Advantage CP vs E Commerce - Michigan 7 2024 HHIRS

Adv Counterplan
Ecomm Adv CP
1NC – Investment
The USFG should
Implement the proposed investment for the CHIPS and Science Act
Subsidize the development of necessary parts for DoD defense systems
Planks 1 & 2 stop the flow of counterfeits into DoD defense grids
THEY READ GRAY; WE READ BLUE
1AC Campbell ‘23[Law School Professor and Director of the Intellectual Property Law Program at the University of Maryland Carey School of Law “Debugging the Trademark Laws: The Lanham Act and Counterfeit Microelectronics,” 31 TEX. INTELL. PROP. L.J. 211 (2023). Hein Online. Accessed via University of Michigan //DH]
C. Counterfeiting is a Lucrative Proposition Numerous explanations for the counterfeit electronics problem have been discussed. Profit has long been identified as the "primary incentive" for the sale of counterfeit parts.83 The internet and the rise of e-commerce platforms has made counterfeiting even more lucrative; "production costs are low, millions of potential customers are available online, transactions are convenient, and listing on well-branded e-commerce platforms provides an air of legitimacy."84 In addition, when the sellers of counterfeit goods are in another country, as is often the case, they are largely outside the jurisdiction of criminal prosecution by U.S. law enforcement and may be immune from civil liability to private parties. 85 Thus, the perceived risk is low.86 Further, the supply chain disruptions and chip shortages caused by the Covid-19 pandemic have only intensified the problem. Counterfeiters have "stepped up their game to swindle enterprises in dire need of the critical components."87 Reputable firms in need of chips have been enticed to order hard-to-find parts from risky sources, and they have received shipments that are improperly packaged, defective, or even nonoperational.88 According to the Wall Street Journal, "[t]he global chip shortage has created a gold mine for bad actors."8 9 Counterfeit semiconductors, including diodes, are being incorporated into mobile phones, tablets, and other privately used electronic devices, creating risks for consumers.90 Long manufacturing lead times for semiconductor chips have increased the willingness of distributors to go to the open market to obtain parts for customers in order to prevent manufacturing lines from sitting idle. 91 Government contractors and the DoD present a particularly attractive-and oftentimes willing-market for counterfeiters, largely due to the obsolescence of necessary replacement parts. 92 Unlike commercial products such as cellphones and laptop computers, defense systems are typically designed for long lifecycles. 93 Production of the parts contained in those systems will be discontinued when it is no longer cost-effective for the manufacturer, usually long before the systems themselves are taken out of service, leading to diminishing manufacturing sources and material shortages (DMSMS) issues. 94 When production ends, parts may no longer be available from the original component manufacturer, an authorized aftermarket manufacturer, or an authorized distributor. 95 If sufficient end-of-life purchases were not made, 96 the DoD and defense contractors may be forced to purchase replacement parts from outside the authorized supply chain, including from brokers and independent distributors. 97 The DoD estimated that as much as 15% of all spare and replacement parts for military electronics are determined to be counterfeit. 98 The military's emphasis on using the lowest cost suppliers rather than focusing on the quality of parts obtained is another contributing factor. 99 Economic gain is not the sole motive for dealing in counterfeit electronics. As noted above, malicious counterfeits are making their way into the supply chain. 100 As an increasing number of devices are connected to the Internet of Things (IoT), "the potential for extensive economic and health and safety losses due to deliberately corrupted components increases by orders of magnitude. 101
The CHIPS and Science Act is key to support the semiconductor industry – the proposed investment is necessary to boost chip production in the squo. Solves clean energy transition now.
US Department of Commerce ‘24[U.S. Department of Commerce, 7-17-2024, "Biden-Harris Administration Announces Preliminary Terms with GlobalWafers to Significantly Increase Production of Silicon Wafers in U.S.", https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2024/07/biden-harris-administration-announces-preliminary-terms-globalwafers; Accessed 07-27-2024; AI]
Today, as part of the Investing in America tour, the Biden-Harris Administration announced that the U.S. Department of Commerce and GlobalWafers America, LLC and MEMC LLC (“MEMC”), subsidiaries of GlobalWafers Co., Ltd. (“GlobalWafers”), have signed a non-binding preliminary memorandum of terms (PMT) to provide up to $400 million in proposed direct funding under the CHIPS and Science Act to help onshore critical semiconductor wafer production and advance U.S. technology leadership. President Biden signed the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act, a key component of his Investing in America agenda, to usher in a new era of semiconductor manufacturing in the United States, bringing with it a revitalized domestic supply chain, good-paying jobs, and investments in the industries of the future. The proposed CHIPS investment would support the construction of new wafer manufacturing facilities and the creation of 1,700 construction jobs and 880 manufacturing jobs. This proposed investment will support projects with total capital expenditures of approximately $4 billion across both states. “President Biden is restoring our leadership in the entire semiconductor supply chain – from materials to manufacturing, to R&D. With this proposed investment, GlobalWafers will play a crucial role in bolstering America’s semiconductor supply chain by providing a domestic source of silicon wafers that are the backbone of advanced chips,” said U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo. “As a result of this proposed investment, the Biden-Harris Administration is helping to secure our supply chains, which will create over 2,000 jobs across Texas and Missouri and ultimately lowering costs and improving economic and national security for Americans.” “President Biden is taking historic action to bring semiconductor manufacturing back in the United States,” said Arati Prabhakar, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. “The semiconductor wafers that will come from today’s announcement will be the foundation for the complex chips we need to compete in the global economy. We’re bolstering our national security, advancing our clean energy transition, and creating good jobs that support families in Texas and Missouri.”
Transition to clean energy is inevitable over the next generation, but we need immediate, rapid change to avoid the impacts of climate change.
Kortenhorst ’19[Jules Kortenhorst; founding CEO of the European Climate Foundation, the largest philanthropic organization dedicated to policy development and advocacy on climate change in Europe 9-19-2019, "New Report Suggests the Speed of the Energy Transition Is Rapid", Green Building Africa ; https://www.greenbuildingafrica.co.za/new-report-suggests-the-speed-of-the-energy-transition-is-rapid/; Accessed 07-27-2024; AI]
That the world is engaged in a profound transition in the way we use energy is undeniable. The era of carbon-intensive energy derived from the burning of fossil fuels is coming to an end, and a cleaner, more reliable energy future based on renewables like wind and solar will be the new normal. How long this change will take is, however, still a matter of fierce debate. But a new report from the World Economic Forum’s Global Future Council on Energy, offers compelling evidence that stakeholders in the global energy system —which means all of us—must prepare for change urgently, because it is coming fast. The report, principally authored by Kingsmill Bond of Carbon Tracker, Angus McCrone of Bloomberg NEF, and myself, examines a key question: will the energy transition be gradual or rapid? A gradual transition means that oil, gas, and coal remain the dominant energy sources even as renewable energy supply increases at a steady but linear rate. And it means that there is growth in energy demand for fossil fuels—with demand for fossil fuels not reaching its peak for a generation or more—allowing the traditional businesses of energy sector incumbents to continue to flourish. In this transition scenario, we miss the climate change goals of the Paris Agreement, but the global energy sector doesn’t face the near-term prospect of wrenching change. A rapid transition, on the other hand, means that renewables like wind and solar quickly start to supplant fossil fuels as their supply increases at an exponential rate, following the familiar S-curve growth pattern of new technologies like personal computers and mobile phones. It means that renewables supply all the net growth in global electricity demand, displacing oil, gas, and coal —with demand for fossil fuels peaking in the 2020s —and thus seriously disrupting the traditional businesses of the energy sector incumbents. In the rapid transition scenario, the energy sector will face massive change, but humanity has a chance of achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement to limit climate change to well below 2 degrees. The question of the timing of the energy transition is a critical one: either the tipping point is right before our eyes in the decade to come, or it is far into the future, beyond the planning horizon of most companies.
Climate change causes extinction.
Carrington 22 – environment editor at the Guardian. PhD in geology from the University of Edinburgh.
Damian Carrington, August 1 2022, “Climate endgame: risk of human extinction ‘dangerously underexplored’,” The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/01/climate-endgame-risk-human-extinction-scientists-global-heating-catastrophe
The risk of global societal collapse or human extinction has been “dangerously underexplored”, climate scientists have warned in an analysis. They call such a catastrophe the “climate endgame”. Though it had a small chance of occurring, given the uncertainties in future emissions and the climate system, cataclysmic scenarios could not be ruled out, they said. “Facing a future of accelerating climate change while blind to worst-case scenarios is naive risk management at best and fatally foolish at worst,” the scientists said, adding that there were “ample reasons” to suspect global heating could result in an apocalyptic disaster. The international team of experts argue the world needs to start preparing for the possibility of the climate endgame. “Analysing the mechanisms for these extreme consequences could help galvanise action, improve resilience, and inform policy,” they said. Explorations in the 1980s of the nuclear winter that would follow a nuclear war spurred public concern and disarmament efforts, the researchers said. The analysis proposes a research agenda, including what they call the “four horsemen” of the climate endgame: famine, extreme weather, war and disease. They also called for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to produce a special report on the issue. The IPCC report on the impacts of just 1.5C of heating drove a “groundswell of public concern”, they said. “There are plenty of reasons to believe climate change could become catastrophic, even at modest levels of warming,” said Dr Luke Kemp at the University of Cambridge’s Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, who led the analysis. “Climate change has played a role in every mass extinction event. It has helped fell empires and shaped history. “Paths to disaster are not limited to the direct impacts of high temperatures, such as extreme weather events. Knock-on effects such as financial crises, conflict and new disease outbreaks could trigger other calamities.” The analysis is published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and was reviewed by a dozen scientists. It argues that the consequences of global heating beyond 3C have been underexamined, with few quantitative estimates of the total impacts. “We know least about the scenarios that matter most,” Kemp said. A thorough risk assessment would consider how risks spread, interacted and amplified, but had not been attempted, the scientists said. “Yet this is how risk unfolds in the real world,” they said. “For example, a cyclone destroys electrical infrastructure, leaving a population vulnerable to an ensuing deadly heatwave.” The Covid pandemic underlined the need to examine rare but high-impact global risks, they added. Particularly concerning are tipping points, where a small rise in global temperature results in a big change in the climate, such as huge carbon emissions from an Amazon rainforest suffering major droughts and fires. Tipping points could trigger others in a cascade and some remained little studied, they said, such as the abrupt loss of stratocumulus cloud decks that could cause an additional 8C of global warming. The researchers warn that climate breakdown could exacerbate or trigger other catastrophic risks, such as international wars or infectious disease pandemics, and worsen existing vulnerabilities such as poverty, crop failures and lack of water. The analysis suggests superpowers may one day fight over geoengineering plans to reflect sunlight or the right to emit carbon. “There is a striking overlap between currently vulnerable states and future areas of extreme warming,” the scientists said. “If current political fragility does not improve significantly in the coming decades, then a belt of instability with potentially serious ramifications could occur.” There were further good reasons to be concerned about the potential of a global climate catastrophe, the scientists said: “There are warnings from history. Climate change has played a role in the collapse or transformation of numerous previous societies and in each of the five mass extinction events in Earth’s history.” New modelling in the analysis shows that extreme heat – defined as an annual average temperature of more than 29C – could affect 2 billion people by 2070 if carbon emissions continue.
<< Net Benefits >>
1NC – Tech Leadership
U.S control of semiconductors post shortage is vital for sustainable tech leadership
Miller, 21. (Chris Miller is from the Fletcher School and Foreign Policy Research Institute) 6/24/2021, (ISPI) . "The Semiconductor Supply Chain: An Issue of Strategic Positioning." https://www.ispionline.it/en/pubblicazione/semiconductor-supply-chain-issue-strategic-positioning-30704. accessed 2-23-2022 //)
America’s 78-year-old president, Joe Biden, might not seem like the world’s most tech savvy leader. But some of his administration’s biggest policies have focused on a small but fundamentally important technology: the semiconductor. Known more prosaically as “computer chips”, semiconductors power technology of all types from vast data centers to the simplest consumer electronics. In the age of the Internet of Things, almost every electrical device has a semiconductor inside. And as societies gather and process more data, it is chips that provide the computing power on which we rely. The Biden administration is thinking about chips in part because of a semiconductor shortage caused by the economic dislocations of COVID-19. Car factories worldwide have been delayed or stopped because crucial semiconductors are on back order. But today’s semiconductor shortage will eventually pass. The bigger issue is geopolitical, as China invests heavily in chip technology, seeking to upgrade its economy and its military. The United States, which has historically dominated chip design and production, is fixated on retaining its leading role. Backed by bipartisan majorities in Congress, the Biden administration wants to use financial incentives to bolster Americas chip industry. The first chips emerged out of the Cold War arms race. The first computers to use chips on a large scale guided the Apollo space spacecraft and the Minuteman ballistic missile. In the last two decades, though, the semiconductor industry has thought mostly about technology and business efficiency, not politics. Supply chains have become more global than ever. A typical advanced chip is designed by people in the US, UK, or Israel; fabricated in Taiwan or South Korea using machines made in the US, Japan, the Netherlands, and Germany; and then tested in packaged in Malaysia or Singapore. It is hard to think of a product that is more globalized. Now China wants to become a major player in chips. Beijing has poured tens of billions of dollars of state funds into its chip industry to domesticate advanced technology. Today China cannot produce advanced chips. Its production of moderately advanced chips relies on foreign technology. But China has set the goal of self-reliance in semiconductors. Its track record of rapid economic growth and its manufacturing prowess means this goal should be taken seriously. Moreover, China realizes that its reliance on foreign chip technology is a fundamental vulnerability. Over the past few years, the US has restricted the transfer of advanced chips to several dozen Chinese firms that bolster China’s foreign policy, most notably Huawei but also more specialized military producers. There’s no way to produce an advanced semiconductor today without using US software and manufacturing equipment, so facilities in countries like Taiwan and South Korea have cut off Huawei. Even some of China’s own fabrication facilities have reportedly stopped selling to Huawei, to ensure they can continue accessing crucial American equipment. A digital cold war isn’t something to be avoided; it is reality. Yet like in the original Cold War, when Europe bought Soviet gas and the USSR used IBM computer software, the policy options today are not simply “do nothing” or “completely decoupling.” China will continue to rely on the global chip supply chain for the foreseeable future, and the US will permit the sales of most semiconductors to China. But decisions that used to be made purely on business grounds now inevitably involve calculations about geopolitics, too. Attention is focusing on “chokepoint” technologies that are crucial to chip production but are produced by only one or two countries. The United States today can control multiple chokepoints, including design software and production equipment; China controls none. Other countries will insist they want to stay neutral. They have every incentive to say this, but in reality each major country is jockeying for its position in the supply chain. All players fear Beijing’s state subsidies and the risk of intellectual property theft. South Korea, Europe, and Japan have all announced major new government spending on their chip industries to bolster existing firms. Controlling a chokepoint isn’t only economically valuable—it also provides countries with newfound geopolitical influence, a useful bargaining chip in relations with Washington and Beijing. Amid this global competition for leverage in the semiconductor industry, the Biden administration is trying to catch up. The US government is re-learning how to think strategically about semiconductors after two decades of mostly ignoring the industry. Facing the global politicization of semiconductor supply chains and state subsidies from other chip producers, Washington has concluded it has no choice but to device an industrial policy strategy to support semiconductors. The Biden administration’s strategy is threefold. First, it wants to use existing chokepoints to secure important objectives (e.g., impair Huawei's 5G rollout globally) without overusing them in a way that li

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.