	
  it	
  was	
  traveled.	
  The	
  system	
  was	
  transparent	
  to	
  the	
  user,	
  who	
  simply	
  paid	
  the	
  vehicle-­‐mile	
  fee	
  instead	
  of	
  a	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  as	
  
a	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  fuel	
  purchase.	
  In	
  full	
  implementation,	
  the	
  GPS	
  device	
  could	
  keep	
  track	
  of	
  how	
  much	
  each	
  vehicle	
  used	
  roads	
  owned	
  by	
  cities,	
  
counties,	
  states,	
  and	
  private	
  parties,	
  resulting	
  in	
  separate	
  charges	
  for	
  each.	
  This	
  would	
  allow	
  all	
  road	
  owners	
  to	
  collect	
  fees	
  for	
  actual	
  use	
  of	
  
their	
  roads.	
  The	
  fees	
  could	
  vary	
  for	
  each	
  road	
  depending	
  on	
  the	
  cost	
  of	
  that	
  road	
  relative	
  to	
  the	
  total	
  
usage	
  of	
  the	
  road.	
  Fees	
  on	
  uncongested	
  roads	
  would	
  be	
  fixed	
  in	
  cents	
  or	
  fractions	
  of	
  cents	
  per	
  mile;	
  on	
  
congested	
  roads,	
  fees	
  would	
  vary	
  by	
  time	
  of	
  day	
  or	
  dynamically	
  change	
  by	
  the	
  amount	
  of	
  congestion	
  with	
  the	
  aim	
  of	
  keeping	
  flows	
  at	
  or	
  below	
  
90	
  percent	
  of	
  the	
  maximum	
  flow	
  capacity	
  of	
  the	
  roads.	
  The	
  GPS	
  meter	
  would	
  update	
  the	
  schedule	
  of	
  fees	
  daily	
  (or	
  more	
  frequently	
  in	
  the	
  case	
  
of	
  dynamically	
  priced	
  roads)	
  over	
  the	
  cell	
  phone,	
  wireless	
  internet,	
  or	
  other	
  wireless	
  network.	
  When	
  a	
  specially	
  equipped	
  
gasoline	
  pump	
  nozzle	
  is	
  inserted	
  into	
  the	
  car,	
  the	
  GPS	
  meter	
  transmits	
  to	
  the	
  pump	
  how	
  much	
  money	
  
the	
  motorist	
  owes	
  to	
  each	
  of	
  the	
  owners	
  of	
  highways,	
  roads,	
  and	
  streets	
  the	
  car	
  used	
  since	
  the	
  last	
  
fill-­‐up.	
  The	
  motorist	
  pays	
  this	
  amount	
  in	
  lieu	
  of	
  a	
  traditional	
  cents-­‐per-­‐gallon	
  gas	
  tax.	
  During	
  travel,	
  the	
  GPS	
  
devices	
  are	
  likely	
  to	
  offer	
  real-­‐time	
  information	
  on	
  how	
  much	
  motorists	
  are	
  spending	
  to	
  drive	
  on	
  particular	
  roads.	
  Prior	
  to	
  travel,	
  motorists	
  
could	
  consult	
  their	
  computers	
  or	
  GPS	
  devices	
  to	
  find	
  the	
  cost	
  of	
  particular	
  routes,	
  including	
  alternative	
  routes	
  or	
  times	
  that	
  may	
  cost	
  less.	
  This	
  
system	
  can	
  preserve	
  traveler	
  privacy	
  because	
  the	
  only	
  information	
  transmitted	
  to	
  the	
  gas	
  pump	
  is	
  the	
  total	
  cost	
  of	
  road	
  usage	
  per	
  roadway	
  
owner	
  (e.g.,	
  state,	
  locality,	
  private	
  provider),	
  not	
  when	
  or	
  which	
  roads	
  were	
  actually	
  used.	
  It	
  can	
  also	
  preserve	
  verifiability	
  because	
  
motorists	
  who	
  believe	
  charges	
  are	
  inaccurate	
  can	
  call	
  upon	
  more	
  detailed	
  records	
  in	
  their	
  GPS	
  device	
  
to	
  prove	
  how	
  much	
  travel	
  their	
  cars	
  have	
  done.	
  When	
  motorists	
  are	
  satisfied	
  charges	
  are	
  fair,	
  they	
  can	
  
erase	
  the	
  more	
  detailed	
  data	
  on	
  the	
  GPS	
  at	
  any	
  time	
  so	
  no	
  one	
  can	
  acquire	
  those	
  records.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                    75	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                           	
                                                       Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                      A2:	
  Links	
  to	
  Politics	
  
Complementing	
  a	
  toll	
  system	
  with	
  reducing	
  gas	
  taxes	
  solves	
  political	
  backlash	
  
O’Toole,	
  Senior	
  Fellow	
  Cato	
  Institute,	
  5-15-­‐’12	
  (Randal,	
  “Ending	
  Congestion	
  by	
  
Refinancing	
  Highways”	
  Cato	
  Policy	
  Analysis,	
  
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA695.pdf)	
  
A	
  clear	
  understanding	
  of	
  these	
  facts	
  should	
  reduce	
  the	
  political	
  problems	
  with	
  tolling	
  entire	
  highways,	
  
and	
  any	
  remaining	
  problems	
  should	
  decline	
  even	
  more	
  when	
  such	
  tolling	
  is	
  accompanied	
  by	
  an	
  
overhaul	
  of	
  the	
  entire	
  highway	
  finance	
  system.	
  While	
  other	
  tolling	
  proposals	
  merely	
  apply	
  tolls	
  on	
  top	
  
of	
  existing	
  gasoline	
  taxes,	
  a	
  complete	
  overhaul	
  would	
  eliminate	
  gas	
  taxes,	
  thus	
  making	
  it	
  clear	
  that	
  
people	
  aren’t	
  “paying	
  twice”	
  for	
  the	
  roads	
  they	
  drive	
  on.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                           76	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                          	
                                                                               Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                              A2:	
  GPS	
  Expensive	
  
GPS	
  system	
  won’t	
  be	
  expensive	
  
O’Toole,	
  Senior	
  Fellow	
  Cato	
  Institute,	
  5-15-­‐’12	
  (Randal,	
  “Ending	
  Congestion	
  by	
  
Refinancing	
  Highways”	
  Cato	
  Policy	
  Analysis,	
  
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA695.pdf)	
  
Fears	
  that	
  GPS	
  meters	
  capable	
  of	
  storing	
  complete	
  road	
  price	
  information	
  would	
  be	
  costly	
  seem	
  unwarranted.	
  Computer	
  
processing	
  power	
  and	
  data	
  storage	
  technology	
  have	
  advanced	
  dramatically	
  in	
  recent	
  years,	
  increasing	
  
capability	
  while	
  reducing	
  cost.	
  Today’s	
  smart	
  phones	
  have	
  more	
  processing	
  power	
  and	
  on-­‐board	
  memory	
  than	
  most	
  desktop	
  
computers	
  had	
  when	
  the	
  above	
  two	
  papers	
  were	
  written.	
  Supermarkets	
  sell	
  4-­‐gigabyte	
  memory	
  sticks	
  for	
  $5,	
  and	
  many	
  new	
  automobiles	
  have	
  
more	
  on-­‐board	
  processing	
  power	
  than	
  a	
  Boeing	
  787	
  (not	
  counting	
  the	
  plane’s	
  entertainment	
  systems).	
  27	
  Even	
  on	
  the	
  fastestpossible	
  
timetables,	
  by	
  the	
  time	
  states	
  begin	
  to	
  implement	
  vehicle-­‐mile	
  fees,	
  the	
  cost	
  of	
  GPS	
  meters	
  capable	
  of	
  
storing	
  and	
  regularly	
  updating	
  schedules	
  of	
  road	
  charges	
  will	
  be	
  trivial.	
  

Cost	
  of	
  implementing	
  GPS	
  is	
  low	
  
O’Toole,	
  Senior	
  Fellow	
  Cato	
  Institute,	
  5-15-­‐’12	
  (Randal,	
  “Ending	
  Congestion	
  by	
  
Refinancing	
  Highways”	
  Cato	
  Policy	
  Analysis,	
  
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA695.pdf)	
  
The	
  costs	
  of	
  implementing	
  a	
  mileage-­‐fee	
  system	
  should	
  be	
  low.	
  Oregon	
  spent	
  nearly	
  $400	
  manufacturing	
  and	
  
installing	
  prototype	
  GPS	
  devices	
  on	
  each	
  test	
  car,	
  but	
  it	
  has	
  been	
  estimated	
  that	
  if	
  the	
  units	
  were	
  mass	
  produced,	
  costs	
  could	
  
drop	
  to	
  around	
  $100	
  per	
  car	
  (though	
  costs	
  would	
  be	
  higher	
  if	
  owners	
  want	
  mapping	
  and	
  other	
  GPS	
  functions	
  included).	
  Auto	
  
owners	
  would	
  pay	
  this	
  cost,	
  though	
  lowincome	
  owners	
  might	
  receive	
  state	
  assistance.	
  Oregon	
  spent	
  
about	
  $300	
  per	
  pump	
  converting	
  gasoline	
  pumps	
  to	
  read	
  the	
  GPS	
  devices,	
  and	
  this	
  cost	
  should	
  also	
  
decline	
  with	
  widespread	
  implementation.	
  This	
  cost	
  would	
  be	
  paid	
  by	
  the	
  states	
  under	
  the	
  “slow”	
  plan	
  or	
  by	
  either	
  the	
  states	
  or	
  
the	
  fuel	
  dealers	
  under	
  the	
  “fast”	
  plan.	
  Once	
  those	
  capital	
  investments	
  are	
  made,	
  collection	
  costs	
  are	
  comparable	
  to	
  those	
  for	
  gasoline	
  taxes.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                              77	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                            	
                                                                                Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                               A2:	
  Hurts	
  the	
  Poor	
  
Won’t	
  disadvantage	
  low-­‐income	
  families	
  
O’Toole,	
  Senior	
  Fellow	
  Cato	
  Institute,	
  5-15-­‐’12	
  (Randal,	
  “Ending	
  Congestion	
  by	
  
Refinancing	
  Highways”	
  Cato	
  Policy	
  Analysis,	
  
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA695.pdf)	
  
While	
  a	
  true	
  user	
  fee	
  is	
  by	
  definition	
  more	
  equitable	
  than	
  today’s	
  system	
  that	
  relies	
  on	
  various	
  subsidies	
  and	
  cross-­‐subsidies,	
  new	
  funding	
  
proposals	
  inevitably	
  lead	
  people	
  to	
  ask	
  how	
  they	
  would	
  affect	
  low-­‐income	
  families.	
  To	
  the	
  extent	
  that	
  low-­‐income	
  drivers	
  own	
  
older,	
  less-­‐fuel-­‐efficient	
  cars,	
  some	
  could	
  actually	
  end	
  up	
  paying	
  less	
  in	
  vehicle-­‐mile	
  fees	
  than	
  gas	
  
taxes.	
  In	
  general,	
  however,	
  asking	
  people	
  to	
  pay	
  for	
  the	
  roads	
  they	
  actually	
  use	
  is	
  no	
  more	
  unfair	
  to	
  low-­‐
income	
  people	
  than	
  asking	
  people	
  to	
  pay	
  more	
  for	
  filet	
  mignon	
  than	
  for	
  hamburger.	
  Vehicle-­‐mile	
  road	
  
pricing’s	
  effect	
  on	
  congestion	
  would	
  disproportionately	
  benefit	
  low-­‐income	
  workers,	
  who	
  generally	
  
have	
  less	
  choice	
  over	
  job	
  locations	
  and	
  commute	
  times	
  than	
  middle-­‐	
  and	
  high-­‐income	
  commuters.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                     78	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                    	
                                               Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                        Revenue	
  Neutral	
  
Counterplan	
  is	
  revenue-­‐neutral	
  –	
  offset	
  by	
  reducing	
  gas	
  taxes	
  
O’Toole,	
  Senior	
  Fellow	
  Cato	
  Institute,	
  5-­‐15-­‐’12	
  (Randal,	
  “Ending	
  Congestion	
  by	
  Refinancing	
  Highways”	
  
Cato	
  Policy	
  Analysis,	
  http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA695.pdf)	
  
States	
  should	
  introduce	
  vehicle-­‐mile	
  fees	
  in	
  a	
  revenue-­‐neutral	
  manner.	
  Gasoline	
  taxes	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  income,	
  
sales,	
  and	
  property	
  taxes	
  that	
  are	
  spent	
  on	
  roads	
  should	
  all	
  be	
  repealed.	
  At	
  least	
  initially,	
  total	
  collections	
  from	
  vehiclemile	
  
fees	
  would	
  be	
  about	
  the	
  same	
  as	
  total	
  taxes	
  now	
  collected	
  for	
  roads.	
  Individual	
  road	
  users	
  may	
  see	
  
their	
  costs	
  go	
  up	
  or	
  down	
  depending	
  on	
  whether	
  they	
  tend	
  to	
  use	
  roads	
  that	
  are	
  more	
  or	
  less	
  
expensive	
  than	
  average	
  per	
  vehicle-­‐mile.	
  For	
  example,	
  an	
  urban	
  freeway	
  may	
  be	
  expensive	
  to	
  build	
  and	
  maintain,	
  but	
  if	
  it	
  
receives	
  heavy	
  use	
  it	
  may	
  cost	
  less,	
  per	
  vehicle-­‐mile,	
  than	
  a	
  little-­‐used	
  rural	
  road.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                        79	
  
Starter	
  Set	
            	
          Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  


                     States	
  CP	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                      80	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                	
                                                                                    Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                                  Solvency	
  
States	
  should	
  do	
  the	
  plan	
  –	
  they	
  are	
  going	
  bankrupt	
  and	
  raising	
  the	
  state	
  gas	
  tax	
  is	
  the	
  
only	
  way	
  to	
  solve	
  
ITEP	
  12	
  (ITEP	
  “State	
  Gasoline	
  Taxes:	
  Built	
  to	
  Fail,	
  But	
  Fixable”	
  Institute	
  on	
  Taxation	
  and	
  Economic	
  
Policy	
  May	
  2012	
  http://itepnet.org/pdf/pb44stategastax.pdf)	
  
The	
  decline	
  of	
  the	
  gas	
  tax	
  is	
  costing	
  states	
  significant	
  revenue.	
  If	
  every	
  state	
  had	
  reformed	
  its	
  gas	
  tax	
  to	
  grow	
  alongside	
  
construction	
  costs	
  the	
  last	
  time	
  lawmakers	
  raised	
  the	
  tax,	
  the	
  states	
  as	
  a	
  whole	
  would	
  be	
  bringing	
  in	
  more	
  than	
  $10	
  billion	
  in	
  additional	
  gas	
  tax	
  
revenue	
  every	
  year.	
  A	
  few	
  states	
  like	
  Maryland,	
  New	
  Jersey,	
  Tennessee,	
  and	
  Virginia	
  would	
  each	
  be	
  brining	
  in	
  more	
  than	
  $500	
  million	
  in	
  
additional	
  annual	
  revenue.	
  Th	
  ese	
  revenue	
  losses	
  have	
  been	
  a	
  major	
  factor	
  in	
  the	
  worsening	
  condition	
  of	
  the	
  
nation’s	
  infrastructure.	
  According	
  to	
  the	
  American	
  Society	
  of	
  Civil	
  Engineers	
  (ASCE),	
  a	
  quarter	
  of	
  
America’s	
  bridges	
  are	
  structurally	
  defi	
  cient	
  or	
  obsolete,	
  one-­‐third	
  of	
  the	
  nation’s	
  major	
  roads	
  are	
  in	
  
poor	
  or	
  mediocre	
  condition,	
  almost	
  half	
  of	
  all	
  major	
  urban	
  highways	
  are	
  congested,	
  and	
  nearly	
  half	
  of	
  
all	
  Americans	
  lack	
  access	
  to	
  bus	
  or	
  rail	
  transit.	
  As	
  a	
  result	
  of	
  these	
  defi	
  ciencies,	
  the	
  ASCE	
  estimates	
  that	
  Americans	
  waste	
  the	
  
monetary	
  equivalent	
  of	
  $32	
  billion	
  in	
  travel	
  time	
  delays	
  each	
  year,	
  and	
  another	
  $97	
  billion	
  on	
  vehicle	
  operating	
  costs.	
  It	
  should	
  come	
  as	
  litt	
  le	
  
surprise	
  that	
  even	
  business	
  leaders—a	
  group	
  hardly	
  enamored	
  with	
  taxes—oft	
  en	
  come	
  down	
  on	
  the	
  side	
  of	
  raising	
  state	
  gas	
  taxes	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  
fund	
  a	
  more	
  effi	
  cient	
  transportation	
  system.	
  But	
  it’s	
  not	
  just	
  the	
  transportation	
  network	
  that	
  suff	
  ers	
  when	
  gas	
  
taxes	
  are	
  allowed	
  to	
  stagnate.	
  Recently,	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  states	
  have	
  enacted	
  long-­‐term	
  raids	
  on	
  their	
  
general	
  funds,	
  where	
  a	
  certain	
  percentage	
  of	
  tax	
  revenue	
  usually	
  reserved	
  for	
  education,	
  human	
  
services,	
  and	
  other	
  public	
  priorities	
  is	
  siphoned	
  off	
  to	
  make	
  up	
  for	
  lagging	
  gas	
  tax	
  revenues.	
  Some	
  
lawmakers	
  have	
  pointed	
  out	
  the	
  problems	
  with	
  this	
  approach,	
  but	
  far	
  too	
  many	
  view	
  a	
  general	
  fund	
  
Band-­‐Aid	
  as	
  an	
  easy	
  way	
  to	
  delay	
  politically	
  diffi	
  cult,	
  but	
  long-­‐overdue	
  reforms	
  to	
  the	
  gas	
  tax.	
  
Recommendations	
  for	
  Reform	
  Despite	
  the	
  dismal	
  condition	
  of	
  so	
  many	
  state	
  gas	
  taxes,	
  there	
  are	
  a	
  few	
  straightforward	
  reforms	
  
that	
  states	
  can	
  use	
  to	
  fi	
  x	
  these	
  broken,	
  but	
  vital,	
  revenue	
  sources:	
  •	
  Rising	
  fuel-­‐effi	
  ciency	
  and	
  construction	
  costs	
  have	
  signifi	
  cantly	
  
reduced	
  the	
  purchasing	
  power	
  of	
  state	
  gas	
  taxes.	
  Th	
  e	
  fi	
  rst	
  and	
  most	
  obvious	
  step	
  that	
  states	
  should	
  take	
  to	
  off	
  set	
  these	
  declines	
  is	
  to	
  
increase	
  their	
  gas	
  tax	
  rates.	
  •	
  An	
  increase	
  in	
  state	
  gas	
  taxes,	
  however	
  necessary,	
  will	
  be	
  of	
  litt	
  le	
  help	
  in	
  the	
  
long-­‐term	
  unless	
  steps	
  are	
  taken	
  to	
  ensure	
  that	
  the	
  tax	
  can	
  withstand	
  future	
  increases	
  in	
  fuel-­‐effi	
  
ciency	
  and	
  construction	
  costs.	
  Restructuring	
  state	
  gas	
  tax	
  rates	
  so	
  that	
  they	
  grow	
  over	
  time	
  can	
  help	
  
alleviate	
  this	
  problem.	
  Restructuring	
  can	
  come	
  in	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  forms,	
  including	
  linking	
  state	
  gas	
  tax	
  
rates	
  to	
  construction	
  cost	
  infl	
  ation,	
  the	
  general	
  infl	
  ation	
  rate,	
  or	
  gas	
  prices.	
  •	
  Like	
  most	
  taxes	
  on	
  consumption,	
  
state	
  gas	
  taxes	
  are	
  inevitably	
  regressive—impacting	
  low-­‐income	
  families	
  far	
  more	
  heavily	
  than	
  any	
  other	
  group.	
  Th	
  e	
  impact	
  of	
  gas	
  taxes	
  on	
  
families	
  struggling	
  to	
  make	
  ends	
  meet	
  is	
  oft	
  en	
  cited	
  in	
  opposition	
  to	
  state	
  gas	
  taxes,	
  but	
  lawmakers	
  can	
  provide	
  meaningful	
  relief	
  to	
  these	
  
families	
  via	
  targeted	
  low-­‐income	
  tax	
  credits,	
  without	
  having	
  to	
  starve	
  states’	
  transportation	
  revenue	
  streams.	
  	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                    81	
  
Starter	
  Set	
          	
        Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  




                     Politics	
  
	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                     82	
  
Starter	
  Set	
           	
        Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  


                     Unpopular	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        83	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                                                      	
                                                                                                                Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                                                                         Public	
  
	
  

Gas	
  tax	
  is	
  extremely	
  unpopular;	
  elections	
  
Kimberlin,	
  12	
  [March	
  18,	
  2012,	
  Joanne	
  Kimberlin,	
  The	
  Virginian-­‐Pilot,	
  from	
  the	
  FHA,	
  “Tolls	
  turmoil	
  
raises	
  questions	
  about	
  Va.	
  gas	
  tax”	
  (http://hamptonroads.com/2012/03/tolls-­‐turmoil-­‐raises-­‐
questions-­‐about-­‐va-­‐gas-­‐tax)]	
  
"Imagine	
  if	
  you	
  hadn't	
  had	
  a	
  pay	
  raise	
  in	
  25	
  years,"	
  said	
  Tamara	
  Rollison,	
  a	
  spokeswoman	
  at	
  VDOT.	
  "You've	
  got	
  dwindling	
  dollars	
  to	
  take	
  care	
  of	
  
ever-­‐increasing	
  needs."	
  Tax	
  hikes	
  are	
  rarely	
  popular,	
  but	
  the	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  is	
  particularly	
  untouchable,	
  especially	
  when	
  pump	
  
prices	
  are	
  climbing	
  on	
  their	
  own.	
  Elections	
  can	
  flip	
  at	
  the	
  cost	
  of	
  a	
  fill-­‐up,	
  an	
  expense	
  that's	
  not	
  only	
  
unavoidable,	
  but	
  impossible	
  to	
  ignore.	
  Giant	
  signs	
  flash	
  the	
  going	
  rate	
  outside	
  every	
  gas	
  station.	
  It	
  all	
  makes	
  us	
  hyper-­‐aware,	
  said	
  Carl	
  
Davis,	
  a	
  senior	
  analyst	
  at	
  the	
  nonprofit,	
  nonpartisan	
  Institute	
  on	
  Taxation	
  and	
  Economic	
  Policy.	
  	
  


No	
  political	
  will	
  to	
  raise	
  the	
  gas	
  tax;	
  politicians	
  are	
  burned	
  at	
  the	
  stake	
  for	
  it	
  
Feigenbaum,	
  12	
  [May	
  25,	
  2012,	
  Baruch	
  Feigenbaum,	
  Reason	
  Foundation,	
  Transportation	
  Policy	
  
Analyst,	
  (http://reason.org/news/printer/ata-­‐wrong-­‐on-­‐bingaman-­‐amendment)]	
  
Transportation	
  revenue	
  is	
  declining	
  while	
  transportation	
  needs	
  are	
  increasing.	
  The	
  main	
  federal	
  transportation	
  funding	
  resource	
  is	
  the	
  gas	
  tax.	
  
The	
  federal	
  gas	
  tax	
  has	
  not	
  been	
  increased	
  since	
  1992.	
  As	
  a	
  result	
  of	
  inflation	
  and	
  more	
  fuel-­‐efficient	
  vehicles,	
  the	
  gas	
  tax	
  
raises	
  less	
  than	
  half	
  the	
  actual	
  revenue	
  it	
  raised	
  in	
  1992.	
  Currently	
  there	
  is	
  no	
  political	
  will	
  to	
  raise	
  the	
  gas	
  tax.	
  Congress	
  is	
  
against	
  it;	
  President	
  Obama	
  is	
  against	
  it.	
  (One	
  of	
  the	
  President’s	
  advisors	
  falsely	
  attacked	
  Governor	
  Romney	
  for	
  
raising	
  the	
  gas	
  tax	
  in	
  Massachusetts.	
  Romney	
  increased	
  the	
  environmental	
  clean	
  up	
  fund	
  by	
  two	
  cents	
  not	
  the	
  actual	
  gas	
  tax.	
  And	
  the	
  
actual	
  out	
  of	
  pocket	
  increase	
  to	
  drivers	
  was	
  9%	
  not	
  400%	
  as	
  Obama’s	
  surrogates	
  complain.)	
  Even	
  if	
  we	
  increased	
  the	
  gas	
  tax	
  15	
  cents	
  and	
  
indexed	
  it	
  to	
  inflation,	
  (which	
  has	
  a	
  zero	
  percent	
  chance	
  of	
  happening)	
  it	
  would	
  still	
  be	
  only	
  a	
  temporary	
  solution	
  because	
  of	
  increasing	
  fuel	
  
efficiency.	
  As	
  the	
  federal	
  government	
  is	
  either	
  unwilling	
  or	
  unable	
  to	
  act,	
  States	
  should	
  be	
  allowed	
  to	
  use	
  any	
  and	
  all	
  resources	
  
to	
  improve	
  and	
  maintain	
  their	
  highway	
  networks.	
  


Unpopular;	
  the	
  economy	
  is	
  too	
  insecure	
  
Lowy,	
  12	
  [Joan	
  Lowy,	
  February	
  2012,	
  Associated	
  Press	
  “Transportation	
  boosted	
  to	
  top	
  of	
  political	
  agenda”	
  
(http://www.alaskajournal.com/Alaska-­‐Journal-­‐of-­‐Commerce/AJOC-­‐February-­‐19-­‐2012/Transportation-­‐boosted-­‐to-­‐top-­‐of-­‐political-­‐agenda/)]	
  
Without	
  an	
  infusion	
  of	
  cash	
  from	
  somewhere,	
  the	
  Transportation	
  Department	
  could	
  be	
  forced	
  to	
  slow	
  down	
  reimbursements	
  to	
  states	
  for	
  
highway	
  construction	
  and	
  other	
  transportation	
  projects.	
  That,	
  in	
  turn,	
  could	
  lead	
  to	
  thousands	
  of	
  lost	
  jobs.	
  Lawmakers	
  could	
  resolve	
  much	
  of	
  
their	
  money	
  woes	
  by	
  increasing	
  the	
  18.4	
  cent-­‐a-­‐gallon	
  gas	
  tax	
  and	
  the	
  24.4	
  cent-­‐a-­‐gallon	
  diesel	
  tax,	
  but	
  that’s	
  politically	
  
unpalatable	
  in	
  an	
  economy	
  where	
  unemployment	
  remains	
  high	
  and	
  many	
  Americans	
  feel	
  financially	
  
insecure.	
  Indecision	
  about	
  how	
  to	
  shore	
  up	
  the	
  Highway	
  Trust	
  Fund	
  has	
  long	
  stymied	
  efforts	
  to	
  pass	
  a	
  transportation	
  plan.	
  The	
  last	
  long-­‐
term	
  plan	
  expired	
  in	
  2009.	
  Congress	
  has	
  kept	
  programs	
  going	
  through	
  a	
  series	
  of	
  eight	
  short-­‐term	
  extensions.	
  The	
  current	
  extension	
  expires	
  
March	
  31	
  


A	
  higher	
  gas	
  tax	
  has	
  no	
  chance	
  of	
  being	
  passed;	
  massively	
  unpopular	
  
Walsh,	
  11	
  [Brian	
  Walsh,	
  August	
  16,	
  2011,	
  TIME	
  Online,	
  “Why	
  Dropping	
  the	
  Gas	
  Tax	
  Would	
  Be	
  a	
  Disaster,	
  
(http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/08/16/why-­‐dropping-­‐the-­‐gas-­‐tax-­‐would-­‐be-­‐a-­‐disaster/#ixzz1z20GieNe)]	
  
If	
  anything,	
  we	
  could	
  even	
  use	
  a	
  higher	
  gas	
  tax,	
  both	
  to	
  encourage	
  drivers	
  to	
  purchase	
  more	
  fuel-­‐efficient	
  cars,	
  and	
  to	
  raise	
  funds	
  for	
  mass	
  transit.	
  General	
  Motors	
  CEO	
  
Dan	
  Akerson	
  has	
  suggested	
  raising	
  the	
  tax	
  by	
  as	
  much	
  as	
  $1	
  a	
  gallon,	
  which	
  would	
  still	
  leave	
  Americans	
  paying	
  far	
  less	
  than	
  most	
  other	
  countries—in	
  Britain,	
  the	
  tax	
  is	
  more	
  than	
  $4	
  a	
  gallon.	
  
Policymakers	
  may	
  want	
  to	
  consider	
  shifting	
  from	
  a	
  straight	
  gas	
  tax	
  to	
  a	
  per-­‐mile	
  levee,	
  something	
  already	
  underway	
  in	
  the	
  Netherlands.	
  That	
  strikes	
  me	
  as	
  fair—the	
  more	
  you	
  use	
  the	
  roads,	
  

                                                                                                                                            ,	
  in	
  the	
  current	
  political	
  
the	
  more	
  you	
  pay	
  for	
  their	
  upkeep,	
  although	
  there	
  are	
  legitimate	
  privacy	
  concerns	
  about	
  how	
  the	
  government	
  would	
  track	
  mileage.Of	
  course

climate	
  there’s	
  virtually	
  no	
  chance	
  of	
  anything	
  like	
  that	
  even	
  being	
  discussed,	
  let	
  alone	
  passed.	
  And	
  
Americans	
  have	
  very	
  different	
  transportation	
  habits	
  than	
  Europeans—longer	
  commutes	
  mean	
  gas	
  
taxes,	
  even	
  at	
  a	
  low	
  rate,	
  can	
  take	
  a	
  big	
  bite	
  from	
  household	
  budgets	
  at	
  a	
  time	
  when	
  so	
  many	
  are	
  struggling	
  to	
  get	
  by.	
  But	
  
repealing	
  the	
  federal	
  gas	
  tax	
  really	
  would	
  be	
  a	
  disaster,	
  costing	
  the	
  government	
  an	
  estimated	
  $100	
  million	
  a	
  day	
  at	
  the	
  very	
  moment	
  when	
  
we’re	
  so	
  worried	
  about	
  public	
  debt.	
  Even	
  many	
  mainstream	
  conservative	
  organizations	
  like	
  the	
  Heritage	
  Foundation	
  and	
  the	
  Reason	
  
Foundation	
  seem	
  to	
  recognize	
  that	
  this	
  is	
  a	
  bad	
  idea.	
  Let’s	
  hope	
  Congress	
  this	
  September	
  remains	
  temporarily	
  sane	
  enough	
  to	
  realize	
  that.	
  
	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                              84	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                   	
                                                                         Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                              Women	
  &GOP	
  
	
  

Plan	
  unpopular.	
  Two	
  reasons:	
  women	
  and	
  republicans.	
  
Callow	
  and	
  Austin	
  ’11	
  (Michael:	
  Ph.D.,	
  department	
  of	
  business	
  &	
  management;	
  Nathan:	
  Ph.D.,	
  
department	
  of	
  business	
  &	
  management.	
  “National	
  Transportation	
  Center	
  Research	
  Report”	
  Morgan	
  
State	
  University.	
  October	
  ’11.	
  Accssed	
  on	
  6/26/12.	
  
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/43000/43000/43003/TheMediating_Callow_1112.pdf)	
  
A	
  three-­‐step	
  regression	
  analysis	
  was	
  run	
  on	
  the	
  gas	
  tax	
  variable,	
  starting	
  with	
  demographic	
  and	
  road-­‐usage	
  variables,	
  
followed	
  by	
  dissatisfaction	
  variables,	
  and	
  finally	
  priority	
  variables.	
  In	
  step	
  1,	
  education,	
  gender,	
  political	
  affiliation,	
  and	
  
hours	
  travelled	
  on	
  the	
  road	
  per	
  day	
  were	
  all	
  significantly	
  related	
  to	
  respondents’	
  attitudes	
  towards	
  
gas	
  tax	
  increases	
  (Table	
  6).	
  Education	
  level	
  was	
  positively	
  related	
  to	
  more	
  favorable	
  opinions	
  towards	
  gas	
  tax	
  increases.	
  Being	
  a	
  
Republican	
  and	
  travelling	
  more	
  hours	
  on	
  the	
  road	
  had	
  a	
  negative	
  impact	
  on	
  respondents’	
  evaluation	
  
of	
  any	
  increase	
  in	
  the	
  gas	
  tax.	
  A	
  univariate	
  analysis	
  of	
  gender	
  differences	
  revealed	
  that	
  women	
  were	
  
less	
  supportive	
  than	
  men	
  of	
  any	
  gas	
  tax	
  increase	
  (µmen	
  =	
  3.86,	
  µwomen	
  =	
  3.11;	
  t=	
  15.82,	
  p	
  <	
  .001).	
  In	
  step	
  2,	
  dissatisfaction	
  
with	
  pollution	
  was	
  positively	
  related	
  to	
  gas	
  tax	
  initiatives.	
  The	
  pollution	
  variable	
  did	
  not	
  mediate	
  the	
  relationship	
  
between	
  the	
  demographic	
  and	
  usage	
  variables	
  and	
  the	
  dependent	
  variable,	
  since	
  all	
  variables	
  
remained	
  statistically	
  significant.	
  No	
  additional	
  variables	
  were	
  entered	
  in	
  step	
  3.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                               85	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                            	
                                                                                 Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                            Democrats	
  	
  
No	
  support	
  for	
  gas	
  taxes	
  from	
  dems—they	
  know	
  the	
  public	
  will	
  crucify	
  them	
  
Tankersley	
  ’10	
  (Staff	
  Writer	
  for	
  LA	
  Times>	
  “Senators	
  consider	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  as	
  part	
  of	
  climate	
  bill”	
  
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/14/nation/la-­‐na-­‐gas-­‐tax14-­‐2010apr14)	
  
The	
  Senate	
  bill's	
  sponsors	
  appear	
  to	
  want	
  the	
  revenue	
  raised	
  from	
  the	
  tax	
  to	
  fund	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  programs	
  that	
  would	
  lower	
  industrial	
  emissions,	
  
including	
  helping	
  manufacturers	
  reduce	
  energy	
  use	
  or	
  boosting	
  wind	
  and	
  solar	
  power	
  installations	
  by	
  electric	
  utilities.	
  But	
  the	
  tax	
  has	
  
encountered	
  stiff	
  behind-­‐the-­‐scenes	
  resistance	
  from	
  some	
  Democrats,	
  who	
  fear	
  the	
  political	
  specter	
  
of	
  increasing	
  gasoline	
  prices	
  as	
  the	
  national	
  average	
  cost	
  of	
  gasoline	
  is	
  expected	
  to	
  crest	
  $3	
  a	
  gallon	
  this	
  summer.	
  And	
  no	
  other	
  
Republicans	
  have	
  publicly	
  announced	
  support	
  for	
  the	
  framework	
  legislation	
  that	
  Graham	
  and	
  the	
  others	
  are	
  
circulating	
  on	
  Capitol	
  Hill.	
  Attracting	
  significant	
  Republican	
  support	
  for	
  a	
  bill	
  featuring	
  a	
  tax	
  increase	
  would	
  run	
  counter	
  to	
  historical	
  political	
  
trends	
  and	
  to	
  the	
  anti-­‐tax	
  outrage	
  percolating	
  among	
  the	
  "tea	
  party"	
  activists	
  in	
  the	
  GOP	
  base.	
  Sources	
  say	
  the	
  resistance	
  extends	
  to	
  
some	
  Obama	
  administration	
  officials.	
  	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                            86	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                   	
                                                                                       Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                              Norquist	
  Link	
  
A.	
  Norquist	
  wants	
  to	
  scrap	
  the	
  gas	
  tax	
  
Mataconis	
  ’11	
  (Staff	
  Writer	
  for	
  Outside	
  The	
  Belt,	
  “Grover	
  Norquist:	
  ‘No	
  Problem	
  with	
  Extending	
  Gas	
  
Tax”,	
  August	
  17,	
  2011	
  (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/grover-­‐norquist-­‐no-­‐problem-­‐with-­‐
extending-­‐gas-­‐tax/))	
  
Anti-­‐tax	
  activist	
  Grover	
  Norquist	
  says	
  it’s	
  fine	
  with	
  him	
  if	
  Congress	
  extends	
  the	
  soon-­‐to-­‐expire	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  for	
  now	
  
—	
  a	
  statement	
  that	
  may	
  allow	
  room	
  for	
  lawmakers	
  to	
  defuse	
  a	
  brewing	
  confrontation	
  on	
  what	
  is	
  normally	
  a	
  humdrum	
  decision.	
  Norquist,	
  
president	
  of	
  Americans	
  for	
  Tax	
  Reform,	
  told	
  Bloomberg	
  that	
  lawmakers	
  who	
  vote	
  to	
  extend	
  the	
  tax	
  without	
  making	
  any	
  
changes	
  wouldn’t	
  be	
  violating	
  the	
  no-­‐tax-­‐hike	
  pledge	
  that	
  many	
  members	
  of	
  Congress	
  have	
  signed	
  at	
  his	
  group’s	
  behest.	
  
The	
  pledge	
  —	
  signed	
  by	
  virtually	
  every	
  Republican	
  in	
  Congress,	
  plus	
  many	
  lawmakers	
  at	
  the	
  state	
  level	
  —	
  has	
  
made	
  Norquist	
  an	
  influential	
  player	
  in	
  fiscal	
  issues	
  including	
  this	
  summer’s	
  debt	
  limit	
  showdown	
  and	
  Pennsylvania’s	
  debate	
  
over	
  an	
  impact	
  fee	
  on	
  natural	
  gas	
  drilling.	
  Most	
  of	
  the	
  18.4	
  cent	
  per	
  gallon	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  is	
  set	
  to	
  expire	
  Sept.	
  30,	
  imperiling	
  the	
  funding	
  source	
  
for	
  the	
  federal	
  Highway	
  Trust	
  Fund.	
  While	
  extending	
  the	
  tax	
  is	
  normally	
  routine,	
  some	
  conservative	
  groups	
  have	
  eyed	
  the	
  issue	
  as	
  an	
  
opportunity	
  for	
  yet	
  another	
  fiscal	
  battle	
  —	
  on	
  the	
  heels	
  of	
  this	
  year’s	
  spring	
  budget	
  impasse,	
  near-­‐default	
  on	
  the	
  U.S.	
  debt	
  and	
  temporary	
  
shutdown	
  of	
  the	
  Federal	
  Aviation	
  Administration.	
  But	
  Norquist	
  told	
  Bloomberg	
  that	
  he	
  would	
  rather	
  push	
  for	
  a	
  broader	
  overhaul	
  of	
  
transportation	
  funding	
  and	
  that	
  eliminating	
  the	
  gas	
  tax	
  entirely	
  would	
  take	
  two	
  to	
  five	
  years.	
  In	
  the	
  short	
  term,	
  he	
  said	
  he	
  
would	
  push	
  for	
  legislation	
  to	
  let	
  states	
  opt	
  out	
  of	
  the	
  highway	
  fund.	
  

B.	
  Norquist	
  key	
  to	
  the	
  agenda-­‐-­‐has	
  political	
  sway	
  with	
  almost	
  all	
  congressional	
  
republicans	
  
CBS	
  News	
  11“The	
  Pledge:	
  Grover	
  Norquist’s	
  Hold	
  on	
  the	
  GOP”	
  November	
  20,	
  2011	
  
(http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-­‐18560_162-­‐57327816/the-­‐pledge-­‐grover-­‐norquists-­‐hold-­‐on-­‐the-­‐
gop/)	
  
The	
  Joint	
  Congressional	
  Committee	
  on	
  Deficit	
  Reduction	
  has	
  just	
  three	
  days	
  to	
  reach	
  a	
  deal	
  eliminating	
  at	
  least	
  $1.2	
  trillion	
  from	
  the	
  nation's	
  
debt	
  using	
  some	
  combination	
  of	
  cutting	
  spending	
  and	
  raising	
  taxes.	
  The	
  person	
  at	
  the	
  heart	
  of	
  those	
  negotiations	
  -­‐	
  and	
  some	
  would	
  say	
  the	
  
person	
  responsible	
  for	
  the	
  deadlock	
  -­‐	
  is	
  neither	
  a	
  member	
  of	
  Congress	
  nor	
  the	
  holder	
  of	
  any	
  public	
  office.	
  He	
  is	
  a	
  lobbyist	
  
and	
  a	
  conservative	
  activist	
  named	
  Grover	
  Norquist	
  who,	
  over	
  the	
  years,	
  has	
  gotten	
  virtually	
  every	
  
Republican	
  congressman	
  and	
  senator	
  to	
  sign	
  an	
  oath	
  called	
  "The	
  Pledge."	
  It's	
  a	
  promise	
  that	
  they	
  will	
  never,	
  under	
  
any	
  circumstances,	
  vote	
  to	
  raise	
  taxes	
  on	
  anyone.	
  And	
  so	
  far	
  Grover	
  Norquist	
  has	
  held	
  them	
  to	
  it,	
  controlling	
  279	
  votes,	
  
including	
  the	
  speaker	
  of	
  the	
  House,	
  the	
  Senate	
  minority	
  leader	
  and	
  all	
  six	
  Republican	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  
Joint	
  Committee	
  on	
  Deficit	
  Reduction.	
  Steve	
  Kroft:	
  A	
  lot	
  of	
  people	
  think	
  you're	
  the	
  most	
  powerful	
  man	
  in	
  Washington.	
  Grover	
  
Norquist:	
  The	
  tax	
  issue	
  is	
  the	
  most	
  powerful	
  issue	
  in	
  American	
  politics	
  going	
  back	
  to	
  the	
  Tea	
  Party.	
  People	
  say,	
  'Oh,	
  Grover	
  Norquist	
  has	
  power.'	
  
No.	
  Grover	
  Norquist	
  and	
  Americans	
  for	
  Tax	
  Reform	
  focus	
  on	
  the	
  tax	
  issue.	
  The	
  tax	
  issue	
  is	
  a	
  powerful	
  issue.	
  Grover	
  Norquist	
  is	
  trying	
  to	
  be	
  
modest.	
  Since	
  creating	
  Americans	
  for	
  Tax	
  Reform	
  at	
  Ronald	
  Reagan's	
  behest	
  back	
  in	
  1985,	
  Norquist	
  has	
  been	
  responsible,	
  more	
  
than	
  anyone	
  else,	
  for	
  rewriting	
  the	
  dogma	
  of	
  the	
  Republican	
  Party.	
  Norquist:	
  The	
  Republicans	
  won't	
  raise	
  your	
  taxes.	
  
We	
  haven't	
  had	
  a	
  Republican	
  vote	
  for	
  an	
  income	
  tax	
  increase	
  since	
  1990.	
  Kroft:	
  And	
  this	
  was	
  your	
  doing?	
  Norquist:	
  I	
  helped.	
  Yeah.	
  It	
  began	
  with	
  
the	
  simple	
  idea	
  of	
  getting	
  Republicans	
  all	
  over	
  the	
  country	
  to	
  sign	
  an	
  oath	
  called	
  the	
  "Taxpayer	
  Protection	
  Pledge,"	
  promising	
  their	
  constituents	
  
that	
  they	
  would	
  never,	
  ever	
  vote	
  for	
  anything	
  that	
  would	
  make	
  their	
  taxes	
  go	
  up.	
  [Norquist:	
  This	
  is	
  Speaker	
  Gingrich's	
  tax	
  pledge	
  back	
  in	
  1998...]	
  
And	
  once	
  they	
  sign	
  the	
  pledge,	
  Grover	
  Norquist	
  never	
  forgets.	
  The	
  more	
  signatures	
  he's	
  collected,	
  the	
  
more	
  his	
  influence	
  has	
  grown.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                             87	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                         	
                                                                  Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                              Small	
  Business	
  Lobby	
  
Raising	
  the	
  gas	
  tax	
  angers	
  small	
  business	
  advocacy	
  groups	
  
Spors,	
  2012	
  (“Can	
  a	
  Gas	
  Tax	
  Fuel	
  Clean	
  Energy	
  Innovation?”,	
  Small	
  Business	
  Trends,	
  
http://smallbiztrends.com/2012/05/gas-­‐tax-­‐fuel-­‐clean-­‐energy-­‐innovation.html)	
  
That	
  said,	
  many	
  small	
  business	
  advocacy	
  groups,	
  including	
  the	
  National	
  Federal	
  of	
  Independent	
  Business,	
  are	
  adamantly	
  
against	
  raising	
  taxes	
  that	
  directly	
  hit	
  small	
  businesses,	
  including	
  the	
  gas	
  tax.	
  A	
  March	
  survey	
  by	
  the	
  Small	
  
Business	
  and	
  Entrepreneurship	
  Council	
  found	
  that	
  72%	
  of	
  small	
  business	
  respondents	
  said	
  higher	
  gas	
  prices	
  were	
  
already	
  affecting	
  their	
  business.	
  And	
  stories	
  abound	
  in	
  local	
  media	
  of	
  businesses	
  being	
  pinched	
  by	
  surging	
  gas	
  prices.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                   88	
  
Starter	
  Set	
          	
       Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  


                     Popular	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                         89	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                 	
                                                      Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                                       Public	
  	
  
Studies	
  show	
  Americans	
  would	
  support	
  a	
  gas	
  tax	
  increase	
  for	
  highways.	
  
Mineta	
  Transportation	
  Intitute	
  June	
  ’12	
  (“What	
  do	
  Americans	
  Think	
  About	
  Federal	
  Tax	
  Options	
  to	
  
Support	
  Public	
  Transit,	
  Highways,	
  and	
  Local	
  Streets	
  and	
  Roads?	
  Result	
  from	
  Year	
  3	
  of	
  a	
  National	
  
Survey”.	
  June	
  2012.	
  http://transweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/research/1128-­‐american-­‐survey-­‐federal-­‐taxes-­‐
public-­‐transit-­‐highways-­‐streets-­‐roads.pdf)	
  
The	
  survey	
  results	
  show	
  that	
  a	
  majority	
  of	
  Americans	
  would	
  support	
  higher	
  taxes	
  for	
  transportation—
under	
  certain	
  conditions	
  (see	
  Figure	
  1).	
  A	
  gas	
  tax	
  increase	
  of	
  10¢	
  per	
  gallon	
  to	
  improve	
  road	
  maintenance	
  was	
  
supported	
  by	
  58	
  percent	
  of	
  respondents,	
  whereas	
  support	
  levels	
  dropped	
  to	
  20	
  percent	
  if	
  the	
  
revenues	
  were	
  to	
  be	
  used	
  more	
  generally	
  to	
  maintain	
  and	
  improve	
  the	
  transportation	
  system.	
  The	
  
only	
  other	
  variant	
  on	
  a	
  gas	
  tax	
  that	
  received	
  at	
  least	
  50	
  percent	
  support	
  in	
  2012	
  was	
  a	
  10¢	
  per-­‐gallon	
  
increase	
  with	
  the	
  revenues	
  dedicated	
  to	
  reducing	
  accidents	
  and	
  improving	
  safety.	
  Support	
  for	
  another	
  
five	
  tax	
  options	
  was	
  still	
  above	
  40	
  percent	
  (a	
  healthy	
  showing	
  of	
  support	
  given	
  that	
  taxes	
  generally	
  tend	
  to	
  be	
  unpopular).	
  For	
  
tax	
  options	
  where	
  the	
  revenues	
  were	
  to	
  be	
  spent	
  for	
  undefined	
  transportation	
  purposes,	
  support	
  
levels	
  varied	
  considerably	
  by	
  what	
  kind	
  of	
  tax	
  would	
  be	
  imposed,	
  with	
  a	
  sales	
  tax	
  (49	
  percent	
  approval)	
  much	
  more	
  
popular	
  than	
  either	
  a	
  gas	
  tax	
  increase	
  (20	
  percent)	
  or	
  a	
  new	
  mileage	
  tax	
  (21	
  percent).	
  


Americans	
  support	
  a	
  federal	
  gas	
  tax	
  to	
  reduce	
  foreign	
  dependence	
  on	
  oil	
  
West,	
  No	
  Date	
  (Larry	
  West,	
  a	
  professional	
  writer	
  and	
  editor	
  who	
  has	
  written	
  many	
  articles	
  about	
  
environmental	
  issues	
  for	
  leading	
  newspapers,	
  magazines	
  and	
  online	
  publications.	
  Americans	
  Would	
  
Support	
  Higher	
  Gas	
  Tax	
  to	
  Reduce	
  Global	
  Warming,	
  Enviroment	
  About.	
  No	
  Date)	
  
Americans	
  are	
  generally	
  opposed	
  to	
  raising	
  the	
  federal	
  tax	
  on	
  gasoline,	
  but	
  a	
  majority	
  would	
  support	
  a	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  
increase	
  if	
  they	
  knew	
  the	
  money	
  would	
  be	
  used	
  to	
  reduce	
  global	
  warming	
  or	
  to	
  lessen	
  United	
  States	
  
dependence	
  on	
  foreign	
  oil,	
  according	
  to	
  a	
  New	
  York	
  Times/CBS	
  News	
  poll	
  conducted	
  in	
  late	
  February	
  2006.	
  
Fifty-­‐five	
  percent	
  of	
  those	
  polled	
  said	
  they	
  would	
  support	
  an	
  increase	
  in	
  the	
  federal	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  if	
  it	
  
would	
  reduce	
  America’s	
  dependence	
  on	
  foreign	
  oil.	
  Fifty-­‐nine	
  percent	
  said	
  they	
  would	
  support	
  a	
  tax	
  
increase	
  if	
  it	
  would	
  result	
  in	
  less	
  gasoline	
  consumption	
  and	
  less	
  global	
  warming.	
  (The	
  nationwide	
  telephone	
  poll	
  
surveyed	
  1,018	
  adults;	
  the	
  margin	
  of	
  error	
  is	
  plus	
  or	
  minus	
  three	
  percentage	
  points.)	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               90	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                                                 	
                                                                                                            Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                                                                         CoC	
  
Plan	
  is	
  popular	
  with	
  the	
  CoC—governing	
  members	
  and	
  internal	
  business	
  lobbies	
  
concur	
  
Mitchell	
  ‘9	
  (Josh,	
  Staff	
  Writer	
  for	
  the	
  Wall	
  Street	
  Journal,	
  “Chamber	
  of	
  Commerce	
  Pushes	
  Increase	
  in	
  Gas	
  Tax”,	
  July	
  15,	
  2009	
  
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124769092956347439.html))	
  
The	
  U.S.	
  Chamber	
  of	
  Commerce	
  said	
  Wednesday	
  that	
  it	
  will	
  attempt	
  to	
  do	
  what	
  a	
  string	
  of	
  economists	
  and	
  urban	
  planners	
  
couldn't:	
  persuade	
  lawmakers	
  to	
  raise	
  the	
  federal	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  to	
  pay	
  for	
  better	
  roads.	
  The	
  new	
  push	
  by	
  the	
  powerful	
  business	
  lobby,	
  which	
  
includes	
  a	
  six-­‐figure	
  ad	
  campaign,	
  comes	
  as	
  Congress	
  has	
  begun	
  debating	
  how	
  to	
  pay	
  for	
  repairs	
  to	
  the	
  nation's	
  highways,	
  bridges	
  and	
  mass-­‐transit	
  systems.	
  Boosting	
  the	
  18.4-­‐cent	
  federal	
  tax	
  
on	
  a	
  gallon	
  of	
  gasoline	
  by	
  roughly	
  10	
  cents	
  a	
  gallon	
  would	
  cover	
  the	
  growing	
  funding	
  gap	
  while	
  creating	
  jobs	
  and	
  improving	
  mobility,	
  Chamber	
  officials	
  said	
  Wednesday.	
  "Just	
  damn	
  do	
  it,"	
  

Chamber	
  President	
  Thomas	
  Donohue	
  said	
  Wednesday	
  at	
  a	
  news	
  briefing,	
  at	
  which	
  he	
  called	
  on	
  Congress	
  not	
  to	
  delay	
  
action	
  on	
  a	
  new	
  highway	
  bill	
  as	
  the	
  Obama	
  administration	
  has	
  proposed.	
  Wednesday,	
  the	
  Senate	
  Environment	
  and	
  Public	
  Works	
  
Committee	
  backed	
  a	
  plan	
  to	
  put	
  off	
  debate	
  on	
  new	
  highway	
  funding	
  for	
  18	
  months,	
  extending	
  current	
  funding	
  levels	
  until	
  then.	
  A	
  boost	
  in	
  
highway	
  spending	
  could	
  also	
  be	
  a	
  boon	
  for	
  Chamber	
  members	
  like	
  Caterpillar	
  Inc.,	
  the	
  heavy-­‐
equipment	
  maker	
  that	
  has	
  joined	
  the	
  lobbying	
  campaign.	
  About	
  100	
  business	
  executives	
  affiliated	
  with	
  
the	
  Chamber	
  fanned	
  out	
  on	
  Capitol	
  Hill	
  Wednesday	
  to	
  meet	
  with	
  lawmakers.	
  The	
  executives	
  ranged	
  from	
  small	
  retailers	
  
from	
  North	
  Myrtle	
  Beach,	
  S.C.,	
  to	
  Office	
  Depot	
  Inc.	
  ODP	
  0.00%	
  Chief	
  Executive	
  Steve	
  Odland.	
  While	
  the	
  Chamber	
  has	
  previously	
  
called	
  for	
  a	
  gas-­‐tax	
  increase,	
  the	
  group	
  is	
  ramping	
  up	
  lobbying	
  because	
  now	
  is	
  an	
  opportune	
  time	
  to	
  make	
  such	
  a	
  
move,	
  with	
  gas	
  prices	
  well	
  below	
  last	
  summer's	
  peak	
  of	
  $4	
  a	
  gallon,	
  Mr.	
  Donohue	
  said.	
  
	
  

The	
  Chamber	
  of	
  Commerce	
  is	
  the	
  biggest	
  and	
  most	
  powerful	
  lobbying	
  group	
  in	
  the	
  
nation,	
  especially	
  in	
  regards	
  to	
  Republicans	
  
The	
  Economist	
  ’12	
  (Independent	
  Economic	
  Think	
  Tank,	
  “The	
  Chamber	
  Of	
  Commerce	
  Has	
  Been	
  Transformed	
  Into	
  One	
  Of	
  The	
  Most	
  Powerful	
  Political	
  
Forces	
  In	
  Washington”	
  April	
  23,	
  2012	
  (http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-­‐04-­‐23/politics/31385442_1_political-­‐spending-­‐chamber-­‐labour))	
  
AMERICA’S	
  first	
  chamber	
  of	
  commerce	
  was	
  founded	
  in	
  Charleston	
  in	
  1773,	
  but	
  it	
  was	
  not	
  until	
  April	
  22nd	
  1912	
  that	
  business	
  found	
  a	
  national	
  
voice.	
  At	
  the	
  urging	
  of	
  President	
  William	
  Howard	
  Taft,	
  the	
  Chamber	
  of	
  Commerce	
  of	
  the	
  USA	
  was	
  established	
  by	
  a	
  gathering	
  of	
  700	
  delegates	
  from	
  44	
  
states,	
  representing	
  324	
  voluntary	
  organizations,	
  in	
  a	
  Washington	
  hotel.	
  Taft	
  turned	
  the	
  meeting	
  over	
  to	
  his	
  commerce	
  secretary,	
  Charles	
  Nagel,	
  suggesting	
  he	
  keep	
  it	
  brief	
  "in	
  order	
  that	
  the	
  
inventive	
  genius	
  and	
  the	
  power	
  of	
  original	
  thought	
  in	
  this	
  representative	
  body…	
  may	
  not	
  be	
  restricted."	
  For	
  much	
  of	
  the	
  Chamber’s	
  first	
  85	
  years	
  it	
  sought	
  to	
  settle	
  disputes	
  by	
  consensus,	
  
much	
  like	
  its	
  small-­‐town	
  namesakes.That	
  began	
  to	
  change	
  in	
  1997	
  when	
  the	
  wiry	
  Thomas	
  Donohue	
  (pictured)	
  was	
  appointed	
  chief	
  executive	
  after	
  a	
  stint	
  reinvigorating	
  America’s	
  trucking	
  
association.	
  The	
  organization	
  he	
  inherited	
  was	
  cash-­‐strapped	
  and	
  lacked	
  punch.	
  His	
  goal,	
  he	
  wrote	
  at	
  the	
  time,	
  "is	
  simple-­‐-­‐to	
  build	
  the	
  biggest	
  gorilla	
  in	
  this	
  town-­‐-­‐the	
  most	
  aggressive	
  and	
  

                                                                                                                           is	
  by	
  far	
  the	
  most	
  muscular	
  business	
  
vigorous	
  business	
  advocate	
  our	
  nation	
  has	
  ever	
  seen."	
  He	
  has	
  succeeded	
  on	
  many	
  measures.	
  Today	
  the	
  Chamber	
  

lobby	
  group	
  in	
  Washington.	
  From	
  its	
  historic	
  headquarters	
  opposite	
  the	
  White	
  House	
  it	
  wields	
  huge	
  political	
  influence,	
  
spending	
  heavily	
  to	
  sway	
  congressional	
  contests.	
  In	
  doing	
  so	
  it	
  has	
  become	
  more	
  controversial	
  and,	
  say	
  critics,	
  
more	
  pro-­‐Republican.	
  This	
  has	
  done	
  its	
  coffers	
  no	
  harm:	
  in	
  2010	
  it	
  took	
  in	
  $189m	
  in	
  contributions	
  and	
  grants,	
  roughly	
  five	
  times	
  its	
  pre-­‐
Donohue	
  inflows.	
  Today’s	
  Chamber	
  is	
  not	
  shy	
  about	
  staking	
  out	
  strong	
  (some	
  would	
  say	
  extreme)	
  positions	
  on	
  hot-­‐
button	
  issues:	
  it	
  has	
  led	
  the	
  running	
  on	
  supporting	
  tort	
  and	
  entitlement	
  reform	
  and	
  greater	
  domestic	
  energy	
  production,	
  and	
  in	
  opposing	
  
"excessive"	
  regulation,	
  government-­‐run	
  health	
  care	
  and	
  cap-­‐and-­‐trade	
  schemes.	
  Its	
  leaders	
  seem	
  to	
  love	
  locking	
  horns	
  with	
  the	
  left,	
  not	
  least	
  
the	
  Labour	
  unions	
  that	
  spend	
  hundreds	
  of	
  millions	
  promoting	
  their	
  views	
  in	
  each	
  election	
  cycle.	
  "Our	
  adversaries	
  will	
  never	
  leave	
  the	
  field,	
  so	
  
neither	
  can	
  we,"	
  says	
  Bruce	
  Josten,	
  the	
  Chamber’s	
  chief	
  lobbyist.	
  Labour	
  groups	
  have	
  been	
  so	
  spooked	
  by	
  its	
  surging	
  testosterone	
  that	
  they	
  
have	
  set	
  up	
  US	
  Chamber	
  Watch,	
  an	
  outfit	
  dedicated	
  to	
  undermining	
  it.	
  The	
  Chamber’s	
  spending	
  on	
  lobbying	
  has	
  jumped	
  under	
  Mr	
  Donohue	
  
(see	
  chart	
  1),	
  though	
  it	
  fell	
  sharply	
  last	
  year	
  as	
  an	
  unprecedented	
  lobbying	
  blitz	
  on	
  health	
  and	
  financial	
  reform	
  subsided.	
  It	
  is	
  expected	
  to	
  
rebound	
  after	
  November’s	
  elections.	
  The	
  Chamber	
  uses	
  both	
  its	
  team	
  of	
  in-­‐house	
  lobbyists	
  and	
  outsiders.	
  Last	
  year	
  it	
  paid	
  a	
  team	
  led	
  by	
  
Michael	
  Mukasey,	
  a	
  former	
  United	
  States	
  attorney-­‐general,	
  $180,000	
  to	
  call	
  for	
  amendments	
  to	
  declaw	
  the	
  Foreign	
  Corrupt	
  Practices	
  Act.	
  Its	
  
electioneering	
  activities	
  are	
  equally	
  impressive.	
  Its	
  political	
  spending	
  exceeded	
  that	
  of	
  all	
  other	
  groups	
  bar	
  the	
  two	
  parties	
  
in	
  the	
  2010	
  mid-­‐terms,	
  according	
  to	
  the	
  Center	
  for	
  Responsive	
  Politics,	
  a	
  campaign-­‐finance	
  watchdog.	
  Much	
  of	
  the	
  money	
  goes	
  on	
  
"issue	
  advocacy"	
  ads,	
  which	
  do	
  not	
  explicitly	
  back	
  or	
  attack	
  candidates	
  but	
  discuss	
  their	
  stance	
  on	
  business	
  issues.	
  Business	
  associations	
  
naturally	
  lean	
  right.	
  But	
  critics	
  say	
  the	
  Chamber	
  has	
  become	
  more	
  brazenly	
  pro-­‐Republican	
  under	
  Mr	
  Donohue..	
  Its	
  
ranks	
  of	
  lobbyists,	
  strategists	
  and	
  flacks	
  bristle	
  with	
  former	
  Republican	
  congressional	
  attack	
  dogs	
  Its	
  
people	
  are	
  said	
  to	
  meet	
  periodically	
  with	
  Republican-­‐supporting	
  groups	
  to	
  share	
  intelligence,	
  such	
  as	
  
polling	
  data,	
  and	
  to	
  co-­‐ordinate	
  ad	
  spending.	
  It	
  has	
  ties	
  to	
  Karl	
  Rove’s	
  American	
  Crossroads	
  political	
  action	
  committee,	
  whose	
  president	
  is	
  the	
  
Chamber’s	
  former	
  chief	
  lawyer.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                 91	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                              	
                                                                                 Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                                       GOP	
  
Republicans	
  back	
  user	
  fee	
  options	
  such	
  as	
  plan	
  for	
  funding	
  transportation—seen	
  as	
  an	
  
attractive	
  alternative	
  to	
  deficit	
  spending	
  
Sledge,	
  12	
  [Matt	
  Sledge,	
  Huffington	
  Post,	
  Brown	
  University,	
  contributor	
  to	
  FreeVote,	
  1/4/12,	
  “GOP	
  
Candidates'	
  Transportation	
  Infrastructure	
  Talk	
  Praises	
  Tolls	
  But	
  Ignores	
  Jobs”	
  
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/gop-­‐candidates-­‐transportation-­‐infrastructure-­‐
jobs_n_1184314.html)]	
  
Republicans,	
  by	
  contrast,	
  view	
  transportation	
  as	
  either	
  a	
  local	
  issue	
  or	
  "a	
  sector	
  that	
  ought	
  to	
  stand	
  on	
  its	
  own	
  feet,	
  in	
  
other	
  words	
  pay	
  for	
  itself,	
  in	
  other	
  words	
  through	
  tolls	
  or	
  other	
  fees,"	
  Orski	
  said.	
  If	
  there	
  is	
  one	
  thing	
  that	
  GOP	
  candidates	
  Mitt	
  
Romney	
  and	
  Newt	
  Gingrich	
  seem	
  to	
  agree	
  on,	
  it's	
  those	
  "user	
  fees."	
  If	
  a	
  road's	
  worth	
  building,	
  the	
  argument	
  goes,	
  people	
  
will	
  be	
  willing	
  to	
  pay	
  for	
  it	
  themselves	
  through	
  tolls.	
  That	
  argument	
  mirrors	
  one	
  advanced	
  by	
  the	
  Department	
  of	
  
Transportation	
  during	
  the	
  Bush	
  administration,	
  which,	
  according	
  to	
  the	
  Washington	
  Post,	
  operated	
  under	
  the	
  guiding	
  principle	
  that	
  "unleashing	
  
the	
  private	
  sector	
  and	
  introducing	
  market	
  forces	
  could	
  lead	
  to	
  innovation	
  and	
  more	
  choices	
  for	
  the	
  public."	
  The	
  result	
  was	
  "a	
  legacy	
  of	
  new	
  toll	
  
roads	
  across	
  the	
  country."	
  In	
  a	
  2008	
  speech	
  outlining	
  his	
  infrastructure	
  "principles,"	
  unearthed	
  by	
  Streetsblog,	
  former	
  House	
  Speaker	
  
Gingrich	
  (R-­‐Ga.)	
  said	
  the	
  country	
  should	
  "when	
  possible	
  shift	
  to	
  user	
  fees	
  rather	
  than	
  tax	
  increases.	
  The	
  fact	
  is	
  all	
  the	
  polling	
  
indicates	
  if	
  you	
  want	
  to	
  help	
  with	
  suburban	
  congestion,	
  suburbanites	
  are	
  very	
  prepared	
  to	
  have	
  a	
  user	
  fee	
  to	
  get	
  
them	
  places	
  faster,	
  they	
  understand	
  the	
  time	
  value	
  of	
  money."	
  A	
  President	
  Romney,	
  it	
  seems,	
  would	
  also	
  look	
  at	
  
roads	
  as	
  a	
  business	
  proposition.	
  Speaking	
  to	
  a	
  voter	
  at	
  a	
  New	
  Hampshire	
  town	
  hall,	
  former	
  Massachusetts	
  Gov.	
  Romney	
  said	
  that	
  he	
  would	
  
"prioritize	
  those	
  things	
  which	
  are	
  most	
  important	
  to	
  you	
  and	
  infrastructure	
  and	
  having	
  good	
  roads	
  and	
  bridges	
  and	
  rail	
  lines	
  and	
  so	
  forth	
  and	
  air	
  
traffic	
  lines	
  are	
  essential	
  for	
  a	
  strong	
  economy,"	
  according	
  to	
  the	
  blog	
  Transportation	
  Nation	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                   92	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                               	
                                                                                  Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                               Bipartisan	
  
Support	
  for	
  increased	
  gas	
  taxes	
  spans	
  the	
  ideological	
  spectrum	
  
Palmer	
  and	
  Penner	
  ’11	
  (John	
  L:	
  	
  Center	
  for	
  Policy	
  Research	
  “Committees	
  Tackle	
  the	
  Deficit”.	
  Urban	
  
Institute.	
  February	
  01,2011.	
  Accessed	
  on	
  6/26/12.	
  
http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?id=412298&RSSFeed=Urban.xml)	
  
Numerous	
  committees	
  have	
  formed	
  to	
  suggest	
  ways	
  of	
  restoring	
  fiscal	
  stability.	
  Some	
  come	
  from	
  the	
  political	
  
right	
  or	
  left,	
  but	
  the	
  most	
  interesting	
  include	
  members	
  who	
  span	
  the	
  ideological	
  spectrum.	
  The	
  most	
  important	
  is	
  the	
  president's	
  National	
  
Commission	
  on	
  Fiscal	
  Responsibility	
  and	
  Reform	
  (NCFRR	
  2010).	
  The	
  president	
  appointed	
  six	
  members	
  drawn	
  from	
  both	
  political	
  parties,	
  and	
  
Democratic	
  and	
  Republican	
  congressional	
  leaders	
  each	
  appointed	
  six	
  elected	
  members—three	
  from	
  the	
  House	
  and	
  three	
  from	
  the	
  Senate.	
  The	
  
commission's	
  rules	
  stated	
  that	
  Congress	
  had	
  to	
  consider	
  its	
  recommendations	
  if	
  at	
  least	
  14	
  commission	
  members	
  supported	
  them.	
  That	
  
ensured	
  that	
  at	
  least	
  two	
  elected	
  members	
  from	
  each	
  party	
  had	
  to	
  be	
  on	
  board	
  before	
  the	
  Congress	
  would	
  be	
  forced	
  to	
  act.	
  Few	
  budget	
  
watchers	
  thought	
  the	
  commission	
  had	
  any	
  chance	
  of	
  success,	
  especially	
  after	
  congressional	
  leaders	
  appointed	
  some	
  members	
  from	
  the	
  
extremes	
  of	
  their	
  parties.	
  But	
  commission	
  members	
  and	
  their	
  staffs	
  worked	
  diligently	
  in	
  a	
  collegial	
  fashion.	
  
They	
  finally	
  recommended	
  radical	
  revenue-­‐raising	
  tax	
  reform,	
  a	
  15-­‐cent	
  increase	
  in	
  the	
  gas	
  tax,	
  comprehensive	
  Social	
  
Security	
  reform,	
  options	
  to	
  restrain	
  growth	
  in	
  federal	
  spending	
  on	
  health	
  care,	
  and	
  severe	
  caps	
  on	
  defense	
  and	
  nondefense	
  discretionary	
  
spending.	
  Only	
  11	
  members	
  ultimately	
  voted	
  for	
  the	
  commission	
  report,	
  but	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  it	
  got	
  more	
  than	
  majority	
  support	
  
was	
  a	
  notable	
  achievement.	
  Moreover,	
  support	
  spanned	
  the	
  ideological	
  spectrum	
  from	
  Senator	
  Tom	
  
Coburn	
  (R,	
  OK),	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  most	
  conservative	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  Senate,	
  to	
  Senator	
  Richard	
  Durbin	
  (D,	
  
IL),	
  a	
  solid	
  liberal.	
  Although	
  the	
  Republican	
  Party	
  has	
  adamantly	
  opposed	
  tax	
  increases,	
  three	
  
Republican	
  senators	
  voted	
  for	
  a	
  plan	
  that	
  contained	
  significant	
  new	
  revenues.	
  The	
  commission	
  claimed	
  that	
  by	
  
2020,	
  roughly	
  70	
  percent	
  of	
  its	
  deficit	
  reduction	
  would	
  come	
  from	
  slowing	
  noninterest	
  spending	
  growth	
  and	
  30	
  percent	
  from	
  revenue	
  
increases.	
  In	
  the	
  long	
  run,	
  the	
  commission	
  held	
  spending	
  to	
  21	
  percent	
  of	
  gross	
  domestic	
  product	
  (GDP),	
  a	
  severe	
  limit	
  given	
  the	
  costs	
  of	
  an	
  
aging	
  population	
  and	
  ever	
  more	
  expensive	
  health	
  care.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         93	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 	
                                                                                                                                                                                      Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                                                                                                                         Old	
  Ev	
  Doesn’t	
  Apply	
  
Budget	
  Deficits	
  make	
  gas	
  taxes	
  less	
  politically	
  dangerous—the	
  conventional	
  thinking	
  
no	
  longer	
  applies	
  
Austin	
  and	
  Dinan	
  2005	
  (David	
  and	
  Terry,	
  CBO	
  Microeconomic	
  Studies	
  Division,	
  Clearing	
  the	
  air:	
  The	
  
costs	
  and	
  consequences	
  of	
  higher	
  CAFE	
  standards	
  and	
  increased	
  gasoline	
  taxes,	
  Journal	
  of	
  
Environmental	
  Economics	
  and	
  Management,	
  50:3,	
  November)	
  
Next,	
  we	
  consider	
  whether	
  those	
  gasoline	
  savings	
  could	
  be	
  achieved	
  at	
  a	
  lower	
  cost	
  by	
  an	
  alternative	
  policy—a	
  tax	
  on	
  gasoline	
  consumption.	
  
Table	
  4	
  compares	
  the	
  present	
  discounted	
  value	
  (PDV)	
  of	
  total	
  costs	
  for	
  a	
  3.8-­‐mpg	
  increase	
  in	
  CAFE	
  standards	
  (with	
  trading)	
  and	
  for	
  a	
  gasoline	
  
tax	
  increase	
  designed	
  to	
  save	
  the	
  same	
  amount	
  of	
  gasoline	
  over	
  a	
  14-­‐year	
  period	
  (41.7	
  billion	
  gallons)	
  when	
  gallons	
  saved	
  (and	
  policy	
  costs)	
  are	
  
discounted	
  at	
  12%,	
  the	
  rate	
  at	
  which	
  new-­‐car	
  buyers	
  discount	
  gasoline	
  savings	
  in	
  our	
  CAFE	
  model.	
  Using	
  our	
  baseline	
  assumption	
  for	
  VMT	
  
elasticity	
  (	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  0.2),	
  we	
  estimate	
  that	
  a	
  30	
  cents/gallon	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  would	
  save	
  the	
  same	
  present	
  
discounted	
  quantity	
  of	
  gasoline	
  at	
  a	
  cost	
  that	
  is	
  71%	
  lower	
  than	
  the	
  comparable	
  CAFE	
  policy.	
  Thirty	
  cents	
  per	
  gallon	
  would	
  represent	
  a	
  73%	
  
increase	
  over	
  the	
  existing	
  tax	
  on	
  gasoline	
  in	
  the	
  US,	
  which	
  averages	
  41	
  cents	
  including	
  a	
  federal	
  tax	
  of	
  18.4	
  cents	
  and	
  varying	
  levels	
  of	
  state	
  and	
  
local	
  taxes.	
  Like	
  higher	
  CAFE	
  standards,	
  gasoline	
  tax	
  increases	
  have	
  been	
  politically	
  unpopular.	
  However,	
  
policy	
  makers	
  may	
  become	
  more	
  supportive	
  of	
  higher	
  gasoline	
  taxes	
  as	
  pressure	
  to	
  reduce	
  the	
  federal	
  
budget	
  deficit	
  increases.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                94	
  
Starter	
  Set	
        	
      Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  


                     Misc	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                            95	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                   	
                                                                                       Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                         Public	
  Backlash	
  Inevitable	
  
	
  

Americans	
  already	
  thought	
  the	
  plan	
  happened	
  and	
  no	
  backlash	
  
Fried,	
  10	
  [Ben	
  Fried,	
  July	
  7,	
  2010,	
  “Yes,	
  You	
  Can	
  Move	
  the	
  Needle	
  on	
  Public	
  Support	
  for	
  a	
  Gas	
  Tax	
  
Hike”,	
  (http://streetsblog.net/2010/07/07/yes-­‐you-­‐can-­‐move-­‐the-­‐needle-­‐on-­‐public-­‐support-­‐for-­‐a-­‐
gas-­‐tax-­‐hike/)]	
  
But	
  the	
  big	
  takeaway	
  from	
  the	
  Mineta	
  survey	
  is	
  that	
  a	
  national	
  gas	
  tax	
  hike	
  gains	
  support	
  if	
  you	
  make	
  a	
  strong	
  case	
  for	
  how	
  the	
  revenue	
  will	
  be	
  
spent.	
  Should	
  some	
  national	
  political	
  figure	
  come	
  along	
  and	
  deliver	
  a	
  compelling	
  public	
  message	
  that	
  we	
  need	
  to	
  raise	
  the	
  gas	
  tax	
  to	
  invest	
  in	
  
cleaner,	
  more	
  efficient	
  transportation,	
  move	
  us	
  away	
  from	
  oil	
  addiction,	
  and	
  keep	
  our	
  existing	
  infrastructure	
  from	
  falling	
  apart,	
  who	
  knows,	
  
maybe	
  you	
  could	
  break	
  the	
  50	
  percent	
  threshold.	
  Of	
  course,	
  seeing	
  as	
  how	
  most	
  Americans	
  mistakenly	
  already	
  think	
  the	
  gas	
  tax	
  
goes	
  up	
  regularly,	
  and	
  gas	
  prices	
  have	
  fluctuated	
  within	
  a	
  24-­‐cent	
  range	
  in	
  just	
  the	
  last	
  three	
  months,	
  you	
  could	
  
also	
  reach	
  the	
  conclusion	
  espoused	
  in	
  this	
  classic	
  Infrastructurist	
  post:	
  Just	
  raise	
  the	
  g-­‐dd-­‐mned	
  gas	
  tax	
  already.	
  
	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                              96	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                     	
                                                                                       Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                    No	
  Link—Obama	
  Won’t	
  Push	
  
Normal	
  means	
  is	
  Obama	
  not	
  spending	
  political	
  capital	
  on	
  the	
  plan	
  
Willen	
  2009	
  (Mark,	
  Economist	
  and	
  Political	
  Advisor,	
  “Time	
  to	
  raise	
  gas	
  taxes?	
  You	
  Betcha!”	
  
(http://m.kiplinger.com/article.php?url=%2Fcolumns%2Fwashington%2Farchives%2Ftime_to_raise_g
as_taxes_you_be.html))	
  
The	
  aim	
  of	
  a	
  gas	
  tax	
  isn't	
  just	
  to	
  bring	
  in	
  revenue,	
  though	
  we	
  sure	
  need	
  that.	
  It's	
  also	
  to	
  influence	
  driving	
  habits.	
  As	
  Howard	
  
Gleckman	
  points	
  out	
  in	
  his	
  taxvox	
  blog,	
  when	
  gas	
  hit	
  $4	
  a	
  gallon,	
  it	
  got	
  drivers'	
  attention.	
  They	
  cut	
  back	
  sharply,	
  taking	
  fewer	
  trips	
  and	
  relying	
  
more	
  on	
  public	
  transit	
  when	
  they	
  could.	
  They	
  also	
  stopped	
  buying	
  gas	
  guzzlers	
  and	
  tried	
  to	
  dump	
  those	
  they	
  had,	
  although	
  few	
  could	
  find	
  
buyers	
  for	
  them.	
  Now	
  that	
  gas	
  is	
  cheap	
  again,	
  the	
  trend	
  has	
  reversed,	
  and	
  we're	
  headed	
  back	
  to	
  the	
  driving	
  levels	
  of	
  a	
  year	
  ago.	
  Tom	
  Friedman,	
  
who	
  favors	
  a	
  much	
  bigger	
  gas	
  tax,	
  reports	
  that	
  in	
  December,	
  more	
  Americans	
  bought	
  trucks	
  and	
  SUVs	
  than	
  automobiles.	
  I	
  know	
  a	
  lot	
  of	
  people	
  
think	
  the	
  government	
  has	
  no	
  business	
  trying	
  to	
  shape	
  driving	
  habits.	
  But	
  let's	
  face	
  it.	
  That's	
  exactly	
  the	
  business	
  the	
  government	
  is	
  in	
  -­‐-­‐	
  and	
  it's	
  
about	
  to	
  get	
  far	
  more	
  deeply	
  into	
  it	
  as	
  it	
  bails	
  out	
  U.S.	
  automakers.	
  It	
  just	
  makes	
  no	
  sense	
  to	
  force	
  Detroit	
  to	
  make	
  small,	
  fuel	
  efficient	
  and	
  
hybrid	
  cars	
  if	
  no	
  one	
  wants	
  to	
  buy	
  them.	
  That's	
  throwing	
  taxpayer	
  money	
  down	
  the	
  drain.	
  And	
  investing	
  heavily	
  in	
  research	
  into	
  alternative	
  
energy,	
  as	
  President-­‐elect	
  Obama	
  plans	
  to	
  do,	
  makes	
  no	
  sense	
  if	
  we're	
  not	
  going	
  to	
  try	
  to	
  curb	
  gasoline	
  consumption.	
  And	
  yes,	
  there's	
  also	
  the	
  
not-­‐so-­‐small	
  fact	
  that	
  our	
  national	
  security	
  is	
  closely	
  tied	
  to	
  our	
  reliance	
  on	
  foreign	
  sources	
  of	
  oil.	
  The	
  10-­‐cent	
  increase	
  proposed	
  by	
  the	
  federal	
  
panel,	
  the	
  National	
  Commission	
  on	
  Surface	
  Transportation	
  Infrastructure	
  Financing,	
  is	
  a	
  really	
  tiny	
  step.	
  But	
  it's	
  a	
  start	
  in	
  the	
  right	
  direction.	
  If	
  
history	
  is	
  a	
  guide,	
  it	
  will	
  be	
  ignored.	
  Obama	
  is	
  not	
  likely	
  to	
  waste	
  political	
  capital	
  on	
  an	
  unpopular	
  proposal	
  
that	
  will	
  likely	
  run	
  into	
  stiff	
  Republican	
  opposition.	
  But	
  what's	
  political	
  capital	
  good	
  for	
  if	
  it's	
  not	
  going	
  to	
  be	
  used	
  to	
  make	
  
coherent	
  policy.	
  If	
  we're	
  not	
  serious	
  about	
  using	
  less	
  oil,	
  then	
  we	
  ought	
  to	
  drill	
  everywhere	
  we	
  can	
  for	
  it.	
  If	
  we	
  are	
  serious,	
  let's	
  put	
  together	
  an	
  
energy	
  policy	
  that	
  is	
  consistent	
  and	
  makes	
  some	
  overall	
  sense.	
  
SCFI	
  2012	
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      97	
  
Starter	
  Set	
                                                                                                         	
                                                                                           Gas	
  Tax	
  Aff	
  

                                                                         Elections:	
  Plan	
  hurts	
  Obama	
  
High	
  gas	
  prices	
  are	
  terrible	
  for	
  the	
  incumbent	
  
Reader,	
  12	
  [Stephen	
  Reader,	
  2/27/12,	
  Transportation	
  Nation,	
  WordPress/CalPress,	
  “Will	
  High	
  Gas	
  
Prices	
  Hurt	
  Obama’s	
  Reelection	
  Chances?”	
  (http://transportationnation.org/2012/02/27/will-­‐high-­‐
gas-­‐prices-­‐hurt-­‐obamas-­‐reelection-­‐changes/)]	
  
We’re	
  not	
  sure	
  where	
  the	
  former	
  Speaker	
  is	
  getting	
  his	
  numbers.	
  The	
  Daily	
  Fuel	
  Gauge	
  Report	
  from	
  AAA	
  shows	
  the	
  highest	
  recorded	
  average	
  as	
  
$4.114/gallon,	
  which	
  was	
  in	
  the	
  summer	
  of	
  2008.	
  The	
  current	
  national	
  average	
  is	
  almost	
  50	
  cents	
  less	
  at	
  $3.64/gallon.	
  Still,	
  
such	
  a	
  high	
  number	
  is	
  not	
  good	
  news	
  for	
  Obama.	
  Whether	
  or	
  not	
  rising	
  gas	
  prices	
  are	
  the	
  President’s	
  
fault,	
  incumbent	
  parties	
  tend	
  to	
  fare	
  poorly	
  in	
  elections	
  when	
  consumers	
  feel	
  like	
  they’re	
  paying	
  an	
  arm	
  
and	
  a	
  leg	
  at	
  the	
  pump.	
  But	
  that	
  doesn’t	
  mean	
  incumbent	
  parties	
  fare	
  poorly	
  because	
  of	
  high	
  gas	
  prices,	
  per	
  se.	
  Over	
  at	
  the	
  New	
  York	
  Times’	
  
FiveThirtyEight	
  blog,	
  Nate	
  Silver	
  has	
  found	
  that	
  “higher	
  gas	
  prices	
  mean	
  a	
  poorer	
  performance	
  for	
  the	
  incumbent	
  
party,”	
  but	
  the	
  argument	
  that	
  there’s	
  a	
  direct	
  cause-­‐effect	
  relationship	
  between	
  the	
  two	
  was	
  “fairly	
  weak	
  statistically.”	
  Higher	
  gas	
  prices	
  are	
  
important	
  to	
  the	
  extent	
  that	
  they	
  affect	
  things	
  like	
  G.D.P.,	
  inflation	
  and	
  unemployment.	
  But	
  there	
  isn’t	
  evidence	
  that	
  they	
  
matter	
  above	
  and	
  beyond	
  that…if	
  the	
  economy	
  is	
  growing	
  at	
  4	
  or	
  5	
  percent	
  in	
  2012,	
  unemployment	
  has	
  declined	
  significantly,	
  and	
  inflation	
  
remains	
  tame,	
  gas	
  prices	
  are	
  unlikely	
  to	
  have	
  much	
  effect	
  on	
  Mr.	
  Obama’s	
  prospects.	
  Silver	
  wrote	
  these	
  words	
  about	
  a	
  year	
  ago.	
  Today,	
  we	
  
know	
  that	
  the	
  economy	
  isn’t	
  growing	
  as	
  much	
  as	
  4	
  or	
  5	
  percent	
  (at	
  least	
  not	
  yet);	
  while	
  unemployment	
  may	
  be	
  declining,	
  most	
  Americans	
  
probably	
  wouldn’t	
  call	
  the	
  changes	
  “significant.”	
  But	
  Obama	
  can	
  take	
  some	
  comfort	
  in	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  at	
  least	
  the	
  picture	
  
doesn’t	
  seem	
  to	
  be	
  getting	
  worse.	
  The	
  economy	
  is	
  still	
  growing:	
  Nate	
  Silver	
  points	
  out	
  that	
  in	
  1980,	
  when	
  Jimmy	
  Carter	
  lost	
  re-­‐
election,	
  gas	
  was	
  at	
  an	
  inflation-­‐adjusted	
  $3.37/gallon	
  and	
  GDP	
  was	
  shrinking	
  at	
  a	
  rate	
  of	
  3.7	
  percent.	
  In	
  2008,	
  when	
  John	
  McCain	
  failed	
  to	
  keep	
  
Republican	
  control	
  of	
  the	
  White	
  House	
  and	
  gas	
  was	
  $3.81/gallon,	
  GDP	
  was	
  shrinking	
  at	
  a	
  rate	
  of	
  2.3	
  percent.	
  


Every	
  time	
  gas	
  spikes	
  the	
  incumbent	
  has	
  lost—plan	
  tanks	
  Obama	
  in	
  November	
  
Scherer	
  2012	
  (Rob,	
  Staff	
  writer	
  for	
  CS	
  Monitor	
  “High	
  gas	
  prices:	
  How	
  big	
  a	
  problem	
  for	
  Obama?”	
  
February	
  21st,	
  2012	
  (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0221/High-­‐gas-­‐
prices-­‐How-­‐big-­‐a-­‐problem-­‐for-­‐Obama)	
  
When	
  it	
  comes	
  to	
  gas	
  prices,	
  President	
  Obama	
  is	
  probably	
  watching	
  them	
  rise	
  with	
  just	
  as	
  much	
  consternation	
  as	
  
people	
  who	
  are	
  tanking	
  up	
  every	
  day.	
  The	
  reason:	
  The	
  higher	
  the	
  price,	
  the	
  more	
  unpopular	
  a	
  president,	
  studies	
  have	
  
found.	
  In	
  fact,	
  the	
  last	
  five	
  times	
  gas	
  prices	
  have	
  spiked,	
  the	
  incumbent	
  party	
  has	
  lost	
  the	
  presidential	
  election.	
  
RECOMMENDED:	
  Keystone	
  XL	
  pipeline	
  –	
  6	
  questions	
  answered	
  “If	
  the	
  rising	
  price	
  of	
  gasoline	
  persists,	
  as	
  some	
  analysts	
  think	
  it	
  will,	
  it	
  
is	
  bound	
  to	
  affect	
  [Mr.	
  Obama’s]	
  popularity,”	
  says	
  Larry	
  Sabato,	
  a	
  political	
  scientist	
  at	
  the	
  University	
  of	
  Virginia	
  in	
  Charlottesville.	
  
The	
  five	
  elections	
  where	
  gas	
  prices	
  may	
  have	
  had	
  an	
  impact	
  were	
  in	
  1976,	
  when	
  Gerald	
  Ford	
  lost	
  to	
  Jimmy	
  Carter;	
  in	
  1980,	
  when	
  Mr.	
  Carter	
  lost	
  
to	
  Ronald	
  Reagan;	
  in	
  1992,	
  when	
  George	
  H.W.	
  Bush	
  lost	
  to	
  Bill	
  Clinton;	
  in	
  2000,	
  when	
  Al	
  Gore	
  lost	
  to	
  George	
  W.	
  Bush;	
  and	
  in	
  2008,	
  when	
  John	
  
McCain	
  lost	
  to	
  Obama.	
  On	
  Tuesday,	
  the	
  national	
  average	
  price	
  of	
  gasoline	
  was	
  $3.57	
  a	
  gallon,	
  according	
  to	
  AAA’s	
  Daily	
  Fuel	
  Gauge	
  Report.	
  
That’s	
  up	
  6	
  cents	
  from	
  a	
  week	
  ago	
  and	
  19	
  cents	
  from	
  a	
  month	
  ago.	
  Also	
  on	
  Tuesday,	
  the	
  price	
  of	
  oil	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  rose	
  by	
  about	
  $2.50	
  a	
  
barrel,	
  to	
  some	
  $106	
  a	
  barrel.	
  Oil	
  markets	
  have	
  become	
  increasingly	
  nervous	
  about	
  the	
  possibility	
  of	
  an	
  Israeli	
  attack	
  on	
  Iran’s	
  nuclear	
  facilities.	
  
For	
  every	
  sustained	
  rise	
  of	
  $1	
  in	
  the	
  price	
  of	
  a	
  barrel	
  of	
  crude	
  oil,	
  the	
  price	
  of	
  gas	
  rises	
  2.4	
  cents	
  a	
  gallon	
  at	
  the	
  pump.	
  For	
  Obama,	
  the	
  risk	
  of	
  
rising	
  gasoline	
  prices	
  is	
  even	
  more	
  immediate	
  than	
  Election	
  Day.	
  If	
  the	
  costs	
  continue	
  to	
  rise,	
  they	
  could	
  adversely	
  affect	
  
the	
  economy.	
  “The	
  way	
  it	
  works	
  is	
  when	
  we	
  hit	
  $4	
  a	
  gallon,	
  it	
  starts	
  to	
  have	
  an	
  impact	
  on	
  consumer	
  behavior.	
  It’s	
  like	
  a	
  psychological	
  
trigger,	
  an	
  inflection	
  point,”	
  says	
  Dennis	
  Jacobe,	
  chief	
  economist	
  at	
  Gallup	
  in	
  Washington.	
  “If	
  the	
  price	
  goes	
  past	
  $4	
  a	
  gallon,	
  that	
  will	
  slow	
  the	
  
economy.”	
  A	
  slowing	
  economy	
  could	
  be	
  a	
  big	
  detriment	
  for	
  Obama,	
  Mr.	
  Sabato	
  says.	
  “The	
  economic	
  recovery	
  is	
  fragile	
  
enough,”	
  he	
  says.	
  “There	
  has	
  been	
  nothing	
  but	
  bad	
  times	
  in	
  his	
  administration.	
  A	
  slowdown	
  reduces	
  the	
  incentive	
  to	
  reelect	
  
him.”	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:5
posted:3/11/2013
language:Latin
pages:97