2ac v michale

8/11/2019 2ac v Michale

1/35

Add-OnEcon & Env ModuleBudget proposal will undercut Land & Water Conservation Fund needs

Cameron Witten, Government Relations Associate for the Wilderness Society, 7-8-

2014, :House Appropriations Bill a Mixed Bag for Conservation Programs, The

Wilderness Society,

http://wilderness.org/press-release/house-appropriations-bill-mixed-bag-conservation-

programs

The draft House Interior and Environment Appropriations bill released today is a clear

improvement from previous years, though it still misses the mark on several key

conservation, climate and public lands needs and is laden with numerous policy

provisions or riders that have no place in the appropriations process.In this difficultfiscal climate we applaud Chairman Ken Calverts first bill as chair of the Interior

Appropriations Subcommittee in providing modest funding increases for many importantprograms when compared with previous House proposals says Alan Rowsome, SeniorGovernment Relations Director at The Wilderness Society. "However, compared to

currently enacted funding levels, this legislation proposes significant cuts to a number of

important conservation priorities. "Funding for conservation is a win-win that translates

to substantial benefits on the ground and in local communities. Though we recognize the

Chairmans effort in crafting a far better bill than we have seen over the last few years,this proposal still represents a net loss for conservation, public lands and local

communities.Several vital conservation programs would be impacted by this spendingproposal: The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), now in its 50th year, would

be funded at $152 million. While this is a significant improvement after the program waseviscerated in last years House bill, it still equates to a more than 50 percent reductionfrom current funding levels. LWCF dollars fund ball fields, local parks and sportsmensaccess to premier hunting and angling opportunities. A reduction of this magnitude would

significantly impact locally driven conservation efforts and opportunities for local

communities to enjoy public lands. Overall funding for the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) is down $13 million from enacted levels, though funding to speed up permitting

and increase inspection for oil and gas development is up by $20 million. While the

increased funding for inspections is a welcome improvement, this proposal would still

seek to elevate one use (oil and gas development) above all other uses of BLM lands.Though this bill includes substantial funding to combat wildfires it ignores the proposed

fix to our broken wildfire funding structure, which the Administration, Forest Service and

bipartisan coalitions in both chambers support. Under the current structure the Forest

Service has been forced to transfer billions of dollars away from vital conservation

programs over the past several years, including those specifically aimed at reducing

future catastrophic wildfires. The increased funding in this proposal, though helpful in the


2/35

short term, still fails to address the larger problems that have led wildfire costs to balloon

to nearly half of the Forest Service budget. On top of this, the House proposal also

includes several very problematic policy riders that would gut longstanding

environmental laws through the appropriations process. Riders included in the bill would

block implementation of the Administrations greenhouse gas emissions rule for existingpower plants, which would be a huge step towards combating the threat of climate

change, and would delay for one year any action on a Fish and Wildlife Service

Endangered Species Act listing of the sage grouse. Policy riders of this sort run counter to

the desires of local communities, ignore the best available science and have no place in

appropriations bills. Much still remains to be done to ensure that conservation andpublic lands programs are not further undermined, says Rowsome. We will continue towork with the Chairman and the full committee to make sure that we address the areas

where this proposal falls short. While ultimately an improvement over previous

proposals, we have our work cut out for us to ensure that this bill invests in local

communities, public lands and conservation in the coming year.

Federal government revenues from OCS drilling funds the LWCF

OCS Governors Coalition, a group of coastal state governors who promote

constructive dialogue on OCS energy-resource planning and development between state

and federal governments, 2012, OCS 101, No Publication,http://ocsgovernors.org/ocs101/

Are government revenues generated from the OCS? Yes. The federal government

collects revenues from the production of oil and natural gas on the OCS through bonusbids, royalties and rents from lessees. A bonus bid is a cash bid paid to the U.S.

government by an operator for the right to explore an offshore lease for oil and natural

gas. If oil or natural gas is discovered, the lessee makes a royalty payment in money or

in-kind to the federal government for a stated share of production based on the value of

the oil and natural gas produced. Finally, rents are paid by the lessee annually to retain

the right to develop the resources in the area. Since the level of lease sales and production

varies, the amount of revenue generated varies year to year. Who shares in these

revenues? The U.S. Department of the Treasury distributes about half of the revenues

generated from all mineral development in various proportions to the states, the HistoricPreservation Fund, the Land & Water Conservation Fund, the Reclamation Fund, and

Native American Tribes & Allottees. The other half remains at the U.S. Treasury,

helping to fund federal programs. For production near coasts, states directly share in the

revenue generated. The Outer Continental Lands Act, Section 8(g) provides that 27

percent of all revenues from production within three miles seaward of the federal/state

boundary be given to the states hosting production. For the Gulf Coast region, revenue-


3/35

sharing extends beyond the three-mile zone. In 2006, the U.S. Congress passed the Gulf

of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA) promulgating that the states of Texas,

Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama receive 37.5 percent of all royalties from new oil

and natural gas development in federal waters adjacent to the respective state. The intent

of GOMESA is to ensure states have adequate resources to fund coastal restoration and

conservation initiatives and hurricane protection projects. Therefore, in addition to

revenues distributed to the GOMESA states, 12.5 percent of revenues are allocated to the

federal Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Plan increases federal government revenue that can be reallocated to LWCF

API, American Petroleum Institute, January 2014, Offshore Access to Oil and NaturalGas Resources, API Report, http://www.api.org/policy-and-issues/policy-items/exploration/~/media/Files/Oil-and-Natural-Gas/Offshore/OffshoreAccess-primer-

highres.pdf

For the Atlantic Offshore: Production is estimated to start 7 years after initial lease sales,

government revenues and job creation will begin the year of initial lease sales. Oil and

natural gas production is projected to reach over 1.5 million barrels of oil equivalent per

day 11 years after initial production. Atlantic OCS resource development is projected to

support over 160,000 jobs 15 years after initial lease sales, fluctuating between 140,000

and 160,000 jobs thereafter. Lease sales could generate $8 billion in government revenue

over 16 years. Cumulative total government revenue, including lease, royalty, and

Federal income tax revenue, is projected to be $95 billion 18 years after initial lease

sales, reaching approximately $14 billion per year in the final year of the study andgrowing. For the Eastern Gulf of Mexico: Production is estimated to start 4 years after

initial lease sales, government revenues and job creation will begin the year of initial

lease sales. Oil and natural gas production is projected to reach over 1.6 million barrels of

oil equivalent per day 14 years after initial production. Eastern Gulf of Mexico OCS

resource development is projected to support over 160,000 jobs 18 years after initial lease

sales. Lease sales could generate $16 billion in government revenue over 16 years.

Cumulative total government revenue, including lease, royalty, and Federal income tax

revenue, is projected to be over $140 billion 18 years after initial lease sales, reaching

approximately $17 billion per year the final year and growing

LWCF cuts impact the economy and the environment

Larry Jordan, Writer for Federal Wildlife Conservation Stamp Project, 8-20-2013, TheLand and Water Conservation Fund Stripped of Funding, Federal Wildlife Conservation


4/35

Stamp Project, http://wildlifeconservationstamp.org/the-land-and-water-conservation-

fund-stripped-of-funding/

Created by Congress in 1965, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) was a

bipartisan commitment to safeguard natural areas, water resources and our cultural

heritage, and toprovide recreation opportunities to all Americans. National parks likeRocky Mountain, the Grand Canyon, and the Great Smoky Mountains, as well as national

wildlife refuges, national forests, rivers and lakes, community parks, trails, and ball fields

in every one of our 50 states were set aside for Americans to enjoy thanks to federal

funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund1. It was a simple idea: use revenues

from the depletion of one natural resourceoffshore oil and gasto support theconservation of another precious resourceour land and water. Every year, $900 millionin royalties paid by energy companies drilling for oil and gas on the Outer Continental

Shelf (OCS) are put into this fund. The money is intended to create and protect national

parks, areas around rivers and lakes, national forests, and national wildlife refuges from

development, and to provide matching grants for state and local parks and recreation

projects. Yet, nearly every year, Congress breaks its own promise to the American people

and diverts much of this funding to uses other than conserving our most important lands

and waters. But this year is different. This year the US House of Representatives

Appropriations Committees Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and RelatedAgenciespropose no money for the LWCF in their budget. Zero, nada, nothing. Not only

has this committee zeroed out funding for the LWCF, it has also zeroed out funding for

another important conservation program, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act

(NAWCA). Chief Conservation Officer for Ducks Unlimited, Paul Schmidt, said

Wetlands protected and conserved by these programs do so much more than providewaterfowl and wildlife habitat. They lessen the effects of floods and hurricanes, prevent

soil erosion and improve water quality.NAWCA has translated more than $1 billion infederal appropriations over the life of the program into nearly $3.5 billion in additional

economic activity, thus creating nearly 7,500 new jobs, according to Ducks Unlimited.

Outdoor recreation is an economic powerhouse in the United States, each year generating

$646 billion in consumer spending and 6.1 million direct jobs2. You can see the specific

figures on what outdoor recreation generates for the economy of your home state at the

Outdoor Industry Associations website. For a group of congressmen and women, whocontinuously complain about the lack of job growth, to cut funding for these programs is

ludicrous. Fortunately, the House bill might not get far. The Senates 2014 budget,authored by Budget chairwoman Patty Murray, includes full funding of $900 million for

the LWCF and President Barack Obamas budget went even further to propose a slightincrease.


5/35


6/35

SolOn Romm-we drill in the deep waters, states cant block. Also their ev still

says we can drill, no offense there.

On CBO, we have investors ready to pay, private citizens cant block a federalplan.

On Mufson, cross apply DC 13, we already have investors on hand, this

condradicts their arg.


7/35

OilLifting the moratorium is key to energy security and the economy

Williams 13(Justin, U.S. Offshore Oil Production, Energy and Capital, 7/1/13,

http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/us-offshore-oil-production/3579)//js

The battle over the global energy race is heating up. By now, you might even say itson

fire. Every move is crucial, and time is of the essence. If the U.S. wants to reign supreme

in oil production as forecasts predicttoppling Saudi Arabia and Russiait must take

advantage of every opportunity. U.S. offshore oil production and its future exploration is

paramount in the U.S. undertaking of this global feat. It will also prove to be an integral

part of the American economy. And so it goes. One Republican, Kevin Brady, seeks to

put more power into state hands when it comes to oil and gas. Last month, he

introduced the More Energy More Jobs Act that would grant states authority to

designate areas off their coastlines to develop gas and oil as they see fit, and with it,

create more jobs. Brady, a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee

and chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, released this statement in regards to

his plan, according to Chron.com: America may never reach true energy security as

long as 85% of our offshore areas remain off-limits to oil and gas development. This

innovative approach allows willing states to nominate potential offshore areas for the

federal draft 5-year lease plan. And it directs the Interior Department to conduct the

economic and environmental studies that are the important first steps for inclusion in

the lease plan. As a result, Washington will no longer be able to disqualify theseimportant areas for purely political reasons. Its time to unlock the full potential of U.S.

energy. By allowing state governments to offer suggested developments for offshore

drilling, the bill would force the federal government to do environmental reviews and

resource estimates, setting the stage for further production.

On Williams-ev only talks about onshore drilling, doesnt take into account

offshore

Timeframe is next year - causes economic collapseDr Nafeez Ahmed 14, executive director of the Institute for Policy Research &

Development, 3/28/14, The Guardian, Ex govt adviser: "global market shock" from "oilcrash" could hit in 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/28/global-market-shock-oil-crash-2015-peak

In a new book, former oil geologistand government adviseron renewable energy, Dr. Jeremy Leggett,

identifiesfive"global systemic risksdirectly connected to energy" which, he says, together "threaten
http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/us-offshore-oil-production/3579)/jshttp://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/us-offshore-oil-production/3579)/js


8/35

capital markets and hence the global economy" in a way that could trigger a global crash

sometime between 2015 and 2020. According to Leggett, a wide range of experts and insiders "fromdiverse sectors spanning academia, industry, the military and the oil industry itself, including until recently the International Energy Agency or, at

least, key individuals or factions therein" are expecting an oil crunch"within a few years," most likely

"within a window from 2015 to 2020." Interconnected risks Despite its serious tone, The Energy of Nations: Risk

Blindness and the Road to Renaissance, published by the reputable academic publisher Routledge, makes a compelling and ultimately hopefulcase for the prospects of transitioning to a clean energy system in tandem with a new form of sustainable prosperity. The five risks he highlights

cut across oil depletion, carbon emissions, carbon assets, shale gas, and the financial sector: "A market shockinvolving any one these

would be capable of triggering a tsunami of economic and social problems, and, of course, there is

no law of economics that says only one can hit at one time." At the heart of these risks, Leggett argues, is our

dependence onincreasingly expensive fossil fuel resources. Hiswide-ranging analysispinpointsthe possibility

of a global oil supply crunch as early as 2015. "Growing numbers of people in and around the oil industry",he says, privately consider such a forecast to be plausible. "If we are correct, and nothing is done to soften the landing, the twenty-first century is

almost certainly heading for an early depression." Leggett also highlights the risk of parallel developments in the financial sector: "Growing

numbers of financial experts are warning that failure to rein in the financial sector in the aftermath of the financial crash of 2008 makes a second

crash almost inevitable." A frequent Guardian contributor, Leggett has had a varied career spanning multiple disciplines. A geologist and former

oil industry consultant for over a decade whose research on shale was funded by BP and Shell, he joined Greenpeace International in 1989 over

concerns about climate change. As the organisation's science director he edited a landmark climate change report published by Oxford UniversityPress.

Oil shocks likely- 9 reasons

Securing Americas Future Energy, No Date, this site is a .org, Oil Dependence:A Threat to U.S. Economic & National Security,http://www.secureenergy.org/sites/default/files/155_Briefing-OilDependence.pdf

Numerous plausible events could interrupt global oil supplies and send prices sharply

higher, threatening the stability of the global economy:> Saudi Arabia is rife with terrorist

threats and political tensions. Though the Kingdom has improved the security of its energy infrastructure since a wave of violencethat began in May 2003, great concern remains. Two-thirds of Saudi oil output is processed in one huge facility (Abqaiq), the vast majority of

Saudi exports are shipped from one of three terminals (Ras Tanura, Ras al-Juaymah, and Yanbu), and more than 50% of reserves are held in justeight fields, including the super giant Ghawar field, the largest in the world, which accounts for about 50% of Saudi Arabias total oil

production capacity.12 > Iran, the worlds fourth largest oil producer and exporter, has threatened to use the oilweapon to retaliateagain action taken in response to its nuclear program. >Nigeria is thesite of ongoing civil conflict.In March of 2003, oil companies removed staff and sus- pended production in the Niger Delta,shutting in 10-20% of the countrys production. In September of 2005, Chevron temporarily shut down a pumping station and Shell evacuated

personnel due to threats from local militia. > In Iraq, oil facilities are a favorite target of the insurgency.

There is also fear that violence could spill over into neighboring countries. > Venezuelas president frequentlythreatens to cut off the oil, and draws attention to the likely economic consequencesfor the U.S.In late-2002 and early-2003, labor strikes and general unrest reduced Venezuelas output by more than 60 percent. Al

Qaeda calls oil the artery of the life of the crusader nation and isactively targetingthevast and vulnerable oil supplychain. > In Russia, the worlds second largest producer and exporter, uncertainty remains in the wakeof the Yukos

affair and other recentralization efforts. > FSU states are the site of frequent instability(e.g. revolutions in Georgia,

Ukraine, Uzbekistan), ethnic conflict, andrampant corruption. > The precarious balance between supply and demand will

continue to strain the systemand infrastructure will always be vulnerable to natural disasters. Indeed,hurricanes were responsible for the single largest losses of energy output in 2004 (Ivan) and 2005 (Katrina).


9/35

EconGlobal economic crisis causes nuclear war

Cesare Merlini 11, nonresident senior fellow at the Center on the United States and

Europe and chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Italian Institute for International

Affairs, May 2011, A Post-Secular World?, Survival, Vol. 53, No. 2

Two neatly opposed scenarios for the future of the world order illustrate the range of

possibilities, albeit at the risk of oversimplification. The first scenario entails the

premature crumbling of the post-Westphalian system. One or more of the acute

tensions apparent today evolves into an open and traditional conflict between states,

perhaps even involving the use of nuclear weapons. The crisis might be triggered by a

collapse of the global economic and financial system, the vulnerability of which we have

just experienced, and the prospect of a second Great Depression, with consequences for

peace and democracy similar to those of the first. Whatever the trigger, the unlimitedexercise of national sovereignty, exclusive self-interest and rejection of outside

interference would self-interest and rejection of outside interference would likely be

amplified, emptying, perhaps entirely, the half-full glass of multilateralism, including the

UN and the European Union. Many of the more likely conflicts, such as between Israel

and Iran or India and Pakistan, have potential religious dimensions. Short of war,

tensions such as those related to immigration might become unbearable. Familiar issues

of creed and identity could be exacerbated. One way or another, the secular rational

approach would be sidestepped by a return to theocratic absolutes, competing or

converging with secular absolutes such as unbridled nationalism.

Extend Harris and Burrows, 9

Its an impact filter declining economy causes all other conflicts to escalate

Turns their args, there will be blood

Its not about the mindsets, its about the complete overturns of economies.

On barry 8 weve had economies since humans first built civilizations, theres no waythat econ cant be stable. Empirically there has been no peaceful econ collapses.

Growth reducespovertyand solves many of the harms of being poor

Ferrara 12forbes policy contributor [Peter, Economic Growth, Not Redistribution,

Most Benefits The Poor, Working People, And The Middle

Class11/15/2012,http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/11/15/economic-


10/35

growth-not-redistribution-most-benefits-the-poor-working-people-and-the-middle-

class/,accessed 7/16 ]RMT

Such sustained, rapid economic growth is the ultimate solution to poverty. It was

economic growth in the last century that reduced U.S. poverty from roughly 50% in

1900, and 30% in 1950, to 12.1% in 1969. Among blacks, poverty was reduced in the

20th century from 3 in 4 to 1 in 4 through economic growth. Child poverty of 40% in the

early 1950s was also reduced by half. It was economic growth that made the elimination

of child labor possible as well. The living standards of the poor in America today

are equivalent to the living standards of the middle class 35 years ago, if not the

middle class in Europe today.With sustained, vigorous economic growth, 35 years from

now the lowest income Americans will live at least as well as the middle class of today. If

real compensation growth for the poor can be sustained at just 2% a year, after just 20

years their real incomes will increase by 50%, and after 40 years their incomes will more

than double. Ifpro-growth economic policies could raise that real compensation growth to

3% a year, after just 20 years their real incomes would double, and after 40 years it would

triple. That is the most effective anti-poverty program possible. Just imagine what 2100

will look like if we can keep this economic growth going. Physicist Michio Kaku gave us

an indication of that in a March, 2012 interview in the Wall Street Journal, explaining,

Every 18 months, computer power doubles, so in eight years, a microchip will cost only

a penny. Instead of one chip inside a desk top, well have millions of chips in all of our

possessions: furniture, cars, appliances, clothes. Chips will be so ubiquitious that we

wont say the word computer. Kaku continued, To comprehend the world were

entering, consider another word that will disappear soon: tumor. We will have DNA

chips inside our toilet, which will sample some of our blood and urine and tell us if we

have cancer maybe 10 years before a tumor forms. He adds, When you need to see a

doctor, youll talk to a wall in your home, and an animated artificially intelligent doctor

will appear. Youll scan your body with a hand-held MRI machine, the Robodoc will

analyze the results, and youll receive a diagnosis that is 99% accurate. Kaku further

projected, In this augmented reality,the Internet will be in your contact lens. You

will blink, and you will go online. That will change everything. Kaku concludes, If you

could meet your grandkids as elderly citizens in the year 2100, you would view them as

being, basically, Greek gods. Just maintaining the real, long term, U.S.economic growth

rate of 3.2% from 1947 to 2007 would have doubled our GDP of today 4 times, meaning

a GDP 16 times as large as today, In that future, the poor of the time will have the

standard of living of the American middle class in 2065. We will enjoy peace in our time,

as the American military will be so advanced and dominant that no one else will even try

to spend enough on their military to even threaten or challengeus. A world of free trade


11/35

resulting from this Pax Americana will spread prosperity throughout the now

third world.

The attempt for transition would be a blood bath

Barnhizer 6 [David BarnhizerProfessor of Law at Cleveland State University,Summer 2006, Waking from Sustainability's "Impossible Dream, GeorgetownInternational Environmental Law Review, Lexis]

The scale of social needs, including the need for expanded productive activity, has grown

so large that it cannot be shut off at all, and certainly not abruptly. It cannot even be

ratcheted down in any significant fashion without producing serious harms to human

societies and hundreds of millions of people. Even if it were possible to shift back to

systems of local self-sufficiency, the consequences of the transition process would be

catastrophic for many people and even deadly to the point of continual conflict, resourcewars, increased poverty, and strife. What are needed are concrete, workable, and

pragmatic strategies that produce effective and intelligently designed economic activity in

specific contexts and, while seeking efficiency and conservation, place economic and

social justice high on a list of priorities. n60 The imperative of economic growth applies

not only to the needs and expectations of people in economically developed societies but

also to people living in nations that are currently economically underdeveloped.

Opportunities must be created, jobs must be generated in huge numbers, and economic

resources expanded to address the tragedies of poverty and inequality. Unfortunately,

natural systems must be exploited to achieve this; we cannot return to Eden. The question

is not how to achieve a static state but how to achieve what is needed to advance social

justice while avoiding and mitigating the most destructive consequences of our behavior.

De-development is worse for mindset shifting

Monbiot 9 [George Monbiot - columnist for The Guardian, has held visiting

fellowships or professorships at the universities of Oxford (environmental policy),

Bristol (philosophy), Keele (politics), Oxford Brookes (planning), and East

London (environmental science, August 17, 2009, Is there any point in fighting tostave off industrial apocalypse?,http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-

green/2009/aug/17/environment-climate-change]

From the second and third observations, this follows: instead of gathering as free

collectives of happy householders, survivors of this collapse will be subject to the will of

people seeking to monopolise remaining resources. This will is likely to be imposed

through violence. Political accountability will be a distant memory. The chances of
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/aug/17/environment-climate-changehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/aug/17/environment-climate-changehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/aug/17/environment-climate-changehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/aug/17/environment-climate-changehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/aug/17/environment-climate-change


12/35

conserving any resource in these circumstances are approximately zero. The human and

ecological consequences of the first global collapse are likely to persist for many

generations, perhaps for our species' remaining time on earth. To imagine that good could

come of the involuntary failure of industrial civilisation is also to succumb to denial. The

answer to your questionwhat will we learn from this collapse?is nothing. This iswhy, despite everything, I fight on. I am not fighting to sustain economic growth. I am

fighting to prevent both initial collapse and the repeated catastrophe that follows.

However faint the hopes of engineering a soft landingan ordered and structureddownsizing of the global economymight be, we must keep this possibility alive.Perhaps we are both in denial: I, because I think the fight is still worth having; you,

because you think it isn't.


13/35

HegeConcede no risk of nuclear terrorism, we arent going for this.

Hege is real, refer to the 1ac authors

We now dont do anything with hege, no offense on Monteriono


14/35

TWe meet, we increase ocean drilling. Our method is to decrease restrictions,

but its a double negative resulting in an increase.

We dont dissolve the government, we use the USFG and everything theUSFG legally can do, we dont overlimit.

They read a oil disad, we cant spike out of it, they cant run the same disads

every round, that kills education. They have plenty of ground

T is not a voter, vote on substance not complaining.


15/35


16/35

Traditional security policy quite understandable has evolved over time to have a very

heavy focus on protecting people and property from predatory neighbors.At its most fundamentallevel, the term security has meant the effort to protect a population and territory against organized force while advancing state interests through

competitive behavior. Given a very visible legacy of violent conflict among peoples and countries, it is understandable why security has beenconceptualized and operationalized largely in military terms. Warfare is vivid, violent, and destructive. Foreign armies massed on borders conjure

up visions of impending devastation, mayhem, and death. But other sources of insecurity, such as a wide variety

of threats embedded in the physical environment (nature), which have been historically

responsible for killing and injuring much larger numbers of people, have been much less

researched and understood.Unlike more conventional security threats, remedies for these less visible but often more deadly

challenges to human well-being, have not been readily apparent. Thus, the security paradigm that has dominated

theory, research, and practice, historically has emphasize the application of military force

to protect power and privilege while ignoring less well understood, but much more

serious, ecological threats to human well-being.

Literature and psychological bias runs towards threat deflation- we are the

opposite of paranoid

Schweller, Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at The Ohio

State University, 4

[Randall L., Unanswered Threats A Neoclassical RealistTheory of Underbalancing, International Security 29.2 (2004) 159-201, Muse]

Despite the historical frequency of underbalancing, little has been written on the subject.Indeed, Geoffrey Blainey's memorable observation that for "every thousand pages published on the causes of wars there is less than one page

directly on the causes of peace" could have been made with equal veracity about overreactions to threats as opposed to underreactions to them.92

Library shelves are filled with books on the causes and dangers of exaggerating threats, ranging

from studies of domestic politics to bureaucratic politics, to political psychology, to organization theory. By comparison, there

have been few studies at any level of analysis or from any theoretical perspective that directly explain

why states have with some, if not equal, regularity underestimated dangers to theirsurvival. There may be some cognitive or normative bias at work here. Consider, for instance, that

there is acommonly used word, paranoia, for the unwarranted fear that people are,in some way, "out

to get you" or are planning to do oneharm. I suspect that just as many people are afflicted with the opposite

psychosis: the delusion that everyone loves youwhen, in fact, they do not even like you. Yet, we do not

have a familiar word for this phenomenon. Indeed, I am unaware of any word that describes this pathology (hubris and

overconfidence come close, but they plainly define something other than what I have described). That noted , international relations theory

does have a frequently used phrase for the pathology of states' underestimation of threats

to their survival, theso-called Munich analogy. The term is used, however, in a disparaging way by theorists to ridiculethose who employ it. The central claim is that the navet associated with Munich and the outbreak of World War II has become an overused and

inappropriate analogy because few leaders are as evil and unappeasable as Adolf Hitler. Thus, the analogy either mistakenly causes leaders [EndPage 198] to adopt hawkish and overly competitive policies or is deliberately used by leaders to justify such policies and mislead the public. A

more compelling explanation for the paucity of studies on underreactions to threats , however,

is the tendency of theories to reflect contemporary issues as well as the desire of theorists

and journals to provide society with policy- relevant theories that may help resolve or

manage urgent security problems. Thus, born in the atomic age with its new balance of terror and an ongoing Cold War, the

field of security studies has naturally produced theories of and prescriptions for national


17/35

security that have had little to say aboutand are,in fact, heavily biased against warnings

ofthe dangers of underreacting to or underestimating threats. After all, the nuclear revolution was notabout overkill but, as Thomas Schelling pointed out, speed of kill and mutual kill.93 Given the apocalyptic consequences

of miscalculation, accidents, or inadvertent nuclear war, small wonder that theorists were more

concerned about overreacting to threats than underresponding to them. At a time when all ofhumankind could be wiped out in less than twenty-five minutes, theorists may be excused for stressing the benefits of caution under conditions of

uncertainty and erring on the side of inferring from ambiguous actions overly benign assessments of the opponent's intentions. The overwhelming

fear was that a crisis "might unleash forces of an essentially military nature that overwhelm the political process and bring on a war thatnobody

wants. Many important conclusions about the risk of nuclear war, and thus about the political meaning of nuclear forces, rest on this fundamental

idea."94 Now that the Cold War is over, we can begin to redress these biases in the literature. In that spirit, I have offered a domestic politics

model to explain why threatened states often fail to adjust in a prudent and coherent way to dangerous changes in their strategic environment. The

model fits nicely with recent realist studies on imperial under- and overstretch. Specifically, it is consistent with Fareed Zakaria's analysis of U.S.

foreign policy from 1865 to 1889, when, he claims, the United States had the national power and opportunity to expand but failed to do so

because it lacked sufficient state power (i.e., the state was weak relative to society).95 Zakaria claims that the United States did [End Page 199]

not take advantage of opportunities in its environment to expand because it lacked the institutional state strength to harness resources from

society that were needed to do so. I am making a similar argument with respect to balancing rather than expansion: incoherent, fragmented states

are unwilling and unable to balance against potentially dangerous threats because elites view the domestic risks as too high, and they are unable

to mobilize the required resources from a divided society. The arguments presented here also suggest that elite fragmentation and

disagreement within a competitive political process, which Jack Snyder cites as an explanation for

overexpansionist policies, are more likely to produce underbalancingthan overbalancing behavior among threatened

incoherent states.96 This is because a balancing strategy carries certain political costs and risks with

few, if any, compensating short-term political gains, and because the strategic

environment is always somewhat uncertain.Consequently, logrolling among fragmented elites within threatened statesis more likely to generate overly cautious responses to threats than overreactions to them. This dynamic captures the underreaction of democratic

states to the rise of Nazi Germany during the interwar period.97 In addition to elite fragmentation, I have suggested some basic domestic-level

variables that regularly intervene to thwart balance of power predictions.


18/35

NeoNeoliberalism wont causeenvironmental collapse.

Schweickart 09Loyola philosophy professor [David, Is Sustainable Capitalism anOxymoron?, Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, 8.2-3]

Anti-capitalist ecologists always say this. In Kovels(2007) words, capital must expandwithout end in order to exist (p. 38). But is this true? It would seem not to be. Individualsmall businesses sometimes survive for long periods of time. Marx s prediction that thepetty bourgeois sector would disappear has turned out not to be true. (The tendencytoward monopoly/oligopoly, which he correctly identifi ed, has been off set by the

continual rise of new entrepreneurial businesses.) Capitalism itself has survived

prolonged depressionsthe Great One of 1929 lasted a decade. Periods of stagnationhave been even more commonwitness Japan throughout the 1990s. To be sure,capitalism incentivizes growth, but it is not at all clear that thwarted growth leads to

death. We can point to lots of counterexamples. It is not true either that the various

ecological crises we are facing will bring about the end of the world.4 Consider therecently-released Stern Review , commissioned by the British government, which has

been applauded by environmentalists for its strong recommendation that urgent action be

taken. If nothing is done, we risk major disruption to economic and social activity, laterin this century and the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and

economic depression of the fi rst half of the 20th century.5 Th is is serious. Some sixtymillion people died in World War Two. Th e Stern Review estimates as many as two

hundred million people could be permanently displaced by rising sea level and drought.

But this is not the end of the world. Even if the effects are far worse, resulting inbillions of deaths, there would still be lots of us left. If three-quarters of the present

population perished, that would still leave us with 1.6 billion peoplethe population ofthe planet in 1900. I say this not to minimize the potentially horrifi c impact of relentless

environmental destruction, but to caution against exaggeration. We are not talking about

thermonuclear warwhich could have extinguished us as a species. (It still might.) Andwe shouldnt lose sight of the fact that millions of people on the planet right now, caughtup in savage civil wars or living beneath those US bombers currently devastating Iraq ,

are faced with conditions more terrible than anyone reading this article is likely to face in

his or her lifetime due to environmental degradation.6 Nor will readers suff er more than

most of the three billion people alive now who survive on less than $2/day.

A mindset shift wont happen and there have never beenany successful

movements.

Lockwood 11former Institute for Public Policy Research Climate, Transport andEnergy Associate Director [Matthew, The Limits to Environmentalism, 3-25,http://politicalclimate.net/2011/03/25/the-limits-to-environmentalism-4/]
http://politicalclimate.net/2011/03/25/the-limits-to-environmentalism-4/http://politicalclimate.net/2011/03/25/the-limits-to-environmentalism-4/


19/35

This brings us neatly finally to the third problem with PWG: politics. Jackson does have

some discussion of the need for our old favourite political will towards the end of thebook, and there are some examples of concrete ideas (e.g. shorter working week, ban

advertising aimed at children), but there is basically no political strategy. Indeed, the

argument is framed in terms of the need for social and economic change andgovernance, but not politics at all. The key question is how we are supposed to getfrom where we are to where he wants us to be. Jackson acknowledges that at the

moment, many people want growth (or more precisely, economic stability)

and so demand it of politicians, who then have a political incentive to deliver

it. The quandary (not really acknowledged) is which strategy to adopt in this situation.

Do you first reshape the economy to deliver economic stability without growth (e.g. by a

shorter working week), which then demonstrates to people socially and politically that

growth isnt necessary for a good life, or do you first have to bring about major socialchange, moving people away from consumerism, as a precondition for transforming the

economy and making the end of growth politically feasible? The discussion in chapter 11

of the book sort of implies that Jackson is thinking in terms of the latter route, but it

actually has no strategy. He lays out (some quite conventional, even dare I say it, already

proposed by economists) policies like carbon taxation and the aforementioned shorter

working week but there is nothing on political narrative. The closest we get to a strategy

for social transformation is banning advertising aimed at children (also a theme of Tom

Cromptons) and policies to drive greater durability of products. A counterview might bethat all these changes are needed, and it doesnt matter so much what happens first, thatthey all reinforce each other etc etc. But I dont think thats enough. The political party in

the UK that comes closest to offering the Jackson vision is the Green Party. They got 1%of the popular vote in the 2010 general election, and one MP. What stronger evidence

can there be that the vision on its own is not enough?A final point takes us back

to equity (see previous post), but this time within rich countries. Certainly within the US

and the UK, a large group of people in the low-to-middle part of the income distribution

have seen their real incomes stagnate or fall over the last decade, as the rich have got

richer. Telling this squeezed middle that economic growth is to end is not going to godown well unless there is a credible strategy for redistribution. Thats why a good initialstep for a more sustainable economy might be a set of good old-fashioned social

democratic policies on tax and spend. Prosperity without Growth raises some very

important questions, and Tim Jackson shows how tight a squeeze we are in. But the book

leaves some even more crucial questions hanging. Of course ending economic growth in

rich countries would make a solution to ecological limits a bit easier, but this would

play only a small role. In the absence of radical technological change, only serious

de-growth, what Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows call planned economic recessionwould be sufficient to bring about the cut in emissions needed. With rapid growth in poor


20/35

countries this conclusion is even stronger. So what we should be focusing on is achieving

that technological change. Yes, it hasnt materialised so far, but nor have the policies forlow carbon innovation we need to produce itlike Gandhis Western civilisation, thelow carbon revolution would be a good idea. And yes, getting those policies in place will

require political effort. But that effort will be as nothing compared with the

political challenge of replacing capitalism with a new steady state systemeither

lacking innovation or with a disappearing working week. Perhaps the most fundamental,

indeed philosophical issue here is that, despite the fact that Jackson has made a good

effort to make an argument about limits into an argument about quality of life, his

underlying message is (pace Obama): No, we cant. But beyond the environmentalistcamp, this message will not work. In the face of the biggest collective challenge that

humanity has faced, we need a narrative that has the human potential to solve problems,

and overcome apparently unbeatable odds, at its heart.

Neoliberalism is key to solve poverty and authoritarianism.Bandow 1Senior Fellow at Cato [Doug. Globalization Serves the World's Poor,April 25th,http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4310]

Despite the worst efforts of violent protestors in Quebec, leaders of countries throughout theWestern hemisphere concluded their Summit of the Americas by proposing a broad free-

trade agreement. Bringingmore of the world's poor into the global economy is the

best hope for raising them out of poverty. Curiously, globalizationhas become thelatest cause celebre of left-wing activists. These First-World demonstrators self-righteously

pose as defenders of Third-World peoples, even as they advocate leaving the latter destitute.The process of development, of moving traditional, agricultural societies into the Industrial

and Information age, is extraordinarily painful. It was difficult enough for Western societies,which took hundreds of years to develop. It is even harder for today's developing states,

which are attempting to telescope the process into a few decades. But that pain must be

endured to achieve a better life. Economist Joseph Schumpeter termed capitalism"creative destruction." Every innovation creates losers: automobiles ruined the buggy

industry, computers destroyed the typewriter industry. It is fair to encourage thedevelopment of social institutions to ease the transition. It is not fair to shut off development.Some trendy Western activists wax eloquent on the wonders of rural living. Presumably they

have never visited a poor country, let alone a poor countryside. For instance, when I traveledthe hills of eastern Burma with the relief group Christian Freedom International, I found

ethnic Karen villagers living in wooden huts open to rain and insects. There was neither

electricity nor running water. People lacked latrines and let their livestock run loose; filth waseverywhere. In such circumstances, life is hard, disease is rampant, and hope is nonexistent.

No wonder people flee to the city. Not one Quebec protestor would likely choose such a

"dignified" way of life. Indeed, theproblems of globalization must always be

"compared to what?" Yes, factories pay low wages in Third World countries.

Butworkers in them have neither the education nor theskills to be paid at First World

levels. Theiralternative isnot a Western university education or Silicon Valley computer
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4310http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4310


21/35

job, but an even lower-paying job with a local firm or unemployment. The choice is clear:according to Edward Graham of the Institute of International Economics, in poor countries,

American multinationals pay foreign citizens an average of 8.5 times the per capita GDP.

Overall, the process of globalization has been good for the poor. During the 1980s,advanced industrialized countries grew faster than developing states. In the 1990s, as

globalization accelerated, poor nations grew at 3.6 percent annually, twice that of their richerneighbors. Despite the illusion of left-wing activists that money falls from the sky, poverty

has been the normal condition of humankind throughout most of history. As

even Marx acknowledged, capitalism is what eliminated the overwhelming poverty

of the pre-industrial world. That remains the case today. Resource endowment,population level and density, foreign aid transfers, past colonial status none of these correlate

with economic wealth. Only economic openness does. The latest volume of the EconomicFreedom in the World Report, published by the Cato Institute and think tanks in 50 other

countries, finds that economic liberty strongly correlates with economic

achievement. Policies that open economies strongly correlate with economic growth. By

pulling countries into the international marketplace, globalization encourages marketreforms. With them comes increased wealth. Concern over the distribution of income

understandably remains, but if nothing is produced, there is nothing to

distribute. And, in fact, globalization has shared its benefits widely. In a recent

World Bank report, economists David Dollar and Aart Kraay conclude that the "income of

the poor rises one-for-one with overall growth." Globalization also has

important political ramifications. Freedom is indivisible; economic liberty tends

to undercut political controls. Countries such as South Korea and Taiwan threw

off authoritarian dictatorships once their burgeoning middle classes demanded political

rights to match economic opportunities. Internationalinvestment and trade alsohelp

dampen nationalism and militarism. Globalization is not enough: rising levels offoreign commerce did not prevent World War I, for instance. Yet investment and trade

create important economic incentives for peace. They also put a human face on

people who might otherwise seem to be the enemy. The result is a better environment

in which to promote international harmony. Like most human phenomena,

globalization has ill, as well as good, effects. But the latter predominate. In most ways for

most people, globalization is a positive.

There are no limits to growth. Technological advancements and demographics

solve.

Bisk 12American Israeli futurist; director of the Center for Strategic Futurist Thinkingand contributing editor for strategic thinking for The Futurist magazine. He is the author

of The Optimistic Jew: A Positive Vision for the Jewish People in the 21st Century.

Norwich University MA, Political History Thomas Edison State College BA, Social

Sciences, 500 published articles [Tsvi, , No Limits to Growth,https://www.wfs.org/Upload/PDFWFR/WFR_Spring2012_Bisk.pdf]
https://www.wfs.org/Upload/PDFWFR/WFR_Spring2012_Bisk.pdfhttps://www.wfs.org/Upload/PDFWFR/WFR_Spring2012_Bisk.pdf


22/35

The Case for No Limits to Growth Notwithstanding all of the above, I want to reassert

that by imagineering an alternative futurebased on solid science and technologywecan create a situation in which there are no limits to growth. It begins with a newparadigm for food production now under development: the urban vertical farm. This

is a concept popularized by Prof. Dickson Despommier of Columbia University.30 A 30-

story urban vertical farm located on five square acres could yield food for fifty

thousand people. We are talking about high-tech installations that would multiply

productivity by a factor of 480: four growing seasons, times twice the density of crops,

times two growing levels on each floor, times 30 floors = 480. This means that five

acres of land can produce the equivalent of 2,600 acres of conventionally

planted and tended crops. Just 160 such buildings occupying only 800 acres could

feed the entire city of New York. Given this calculus, an area the size of Denmark

could feed the entire human race. Vertical farms would be self-sustaining. Located

contiguous to or inside urban centers, they could also contribute to urban renewal. Theywould be urban lungs, improving the air quality of cities. They would produce a varied

food supply year-round. They would use 90% less water.Since agriculture consumes

two-thirds of the water worldwide, mass adoption of this technology would solve

humanitys water problem. Food would no longer need to be transported to market; itwould be produced at the market and would not require use of petroleum intensive

agricultural equipment. This, along with lessened use of pesticides, herbicides and

fertilizers,would not only be better for the environment but would eliminate

agricultures dependence on petroleum and significantly reduce petroleum demand.Despite increased efficiencies, direct (energy) and indirect (fertilizers, etc.) energy use

represented over 13% of farm expenses in 2005-2008 and have been increasing as the

price of oil rises.31 Many of the worlds damaged ecosystems would be repaired by theconsequent abandonment of farmland. A rewildingof our planet would take place.Forests, jungles and savannas would reconquer nature, increasing habitat and becoming

giant CO2 sinks, sucking up the excess CO2 that the industrial revolution has pumpedinto the atmosphere. Countries already investigatingthe adoption of such technology

include Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and Chinacountries that are waterstarved or highly populated. Material Science, Resources and Energy The embryonic

revolution in material science now taking place is the key to no limits to growth. I refer

to smart and superlight materials. Smart materials are materials that have one or moreproperties that can be significantly changed in a controlled fashion by external stimuli.32 They can produce energy by exploiting differences in temperature (thermoelectric

materials) or by being stressed (piezoelectric materials). Other smart materials save

energy in the manufacturing process by changing shape or repairing themselves as a

consequence of various external stimuli. These materials have all passed the proof ofconcept phase(i.e., are scientifically sound) and many are in the prototype phase. Some


23/35

are already commercialized and penetrating the market. For example, the Israeli

company Innowattech has underlain a one-kilometer stretch of local highway with

piezoelectric material to harvest the wasted stress energy of vehicles passing over andconvert it to electricity.33 They reckon that Israel has stretches of road that can

efficiently produce 250 megawatts. If this is verified, consider the tremendous electricity

potential of the New Jersey Turnpike or the thruways of Los Angeles and elsewhere.

Consider the potential of railway and subway tracks. We are talking about tens of

thousands of potential megawatts produced without any fossil fuels. Additional energy is

derivable from thermoelectric materials, which can transform wasted heat into electricity.

As Christopher Steiner notes, capturing waste heat from manufacturing alone in the

United States would provide an additional 65,000 megawatts: enough for 50 millionhomes.34 Smart glass is already commercialized and can save significant energy inheating, airconditioning and lightingup to 50% saving in energy has been achieved inretrofitted legacy buildings (such as the former Sears Tower in Chicago). New buildings,

designed to take maximum advantage of this and other technologies could save evenmore. Buildings consume 39% of Americas energy and 68% of its electricity. They emit38% of the carbon dioxide, 49% of the sulfur dioxide, and 25% of the nitrogen oxides

found in the air.35 Even greater savings in electricity could be realized by replacing

incandescent and fluorescent light bulbs with LEDS which use 1/10th the electricity of

incandescent and half the electricity of fluorescents. These three steps: transforming

waste heat into electricity, retrofitting buildings with smart glass, and LED lighting,

could cut Americaselectricity consumption and its CO2 emissions by 50% within10 years.They would also generate hundreds of thousands of jobs in construction and

home improvements. Coal driven electricity generation would become a thing of the past.The coal released could be liquefied or gasified (by new environmentally friendly

technologies) into the energy equivalent of 3.5 million barrels of oil a day. This is

equivalent to the amount of oil the United States imports from the Persian Gulf and

Venezuela together.36 Conservation of energy and parasitic energy harvesting, as well as

urban agriculture would cut the planets energy consumption and air and water pollutionsignificantly. Waste-to-energy technologies could begin to replace fossil fuels.

Garbage, sewage, organic trash, and agricultural and food processing waste are

essentially hydrocarbon resources that can be transformed into ethanol, methanol, and

biobutanol or biodiesel. These can be used for transportation, electricity generation or as

feedstock for plastics and other materials. Waste-to-energy is essentially a recycling of

CO2 from the environment instead of introducing new CO2 into the environment. Waste-

to-energy also prevents the production, and release from rotting organic waste, of

methanea greenhouse gas 25 times more powerful than CO2. Methane accounts for18% of the manmade greenhouse effect. Not as much as CO2, which constitutes 72%, but

still considerable (landfills emit as much greenhouse gas effect, in the form of methane,


24/35

as the CO2 from all the vehicles in the world). Numerous prototypes of a variety of

waste-to-energy technologies are already in place. When their declining costs meet the

rising costs of fossil fuels, they will become commercialized and, if history is any judge,

will replace fossil fuels very quicklyjust as coal replaced wood in a matter of decadesand petroleum replaced whale oil in a matter of years. Superlight Materials But it is

superlight materials that have the greatest potential to transform civilization and, in

conjunction with the above, to usher in the no limits to growth era. I refer, in particular,to car-bon nanotubesalternatively referred to as Buckyballs or Buckypaper (in honor ofBuckminster Fuller). Carbon nanotubes are between 1/10,000th and 1/50,000th the width

of a human hair, more flexible than rubber and 100-500 times stronger than steel per unit

of weight. Imagine the energy savings if planes, cars, trucks, trains, elevatorseverything that needs energy to movewere made of this material and weighed 1/100thwhat they weigh now. Imagine the types of alternative energy that would become

practical. Imagine the positive impact on the environment: replacing many industrial

processes and mining, and thus lessening air and groundwater pollution. Present costs andproduction methods make this impractical but that infinite resourcethe human mindhas confronted and solved many problems like this before. Let us take the example of

aluminum. A hundred fifty years ago, aluminum was more expensive than gold or

platinum.37 When Napoleon III held a banquet, he provided his most honored guests

with aluminum plates. Less-distinguished guests had to make do with gold! When the

Washington Monument was completed in 1884, it was fitted with an aluminum capthemost expensive metal in the world at the timeas a sign of respect to GeorgeWashington. It weighed 2.85 kilograms, or 2,850 grams. Aluminum at the time cost $1 a

gram (or $1,000 a kilogram). A typical day laborer working on the monument was paid$1 a day for 10-12 hours a day. In other words, todays common soft-drink can, whichweighs 14 grams, could have bought 14 ten-hour days of labor in 1884.38 Todays U.S.minimum wage is $7.50 an hour. Using labor as the measure of value, a soft drink can

would cost $1,125 today (or $80,000 a kilogram), were it not for a new method of

processing aluminum ore. The Hall-Hroult process turned aluminum into one of the

cheapest commodities on earth only two years after the Washington Monument was

capped with aluminum. Today aluminum costs $3 a kilogram, or $3000 a metric ton. The

soft drink can that would have cost $1,125 today without the process now costs $0.04.

Today the average cost of industrial grade carbon nanotubes is about $50-$60 a kilogram.

This is already far cheaper in real cost than aluminum was in 1884. Yet revolutionarymethods of production are now being developed that will drive costs down even more

radically. At Cambridge University they are working on a new electrochemical

production method that could produce 600 kilograms of carbon nanotubes per dayat a

projected cost of around $10 a kilogram, or $10,000 a metric ton.39 This will do for

carbon nanotubes what the Hall-Hroult process did for aluminum. Nanotubes will


25/35

become the universal raw material of choice, displacing steel, aluminum, copper

and other metals and materials. Steel presently costs about $750 per metric ton.

Nanotubes of equivalent strength to a metric ton of steel would cost $100 if this

Cambridge process (or others being pursued in research labs around the world) proves

successful. Ben Wang, director of Florida States High Performance Materials Instituteclaims that: If you take just one gram of nanotubes, and you unfold every tube into agraphite sheet, you can cover about two-thirds of a football field.40 Since other researchhas indicated that carbon nanotubes would be more suitable than silicon for producing

photovoltaic energy, consider the implications. Several grams of this material could be

the energy-producing skin for new generations of superlight dirigiblesmaking theseairships energy autonomous. They could replace airplanes as the primary means to

transport air freight. Modern American history has shown that anything human beings

decide they want done can be done in 20 years if it does not violate the laws of nature.

The atom bomb was developed in four years; putting a man on the moon took eight years.

It is a reasonable conjecture that by 2020 or earlier, an industrial process for theinexpensive production of carbon nanotubes will be developed, and that this

would be the key to solving our energy, raw materials, and environmental problems all at

once. Mitigating Anthropic Greenhouse Gases Another vital component of a no limits togrowth world is to formulate a rational environmentalpolicy that saves money; one thatwould gain wide grassroots support because it would benefit taxpayers and businesses,

and would not endanger livelihoods. For example, what do sewage treatment, garbage

disposal, and fuel costs amount to as a percentage of municipal budgets? What are the

costs of waste disposal and fuel costs in stockyards, on poultry farms, throughout the

food processing industry, and in restaurants? How much aggregate energy could be savedfrom all of the above? Some experts claim that we could obtain enough liquid fuel from

recycling these hydrocarbon resources to satisfy all the transportation needs of the United

States. Turning the above waste into energy by various means would be a huge cost saver

and value generator, in addition to being a blessing to the environment. The U.S. army

has developed a portable field apparatus that turns a combat units human waste andgarbage into bio-diesel to fuel their vehicles and generators.41 It is called TGERtheTactical Garbage to Energy Refinery. It eliminates the need to transport fuel to the field,

thus saving lives, time, and equipment expenses. The cost per barrel must still be very

high. However, the history of military technology being civilianized and revolutionizing

accepted norms is long. We might expect that within 5-10 years, economically

competitive units using similar technologies will appear in restaurants, on farms, and

perhaps even in individual households, turning organic waste into usable and economical

fuel. We might conjecture that within several decades, centralized sewage disposal and

garbage collection will be things of the past and that even the Edison Grid (unchanged for

over one hundred years) will be deconstructed. The Promise of Algae Biofuels


26/35

produced from algae could eventually provide a substantial portion of our transportation

fuel. Algae has a much higher productivity potential than crop-based biofuels because it

grows faster, uses less land and requires only sun and CO2 plus nutrients that can be

provided from gray sewage water. It is the primo CO2 sequesterer because it works for

free (by way of photosynthesis), and in doing so produces biodiesel and ethanol in much

higher volumes per acre than corn or other crops. Production costs are the biggest

remaining challenge. One Defense Department estimate pins them at more than $20 a

gallon.42 But once commercialized in industrial scale facilities, production cost could go

as low as $2 a gallon (the equivalent of $88 per barrel of oil) according to Jennifer

Holmgren, director of renewable fuels at an energy subsidiary of Honeywell

International.43 Since algae uses waste water and CO2 as its primary feedstock, its use to

produce transportation fuel or feedstock for product would actually improve the

environment. The Promise of the Electric Car There are 250 million cars in the United

States. Lets assume that they were all fully electric vehicles (EVs) equipped with 25-

kWh batteries. Each kWh takes a car two to three miles, and if the average driver chargesthe car twice a week, this would come to about 100 charge cycles per year. All told,

Americans would use 600 billion kWh per year, which is only 15% of the current total

U.S. production of 4 trillion kWh per year. If supplied during low demand times, this

would not even require additional power plants. If cars were made primarily out of

Buckypaper, one kWh might take a car 40-50 miles. If the surface of the car was utilized

as a photovoltaic, the car of the future might conceivably become energy autonomous

(or at least semi-autonomous). A kWh produced by a coal-fired power plant creates two

pounds of CO2, so our car-related CO2 footprint would be 1.2 trillion pounds if all

electricity were produced by coal. However, burning one gallon of gas produces 20pounds of CO2.44 In 2008, the U.S. used 3.3 billion barrels of gasoline, thereby creating

about 3 trillion pounds of CO2. Therefore, a switch to electric vehicles would cut CO2

emissions by 60% (from 3 trillion to 1.2 trillion pounds), even if we burned coal

exclusively to generate that power. Actually, replacing a gas car with an electric car will

cause zero increase in electric draw because refineries use seven kWh of power to refine

crude oil into a gallon of gasoline. A Tesla Roadster can go 25 miles on that 7 KWh of

power. So the electric car can go 25 miles using the same electricity needed to refine the

gallon of gas that a combustion engine car would use to go the same distance. Additional

Strategies The goal of mitigating global warming/climate change without changing our

lifestyles is not nave. Using proven Israeli expertise,planting forests onjust 12%of theworlds semi-arid areas would offset the annual CO2 output of one thousand 500-megawatt coal plants(a gigaton a year).45 A global program of foresting 60% of the

worlds semi-arid areas would offset five thousand 500-megawatt coal plants(fivegigatons a year). Since mitigation goals for global warming include reducing our CO2

emissions by eight gigatons by 2050, this project alone would have a tremendous


27/35

ameliorating effect. Given that large swaths of semi-arid land areas contain or border on

some of the poorest populations on the planet, we could put millions of the worldspoorest citizens to work in forestation, thus accomplishing two positives (fighting poverty

and environmental degradation) with one project. Moving agriculture from its current

fieldbased paradigm to vertical urban agriculture would eliminate two gigatons of

CO2.The subsequent re-wilding of vast areas of the earths surface could help sequesterup to 50 gigatons of CO2 a year, completely reversing the trend. The revolution

underway in material science will help us to become self-sufficient in energy. It willalso enable us to create superlight vehicles and structures that will produce their own

energy. Over time, carbon nanotubes will replace steel, copper and aluminum in a myriad

of functions. Converting waste to energy will eliminate most of the methane gas

humanity releases into the atmosphere. Meanwhile, artificial photosynthesis will suck

CO2 out of the air at 1,000 times the rate of natural photosynthesis.46 This trapped CO2

could then be combined with hydrogen to create much of the petroleum we will continue

to need. As hemp and other fast-growing plants replace wood for making paper, thelogging industry will largely cease to exist. Self-contained fish farms will provide a major

share of ourprotein needs with far less environmental damage to the oceans. Population

Explosion or Population Implosion One constant refrain of anti-growth advocates is that

we are heading towards 12 billion people by the end of the century, that this is

unsustainable, and thus that we must proactively reduce the human population to 3

billion-4 billion in order to save the planet and human civilization from catastrophe.But recent data indicates that a demographic winterwill engulf humanity by the

middle of this century. More than 60 countries (containing over half the worlds

population) already do not have replacement birth rates of 2.1 children per woman. Thisincludes the entire EU, China, Russia, and half a dozen Muslim countries, including

Turkey, Algeria, and Iran. If present trends continue, India, Mexico and Indonesia will

join this group before 2030. The human population will peak at 9-10 billion by 2060,

after which, for the first time since the Black Death, it will begin to shrink. By the end of

the century, the human population might be as low as 6 billion-7 billion. The real danger

is not a population explosion; but the consequences of the impending population

implosion.47 This demographic process is not being driven by famine or disease as has

been the case in all previous history. Instead, it is being driven by the greatest Cultural

Revolution in the history of the human race: the liberation and empowerment of

women. The fact is that even with present technology, we would still be able to

sustain a global population of 12 billion by the end of the century if needed. The evidence

for this is cited above.


28/35

Perm do both, alt fails-The permutation solves best - neoliberal institutions

and market mechanisms can be used against themselves - the alts refusal of

state and market engagement makes reductions in structural violence

impossible

Ferguson, Professor of Anthropology at Stanford, 11

(James, The Uses of Neoliberalism, Antipode, Vol. 41, No. S1, pp 166184)

If we are seeking, as this special issue of Antipode aspires to do, to link our critical

analyses to the world of grounded political strugglenot only to interpret the world invarious ways, but also to change itthen there is much to be said for focusing, as Ihave here, on mundane, real- world debates around policy and politics, even if

doing so inevitably puts us on the compromised and reformist terrain of the

possible, rather than the seductive high ground of revolutionary ideals andutopian desires. But I would also insist that there is more at stake in the examples I

have discussed here than simply a slightly better way to ameliorate the miseries of the

chronically poor, or a technically superior method for relieving the suffering of famine

victims. My point in discussing the South African BIG campaign, for instance, is not

really to argue for its implementation. There is much in the campaign that is appealing, to

be sure. But one can just as easily identify a series of worries that would bring the whole

proposal into doubt. Does not, for instance, the decoupling of the question of assistance

from the issue of labor, and the associated valorization of the informal, help provide a

kind of alibi for the failures of the South African regime to pursue policies that would domore to create jobs? Would not the creation of a basic income benefit tied to national

citizenship simply exacerbate the vicious xenophobia that already divides the South

African poor, in a context where many of the poorest are not citizens, and would thus

not be eligible for the BIG? Perhaps even more fundamentally, is the idea of basic

income really capable of commanding the mass support that alone could make it a central

pillar of a new approach to distribution? The record to date gives powerful reasons to

doubt it. So far, the technocrats dreams of relieving poverty through efficient cashtransfers have attracted little support from actual poor people, who seem to find that

vision a bit pale and washed out, compared with the vivid (if vague) populist promises of

jobs and personalistic social inclusion long offered by the ANC patronage machine, and

lately personified by Jacob Zuma (Ferguson forthcoming). My real interest in the policy

proposals discussed here, in fact, has little to do with the narrow policy questions to

which they seek to provide answers. For what is most significant, for my purposes, is not

whether or not these are good policies, but the way that they illustrate a process through

which specific governmental devices and modes of reasoning that we have become used


29/35

to associating with a very particular (and conservative) political agenda (neoliberalism)may be in the process ofbeing peeled away from that agenda, and put to very

different uses. Any progressive who takes seriously the challenge I pointed to at the

start of this essay, the challenge of developing new progressive arts of government, ought

to find this turn of events of considerable interest. As Steven Collier (2005) has recentlypointed out, it is important to question the assumption that there is, or must be,

aneat or automatic fit between a hegemonic neoliberal political-economic

project(however that might be characterized), on the one hand, and specific

neoliberal techniques, on the other. Close attention to particular techniques (such as

the use of quantitative calculation, free choice, and price driven by supply and demand)

in particular settings (in Colliers case, fiscal and budgetary reform in post-Soviet Russia)shows that the relationship between the technical and the political-economic is muchmore polymorphous and unstable than is assumed in much critical geographical work,and that neoliberal technical mechanisms are in fact deployed in relation to diversepolitical projects and social norms(2005:2). As I suggested in referencing the role ofstatistics and techniques for pooling risk in the creation of social democratic welfare

states, social technologies need not have any essential or eternal loyalty to the

political formations within which they were first developed. Insurance rationality

at the end of the nineteenth century had no essential vocation to provide security and

solidarity to the working class; it was turned to that purpose (in some substantial

measure) because it was available, in the right place at the right time, to be appropriated

for that use. Specific ways of solving or posing governmental problems, specific institutional and intellectual mechanisms, can be combined in an almost infinite variety of ways, to

accomplish different social ends. With social, as w ith any other sort of t echnology,it is not themachines or the mechanisms that

decide what they will be used to do. Foucault (2008:94) concluded his discussion ofsocialist governmentality by insisting that the answers to the Lefts governmentalproblems require not yet another search through our sacred texts, but a process of

conceptual and institutional innovation.[I]f there is a really socialist governmentality,

then it is not hidden within socialism and its texts. It cannot be deduced from them. It

must be invented. But invention in the domain of governmental technique is rarelysomething worked up out of whole cloth. More often, it involvesa kind of bricolage(Le vi- Strauss 1966), a piecing together of something new out of scavenged partsoriginally intended for some other purpose. As we pursue such a process of improvisatory

invention, we might begin by making an inventory of the parts available for suchtinkering, keeping all the while an open mind about how different mechanisms might be

put to work, and what kinds of purposes they might serve. If we can go beyond seeing in

neoliberalism an evil essenceor an automatic unity, and instead learn to see a field ofspecific governmental techniques, we may be surprised to find that some of them can be

repurposed, and put to work in the service of political projects very different from those

usually associated with that word. If so, we may find that the cabinet of


30/35

governmental arts available to us is a bit less bare than first appeared, and

that some rather useful little mechanisms may be nearer to hand than we

thought.


31/35

2ac Framework

Force the negative to explain how their alternative produces behavioral

change - their alternative may sound good, but it produces no institutions for

creating social change

Barnett 10

(Clive, Professor of Geography and Social Theory at the University of Exeter in the UK,

The politics of behaviour change, September 3, 2010,http://clivebarnett.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/the-politics-of-behaviour-change-2/)

Another plug, this time for a Theme Issue of the journal Environment and Planning A, on

the topic of Ethical Foodscapes. I was asked to write a short commentary on the papers in

this collection, and ended up using this an excuse to try to say something coherent about

the politics of behaviour change - the papers in the collection all engage, in differentways, with ongoing attempts to influence individual patterns of consumption by fiddling

with the backgrounds of food practices. This is just one field in which the issue of how

and whether to influence peoples conduct to achieve various public goods has becomecentral to contemporary politics and governance. There is a great research project

investigating this phenomenon, based at Aberystwyth, on the time-spaces of soft

paternalism. Behaviour change is all overthe place these daysin climate changedebates, in obesity agendas, amongst the Research Councils who fund science and social

science in the UK - its all the rage in policy circles, not just in government but also

amongst think-tankers and NGOs. The House of Lords Select Committee has justannounced an inquiry into how ideas about behaviour change are working in government.

What I find most interesting about all this is the challenge this seems to present to styles

of critical social science analysisElizabeth Shove has an interesting reflection on thisissue, also in Environment and Planning A earlier this year, which focusses on how

attitude-behaviour-change models of governance tend to marginalise insights of socialtheory. It is interesting, certainly, to track the ways in which certain scientific and social

scientific fields are being sourced for authoritative models of how to in tervene to bringabout social changethe most obvious example being the selective use of neuroscience,along with the popularisation of behavioural economics by Thaler and SunsteinsNudge.There is a cross-over here between academic research fields and popular discourse too;

think of Malcolm Gladwells books, the success of Freakonomics, or my favourite,Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanskis Soccernomics - a book which uses simplestatistical analysis to develop some interesting explanations and make some entertaining

predictions about how success in national and international football is determined

(interestingly, this book was published in the UK under the title Why England Lose: And


32/35

other curious phenomena explainedthe difference in the title between the UK and USversion is indicative of the current popularity of this style of popular social science

beyond any particular specialised interest). There is an easy default position that this

style of thinking about influencing people is inherently sinister, since it explicitly seeks to

get at people through less-than-fully-rational meansby either designing change intoinfrastructures, or by deploying affective styles of communication. This seems to

circumvent a basic principle of persuading people of the reasons to change through

rational argument. Behaviour change initiatives are all about manipulating the contextsin which people exercise choice and discretion. They seem to be designed to confirm the

model of governmentalitydeveloped by Michel Foucault, of a mode of power whichworks by shaping the contexts of individuals conduct without directly intervening in thatconduct. Of course, the question that Foucault doesnt necessarily help us with is how toknow when it is a problem that your conduct is being configured, nudged, in certainways, and when it isnt. There is a tendency of course to read Foucault as a theorist of

social control, but I think the proliferation of behaviour change initiatives is oneoccasion to re-visit the politics of using Foucault. The anthropologist James

Ferguson has recently argued that there is a real political stake at play in seemingly

arcane differences between conceptualisations of neoliberalism as a hegemonic project of

class-power, informed by Marxist theorists such as David Harvey, and neoliberalization

as a contingent assemblage of varied arts of government, informed by governmentalitytheory, in the work of Aihwa Ong for example. One reason not to reconcile these

approachesnot to think that Foucault provides a nice micro-analysis of the how ofneoliberalism, while Marxism still holds the secrets to explaining the real interests

driving the why (an argument made by Bob Jessop)is because the governmentalityapproach draws into view the critical imperative to think through the possibilities ofalternative arts of government. Quite a lot of sexy theory these days doesnt

like to do this, preferring stylized images of contestation and disruption. This is

why the default reading of behaviour change, as a sinister way of controlling peoplesactions in the interests of more neoliberalism, more consumerism, more

responsibilization, doesnt seem convincingto meit seems to close down the moredifficult form of analysis which would ask about the possibility of using

devices and discourses of behaviour change for different purposes, or in

more democratically accountable fashion.

Cross apply to security


33/35

DALower oil prices diversify Russias economy

RIA 12(Lower oil price 'good for Russia, RIA Novosti, 6/22/12,http://rt.com/business/oil-price-russia-economy-497/)

Russia will benefit from lower oil prices says Jim ONeill, Chairman for Goldman SachsAsset Management. This follows news that Russia is to adopt new policies to make its

economy less dependent on the price of crude. "I think it will be good for Russia if oil

prices go down, Jim ONeill told RT at the St. Petersburg International EconomicForum. Russias economy has long been heavily dependent on oil exports. Half of thebudget revenues come from oil and gas. Russia certainly needs to be not so dependenton the drug of rising oil prices. It has to adopt and change to a quarter balance." And

Russia seems to be heading in the right direction. President Vladimir Putin told the St.

Petersburg Forum it was not enough to rely on an oil price of 115 dollars per barrel to

achieve a deficit-free budget. We need to diversify our economy away from totalreliance on oil revenues, and turn to private capital as a source of growth, he said.Russia not only needs a deficit-free budget but a budget with a reserve of resilience.Putin also said that budget rules will be adopted soon under which "neither stateliabilities, nor budgetary expenditure, nor long-term investment programs will depend on

oil prices, and excess profits will go to replenish funds.

Turn: High oil prices hurts US econ and growth

Blackwel

2ac v michale

Documents