Elections – Obama Good
States – text is on the sheet
Eco-managerialism – new 1NC link – removing the generic

The aff’s use of green competitiveness conceals the underlying economic domination of the Global North over the Global South.

Jeff Everett & Dean Neu, 2K – Ph.D. Student @ the University of Calgary, Professor of Accounting @ the University of Calgary (Ecological modernization and the limits of environmental accounting? Blackwell Publishers Ltd.)

Implicit within the first-world corporatist interpretation has been the belief that it is necessary to devolve powers to supranational bodies such as the World Bank and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in order to better 'manage' the world's resources. Not only does this shift encourage more central and hierarchical decisionmaking processes, it also results in a shift in emphasis on what constitutes an environmental problem, with large-scale problems such as loss of biodiversity, desertification, ozone destruction, and global warming becoming the main issues of concern (Harvey 1996). As Harvey notes, this results in a new variation of cultural imperialism and a continuation of a politics of the status quo, in that: Global environmental management 'for the good of the planet' and to maintain the health of planet Earth could also be conveniently used to make claims on behalf of major governments and corporations for their exclusive and technologically advanced management of all of the world's resources. (1998: 342) In explaining the general pervasiveness of this variant of ecological modernization, both Harvey and Hajer point to the notions of positive sum gain and the win/win solution. In the corporate sector, proponents of this discourse make appeals to adopt green practices in order to enhance 'resource productivity' (e.g.. Porter and van der Linde 1995), minimize costs (Christoff 1996), attain a 'sustainable competitive advantage' (e.g.. Hart 1995), or generally capitalize upon a number of the many economic and strategic benefits to be derived from turning 'threats into opportunities' (Newton and Harte 1997, Dryzek 1997, Prasad and Elmes 1999). There is the continual reminder that 'pollution prevention pays' (Hajer 1995: 3). Tbe pursuit of win/win solutions has also been prompted by environmental litigation, environmental impact legislation, and in some areas high compensation awards for injured parties (Harvey 1996). It is here that the economization of ecology also becomes important; concerted efforts are made (with limited success) to place an economic or exchange (i.e. money) value on environmental 'goods' (Spaargaren and Mol 1992), all in the hope of identifying win/win solutions. It is here that the role of the abstract expert system of environmental accounting emerges. Together, those in pursuit of the successful combination of environment and economy create a force that is perceived to produce the 'fundamental impulse that sets and keeps the capitalist engine in motion' (Schumpeter 1961 cf. Hajer 1996, 249). Of course, the fact that this discourse resonates with the interests and aspirations of 'the heartland of contemporary-economic power'—i.e., individuals, corporations and governments—in the industrialized first world bas also contributed to its dominance. Harvey (1998) sums up his concerns regarding ecological modernization by stating: As a discourse, ecological modernization internalizes conflict. It has a radical edge, paying serious attention to environmental-ecological issues and most particularly to the accumulation of scientific evidence of environmental impacts without necessarily challenging the capitalist economic system head-on. It is reformist in its objectives rather than revolutionary and poses no deeply uncomfortable questions to the perpetuation of capital accumulation, though it does imply strict regulation of private property rights. Such a discourse can too easily be corrupted into yet another discursive representation of dominant forms of economic power, (p. 343)

New alt text: The alternative is ecological populism – we must embrace the environment as a subject rather than an economic object. Our communal praxis helps build a non-hierarchical relationship between humanity and the environment – it doesn’t otherwise preclude the aff.
Otherwise, the K is the same
Self determination cause devastation to tribes
Jerry D. Stubben, professor at Iowa State University, 2006, A Reference Handbook: Native Americans and Political Participation, page 44 [Jiajia Huang]
The federal government since the mid-1970s has promoted the idea of self-determination for Indian tribes and their people (Yerington Paiute Tribe 1985, 41). How self-determination is defined by the tribal, federal, and state governments will determine how successful Indian communities will be in the twenty-first century. If self- determination entitles the federal and state governments to abstain from their financial responsibilities to the Native American people to develop better communities, then it is another anti-Indian policy, much like termination, which leaves the Native American people to sink or swim on their own without any acknowledgement of past or present promises. If self-determination means allowing Native American people the policy control necessary to determine what is best for their communities, and the financial, technical, and managerial resources necessary to implement such policies, then it will be a turning point in the history of Indian policy making in which Indian people will finally obtain heir rightful place as directors rather than followers of such policy.
: The affirmative makes the U.S. more able to export its evil, colonial vision of self determination throughout the world

Fourth World Center for the Study of Indigenous Law and Politics (Marc Sills and Glenn Morris), Spring/Summer 1996, Fourth World Bulletin, __ public/fwc/Issue10/fwbtoc.html__
The reticence of the US to extend international law is most clearly evident on the issue of self-determination. Again, the US wants to confine any discussion to a domestic context and offers the distorted definition of self-determination that it has fabricated in US Indian Law for application within a global context. According to the US statement, self-determination "means promoting tribal self-government and autonomy over a broad range of issues." In domestic practice, the US definition of "self-determination" has meant the opportunity for "tribal" governments, as subordinate sovereigns (sometimes referred to as comprador or puppet governments), to expend money that has been allocated (and can as quickly be unallocated) by the federal government.
The US brand of domestic "self-determination" is exercised in indigenous territories where the ultimate, overarching title is claimed by the US, contrived through the miraculous "Christian discovery doctrine" which was sanctified through US case law. "Self-determination" in US Indian Policy is deliberately shaped around the British colonial model of "indirect rule." In the US version of "self-determination," indigenous peoples have rights only as "domestic dependent nations," and only to the degree that the "plenary (absolute) power" of the US Congress and the President allows them to exercise those rights.
US policy has allowed the government to make solemn international treaties with indigenous nations (sometimes with their consent, but often through coercion), take the benefits of the treaties, and then unilaterally violate or completely abrogate those agreements, without any effective or impartial recourse for the indigenous peoples. The effect has been to create a state enterprise built on stolen land and resources, with the dispossessed peoples condemned to an eternity of internal colonialism. Under US "self-determination" policy, the territorial integrity of every indigenous nation has been violated, every indigenous government has been altered, supplanted or destroyed, every indigenous economy has been subverted, and the cultural integrity of virtually every indigenous nation within the claimed US territory has been assaulted. Now, the US would like to export its version of "self-determination" and indigenous freedom to the rest of the world.
Empirically, attempts at increasing self-determination lead to violent secessions and wars
Michael Freeman, Reader in the Department of Government and Deputy Director of the Human Rights Centre at University of Essex, 1999, The Right of Nations, p. 59-60

The U.N. was, therefore, able to absorb the anticolonial revolution, and remain an exclusive club of states. It established a consensus that the right to self-determination of peoples belonged to those who struggled against European colonialism, but not to peoples who believed themselves to be unjustly treated in postcolonial states. It was, however, the very power of the principle of national self-determination that rendered this postcolonial order unstable. Most states were multinational or polyethnic, and many subordinate ethno-nationalist groups perceived the doctrine of uti possidetis juris to be an ideology that justified the domination of weak peoples by groups that had managed to seize state power. Consequently, secessionist wars and anti-secessionist repression became pervasive features of the postcolonial world order. The U.N. states system could not live in peace with the nationalism that it had itself encouraged. It would recognize only states, while it denied to many peoples the right to their own states. U.N. exclusionism was a source of the ethno-nationalist violence that it struggled without much success to contain.

T – Incentives 1NC

A. Incentives are distinct from tax credits – they require linking behavior to future action, not credit for actions already taken

Gary Bingel, senior manager of state and local taxes with Smart and Associates LLP, summer 2004, “Getting to the STATE'S CAPITAL: Negotiating Business Incentives”, Pennsylvania CPA Journal, proquest

When considering financial assistance from governmental authorities, it is important to keep in mind the definitions of "incentive" and "credit." "Incentive" is something that stimulates one to take action,1 and "credit" is to give deserved commendation for; to commend one for.2 These concepts are at the root of why governments give assistance to businesses in the form of incentives and tax credits. Incentive programs are usually offered to stimulate businesses to take some form of action, and are considered forward-looking. Tax credits are often offered to reward businesses that took some form of desired action, and are a reaction to steps already taken. There are some programs, however, that combine these concepts, such as negotiated tax credits and those that require preapproval, that are used to promote some future action. There are also incentives programs that, while negotiated and subject to preapproval, are only rewarded once a specified action, or promise, has been fulfilled. The following discussion will focus on true incentives programs, those that require preapproval and negotiation, as opposed to pure tax credits, which merely reward past behavior and that do not require any form of preapproval or negotiation.