8/14/2019 Shipsey 1NR

1/6

Shipsey 1NR. SLAM DUNK BOOM HEADSHOT

Roadmap:

Inherency and Jobs DA

Justifikashuns

And DA extensions

8/14/2019 Shipsey 1NR

2/6

Inherency: DA so far.

Superfund tax being reinstated. Shipsey concedes but says he implements now so we get

another year of Supertax.

Uniqueness: Tax isnt reinstated until the economy recovers in 2011.

DA: In a time of economic crisis, we cant enact a Job Killer Tax.

DA card with better warrants than the last one here.

Superfund tax will impact the chemical industry in a time of economic crises

Cal Dooley (CEO, American Chemistry Council) Published by National Journal Expert Blogs Energy & Environment athttp://energy.nationaljournal.com/2009/03/should-the-us-resurrect-superf.php. "Should The U.S. Resurrect Superfund?" Published

March 2, 2009; accessed August 29, 2009

The chemistry industry is facing unprecedented financial challenges. ReinstatingSuperfund taxes would unduly impact the business of chemistry at a time of economic

crisis. Reinstating the chemical excise tax would impose a $310 to $450 million cost on

chemical manufacturing every year, even though the products subject to the tax are not

necessarily associated with Superfund cleanups. Reinstating the tax on just two products

chlorine and ammonia would essentially offset any economic return on sales to

current producers, making those segments non-competitive in the global market.

Moreover, an excise tax on chlorine would increase the cost of disinfecting water; while

the cost of fertilizer (which depends on ammonia) would also increase. Reinstating the

corporate environmental income tax would add another tax burden on an industry already

affected by significantly higher fuel and feedstock and increased global competition. TheU.S. is already losing production and jobs to other areas of the world where energy costs

are lower.

Impact: Patrick enacts a job killing Superfund tax before the economy recovers before the

economy recovers which is bad. If you even like the Superfund tax, you should vote neg

because the squo provides all the benefits and avoids the Job Killing DA.

8/14/2019 Shipsey 1NR

3/6

Justification 1: More cleanups.

He says states arent a valid method of comparison. He uses Adler 8 to support his point

by saying the fed sites are waaaaaaaaay bigger. But, he failed to quote the next three or

four sentences that still show that the states are a valid method of comparison.

Adler 8 Shipseys same study

Without question, some so-called mega sites in the federal program are the largest, mostcomplex, and most difficult sites to remediate in the nation. Such sites may demand continuedfederal involvement. Yet there is no reasons states cannot assume greater authority for themajority of sites now handled under the federal Superfund program. Transferring primaryregulatory authority over hazardous waste to state and local governments could lead tosubstantial environmental improvements. A lessening of federal regulatory requirements couldinduce states to further enhance their own programs.153 Furthermore, insofar as hazardous wastepolicy involves trade-offs among competing subjective values, decentralized control would lead

to greater accountability and consideration of competing environmental policy goals.

MPX: States still work on more and do more. No significant increase in cleanups.

Response 2: Shipsey talks about states having more resources not true.

1. According to Newswire, a national news release service, in 1995, State action is

better.

Newswire (U.S. Newswire is a U.S. national news release wire service established in 1986 and distributes media materials on

behalf of a variety of customers particularly the U.S. government and non-profit agencies.)

Published at http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-18827932.html."Think Tank Says 'Turn Superfund Over to States'; State-Level Cleanup Programs Cost Less, Take Less Time Than Federal

Program" Published September 18, 1995; accessed December 22, 2009

"Dr. J. Winston Porter, president of the Waste Policy Center in Leesburg, Va. and authorof the study that recommends that Superfund be turned over to the states where over 40states already have their own waste site cleanup programs. According to Porter, "Thestates are spending about $700 million annually working on about 11,000 sites, while theEPA spends approximately $1 billion annually dealing with about 1,000 sites. Whilefederal Superfund sites can sit in limbo for over a decade before cleanup begins, state-level cleanup programs, such as those in Minnesota, can routinely take only two or threeyears."

We see that states clean more with less

Response 3: More cleanups does NOTHING. Theres no risk in the first place.

Most Superfund "risks" don't pose a threat to human health.

Cross apply 2NC cards saying that the sites left on the NPL pose ZERO risk to human

health.

8/14/2019 Shipsey 1NR

4/6

Impact: NO Decrease in health risks. No unique offence. No justifications. AND a neg

ballot.

Justification 2: Preemption eliminates abuse because it triggers my DA. Hes dead now.

Turn all his responses on eliminating abuse because of a threat of trial because hesadvocating those unjust trials. The only reason that any abuse could be eliminated is

because hes threatening to try them with the unfair trial system.

Justification 3: Environmental Justice. Im going to turn this even harder. Right now, he

cant prove any tangible impacts for minorities waiting for cleanups and I turn

environmental justice with the lack of due process. But now lets look at how the opinion of

Minorities is the ONLY deciding factor in what gets cleaned up with Superfund.

1. Political Pressure is the ONLY factor in determining cleanups

Daniel K. Benjamin (Research Fellow at the Independant Institute and the Property and Environment Research Center.)Published at http://www.perc.org/articles/article415.php.

"Superfund Follies" [PERC Reports: Volume 17,

No.4]. Published December 1,1999; accessed January 26, 2010

"What could possibly lead to such abysmal decision-making by the EPA? The answer, itseems, is plain old politics. Viscusi and Hamilton use local voter turnout as their proxyfor political pressure. They find that higher turnout pushes the EPA into morestringent cleanups--and does so in the worst possible manner. For sites with cost-

effectiveness at the median or better, political forces actually have little effect. But at

the most inefficient sites, where costs per cancer case averted are in the billions,

political factors have their strongest effect. Thus, in answer to the question: does

politics matter in determining EPA policy, the answer is "yes"--by inducing local

EPA managers to pursue ridiculously costly cleanups. For anyone who doubts thatSuperfund ranks with the worst of Congress's policy choices, I can only hope that thisstudy will end their skepticism."

Impact: Political will is the only reason for tougher cleanups.

So now Environmental Justice has been turned with a massive DA. Inherency has linked

me with a jobs loss DA. His other two Justifications are totally shot and now lets extend

the waste DA.

1. Can solve 99.5% of cancers with 5% of expenditures

Daniel K. Benjamin (Research Fellow at the Independant Institute and the Property and Environment Research Center.)Published at http://www.perc.org/articles/article415.php.

"Superfund Follies" [PERC Reports: Volume 17,

No.4]. Published December 1, 1999; accessed January 26, 2010

"In a study actually funded by the EPA, Kip Viscusi and James Hamilton (1999)

have found that EPA cleanups of Superfund sites cost an average of almost $12

billion for every cancer case prevented. Even more amazing is that virtually all--99.5

8/14/2019 Shipsey 1NR

5/6

percent--of the cancer cases that will be averted by EPA efforts are prevented by the

first 5 percent of the agency's expenditures. The remaining 95 percent of

expenditures avert only 0.5 percent of the cancer cases--at a cost per case of an

astonishing $200 billion."

If waste didnt flow NEG at the end of the 2AC. It absolutely does now. With its total of 30

billion dollars in expenditures, Superfund, according to these numbers, has averted a

grand total of two maybe three cancer cases. MPX: No substantial cleanup

improvements.

Overview of the round so far.

8/14/2019 Shipsey 1NR

6/6

Inh. Shipsey concedes that Prez Obama will pass by 2011. Squo avoids economics DA and

if Obama doesnt pass, Squo doesnt funnel money into a failed black hole. Shipsey

however, passes the plan now triggering huge job losses.

Justification 1: More cleanups. Not only does Patrick link to no increases in health benefits,

he doesnt provide ANY advantages. Cr of net benefits fails and instead we have a net disadthrough Jobs loss, Waste, and Injustice DAs.

Justification 2: Preemption Effect How its flowing now Preemption effect only happens

because of absolutely terrible injustice. There isnt a risk to the sites, AND people who

didnt even pollute the sites are being forced to pay.

Justification 3: Environmental justice straight turned. Environmental injustice and his

evidence doesnt have any articulated impact and no health risks impacts as Ive shown

there ARE NO health risks. Further, political pressure is the ONLY deciding factor in the

pace of cleanups and how well things are cleaned up.

DA 1. Waste : Flowing neg because Superfund has stopped a max of 3 cancer cases with 30

billion dollars. I carry articulated impacts, this alone is a net DA. Shipsey will argue

uniqueness but the fact remains were throwing more money into a black hole.

DA 2. Injustice. Flat conceded in the 2AC Shipsey stands ZERO chance of getting out of

this one as hes conceded uniqueness that Superfund cant sue in the squo. DA 2 flows neg

also.

DA 3. Nuclear war. I win also because with Shipsey bleeding out at the feet of Hillary

Clinton, hes been smacked by a WOMAN PRESIDENT because shed succeed Obama ifhe gets Biden and Pelosi also. (Worse impacts if Shipsey doesnt get Pelosi).

Youre voting neg.