re:boyle and foreign pollutants

[dklein@dailynews.net]

>>>>>>
1) Foreign Countries:  I don't think that plans necessarily have to 
affect the United States.  By removing the limited "...the domestic 
production and/or emission of environmental pollutants IN THE UNITED 
STATES" I think a certain vaugeness takes hold.  Domestic "of or 
relating to the policies or affairs within a country".  I envision a 
few cases regulating MNC's polluting in foreign countries, thus 
decreasing the domestic production of pollutants in, say, Mexico?
>>>>>>

thats a much more charitable perspective than what affirmatives will 
inevitably present.  taking out the "in the united states" language does far 
more than allow a "few cases regulating mnc's polluting in foreign 
countries."  initially, there is no modifier that limits the topic to united 
states deomestic industries or mncs.  usfg regulations that limit french 
industry pollutants on french soil seems topical.  or somali industries on 
somali soil.  second, there seem multiple incintives for affirmatives to run 
"foreign" cases.  avoid the federalism disad/counterplan.  bash "foreigners" 
for a novel clinton turn.  craft regulatory codes to crush or encourage 
international agreements.
david

---

• Prev by Date: JKM and ReformRe: 1996-97 CEDA Topic
• Next by Date: Re: 1996-97 CEDA Topic
• Prev by thread: JKM and ReformRe: 1996-97 CEDA Topic
• Next by thread: Topics 1 or 6
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page