Aff - Uniqueness Updates - Michigan 7 2023 CPSW

2AC China REM Ban Now
China is already beginning to ban REMs
Domonske 7/4/23 [Camila; 7/4/23; Reporter for NPR; NPR; “China imposes export controls on 2 metals used in semiconductors and solar panels”; https://www.npr.org/2023/07/04/1185940293/china-imposes-export-controls-on-two-metals-used-in-semiconductors-and-solar-pan; accessed 7/9/23; Lowell-DC]
The Chinese government has announced buyers of two metals used in computer chips and solar panels will need to apply for export permits, starting on Aug. 1. The metals, gallium and germanium, are also used in military applications.
The U.S. has been imposing trade limits for several years to try to restrict China's access to semiconductor technology. In a statement, China's Commerce Ministry said the new controls on exporting the metals are to safeguard China's national interests.
"These controls aren't a ban," notes NPR's Emily Feng, reporting from Taipei. "But it's possible China could reduce the amount it sells as retribution."
That's a scenario the U.S. and allied countries have long been worried about — not just for these two fairly obscure metals, but for the many minerals produced and processed in China in large quantities.
China produces 60% of the world's germanium and 80% of the world's gallium, according to the Critical Raw Minerals Alliance. It also dominates supply chains for rare earth minerals used in many high-tech products, as well as the lithium, cobalt and graphite used in batteries.
Beijing's move comes shortly before U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is set to visit China. The relationship between the U.S. and China is fraught, to say the least. Trade — particularly as it comes to semiconductors and raw materials — has been a particular point of tension.
Both the White House and an overwhelming majority of Congress see China's dominance of mineral supply chains as an economic competition and a security threat.
The U.S., citing national security, has imposed its own export limits on semiconductor manufacturing equipment. The Netherlands, under pressure from the U.S., recently did the same.
XT: REM Ban Now
China is banning REM exports to curb US tech development
Areddy and Hua 7/4/23 [James T. and Sha; 7/4/23; James is a China-focused correspondent for The WSJ, Sha is a reporter in The WSJ’s Singapore bureau; The Wall Street Journal “China Restricts Exports of Two Minerals Used in High-Performance Chips”; https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-restricts-exports-of-two-metals-used-in-high-performance-chips-a649402b; accessed 7/9/23; Lowel;-DC]
SINGAPORE—China set export restrictions on two minerals the U.S. says are critical to the production of semiconductors, missile systems and solar cells, a show of force ahead of economic talks between two rivals that increasingly set trade rules to achieve technological dominance.
The minerals—gallium and germanium—and more than three dozen related metals and other materials will be subject to unspecified export controls starting Aug. 1, Beijing’s Ministry of Commerce said Monday. Its statement referred to safeguarding national security and interests and said some future export applications would require review by the government’s top body, the State Council.
The China-U.S. rivalry increasingly features export restrictions tailored to slow the high-technology industries of the other nation. Trading complaints about such controls, which both sides say are designed to protect national security, have featured in a return to high-level talks between the two governments. More focus on the issue is likely when Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen visits Beijing later this week and if Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo makes an expected trip in the coming months.
The U.S. Commerce Department had no immediate comment.
The U.S. in October halted exports to China of equipment used to produce more technically advanced semiconductors and has leaned on allies like South Korea and the Netherlands to do the same. Beijing warned its companies to consider the national-security implications of exports to the U.S. It banned the use of products made by Micron, the U.S.’s biggest memory-chip maker, in its critical information-infrastructure firms, while warning American allies to reject what it terms Cold War-type protectionism peddled by Washington.
Complexities bind the U.S. and China in production of wares such as semiconductors in ways that make it difficult for either side to act too rashly, a kind of technology-sector equivalent of mutually assured destruction. The Biden administration is trying to entice producers such as Samsung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. to expand in the U.S. but getting them to turn their back on China appears unlikely.
The new restrictions on gallium and germanium affect specialty metals produced and refined primarily in China, giving it leverage in some cutting-edge sectors. Neither gallium or germanium is traded in large quantities. Both nevertheless have uses important to particular industries, especially production of semiconductors that are often designed in and for use in the U.S. even if made in Taiwan and South Korea.
“This measure will have an immediate ripple effect on the semiconductor industry, especially with regards to high-performance chips,” said Alastair Neill, board member of the Critical Mineral Institute who has nearly 30 years of experience with China’s metals industry.
China has smarted at U.S. efforts to slow the advance of its semiconductor manufacturing, which Washington warns is ultimately aimed at strengthening Beijing’s military. The Biden administration has made it difficult for China to buy lithography machines needed to produce high-performance chips, and last week scored a win when the Dutch government said its equipment makers like ASML would need government permission to ship some products abroad.
Chinese chip makers and suppliers who gathered in Shanghai for a recent industry event were in a grim but defiant mood following a Wall Street Journal report that the Biden administration is considering new restrictions on exports of artificial-intelligence chips to China.
Industry analysts see a pattern of tit-for-tat. “If you don’t send high-end chips to China, China will respond by not sending you the high-performance elements you need for those chips,” said Neill, who added that Beijing usually tries to match U.S. trade measures with a countermeasure of equal proportion.
Both gallium and germanium appear among 50 minerals that the U.S. Geological Survey deems “critical,” meaning they are essential to the economic or national security of the U.S. and have a supply chain vulnerable to disruption.
2AC No Geoengineering
Even though the UN and US have considered expanding SRM research but both have concluded it’s not viable.
Charlotte Elton, 7-5-2023, What is sun blocking and does it really work?, euronews, https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/07/05/sun-blockers-us-scientists-aim-to-cool-the-earth-by-reflecting-sunlight-into-space, Accessed: 7-9-2023, //ONHS IF
A White House report confirms that the US is open to researching solar radiation modification, or sun blocking. It sounds like something out of a sci-fi novel, but some researchers want to cool the earth by reflecting sunlight back into space. The outlandish idea is currently trending, after the US voiced interested in studying 'solar radiation modification' (SRM) as a possibility, according to a White House report last week. Advocates claim it could reduce the devastating impacts of climate change, and even refreeze the poles. "SRM offers the possibility of cooling the planet significantly on a timescale of a few years," the report states. Earlier in the year, several news outlets also reported that the United Nations are keen to ‘explore’ it. But just how viable really is sun-blocking technology - and what have the United Nations actually said? How could blocking the sun stop climate change? 'Sun blocking' technologies - also known as 'solar radiation modification' - could theoretically cool down the earth by reflecting sunlight back into space. One idea involves pumping sun-blocking particles into the upper atmosphere. This process of 'stratospheric aerosol injection' would involve planes spraying an aerosol like sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. This mist of particles would reflect the sun back upwards, shading the earth. The method has already worked - albeit accidentally. When Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in 1991, it released thousands of tons of sulphur dioxide. The global temperature temporarily dropped by 0.5°C. In September 2022, researchers at Yale university argued that the injection method could hypothetically refreeze the poles. Are the US and UN keen to explore this technology? A White House report published last Friday confirms that the US is open to researching SRM. "A programme of research into the scientific and societal implications of solar radiation modification (SRM) would enable better-informed decisions about the potential risks and benefits of SRM as a component of climate policy, alongside the foundational elements of greenhouse gas emissions mitigation and adaptation," it says. However, the report also clarifies that no decision has been made to "establish a comprehensive research programme focused on solar radiation modification." In February, several news outlets are reporting that the UN wants to 'explore' this technique. This could give the impression that the organisation has approved sun blocking as a viable tool to fight climate change. Unfortunately for tech enthusiasts, this is not the case. The UN Environmental Program's recent report into SRM concludes that it is not currently a realistic or wise plan. "UNEP concurs with the panel that, at present, large-scale, or operational deployment of SRM technologies is not necessary, viable, prudent or sufficiently safe, given the limited scientific understanding and uncertainty about the potential impacts and unintended consequences," says UNEP’s Chief Scientist Andrea Hinwood. "The review concludes that SRM cannot replace reducing greenhouse gas emissions." Nonetheless, the body doesn't rule out the method altogether, with the report concluding that their assessment of the technique "may change should climate action remain insufficient". What does the research on sun-blocking show? Research into the sun-blocking technique has yielded mixed results. Even its passionate advocates usually call for a reduction in global emissions first. The Yale report outlined a hypothetical plan to “turn the global thermostat”, according to lead author Wake Smith. If their plan was implemented, 125 high-flying jets would periodically spray the particles into the atmosphere at latitudes of 60 degrees north and south - roughly around Northern Alaska and the southern tip of Patagonia. The particles would slowly drift towards the poles, cooling the earth below by 2 degrees Celsius. The authors suggest that there is “potential global benefit” in their plan, which would cost around $11 billion (€11.3 billion). “There is widespread and sensible trepidation about deploying aerosols to cool the planet,” Smith says. “But if the risk/benefit equation were to pay off anywhere, it would be at the poles.” But the plan poses other potential problems. It would require 175,000 particle-spraying flights per year, which would release millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the air. To address climate change, the world must rapidly reduce its reliance on fossil fuels, Smith warns. “Game changing though this could be in a rapidly warming world, stratospheric aerosol injections merely treat a symptom of climate change but not the underlying disease,” he says. “It’s aspirin, not penicillin. It’s not a substitute for decarbonization.”
XT: No Geoengineering
The white house has established that they currently don’t have plans to pursue geoengineering research.
Leslie Eastman, 7-3-23, “Biden Administration Stresses “No Plans Underway” for Research on Blocking Sunlight for Climate ‘Protection’”, Legal Insurrection, https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/07/biden-administration-recommends-studying-plans-for-blocking-sunlight-to-fight-climate-change/, Accessed 7/9/23 //ONHS IF
Early this year, I reported that Mexico cracked down on a project called “Make Sunsets,” which would have used sulfur-based compounds to counter what “experts” assert is man-caused global warming. Congress had ordered the White House to review the core geoengineering approach of the Mexico project, the blockage of solar radiation. The report, produced by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, initially seemed to offer measured support for the idea of studying similar plans. The controversial concept known as solar radiation modification is a potentially effective response to fighting climate change, but one that could have unknown side effects stemming from altering the chemical makeup of the atmosphere, some scientists say. The White House report released late Friday indicates that the Biden administration is open to studying the possibility that altering sunlight might quickly cool the planet. But it added a degree of skepticism by noting that Congress has ordered the review, and the administration said it does not signal any new policy decisions related to a process that is sometimes referred to — or derided as — geoengineering. The report provided all sorts of grandiose ideas on how to achieve solar radiation modification (SRM), all of which come with potentially destructive unintended consequences. One method would be to significantly increase the amount of aerosols in the stratosphere, which would reflect the sun’s rays from the planet. Other ideas floated included increasing cloud coverage over oceans, or reducing the amount of cirrus cloud formations, which reflect solar radiation back to the Earth. The report noted that undertaking the mammoth task could have severe ramifications weather patterns and food supplies, which would in turn impact biodiversity, geopolitics, and health. …While insisting that it was not definitively moving ahead with the plan, the Biden administration insisted in its report that the idea appeared promising. It said a ‘program of research’ into the practice would ‘enable better-informed decisions about the potential risks and benefits’ of blocking the sun. There has been a lot of graft and wealth transfer that still has yet to be tapped into. Watts Up With That contributor Francis Menton crunched the numbers and determined that the world is now wasting over $1 trillion in “renewables.” …[T]he massive investments in wind and solar additions for electricity generation were not even sufficient to keep up with demand growth, let alone displace even a bit of existing fossil fuel generation. Even in the electricity sector, fossil fuels continued to grow. And the electricity sector is only about a quarter of primary energy consumption. Here’s the big picture: Primary energy demand . . . in 2022 increas[ed] 1.1%. . . . Global electricity generation increased by 2.3% in 2022 . . . . Fossil fuel consumption as a percentage of primary energy remained steady at 82%. . . . Carbon dioxide emissions from energy use, industrial processes, flaring and methane (in carbon dioxide equivalent terms) continued to rise to a new high growing 0.8% in 2022 to 39.3 GtCO2e, with emissions from energy use rising 0.9% to 34.4 GtCO2. Bottom line: it’s now $1 trillion per year, plus or minus, invested in wind and solar “renewables” plus grid upgrades and energy storage needed to accommodate them. And for that vast sum of money, the percent of primary energy from fossil fuels does not budge by even a tenth of a percent. And, as world energy consumption increases, carbon emissions just continue to increase. The trillion is just completely wasted. Just imagine how much more money might be wasted on these SRM technologies. However, there are a few upsides to this news. I have always maintained that the biggest driver of climate was the Sun. The SRM approach aligns with that assertion. Additionally, more people are questioning The Science and the “experts.” There was a great deal of pushback on social media on the announcement of the report, based on real science. Now it is being reported that the Biden administration stressed, in a separate statement, there was no “comprehensive research” planned for SRM. In a separate statement after the release, the White House said, “There are no plans underway to establish a comprehensive research program focused on solar radiation modification.” Hopefully, no power-mad, climate-crusading, morally righteous Big Tech billionaire will decide to fund SRM privately.
2AC IRS Credibility
IRS credibility low now – corporations are unwilling to report their taxes because of whistleblower misconduct.
Eckert 7-5-23 (Toby; Prior to joining POLITICO in May 2015, Toby Eckert was senior state fiscal policy editor for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. He has also been a senior editor at Congressional Quarterly and a reporter and editor for the dearly departed San Diego Union-Tribune Washington Bureau, “Corporations lagging on global tax reporting,” Politico, https://www.politico.com/newsletters/weekly-tax/2023/07/05/corporations-lagging-on-global-tax-reporting-00104661) //pa-amad
Let’s not forget the IRS. House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.) has been joined by Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) in seeking testimony from IRS, Justice Department and Secret Service personnel over whistleblower allegations that Biden administration officials meddled in the tax probe of Hunter Biden. Not to be outdone, lawyers for President Joe Biden’s son have intensified their pushback. In case you missed it, one of Hunter Biden’s attorneys, Abbe Lowell, late last week sent Smith a blistering 10-page rebuttal that questioned the credibility of the whistleblowers and the propriety of his investigation. “Releasing the transcripts of and exhibits from interviews of self-styled IRS ‘whistleblowers’ who may be claiming that title in an attempt to evade their own misconduct was an obvious ploy to feed the misinformation campaign to harm our client, Hunter Biden, as a vehicle to attack his father,” Lowell wrote. “It is no secret these interviews were orchestrated recitations of mischaracterized and incomplete ‘facts’ by disgruntled agents who believed they knew better than the federal prosecutors who had all the evidence as they conducted their five-year investigation of Mr. Biden,” Lowell added. Lowell didn’t provide any evidence to back up his suggestions about the whistleblowers’ motives. Smith hit back with a statement defending the whistleblowers and the conduct of his investigation. “It’s little surprise that Hunter Biden’s attorneys are attempting to chill our investigation and discredit the whistleblowers who say they have already faced retaliation from the IRS and the Department of Justice despite statutory protections established by law,” Smith said. “Worse, this letter misleads the public about the lawful actions taken by the Ways and Means Committee, which took the appropriate legal steps to share this information with rest of Congress,” he added. Smith and his colleagues could face other pushback — from within their own party. As Jordain wrote, “conservative efforts could backfire, instead exposing tension with centrist and more establishment Republicans who have bristled at their colleagues’ growing attacks on law enforcement — jabs that would have been unthinkable before Trump’s presidency. “The fault lines have already emerged during closed-door House GOP spending meetings in recent weeks, with some lawmakers warning colleagues to think twice about how they use spending bills to target specific agencies. In one session, conservative Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) said he privately urged his colleagues to ‘be ca

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.