FANDOM


Case E-Waste (Flow of Cuban Embargo Case N/A)Edit

Harms:

Harm 1: E-waste hurts health overseas

- majority of our E-waste sent overseas

Harm 2: Wasted materials

- valuable metals in E-waste such as: aluminum, copper, gold, and silver

- 1 ton E-waste = more gold than 11 tones of gold ore



Plan:

Agency: USFG

$: general federal revenue

Enforcement: EPA

Mandate 1: Pass new E-waste law

Mandate 2: Tightened export laws

- no exportation of E-waste to countries with lower job quality standards

Mandate 3: Incentives for consumers

Exemption: schools, NGO's

Violators will be charges $6,000 per ton of E-waste sent



Advantages:

Advantage 1: Health protected overseas

Advantage 2: Materials saved and reused

Advantage 3: Environmentally-friendly products less expensive

Negative ArgumentsEdit

I'll add more to this later; right now I'll just be sharing a t-press with you. This case links well with �any "reform =/= create" press. Instead of going step-by-step in order, I'll be giving the absolutes first (3), and the dependables later (1).


First absolute: Interpretation.Edit

Our interpretation is two-pronged: Aff has to reform an existing environmental policy – modern environmental policy is associated with NEPA; in order to do that you have to reform an EXISTING environmental policy.


First, Modern environmental policy is associated with NEPA. Kraft 2k
Michael E. Kraft [Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs (Political Science), Education: B.A. (1966), University of California-Riverside; M.A. (1967), Ph.D. (1973), Yale University], "U.S. Environmental Policy and Politics: From the 1960s to the 1990s", Page 21, © 2000 by The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. Published by the Journal of Policy History [offers a new approach to policy analysis that is both historical and innovative. The Journal encourages interdisciplinary research into the origins and development of public policy in the United States and in other countries as well. Appearing quarterly, the Journal of Policy History publishes articles and review essays by historians, political scientists, sociologists, economists, and legal scholars], Volume 12, Number 1, 2000, E-ISSN: 1528-4190, DOI: 10.1353/jph.2000.0006, project MUSE (HEG) Environmental Policy Comes of Age: From the 1960s to the 1970s The modern era of environmental policy is commonly associated with the enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, signed into law by President Richard Nixon on the first day of 1970. Yet well before the momentous policy developments of the 1970s that would follow NEPA's approval, federal environmental policy had began to change in response to the forces described above--especially recognition of the threats to public lands and natural resources and increasing public support for policy intervention.


Second, Current environmental policy focuses on reforming environmental policies of the past. Kraft 2k
Michael E. Kraft [Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs (Political Science), Education: B.A. (1966), University of California-Riverside; M.A. (1967), Ph.D. (1973), Yale University], "U.S. Environmental Policy and Politics: From the 1960s to the 1990s", Pages 33-34, © 2000 by The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. Published by the Journal of Policy History [offers a new approach to policy analysis that is both historical and innovative. The Journal encourages interdisciplinary research into the origins and development of public policy in the United States and in other countries as well. Appearing quarterly, the Journal of Policy History publishes articles and review essays by historians, political scientists, sociologists, economists, and legal scholars], Volume 12, Number 1, 2000, E-ISSN: 1528-4190, DOI: 10.1353/jph.2000.0006, project MUSE (HEG) Sustainability-Based Environmental Policy in the 1990s The third era of environmental policy and politics is a work in progress. It builds on efforts over the past two decades to reformulate policies approved in the 1970s to improve their effectiveness and efficiency. But it also contains the seeds of a far more significant shift in thinking and action grounded in the concept of sustainability. In many ways, the ultimate end of environmental [End Page 33] policy is sustainable development. Yet this goal often was lost sight of as public officials and regulated parties focused on actions required by command-and-control legislation.


Second absolute: Violation.Edit

There’s no national E-waste legislation. Leahy 07
Stephen Leahy [An independent environmental journalist for 15 years; his writing has been published in dozens of publications around the world including New Scientist, The London Sunday Times, Maclean’s Magazine, Earth Island Journal, The Toronto Star, Wired News, Audubon, BBC Wildlife, and Canadian Geographic. He is the international science and environment correspondent for the Rome-headquartered Inter Press Service News Agency (IPS), the world’s 6th largest global news agency. His IPS articles are published in over 500 newspapers and magazines all over the world reaching an estimated 200 million readers in up to 20 languages. He is a professional member of The Society of Environmental Journalists (the only North-American membership association of professional journalists dedicated to more and better coverage of environment-related issues. SEJ is an independent, nonpartisan grassroots educational group dedicated to the highest standards of public service journalism. By long-standing board policy, SEJ does not accept gifts or grants from non-media corporations, government agencies or environmental advocacy groups. SEJ’s 2008 operating budget of $1,012,213 (audited figure) was underwritten by foundations, universities, earned income, media company contributions and individual gifts. SEJ’s membership now includes more than 1,500 highly qualified journalists, editors, educators and students working in print, broadcast and online news media throughout the U.S., Canada, Mexico and 27 other countries. Members and others who use SEJ services report environmental news and information to millions of readers, listeners and viewers worldwide, on a daily basis)], "ENVIRONMENT-US: An E-Waste Free-for-All", Published by IPS (Inter Press Service) [a non-profit, international non-governmental organisation (INGO), registered in Rome (Italy), where IPS’ headquarters are based. Inter Press Service (IPS) is the world’s leading news agency on issues such as development, environment, human rights and civil society], November 21, 2007, http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40163 (HEG) Despite the high value of some of this waste and its known toxicity, the main reason it isn't recycled is that the United States does not have any national e-waste legislation. Only nine states have e-waste recycling programmes, and five of those just started this year. Since it is very expensive and dangerous for states to handle e-waste at traditional landfills, many more states are expected to shift the burden to the manufacturers in the coming year.


Dependable: StandardEdit

Your standard could be one of a few things: limits, legal contextuality, or, well, whatever you can think of. I like legal context myself because the interp uses NEPA.


Third absolute: Impacts.Edit

You probably won't have time to get all of these out there, and I wouldn't recommend you do so, but you can pick and choose however you want.]]

1. A priori issue. Topicality is an issue that is evaluated before any other contention is addressed. They're either T or not. If they aren’t topical, you should vote negative without considering any other issue.

2. Prima facie burden. The Affirmative team’s obligation is to present a case on its face that defends the truth of the resolution. Regardless of whether their plan is a good or bad idea, they have failed to uphold their prima facie burden if it does not mirror the terms of resolution.

3. Destroys debate. If non-topical cases are allowed, the entire foundation for academic debate is destroyed. The most important thing to consider in academic debate is the resolution. If the resolution does not matter, why debate? If non-topical cases are the norm, people will stop debating, because what’s the point?

4. Sets a bad precedent. Voting in favor of a blatantly non-topical case sets a precedent. It says to our league, “This practice is okay.” As the judge, it is your job to vote against cases that set a bad precedent of non-topical cases being okay. A negative ballot based on topicality sends a message discouraging teams from running non-topical cases.

5. No affirmative. If there is no team affirming the resolution, there is no "affirmative" team. There are two negative teams - thus you should still check that negative box at the end of the round.