The most comprehensive studies prove that the harmful effects of acid rain are myths.
Doug Bandow, 1998. Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and worked with the Natural Resources and Environment Cabinet Council while a Special Assistant to President Reagan. “Environmentalism: The Triumph of Politics,” Action Institute, http://www.acton.org/publications/randl/rl_article_271.php.
Politicians are also remarkably vulnerable to scaremongering by special-interest groups and activists. One apocalyptic vision is Acid Rain. In 1980 the Environmental Protection Agency claimed that Sulfur Dioxide emissions caused Acid Rain, which had supposedly increased the average acidity of Northeast lakes one-hundred-fold over the last forty years and was killing fish and trees alike. A year later the National Research Council predicted that the number of acidified lakes would double by 1990. So, naturally, Congress included stringent provisions to cut so2 emissions (already down 50 percent from the 1970s) at a cost of billions of dollars annually when it reauthorized the Clean Air Act. Yet in 1987, epa research raised doubts about the destructiveness of acid rain. Then came the most complete study of Acid Rain ever conducted, the half billion dollar National Acid Precipitation Assessment Project (napap), which concluded that the allegedly horrific effects of Acid Rain were largely a myth. Studies that conclude that acid rain is dangerous are biased. National Center, 8/20/1996. “Myths and Facts About the Environment -- Part IV: Acid Rain,” National Center for Public Policy Research, http://www.nationalcenter.org/tp25.htm.
Myth: Data taken by proponents of the acid rain theory is accurate and conclusive. Fact: Proponents of the acid rain theory have rested their claims on a deeply flawed series of articles by G.E. Likens and his co-workers in the 1970s. A careful evaluation of Likens' researchconducted by a group of scientists at Environmental Research and Technology, Inc., reveals thathis data collection and selection was deliberately biased to support the desired conclusions.
United Nations 10/14/08 US Fed News, “Build on Positive Trends to Reverse Deteriorating Situation in Afghanistan,” Lexis, 10/14/08
ZALMAY KHALILZAD (United States) said that, in order for UNAMA to implement its revised mandate and face the new challenges, his country supported an immediate surge in the Mission's capabilities based on the proposals made by the Special Representative. The United States was gravely concerned about humanitarian conditionsas many lives were in jeopardy, both from food shortages and cold weather. Planning for winter should aim to help Afghans deal with both, and the United States, as the largest donor, was prepared to do more. He said the security situation had become more challenging as the Taliban and their allies continued to wage deadly attacks on military and civilian targets. Success in the fight against them could be achieved, despite recent doom-and-gloom talk. Success required that the Government implement its National Development Strategy and improve local governance, combat corruption, reform its police forces and increase its counter-narcotics efforts, among other things. The United States welcomed the fact that Afghan security forces were taking on increasing responsibility for protecting the people. The 2009 elections were very important and it was therefore imperative that the international community redouble efforts to ensure they were credible. The United States called on the Afghan Government to hold the elections as scheduled. Underscoring the importance of the role of neighbouring countries, he said the new Government in Pakistan offered an opportunity to battle regional terrorism. That should mean, among other things, an end to sanctuaries for hostile forces, the use of terrorism for national interests, and increased intelligence sharing and reconciliation, all of which were necessities for stability and development. Both Afghans and Pakistanis needed international support to resist terrorist efforts, and the United States urged the Secretariat to ensure that the Special Representative had the support and means needed to carry out his mission. Expressing his deep regret for the accidental loss of civilian lives, he said he shared the Secretary-General's grave concern about civilian casualties. The United States would do everything in its power to ensure that ISAF and Operation Enduring Freedom prevented civilian casualties and acknowledged them when they occurred. However, the fundamental cause of the casualties was the fight waged by the Taliban, who used civilians as shields and were increasingly resorting to asymmetric attacks against population centres. There was a need for better coordination, and the United States chain of command had been streamlined. More forces would be sent to Afghanistan.
2. No impact – failure empirically doesn’t cause conflict – post 9/11 invasion proves 3. No escalation – Afghan neighbors have power to contain war
BBC Monitoring South Asia, 2009, bbc is a credible news network, BBC Monitoring South Asia, “Paper says neighbors can end Afghanistan War,” December 19 2009, lexis.
One of the issues related to the war in Afghanistan has been the role of Afghanistan's neighbours in this war and effects of their policies on war and political processes related to war in Afghanistan. It has been believed that if Afghanistan's neighbours do not support the war, it cannot last long. Taking this belief into consideration, it has been argued on many occasions that Afghanistan's neighbours especially Pakistan have not had a genuine interest in ending this war. Although Pakistan has constantly spoken about its cooperation with the government of Afghanistan and the international community for peace and stability in Afghanistan, Pakistani claims have not been believed. US Commander in the Middle East and Central Asia, General David Petraeus, recently asked Pakistan to put pressure on Taleban on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. This demonstrates that the international community is not convinced that Pakistan has changed its policy on extremist groups in the region. Although Pakistan is at war with local Taleban in that country, it has a different policy on Afghan Taleban and does not want pressure on this group. Another country that can play an important role in the war in Afghanistan is Russia. NATO secretary general recently asked [Dmitry] MedvedevWednesday last week to play a bigger role in supporting NATO troops in Afghanistan by dedicating more helicopters to these forces. It was reported some time ago that NATO forces have shown interest in using Russian made helicopters in their war in Afghanistan. Reports explained that NATO forces want to use Russian helicopters in Afghanistan because they are more suitable to Afghan terrain and climate and can be more effective in peace operations. Meanwhile, there are reports that Taleban are receiving Iranian weapons. According to Commander of US forces in Middle East and Central Asia, General David Petraeus, that these weapons are supplied to Taleban mainly in Western border areas between Afghanistan and Iran. Previously, such reports were unofficially discussed and even the Taleban were quoted as confirming these reports about their access to Iranian weapons. The Iranian government, however, has repeatedly rejected these reports and claims. Taking the negative relations between Iran and the United States into consideration, a number of political analysts believe that American military presence in Afghanistan has raised serious concerns for Iran. Therefore, Iran will do favours to the Taleban. These reports demonstrate that the negative role of Afghanistan's neighbours in the war in Afghanistan and their lack of support political process for peace and development in Afghanistan have resulted in the failure to achieve the desired results in this country despite spending heavy sums of money and investing human capital in Afghanistan for eight years. Efforts should therefore be made to ensure that these countries change their policies on Afghanistan and play a positive role in the political processes initiated by the government in this country. Experts believe that this can be possible only when Afghanistan's government is able to establish close relations with countries neighbouring Afghanistan and close to Afghanistan and if Afghanistan can convince them that a strong central government in Afghanistan will not pose any problems to those countries.