Novice High Speed Rail Affirmative
Confused? Yes you are.
Don’t be.
Modernliuassociation@gmail.com.
Questions go here.
Thanks,
Eric Liu
1AC
1AC – Plan Text
The United States federal government should substantially increase investment in a
high-speed rail network in the United States.
1AC – Inherency
Contention 1 is inherency
The federal government has refused to fund high speed rail, or HSR
Joel Fox, Editor of Fox & Hounds and President of the Small Business Action Committee, “You Can’t
Build High Speed Rail With No Money”, Fox and Hounds, April 18, 12.
http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2012/04/you-cant-build-high-speed-rail-with-no-money/
The Legislative Analyst’s “concern” that funding
is not available for the High Speed Rail (HSR) comes at the same time
federal government – a source counted on for HSR funds — appears to be turning against the High
Speed Rail. Yesterday, the subcommittee on Transportation under the Appropriations Committee of
the United States Senate put a hold on HSR federal funds for the 2013 fiscal year. Ken Orski, editor and
publisher of Innovation News Briefs, which follows transportation issues on Capitol Hill, says the full committee usually
follows the sub committee’s recommendations. Orski stated, “The Democrat-controlled Senate
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, which usually marches in lock step with the White
House, has disallowed all of the Administration’s FY 2013 request for high speed rail ($4
billion). Of the total $1.75 billion federal rail budget, the Senate Subcommittee has allocated
$1.45 billion for Amtrak and $100 million for the High Performance Passenger Rail grant program to
assist with the improvement of existing intercity services and multi-state planning initiatives. The House appropriators, of course,
have never intended to vote any money for HSR in FY 2013, but the Senate action puts an end to
any hopes that a House-Senate conference might provide even a token amount for high-speed rail
in the FY 2013 federal budget.”
that the
1AC – Warming
Contention 2 is warming
Warming is anthropogenic – Emission reductions through rail are key to stabilize
current increases
CER and UIC, Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies and International
Union of Railways, “Rail Transport and Environment: Fact & Figures”, Novemember 08
In its latest assessment report (AR4) in November 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) said that warming of the climate system “is unequivocal”. Global greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions due to human activities have grown since pre-industrial times, with an increase
of 70% between 1970 and 2004 alone. This development has led to clear changes in temperatures
and average sea level compared to the standard period used (1961-1990), as shown in the graph below.
An additional temperature rise of between 1°C and 4°C is projected between 2000-2100,
depending on the level of stabilisation of GHG emissions. CO2 is the major greenhouse gas
contributing to global warming and climate change; it is emitted by both natural and anthropogenic
sources. The Kyoto Protocol regulates five GHGs beside carbon dioxide: methane (CH4), nitrous oxide
(N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6). In March
2007, the European heads of state agreed to set precise, legally binding targets in a move to
reduce Europe-wide emissions by 20% over the 1990-2020 period and keep overall warming below
the widely accepted 2 degrees “threshold”. The European Commission put forward legislation on
achieving this in January 2008. EU transport sector today Transport causes around one quarter of all
EU CO2 emissions. Between 1990 and 2005, EU-15 GHG emissions from domestic transport
(journeys inside EU only) increased by 26%. More than 90% of total domestic transport emissions
are due to road transport. Rail only accounts for 0.6% for diesel emissions and for less than 2%
including emissions for electricity production. EU transport sector tomorrow Despite multiple initiatives
the transport sector is projected to remain the fastest growing sector when it comes to CO2
emissions. At the UN meeting (the so-called Conference of the Parties, “COP13”) in Bali (December
2007), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) confirmed that total
CO2 emission reduction targets cannot be met without limiting transport emissions. Rail CO2
performance From 1990 to 2005 the European railways cut their CO2 emissions by 21% in
absolute terms. For specific emissions (i.e. emissions per passenger-km or tonne-km) during the same
period, the railways reduced their CO2 emissions per passenger-km by 14%, and per tonne-km by 28%.
In May 2008, the members of CER agreed to a target of an average sector-wide cut of 30% in specific
emissions over the 1990-2020 period. The table below shows the difference between 1990 and 2005 for
rail transport passenger and freight. Freight transport CO2 comparison The table below compares the total
CO2 emissions from transporting 100 tons of average goods from Basel, Switzerland to the port of
Rotterdam, Netherlands. CO2 emissions from rail are almost 8 times less than lorries and 4 times
less than inland waterways (www.ecotransit.org). Passenger transport CO2 comparison For passenger
transport, going by rail is on average 4 times more efficient than taking the car and more than 3
times better than taking the plane. The table below compares the total CO2 emissions from
transporting 1 passenger between Berlin and Frankfurt city centres in Germany.
Studies prove HSR would reduce a substantial amount of emissions
C enter for C lean A ir P olicy/ C enter for N eighborhood T echnology, January 06 (High Speed Rail
and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the U.S., p. 1)
High speed rail is often cited as a solution to many transportation problems: It can reduce congestion
on roads and at airports, is cost effective and convenient, improves mobility and has environmental
benefits. While greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are likely to be reduced as travelers switch to
high speed rail from other modes of travel, little modeling has been done to estimate this potential
impact in the U.S. Those estimates that have been made simply assume a percentage of trips nationally
will be diverted to rail from other modes. The Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) and the
Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) have, alternatively, estimated on a corridor-by-corridor basis the
annual GHG benefits of high speed rail systems in the U.S. using current plans for high speed rail
development in the federally designated high speed rail corridors. To estimate high speed rail’s net
emissions impact, we calculated the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions saved from passengers
switching to high speed rail from other modes (air, conventional rail, automobile and bus) and
subtracted the estimated emissions generated by high speed rail. Our calculations were based on
passenger projections and diversion rates for each corridor and typical emissions rates for each mode of
travel, including several different high speed rail technologies. Current projections show that passengers
would take 112 million trips on high speed rail in the U.S. in 2025, traveling more than 25 billion
passenger miles. This would result in 29 million fewer automobile trips and nearly 500,000 fewer
flights. We calculated a total emissions savings of 6 billion pounds of CO2 per year (2.7
MMTCO2) if all proposed high speed rail systems studied for this project are built. Savings from
cancelled automobile and airplane trips are the primary sources of the emissions savings; together
these two modes make up 80 percent of the estimated emissions savings from all modes. Our modeling
shows that high speed rail, if built as planned, will generate substantial GHG savings in all
regions. The total emissions savings vary greatly by corridor, however, as do the source of those savings.
In some regions, such as the Midwest, the impact on air travel is likely to be modest; our analysis shows
just a 7 percent decrease in flights from today’s levels. In California, on the other hand, 19 million
passengers are projected to switch from air—a volume that would result in 114 percent of today’s 192
million annual direct flights in the corridor being cancelled. Such ridership levels may be an overestimate,
or may be possible if projected growth in air travel and indirect flights, including those from outside the
corridor are included. To draw so many air passengers to rail will certainly require that high speed rail
ticket prices be competitive with air and that service be as convenient and time-efficient. It is worth
further study to see if such high levels of mode shifting are likely. In some respects, the California
system, as it is currently planned, represents what will be the second generation of high speed rail in many
of the other corridors. While areas like the Pacific Northwest may increase ridership sooner with an
incremental approach to high speed rail that uses existing rail routes, the success of a new high speed rail
system like California’s could prove the value of faster trains with higher upfront capital costs.
HSR would significantly reduce miles driven by polluting and carbon emitting
automobiles – It demonstrates dealing with global warming
Sam Schwartz et al, Gerard Soffian, Jee Mee Kim, and Annie Weinstock, President and CEO, Sam
Schwartz Engineering (SSE), a multi-disciplinary consulting firm specializing in traffic and transportation
engineering, Assistant Commissioner, Division of Traffic Management, New York City Department of
Transportation, Vice President, Sam Schwartz Engineering, Senior Transportation Planner for Sam
Schwartz Engineering, “Symposium: Breaking the Logjam: Environmental Reform for the New Congress
and Administration: Panel V: Urban Issues: A Comprehensive Transportation Policy for the 21st Century:
A Case Study of Congestion Pricing in New York City,” New York University Environmental Law
Journal, 2008, 17 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 580
Transportation funding at the Federal level plays a direct role in environmental protection as cars
and other vehicles contribute significantly to urban air pollution by producing CO2, the primary
pollutant attributed to global climate change. Pricing strategies that consider the true costs of travel, such as congestion
pricing measures in urban areas, as well as increased aviation
fees and rail investment, particularly between well-traveled
metropolitan areas, are direct measures that could reduce VMT while funding transit and rail. To
achieve reductions in VMT between metropolitan areas less than 500 miles apart, rail needs to
become a more affordable and convenient alternative to flying. This is a significant challenge as
the cost of flying has become cheaper and more affordable in recent years due to the rise of bargain airlines and shrinking rail
subsidies. Despite the Federal trend steering some funding away from traditional highway projects, the table below shows that the annual
lion's share of Federal funding is directed at highways ($ 34 billion), with air travel receiving a little less than half that
amount ($ 13.8 billion) (see Table 5). Meanwhile, rail funding is just a meager $ 360 million, or 1 percent of
highway allocation and 3 percent of air funding. Of the $ 13.8 billion in air travel funding, $ 2.4 billion was allocated
towards infrastructure development, capital improvements and efficiency. In fact, there are more than [*606] one hundred locales in the U.S. that
receive federally subsidized airline service. n44 In contrast, funding for passenger rail in 2001 was at its lowest level in over ten years. Adjusted
for inflation, passenger rail in 2003 received less than two-thirds of what it was getting twenty years ago, while funding for highways and
aviation have doubled. n45 Air travelers contribute little to the cost of providing public services. Some critics have proposed imposing an aviation
tax to offset some of these externalities. In fact, Britain's Department for Transport suggested in December 2000 that if these hidden costs were
included, air travel demand would decrease by 3 to 5 percent, equal to a tax of about £ 1 billion. Further, the European Environment Agency has
suggested that total external cost of [*607] British aviation alone is about £ 6 billion per year. Advisor to the British government on the
economics of climate change, Sir Nicholas Stern, has argued that if, for example, the environmental cost of each ton of CO2 emitted were priced
at $ 85, one London-Miami return flight emitting approximately two tons of CO2 per passenger would need to add $ 170 to the current price. n46
Similar pricing strategies have been proposed (beyond congestion pricing) to account for the true cost of driving. Although it is impossible to
calculate the precise cost of these externalities, some conservative estimates show them adding up to 22 cents for every mile Americans drive. At
22 cents per mile, a gas tax of $ 6.60 a gallon would be necessary to make drivers fully pay for the cost that car travel imposes on the economy.
n47 To
increase public usage of rail, Federal subsidies must increase, including investments to
infrastructure , as well as the development of new high speed rail service. To further institute a system
where travel is more accurately priced to reflect its true cost, the cost of flying must increase. In recent years, Americans have become
increasingly enlightened to the problems facing the environment and are likely to be more open than ever to changes in the functioning of their
transportation system. In facing the lead-up to the 2009 reauthorization of the federal transportation bill, Congress
now has the
opportunity to provide leadership on a host of transportation reforms. Measures such as congestion
pricing and an increased investment in regional rail could be instrumental in reducing overall VMT
and, as a result, in decreasing emissions. Such steps are imperative in addressing global climate
change and the long-term impacts of man on the environment.
VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled
Warming is anthropogenic and causes human extinction – Disease, species loss and
sea level rise destroy Earth’s life support systems
Deibel, IR at the Naval War College, 07 (Terry – international relations at the Naval War College,
Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic of American Statecraft, Conclusion: American Foreign Affairs Strategy
Today, p. 387-390)
Finally, there is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of a
nonviolent nature, which, though far in the future, demands urgent action. It is the threat of global
warming to the stability of the climate upon which all earthly life depends. Scientists worldwide have
been observing the gathering of this threat for three decades now, and what was once a mere
possibility has passed through probability to near certainty . Indeed not one of more than
900 articles on climate change published in refereed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003
doubted that anthropogenic warming is occurring. “In legitimate scientific circles,” writes
Elizabeth Kolbert, “it is virtually impossible to find evidence of disagreement over the
fundamentals of global warming.” Evidence from a vast international scientific monitoring effort
accumulates almost weekly, as this sample of newspaper reports shows: an international panel predicts
“brutal droughts, floods and violent storms across the planet over the next century”; climate change could
“literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge portions of Alpine Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera
and malaria”; “glaciers in the Antarctic and in Greenland are melting much faster than expected,
and…worldwide, plants are blooming several days earlier than a decade ago”; “rising sea temperatures
have been accompanied by a significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes”; “NASA
scientists have concluded from direct temperature measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record,
with 1998 a close second”; “Earth’s warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000
deaths and 5 million illnesses each year” as disease spreads; “widespread bleaching from Texas to
Trinidad…killed broad swaths of corals” due to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures. “The world is slowly
disintegrating,” concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. “They
call it climate change…but we just call it breaking up.” From the founding of the first cities some
6,000 years ago until the beginning of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels in the
atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million (ppm). At present they are
accelerating toward 400 ppm , and by 2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about double pre-industrial
levels. Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so there is no way immediately to reduce
levels, only to slow their increase, we are thus in for significant global warming; the only debate is
how much and how serious the effects will be . As the newspaper stories quoted above show, we
are already experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree warming in more violent storms, spread of disease,
mass die offs of plants and animals, species extinction, and threatened inundation of low-lying
countries like the Pacific nation of Kiribati and the Netherlands at a warming of 5 degrees or less the
Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could disintegrate, leading to a sea level of rise of 20 feet that
would cover North Carolina’s outer banks, swamp the southern third of Florida, and inundate Manhattan
up to the middle of Greenwich Village. Another catastrophic effect would be the collapse of the Atlantic
thermohaline circulation that keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer than its latitude would
otherwise allow. Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to the United States alone from
moderate levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming could cost 13-26 percent of
GDP. But the most frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse warming, based on positive
feedback from the buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere that is both caused by and causes hotter
surface temperatures. Past ice age transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree changes in average
global temperatures, took place in just decades, even though no one was then pouring ever-increasing
amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Faced with this specter, the best one can conclude is that
“humankind’s continuing enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing
Russian roulette with the earth’s climate and humanity’s life support system . At worst, says
physics professor Marty Hoffert of New York University, “we’re just going to burn everything
up ; we’re going to heat the atmosphere to the temperature it was in the Cretaceous when there were
crocodiles at the poles, and then everything will collapse .” During the Cold War, astronomer Carl
Sagan popularized a theory of nuclear winter to describe how a thermonuclear war between the Untied
States and the Soviet Union would not only destroy both countries but possible end life on this planet.
Global warming is the post-Cold War era’s equivalent of nuclear winter at least as serious and
considerably better supported scientifically . Over the long run it puts dangers from terrorism
and traditional military challenges to shame. It is a threat not only to the security and prosperity to the
United States, but potentially to the continued existence of life on this planet .
Even a one percent risk of warming should not be accepted – The consequences are
too great
Strom, professor emeritus of planetary science at Arizona, 07 (Robert, Hot House: Global Climate
Change and the Human Condition, p. 246)
Keep in mind that the current consequences of global warming discussed in previous chapters are the
result of a global average temperature increase of only 0.5 'C above the 1951-1980 average, and these
consequences are beginning to accelerate. Think about what is in store for us when the average global
temperature is 1 °C higher than today. That is already in the pipeline, and there is nothing we can do to
prevent it. We can only plan strategies for dealing with the expected consequences, and reduce our
greenhouse gas emissions by about 60% as soon as possible to ensure that we don't experience even
higher temperatures. There is also the danger of eventually triggering an abrupt climate change that
would accelerate global warming to a catastrophic level in a short period of time . If that
were to happen we would not stand a chance. Even if that possibility had only a 1% chance of
occurring, the consequences are so dire that it would be insane not to act. Clearly we cannot afford
to delay taking action by waiting for additional research to more clearly define what awaits us. The time
for action is now.
1AC – Oil
Contention 3 is oil
HSR increases transportation energy efficiency and frees us from dependence on oil
Petra Todorovich et al, Daniel Schned, and Robert Lane, director of America 2050, associate planner
for America 2050 and senior fellow for urban design at Regional Plan Association and founding principal
of Plan & Process LLP, “High-Speed Rail International Lessons for U.S. Policy Makers”, Lincoln
Institute of Land Policy, 2011
High-speed rail has the potential to provide greater environmental benefits and energy
efficiencies than other modes of long distance travel. However, several conditions must be met to obtain these benefits.
Energy efficiency and ridership: High-speed rail offers greater operating efficiency on a per passenger mile basis than
competing modes, such as single-occupancy automobiles or airplanes that require significant amounts of fuel to get off the ground.
For example, Shinkansen trains are estimated to use one-quarter the energy of airplanes and one-sixth that of private automobiles per passenger
mile (JR Central 2011a). To achieve environmental benefits, highspeed trains must maximize load factors to realize the greatest efficiencies. As
highspeed rail ridership increases, so does its relative energy efficiency, whereas a high-speed train carrying
no passengers ceases to be efficient in any sense. In regions where the number of total trips is not growing, high-speed rail can bring
about a net reduction of energy use through mode shift by capturing passengers from automobile
or airplane trips. In regions like California where population and trips are projected to keep growing, highspeed rail can help reduce the
energy and climate impacts on a per passenger basis through a combination of mode shift and attracting new passengers to high-speed rail.
Energy mix: High-speed
rail is the only available mode of long-distance travel that currently is not
dependent on motor fuels. High-speed rail is powered by electricity, which is not without environmental
problems depending on its source (see table 2). If it is powered by electricity generated from fossil fuels, such as coal or natural gas that discharge
harmful greenhouse gas emissions, then its environmental benefits are limited. However, electricity
is generally considered an
improvement over petroleum- generated power and provides a crucial advantage as the United
States aims to reduce its dependence on foreign oil. Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor and parts of the Keystone Corridor
(connecting Harrisburg, Pennsylvania to Philadelphia) are electrified. Most other conventional passenger trains in America operate on freight rail
lines and are powered by diesel fuel. Energy
planning needs to be a part of the planning for high-speed rail to
ensure the reduction of greenhouse gases and other harmful pollutants. Even with the current energy mix
that includes fossil fuel sources, however, high-speed rail can yield significant environmental benefits. A
recent study by the University of Pennsylvania (2011) found that a new high-speed line in the Northeast Corridor,
powered by electricity from the current energy mix, would divert nearly 30 million riders from cars and planes, attract 6 million new
riders, and still reduce car emissions of carbon monoxide by more than 3 million tons annually. The
system would also result in a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions if the energy mix were shifted to low
carbon emitting sources.
HSR is the only option to reduce oil dependency – Failure to do so results in
economic collapse and resource wars
Perl, 11/19/11 (Anthony – professor of Urban Studies and Political Science at Simon Fraser University,
How Green is High-Speed Rail, CNN, p. http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/18/world/how-green-ishsr/index.html)
Any debate about the future of high-speed rail must consider where this mobility option fits into the 'big
picture' of how transportation systems meet looming economic, energy and environmental challenges. In
a world where 95% of motorized mobility is currently fueled by oil, high-speed rail offers a
proven means of reducing dependence on this increasingly problematic energy source. This value
of using proven electric propulsion technology should not be underestimated when both the time and
money to deploy energy alternatives are in short supply. In our recent book Transport Revolutions,
Richard Gilbert and I documented the economic, environmental and political dividends to be gained from
replacing the internal combustion engines powering today's aircraft, cars, and motor vehicles with traction
motors that can be powered by multiple energy sources delivered through the electric grid. Since
electricity is an energy carrier, it can be generated from a mix of sources that incorporate the growing
share of geothermal, hydro, solar, and wind energy that will be produced in the years ahead. And because
electric motors are three to four times more efficient than internal combustion engines, an immediate
improvement will precede introducing renewable energy into transportation. Grid-connected traction
offers the only realistic option for significantly reducing oil use in transportation over the next
10 years. If such a shift does not begin during this decade , the risk of a global economic
collapse and/or geo-political conflict over the world's remaining oil reserves would become
dangerously elevated . Making a significant dent in transportation's oil addiction within 10
years is sooner than fuel cells, biofuels, battery-electric vehicles and other alternative
energy technologies will be ready to deliver change. Biofuels that could power aircraft now cost
hundreds of dollars per gallon to produce. Batteries that a big enough charge to power vehicles
between cities are still too big and expensive to make electric cars and buses affordable. But gridconnected electric trains have been operating at scale and across continents for over a century. And
when the Japanese introduced modern high-speed trains through their Shinkansen, in 1964, the utility of
electric trains was greatly extended. Since the 1980s, countries across Asia and Europe have been
building new high-speed rail infrastructure to deploy electric mobility between major cities up to
1,000 kilometers apart. For intercity trips between 200 and 1,000 kilometers, high-speed trains have
proven their success in drawing passengers out of both cars and planes, as well as meeting new
travel demand with a much lower carbon footprint than driving or flying could have done. If we are
serious about reducing oil's considerable risks to global prosperity and sustainability, we will not
miss the opportunity offered by high-speed rail to decrease transportation's oil consumption
sooner, rather than later .
Economic distress and oil scarcity cause conflicts of desperation that escalate to
nuclear war
Bearden, 6/12/00 (Thomas – Association of Distinguished American Scientists and LTC, U.S. Army
(Retired), Why The Energy Crisis Needlessly Exists and How to Solve It, p.
www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Unnecessary%20Energy%20Crisis.doc)
History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse,
the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the
point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction ( WMD ) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost
certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea [7] launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea,
including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China--whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach
the United States--attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other
nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic
nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such
extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries
are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this
side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch
immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As
the studies
showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs . Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be
unleashed, are already on site within the United States itself [8]. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy
civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades. My personal estimate is that, beginning about 2007,
on our present energy course we will have reached an 80% probability of this "final destruction of civilization itself" scenario occurring at any
time, with the probability slowly increasing as time passes. One may argue about the timing, slide the dates a year or two, etc., but the basic
premise and general time frame holds. We
face not only a world economic crisis, but also a world destruction crisis . So
unless we dramatically and quickly solve the energy crisis — rapidly replacing a substantial part of the "electrical power derived
from oil" by "electrical power freely derived from the vacuum" — we are going to incur the final "Great
Armageddon " the nations of the world have been fearing for so long. I personally regard this as the greatest strategic threat
of all times — to the United States, the Western World, all the rest of the nations of the world, and civilization itself { } { }. What Is Required to
Solve the Problem To
avoid the impending collapse of the world economy and/or the destruction of civilization and the
biosphere, we must quickly replace much of the "electrical energy from oil" heart of the crisis at great speed, and
simultaneously replace a significant part of the " transportation using oil products " factor also.
1AC – Solvency
Contention 4 is solvency
More investment is key to dedicated HSR and resolves the problems of emissions
and oil dependence
Phillip Longman, senior fellow at New America Foundation, “Back on Tracks: A nineteenth-century
technology could be the solution to our twenty-first-century problems.” Washington Monthly, Jan/Feb 09
For now, Virginia lacks the resources to build its "steel wheel interstate," but that could change quickly. Thanks to the collapsing economy, a
powerful new consensus has developed in Washington behind a once-in-a-generation investment
in infrastructure. The incoming administration is talking of spending as much as $1 trillion to jumpstart growth and make up for past neglect, an outlay that Obama himself characterizes as "the single largest new investment in our national
infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s." We’ll soon be moving earth again like it’s 1959. By all rights,
America’s dilapidated rail lines ought to be a prime candidate for some of that spending. All over the
country there are opportunities like the I-81/Crescent Corridor deal, in which relatively modest amounts of capital could unclog massive traffic
bottlenecks, revving up the economy while saving energy and lives. Many of these projects have already begun, like Virginia’s, or are sitting on
planners’ shelves and could be up and running quickly. And if we’re willing to think bigger and more long term—and we should be—the
potential of a twenty-first-century rail system is truly astonishing. In a study recently presented to the National
Academy of Engineering, the Millennium Institute, a nonprofit known for its expertise in energy and environmental modeling, calculated the
likely benefits of an expenditure
of $250 billion to $500 billion on improved rail infrastructure. It found that
such an investment would get 83 percent of all long-haul trucks off the nation’s highways by 2030,
while also delivering ample capacity for high-speed passenger rail. If high-traffic rail lines were also electrified
and powered in part by renewable energy sources, that investment would reduce the nation’s carbon emission by
39 percent and oil consumption by 15 percent. By moderating the growing cost of logistics, it
would also leave the nation’s economy 10 percent larger by 2030 than it would otherwise be.* Yet despite this
astounding potential, virtually no one in Washington is talking about investing any of that $1 trillion in freight rail capacity. Instead, almost all
the talk out of the Obama camp and Congress has been about spending for roads and highway bridges, projects made necessary in large measure
by America’s overreliance on pavement-smashing, traffic-snarling, fossil-fuel-guzzling trucks for the bulk of its domestic freight transport. This
could be an epic mistake. Just as the Interstate Highway System changed, for better and for worse, the economy and the landscape of America, so
too will the investment decisions Washington is about to make. The
choice of infrastructure projects is de facto
industrial policy; it’s also de facto energy, land use, housing, and environmental policy, with
implications for nearly every aspect of American life going far into the future. On the doorstep of
an era of infrastructure spending unparalleled in the past half century, we need to conceive of a transportation
future in which each mode of transport is put to its most sensible use, deployed collaboratively instead of
competitively. To see what that future could look like, however, we need to look first at the past.
Federal commitment to HSR is necessary for a long-term program that attracts
private revenue – Funding ensures a complete system
Todorovich, et al., Schned and Lane 11 (Petra – director of America 2050, Daniel – associate planner
for America 2050, and Robert, High-Speed Rail: International Lessons for U.S. Policy Makers, Policy
Focus Report, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, p. 46-47)
Like other modes of transportation and public goods, high-speed rail generally does not pay for itself
through ticket fares and other operating revenues. Reliable federal funding is needed for some
portion of the upfront capital costs of constructing rail infrastructure, but operating revenues
frequently cover operating and maintenance costs. Two well-known examples of highly successful
high-speed rail lines—the Tokyo– Osaka Shinkansen and Paris–Lyon TGV—generate an operating
profit (JR Central 2010; Gow 2008). German high-speed trains also have been profitable on an
operating basis, with revenues covering 100 percent of maintenance costs and 30 percent of new
track construction (University of Pennsylvania 2011). Moreover, as long as the HSIPR Program combines
funding for both high-speed and conventional rail, federal grants, not loans, will be required to support its
initiatives. Since conventional rail services are likely to need continued operating subsidies, it is even
more important to secure a federal funding source for capital infrastructure costs. A small but reliable
transportation tax for high-speed and conventional passenger rail would demonstrate the federal
government’s commitment to a comprehensive rail program, giving states the assurance they
need to plan high-speed rail projects and equipment manufacturers the confidence they require
to invest in the industry. The challenge of securing revenue for rail investments is closely linked to the
chal-lenge of funding the nation’s entire surface transportation program. While in the past revenues
from the federal motor fuel taxes were sufficient to cover the nation’s highway and transit
priorities, the 18.4 cents per gallon gasoline tax has been fixed since 1993, while the dollar has lost onethird of its purchasing power in that time (RAND Corporation 2011). New sources of sustainable
revenue are needed to support not only high-speed and conventional passenger rail but also all of the
nation’s surface transportation obligations, including highways and transit. In recent years, Congress has
addressed the funding shortfall with short-term fixes by transferring general fund revenues to the highway
trust fund. However, the need to find a long-term solution presents the opportunity to address
existing surface transportation needs and high-speed and passenger rail all at once. At some point in the
near future, Congress must address the shortfall in national transportation funding. At that time
legislators could also dedicate revenues for high-speed and passenger rail as part of the surface
transportation program, generated by a variety of small increases or reallocations of current
transportation-related fees to provide at least $5 billion in annual funds.
HSR is an optimal transportation that strengthens the economy while reducing
environmental impacts – Federal leadership and funding is key to fully realize its
benefits
Darren A. Prum and Sarah L. Catz, Assistant Professor, The Florida State University ** Director,
Center for Urban Infrastructure; Research Associate, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of
California, Irvine, 11, ARTICLE: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION TARGETS AND MASS
TRANSIT: CAN THE GOVERNMENT SUCCESSFULLY ACCOMPLISH BOTH WITHOUT A
CONFLICT?, Santa Clara Law Review, 2011, 51 Santa Clara L. Rev. 935
After electric generation, transportation in
the United States is the second largest as well as the second fastest
growing source of greenhouse gas emissions.164 Smarter transportation policies could reduce
congestion and emissions and help revitalize the economy jointly.165 As a result, HSR often
receives mention as a solution to reducing congestion, increasing mobility, and helping clean up
the environment through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; yet in most jurisdictions, transportation
policies fail to take on this issue.166 Colin Peppard, the deputy director of Federal Transportation Policy at the
National Resource Defense Council, echoed this sentiment when he stated, “Most states’ transportation departments seem to be
ignoring their important role in stopping climate change. If states considered all their transportation policy options,
they could tap into tremendous potential to reduce carbon emissions, even with limited resources.”16 Supporting this notion, a recent
report released by Smart Growth America, concluded that most states do not make any effort to connect
transportation policy with climate change and energy goals; some even put in place systems that effectively sabotage these
goals. 168 The report found that current transportation policy in most states will likely worsen
greenhouse gas emission trends in the United States.169 As such, if we want to strive for a better transportation system that
can reduce carbon emissions at the same time, state and federal transportation policies cannot work at odds with
carbon reduction efforts.170 Otherwise, states are at risk both environmentally and economically.171 Keeping these perspectives in mind, both
direct and indirect economic and environmental benefits of HSR represent an important
convergence of policy objectives and an opportunity to shift the terms of the debate by demonstrating
how a transformative, large--‐scale infrastructure project would contribute favorably to both
desired outcomes. A project’s positive economic impact deserves a more thorough analysis and understanding by not only regional
planners and policymakers but also the public at large. While many of the states planning for HSR systems have run out of highway capacity and
have seen their mobility almost completely diminish, creative solutions still exist; but they require ingenuity, flexibility, prospective outlook and,
most importantly, political will to overcome the financial hesitancies. In
order to gain and maintain political will, the
HSR projects will need to develop a visionary strategy. The projects will also need to form
collaborative partnerships with the business, environmental, and community leaders who will come forward in support of the goal.
For example, a project will need to select a particular technology for use on its routes. Many factors
will play a role in this decision, since maglev and steel wheel technology present different positives and negatives to each set of
circumstances. Often, the steel wheel technology receives more consideration over maglev due to its ability to operate on existing track; however,
the present rail infrastructure owned by the freight railways will not allow for the higher speeds. The existing track will need upgrades in order to
allow for the equivalent speeds of the maglev system, which will erase many of the steel wheel advantages of using the existing infrastructure
With this premise in mind, the amount of development surrounding the rail line will shape the
technological approach. Because the maglev system requires a dedicated guideway, the installation of track within less developed
regions of the country or where more wide--‐open spaces occur correlates very similarly to that of the steel wheel technology making the two
options comparable. However, the steel wheel approach fits better within an urban setting since it can utilize existing rail infrastructure with
minimal retrofitting needs albeit at a much slower speed. In other situations
where geography plays a role, the
additional infrastructure requirements may produce a different analysis. For instance, some parts of the
country can benefit from maglev’s ability to overcome mountain passes with little need for additional infrastructure like tunnels, while the terrain
in other areas can utilize steel wheel technology because of its more level geography.172 Accordingly, the country’s diversity on both urban and
rural settings in conjunction with its geographic variety demonstrates that neither technology provides a superior choice in all settings.
Furthermore, the ROW issues will also present a hurdle to HSR projects not associated with Amtrak. Because Amtrak chose to indemnify the
track owners for possible torts claims, a nongovernmental project choosing to utilize existing freight track will need to overcome this precedent
while securing access and possibly the right to upgrade and maintain a better quality of rail line infrastructure. A project will also need to either
obtain new ROWs where possible or share track with existing infrastructure in other locations to fulfill its high--‐speed mission. As such, both of
these hurdles
provide significant concerns towards accomplishing the HSR goal, but the financial
model used to operate the HSR can resolve many of these economic issues associated with ROW. Finally,
the concluded Stage 1 NEPA analysis in both the southeast and California--‐Nevada corridors opted
for HSR instead of other choices like improving highways and airports or taking little to no
action.173 The fact that two independent macro level studies for different projects concluded
that HSR offered a better solution over the traditional highway and aviation solutions shows the
strength of the overall benefits provided by HSR on both the transportation and environmental
aspects. Thus, the missing element to successfully implementing HSR across the country
comes from a lack of political will in Congress and at the state level to foster the appropriate setting;
since most, if not all, of the identifiable obstacles can be remedied in the comprehensive operating plan and on a financial
level. VII. Conclusion With the foregoing in mind, none of the issues outlined are insurmountable to accomplish the
goal of bringing HSR to the United States. However, HSR will not occur in this country if the different levels of government do not start to align
their transportation, environmental, and economic policies into a unified direction. Unfortunately few of the enumerated benefits will occur if
transit budgets remain slashed and if states continue to lack a nexus between their transportation, environmental, and economic policies. A HSR
system will not reach its potential if rail feeder buses and light and commuter rail services are abandoned. If
our leaders are sincere
about implementing climate change initiatives, transit should be recognized as the most essential
component lending to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions instead of treated as a mere afterthought. In
practical terms, adequate funding must be preserved to promote all modes of public transportation To this end,
the foundational elements that justify HSR’s existence need continued support by all levels of
government. In order to successfully implement a HSR system in this nation, the many opponents will need proof that HSR is a system that
not only can be built in a sustainable, responsible, and efficient manner but also follows the environmental guidelines of NEPA and relevant state
laws while lowering travel times, increasing mobility, as well as reducing congestion and emissions Hence, the Obama Administration
created the initial momentum to take control of some of the many global warming issues, while pushing for a cleaner energy policy
throughout the country by
investing in a smarter and greener transportation infrastructure such as HSR
that creates multiple benefits simultaneously.
2AC
Case – Inherency
AT: ARRA Solves Funding
ARRA funding is less than 5 percent of total cost and is diverted to unrelated
projects
ROGERS 11 J.D., University of Illinois College of Law, 2011; B.A., Economics, University of Utah
[Joshua Rogers, NOTE: THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY: HOW STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION MAY HAVE DERAILED
AN AMERICAN HIGH SPEED RAIL SYSTEM, University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology & Policy, Spring, 2011]
3. Does ARRA Funding Provide a Sufficient Beginning for U.S. High Speed Rail? A conservative estimate of developing true high speed rail in
all of the designated corridors would range somewhere between $ 400-$ 800 billion. n132 While the funding from ARRA has never been
purported to fund the entire cost of a U.S. high speed rail network, it has been stated that the President intended for the $ 8 billion investment to
act as a down payment on such a network. n133 It is unclear what is meant by down payment in this context; however, some additional text may
inform the context. In conjunction with the statement that [*231] the funding was intended to be a down payment, the President explained that it
was intended to "jump-start" the development of a comprehensive high speed rail network. n134 Thus, the ARRA funding is expected to establish
the beginning of a high speed rail network. ARRA
funding fails to establish the beginnings of a high speed rail
network, because it is too modest. Considering the total funding of $ 400-$ 800 billion that U.S. high speed rail will require, the
$ 8 billion allocated by ARRA would amount to only a 1%-2% down payment on a national network. Furthermore, if each of the
eleven designated corridors was to receive an equal share in the ARRA funds, it would amount
to $ 720 million per corridor, falling below 5% of total project cost for even the cheapest of the
corridors. Thus, it would seem that the only way that the $ 8 billion could significantly "jump-start" development in any of the high speed
rail corridors would be to allocate the full amount between one or two corridors. Moreover, too much of the intended
funding is diverted to non-high speed rail improvements for the ARRA funds to "jump-start"
high speed rail. According to the funding provisions of ARRA, the Secretary of Transportation is only required to "give priority to
projects that support the development of intercity high speed rail service." n135 This weak language allows projects laying
foundation for high speed rail to receive priority along with actual "shovel-ready" projects. n136
Through this language $ 4.5 billion of the awards that were granted under ARRA actually went to non-high speed projects, n137 while $ 3.5
billion of the awards were distributed between California and Florida high speed rail projects. n138 Thus,
even though only two
high speed rail projects were actually funded with ARRA allocations, the amounts of those
awards were drastically diluted by non-high speed projects almost to the equivalent of an equal share allocation
among all eleven corridors. Therefore, it appears significantly unlikely that ARRA provides sufficient funding
to even begi n a U.S. high speed rail network.
AT: Funding Now
Current funding for high speed rail is insufficient. A significant investment is
needed for progress.
Rogers, Spring 2011 (Joshua – J.D. University of Illinois College of Law, The Great Train Robbery:
How Statutory Construction May Have Derailed an American High Speed Rail System, University of
Illinois Journal of Law, Technology & Policy, p. Lexis)
President Obama
has noted that the $ 8 billion ARRA grant is intended as a down payment on high
speed rail. n100 This initial investment is to be followed [*227] by $ 1 billion annually to continue funding of planning and projects. n101
Standing alone, these figures are vast; however, when compared with the $ 1.8 trillion the federal
government has spent on air and highway travel since 1960, the figures are minimal . n102 In fact, when
projected over an equal period of time, they
are nearly identical to the 3% of federal funding for intercity
passenger travel that passenger rail has traditionally received. n103 This minimal funding demonstrates a traditional
dilemma faced by passenger rail: it does not receive the funding required to make it successful. If a
high speed rail system is meant to compete with air and automobile travel, it will cost significantly more
than the amounts allocated by ARRA and the President's proposed continued investment.
Case – Warming
Transportation Key
Global warming is anthropogenic – Transport emissions are key
Lee Chapman, Professor - School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Science, University of
Birmingham, UK, 07, [“Transport and climate change: a review, Journal of Transport Geography,”
Volume 15, Issue 5, September 2007, Pages 354–367]
1.1. Climate change
Natural forces ensure that the Earth has experienced a changing climate since the beginning of
time. However, during the last century, anthropogenic (human) activity has threatened significant climate
change over a relatively short time period (Karl and Trenberth, 2003). The term ‘global warming’ is well
documented and refers to the measured increase in the Earth’s average temperature. This is caused by the build-up of key
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere accumulated from continual combustion of fossil fuels and
landuse changes over the 20th century (Weubles and Jain, 2001). The anthropogenic signal has now become
increasingly evident in the climate record where the rate and magnitude of warming due to greenhouse gases is
directly comparable to actual observed increases of temperature (Watson, 2001). Any change to the composition
of the atmosphere requires a new equilibrium to be maintained; a balance ultimately achieved by changes to the global climate.
Radiative forcing, the change in the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation caused by changes in the
composition of the atmosphere, is investigated by using global climate models (GCMs) that represent the interactions of the atmosphere, landmasses, oceans and ice-sheets. By
predicting how the global climate will respond to various perturbations,
projections can be made to determine how global climate will change under different conditions.
Under the six illustrative emission scenarios used by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change),
CO2 levels are predicted to increase over the next century from 369 parts per million, to between 540 and 970 parts
per million (Nakicenovic and Swart, 2000). This translates to an increase in globally averaged temperatures of
between 1.4 and 5.8 °C (Watson, 2001), in turn leading to an increase in extreme weather events and a
rise in sea levels. However, predictions made with GCMs need to be viewed with caution (Lindzens, 1990), as they are an
oversimplification of what is a complicated and dynamic system. Indeed, the large number of emission scenarios considered underlines the
uncertainty in making predictions so far into the future as it is unclear as to what extent technological and behavioural change will help the
situation. Nevertheless, the
growth in CO2 emissions is unsustainable and will soon exceed the level
required for stabilisation (currently estimated to be in the region of 400–450 parts per million; Bristow et al., 2004). Furthermore, the
radiative forcing experienced from CO2 today is a result of emissions during the last 100 years (Penner et al., 1999). It is this inertia that means
that some impacts of anthropogenic climate change may yet remain undetected and will ensure that global warming will continue for decades
after stabilisation. 1.2. The role of transport Oil
is the dominant fuel source for transportation (Fig. 1a) with road
transport accounting for 81% of total energy use by the transport sector (Fig. 1b). This dependence
on fossil fuels makes transport a major contributor of greenhouse gases and is one of the few
industrial sectors where emissions are still growing (WBCSD, 2001). The impact of transport on the
global climate is not limited to vehicle emissions as the production and distribution of fuel from
oil, a ‘wells to wheels’ approach, produces significant amounts of greenhouse gas in itself ( [Weiss
et al., 2000], [Mizsey and Newson, 2001] and [Johannsson, 2003]). For example, consideration of total CO2 emissions
from an average car showed that 76% were from fuel usage where as 9% was from
manufacturing of the vehicle and a further 15% was from emissions and losses in the fuel supply
system (Potter, 2003). Transport was one of the key sectors highlighted to be tackled by the 1997
Kyoto protocol. The aim was to reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2% of 1990 levels by 2012. Therefore, since 1997,
transport has featured heavily in the political agendas of the 38 developed countries who signed the agreement. Fig. 2a shows that the
transport sector accounts for 26% of global CO2 emissions (IEA, 2000), of which roughly two-thirds
originates in the wealthier 10% of countries (Lenzen et al., 2003). Road transport is the biggest producer
of greenhouse gases in the transport sector, although the motor car is not solely responsible for all these emissions (Fig. 2b).
Buses, taxis and inter-city coaches all play a significant role, but the major contributor is road freight which typically accounts for just under half
of the road transport total. Away
from road transport, the biggest contributor to climate change is
aviation. Aviation is much more environmentally damaging than is indicated solely by CO2
emission figures. This is due to other greenhouse gases being released directly into the upper
atmosphere, where the localised effects can be more damaging then the effects of CO2 alone (Cairns and Newson,
2006). Although, the actual energy consumption and CO2 emissions from aviation appear relatively low when compared to the motor car (Fig.
2b, Table 1), it
is the projected expansion in aviation which is the biggest concern. Air transport
shows the highest growth amongst all transport modes (Lenzen et al., 2003) and is predicted to be as high as 5% per
annum for the next decade (Somerville, 2003).
All transport sectors are experiencing expansion (Table 1 and Table 2) and unfortunately there is a
general trend that the modes which are experiencing the most growth, are also the most polluting.
Fig. 3a shows a breakdown of CO2 emissions per passenger kilometre. Aviation and motor cars are increasingly the
favoured modes for passenger transport, but are also significantly the most damaging. A similar picture
is shown for freight in Fig. 3b where again, aviation and road freight are both the sectors with the biggest growth and highest CO2 emissions.
Hence, there
is a need to break the relationship between the current preferred movements of
passengers and freight with the most polluting modes. Either the favoured modes need to be made less polluting
through technological change or alternative modes need to be made more attractive via behavioural change driven by policy (DfT, 2005a).
Clearly, the biggest challenges are car usage, the rapid expansion of aviation and the increase in road freight ( [Lenzen et al., 2003] and [DfT,
2004a]). Hence, this review focuses on the impact of growth in car use, aviation and freight with respect to climate change inducing greenhouse
gas emissions and discusses ways in which society can adapt to reduce the impacts.
AT: Other Technology Solves
No other transportation technology is a viable way to solve climate change
Christensen, 1/3/2012 (Angela, The Need for Speed: How High Speed Rail Challenges the ‘Green’ Car,
p. http://begreen.botw.org/2012/01/high-speed-rail-challenges-green-car/)
In today’s busy world, people are always on the move. Whether it is by car, plane, bus, subway or train, we cannot hold still; however, the
continuous movement of people has taken its toll on the planet. Transport is one of the main
contributors to CO2 emissions and global warming. Given the demand for travel, airports are overcrowded and
roadways are congested. To make matters worse, transport energy emissions are expected to increase
1.7% per year
from 2004-2030. In
response to the tremendous amounts of carbon that cars emit into the air
every second and the increased concern over environmental degradation, car manufacturers integrated ‘green’ technology
into their production lines and unveiled alternative energy vehicles to the world in the way of the hybrid and electric vehicles. However,
these ‘green’ cars are not affordable to most Americans, especially given the current state of the national
economy. The initial cost to own a hybrid car is between $2,000 and $10,000 more than their traditional car competitors. Additionally, the
complex technology onboard hybrid vehicles makes repairs more cumbersome and often leaves the buyer with
a large out-of-pocket expense if something goes awry. Nevertheless, hybrid cars cut carbon emissions by 25-30% over the most
fuel-efficient vehicles, making them seem more environmentally attractive. Hybrids perform best during low speed city
driving or in traffic jams when the battery kicks in to power the car rather than the engine running on fuel. If highway driving is your
normal route, then the hybrid’s motor continuously runs on gasoline making the trip to the gas station inevitable. Unfortunately, less fuel
consumption and fewer carbon emissions are met with environmental toxins that are produced
during the car’s manufacture. Hybrid cars are manufactured using metals for both their batteries and their electric drive motors and
wiring. Although the nickel-hydride battery is less dangerous than its contemporary counterpart, the lead battery, the nickel must still be mined
and is usually done so in open cast mines that can lead to great environmental devastation. Furthermore, the copper used for the car’s wiring and
motor must also be excavated from the earth–not exactly a green situation. So what about an electric car? You may think that by
purchasing an electric car instead of a hybrid car you are circumnavigating all of these apparent hybrid negativities–but don’t rush out and buy
one too fast. Plugging in your car will certainly eliminate the trip to the gas pump but it may be putting further stresses on the environment
depending on where you live. If the electricity used to recharge the electric car’s battery comes from a renewable source like wind or solar, then
the environmental impact that the car’s battery has on the environment is low. In contrast, if
the electricity is generated from a
coal-fired power station, then the battery’s affect on the environment is much worse . Although
‘green’ car technology seems to be better for the environment in most cases when compared against the traditional car, we must not overlook the
sustainability of public transportation–something extremely underutilized in the United States. The
transport sector faces many
challenges in the future such as urbanization, the scarcity of natural resources and increases in oil and fuel
prices. High Speed Rail (HSR) is a viable option to combating these negative externalities while creating a
sustainable means of mobility. In other parts of the world, HSR is not a new concept. It has been utilized in Japan since the 1960s, and today,
much of Europe is connected by HSR. HSR not only provides a quick way to move around but also emits
atmosphere
far less carbon into the
than any other form of public transport . HSR can reach speeds of up to 223 mph, truly revolutionizing how
humans move. The reduced carbon emissions from HSR are also worth taking note of. Covering a distance of 704 km (439 miles), CO2
emissions in grams per passenger per kilometre are 2.7 g/pkm using HSR, compared with 153 g/pkm for air travel and 115.7 g/pkm by car. Not
only does HSR have fewer carbon emissions, carry more passengers and move a heck of a lot faster than a car, it is comfortable to travel in and
allows commuters to work or relax. They provide a great deal of personal space and are equipped with modern technologies such as Internet and
power outlets, and the use of mobile devices is allowed. There are restaurant cars serving food and beverages and passengers can walk around
freely…or sleep. Accommodating the movement of people from here to there around the globe puts strains on ecosystems and natural resources.
Although ‘green’ car technology has helped to alleviate some of the pressures put on the natural environment by manufacturing cars that emit less
CO2 and use less fuel, we must look to more efficient forms of public transport to transform how we travel. HSR can carry more people more
quickly while emitting far less CO2 into the atmosphere than cars or planes. Investing
our dollars into a sustainable mode of
transportation like HSR minimizes environmental impacts, limits emissions and waste, offers a choice for a mode of transport, is
affordable and efficient, and promotes equity within and between successive generations. We can look to the future with great hope that HSR will
be integrated into this country sooner rather than later.
Case – Solvency
AT: Rail Bad
Rail services and construction are inevitable – The plan creates high-speed lines
WESTIN & KAGESON 12 a Centre for Transport Studies, Royal Institute of Technology b
Department of Transport Science, Royal Institute of Technology. Both in Stockholm Sweden
[Jonas Westina, Per Kågesona, Can high speed rail offset its embedded emissions?, Transportation
Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Volume 17, Issue 1, January 2012, Pages 1–7]
The method used in this paper does not capture all aspects of its subject. As already mentioned, the indirect
effect on emissions of greenhouse gases from being able to use existing rail infrastructure for new types of traffic, after opening a new high speed
line, is not covered. This aspect is analyzed in Åkerman (2011). However, to be able to make up for any sizeable carbon deficit of a new highspeed line that does not attract enough traffic, the indirect climate benefits of making new use of the existing line would have to be significant. If
so, it may be better to focus on how to accommodate those types of railway services rather than
investing in a new line dedicated to high speed passenger transport. Another aspect not considered
is the possibility that, in the absence of investment in high speed lines, growing demand for rail
services would require investment in other kinds of additional capacity where construction would
also affect climate change. However, there may also exist other types of response to a growing imbalance between supply and
demand that give rise to fewer emissions, e.g. congestion charges and incentives to improve the utilization of inland waterways and/or short sea
shipping routes, and the partial replacement of business travel by telecommunication.
Disadvantage
Obama Bad Elections DA 2AC
1. Obama is losing now – multiple polls and Romney nomination proves
Doug Usher and Bruce Haynes, Senior Vice President at Widmeyer Communications, Vice President
of The Mellman Group, Cornell University Ph.D., Government/Political Science, University of Michigan
BA, Political Science AND University of South Carolina School of Law JD, Law, Francis Marion
University BS, Political Science, 8/2012, “August 2012 Edition: PurplePoll,”
http://www.purplestrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/PurplePoll_Aug15_Final.pdf BW
The Romney-Ryan ticket is fueled by an 11-point advantage among independents. This
represents an increase from July, when Romney held a 5-point margin over Obama among that key
group. In our Purple Predictor states, Ryan’s addition to the ticket has had a mixed impact on the race.
Romney has seen the largest gain in Ohio, a state we have seen bounce between the campaigns over
the last few months. Today, the GOP ticket leads by 2 points (46% to 44%), compared to July when
President Obama led the state 48% to 45%. Romney also gained ground in Virginia – today, he and
Paul Ryan hold a 3-point advantage in the race (48% to 45%), while Romney trailed by 2 points in July.
However, President Obama has seen improvements in Colorado and Florida. In Colorado, the ObamaBiden ticket now leads 49% to 46%, an increase from a 1-point lead in July. In Florida, the Democratic
ticket trails by just 1 point (48% to 47%), compared to a 3 point deficit in July. Taken as a whole, these
data indicate a small bump in the immediate aftermath of the Ryan announcement. Nonetheless, it
is also the first sign of positive momentum for the Romney campaign that we’ve seen in the
PurplePoll in the last few months. Ryan is the best liked of the four candidates, and his selection has
bolstered Romney’s image. At 45% to 39%, Paul Ryan is the only member of either major party
ticket who currently has higher favorables than unfavorables. He is extremely well-liked among
Republicans (80%/9%), and independents have an overall favorable opinion of him (46%/37%).
Over the next few weeks, the two campaigns will be racing to define him among those 16% that don’t
have an opinion. At +6 in Purple States overall, Ryan’s image trails Sarah Palin’s national image just after
she was announced as the vice Presidential candidate in 2008. A CNN poll among likely voters at the
time of her pick showed her with a net favorable rating of +17. Among Republicans, Sarah Palin had a net
favorability of +77, 6 points better than Ryan’s +71. Ryan’s personal image is at this point better than
his Democratic counterpoint: 41% have a favorable view of the Vice President, compared to 48%
unfavorable. Romney’s personal image appears to have improved following the announcement: 45%
favorable, 48% unfavorable. While still net unfavorable, this represents a substantial improvement
from July, when he was net -8. For the first time in the PurplePoll we tested Obama’s favorability (we
have been testing job performance), and we found him to have a very similar rating as Romney: 47%
favorable, 49% unfavorable. Taken together, these measures indicate that the vice presidential roll-out
has successfully provided modest momentum for the GOP ticket moving toward the convention. For
those seeking a game change event (in either direction), this wasn’t it. Romney has advantages on the
economy and changing Washington, while shifting the conversation to Medicare helps President
Obama. By a 3-point margin, Purple state voters believe that Romney and Ryan have a better plan
“to reduce the deficit, create jobs, and get the economy moving again” (46% to 43%). This
advantage is substantially larger among independents: 48% to 34%. This result is directly linked
to voters’ views of the current state of the economy: just 29% believe that the economy is getting
better. Additionally, by a 6-point margin, voters in these key swing states believe that Romney and
Ryan are more likely “to bring real change to Washington,” a margin that is +17 among
independents
2. Several large groups dislike HSR – Crosses income, ethnic and policical lines
Huffington Post 6/3 (6/3/12, “California High Speed Rail Doesn’t Have the Support of Majority of Californians: Poll”,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/04/california-high-speed-rail_n_1566807.html) RS
LOS ANGELES -- A
new poll finds California voters are experiencing buyers' remorse over a proposed $68
billion bullet train project, as the number of lawsuits against the rail system grows. Fifty-five
percent of voters want to see the high-speed rail bond issue that was approved in 2008 back on
the ballot, and 59 percent say they would now vote against it, according to the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles
Times survey (lat.ms/N9tTcm) published Saturday. Since the $9 billion borrowing plan was passed, the projected cost of the
bullet train between Los Angeles and San Francisco has roughly doubled, and it will now share track with
slower commuter and freight trains in some areas, the Times said. A majority of voters have turned against
the ambitious undertaking just as Gov. Jerry Brown is pushing lawmakers to approve the start of construction in the Central Valley
later this year. Powerful agriculture groups and freight railroads maintain that proposed routes would
damage their interests and compromise safety. Schools, churches, businesses and homeowners
are also opposed to the project. On Friday, Central Valley farm groups filed a major environmental
lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court, asking for a preliminary injunction to block rail construction. Plaintiffs include the Madera and
Merced county farm bureaus and Madera County. The suit is one of several already on the books, and still more
agricultural interests in the Central Valley are threatening to sue. "We think a preliminary injunction
against construction will occur because there were so many violations in the authority's
environmental impact report," Anja Raudabaugh, executive director of the Madera County Farm Bureau, told the Times. The
plaintiffs say the rail project would affect 1,500 acres of prime farm land and 150 agribusinesses in their region. The poll found that concerns
about the project extend across regions, ethnic groups, income brackets and even political
affiliations, according to the Times. Among Democrats, initially the strongest supporters of the plan, only 43 percent would
support the bond in a new vote, while 47 percent would oppose it. Seventy-six percent of Republicans would
vote against it. Voters have reconsidered their support for high-speed rail as lawmakers slash
public programs to cope with a widening budget gap, said Dan Schnur, director of the poll and head of the Unruh
Institute of Politics at USC. "The growing budget deficit is making Californians hesitant about spending so
much money on a project like this one when they're seeing cuts to public education and law
enforcement," Unruh said. "But they also seem to be wary as to whether state government can run a big
speed rail system effectively." In Southern California, 67 percent of voters said they would reject
issuing high-speed rail bonds if they could vote again. If the bullet train system is built, 69 percent said
they would never or hardly ever ride it. No respondents – zero percent – said they would use it
more than once a week. Just 33 percent of respondents said they would prefer a bullet train over
an airplane or car on trips between LA and San Francisco The USC Dornsife/Times survey heard from
1,002 registered voters in mid-May. It was conducted by Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner
and Republican polling firm American Viewpoint. The sample has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
3. The case outweighs the disadvantagea. Oil wars cause desperation and escalation to nuclear war as supplies run out
b. Global Warming means the extinction of all life on Earth because of sea level rise,
extreme weather and species die offs
4. Voters have short memories – they will forget the plan.
Bloomberg 12 (Bloomberg, news site, 02/28/12, Business Week, Obama Skirts Deadlock With Executive
Orders Favoring Allies, http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-28/obama-skirts-deadlock-withexecutive-orders-favoring-allies.html)
Even though Obama pushed through some of the most comprehensive legislation in decades
during the first two years of his term covering health care, financial rules and economic stimulus,
that isn’t enough to get him re-elected, said Devine. “ The shelf life on progress in the minds of
voters is shorter than it is for fresh fruit ,” he said.
5. Even huge transportation bills are unnoticed
Rubinstein, 3/27/2012 (Dana – reporter for Capital, When is Obama going to have his Eisenhower
moment?, Capital, p. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2012/03/5524547/when-obamagoing-have-his-eisenhower-moment)
And while spending on less costly projects has been easier for the administration, politically, it
has also been less rewarding. For instance, the stimulus included $1.5 billion in funding for socalled TIGER grants, a small pot of money (it was later expanded to $2.6 billion) that’s been sprinkled
around the country. They hardly got noticed nationally , other than by transportation advocates,
who felt they were too small to make any meaningful change to the physical transportation system itself.
Obama Good Elections DA 2AC
1. Obama re-election already in jeopardy – low consumer confidence index
AP, Associated Press, 8/28/12 [Consumer Confidence Falls in August, Newsday,
<http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/consumer-confidence-falls-in-august-1.3933489>] jmin
Americans are feeling worse about the economy than they have in a long time -- a fact that could have
wide-reaching implications everywhere from Walmart to the White House.¶ Despite improving U.S. job
and housing markets, consumer confidence nationally fell to the lowest level it's been since
November 2011, according to The Conference Board, a private research group. The results are the
latest swing in the index, which has been on a roller-coaster ride this year.¶ The index declined in
January, rose in February and then posted four months of declines before registering an increase in
July. August's reading indicates that the gains in the job and housing markets aren't big enough to
put to rest Americans' economic fears.¶ That not only threatens to put a damper on retail sales for the
back-to-school and winter holiday seasons -- the two biggest shopping periods of the year -- but it also
could have an impact on how Americans vote in November's presidential election. No president has
been re-elected when confidence was below a reading of 90, which indicates a healthy economy.¶
The New York-based Conference Board said its Consumer Confidence Index in August fell to 60.6, down
from a revised 65.4 in July. The index now stands at the lowest it's been since November 2011 when the
reading was at 55.2.¶ "This report is a little disturbing going into the fall," Mark Vitner, a Wells Fargo
Securities senior economist, said. "Consumers are less optimistic about the future."
2. The case outweighs the disadvantagea. Oil wars cause desperation and escalation to nuclear war as supplies run out
b. Global Warming means the extinction of all life on Earth because of sea level rise,
extreme weather and species die offs
4. The public perceives transportation infrastructure as job creators.
The Rockefeller Foundation 2011 (The Rockefeller Foundation Infrastructure Survey, Conducted
by Hart Research Associates and Public Opinion Strategies, p. 2)
The public understands the economic benefits of infrastructure improvement. • Four in five (80%)
voters agree that federal funding to improve and modernize transportation “will boost local
economies and create millions of jobs from construction to manufacturing to engineering.” Just
19% disagree with this. • And 79% agree that “in order for the United States to remain the world’s
top economic superpower we need to modernize our transportation infrastructure and keep it up
to date.” Again, 19% disagree.
5. Massive public support for HSR
Butman, 12/1/2010 (Jim, Survey shows public support for high-speed rail, Biz Times, p.
http://www.biztimes.com/article/20101201/ENEWSLETTERS02/312019989/)
Nearly two-thirds of American adults (62 percent) said they would definitely or probably use
high-speed rail service for leisure or business travel if it were an option, according to a survey from
the Washington-based American Public Transportation Association (APTA). The survey, taken among
24,711 adults, also asked how important various factors would be in choosing high-speed rail service.
Ninety-one percent of respondents said high-speed rail should offer shorter travel times compared to
driving to their destinations; 91 percent said the rail service should be less expensive than flying; 89
percent said it should be less expensive than driving; and 85 percent said the rail service should integrate
with local public transit so they could avoid using rental cars and cabs, and paying parking fees. The
APTA wants Congress to invest $50 billion over the next six years to build a high-speed rail
network. " In most political circles , garnering nearly two-thirds support for a forward-thinking
vision like high-speed rail would be considered a landslide ," said APTA president William
Millar said.. "We strongly support the government's commitment to implementing high-speed rail. It will
provide more options for travelers, as well as create jobs and be a strong boost for the local economy."
6. Voters have short memories – they will forget the plan.
Bloomberg 12 (Bloomberg, news site, 02/28/12, Business Week, Obama Skirts Deadlock With Executive
Orders Favoring Allies, http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-28/obama-skirts-deadlock-withexecutive-orders-favoring-allies.html)
Even though Obama pushed through some of the most comprehensive legislation in decades
during the first two years of his term covering health care, financial rules and economic stimulus,
that isn’t enough to get him re-elected, said Devine. “ The shelf life on progress in the minds of
voters is shorter than it is for fresh fruit ,” he said.
7. Even huge transportation bills are unnoticed
Rubinstein, 3/27/2012 (Dana – reporter for Capital, When is Obama going to have his Eisenhower
moment?, Capital, p. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2012/03/5524547/when-obamagoing-have-his-eisenhower-moment)
And while spending on less costly projects has been easier for the administration, politically, it
has also been less rewarding. For instance, the stimulus included $1.5 billion in funding for socalled TIGER grants, a small pot of money (it was later expanded to $2.6 billion) that’s been sprinkled
around the country. They hardly got noticed nationally , other than by transportation advocates,
who felt they were too small to make any meaningful change to the physical transportation system itself.
Oil DA 2AC
Spending DA 2AC
Spending is consistently increasing now under Obama – Their figures are a
numbers game
AFP, 12
AFP, 5-27-12, [“FACT CHECK: Obama off on thrifty spending claim,” Andrew Taylor,
http://lubbockonline.com/election/election-general/2012-05-27/fact-check-obama-thrifty-spending-claim#.TkW2JLm7fs] E. Liu
A fairer calculation would give Obama much of the responsibility for an almost 10 percent budget
boost in 2009, then a 13 percent increase over 2010-2013, or average annual growth of spending of just
more than 3 percent over that period. So, how does the administration arrive at its claim? First, there’s the Troubled
Assets Relief Program, the official name for the Wall Street bailout. First, companies got a net $151 billion from
TARP in 2009, making 2010 spending look smaller. Then, because banks and Wall Street firms repaid a net $110
billion in TARP funds in 2010, Obama is claiming credit for cutting spending by that much. The combination of
TARP lending in one year and much of that money being paid back in the next makes Obama’s spending record for
2010 look $261 billion thriftier than it really was. Only by that measure does Obama “cut” spending by 1.8 percent
in 2010 as the analysis claims. The federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also makes Obama’s record on
spending look better than it was. The government spent $96 billion on the Fannie-Freddie takeovers in 2009 but only
$40 billion on them in 2010. By the administration’s reckoning, the $56 billion difference was a spending cut by
Obama. Taken together, TARP and the takeover of Fannie and Freddie combine to give Obama an undeserved $317
billion swing in the 2010 figures and the resulting 1.8 percent cut from 2009. A fairer reading is an almost 8 percent
increase. Those two bailouts account for $72 billion more in cuts in 2011. Obama supported the bailouts. There’s
also the question of how to treat the 2009 fiscal year, which actually began Oct. 1, 2008, almost four months before
Obama took office. Typically, the remaining eight months get counted as part of the prior president’s spending since
the incoming president usually doesn’t change it much until the following October. The MarketWatch analysis
assigned 2009 to former President George W. Bush, though it gave Obama responsibility that year for a $140
million chunk of the 2009 stimulus bill. But Obama’s role in 2009 spending was much bigger than that. For
starters, he signed nine spending bills funding every Cabinet agency except Defense, Veterans Affairs
and Homeland Security. While the numbers don’t jibe exactly, Obama bears the chief responsibility for an
11 percent, $59 billion increase in non-defense spending in 2009. Then there’s a 9 percent, $109 billion
increase in combined defense and non-defense appropriated outlays in 2010, a year for which Obama is wholly
responsible. As other critics have noted, including former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas HoltzEakin, the MarketWatch analysis also incorporates CBO’s annual baseline as its estimate for fiscal years 2012 and
2013. That gives Obama credit for three events unlikely to occur: —$65 billion in 2013 from automatic, across-theboard spending cuts slated to take effect next January. —Cuts in Medicare payments to physicians. —The expiration
of refundable tax cuts that are “scored” as spending in federal ledgers. Lawmakers are unlikely to allow the
automatic cuts to take full effect, but it’s at best a guessing game as to what will really happen in 2013. A better
measure is Obama’s request for 2013. “You can only make him look good by ignoring the early years
and adopting the hope and not the reality of the years in his budget,” said Holtz-Eakin, a GOP economist and
president of the American Action Forum, a free market think tank. So how does Obama measure up? If one assumes
that TARP and the takeover of Fannie and Freddie by the government as one-time budgetary anomalies and remove
them from calculations — an approach taken by Holtz-Eakin — you get the following picture: —A 9.7 percent
increase in 2009, much of which is attributable to Obama. —A 7.8 percent increase in 2010, followed by slower
spending growth over 2011-13. Much of the slower growth reflects the influence of Republicans retaking control of
the House and their budget and debt deal last summer with Obama. All told, government spending now
appears to be growing at an annual rate of roughly 3 percent over the 2010-2013 period, rather than the
0.4 percent claimed by Obama and the MarketWatch analysis.
High speed rail would be a massive economic stimulus that creates growth
Hunter Biden, Co-chairman Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC and Adviser to HNTB Corporation,
summer 10, “The Great Multiplier,” InTransit, Pg. 3-4
The U.S. national high-speed rail program, the largest infrastructure investment since the Interstate
Highway System, will have a multiplying effect that goes beyond job creation to produce a host
of economic benefits, rivaling or surpassing those generated by President Eisenhower’s vision.
Inspired by Germany’s autobahn, Eisenhower’s idea of a nationwide network of highways strengthened
our country and turbocharged our economy, forging greater connectivity among our far-flung states and
regions and promoting the faster movement of goods, military personnel and equipment. A national
high-speed rail network could be to our 21st century economy what the Interstate Highway
System was to the 20th century economy. Everyone talks about growing the economy. What we
really need is to create an economic system in which the middle class has the opportunity to have
a sustainable future. High-speed rail is the key to such a system. At The Local Level Jobs are the
most important and immediate concern. A high-speed rail system will bring high-paying, labor- and
environmentally friendly jobs to the inner cities and markets where there is a huge need for jobs in the
skilled labor department. Many of those jobs will not be limited to the tasks of building the actual
network, either. They will be permanent jobs, providing employees with the wherewithal to
purchase homes, buy cars, take vacations, educate their children, etc. For example, a study by the
nine states participating in the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative shows the 3,000-mile
Chicagohubbed system will generate more than 57,000 new jobs, generate $1.09 billion in
household income and increase property values by $4.9 billion near stations. The economic impacts
of high-speed rail stops in Orange County, Calif., include growth of its tourism industry, increased
density around train stations that shrinks the region’s developed footprint — and a gain of nearly 23,000
jobs by 2030.1 In California’s Sacramento/Central Valley area, high-speed rail will trigger jobs in the
service, transportation, communications, utilities, finance, insurance and real estate sectors.2 All total,
California’s statewide high-speed rail project will create nearly 160,000 construction-related jobs and an
additional 450,000 permanent jobs by 2035.3 Looking beyond jobs, U.S. cities will benefit from
transit-oriented communities. An economic certainty in Europe for decades, new stations here
will be magnets for commercial and residential development, as the land becomes prime real
estate. In Boston, family residences near commuter rail stations enjoy a 6.7 percent premium over homes
located elsewhere. After new transit stations were announced in Los Angeles, values of commercial
property surrounding proposed station areas grew 78 percent, compared with 38 percent for other
properties.4 However, interconnectivity may be the most valuable benefit at the local level. By achieving
economic integration into, and parity with, the rest of California, the Sacramento/Central Valley area
could see potential taxable income gains of nearly $48 billion per year, state income tax revenues of more
than $2 billion and a total sales/use taxes increase of approximately $333 million per year; of which,
nearly $46 million would flow directly to counties and cities within the Central Valley.5 At The Regional
Level Because of the United States’ vast land mass, we have to implement high-speed rail in pieces. One
piece or region where I see the most potential is the Midwest. Led by eight governors and the Mayor of
Chicago under the heading of the Midwest High-Speed Rail Steering Group, this region has been more
effective than any other multistate rail corridor in bringing together all of the political forces necessary to
achieve high-speed rail. High-speed rail development can allow Midwest cities and towns to
function as an efficient economic unit. A Chicago hubbed high-speed rail network can transform the
Upper Midwest into a single, mega-region economy. To realize that vision, people in the Midwest must
have the ability to visit a distant city and return the same day — much like commuters currently do in the
Northeast Corridor. High-speed trains will make it possible to spend a fully productive day in another city
and still make it home for dinner. As a megalopolis, the Midwest could offer its residents never-
before-considered job opportunities and give its cities the ability to tap into new labor pools and
skill sets. According to the steering committee, developing the Midwest Regional Rail System will
produce construction jobs for a generation. High-speed rail is expected to create an average of 15,200 jobs
annually during the construction period, of which 6,000 are construction jobs. Florida also is moving
forward aggressively to develop high-speed rail. The first leg of Florida’s very high-speed system would
bring Tampa and Orlando closer together figuratively with a nonstop trip of less than one hour, also
making it possible to commute for work.6 Ohio’s proposed 860-mile, high-speed rail network would link
the state’s major commercial centers with the Chicago-hubbed Midwest Regional Rail System, southern
Ontario and other smaller cities. Some expect the new region to attract “new economy” industries, such as
high-tech and telecommunications.7 According to Richard Florida, an American urban studies theorist, a
new period of geographic expansion is necessary to spur a renewed era of economic growth and
development. In an article that appeared in The Atlantic, Florida wrote: “The rise of the mega-region is
the cornerstone of a new, more intensive and also more expansive use of space. Mega-regions, if
they are to function as integrated economic units, require better, more effective and faster ways
to move goods, people and ideas. High-speed rail accomplishes that, and it also provides a
framework for future in-fill development along its corridors.” At The National Level The Chinese
have invested an enormous amount of money in developing high-speed rail corridors. Not only have these
corridors given the Chinese people the ability to move freely within their country at speeds greater than
air travel, they have created an entirely new manufacturing and assembly base. In Europe, Alstom, the
continent’s largest high-speed train manufacturer, employs more people than Airbus, a global commercial
aircraft manufacturer. High-speed rail can create a new manufacturing industry here in the United
States, too. In fact, we are seeing the first development of such an industry in Wisconsin. Last year,
Gov. Jim Doyle announced a groundbreaking agreement with the Spanish train maker Talgo that will put
two train sets into service in Wisconsin and establish new assembly and maintenance facilities. Both
facilities will be in southeastern Wisconsin, an area hit hard by the recession and job losses. Together,
they are expected to create about 80 jobs initially with the potential for many more.8 The Wisconsin
assembly plant will support the delivery of these trains throughout the Midwest and the country. The
economic ripple effect will benefit U.S. supply firms and create even more jobs. The WisconsinTalgo model is what we should be using to attract more international high-speed rail manufacturers.
Several European countries — Spain, France, Germany — have developed real technical expertise in
building and manufacturing high-speed rail cars and train sets. We should not be afraid to adopt that
technology and bring those manufacturing bases to the United States. We can’t predict all of the positive
economic effects of high-speed rail, but we do know they will be great. The more you connect people and
their ideas, the more we can achieve as a country. The Interstate Highway System taught us that. Our
nation’s aviation system soon followed, and we grew even closer. For the past 50-plus years, we have
enjoyed a quality of life that only one of the world’s best economies could offer. We led the world
through innovation and hard work in the 20th century, and we have every reason to believe we
can do the same in the 21st century. Indeed, high-speed rail is one of the keys to realizing that
goal.
The case outweighs the disadvantagea. Oil wars cause desperation and escalation to nuclear war as supplies run out
b. Global Warming means the extinction of all life on Earth because of sea level rise,
extreme weather and species die offs
The economy is weak now because of housing, finance and consumer spending
Rugaber and Wiseman, 8/6
[Christopher S. Rugaber: Economics Writer for AP, Paul Wiseman: Economics Writer for AP, 8/6/2012
Associated Press >> Manufacturing Business Technology Magazine
<http://www.mbtmag.com/news/2012/08/economy-generates-163k-jobs-sign-resilience>]
Three more monthly jobs reports will come out before Election Day, including the one for October on
Friday, Nov. 2, just four days before Americans vote.¶ No modern president has faced re-election when
unemployment was so high. President Jimmy Carter was bounced from office in November 1980 when
unemployment was 7.5 percent.¶ In remarks at the White House, Obama said the private sector has added
4.5 million jobs in the past 29 months. But he acknowledged there still are too many people out of work.
"We've got more work to do on their behalf," he said.¶ Romney focused on the increase in the
unemployment rate, as did other Republicans. "Middle-class Americans deserve better, and I believe
America can do better," he said in a statement.¶ The economy is still struggling more than three years
after the Great Recession officially ended in June 2009. The collapse of the housing market and
the financial crisis that followed froze credit, destroyed trillions of dollars in household wealth and
brought home construction to a halt. Consumer spending, which accounts for 70 percent of
economic output, remains weak as Americans pay down debts and save more.¶ From April through
June this year, the economy expanded at a listless 1.5 percent annual pace, a slowdown from the JanuaryMarch pace of 2 percent.¶ The job market got off to a strong start in 2012. Employers added an
average 226,000 a month from January through March.¶ But the hiring spree was caused partly by an
unseasonably warm winter that allowed construction companies and other firms to hire earlier in the
year than usual, effectively stealing jobs from the spring. The payback showed up as weak hiring —
an average 73,000 a month — from April through June.¶ Then came the 163,000 new jobs in July, beating
the 100,000 economists had expected.¶ Now that the warm weather effects have worn off, economists
expect job growth to settle into range of 100,000 to 150,000 a month.¶ That would be consistent: The
economy has added an average of 151,000 jobs a month this year. But that hasn't been enough to
bring unemployment down. At 8.3 percent, unemployment was as high in July as it had been in
January.¶ The unemployment rate can rise even when hiring picks up because the government derives the
figures from two different surveys.¶ One is called the payroll survey. It asks mostly large companies and
government agencies how many people they employed during the month. This survey produces the
number of jobs gained or lost.¶ The other is the household survey. Government workers ask whether the
adults in a household have a job and use the findings to produce the unemployment rate. Last month's
uptick in joblessness was practically a rounding error: The unemployment rate blipped up from 8.22
percent in June to 8.25 in July.¶ Worries have intensified that the U.S. economy will fall off a "fiscal
cliff" at the end of the year. That's when more than $600 billion in tax increases and spending cuts
will kick in unless Congress reaches a budget deal.¶ The draconian dose of austerity is meant to
force Republicans and Democrats to compromise. If they can't and taxes go up and spending gets
slashed, the economy will plunge into recession, contracting at an annual rate of 1.3 percent in the
first six months of 2013, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Short-term spending doesn’t affect debt outlook – Larger cycles and trends control
fiscal adjustments
Alan J Auerbach, Robert D. Burch Professor of Economics and Law at the University of California, Berkeley, 711, [“Long-Term Fiscal Sustainability in Major Economies,” www.bis.org/publ/work361.pdf] E. Liu
These short-term trajectories clearly are attention-getting. For some countries, such as Greece, there is
little need to look beyond them to know that a large and immediate fiscal 2 adjustment is needed. But
debt-GDP ratios alone typically do not tell us how long countries have before they must make
fiscal adjustments or how large these adjustments need to be. Some countries, for example Italy and
Japan, have maintained high debt-GDP ratios for some time. Also, for countries not necessarily
facing any short-run crisis, these projections may provide an inadequate picture of underlying
fiscal imbalances. This is because the factors contributing to short-term debt accumulation differ
substantially from those that will affect debt accumulation over the longer term, after the next few
years, factors that have little to do with the business cycle and the rate of economic recovery, and
much more to do with demographic change and the associated changes in government spending and tax
collections.
Sprawl DA 2AC
1. HSR reverses urban sprawl by removing distant transportation resources and
benefits the environment and health
ELPC 2010 (Environmental Law & Policy Center, “Benefits of High Speed Rail”,
http://elpc.org/benefits-of-high-speed-rail)
Because high
speed rail promises environmental, economic, and transportation benefits, it has garnered broad support
High speed trains in the Midwest
would be three times as energy efficient as cars and six times as energy efficient as planes. Choosing rail travel over
driving or flying will decrease our dependence on foreign oil and reduce air pollution that causes
global warming and harms public health. Currently, major portions of the Midwest suffer from
“severe” smog problems, according to federal regulators. The construction of high-speed rail will
decrease the region’s reliance on automotive transportation and therefore help reduce ozone
emissions. Downtown train stations will pull jobs, people and business back into the country’s
central cities thus reversing sprawl. High speed rail reduces the need for new outlying highways
and airports which exacerbate sprawl.
from throughout the Midwest. Click here to view a map of the Midwest High Speed Rail Network.
2. The case outweighs the disadvantagea. Oil wars cause desperation and escalation to nuclear war as supplies run out
b. Global Warming means the extinction of all life on Earth because of sea level rise,
extreme weather and species die offs
3. Sprawl is slow because it takes decades for people to move to a new community –
That means their impact is much slower than ours
4. Urban sprawl is already happening and will continue – Growth is irreversible
Ortiz 4, Franscesa – Professor of Law and the Presidential Research Professor for South Texas College
of Law, J.D. 1989, Harvard Law School, Council Member of both the Animal Law Section and the
Environmental Law Section of the Houston Bar Association, January 2004 (“Smart Growth and
Innovative Design: An Analysis of the New Community,” ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER
News and Analysis, Issue 34, via Lexis) sbucci
This process of suburban growth, commonly referred to as urban sprawl, n20 has become a way of
life around major United States cities. Although the initial outward move from a city's central core
may have been based mostly on population growth, affluence, and transportation accessibility, sprawled
growth today is based largely on highway policy and unwise land use practices. n21 Suburban growth
has rapidly escalated to a point where suburban inhabitants now make up over one-half of
metropolitan populations. n22 Whereas new suburban rings surrounding a city used to take years to
complete, suburban rings now seem to develop annually. n23 Indeed, one commentator notes that
suburban growth has grown 10 times faster than the populations of urban centers, n24 and
continued growth is expected for at least the next 25 years. n25
5. Sprawl is inevitable in the US and globally – Cultural commitments and the
inevitable existence of some form of transportation means migration to suburbs is
inevitable
6. Highways and poor land use policy drive sprawl now
Ortiz 4, Franscesa – Professor of Law and the Presidential Research Professor for South Texas College
of Law, J.D. 1989, Harvard Law School, Council Member of both the Animal Law Section and the
Environmental Law Section of the Houston Bar Association, January 2004 (“Smart Growth and
Innovative Design: An Analysis of the New Community,” ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER
News and Analysis, Issue 34, via Lexis) sbucci
This process of suburban growth, commonly referred to as urban sprawl, n20 has become a way of life
around major United States cities. Although the initial outward move from a city's central core may
have been based mostly on population growth, affluence, and transportation accessibility,
sprawled growth today is based largely on highway policy and unwise land use practices.
n21 Suburban growth has rapidly escalated to a point where suburban inhabitants now make up over onehalf of metropolitan populations. n22 Whereas new suburban rings surrounding a city used to take years
to complete, suburban rings now seem to develop annually. n23 Indeed, one commentator notes that
suburban growth has grown 10 times faster than the populations of urban centers, n24 and continued
growth is expected for at least the next 25 years. n25
6. Urban sprawl does not decrease environmental impact – Only efficiency of travel
solves
Bruegmann ’07 (Robert Bruegmann, professor at the University of Illinois, “In Defense of Sprawl”,
http://www.forbes.com/2007/06/11/defense-sprawl-suburbs-biz-21cities_cx_rb_0611sprawl.html, 11 June
2007 DOA: 23 June 2012 JOL)
Even many of the most basic facts usually heard about sprawl are just wrong. Contrary to much accepted
wisdom, sprawl in the U.S. is not accelerating. It is declining in the city and suburbs as average lot sizes
are becoming smaller, and relatively few really affluent people are moving to the edge. This is especially
true of the lowest-density cities of the American South and West. The Los Angeles urbanized area (the U.S.
Census Bureau's functional definition of the city, which includes the city center and surrounding suburban areas) has
become more than 25% denser over the last 50 years, making it the densest in the country. A lack of reliable
information underlies many of the complaints against sprawl. Take just one example that is
considered by many the gravest charge of all: that sprawl fosters increased automobile use;
longer commutes; and more congestion, carbon emissions and, ultimately, global warming.
There is no reason to assume that high-density living is necessarily more sustainable or
liable to damage the environment than low-density living. If everyone in the affluent West were to
spread out in single-family houses across the countryside at historically low densities (and there is plenty of land to
do this, even in the densest European counties), it is quite possible, with wind, solar, biomass and geothermal
energy, to imagine a world in which most people could simply decouple themselves from the expensive and
polluting utilities that were necessary in the old high-density industrial city. Potentially, they could collect all their
own energy on-site and achieve carbon neutrality. Unless we deliberately keep most of the world's
urban population in poverty, packing more people into existing cities won't solve anything.
The solution is finding better sources of energy and more efficient means of doing
everything. As we do this, it is quite possible that the most sustainable cities will be the least dense. Certainly
sprawl has created some problems, just as every settlement pattern has. But the reason it has become the middle-
class settlement pattern of choice is that it has given them much of the privacy, mobility and choice once
enjoyed only by the wealthiest and most powerful. Sprawl in itself is not a bad thing. What is bad is the
concept of "sprawl" itself, which by lumping together all kinds of issues, some real and important and
some trivial or irrelevant, has distracted us from many real and pressing urban issues. It also provides the
dangerous illusion that there is a silver bullet solution to many of the discontents created by the fast and chaotic
change that has always characterized city life
Counterplan
Privatization CP 2AC
States CP 2AC
1. Perm do both – Double solvency – If the states and federal government do the
plan, we can reduce emissions and oil dependence twice as fast – The risk of nuclear
escalation and global warming outweigh the disadvantage
2. Federal investment is necessary – Only that certainty and credibility behind HSR
can cover the upfront costs that states don’t want to pay and attract the private
investment necessary to develop a nationwide network, that’s Todrovich et al 11
3. Only federal leadership can attract private interest and state cooperation
GAO, June 10, “High Speed Rail: Learning From Service Start-ups, Prospects for Increased Industry
Investment, and Federal Oversight Plans”
Project sponsors, states, and others with whom we spoke are looking for federal leadership and
funding in creating a structure for high speed rail development and in identifying how to achieve
the potential benefits that these projects may offer. All but 1 of the 11 high speed rail proposals we
reviewed have a projected need for federal funds in addition to any state, local, or other funding they may
receive. Aside from funding, project sponsors and others are also looking for a stronger federal
policy and programmatic role. For example, officials from 15 of the 16 projects we reviewed told us
that the federal role should be to set the vision or direction for high speed rail in the United States.
An official with the Florida DOT told us that no high speed rail system would be built in Florida
or elsewhere in the United States absent a true federal high speed rail program. Private sector
officials also told us of the importance of a federal role and vision for high speed rail, and that
leadership is needed from the federal government in providing governance structures for high
speed rail projects that help to overcome the institutional challenges previously described in this
report. Other stakeholders similarly mentioned the need for a federal role in promoting
interagency and interstate cooperation, and identified other potential federal roles, such as setting
safety standards, promoting intermodal models of transportation, and assisting with right-of-way
acquisition.
4. 50 states fiat is bad
a. Education – Having all the states take the same action is not discussed in
the literature – That means the aff can’t research responses and they don’t teach us
anything useful about government
b. Logic – No policymaker gets to choose between state and federal action –
They undermine decisionmaking skills which is a key portable skill
5. States lack the budgetary capacity to fund rail alternatives
Peterman, et al Frittelli, and Mallett ‘09 –Analyst in Transportation Policy, Specialists in
Transportation Policy, from the Congressional Research Service- prepares information for members and
committees of Congress (“High Speed Rail (HSR) in the United States” CRS Report for Congress,
December 8 2009, p. 27, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40973.pdf) // SP
Proponents of rail funding have also recommended the use of bonds, including tax-exempt bonds and
tax-credit bonds, to fund development of high speed rail lines. However, by borrowing the money and
spreading out the repayment over a long period of time, bonds increase the cost of a project compared to
paying for it all upfront. On the other hand, proponents contend that since rail improvements have long
lifetimes, there is a case for having the cost of those improvements paid by the people who will benefit
from the improvements many years into the future, rather than having the cost paid primarily by those in
the present day. Based on the costs of high speed rail development and the revenue experience of high
speed lines in other countries, it appears likely that the loans would have to be repaid primarily by the
federal or state governments, or both. Consequently, critics of this approach contend that it would be
preferable to draw funding from the government’s general fund, since a portion of the federal budget is
already being financed by the sale of bonds, which will be repaid by future taxpayers. Prospects for
significant funding from states are not promising. Most states’ budgets are constrained by
current economic difficulties, and those budgets face growing demands in other areas, such as
pensions and health care, as well as for highways and transit. The availability of dedicated funding
sources for highway and transit in some states, and the lack of a dedicated funding source for
rail, makes it more difficult for states to pursue rail as an alternative to highways or transit when
evaluating the need for new transportation investment.
Kritik
Capitalism K 2AC
1. Framework – We get to weigh our impacts
a. They moot the 1AC – Their framework gets rid of aff offense by default,
meaning we lose 8 minutes of offense and are always behind
b. Impact comparison – It’s key to determine the best political decisions and
encourages better decision making in all debates
2. Perm do both
3. We are all within the system of capitalism – Their attempts to separate themselves
splinters resistive movements
Ilan Kapoor, Prof. of Environ Studies @ York University, 4 Third World Quarterly 25.4, “Hyper-self-reflexive
development? Spivak on representing the Third World ‘Other’” p. 637
(i) ‘Intimately inhabiting’ and ‘negotiating’ discourse Taking Derrida’s lead, Spivak insists that
deconstruction and critique are only made possible by what is already there, by what inevitably surrounds
and inhabits you. ‘The only things one really deconstructs are things in which one is intimately mired. It
speaks you. You speak it’ (1990a: 135). You can never represent or act from an ‘outside’, since you
are always already situated inside discourse, culture, institutions, geopolitics. Spivak thus describes her
deconstruc- tive approach as the persistent critique of ‘a structure that one cannot not (wish to) inhabit’
and as saying ‘an impossible “no” to a structure, which one critiques, yet inhabits intimately’ (1993: 60).
Not surprisingly, she warns against the total repudiation of one’s ‘home’, arguing, as we have
already noted, that it amounts to a disavowal of one’s complicities and results in claims of purity,
transparency or triumphalism. Instead, she advocates negotiation from within. As Moore- Gilbert puts
it, ‘For Spivak...directly counter-hegemonic discourse is more liable to cancellation or even
reappropriation by the dominant than a “tangential”, or “wild”, guerrilla mode of engagement. For this
reason, too, she advocates the modes of “negotiation” and “critique”, which unsettle the dominant from
within’ (1997: 85). The point is to take seriously that with which one is familiar, to acknowledge that
one is seduced by it, even as one engages in a persistent critique of it. Or to put it differently, the point is
to try to negotiate by ‘persistently transforming conditions of impossibility into possibility’ (Spivak,
1988b: 201). In a sense, Spivak is cautioning the likes of postdevelopment critics such as Escobar
against throwing the baby out with the bathwater by being uncompromisingly ‘antidevelopment’ and arguing for ‘alternatives to development’ (Es- cobar, 1995: 215). If development
were that dominant and oppressive, then how could the critic claim to be outside it (this is
unacknowledged complicity) or represent the subaltern and social movement as pure and untangled
(which amounts to essentialisation and romanticisation) or indeed posit a utopian alternative (ie from
where would such an alternative arise if not from the bowels of development itself and how could it
miraculously escape from creating its own disciplining/power structures?)? Hence Spivak motions:
‘let us become vigilant about our own practice and use it as much as we can rather than make the
totally counter-productive gesture of repudiating it’ (1990a: 11). It is possible to work within the
belly of the beast and still engage in persistent critique of hegemonic representations.
Development may indeed have become a shady business, but this does not mean one cannot
retrieve from within it an ethico- political orientation to the Third World and the subaltern. Thus, for
instance, the World Bank and IMF may well be ‘imperialistic’ organisations, but they are too important
and powerful to turn our backs on; instead, we can engage them unrelentingly from all sides to try to
make them accountable to the subaltern. (ii) ‘Acknowledging complicity’ Acknowledging complicity
is the most obvious implication from the above analysis of Spivak’s work. Because we are all ‘subject-
effects’ (1988b: 204), that is, inescapably positioned in a variety of discourses, our personal and institutional desires and interests are unavoidably written into our representations. We need, then, to be
unscrupulously vigilant (ie hyper-self-reflexive) about our complicities. Acknowledging one’s
contamination, for Spivak, helps temper and contextualise one’s claims, reduces the risk of personal
arrogance or geoinstitutional imperialism, and moves one toward a non-hierarchical encounter
with the Third World/subaltern.
4. There is no internal link from the link to the impact – Just because we do
something capitalist does not mean the aff plan is responsible for everything bad
about capitalism
5. No radical anticapitalist movements – Their examples are exceptions
Jeroen van den Bergh, ICREA Research Professor at UAB (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona).
Social & Behavioural Sciences, professor of Environmental and Resource Economics in the Faculty of
Economics & Business Administration and the Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University
Amsterdam, 11-4-10, [“Environment versus growth — A criticism of “degrowth” and a plea for “agrowth”,” Ecological Economics, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800910004209]
E. Liu
Perhaps for the majority of degrowth proponents the notion of degrowth denotes a radical change of (or
many radical changes in)the economy. This may involve changes in values, ethics, preferences,
financial systems, markets (versus informal exchange), work and labor, the role of money, or even
profit-making and ownership (Latouche, 2009; Schneider et al., 2010). Such an approach comprises
degrowth notions 2 and 3, but it is broader. Fournier (2008) has called it “escaping from the [capitalist]
economy.” ThemainproblemIseeherethatthis is such a grand, imprecise idea which lacks a good,
thorough analysis that it will be impossible to obtain political support for it in a democratic system.
More importantly, it is void of a good view on systemic solutions and instrumentation, making it
unclear how to upscale radical changes in lifestyles and grassroots initiatives by small subsets of
the population (“niches”) to society as a whole. Alternative lifestyles, i.e. outside the cultural norm,
have always existed but have never been adopted by the large majority of people. So why would
this now suddenly be different? This does, of course, not mean such lifestyles need not exist or do not
deserve respect. They may influence slow change in dominant lifestyles, but cannot be expected to be
copied by the masses. Writings on this issue tend to be normative and idealistic rather than
analytical and realistic. They seem to be motivated more by political ideology about justice and
equity than about solving urgent and threatening environmental problems (an “ecological
imperative”). As a result, they do not necessarily offer an effective approach to combat
environmental problems. One can certainly be positive about the underlying humanistic ideals of equality,
solidarity, citizenship, locality and “good life.” However, a drastic change in the economy upfront
seems an overly risky experiment and a diffuse, undirectedstrategythatis not sure to
meetthedesiredenvironmental aims. Moreover, it may well result in unintended social and economic
chaos and instability. The main historical, large-scale experiments aimed at moving away from
market capitalism which we can learn from, namely central planning by communist states as in the former
USSR, Eastern Europe and China, certainly do not offer a good record in terms of clean production
and environmental regulation — quite the opposite. Here, a lack of market mechanisms and
other incentives seems to have given rise to excessive waste and inefficiency , also in relation
to environmentally relevant categories of inputs and outputs.
6. Capitalism does not cause all negative impacts
Richard Aberdeen, August 20th, 2003 Chapter Eighty “A Theory of Root Cause and Solution”
freedomtracks.com/uncommonsense/theway.html
A view shared by many modern activists is that capitalism, free enterprise, multi-national corporations
and globalization are the primary cause of the current global Human Rights problem and that by striving
to change or eliminate these, the root problem of what ills the modern world is being addressed.
This is a rather unfortunate and historically myopic view, reminiscent of early “class struggle” Marxists
who soon resorted to violence as a means to achieve rather questionable ends. And like these often brutal
early Marxists, modern anarchists who resort to violence to solve the problem are walking upside down
and backwards, adding to rather than correcting, both the immediate and long-term Human Rights
problem. Violent revolution, including our own American revolution, becomes a breeding ground for
poverty, disease, starvation and often mass oppression leading to future violence. Large, publicly
traded corporations are created by individuals or groups of individuals, operated by individuals and made
up of individual and/or group investors. These business enterprises are deliberately structured to be
empowered by individual (or group) investor greed. For example, a theorized ‘need’ for offering
salaries much higher than is necessary to secure competent leadership (often resulting in corrupt and
entirely incompetent leadership), lowering wages more than is fair and equitable and scaling back of often
hard fought for benefits, is sold to stockholders as being in the best interest of the bottom-line market
value and thus, in the best economic interests of individual investors. Likewise, major political and
corporate exploitation of third-world nations is rooted in the individual and joint greed of
corporate investors and others who stand to profit from such exploitation. More than just investor
greed, corporations are driven by the greed of all those involved, including individuals outside the
enterprise itself who profit indirectly from it. If one examines “the course of human events” closely,
it can correctly be surmised that the “root” cause of humanity’s problems comes from individual
human greed and similar negative individual motivation. The Marx/Engles view of history being a
“class” struggle ¹ does not address the root problem and is thus fundamentally flawed from a true
historical perspective (see Gallo Brothers for more details). So-called “classes” of people, unions,
corporations and political groups are made up of individuals who support the particular group or
organizational position based on their own individual needs, greed and desires and thus, an apparent
“class struggle” in reality, is an extension of individual motivation. Likewise, nations engage in
wars of aggression, not because capitalism or classes of society are at root cause, but because
individual members of a society are individually convinced that it is in their own economic
survival best interest. War, poverty, starvation and lack of Human and Civil Rights have existed on
our planet since long before the rise of modern capitalism, free enterprise and multi-national
corporation avarice, thus the root problem obviously goes deeper than this. Junior Bush and the neoconservative genocidal maniacs of modern-day America could not have recently effectively gone
to war against Iraq without the individual support of individual troops and a certain percentage of
individual citizens within the U.S. population, each lending support for their own personal motives,
whatever they individually may have been. While it is true that corrupt leaders often provoke war, using
all manner of religious, social and political means to justify, often as not, entirely ludicrous ends, very
rare indeed is a battle only engaged in by these same unscrupulous miscreants of power. And
though a few iniquitous elitist powerbrokers may initiate nefarious policies of global genocidal
oppression, it takes a very great many individuals operating from individual personal motivations
of survival, desire and greed to develop these policies into a multi-national exploitive reality. No
economic or political organization and no political or social cause exists unto itself but rather, individual
members power a collective agenda. A workers’ strike has no hope of succeeding if individual
workers do not perceive a personal benefit. And similarly, a corporation will not exploit workers if
doing so is not believed to be in the economic best interest of those who run the corporation and who in
turn, must answer (at least theoretically) to individuals who collectively through purchase or other
allotment of shares, own the corporation. Companies have often been known to appear benevolent,
offering both higher wages and improved benefits, if doing so is perceived to be in the overall economic
best interest of the immediate company and/or larger corporate entity. Non-unionized business enterprises
frequently offer ‘carrots’ of appeasement to workers in order to discourage them from organizing and
historically in the United States, concessions such as the forty-hour workweek, minimum wage, workers
compensation and proscribed holidays have been grudgingly capitulated to by greedy capitalist masters as
necessary concessions to avoid profit-crippling strikes and outright revolution.
Security K 2AC
1. Framework – We get to weigh our impacts
a. They moot the 1AC – Their framework gets rid of aff offense by default,
meaning we lose 8 minutes of offense and are always behind
b. Impact comparison – It’s key to determine the best political decisions and
encourages better decision making in all debates
2. Perm do both
3. Environmental security is a moral instance of securitization and results in
cooperation
Roe, 12 (Paul Roe, Associate Professor in the Department of International Relations and European
Studies at
Central European University, Budapest, “Is securitization a ‘negative’ concept? Revisiting the normative debate
over normal versus extraordinary politics,” Security Dialogue vol. 43 no. 3, June 2012)
Focusing on the environmental sector of security, Floyd reasons that there are certain referents, however,
that can indeed be privileged over others. In revising the securitization concept to enable inquiry into
actors’ intentions, Floyd proposes what she calls a ‘referent object benefiting securitization’ and an ‘agent
benefiting securitization’. The distinction between these two securitizations, put simply, is that while one
corresponds to the benefit of the wider, declared referent, the other benefits the narrower concerns of the
securitizing actor. Besides: Distinguishing between different types of securitization according to the
beneficiary is important beyond allowing insights into intentions of securitizing actors; it suggests that
not all securitizations are morally equal. It holds open the possibility that, depending on who/what
benefits from any given securitization, it can be either morally right or morally wrong (Floyd, 2010: 56).
Additionally, though, moral rightness is also dependent on the nature of the wider referent: for Floyd
(2011: 431), referent objects must be ‘conducive to human well-being’.19 In this particular regard, Floyd
(2007) distinguishes between state-centric and human-centric approaches to environmental security and,
subsequently (Floyd, 2010), between environmental security as ‘national security’ (state-centric), as
‘human security’ (human-centric), and as ‘ecological security’. Floyd rejects the national-security
approach on the ground that it reflects too narrow a conception of human well-being (our citizens over
yours), and the ecological security approach for failing to privilege human life over and above other
animal and life species.20 ‘Only environmental security as human security’, she concludes, ‘directly
benefits human beings’ and, importantly, ‘seeks to address the root causes of environmental
change through (global) cooperative measures with the ultimate aim of establishing a healthy and
functioning environment for us all’ (Floyd, 2010: 184).21 Although, as some critics have pointed out,22
Floyd’s work maintains that some securitizations may reflect a Schmittian notion of the political, for
Floyd herself looking at actors’ intentions makes it possible to distinguish between, on the one hand,
those securitizations that maintain existing power structures and relations (agent-benefiting) and, on
the other, those (referent object-benefiting) that not only enable the securing of wider interests but also
envisage a more transformatory process. Through a concentration on environmental security as human
security and a normative commitment to a conception of human well-being,23 Floyd’s work thus reveals
the possibilities for a different (positive) mode of politics based on a rejection of zero-sum thinking. As
Floyd (2010: 4) herself is keen to stress, the outcome of securitization is not always ‘conflict and the
security dilemma’. In efforts to transcend negative, friend/enemy identifications, certain
ecological issues – such as global warming – may thus be conducive for the construction of nondivisive referents (humanity). And in this way Floyd acknowledges that the environmental sector may be
relatively unproblematic in relation to the value of human well-being. But, ‘what else in other sectors’,
she asks, ‘could be said to have the same status?’ (Floyd, 2010: 193).
4. Developing political approaches is necessary even if criticizing security is good
Pinar Bilgin, Prof. of IR @ Bilkent Univ, ‘5 [Regional Security in The Middle East, p. 60-1]
Admittedly, providing a critique of existing approaches to security, revealing those hidden
assumptions and normative projects embedded in Cold War Security Studies, is only a first step. In
other words, from a critical security perspective, self-reflection, thinking and writing are not enough
in themselves. They should be compounded by other forms of practice (that is, action taken on the
ground). It is indeed crucial for students of critical approaches to re-think security in both theory
and practice by pointing to possibilities for change immanent in world politics and suggesting
emancipatory practices if it is going to fulfil the promise of becoming a 'force of change' in world politics.
Cognisant of the need to find and suggest alternative practices to meet a broadened security agenda
without adopting militarised or zero-sum thinking and practices, students of critical approaches to
security have suggested the imagining, creation and nurturing of security communities as
emancipatory practices (Booth 1994a; Booth and Vale 1997). Although Devetak's approach to the
theory/practice relationship echoes critical approaches' conception of theory as a form of practice, the
latter seeks to go further in shaping global practices. The distinction Booth makes between 'thinking about
thinking' and 'thinking about doing' grasps the difference between the two. Booth (1997: 114) writes:
Thinking about thinking is important, but, more urgently, so is thinking about doing .... Abstract
ideas about emancipation will not suffice: it is important for Critical Security Studies to engage
with the real by suggesting policies, agents, and sites of change, to help humankind, in whole and in
part, to move away from its structural wrongs. In this sense, providing a critique of existing
approaches to security, revealing those hidden assumptions and normative projects embedded in Cold
War Security Studies, is only a first (albeit crucial) step. It is vital for the students of critical
approaches to re-think security in both theory and practice.
5. Rejection itself fails – They don’t develop an alternative political strategy that
allows us to deal with material structures of securitization or world problems
6. Treats are real and they inhibit our ability to democratically deal with them
Olav. F. Knudsen, Prof @ Södertörn Univ College, ‘1 [Security Dialogue 32.3, “Post-Copenhagen
Security Studies: Desecuritizing Securitization,” p. 360]
In the post-Cold War period, agenda-setting has been much easier to influence than the
securitization approach assumes. That change cannot be credited to the concept; the change
in security politics was already taking place in defense ministries and parlia- ments before the
concept was first launched. Indeed, securitization in my view is more appropriate to the security
politics of the Cold War years than to the post-Cold War period. Moreover, I have a problem with the
underlying implication that it is unim- portant whether states ‘really’ face dangers from other states or
groups. In the Copenhagen school, threats are seen as coming mainly from the actors’ own fears, or
from what happens when the fears of individuals turn into paranoid political action. In my view, this
emphasis on the subjective is a misleading conception of threat, in that it discounts an
independent existence for what- ever is perceived as a threat. Granted, political life is often
marked by misper- ceptions, mistakes, pure imaginations, ghosts, or mirages, but such phenom- ena
do not occur simultaneously to large numbers of politicians, and hardly most of the time. During
the Cold War, threats – in the sense of plausible possibilities of danger – referred to ‘real’ phenomena,
and they refer to ‘real’ phenomena now. The objects referred to are often not the same, but that is
a different matter. Threats have to be dealt with both in terms of perceptions and in terms of the
phenomena which are perceived to be threatening. The point of Wæver’s concept of security is not
the potential existence of danger somewhere but the use of the word itself by political elites. In his
1997 PhD dissertation, he writes, ‘One can view “security” as that which is in language theory called a
speech act: it is not interesting as a sign referring to something more real – it is the utterance itself that is
the act.’ The deliberate disregard of objective factors is even more explicitly stated in Buzan &
Wæver’s joint article of the same year. As a consequence, the phenomenon of threat is reduced to a
matter of pure domestic politics. It seems to me that the security dilemma, as a central notion in security
studies, then loses its founda- tion. Yet I see that Wæver himself has no compunction about referring to
the security dilemma in a recent article. This discounting of the objective aspect of threats shifts
security studies to insignificant concerns. What has long made ‘threats’ and ‘threat
perceptions’ important phenomena in the study of IR is the implication that urgent action may be
required. Urgency, of course, is where Wæver first began his argu- ment in favor of an alternative
security conception, because a convincing sense of urgency has been the chief culprit behind the abuse of
‘security’ and the consequent ‘politics of panic’, as Wæver aptly calls it. Now, here – in the case of
urgency – another baby is thrown out with the Wæverian bathwater. When real situations of
urgency arise, those situations are challenges to democracy; they are actually at the core of the
problematic arising with the process of making security policy in parliamentary democracy. But in
Wæver’s world, threats are merely more or less persuasive, and the claim of urgency is just an- other
argument. I hold that instead of ‘abolishing’ threatening phenomena ‘out there’ by
reconceptualizing them, as Wæver does, we should continue paying attention to them, because
situations with a credible claim to urgency will keep coming back and then we need to know
more about how they work in the interrelations of groups and states (such as civil wars, for instance),
not least to find adequate democratic procedures for dealing with them.
Topicality
T – Substantial 2AC
1. The plan mandates a substantial increase in investment in transportation – The
neg evidence is simply clarifying how much money the aff mandates – This solves
their voters
2. Their interp is arbitrary – It’s based on definitions with no intent to define – That
makes it unpredictable and a poor limit on the resolution
3. They overlimit by excluding valuable affs at the core of the transportation debate
only because they have a low cost figure – Other measures are more important for
determining the educational significance of an aff
4. Reasonability – Good is good enough – They create a race to the bottom that
arbitrarily excludes valuable affs
T – Transportation Infrastructure 2AC
1. Transportation infrastructure are underlying structures for delivery – Includes
railways
Trimbath 2011
(Susanne, Ph.D., former Senior Research Economist in Capital Market Studies at Milken Institute, Transportation
Infrastructure: Paving the Way, STP Advisory Services, LLC, p. 9)
The strategy applied by the US Chamber of Commerce for the infrastructure performance
index project presents a model for developing the way forward . A stakeholder-centric approach
allows you to measure the right things, communicate to the people in a language they understand and
get to ACTION faster. The process, detailed in the Technical Report last summer (US Chamber
2010), is basically this: 1. Clearly define “transportation infrastructure” as the underlying
structures that support the delivery of inputs to places of production, goods and services to
customers, and customers to marketplaces. The structures are: • Transit • Highways • Airports
• Railways • Waterways (Ports) • Intermodal Links
2. Transportation infrastructure includes HSR
Chapman 11
(Chapman and Cutler LLP, “The American Jobs Act and Its Impact on a National Infrastructure Bank”, Client Alert, 9-29,
http://www.chapman.com/media/news/media.1081.pdf)
Eligibility for financial assistance must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of AIFAʼs Board of
Directors. Generally, the applicantʼs request must meet the Actʼs definition of a transportation
infrastructure project, water infrastructure project, or energy infrastructure project. To be eligible, the
project must have costs that are reasonably anticipated to equal or exceed $100 million. However, rural
infrastructure projects need only have costs that are reasonably anticipated to equal or exceed $25 million.
-- Transportation Infrastructure : includes the construction, alteration, or repair, including the
facilitation of intermodal transit, of the following subsectors: o Highways or roads o Bridges o Mass
transit o Inland waterways o Commercial ports o Airports o Air traffic control systems o
Passenger rail, including high-speed rail or Freight rail systems -- Water Infrastructure:
includes the construction, consolidation, alteration, or repair of the following subsectors: o Wastewater
treatment facilities o Storm water management systems o Dams o Solid waste disposal facilities o
Drinking water treatment facilities o Levees o Open space management systems -- Energy Infrastructure:
includes the construction, consolidation, alteration, or repair of the following subsectors: o Pollution
reduced energy generation o Transmission and distribution o Storage o Energy efficiency enhancements
for public and commercial buildings.
3. They overlimit by excluding crucial affs like freight rail – These are at the core of
the resolution and a huge part of transportation debate in the US
4. We are predictable – We only add rail affs to the resolution – Those were put out
by literally every camp and the literature makes it relevant
5. Reasonability – Good is good enough – They create a race to the bottom that
arbitrarily excludes valuable affs