First is the Criterion, second is Disads, third is significance, fourth is solvency and

advantages are last.

First off: Criterion

Judge you should vote on Net benefits as agreed to in CX. Neg wins the
Criterion because Neg wins net benefits: Costs US 21 billion, we gain
3.57 Trillion. Net benefit: 3.55 Tril
The Harvard Environmental Law Review 2007 Cass R. Sunstein Distinguished Service
Professor of Jurisprudence, Law School and Department of Political Science, University
of Chicago. “ARTICLE: OF MONTREAL AND KYOTO: A TALE OF TWO
PROTOCOLS” [Accessed via Lexis Nexis ][CR]

Why did the United States adopt such an aggressive posture with respect to ozone
depletion? I have referred to the significant effect of a study by the Council of Economic
Advisers, suggesting that a well-designed agreement would give the United States far
more than it would lose. A further clue is provided by the following contemporaneous
account by EPA of the costs and benefits of the Montreal Protocol: n124

FIGURE 1: COSTS AND BENEFITS OF MONTREAL PROTOCOL TO THE UNITED

STATES (IN BILLIONS OF 1985 DOLLARS)
No Montreal Unilateral Implementation of
Controls Protocol Montreal Protocol by the
United States
Benefits -- 3,575 1,373
Costs -- 21 21
Net Benefits -- 3,554 1,352

[*18] These figures were generated by a projection of over five million skin cancer
deaths by 2165, together with over twenty-five million cataract cases by that year--
figures that would be cut to two hundred thousand and two million, respectively, by a
50% CFC reduction. n125 Of course it is possible to question these numbers; the science
does not allow uncontroversial point estimates here, and perhaps EPA had an interest in
showing that the agreement was desirable. What matters, however, is the perception of
domestic costs and benefits, and in the late 1980s, no systematic analysis suggested that
the Montreal Protocol was not in the interest of the United States. It should be clear that
on these numbers, even unilateral action was well-justified for the United States, because
the health benefits of American action would create such substantial gains for the
American public. But if the world joined the Montreal Protocol, the benefits would be
nearly tripled, because it would prevent 245 million cancers by 2165, including more
than five million cancer deaths. n126 At the same time, the relatively low expected cost of
the Montreal Protocol--a mere $ 21 billion--dampened both public and private resistance,
and the cost turned out to be even lower than anticipated because of technological
innovation. n127
Second is disads.

1. Soft Power

Link: World sees Montreal as a positive signal

The Harvard Environmental Law Review 2007 Cass R. Sunstein Distinguished Service
Professor of Jurisprudence, Law School and Department of Political Science, University
of Chicago. “ARTICLE: OF MONTREAL AND KYOTO: A TALE OF TWO
PROTOCOLS” [Accessed via Lexis Nexis ][CR]

“But in this light, why was an agreement necessary at all? As we have seen, severe
reductions in CFC emissions preceded the ratification of the agreement. At first glance,
many nations had self-interested motives with respect to the ozone problem, and these
were sufficient to justify large reductions in such emissions. n134 If so, an international
accord might not have been required at all. The United States made substantial reductions
[*21] on its own, as did other nations, and still more nations might have done so without
the Montreal Protocol. n135 But many nations, including the United States, nonetheless
embraced the agreement. One reason is undoubtedly the "signal" provided by
participation in the agreement. If a nation promises before and with the world to reduce
its emissions, it can send a valuable signal both to its own citizens and to other nations
with which it must interact. Participation in the Montreal Protocol might be worthwhile
for this reason alone.”

Aff hurts soft power by ignoring a commitment to the world. This is bad because

Impact 1, Hegemony: If the United States wants to remain strong, soft power is
important
Joseph S. Nye [Ph.D. In political science from Harvard University. The 2008 TRIP
survey of 1700 international relations scholars ranked him as the sixth most influential
scholar of the past twenty years, and the most influential on American foreign policy.
Received his bachelor's degree summa cum laude from Princeton in 1958, did
postgraduate work at Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship and earned his Ph.D. He is the
University Distinguished Service Professor of the John F. Kennedy School of Government
at Harvard University. He was Deputy to the Under Secretary of State for Security
Assistance, Science and Technology and chaired the National Security Council Group on
Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Nye also served as Assistant Secretary of Defense
for International Security Affairs in the Clinton Administration. In recognition of his
service, he received the highest Department of State commendation, the Distinguished
Honor Award. In 1993 and 1994, he was chairman of the National Intelligence Council,
which coordinates intelligence estimates for the President. He was awarded the
Intelligence Community’s Distinguished Service Medal. In 1994 and 1995, he served as
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, where he also won the
Distinguished Service Medal with an Oak Leaf Cluster. He has been a trustee of Wells
College and Radcliffe College. A member of the editorial boards of Foreign Policy and
International Security magazines, he is the author of numerous books and more than a
hundred and fifty articles in professional journals. In addition, he has published policy
articles in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The International Herald Tribune,
The Wall Street Journal, and The Financial Times. He has received numerous prestigious
prizes and honorary degrees, and was reportedly passed over by President Obama for the
post of Ambassador to Japan- against the urging of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton- in
favor of a campaign fundraiser.]“The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s
Superpower Can’t Go it Alone,”, Published in Oxford University Press, New York, 2002
p. 8-9. [Book] [Ethos]
“In my view, if the United States wants to remain strong, Americans need also to
pay attention to our soft power. What precisely do I mean by soft power? Military power
and economic power are both examples of hard command power that can be used to
induce others to change their position. Hard power can rest on inducements (carrots) or
threats (sticks). But there is also an indirect way to exercise power. A country may obtain
the outcomes it wants in world politics because other countries want to follow it,
admiring its values, emulating its example, aspiring to its level of prosperity and
openness. In this sense, it is just as important to set the agenda in world politics and
attract others as it is to force them to change through the threat or use of military or
economic weapons. This aspect of power—getting others to want what you want—I call
soft power. It co-opts people rather than coerces them. Soft power rests on the ability to
set the political agenda in a way that shapes the preferences of others. At the personal
level, wise parents know that if they have brought up their children with the right beliefs
and values, their power will be greater and will last longer than if they have relied only
on spankings, cutting off allowances, or taking away the car keys. Similarly, political
leaders and thinkers such as Antonio Gramsci have long understood the power that comes
from setting the agenda and determining the framework of a debate. The ability to
establish preferences tends to be associated with intangible power resources such as an
attractive culture, ideology, and institutions. If I can get you to want to do what I want,
then I do not have to force you to do what you do not want to do. If the United States
represents values that others want to follow, it will cost us less to lead. Soft power is not
merely the same as influence, though it is one source of influence. After all, I can also
influence you by threats or rewards. Soft power is also more than persuasion or the ability
to move people by argument. It is the ability to entice and attract. And attraction often
leads to acquiescence or imitation.”

2. Hurt ozone layer and global warming

Link: Scientific consensus: CFCs hurt the ozone layer and increase global
warming
Albany Law Environmental Outlook Journal 2005 Elias Mossos is currently working
towards an LL.M. degree in International Business and Trade Law at The John Marshall
Law School where he received his J.D. in 2004. He is a legislative analyst for the
Honorable Michael J. Madigan, Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives.
“ARTICLE: THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL AND THE DIFFICULTY WITH
INTERNATIONAL CHANGE” [Accessed via Lexis Nexis][CR]

“The scientific community was yet another motivating force behind the Protocol as a
collaborative scientific effort in 1984 resulted in the "most comprehensive study of the
stratosphere ever undertaken[.]" n50 Scientists discovered that not only did CFCs deplete
the ozone, but so did other substances that contained CFC subparts. n51 This was an
important discovery because it could explain, to some extent, global warming, certain
[*12] cancers, and other health problems; however, the research was too preliminary to
ascertain ozone depletion's responsibility for these societal harms. n52”

Impact: cross apply aff impacts under harm 2.

Third, lets look at significance.

1. Lives won’t be lost. Tech innovation solves for CFCs: we have alternatives

The George Washington Law Review November, 2008 Stuart Minor Benjamin and Arti
K. Rai Professors of Law, Duke University School of Law. “Article: Fixing Innovation
Policy: A Structural Perspective” [Lexis Nexis][CR]

“Significantly, innovation is also central to addressing the most salient dangers that
earlier productive activity (often spurred by innovation) has created. Innovation that
produced economically attractive alternatives to ozone-layer destroying
chlorofluorocarbons ("CFCs") prompted the United States to take the lead in securing
rapid international agreement to the Montreal Protocol for limiting CFCs. n36 In large
part because of innovation, "the monetized benefits [to the United States] dwarfed the
monetized costs and hence the circumstances were extremely promising for American
support and even enthusiasm [*11] for the agreement." n37 For similar reasons,
managing global warming may require unprecedented levels of innovation.”

2. CFC’s are less efficient.

Transition away from CFCs increased energy efficiency

American University Sustainable Development Law & Policy Winter, 2007 Donald
Kaniaru, Rajendra Shende, Scott Stone, Durwood Zaelke Donald Kaniaru is an Advocate
for Kaniaru & Kaniaru Advocates located in Nairobi. Mr. Kaniaru is the former
Director, Division of Environmental Policy Implementation, for the United Nations
Environment Programme ("UNEP"). Rajendra Shende is the Head of the OzonAction
Branch in the Division of Industry, Technology and Economics at UNEP-Paris. Mr.
Shende is an expert on the implementation of multilateral environmental agreements and
transfer of environmentally sound technologies to the developing countries, and policy
advisor to more than 150 governments for the implementation of the Montreal Protocol.
Scott Stone is a Policy Analyst for the Institute for Governance & Sustainable
Development ("IGSD") and a Research Fellow for the Program on Governance for
Sustainable Development at University of California, Santa Barbara ("UCSB").
Durwood Zaelke is President of IGSD. Mr. Zaelke is the Co-Director for the Program on
Governance for Sustainable Development, UCSB and Director of the International
Network for Environmental Compliance & Enforcement. Mr. Stone acts as a Consultant
to and Mr. Zaelke is a Managing Partner of the Washington, DC office of Zelle,
Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette, both currently focusing on removing barriers to
beneficial uses of environmentally superior technology, such as the current use of
HCFC-123 in chillers and the use of hydrocarbons and other flammable refrigerants as
replacements for HFCs. “EXPLORING HOW TODAY'S DEVELOPMENT AFFECTS
FUTURE GENERATIONS AROUND THE GLOBE: IN THIS ISSUE: CLIMATE LAW
REPORTER: STRENGTHENING THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL: INSURANCE
AGAINST ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE” [Accessed via Lexis Nexis][CR]

“Past transitions from CFCs to HCFCs and hydrofluorocarbons ("HFCs") helped drive
technological innovation in substitutes, manufacturing processes, and equipment, which
in many cases resulted in gains in energy efficiency, reduced leakage, or other
technological improvements. To date about eighty percent of ODSs that would be in use
without the Montreal Protocol have been replaced by non-fluorocarbon chemicals, which
do not deplete the ozone layer. These substitutes include not-in-kind chemical substitutes
and product alternatives (e.g. a roll-on deodorant instead of a spray can), changes to
manufacturing processes, conservation measures, and doing without. The transition out of
HCFCs is likely to produce similar innovations and environmental advances. But
developing countries, if they continue their over-reliance on HCFC-22, will be slow to
benefit from these positive changes.”

fourth, solvency.

1. States will continue to ban CFC’s

Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 2003 Laura Thoms Law Clerk for Honorable
Judge Marilyn L. Huff, United States District Court for the Southern District of
California; Harvard Law School, J.D. 2002; Duke University, A.B. in Environmental
Science and Policy 1999. “ARTICLE: A Comparative Analysis of International Regimes
on Ozone and Climate Change with Implications for Regime Design” [Accessed via
Lexis Nexis][CR]

“Legislators first began to respond to public concern at the state level. In the mid-1970's,
legislation against CFCs was introduced or passed in California, Michigan, Minnesota,
New York, and Oregon, among other states. Industry was threatened with a "patchwork"
of differing state regulations and began to publicly support federal [*828] regulations,
which would at least be uniform and consequently less disruptive. n179 Congress
responded in the late 1970s. In 1977, it passed a stratospheric ozone protection
amendment to the Clean Air Act, and in 1978, it prohibited the use of CFCs as aerosol
propellants in nonessential applications. n180 National pressure increased and, as a result
of a 1984 lawsuit brought by the Natural Resources Defense Counsel ("NRDC"), the
District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the EPA to issue domestic regulations
under the Clean Air Act by early 1987. n181”

And, state laws won’t be amended: aff admitted this in CX.

2. Consumers demand products without CFCs in them

Albany Law Environmental Outlook Journal 2005 Elias Mossos is currently working
towards an LL.M. degree in International Business and Trade Law at The John Marshall
Law School where he received his J.D. in 2004. He is a legislative analyst for the
Honorable Michael J. Madigan, Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives.
“ARTICLE: THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL AND THE DIFFICULTY WITH
INTERNATIONAL CHANGE” [Accessed via Lexis Nexis][CR]

“The United States played a lead role in persuading and motivating the international
community to adopt the strict guidelines of the Montreal Protocol. n33 This was partially
because heavy press coverage led to a high level of American public awareness in the
harmful effects caused by CFCs and ozone depletion. n34 A decade prior to the Protocol
negotiations, the "U.S. market for spray cans had fallen by nearly two-thirds because
American consumers were acting on their environmental concerns." n35 A consumer
base that was attuned to the ozone depletion problem was enough to encourage industry
to jump on the bandwagon, if not out of conviction, at least out of concern for their
"public image and long-term reputations." n36 Clearly, "where consumers' environmental
awareness is well developed, information creates demand in favor of environmentally
friendly products." n37”

Fifth, Advantages.

1. Illegal trading will stop in 2010: no countries will be producing them

Albany Law Environmental Outlook Journal 2005 Elias Mossos is currently working
towards an LL.M. degree in International Business and Trade Law at The John Marshall
Law School where he received his J.D. in 2004. He is a legislative analyst for the
Honorable Michael J. Madigan, Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives.
“ARTICLE: THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL AND THE DIFFICULTY WITH
INTERNATIONAL CHANGE” [Accessed via Lexis Nexis][CR]

“In the late 1990s, between 9000 and 18,000 tons of CFCs were illegally imported into
the United States each year. n132 At that time, CFCs were second only to cocaine in
dollar amount of illegal substances smuggled into the United States annually. n133 Most
CFCs are believed to be smuggled from Article 5 countries, n134 which are allowed to
produce CFCs until 2010 and therefore have large supplies of the dangerous chemicals.
n135 Due to consumer reluctance to convert to ozone-friendly refrigerants despite the
measures taken by the CFC industry to find [*23] alternative refrigerants, the demand
for these environmentally sound substances has been much lower than anticipated. n136”