The Instigator
Con (against)
7 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
7 Points

Cap and Trade should be passed by Congress

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/4/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,207 times Debate No: 13269
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




Hey all. I'm glad to be back to DDO. And hopefully I can have some good debates.

"Cap and Trade should be passed by Congress"

Since I am Con for this topic, I ask that my opponent writes his case first. However, I'll disclose the tags of my arguments so they have a general direction of where my case will be going. Thanks and good luck!

Contention 1: Cap and Trade will Result in Trade Wars

Contention 2: Cap and Trade Exacerbates Poverty

Contention 3: Cap and Trade Damages the Economy


Cap and trade is a useful piece of legislation , however most americans forget that it is a long-term bill . cap and trade will reduce consumption , increasing investment and providing a more sustainable growth rate( by spreading peaks in consumption over a tonger time period ) in the economy .

the enemies of Cap and trade will argue that Cap and trade will damage the economy . The biggest damage to the economy at the moment is the government overspending exerbated by the bush and obama administrations. If cap and trade provides a more sustainable economy with more sustainable economic agents, it will surely create a more sustainable macro-economic agency .

THe enemies of cap and trade will also argue that it exaberates poverty , but poverty in the us has already returned to 1950's levels without the cap and trade legislation in place. if poverty is excerbated without the cap and trade legislation how much of any effect that it might have, could actually be attributed to the legislation itself ? and how much to the numerous other factors ?

The enemies of the legislation argue that the legislation will result in trade wars . However the doha round of the WTo negotiations on global trade is a trade war on protectionism already happening . How many subsequent trade wars could actually be attributed to the legislation and how many more will be attributed to the over-consumption of resources by reckless individuals making irrational decisions on macro-economic policy .

cap and trade is a market solution to the economic problems of the world , universal social care is a government imposed solution to the healthcare problems of the us. government imposed solutions cannot be beneficial in the long-term . however many companies have been advocates of the market based approach of the cap and trade over government imposed solutions which could of been imposed by a democratic congress.

most of the us population is within range of the major amounts of air polluntants which cap and trade deals with . london in the uk's economy improved after improving the air quality .

i will give way .
Debate Round No. 1


C1: Trade Wars

A) Cap and trade will lead to a trade war with china

Will Wilkinson- a Research Fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington, 09

"Last week, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the U.S. should be open to slapping tariffs on imports from countries that fail to implement their own carbon reduction policies. Meanwhile, China has threatened trade war if faced with carbon duties, which it says are illegal under World Trade Organization agreements. Trade restrictions tend to leave all involved poor, making trade war a frightening prospect during an already immiserating recession. So how did we come to have the Energy Secretary provoking threats of mutually destructive trade sanctions? Here's how. Either all the big, carbon-intensive economies reduce their emissions, or there's little chance of reducing warming. If the climate modelers are right, we'll all be better off if everyone pitches in. But each has an incentive to hold out, since countries that don't pitch in will enjoy lower energy costs and a competitive advantage in international markets. Chu rightly points out that Obama's proposed cap and-trade scheme will put American manufacturers at a relative disadvantage. Cap-and-trade is sure to raise costs for struggling American consumers. But it won't much reduce warming unless countries like China and India fall in line. Yet neither the U.S. nor Europe can just force this to happen. If we try by imposing carbon duties, we'll hurt consumers even more by raising the cost of imports, and possibly start a trade war no one will win. Chu's remarks highlight the fact that cap-and-trade is a costly, risky gambit. But now's not the time. Suffering workers and consumers can't afford to lose again."

Dr. Stephen Murgatroyd- PhD Columnist - June 25, 2009 ("Proposed US climate change bill a bargaining chip," Troy Media Corporation,

"Buried within the Bill are provisions for a levy on goods imported into the US which come from a country which is not seeking to limit CO2 emissions, as judged by the US Environmental Protection Agency. The idea behind this is simple: once the US regulates greenhouse gases produced by US companies, those companies won't be struggling to compete with foreign companies that have no such restrictions imposed on them. The target of this provision within the legislation is China and India and it can be seen as part of the US bargaining position for the Copenhagen climate change negotiations to be held in December. China is already suggesting that this is an opening protectionist move which will trigger a trade war."

B) China and Trade Wars collapse multilateral trade

Nader and Heaps – 08 campaign to help broker a successor to the Kyoto Protocol

Good intentions to limit big polluters in some countries but not others will turn any meaningful cap into Swiss cheese. It can be avoided by relocating existing and new production of various kinds of CO2-emitting industries to jurisdictions with no or virtually no limits. This is known as carbon leakage, and it leads to trade anarchy. How? The most advanced piece of climate legislation at the moment, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, contains provisions for retaliatory action to be taken against imports from carbon free-riding nations. Married with the current economic malaise, the temptation to slide into a righteous but runaway environmental protectionism -- which Washington's K Street lobbyists would be only too happy to grease -- would almost certainly lead to a collapse of the multilateral trading system. This scenario was presented to the world's trade ministers last December at the United Nations climate talks in Bali by David Runnalls of the International Institute for Sustainable Development. China and India, that have traditionally resisted any notion of a common responsibility to make current polluters pay would do well to enlist in this effort. First, while there is no limit on the downside for missing a hard cap, with a carbon tax you just pay as you go. If a fast-growing country like China accepted an emissions cap and then overshot it, they would have to purchase carbon credits on the international market. If they missed their target by a lot, carbon credits would be scarce, and purchasing them would suck dry their foreign exchange reserves in one slurp. That's why a carbon tax is much easier to swallow and, anyway, through the power of the price signal, it would produce the same desired result as a hard cap. Second, administering billions of dollars of carbon credits in a cap-and-trade system in an already chaotic regulatory environment would invite a civil war between interest groups seeking billions in carbon credit handouts and the regulator holding the kitty. By contrast, a uniform tax on CO2 emissions levied at a small number of large sites would be relatively clear-cut. During the Montreal Protocol talks in the 1980s, India smartly balked at a suggestion to phase out CFCs in certain products and not in others because of the chaos that would result from the ambiguity. Third, key people in China read our newspapers. They see the ominous clouds of protectionism under the guise of environmentalism

C2) Cap and Trade Exacerbates Poverty

Randanovich 09

"Rural and agriculture communities will be most disproportionately affected by this convoluted catastrophe of environmental regulations. As President Obama said, Energy prices will "necessarily skyrocket", up to 125 percent—forcing local agriculture producers to pay more for seed, equipment, machinery, steel, and other supplies. Recently, 99 Agriculture Groups came out in opposition to this bill—including the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Chicken Council, the United Egg Producers, the Frozen Food Council and the Society of American Florists. Believe me, they have good reason—farm income is expected to drop $8 billion in 2012, and over $50 billion in 2035, while farm construction costs increase 10 percent and gas prices skyrocket 58 percent higher than today's national average. If you like getting your oil from Hugo Chavez, you're going to love getting breakfast, lunch and dinner from him as well. Farmers aren't the only people who oppose a new national energy tax; business mogul Warren Buffet, a Barack Obama supporter, recently denounced the cap and tax scheme as a "regressive tax" that will harm "an awful lot of people." The fact is that there is not one section, provision, line or word in this entire bill that would be beneficial for a healthy economy, let alone our current, struggling economy. In fact, we should be taking a lesson from Spain, the country who has spent the most amount of money on creating a so-called green economy. A recent study by Spanish economics professor Gabriel Calzada found that in Spain, for every "green" job created through environmental subsidies, 2.2 other jobs were lost. The failure of Spain's efforts to manipulate their economy through the creation of green jobs was even recognized by former President Bill Clinton when he said during a conference in Madrid, Spain that Spain's, "commitment to to clean energy has cost many jobs." The bottom line is that the extent to which the American consumer is going to pay for a national energy tax cannot be overstated—it will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars. The weight of the new taxes associated with this bill will break the backs of some families, forcing them out of their homes and into the street. America will lose its competitive edge in our global economy as we regulate ourselves into economic obscurity, allowing countries like China and India to outpace our productivity because this legislation will make it far too expensive to conduct business in America."

*My opponent in his above speech gives no empirical analysis to look to. It was all speculation. My evidence outweighs.


derfe forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Obviously he all my arguments are extended. Thanks for the debate


derfe forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by CiRrK 6 years ago
I put the impact of C3 into the 2 contentions that I made
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
I'll accept if you stipulate that a carbon tax is a "cap and trade" policy.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 6 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by CiRrK 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70