DA - Farm Bill PTX - CNDI 2024

Farm Bill DA
1NCs
1nc – Top
a. Uniqueness: The Farm Bill will pass now – there’s renewed focus and enough bipartisan support.
Marchant, 6/10 (Tyrell, “Lawmakers cautiously optimistic about farm bill progress,” June 10, 2024, https://www.agproud.com/articles/59857-lawmakers-cautiously-optimistic-about-farm-bill-progress)
The U.S. House of Representatives Agriculture Committee completed its markup of the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2024, more commonly known as the farm bill, on May 24, and passed the proposed legislation by a vote of 33-21. However, though the farm bill has historically enjoyed bipartisan support, many pundits and members of Congress expect the Democrat-controlled Senate to put forth a very different piece of the $1.5 trillion legislation than any that might pass on the floor of the Republican-led House. House ag leaders are working on a version of the bill that is expected to spend less on future low-income food assistance and more on large-scale commodity production, while the Senate appears to be mulling proposals to do just the opposite.
A new farm bill is typically passed every five years. The comprehensive package is the federal government’s biggest tool in helping ensure the U.S. food supply remains secure. The previous one was passed before the COVID-19 pandemic snarled supply chains and caused massive inflation, before the war between agricultural giants Russia and Ukraine began, before the price of farmland skyrocketed and before the Biden administration passed climate policy that heavily impacts agricultural producers. So passage of a new farm bill is clearly a priority for both Congress and the industry.
Among the most prominent features of the farm bill are risk management tools for farmers and ranchers, nutrition funding for low-income families, agricultural research and conservation programs. The current legislation, which was passed in 2018 and received an eleventh-hour, one-year extension last fall, is set to expire at the end of the 2024 fiscal year on Sept. 30. The full 2024 Farm Bill is likely months away from becoming law. A packed congressional calendar and the upcoming election present a significant time crunch to getting the sweeping legislation through both chambers of Congress. Some lawmakers have said the probable outcome is a stalemate that would force a temporary extension of current policies. Should that come to pass, the onus would likely fall on a lame-duck Congress to pass farm bill legislation between the November election and the end of the congressional session on Jan. 3. However, legislators and ag groups alike remain cautiously optimistic the new bill will be passed before the September deadline. As of June 10, the committee-approved farm bill has not been presented on either the Senate or House floor.
b. Link: IP reform is polarizing and wrecks the legislative momentum.
– it taps into divergent cultural beliefs and has empirically sparked political controversy.
Wittlin et al ’18 (Maggie, Lisa Larrimore Ouellette, and Gregory N. Mandel, all professors of law, “What Causes Polarization on IP Policy?,” University of California, Davis [Vol. 52; 1193], https://scholarshare.temple.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.12613/6338/Mandel-JournalArticle-2018.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)
The rise in the global economic importance of intellectual property (“IP”) has been accompanied by a rise in polarization on IP issues.1 In response to both trends, we have witnessed a dramatic increase in empirical efforts to understand how IP systems function (or fail).2 Yet this growth in the quality and quantity of evidence on IP issues has not reduced disagreement on socially optimal IP policy. As one prominent example, when Congress was debating patent reform legislation in 2015, over fifty law and economics professors wrote to Congress to respond to those “who claim there is little empirical evidence available to assess the performance of the American patent system.”3 To the contrary, they contended that “a large and increasing body of evidence indicates that the net effect of patent litigation is to raise the cost of innovation and inhibit technological progress, subverting the very purpose of the patent system.”4 This letter in turn sparked a response from another forty professors who called the studies cited by the first letter “flawed, unreliable, or incomplete.”5 Both letters referenced a surge in empirical IP evidence, but diverged starkly concerning the evidence’s implications. Despite — or perhaps because of — this trend of polarization, there continues to be a cacophony of calls for further and more precise research to resolve IP policy questions.6
Contrary to the accepted wisdom, we believe that efforts to resolve IP policy disputes through additional empirical work may be destined to fail in the current IP climate. To be clear, we think empirical IP work has value.7 Our point is that empirical progress does not ineluctably lead to consensus and empirically informed policy. This hypothesis is based on the premise that facts about the IP system do not drive much of the actual opinion about IP policy. Rather, beliefs about the strengths and weaknesses of IP policy often exist prior to, and regardless of, empirical evidence. Of course, some debates focus on the fundamental goals of IP, and such debates could never be resolved through empiricism.8 But even within the dominant utilitarian perspective, we have more empirical evidence than ever before, yet seemingly even less agreement on what this evidence indicates. Disagreement may persist in part because most people pay no attention to empirical IP work and simply stick to their priors. For example, we suspect that many of the scholars who signed the antiand pro-patent reform letters did not spend significant time evaluating the empirical studies referenced in those letters. But we believe that even those who do engage with the empirical literature are unlikely to change their minds.
The failure of evidence to resolve contentious policy debates is not unique to IP; this phenomenon has been well documented in the literature on “cultural cognition.”9 This literature demonstrates that when particular beliefs on issues such as climate change10 or gun control11 become important to defining group identities, people are more likely to use motivated reasoning to credit evidence that confirms their views and to dismiss evidence that challenges their beliefs on those issues. When factual beliefs become intertwined with cultural identity, new evidence does not bring people closer to a consensus; instead, it polarizes them further.12
Cultural cognition research does not serve only to diagnose the problem; it can also help craft solutions. The Cultural Cognition Project has the “explicit normative objective” of identifying ways society can engage in evidence-based policymaking without degrading or excluding any cultural group.13 Research in line with this goal has identified several mechanisms for mitigating bias and polarization, including methods of communication such as framing, using culturally identifiable experts to communicate the information, imbuing the information with culturally congenial meanings, and presenting the information in the context of small deliberative groups.14 If cultural cognition does explain IP polarization — if people’s views on the strengths and weaknesses on IP policy are indeed culturally driven — these communication techniques might serve to minimize cultural polarization on IP and allow empirical work to influence policy debates.15
This raises the question: does cultural cognition influence people’s perceptions of the risks and benefits of IP policy, or is the division primarily based on other factors? To answer this question, research is needed on subjects with strong views on IP policy. National conversations have formed around the issues of climate change,16 gun control policy,17 and mandatory human papillomavirus (“HPV”) vaccination,18 but there is less national focus on the risks and benefits of patent and copyright protection. This is not to say that the general public has no views on IP — from the online pirating of music and videos to the patenting of genes, there are many IP stories that percolate into popular media.19 One of us has found that the general public tends to view IP law as designed to prevent plagiarism and to believe that IP rights are too strong.20 However, IP experts likely hold stronger views about IP policy than members of the general public. If cultural conflict is brewing, we should find the strongest evidence of it in the expert community.
There is relatively little evidence on how experts view IP. Recently, James Daily analyzed the signatories to the two letters mentioned at the beginning of this Article, concluding that signatories to the second letter — criticizing the letter that criticized the current patent regime — were more likely to be registered patent attorneys and Republican donors.21 We are not aware of any other studies of polarization in IP experts’ opinions on IP policy.
This Article presents an original study of the factors influencing expert views on IP policy. Given the relatively small number of public commentators on IP issues, we focused on IP practitioners more broadly, who seem likely to be the largest group of people likely to have thought seriously about IP policy and formed views on what works and what does not. Many scholars and commentators are engaged in IP practice, and IP practitioners are primary consumers of IP commentary. In addition, there is significant interaction between scholars and practitioners at conferences, in bar associations, and on IP policy matters. In addition, we were concerned that members of the legal academy would be familiar with our prior work, would anticipate our hypotheses, and would therefore be poor survey subjects. Finally, we have each personally observed polarized IP discussion among practitioners in various fora.
We surveyed 129 IP practitioners from across the United States. We asked these attorneys about their practices, including how they divided their time between different fields of IP; we asked them about their views on IP policy, including their reform preferences and their opinions on the best justification for having IP laws; and we asked them a battery of questions to determine their cultural worldviews. Finally, we collected demographic information.
Our results supported our hypothesis in part: cultural cognition appears to have some effect on people’s IP policy preferences. In particular, subjects high in either “hierarchy,” a measure of a person’s preference for social stratification, or “individualism,” indicating a belief that a person’s well-being is his or her own responsibility (both of which correlate with conservativism), were more likely to believe that strong patent rights are necessary to spur innovation. We did not find a similar result with regard to copyright or trademark law, perhaps because few of our respondents have spent significant time on these issues — our sample was heavily skewed toward patent practitioners. Attorneys who had spent more time practicing patent law believed in stronger patent rights, perhaps out of a desire to believe their work is meaningful. In addition, subjects who said that the primary purpose of IP law is to incentivize innovation tended to advocate for stronger patent rights, while those who said the purpose of IP law is to protect people’s natural rights in the fruits of their labor or to prevent plagiarism advocated for stronger copyright protection.
1nc – Warming
c. Impact
1. Passage enables climate-smart innovation---key to stop runaway warming.
Jasia Smith 23, research associate at the Center for American Progress in domestic climate policy; Drew McConville, senior fellow at CAP; Mariel Lutz, research associate in conservation policy at CAP, 5/23/2023, “Why the Farm Bill May Be the Highest-Stakes Climate Fight Flying Below the Radar,” https://www.americanprogress.org/article/why-the-farm-bill-may-be-the-highest-stakes-climate-fight-flying-below-the-radar/
The stakes are high as Congress begins serious discussions to reauthorize the farm bill, which expires at the end of September 2023. Among other things, this legislation represents a major opportunity to enable private landowners, farmers, ranchers, and rural communities to take action to address the crises of climate change and nature loss.
In fact, in a divided Congress where House majority leadership has staked out an obstructionist position on most climate action, the must-pass farm bill may represent the only meaningful opportunity to make progress on these issues in the 118th Congress. Conversely, if extreme positions prevail and Congress strips away farm bill program investments made in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, America will take a massive step backward on climate, conservation, and rural prosperity.
Scale of the climate and nature opportunity
Farm bill conservation programs represent the largest source of federal funding for private landowners to preserve and steward their lands, waters, and wildlife for current and future generations; yet demand for these programs significantly outpaces supply, and competing pressures are growing.1 Meanwhile, as the climate crisis deepens, farm bill support can enable U.S. agriculture to lead the world in climate-smart innovation, help farmers and ranchers benefit from greenhouse gas-reducing practices, and build cleaner and more reliable energy solutions for rural America.
Climate-smart agriculture represents a crucial front in the fight against climate change. With 10 percent of U.S. emissions coming from the agricultural sector and abundant opportunities to reduce emissions through improved practices and land use, the farm bill’s voluntary incentive programs hold tremendous potential to deliver meaningful gains for farmers and the climate.2 Additionally, a 2021 CAP analysis found that nature loss in the United States is driving the emissions of 140 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMT CO2e) each year.3 However, achieving President Joe Biden’s U.S. land conservation goal has the potential to reverse that trend and yield an additional 215 MMT CO2e stored by nature—as much savings as taking 47 million cars off the road. New farm bill program investments through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) recognize the fundamental link between conservation and climate and direct resources toward practices that achieve conservation, resilience, and greenhouse gas reduction goals, all while supporting rural clean energy solutions that are building more resilient, reliable, and affordable energy systems.
2. Extinction.
Nathan Sears 21, Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science at the University of Toronto, former Professor of International Relations at the Universidad de Las Americas, Trudeau Fellow in Peace, Conflict, and Justice at the Munk School of Global Affairs, “Great Powers, Polarity, and Existential Threats to Humanity: An Analysis of the Distribution of the Forces of Total Destruction in International Security,” Conference Paper for the International Studies Association, p. 1-38
Climate Change
Humanity faces existential risks from the large-scale destruction of Earth’s natural environment making the planet less hospitable for humankind (Wallace-Wells 2019). The decline of some of Earth’s natural systems may already exceed the “planetary boundaries” that represent a “safe operating space for humanity” (Rockstrom et al. 2009). Humanity has become one of the driving forces behind Earth’s climate system (Crutzen 2002). The major anthropogenic drivers of climate change are the burning of fossil fuels (e.g., coal, oil, and gas), combined with the degradation of Earth’s natural systems for absorbing carbon dioxide, such as deforestation for agriculture (e.g., livestock and monocultures) and resource extraction (e.g., mining and oil), and the warming of the oceans (Kump et al. 2003). While humanity has influenced Earth’s climate since at least the Industrial Revolution, the dramatic increase in greenhouse gas emissions since the mid-twentieth century—the “Great Acceleration” (Steffen et al. 2007; 2015; McNeill & Engelke 2016)— is responsible for contemporary climate change, which has reached approximately 1°C above preindustrial levels (IPCC 2018).
Climate change could become an existential threat to humanity if the planet’s climate reaches a “Hothouse Earth” state (Ripple et al. 2020). What are the dangers? There are two mechanisms of climate change that threaten humankind. The direct threat is extreme heat. While human societies possesses some capacity for adaptation and resilience to climate change, the physiological response of humans to heat stress imposes physical limits—with a hard limit at roughly 35°C wet-bulb temperature (Sherwood et al. 2010). A rise in global average temperatures by 3–4°C would increase the risk of heat stress, while 7°C could render some regions uninhabitable, and 11–12°C would leave much of the planet too hot for human habitation (Sherwood et al. 2010). The indirect effects of climate change could include, inter alia, rising sea levels affecting coastal regions (e.g., Miami and Shanghai), or even swallowing entire countries (e.g., Bangladesh and the Maldives); extreme and unpredictable weather and natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes and forest fires); environmental pressures on water and food scarcity (e.g., droughts from less-dispersed rainfall, and lower wheat-yields at higher temperatures); the possible inception of new bacteria and viruses; and, of course, large-scale human migration (World Bank 2012; Wallace-Well 2019; Richards, Lupton & Allywood 2001). While it is difficult to determine the existential implications of extreme environmental conditions, there are historic precedents for the collapse of human societies under environmental pressures (Diamond 2005). Earth’s “big five” mass extinction events have been linked to dramatic shifts in Earth’s climate (Ward 2008; Payne & Clapham 2012; Kolbert 2014; Brannen 2017), and a Hothouse Earth climate would represent terra incognita for humanity.
Thus, the assumption here is that a Hothouse Earth climate could pose an existential threat to the habitability of the planet for humanity (Steffen et al. 2018., 5). At what point could climate change cross the threshold of an existential threat to humankind? The complexity of Earth’s natural systems makes it extremely difficult to give a precise figure (Rockstrom et al. 2009; ). However, much of the concern about climate change is over the danger of crossing “tipping points,” whereby positive feedback loops in Earth’s climate system could lead to potentially irreversible and self-reinforcing “runaway” climate change. For example, the melting of Arctic “permafrost” could produce additional warming, as glacial retreat reduces the refractory effect of the ice and releases huge quantities of methane currently trapped beneath it. A recent study suggests that a “planetary threshold” could exist at global average temperature of 2°C above preindustrial levels (Steffen et al. 2018; also IPCC 2018). Therefore, the analysis here takes the 2°C rise in global average temperatures as representing the lower-boundary of an existential threat to humanity, with higher temperatures increasing the risk of runaway climate change leading to a Hothouse Earth.
The Paris Agreement on Climate Change set the goal of limiting the increase in global average temperatures to “well below” 2°C and to pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5°C. If the Paris Agreement goals are met, then nations would likely keep climate change below the threshold of an existential threat to humanity. According to Climate Action Tracker (2020), however, current policies of states are expected to produce global average temperatures of 2.9°C above preindustrial levels b

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.