Neg brief to be used against any case that tries to reduce air pollutants

from power plants.

I apologize for the lack of order, if anyone wishes to further add to it and or organize it be my guest.
I only ask that as this was freely provided that you send me your changes/additions. Note also that
I’m not fan of massive briefs that you can’t read through, let alone present, in a single round, Hence
the smaller more manageable size

Link: Regulating air pollution shifts it to the water

The New York Times September 15, 2009 “EPA to limit metal discharges from coal plants”
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/09/15/15greenwire-epa-to-limit-metal-discharges-from-coal-plants-62391.html
While EPA has focused on reducing air pollution from the power plants' smokestacks, the process
often simply shifts the pollution from the air to the water that is used to "scrub" the boiler exhaust.

Link: Regulating air pollution shifts it to the water

The New York Times October 12, 2009 “Cleansing the Air at the Expense of Waterways”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/us/13water.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=environmental&st=cse
Even as a growing number of coal-burning power plants around the nation have moved to reduce
their air emissions, many of them are creating another problem: water pollution. Power plants are the
nation’s biggest producer of toxic waste, surpassing industries like plastic and paint manufacturing
and chemical plants, according to a New York Times analysis of Environmental Protection Agency
data.
Much power plant waste once went into the sky, but because of toughened air pollution laws, it now
often goes into lakes and rivers, or into landfills that have leaked into nearby groundwater

Example
The New York Times October 12, 2009 “Cleansing the Air at the Expense of Waterways”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/us/13water.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=environmental&st=cse
For years, residents here complained about the yellow smoke pouring from the tall chimneys of the
nearby coal-fired power plant, which left a film on their cars and pebbles of coal waste in their yards.
Five states — including New York and New Jersey — sued the plant’s owner, Allegheny Energy,
claiming the air pollution was causing respiratory diseases and acid rain. So Three years ago, when
Allegheny Energy decided to install scrubbers to clean the plant’s air emissions, environmentalists
were overjoyed. The technology would spray water and chemicals through the plant’s chimneys,
trapping more than 150,000 tons of pollutants each year before they escaped into the sky.
But the cleaner air has come at a cost. Each day since the equipment was switched on in June, the
company has dumped tens of thousands of gallons of wastewater containing chemicals from the
scrubbing process into the Monongahela River, which provides drinking water to 350,000 people
and flows into Pittsburgh, 40 miles to the north.
“It’s like they decided to spare us having to breathe in these poisons, but now we have to drink them
instead,” said Philip Coleman, who lives about 15 miles from the plant and has asked a state judge to
toughen the facility’s pollution regulations. “We can’t escape.”

Impact: All the Aff’s Pollution harms come down on their own head
since the pollution will simply be transferred to a different sector.
Impact: These emissions cause health problems
The New York Times October 12, 2009 “Cleansing the Air at the Expense of Waterways”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/us/13water.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=environmental&st=cse
Only one in 43 power plants and other electric utilities across the nation must limit how much
barium they dump into nearby waterways, according to a Times analysis of E.P.A. records. Barium,
which is commonly found in power plant waste and scrubber wastewater, has been linked to heart
problems and diseases in other organs.

Impact: death of wildlife, cancer and reproductive problems

Post-Tribune October 22 2009 “Environmental report gives Northwest Indiana another bad mark”
http://www.post-trib.com/news/1839345,tri1022.article#
Among the most severe effects of water pollution is death of wildlife, but toxic chemicals also have
the potential to trigger cancer and reproductive and developmental problems in humans who eat
contaminated fish, the report states

Impact: Extinction (I don’t really like extinction impacts but it’s the best I could find.
Thanks to Joseph Samelson for this card)
CBS News [American News Source], November 3, 2006, “Salt-Water Fish Extinction Seen By 2048 — Study By
Ecologists, Economists Predicts Collapse of World Ocean Ecology”,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/02/health/webmd/main2147223.shtml [JS]
“The study by Boris Worm, PhD, of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, -- with
colleagues in the U.K., U.S., Sweden, and Panama -- was an effort to understand what this loss of
ocean species might mean to the world. The researchers analyzed several different kinds of data.
Even to these ecology-minded scientists, the results were an unpleasant surprise. "I was shocked and
disturbed by how consistent these trends are -- beyond anything we suspected," Worm says in a
news release. "This isn't predicted to happen. This is happening now," study researcher Nicola
Beaumont, PhD, of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory, U.K., says in a news release. "If biodiversity
continues to decline, the marine environment will not be able to sustain our way of life. Indeed, it
may not be able to sustain our lives at all," Beaumont adds. “Already, 29% of edible fish and
seafood species have declined by 90% -- a drop that means the collapse of these fisheries. But the
issue isn't just having seafood on our plates. Ocean species filter toxins from the water. They protect
shorelines. And they reduce the risks of algae blooms such as the red tide. "A large and increasing
proportion of our population lives close to the coast; thus the loss of services such as flood control
and waste detoxification can have disastrous consequences," Worm and colleagues say. The
researchers analyzed data from 32 experiments on different marine environments. They then
analyzed the 1,000-year history of 12 coastal regions around the world, including San Francisco and
Chesapeake bays in the U.S., and the Adriatic, Baltic, and North seas in Europe. Next, they analyzed
fishery data from 64 large marine ecosystems. And finally, they looked at the recovery of 48
protected ocean areas. Their bottom line: Everything that lives in the ocean is important. The
diversity of ocean life is the key to its survival. The areas of the ocean with the most different kinds
of life are the healthiest. But the loss of species isn't gradual. It's happening fast -- and getting faster,
the researchers say. Worm and colleagues call for sustainable fisheries management, pollution
control, habitat maintenance, and the creation of more ocean reserves. This, they say, isn't a cost; it's
an investment that will pay off in lower insurance costs, a sustainable fish industry, fewer natural
disasters, human health, and more. "It's not too late. We can turn this around," Worm says. "But less
than 1% of the global ocean is effectively protected right now."”
Impact:
Dr. Ken Rubin, (Assistant Professor Department of Geology and Geophysics University of Hawaii) “Reply to ASK-AN-
EARTH-SCIENTIST” http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/ASK/waterpol3.html
I couldn’t find a date, but probably not necessary, Accessed January 7 2009
The effects of water pollution are varied. They include poisonous drinking water, poisionous food
animals (due to these organisms having bioaccumulated toxins from the environment over their life
spans), unbalanced river and lake ecosystems that can no longer support full biological diversity,
deforestation from acid rain, and many other effects. These effects are, of course, specific to the
various contaminants.

Once in the water the pollutants will not be regulated

The New York Times October 12, 2009 “Cleansing the Air at the Expense of Waterways”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/us/13water.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=environmental&st=cse
Last year, when Hatfield’s Ferry asked the state for permission to dump scrubber wastewater into the
Monongahela River, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection approved the request
with proposed limits on some chemicals.
But state officials placed no limits on water discharges of arsenic, aluminum, boron, chromium,
manganese, nickel or other chemicals that have been linked to health risks, all of which have been
detected in the plant’s wastewater samples, according to state documents.

Once in the water the pollutants will not be regulated

The New York Times October 12, 2009 “Cleansing the Air at the Expense of Waterways”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/us/13water.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=environmental&st=cse
Yet no federal regulations specifically govern the disposal of power plant discharges into waterways
or landfills. Some regulators have used laws like the Clean Water Act to combat such pollution. But
those laws can prove inadequate, say regulators, because they do not mandate limits on the most
dangerous chemicals in power plant waste, like arsenic and lead.

Minimal enforcement for water pollution

The New York Times October 12, 2009 “Cleansing the Air at the Expense of Waterways”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/us/13water.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=environmental&st=cse
Even when power plant emissions are regulated by the Clean Water Act, plants have often violated
that law without paying fines or facing other penalties. Ninety percent of 313 coal-fired power plants
that have violated the Clean Water Act since 2004 were not fined or otherwise sanctioned by federal
or state regulators, according to a Times analysis of Environmental Protection Agency records.
Other plants have paid only modest fines. For instance, Hatfield’s Ferry has violated the Clean
Water Act 33 times since 2006. For those violations, the company paid less than $26,000. During
that same period, the plant’s parent company earned $1.1 billion.

Significance:
Power plants are the biggest emitters of toxic waste
The New York Times October 12, 2009 “Cleansing the Air at the Expense of Waterways”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/us/13water.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=environmental&st=cse
Power plants are the nation’s biggest producer of toxic waste, surpassing industries like plastic and
paint manufacturing and chemical plants, according to a New York Times analysis of Environmental
Protection Agency data.
Water is the planets top environmental problem
Globe-net News August 19, 2009 "Water issues are top environmental concern worldwide on Environmental Expert"
Published by Environmental Expert.com at http://www.environmental-expert.com/res ... 60541&lr=1. accessed
December 22, 2009
“A public opinion survey on attitudes about fresh water sustainability, management and conservation
finds that people around the world view water issues as the planet’s top environmental problem,
greater than air pollution, depletion of natural resources, loss of habitat or climate change. The poll,
conducted by GlobeScan, a global survey research firm on behalf of Circle of Blue, a Michigan-
based international network of leading journalists, scientists and communicators focused on global
water issues, surveyed 1,000 people in 15 countries.”