Green Schools Aff

Table of Contents

Green Schools Aff........................................................................................................................................1

Table of Contents................................................................................................................................2

Aff Notes..................................................................................................................................................4

1AC..........................................................................................................................................................5

State Budgets Advantage.....................................................................................................................6

Environment Advantage....................................................................................................................18

Solvency.............................................................................................................................................24

Topicality...............................................................................................................................................25

Green Schools Include Education......................................................................................................26

Inherency...............................................................................................................................................28

Aff......................................................................................................................................................29

State Budgets Advantage.......................................................................................................................31

2AC - Econ Internal Link.....................................................................................................................32

2AC - Infrastructure Internal Link......................................................................................................33

2AC - Utilities Are Major Cost............................................................................................................38

2AC - Green Schools Save Money......................................................................................................39

2AC - Schools Cost States Money......................................................................................................40

Environment Advantage........................................................................................................................41

2AC - Buildings Key to Warming........................................................................................................42

2AC - Green Schools Spill Over..........................................................................................................44

2AC - Impact Extension......................................................................................................................45

2AC Cuts Key......................................................................................................................................49

2AC Carbon Sinks...............................................................................................................................51

2AC Impact Magnifier........................................................................................................................60

2AC AT: It’s Too Late..........................................................................................................................63

2AC AT: Adaptation Solves.................................................................................................................67

Competitiveness Advantage..................................................................................................................69

1AC - Competitiveness.......................................................................................................................70

2AC - Green Schools Increase Achievement......................................................................................79

2AC - Education Key to Competitiveness...........................................................................................81

2AC - U.S. Behind...............................................................................................................................84

2AC - K2 Achievement.......................................................................................................................85

Solvency.................................................................................................................................................86

2AC - Solvency...................................................................................................................................87

States CP - Answers...............................................................................................................................91

States Fail - Race to the Bottom.........................................................................................................92

States Fail - Empirics..........................................................................................................................95

Aff Notes

The main thrust of the aff is to have the federal government provide funding for school buildings. Currently, that burden is placed mostly on states and localities. With states facing ever-greater budget constraints, our evidence argues that the federal government must step in to jump-start the economy and prevent a collapse of state government budgets.

The second advantage states that the new schools that are built should be green schools. The definition of a “green school” is somewhat ambiguous, so make sure you are ready to define and defend a particular model of green school. The Zhao, He, and Meng evidence under “solvency” should help with that. Green schools are better for the environment and put out far less CO2, combatting global warming. It also spills over to other “green” actions by educating students and parents about the benefits of going green.

An alternate advantage is provided, about competitiveness. Green schools increase school achievement by ensuring that students are not distracted by poorly designed schools. That makes the U.S. more competitive on the world market.

AVENUES FOR FURTHER RESEARCH:

If you want to use this file as it is intended (a STARTER file), you should be looking for way to improve it! My suggestion would be to look for more environmental advantages to green buildings, as well as more evidence that building green schools would cause more green buildings to be built. I would also advise searching for more impacts to state budgets.

Good luck!

Simon Sheaff

Dowling Catholic High School, 2013

Baylor University, 2017

University of Maryland, 2022

1AC

State Budgets Advantage America is approaching a boom in new school constructionMagzaman et al. 17 <Dr. Sheryl, Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences; Adam P. Mayer PhD, Research Associate, Department of Sociology,; Stephanie Barr MS, Research Associate, Institute for the Built Environment; Lenora Bohren PhD, Research Advisor, Institute for the Built Environment; Brian Dunbar MArch, Director, Institute for the Built Environment; Dale Manning PhD, Assistant Professor Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics; Stephen J. Reynolds PhD, Professor, Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences; Joshua W. Schaeffer PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences; Jordan Suter PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics; Jennifer E. Cross PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology; Colorado State University, “A Multidisciplinary Research Framework on Green Schools: Infrastructure, Social Environment, Occupant Health, and Performance,” Journal of School Health, Volume 87, Issue 5, May 2017, Pages 376–387, Accessed Via Baylor Libraries>#SPS

As the average public school building in the United States is over 50 years old, many school structures are now at the end of their functional life-span.[1] Given changes in demographics and a large geographic shift in the country's major population centers[2] in addition to rapid development of educational technology,[3] the construction of new school structures will be a major investment for many municipalities over the next several decades. Evaluation of the effects of structural design on human performance and well-being has important implications for the development of schools that foster learning and health in the context of a minimal energy and resource use footprint.

Building new schools and maintaining older ones will overstretch state budgets - only a federal program can resolve the coming budget collapses Ciolino 16 <Max, Master’s of Science in Education Policy from the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education, and a Juris Doctor degree from Tulane Law School, “THE RIGHT TO AN EDUCATION AND THE PLIGHT OF SCHOOL FACILITIES: A LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL,” UNIV. OF PENNSYLVANIA JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIAL CHANGE [Vol. 19.2, 2016], pgs. 108-132, http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1189&context=jlasc>#SPS

The total amount of resources needed to modernize school facilities is unclear. First, several different studies have been conducted in an attempt to pinpoint a definitive amount, but each of them has come with considerable shortcomings. First, the General Accounting Office’s $112 billion assessment was performed using a limited sample of buildings, and it did not account for technological updates.101 Next, the Nat’l educ. ass’n’s $322 billion assessment attempted a more thorough assessment of school facility needs by gathering data from experts within each state and performing a thorough analysis of the most current data.102 The NEA report itself acknowledges that the $322 billion estimate is likely a conservative number, but explains that the only way to achieve a truly accurate number would be to have the states conduct the assessments themselves, and routinely update their inventory.103 Finally, an estimate from 21st Century Schools places an upper-level estimate at $650 billion, using aggregate deferred maintenance calculations, rather than performing an actual assessment.104 This section compares the fiscal capacity of the states with the estimated school facility needs, to demonstrate the enormity of the facilities’ need compared to the scarcity of state discretionary resources. It then

examines some federal precedent for the scale of the program proposed in Part V of this article. A. State Fiscal Limitations Unfortunately, the most recent and reliable study that assessed school facilities needs is fifteen years old. The Nat’l educ. ass’n’s Assessment provided a $322 billion estimate for infrastructure and technological upgrades using state-level aggregates.105 Although this estimate is somewhat outdated, subsequent research has indicated that federal involvement in facilities funding remains very low,106 and that the amount of money states and localities have dedicated to facilities since the mid 1990s has been vastly outstripped by the need.107 Finally, in 2009, the 21st Century Fund pegged the possible estimate at approximately $650 billion dollars.108 In light of these increasing estimates and a continued absence of federal resources, it seems plausible that the NEA’s estimates in 2000 provide an instructive, albeit conservative, baseline for school resource needs today. Therefore, this article will compare the NEA’s state-level estimates from 2000 with current fiscal capacity of the states, to demonstrate the unlikelihood that states will resolve these issues on their own. According to the NEA report, the nine states with the highest resource needs made up nearly 60% of the national need of $322 billion.109 Of course, the actual needs of a state are only useful from a policy standpoint when these numbers are compared to the fiscal capacity of the states. Therefore, it is important to note that with a $322 billion resource need for facilities in the year 2000, the aggregate of state general fund expenditures for the fiscal year 2015 is estimated to be $751.6 billion.110 Therefore, even a fifteen-year-old estimate would encompass nearly half of the states’ aggregated discretionary budget.111 Using the 21st Century estimate of $650 Billion, facilities needs would make up more than 85% of the state’s general funds. Even with this tremendous resource deficit, public elementary and secondary education spending comprise the single largest use of general fund budgets, averaging approximately 35% of expenditures nationwide.112 Furthermore, when funding from all sources is included, public elementary and secondary education spending comprises 19.5% of the states’ aggregated $1.8 trillion dollar expenditures, outstripped only by Medicaid spending.113 An even clearer picture is provided when state-level resources are compared to statelevel need. For instance, the state with the highest resource need in 2000 was New York. According to the NEA, New York public schools needed $50.7 billion for modernization.114 In 2013, the State of New York had access to $60.5 billion in its general fund.115 California, the state with the second highest estimated need faired slightly better. In 2000, California had a $32.9 billion estimated need,116 compared to a $98.8 billion dollar general fund in 2013.117 Finally, the state with the third highest estimated need was Ohio. The NEA pegged Ohio’s facilities need in 2000 at just under $25 billion,118 whereas the state’s 2013 general fund amounted to only $30.5 billion.119 Assuming that comparing facility needs from 2000 with general fund resources in 2015 is a remotely accurate depiction of need relative to resources, New York and Ohio would need to spend more than 80% of their discretionary funds on school facilities, and California would need to spend 33.3%. Considering that education spending already accounts for over 30% of the national average for general fund expenditures, repairing these buildings appears to be a mathematical impossibility at any point in the foreseeable future. Predictably, there is some relation between resource need and general fund revenue. The extent of facilities needs is to some degree a function of the size of the state and to the size of the state’s economy. Therefore, looking at only the three highest need states may incidentally imply that the remaining states are fairing better. By performing the same analysis on the states with the three lowest estimated needs from the NEA report in 2000, we can achieve a clearer picture of the uniformity of need across the country. The Nat’l educ. ass’n’s 2000 report estimated that the State of Vermont had the lowest need, at $333.3 million.120 Vermont was followed by North Dakota and New Hampshire, which had estimated needs of $545.2 million and $620.3 million, respectively.121

The National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) report explained that in 2013, Vermont had general fund resources amounting to $1.3 billion, whereas North Dakota had $3.9 billion, and New Hampshire had $1.5 billion.122 Comparing these needs to resource availability, facility needs in the three states represent 25% of general fund resources in Vermont, 14% in North Dakota, and 42.5% in New Hampshire. Even though these small states are faring proportionately better than the larger states, it still is unlikely that any state would be able to reallocate enough of its general fund dollars to provide adequate and modern school buildings for all of their students in the foreseeable future. The budget of the United States government is larger than the combined budgets of the total funding sources of all fifty states combined. According to NASBO, the combined total funding for state governments from all sources in 2015 was $1.8 trillion.123 The Fiscal Year 2014, according to the White House’s budget manual, included expenditures of nearly $3.8 trillion.124 The aggregate funding needs of the states, compared to the states’ funding from all sources resulted in a need that amounted to about 17.8% if the NEA’s conservative estimate is accurate, and 36.1% if the 21st Century’s $650 billion estimate is accurate. Recall, however, that funding from all sources is not an accurate way to conduct budgetary analysis, because the majority of state funds are earmarked for specific purposes prior to a legislative session. Similarly, the federal budget for the Fiscal Year 2014 encompassed $3.8 trillion in expenditures,125 but only about $1.06 trillion of these funds were contained within the discretionary funding mechanism.126 Making matters worse, the federal government anticipated total receipts to amount to about $3.03 trillion.127 In other words, the federal government was operating at a deficit of over $700 billion dollars, or more than 20% of the total budget. When the federal budget is broken out into its member departments and agencies by discretionary funding only, the Department of Education is the third most highly funded department. The Department of Education was given an operating budget of $71.2 billion, or 6.7% of the total discretionary budget.128 The Department of Health and Human Services was the second highest funded department, at $78.3 billion or 7.4% of the discretionary budget.129 And the Department of Defense was, predictably, the most highly funded department. In Fiscal Year 2014, the Department of Defense was allocated $526.6 billion, or 49.8% of the total discretionary budget.130 It sheds further light on the scope of the school facilities funding problem that, by using more generous estimates, it would take more resources than those allotted to the entire Department of Defense just to modernize America’s schools!131 Furthermore, the facilities needs estimates could only barely be fully funded using the 2014 federal deficit spending.132 In other words, school facility financing needs are beyond the fiscal capacity of the federal government. When this is combined with the limitations imposed on states discussed above, or the $369 billion in outstanding bonds being held by local governments and school districts,133 school facility funding is in a difficult position. In light of budgetary constraints at every level of government, coupled with the burgeoning needs of school facilities, it is important that a collaborative solution be developed to begin addressing this need as soon as possible. The price tag on total school facilities outstrips the capacity of all three levels of government for any single year alone, but if no steps are taken to begin remediating this crisis, it will only grow less achievable and more pressing over time. The collaborative program should engage all three levels of government and operate using accurate and current information. The program need not attempt to fully resolve this crisis because such an impossible undertaking may deter any effort at all. This crisis took us decades to create and will undoubtedly take us decades to resolve; however, by using the blueprint below, and breaking the problem into achievable components, we may be able to realize a national school system comprised of safe, productive, and modern schools within our lifetimes.

Green buildings specifically help save on operating budgetsSirel and Yucel 15 <Ayse and Gokcen, Istanbul Aydin University, Turkey, “An Ecological Originated Design in Education Structures: A Case Study of an Education Campus in Adana, Turkey,” Edited by Tak C. Chan, Kennessaw State University, USA, Evan G. Mense, Southeastern Louisiana University, USA, Kenneth E. Lane, Southeastern Louisiana University, USA, Michael D. Richardson, Columbus State University, USA, “Marketing the Green School: Form, Function, and the Future,” 2015, Accessed Via Baylor Libraries>#SPS

Economic sustainability can be achieved by minimizing the costs associated with the life cycle of buildings. Construction of green buildings requires an additional budget of 5% to 10% at the start. However, these extra initial costs may be considered an investment that will turn into earnings due to low operational costs during the life cycle of the building. Green school designs aim at a 30% budget savings. This savings is achieved with high-efficiency boilers, water heaters, ventilation energy recovery, enhanced isolation, and high-efficiency lighting systems (Green Schools Resource Guide, 2010). For green schools, energy efficiency is the first topic taken into consideration since it provides a significant savings on operational costs and reduces environmental impact. Compared to traditional schools, green schools consume three times less energy. This is achieved with the deployment of energy-efficiency measures, high-quality equipment, and building isolation (Kats, 2006). The essential topics related to achieving economic sustainability in green schools are explained below (Kayıhan & Tonuk, 2008): • High-quality and energy-efficient lighting (i.e., consideration of natural lighting strategies and energy conservation window systems) • Development of an energy conservation building envelope • Utilization of renewable active and passive energy systems • Use of energy-effective lighting and mechanical systems (e.g., heating, ventilation, air conditioning) • Indoor environment quality, indoor air quality, acoustics and humidity control, and preference of materials and products that do not require extensive maintenance • Consideration of water conservation strategies • The topics of reorienting education in line with sustainable development High-Quality and EnergyEfficient Lighting Windows provide light to the indoors and offer varying levels of efficiency with diverse types and dimensions (Lund, 2002). Natural light is obtained through the use of additional windows, roof windows and skylights, illuminated racks, lighting reflectors, window shades and sun curtains (Molinski, 2009). Windows positioned on the roof of a building help to reduce heating, cooling, and lighting costs, and also provide daylight and a comfortable ambient temperature. Due to this reason, within the architectural design process all windows have to be planned according to the local climate conditions, seasons, and natural light angles (Gleed, 2009). Lighting reflectors are interior surfaces that redirect light from its original source—the light hits the reflector and provides additional lighting (Muller, 2009). Window shades and sun curtains, on the other hand, are structures located outside of the building. The results of a study conducted by Molinski (2009) showed that gathering daylight into an activity area can achieve an energy savings of 15% to 40%. According to Westfall (2003), effective daylight lighting brings several advantages such as energy saving for schools, improvement of student success and continuity, and creation of better learning environments. An efficient daylight lighting system that is specifically designed for a functional area of a school, however, may not be efficient for other areas in the same school. It is therefore important to plan in advance the daylight lighting system that may be needed for each function (Gleed, 2009). High-efficiency fluorescent lamps, switching controls, light sensors, continuous light-shade controls, and gathering of daylight significantly reduce electric costs in green schools. Typically, a photosensor is needed for each building orientation. Photosensors measure the natural daylight

received and control bright or matte light in line with the lighting level needed (DiLouie, 2006). Development of an Energy Conservation Building Envelope Since building envelopes (e.g., external walls, windows, roof) are in direct interaction with outdoor ambient conditions, they are characterized as the interface of energy loss in buildings. For this reason, energy-effective envelope application (for roofs and facades), which serves as a smart filter against the negative effects of the external environment, is one of the primary design parameters 81 An Ecological Originated Design in Education Structures for green schools. Accordingly, it is important to evaluate external climate elements and determine the form of the building in in order to minimize heat loss. The total heat conduction coefficient, one of the characteristics that determine the heat isolation value of the building envelope, thermal conductivity of the envelope material, and the optical characteristics of the external surface materials need to be considered carefully (Yılmaz &Oral, 1999).Energy-effective design can also be carried out through the addition of active system elements such as photovoltaic panels that can be integrated with the envelope. Utilization of Renewable Active and Passive Energy Systems By collecting energy obtained from the sun in collectors properly positioned within the building, heating and cooling can be carried out. There is also the option of converting the collected solar energy into electrical energy for interior and exterior lighting. By installing state-of-the-art thin panels in the right areas, aesthetically pleasing surfaces can be obtained. Natural ventilation is obtained by positioning the school building in consideration of the direction of the dominant wind. This gives the option of using a passive system to utilize wind energy as another renewable energy resource. Properly positioned wind turbines, on the other hand, are active systems that provide energy to the building. Both natural resources provide economy by reducing the energy requirement for heating and cooling. Use of Energy-Effective Lighting and Mechanical Systems According to international standards, in order to ensure a high level of indoor air quality, vent selection and determination of the right installation points are among the parameters that reduce operational costs. Selection of sustainable construction materials and equipment may be effective in reducing maintenance, repair, and relocation costs as well as preventing the generation of a higher amount of waste. The chemicals used to clean indoor areas with high humidity, the presence of dust and other allergens, uncontrolled disposal of hazardous substances, and pets have negative effects on student and personnel health (Olsen & Kellum, 2013). Another point that affects the quality of education is the level of noise to which a school building is exposed. For this reason, use of isolation materials that minimize noise pollution is particularly important in education-related environments. Establishing audial comfort enables both education and social activities to be carried out in a stress-free, peaceful environment. Isolation materials, double-glazing, and screening are just a few approaches to noise problems and mitigating decibel levels (Kotaman, 2009). Conserving water is obviously an important element of energy efficiency, and is a primary form of savings for green schools. Many water conservation strategies are inexpensive, and those that are expensive provide a high rate of return. Water treatment systems and wastewater installations are important investments for green schools in that they work in parallel with water consumption controls and systems designed to recycle or reuse waste water (Countryman & Moore, 2007)

That is a source of stress for state budgetsFilardo, Gutter, and Rowland 16 <Mary Filardo, Executive Director of the 21st Century School Fund; Rachel Gutter, Director Center for Green Schools, U.S. Green Building Council; Mike Rowland, State Facilities Director, Georgia Department of Education, 2016 President National Council on School Facilities “State of Our Schools: America’s K–12 Facilities” is a joint publication of the 21st Century

School Fund, Inc., U.S. Green Building Council, Inc., and the National Council on School Facilities, https://kapost-files-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/published/56f02c3d626415b792000008/2016-state-of-our-schools-report.pdf?kui=wo7vkgV0wW0LGSjxek0N5A>#SPS

With the nation’s 14,000 public school districts ranging from small rural districts of fewer than 100 students to mega-urban districts of more than 1 million students, the U.S. system of public education has a strong emphasis on local control. This is especially true for funding school construction. Localities and states each contribute, on average, 45 percent of the annual operating budget,28 which includes the annual costs for the maintenance and operation of facilities. The federal government contributes the remaining 10 percent toward the annual operating budget of the districts.29 However, of the $1.26 trillion in K–12 total capital outlays between 1994 and 2013, about 81 percent came from local sources, and 19 percent came from the states. Districts reported almost no federal revenue for capital construction. Because the large majority of capital construction is funded by local taxpayers, the ability of school districts to pay for major renewals or new construction is tied to the wealth of their community, perpetuating inequity in school facility conditions. Additionally, while funding to support facilities M&O combines local, state, and federal sources, M&O competes with other essential aspects of school district operations, such as salaries and instructional equipment, which also need to be paid for through the same general operating budget. Therefore, school districts, especially those lowwealth districts that have not been able to spend needed capital construction funds to make major repairs to their buildings, are put in a position where they must stretch their general operating funds to try to make up the difference.

Education spending is a major driver of already stressed state budgets - further stress could be independently catastrophic to the economy - and it causes trade-offs with transportation infrastructureHood, 17 -- John Locke Foundation president [John, "The States in Crisis," National Affairs, Spring 2017, https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-states-in-crisis, accessed 6-14-17]

Over the past three years, the news out of state capitals has been dire . From Albany to Sacramento, economic shocks have reduced states' tax revenues, even as the downturn has required states to spend more on welfare for the struggling and newly jobless. The Great Recession has thus torn gaping holes in state budgets — holes that governors and state legislatures are now desperately trying to close. That effort has been painful for state officials. When Arizona cut state funding for kindergartens, educators and parents cried foul. When New York raised tuition at its state universities, students protested. When California, North Carolina, Oregon, and Connecticut raised their income taxes, angry taxpayers flocked to Tea Party protests and expressed their displeasure through buzzing phone lines and clogged inboxes. With every attempt to fix state budgets, an acceptable solution has seemed ever more out of reach. But alarming as these recent developments have been, the states' fiscal calamity is not simply a function of the recession. Their shaky financial foundations were in fact set long ago — through unsustainable obligations like retirement benefits for public employees, excessive borrowing, and deferred maintenance of public buildings and infrastructure. The result has been a long-building budget imbalance now estimated in the trillions of dollars. The nightmare that governors and state legislators are living through will therefore not end when the effects of the recession do. Even as state officials address large short-term operating deficits, they must confront the more troublesome structural gaps between current state revenue projections and massive future liabilities. And the tools that these state

officials have at their disposal to deal with the crisis are limited. Many state constitutions require the repayment of bonds to take priority over almost all other state spending. Others require state-employee pensions to be paid out at the promised terms no matter what, making it almost impossible to negotiate those liabilities down. States, unlike municipalities, do not have the legal option of declaring bankruptcy. At some point, if some states approach default, just meeting these debt obligations will consume all of their revenues — leaving no money for basic functions like maintaining a state police force, operating roads and other transit infrastructure, or educating children. If these states fail to find their way out of their current predicament, their only option may be to beg for federal bailouts. And the states would not be the only losers if this comes to pass. If the federal government were to refuse a bailout request, it would risk a disastrous crisis in the bond markets — as investors who had always assumed state debt to be safe (in part because they assumed it would have federal backing in a crisis) would suddenly rethink all their state-bond investments. On the other hand, if the federal government were to grant a bailout to any one state, the other 49 would certainly expect assistance as well. This would put our federalist system to an unprecedented test. It would also require an enormous amount of money from federal coffers that are themselves perilously hollow. It is in everyone's interest, at all levels of government, to avoid such a collapse . Gratifying as it may be to scream about the various Armageddon scenarios facing the states, it is far more useful to consider how those problems might be solved through our everyday political and policy processes — precisely to avoid truly extreme measures. Policymakers can start by getting a better handle on the problem: Just how big is the crisis? What caused it? And if America's elected leaders and voters are serious about reform, what exactly should they do to pull the states back from the brink? THE FISCAL CRISIS The first step in getting a better handle on the crisis is to understand why the Great Recession has been so brutal to state budgets. The main reason is that the recent lean years were preceded by several fat ones, in which state politicians oversaw massive increases in state spending. Following a pattern reaching back decades, policymakers chose to use times of relative prosperity and growth to irresponsibly expand the size and scope of government services. When tax revenues declined precipitously as a result of the 2008 financial crisis, state officials' optimistic budgeting crashed into cold, hard reality. As a result, the scale of the fiscal challenge facing most state governments today is immense. State tax revenues were 8.4% lower in 2009 than in 2008, and a further 3.1% lower in 2010. The demand for many state services, meanwhile, has increased as a result of the economic downturn. Medicaid enrollment (and with it state spending on the program) grew by more than 13% between the end of 2007 and the end of 2009. As unemployment spiked, unemployment insurance and welfare payments ballooned. The states thus faced a combined budget shortfall of nearly $200 billion — or almost 30% of their combined total budgets — in 2010. Most expect shortfalls nearly as great in the next fiscal year. Beyond its startling magnitude, the crisis is also widespread. A few states with oil or mineral wealth (Alaska, Montana, and New Mexico in particular) weathered the recession relatively well at first, though even they have not avoided budget shortfalls. Most everywhere else, the combination of declining tax revenues and rising unemployment has produced a painful budget squeeze. The two charts that follow show each state's revenue shortfall as a percentage of its budget (the first chart lists the worst-performing states, and the second the best-performing states). With the exception of Vermont, every state is required by its laws or constitution to balance its budget (though many of these requirements are quite flexible in their definitions of "balance," as discussed below). State governments have thus been unable to carry huge deficits from one year to the next, and have been forced to find ways to immediately close their immense budget gaps. Many states have found relief in the form of substantial federal aid: The 2009 stimulus bill provided about $140 billion to the

states over three fiscal years, largely through increased Medicaid dollars and a "State Fiscal Stabilization Fund," which states have used to fill other gaps. The "jobs bill" enacted in August 2010 gave the states another injection of Medicaid dollars, and added another $10 billion to the stabilization fund. Of course, federal assistance of this magnitude will probably not be available in the coming years. For now, however, these federal dollars have helped fill about 35% of the total combined deficit in state budgets. Yet even that aid has left states far short — so most have also had to take serious steps to curb spending or raise revenues. In fact, since 2008, 46 states have cut services to residents: According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 31 states have cut health-care funding, 29 have cut services to the elderly and disabled, 34 have cut K-12 education funding, and 43 have cut higher-education funding. More than 30 states, meanwhile, have increased taxes in the past three years — 13 states have raised personal income taxes; 17 have raised sales taxes; 22 have increased taxes on tobacco, alcohol, or gasoline; and 17 have increased business taxes. Most individual changes in tax rates have been modest, but their combined effects have been significant, adding up to almost $30 billion in 2009 (almost 4% of total state revenues). As grim as these indicators are, they do not even capture the whole picture — for it is impossible to study the finances of state governments across the country without taking into account the finances of local governments as well. In most states, the two levels of government are legally and practically interrelated: Counties and municipalities are not independent constituents of federations, the way the states relate to the federal government; rather, they are creations of states, designed to carry out state functions. Moreover, the division of labor among the levels of government differs from state to state. In some places, public-school teachers are classified as state employees; their salaries and benefits are therefore funded primarily by state income or sales taxes, and show up on the state's books. In other states, teachers are classified as district employees — and their expenses are paid from local property or sales taxes. Similar differences exist in other budgeting categories, such as law enforcement, social services, and transportation. As a result, the most accurate method of examining state finances — and the cleanest way to compare them across state lines — is to combine state and local expenditures. When we do, what does the spending picture look like? According to the most recent official data from the Census Bureau, for the 2008 fiscal year, states and localities spent about $2.8 trillion. (The spending was funded through revenue from state and local taxes and fees, as well as through federal grants, loans, and trust funds.) Of that amount, some $2.4 trillion was classified as "direct general expenditure" — the major programs and services that attract most of the attention of state policymakers and citizens. About a quarter of these "direct general expenditures" went to public K-12 schools; higher education, public safety, and transportation each claimed about 10% of the total. Public-assistance programs — including Medicaid, cash welfare, and housing subsidies funded mostly by Washington — made up about 30%. The remaining 15% or so funded smaller programs such as parks, the management of natural resources, or business recruitment, as well as general administration. As a share of the national economy, such state and local spending has roughly doubled over the past 50 years — from 11.56% of GDP in 1959 to 21.79% today. In assessing this incredible growth, it is essential to take into account the influence federal spending has over state spending. Indeed, since much of the revenue that makes state spending possible comes from federal transfers, it is impossible to disentangle the two. For example, the biggest jump in state and local spending occurred in the decade after President Lyndon Johnson implemented his Great Society programs: From 1965 to 1975, state and local spending went from 12% to nearly 17% of GDP. By far the most important cause of that spending explosion was the creation of Medicaid, which combines federal and state dollars to provide a package of acute and long-term health care for the poor and disabled. This structure offers perverse incentives

for policymakers to constantly expand the program: State and local officials benefit from providing ever more generous benefits without having to shoulder a proportional share of the financial cost, since the federal government pays most of the bill. Likewise, any effort to contain costs by cutting benefits harms state and local officials immensely, and in exchange, most of the savings go to the federal government. Consequently, ever since Medicaid was created, it has been one of the largest and most relentless drivers of state budget growth. Another major driver is education, the largest single category of state and local spending. Both K-12 and higher-education spending have grown during the past two decades — by 10% and 3%, respectively, as a share of GDP — as states have raised teacher pay and benefits, hired more teachers to reduce class sizes, built more expensive facilities, and added large numbers of administrators and support staff. In most jurisdictions, per-pupil spending in elementary and secondary schools now approaches or exceeds $10,000 (for comparison, the average annual tuition charged by private schools across all grade levels, according to the most recent data from the National Center for Education Statistics, is $8,549). In the case of higher education, some governors and legislatures have recently begun to reduce the subsidies provided to public universities; there are still many states, however, where most of the cost of a public undergraduate education is funded by taxpayers, not the student's tuition. Other familiar state and local services, such as transportation and law enforcement, have actually experienced little real growth in spending over the past two decades. For example, despite increases in the federal and state taxes on motor fuels — revenues that fund much of the nation's spending on roads and bridges — increases in the average fuel efficiency of the cars traversing America's highways have pushed actual revenue collections per mile traveled down. The result? Less money to maintain , repair, and expand our primary system of surface transportation — which means more roads that are crumbling and congested.

State budget crises will blow up our economyPOLLACK ‘11 - Economic Policy Institute; Office of Management and Budget and the George Washington Institute of Public Policy; staff member for President Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform; M.P.P. The George Washington University (Ethan, “Two years into austerity and counting…”, October 19, http://www.epi.org/blog/years-austerity-counting/)

It’s popular to criticize Keynesian economics by alleging that the Recovery Act was an experiment in fiscal expansion, and because two-and-a-half years later the economy still hasn’t roared back to life, it must have failed. What this criticism forgets is that the federal government isn’t the only government setting fiscal policy. While the federal government did conduct Keynesian expansionary fiscal policy over the last few years, the states have been doing the reverse , acting , as Paul Krugman put it, like “ 50 Herbert Hoovers ” as they cut budgets and raise taxes . They’re forced to do this because the cratering of private -sector spending which threw the economy into recession blew huge holes in their budgets (in particular with a huge fall in income, sales, and property taxes, and increases in demands on safety-net

programs), and just about all of them are required to balance their budgets each year. Overall, states have had to close over $400 billion in shortfalls over the last few years – this is spending power siphoned off from the economy and acts as a significant “anti-stimulus .” This means that just looking at the amount of federal stimulus that’s been enacted significantly overestimates how much fiscal support has actually been pumped into the economy. In fact, as the Goldman Sachs graph below shows, the net fiscal expansion across all levels of government only lasted through the third quarter of 2009.

For the last two years, state and local cuts have been overwhelming the federal fiscal expansion , making overall fiscal policy across all levels of government actually contractionary and creating a net drag on economic growth . What’s needed to reverse this drag of public-sector austerity on growth? The $35

billion for state and local aid that’s part of the American Jobs Act is a good start, as it would help keep states and local governments from being forced to cut further . As the last two years of austerity have shown, this would only serve to further weaken the economy. And if we’re going to get out of this economic hole, we first need to stop digging down further.

Infrastructure spending immediately boosts employment and growth—prevents economic decline Zakaria, 11PhD in Political Science @ Harvard (6/13/2011, Fareed, “Zakaria: U.S. needs an infrastructure bank,” http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/13/zakaria-u-s-needs-an-infrastructure-bank/)

President Obama has proposed a number of specific policies to tackle the jobs crisis, but they have gone nowhere because Republicans say that

their top concern is the deficit and debt. Those of us worried about the debt - and I would strongly include myself - need to remember that if unemployment doesn't go down fast, the deficit is going to get much worse. If you're serious about deficit reduction, the single most important factor that will shrink it is to have more people working and paying taxes . I want to focus on one of Obama's proposals because it actually would add very little to the deficit, it has

some Republican supporters and it would have an immediate effect on boosting employment and growth . Plus, it's good for the country anyway. We need a national infrastructure bank to repair and rebuild America's crumbling infrastructure. The House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, has played down this proposal as just more stimulus, but if Republicans set aside ideology, they would actually see that this is an opportunity to push for two of their favorite ideas - privatization and the elimination of earmarks. That's why Republicans like Kay Bailey Hutchison and Chuck Hagel are strongly in favor of such a bank. The United States builds its infrastructure in a remarkably socialist manner. The government funds bills and operates almost all American infrastructure. Now, in many countries in Europe and Asia the private sector plays a much larger role in financing and operating roads, highways, railroads, airports and other public resources. An infrastructure bank would create a mechanism by which you could have private sector participation. Yes, there would be some public money involved, though

mostly through issuing bonds. And with interest rates at historic lows, this is the time to use those low interest rates to borrow money and rebuild America's infrastructure. Such projects have huge long-term payoffs and can genuinely be thought of as investments, not expenditures . A national infrastructure bank would also address a legitimate complaint of the Tea Party - earmark spending. One of the reasons federal spending has been inefficient is that Congress wants to spread the money around in ways that might make political sense but are economic nonsense. An infrastructure bank would make those decisions using cost-benefit analysis in a meritocratic system rather than spreading the wealth around and basing these decisions on patronage, politics and

whimsy. Let's face it, America's infrastructure is in a shambles. Just a decade ago, we ranked sixth in infrastructure in the world according to the World Economic Forum . Today we rank 23rd and dropping. We will not be able to compete with the nations of the world if we cannot fix this problem . Is it too much to ask that Republicans and Democrats find a way to come together on this? That moment of bipartisanship might actually be the biggest payoff of all.

Independently, a federal program of school building jumpstarts economic growthCiolino 16 <Max, Master’s of Science in Education Policy from the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education, and a Juris Doctor degree from Tulane Law School, “THE RIGHT TO AN EDUCATION AND THE PLIGHT OF SCHOOL FACILITIES: A LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL,” UNIV. OF PENNSYLVANIA JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIAL CHANGE [Vol. 19.2, 2016], pgs. 108-132, http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1189&context=jlasc>#SPS

There have been hundreds of studies conducted in an effort to determine the impact that the quality of school buildings has on children and adults.29 Although there are a number of problems with accurately measuring these affects, the sheer volume of research indicating the performance and financial gains or losses associated with safe and productive school environments is staggering. Notably, studies have shown that low-quality buildings increase the likelihood of individuals being diagnosed with asthma, of

other measures of student health,30 of teacher turnover,31 and of student performance on many indicators.32 Unfortunately, the debate persists regarding whether the gains in performance and health are worth the vast amount of money it would require to make schools function properly and safely, and remains to be answered conclusively.33 The benefits of a comprehensive public school facility program are not contained entirely within the campus boundaries of the impacted schools. First, if improving school facilities improves the likelihood of students achieving their high school diplomas, there will be a lifetime earning increase for the affected students.34 Furthermore, local property values are affected by the perceived quality of the local schools; therefore, improvements to a school building may result in improvements to local property values.35 Although improved graduation rates, increased lifetime earnings of the next generation, and increased property value all are highly compelling reasons to refurbish deteriorating schools, the most immediate gain to be realized via a large-scale public school facility program is increased employment. In 2011, there were an estimated 1.5 Million unemployed construction workers in this country.36 One estimate indicates that each one billion dollars invested in building or renovating schools will create between 9,000 and 10,000 jobs.37 Therefore, an aggressive school renovation program has the potential to put many Americans back to work while improving the quality of life and education for our nation’s young people. The historical expectation of local control over public education may still have some place in the modern Education climate; however, in the realm of public school facilities, local control is a recipe for disaster. The incredible aggregated costs of comprehensive reform demonstrate that localities simply are not equipped to resolve this problem entirely on their own. A truly effective plan will require increased involvement from both the state and federal levels of government. Although the upfront investment may seem impossible at first, it will only grow more insurmountable over time. Furthermore, the benefits to be achieved by providing safe and productive learning environments to the nation’s young people come with benefits both measurable and incalculable. Despite the sticker shock, a comprehensive reform plan for public school facilities is an important investment.

Growth solves war! – best, newest stats (by 14 years) Gartzke and Weisiger 14 (Erik, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of California, San Diego, and Alex, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, “Under Construction: Development, Democracy, and Difference as Determinants of Systemic Liberal Peace”, International Studies Quarterly Volume 58, Issue 1, pages 130–145, March 2014, Wiley Online)

What factors then increase the incentives and ability of non-participants to encourage the maintenance or reestablishment of peace? While several possibilities exist, we argue that economic development has particularly potent implications for both the incentive and the ability of states to enforce peace around the world. Economics constitutes perhaps the most significant dimension along which territory and politics fail to coincide. Developed countries increasingly have economies that are much more dependent on interacting with the larger global economic system than nations with more traditional economic systems (Rosecrance 1996; Brooks 2005). Integration into the global economy creates efficiencies that make nations more prosperous, but developed countries are also more vulnerable to the destabilizing effects of external conflict. Developed nations are bound to care more about the conflict behavior of other nations, since conflict in turn affects prosperity. Yet, economic integration is only part of the story . Development also provides the means to discourage destabilizing violence , either through reward or through punishment. The economically developed countries of the world are among the most heavily armed, even when they face few immediate threats . This capability to inflict harm can

be used to deter conflict among third parties . It is common for the advanced countries of the Northern Hemisphere to threaten or act aggressively to discourage or terminate conflict in the developing world. Economic development increases the incentives for key actors in the international system to promote peace, at least among third parties.20 Indeed, much of the international system appears designed to assist developed nations in managing the affairs of weaker nations. Tacit spheres of influence, from US preeminence in the Americas to the continued interest of the former colonial powers in their old colonies, help the developed world coordinate on who bears responsibility for enforcing peace. Likewise, developed nations are dramatically overrepresented in the international organizations that actively manage ongoing conflict, with the composition of the UN Security Council an obvious example.21 In many cases, these resources allow developed states to prevent conflict through the second face of power (Bachrach and Baratz 1962), with potential disputants deterred from even preliminary uses of force.

Environment Advantage Green schools have massive emissions benefits Kats 06 <Gregory Kats, Managing Principal of Capital E, a national clean energy technology and green building firm, Greening America’s Schools costs and benefits, October 2006, http://immobilierdurable.eu/images/2128_uploads/Kats_Green_schools_reprint.pdf>#SPS

Emissions Reduction Benefits of Green Schools Residential, commercial and industrial buildings use about 45% of the nation’s energy, including about 75% of the nation’s electricity. Air pollution, from burning fossil fuels to heat buildings (natural gas and oil) and to generate electricity for these buildings (by burning coal, natural gas and oil) imposes enormous health, environmental, and property damage costs. Demonstrated health costs nationally include tens of thousands of additional deaths per year and tens of millions of respiratory incidents and ailments.17 Reduced electricity and gas use in buildings means lower emissions of pollutants (due to avoided burning of fossil fuels) that are damaging to human health, to the environment, and to property. As noted above, green schools on average use one third less energy than conventional schools.18 As a rough estimate, a green school could lead to the following annual emission reductions per school: • 1,200 pounds of nitrogen oxides (NOx) – a principal component of smog. • 1,300 pounds of sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) – a principal cause of acid rain. • 585,000 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2 ) – the principal greenhouse gas and the principal product of combustion. • 150 pounds of coarse particulate matter (PM10) – a principal cause of respiratory illness and an important contributor to smog. Over 20 years the present value of emissions reductions per square foot is $0.53/ft2 from a green school.19 This grossly underestimates actual emissions costs, particularly for CO2, the primary gas causing global warming and resulting in increased severity of hurricanes, increased heat related deaths, sea-level rise, accelerating environmental degradation - such as erosion and desertification, and accelerating species extinction. A 2005 study by Harvard Medical School, Swiss Re and the United Nations Development Program summarizes a broad range of large economic costs that continued climate change and global warming, driven primarily by burning fossil fuels, will increasingly impose.20 Virtually all of the world’s climate change scientists have concluded that human caused emissions – principally from burning fossil fuels — are causing global warming.21 In 2004, Science published a review of over 900 scientific studies on global warming published in refereed scientific journals over the prior decade and concluded that there is a consensus among climate scientists that serious human induced global warming is happening.22 In April 2005, James Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, stated that “There can no longer be genuine doubt that human-made gases are the dominant cause of global warming.”23 The USA is responsible for about one quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions. The building sector (including residential, commercial and industrial buildings) is responsible for over 40% of US CO2 emissions — more than any other entire economy in the world except China. The large health, environmental and property damages associated with pollution from burning fossil fuels are only very partially reflected in the price of emissions. As the health, financial and social costs of global warming in particular continue to mount, cutting greenhouse gasses through energy efficiency and greater use of renewable energy in buildings will become an increasingly valued benefit of greening buildings.24

Greening schools spills over to greening other buildings by making children believe in sustainabilityEdwards and Naboni 13 <Brian W. Emeritus Professor of Architecture at ECA, part of Edinburgh University, and was Associate Professor of Sustainable Architecture at the Royal Danish Academy of Architecture, Design and Conservation from 2008 to 2011 and Emanuele Associate Professor of Architecture at the Royal Danish Academy of Architecture, Design and Conservation specializing in sustainable design and the theory and practice of environmental modelling, Green Buildings Pay : Design, Productivity and Ecology, Taylor and Francis, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central, accessed via Baylor Online Libraries>#SPS

Educational buildings carry environmental messages to future generations. This makes them particularly important in terms of sustainability. Whether a university, community college or school, the buildings and their campuses have been one of the places where green innovation has taken place. Unlike offices where the focus is on occupant welfare and productivity, in this sector the aim is largely pedagogic. To have low-energy buildings sends an important message to the wider community as well as faculty staff and, most importantly, students. Hence, many of the green buildings on campus and many green schools are used in the curriculum to help develop environmental understanding and ecological respect. Some of the world’s most renowned universities, such as Yale and Princeton, have well-articulated strategies for lowenergy design on campus as well as strict policies for waste recycling, low-carbon transport and biodiversity. Here, targets are well above the legislative minimum, with campus building codes referring to LEED Gold or similar standards. The same is true in Europe where, for instance, the University of Edinburgh requires its new buildings to achieve BREEAM Excellent. The justification is normally threefold: first to use building development as a means of testing or developing new technologies flowing from research at the university. Second, such buildings provide a basis for the evaluation of performance via student teaching or research projects. Third, the buildings send a green message to the local community. Sustainability in education occupies the moral high-ground. It also helps in the attraction of the best academic staff and the most gifted students. Hence, most universities and many colleges and schools now have green plans and green frameworks for new campus construction and upgrading of existing buildings. In many ways, universities have led the way, especially those that are well endowed financially and in terms of land assets. Some recent green buildings such as Yales’s Kroon Hall are featured later. Most universities now have energy targets well above those required under building laws and many have a few completed projects such as the University of Copenhagen’s exemplary Green Lighthouse. Their example has influenced others, both in higher and tertiary education, and in academies that support teaching and conservation (such as the California Academy of Sciences building in San Francisco). Green schools and colleges are embraced within BREEAM and LEED assessment systems, which give consistency to environmental measures and hence the design approach. Ecoschools are a manifestation of the wider drive for sustainable examples.

Building codes are key to warming mitigation. They target 30% of global emissions. Lemmet, 09 – Director, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics UNEP, United Nations Environment Programme (Sylvie, Buildings and Climate Change Summary for Decision-Makers, UNEP Sustainable Buildings & Climate Initiative)

In forty years we need to have reduced our greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50% to avoid the worst-case scenarios of climate change. In eleven years we need to have achieved at least a 25%

reduction in emissions. In three years the current global framework that sets legally binding targets for national emissions, and provides the architecture for global carbon trading – the Kyoto Protocol - will expire. In December 2009 the world’s nations are gathered in Copenhagen to negotiate an agreement on a new global protocol that will enable humanity to achieve the necessary global targets. The challenge is great, but so are the opportunities.

The building sector contributes up to 30% of global annual g reen h ouse g as emission s and consumes up to 40% of all energy . Given the massive growth in new construction in economies in transition, and the inefficiencies of existing building stock worldwide, if nothing is done, greenhouse gas emissions from buildings will more than double in the next 20 years. Therefore, if targets for g reen h ouse g as emissions reduction are to be met , it is clear that decision-makers must tackle emissions from the building sector . Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from buildings must be a cornerstone of every national climate change strategy. The world’s governments can successfully tackle climate change by harnessing the capacity of the building sector to significantly reduce GHG emissions . Doing so can create jobs, save money – and most importantly, shape a built environment that is a net positive environmental influence – not simply a ‘less-bad’ version of what we currently have. Indeed, cost effective emission reductions and energy savings of more than 30% are possible in many countries. Investing in achieving such results in the building sector also has the potential to boost the local economy and improve living conditions, particularly for low-income communities.

Climate change threatens global survival – it destroys biodiversity, resource availability, and oxygen production. Pachauri and Meyer, 15 – Chairman of the IPCC, Technical Support Unit of the IPCC, both authors were editors for the 2014 IPCC Synthesis Report (Rajendra and Leo, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, http://epic.awi.de/37530/1/IPCC_AR5_SYR_Final.pdf)

SPM 2.3 Future risks and impacts caused by a changing climate

Climate change will amplify existing risks and create new risks for natural and human systems. Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for disadvantaged people and communities in countries at all levels of development. {2.3} Risk of climate-related impacts results from the interaction of climate-related hazards (including hazardous events and trends) with the vulnerability and exposure of human and natural systems, including their ability to adapt. Rising rates and magnitudes of warming and other changes in the climate system, accompanied by ocean acidification, increase the risk of severe, pervasive and in some cases irreversible detrimental impacts . Some risks are particularly relevant for individual regions (Figure SPM.8), while others are global. The overall risks of future climate change impacts can be reduced by limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change , including ocean acidification. The precise levels of climate change sufficient to trigger abrupt and irreversible change remain uncertain , but the risk associated with crossing such thresholds increases with rising temperature (medium confidence). For risk assessment, it is important to evaluate the widest possible range of impacts, including low-probability outcomes with large consequences. {1.5, 2.3, 2.4, 3.3, Box Introduction.1, Box 2.3, Box 2.4} A large fraction of species faces increased extinction risk due to climate change during and beyond the 21st century, especially as climate change interacts with other stressors (high confidence). Most plant species cannot naturally shift their geographical ranges sufficiently fast to keep up with current and high projected rates of climate change in most landscapes; most small mammals and

freshwater molluscs will not be able to keep up at the rates projected under RCP4.5 and above in flat landscapes in this century (high confidence). Future risk is indicated to be high by the observation that natural global climate change at rates lower than current anthropogenic climate change caused significant ecosystem shifts and species extinctio ns during the past millions of years. Marine organisms will face progressively low er oxygen levels and high rates and magnitudes of ocean acidification (high confidence), with associated risks exacerbated by rising ocean temperature extremes (medium confidence). Coral reefs and polar ecosystems are highly vulnerable . Coastal systems and low-lying areas are at risk from sea level rise, which will continue for centuries even if the global mean temperature is stabilized (high confidence). {2.3, 2.4, Figure 2.5} Climate change is projected to undermine food security (Figure SPM.9). Due to projected climate change by the mid-21st century and beyond, global marine species redistribution and marine biodiversity reduction in sensitive regions will challenge the sustained provision of fisheries productivity and other ecosystem services (high confidence). For wheat, rice and maize in tropical and temperate regions, climate change without adaptation is projected to negatively impact production for local temperature increases of 2°C or more above late 20th century levels, although individual locations may benefit (medium confidence). Global temperature increases of ~4°C or more 13 above late 20th century levels, combined with increasing food demand, would pose large risks to food security globally (high confidence). Climate change is projected to reduce renewable surface water and groundwater resources in most dry subtropical regions (robust evidence, high agreement), intensifying competition for water among sectors (limited evidence, medium agreement). {2.3.1, 2.3.2} Until mid-century, projected climate change will impact human health mainly by exacerbating health problems that already exist (very high confidence). Throughout the 21st century, climate change is expected to lead to increases in ill-health in many regions and especially in developing countries with low income, as compared to a baseline without climate change (high confidence). By 2100 for RCP8.5, the combination of high temperature and humidity in some areas for parts of the year is expected to compromise common human activities, including growing food and working outdoors (high confidence). {2.3.2} In urban areas climate change is projected to increase risks for people, assets, economies and ecosystems, including risks from heat stress, storms and extreme precipitation , inland and coastal flooding, landslides, air pollution, drought, water scarcity, sea level rise and storm surges (very high confidence). These risks are amplified for those lacking essential infrastructure and services or living in exposed areas. {2.3.2} Rural areas are expected to experience major impacts on water availability and supply, food security, infrastructure and agricultural incomes, including shifts in the production areas of food and non-food crops around the world (high confidence). {2.3.2} Aggregate economic losses accelerate with increasing temperature (limited evidence, high agreement), but global economic impacts from climate change are currently difficult to estimate. From a poverty perspective, climate change impacts are projected to slow down economic growth, make poverty reduction more difficult, further erode food security and prolong existing and create new poverty traps, the latter particularly in urban areas and emerging hotspots of hunger (medium confidence). International dimensions such as trade and relations among states are also important for understanding the risks of climate change at regional scales. {2.3.2} Climate change is projected to increase displacement of people (medium evidence, high agreement). Populations that lack the resources for planned migration experience higher exposure to extreme weather events, particularly in developing countries with low income. Climate change can indirectly increase risks of violent conflicts by amplifying well-documented drivers of these conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks (medium confidence). {2.3.2}

Climate change turns every impact and causes extinction. Torres, 16 – affiliate scholar at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (Phil, Op-ed: Climate Change Is the Most Urgent Existential Risk, http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/Torres20160807)

Humanity faces a number of formidable challenges this century. Threats to our collective survival stem from asteroids and comets, supervolcanoes, global pandemics, climate change, biodiversity loss, nuclear weapons, biotechnology, synthetic biology, nanotechnology, and artificial superintelligence. With such threats in mind, an informal survey conducted by the Future of Humanity Institute placed the probability of human extinction this century at 19%. To put this in perspective, it means that the average American is more than a thousand times more likely to die in a human extinction event than a plane crash.* So, given limited resources, which risks should we prioritize? Many intellectual leaders, including Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking, and Bill Gates, have suggested that artificial superintelligence constitutes one of the most significant risks to humanity. And this may be correct in the long-term. But I would argue that two other risks, namely climate change and biodiveristy loss, should take priority right now over every other known threat. Why? Because these ongoing catastrophes in slow-motion will frame our existential predicament on Earth not just for the rest of this century, but for literally thousands of years to come. As such, they have the capacity to raise or lower the probability of other risks scenarios unfolding. Multiplying Threats Ask yourself the following: are wars more or less likely in a world marked by extreme weather events , megadroughts, food supply disruptions, and sea-level rise? Are terrorist attacks more or less likely in a world beset by the collapse of global ecosystems, agricultural failures, economic uncertainty, and political instability? Both government officials and scientists agree that the answer is “more likely.” For example, the current Director of the CIA, John Brennan , recently identified “the impact of climate change” as one of the “ deeper causes of this rising instability ” in countries like Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and Ukraine . Similarly, the former Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, has described climate change as a “threat multiplier” with “the potential to exacerbate many of the challenges we are dealing with today — from infectious disease to terrorism.” The Department of Defense has also affirmed a connection. In a 2015 report, it states, “Global climate change will aggravate problems such as poverty, social tensions , environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership and weak political institutions that threaten stability in a number of countries.” Scientific studies have further shown a connection between the environmental crisis and violent conflicts. For example, a 2015 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences argues that climate change was a causal factor behind the record-breaking 2007-2010 drought in Syria. This drought led to a mass migration of farmers into urban centers, which fueled the 2011 Syrian civil war. Some observers, including myself, have suggested that this struggle could be the beginning of World War III, given the complex tangle of international involvement and overlapping interests. The study’s conclusion is also significant because the Syrian civil war was the Petri dish in which the Islamic State consolidated its forces, later emerging as the largest and most powerful terrorist organization in human history. A Perfect Storm The point is that climate change and biodiversity loss could very easily push societies to the brink of collapse . This will exacerbate existing geopolitical tensions and introduce entirely new power struggles between state and nonstate actors. At the same time, advanced technologies will very likely become increasingly powerful and accessible. As I’ve written elsewhere, the malicious agents of the future will have bulldozers rather than shovels to dig mass graves for their enemies. The result is a perfect storm of more conflicts in the world along with unprecedentedly dangerous weapons. If the conversation were to end here, we’d have ample reason for placing climate change and biodiversity loss at the top of our priority lists. But there

are other reasons they ought to be considered urgent threats. I would argue that they could make humanity more vulnerable to a catastrophe involving superintelligence and even asteroids. The basic reasoning is the same for both cases. Consider superintelligence first. Programming a superintelligence whose values align with ours is a formidable task even in stable circumstances. As Nick Bostrom argues in his 2014 book, we should recognize the “default outcome” of superintelligence to be “doom.” Now imagine trying to solve these problems amidst a rising tide of interstate wars, civil unrest, terrorist attacks, and other tragedies? The societal stress caused by climate change and biodiversity loss will almost certainly compromise important conditions for creating friendly AI, such as sufficient funding, academic programs to train new scientists, conferences on AI, peer-reviewed journal publications, and communication/collaboration between experts of different fields, such as computer science and ethics. It could even make an “AI arms race” more likely, thereby raising the probability of a malevolent superintelligence being created either on purpose or by mistake. Similarly, imagine that astronomers discover a behemoth asteroid barreling toward Earth. Will designing, building, and launching a spacecraft to divert the assassin past our planet be easier or more difficult in a world preoccupied with other survival issues? In a relatively peaceful world, one could imagine an asteroid actually bringing humanity together by directing our attention toward a common threat. But if the “ conflict multipliers ” of climate change and biodiversity loss have already catapulted civilization into chaos and turmoil, I strongly suspect that humanity will become more, rather than less, susceptible to dangers of this sort. Context Risks We can describe the dual threats of climate change and biodiversity loss as “context risks.” Neither is likely to directly cause the extinction of our species. But both will define the context in which civilization confronts all the other threats before us . In this way, they could indirectly contribute to the overall danger of annihilation — and this worrisome effect could be significant. For example, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the effects of climate change will be “severe,” “pervasive,” and “irreversible.” Or, as a 2016 study published in Nature and authored by over twenty scientists puts it, the consequences of climate change “will extend longer than the entire history of human civilization thus far.” Furthermore, a recent article in Science Advances confirms that humanity has already escorted the biosphere into the sixth mass extinction event in life’s 3.8 billion year history on Earth. Yet another study suggests that we could be approaching a sudden, irreversible, catastrophic collapse of the global ecosystem. If this were to occur, it could result in “widespread social unrest, economic instability and loss of human life.” Given the potential for environmental degradation to elevate the likelihood of nuclear wars, nuclear terrorism, engineered pandemics , a superintelligence takeover, and perhaps even an impact winter, it ought to take precedence over all other risk concerns — at least in the near-term. Let’s make sure we get our priorities straight.

Solvency The United States federal government should substantially increase funding for elementary and secondary education in the United States by allocating funds to assist with the construction, renovation, and maintenance of green public school facilities in the United States.Solvency advocateCiolino 16 <Max, Master’s of Science in Education Policy from the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education, and a Juris Doctor degree from Tulane Law School, “THE RIGHT TO AN EDUCATION AND THE PLIGHT OF SCHOOL FACILITIES: A LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL,” UNIV. OF PENNSYLVANIA JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIAL CHANGE [Vol. 19.2, 2016], pgs. 108-132, http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1189&context=jlasc>#SPS

IV. A BLUEPRINT FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES REFORM The tremendous and increasing need for financial resources to repair and maintain public schools in this country makes abundantly clear that the states are incapable of managing this responsibility on their own. Local control may be important on an ideological basis to those who recognize the socialization of students that takes place within schools and the benefits that come from community involvement in schools. Unfortunately, the reality is that for many schools and districts “local control” means control over a nightmarish school building that exposes students and staff to toxins while demonstrating that their city, state, and country do not value them enough to provide healthy and functional facilities in which they may learn and prepare for their lives as adults. The truth is our localities—particularly in low-income communities—do not have the financial resources to maintain the schools over which they have been delegated authority by their respective states. On the other hand, each state is constitutionally vested with the affirmative obligation to create a system of education. This obligation is defined either within the text of the state’s constitution or by subsequent litigation. Unfortunately, the states do not possess sufficient resources to bring each school within their borders into safe and modern functionality. Although there is no affirmative duty on the federal government to provide an education for students, nothing forecloses the federal government’s ability to help ameliorate the facilities fiasco that is unfolding in America. The federal government should take a leadership position in the effort to provide safe schools to all children. Not only would the investment in our young people pay off in the long run through increased property values134 and increased earning potential,135 but it would also result in immediate economic recovery by putting thousands of construction workers back to work.136 The program needs to make funding available to states to assist with the construction, renovation, and maintenance of public school facilities. It also needs to have a delivery mechanism, both in terms of how funding is allocated to states and school districts, but also to assess how funding distributions are prioritized. Finally, the program needs to place certain requirements on states to ensure that funds are used appropriately, and that the national investment in public school facilities is protected in the long run. Indeed, there is no sense in rebuilding every school in America if we simply are going to let them fall to pieces in the coming years.

Topicality

Green Schools Include Education Green school definitionZhao, He, and Meng 15 <Dong-Xue Zhao, School of Environment and Architecture, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Bao-Jie He, School of Environment and Architecture, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, and Fan-QinMeng, School of Environment and Architecture, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology; “The green school project: A means of speeding up sustainable development?,” Geoforum, Volume 65, October 2015, Pages 310-313, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718515301652>#SPS

4. The concept of green school project 4.1. The proposal of green school project The concept of the green school originated in an Ecological School Plan proposed by The Foundation of European Environmental Education (FEEE) in 1994. Its purpose is to make environmental education gradually penetrate into every sector of daily school management in an education classroom setting, and then to set up a comprehensive environmental management system for school. However, European green campus plan in early times was mainly confined to the level of environmental education in primary and secondary schools, or the level of sustainable education alliance in colleges and universities. In 2007, with the deep research on the green building, United States Green Building Council (USGBC) launched National Green Schools Campaign, and they support green schools for everyone within this generation. To further its efforts to give access to green schools to all students within a generation, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) has launched a new Center for Green Schools, which is funded by America’s United Technologies Company. It is a very important step in the process of green school development, not only because they have a certain institution with funding, but also because the funded positions could become permanent in many places, as school districts realize the value of the position and begin paying salaries themselves. Compared with the green campus plan in Europe, Green Schools Campaign in United States covers all the school level, related students, teachers, principals, parents, government and other interest groups could experience comprehensive practice through green education, green space, and green alliance, so it has the stronger operability and practicality (Ramli et al., 2012). 4.2. Definition of the green school Globally, United States is the country to most widely carry out green school campaign with the necessary depth and the most abundant practical experience; so green schools in the United States has important significance for other regions. According to statistics, there are 133,000 primary and secondary schools (K-12 Schools), 4300 Colleges or Universities in the United States, about 25% of the population go to school every day. At present, in 20 of the largest school community, 80% of them promise to build green school, 94% of them promise to do this nearly every five years. According to Center for Green Schools, “Green schools” is school building or facilities that create a healthy environment that is conducive to learning as well as saving energy, resources and money. Green campus without K-12 schools is defined as: A higher education community that is improving energy efficiency, conserving resources and enhancing environmental quality by educating for sustainability and creating healthy living and learning environments. While this definition is just a simple description of the green school, its long-term meaning is far more than that. According to Ireland, the green school, also known as Eco-Schools, is an international environmental education program, environmental management system and award scheme that promotes and acknowledges long-term, whole school action for the environment. Unlike a once-off project, it is a long-term program that introduces participants (students, teachers, parents and the wider community) to the concept of an environmental management system (He et al., 2014). However, green schools are far more than just an

environmental management system. As shown in Fig. 1, in any case as a green building, the basic requirements of green school are energy efficiency, resources efficiency and CO2 emissions reduction. Students must have a good environment to learn in; so it must create an indoor environment that provides good indoor air quality, thermal comfort, acoustic and day lighting. Green schools are more than green buildings; in the long term, the most important thing is to ensure the environment education significance of green schools.

The basic framework of green school

Download full-size image

Fig. 1. The basic framework of green school.

4.3. Characteristics of the green school

To develop and to build the green school design, the Centre of Green School USGBC had emphasized the general characteristics of green school:

• Conserve energy and natural resources

• Improve indoor air quality

• Remove toxic materials from places where children learn and play

• Employ day lighting strategies and improves classroom acoustics

• Decrease the burden on municipal water and wastewater treatment

• Encourage waste management efforts to benefit the local community and region

• Conserve fresh drinking water and helps manage storm water runoff

• Encourage recycling

• Promote habitats protection

• Reduced demand on local landfills

For architect or staff, the above requirements can be seen or can be quantified. However, for a green school with full education meaning, many requirements and characteristics are invisible (Nifa et al., 2014). From the design point of view, a truly green school also is not the simple sum of a green classroom, green office building, green canteen and green dormitory (Tan et al., 2014; Muthu et al., 2015). To build a green school, we have to fully consider the systematic and integrity of green school from planning to monomer design, to reduce costs in the whole life cycle and to bring students from behavior consciousness of green design education significance.

Inherency

Aff InherencyFilardo, Gutter, and Rowland 16 <Mary Filardo, Executive Director of the 21st Century School Fund; Rachel Gutter, Director Center for Green Schools, U.S. Green Building Council; Mike Rowland, State Facilities Director, Georgia Department of Education, 2016 President National Council on School Facilities “State of Our Schools: America’s K–12 Facilities” is a joint publication of the 21st Century School Fund, Inc., U.S. Green Building Council, Inc., and the National Council on School Facilities, https://kapost-files-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/published/56f02c3d626415b792000008/2016-state-of-our-schools-report.pdf?kui=wo7vkgV0wW0LGSjxek0N5A>#SPS

Almost No Federal Support for School Facilities The federal government helped build the country’s public education infrastructure with funding through the Works Progress Administration in the 1930s and then again in the post–World War II era with funding from the National Defense Education Act. But during the two decades studied in this report — except for a $1.2 billion emergency school repair initiative in the 2001 federal budget directed to high-need districts and public schools with high concentrations of Native American students — the federal government provided virtually no support for states’ and districts’ capital responsibilities for public K–12 school facilities.32 In a study of the federal role in school facilities, researchers found that between 2004 and 2010, the federal government provided less than .02 percent of U.S. school districts’ total capital spending in direct grants for school facilities, mostly awarded through the Federal Emergency Management Agency for schools affected by natural disasters.33 By contrast, in 2014, the federal government funded a full 38 percent of the nation’s capital investment in wastewater and transportation infrastructure.34 What It Will Take to Meet Educational Facilities Standards CHAPTER 4 There are no national standards for K–12 public school facilities conditions, spending, and investment. Rather, communities use annual school district operating budgets, educational facilities master plans, bond referenda, and capital budgets to determine what they need for their public school facilities, and then they set priorities based on what they can afford. These are important and critical local processes. However, without standards it is impossible to measure the adequacy of facilities spending and investments.

Current Federal Standards Are VoluntaryIsa 10 <Jalil, EPA Official, “EPA Releases New Draft Voluntary Guidelines for Selecting Safe School Locations / EPA provides new tools for communities making school siting decisions,” https://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27/43441a155f6e31da852577de006a8dc2!OpenDocument>#SPS

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today released draft voluntary guidelines to help communities protect the health of students and staff from environmental threats when selecting new locations for schools. More than 1,900 new schools serving approximately 1.2 million children and costing more than $13 billion opened in the 2008-2009 school year. Major investments in our children’s schools can be compromised if environmental hazards are not fully understood prior to selecting a school site. The voluntary guidelines also provide tools to help communities ensure that new locations for schools are accessible to the students they are intended to serve. “EPA is offering tools to local officials and community residents looking to build schools that foster healthy, productive learning

environments,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “This guidance will help address the pressing environmental issues that parents, school boards and local residents often consider when making investments in their local schools. By offering guidance on long-term environmental and health concerns, it will also help local communities plan ahead and reduce the risk of costly changes down the road.” The potential impacts on children’s health and education, as well as the damage to the community when school environmental hazards are later identified, are significant. In some cases, schools have been closed and in other cases have undergone costly remediation. The new draft voluntary guidelines will give local communities tools to help them consider environmental health issues in establishing school site selection criteria and in conducting effective environmental reviews of potential school sites. The draft guidelines recommend involving the public in the site selection process from the beginning to help ensure community support for these decisions. EPA developed the draft guidelines in consultation with other federal agencies, states, school districts, community organizations, health care professionals, teachers, as well as environmental justice leaders, and children’s health and environmental groups, among others. The draft school siting guidelines are being made available for public comment for 90 days. Comments will be accepted until 4 pm EST on February 18, 2011.

Need many more school buildingsStevenson 10 <Kenneth R., Professor of Educational Leadership and Policies at the University of South Carolina, “Educational Trends Shaping School Planning, Design, Construction, Funding and Operation,” National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, September 2010, http://www.ncef.org/pubs/educationaltrends.pdf>#SPS

Synopsis The number of school-age children in the United States will increase by about 20 million, or nearly 35%, in the next forty years (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008a). On average approximately ninety percent of America’s children historically have attended public schools (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009j). Therefore, public education could need space for about 18,000,000 more students than in 2010. Using 600 as the average size for a school, this increase equates to about 30,000 new school facilities between 2010 and 2050. On average, over 750 new public schools per year could be needed over the next four decades just to address the population growth. That number does not include construction required to replace or modernize currently existing schools as they age and deteriorate over this time period. Assuming that education as we know it continues to exist over the coming decades, the need for new schools will be significant.

State Budgets Advantage

2AC - Econ Internal Link State budget crises will hamper any attempt at national growthPhil Oliff, Chris Mai, and Vincent Palacios June 27, 2012 “States Continue to Feel Recession’s Impact” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=711

As a new fiscal year begins, the latest state budget estimates continue to show that states’ ability to fund services remains hobbled by slow economic growth. The budget gaps that states have had to close for fiscal year 2013, the fiscal year that begins July 1, 2012, total $55

billion in 31 states. That amount is smaller than in past years, but still very large by historical standards. States’ actions to close those gaps, in turn, are further delaying the nation’s economic recovery. The budget gaps result principally from

weak tax collections. The Great Recession that started in 2007 caused the largest collapse in state revenues on record. Since bottoming out in 2010, revenues have begun to grow again but are still far from fully recovered . As of the first quarter of 2012, state revenues remained 5.5 percent below pre-recession levels, and are not growing fast enough to recover fully soon. Meanwhile, states’ education and health care obligations continue to grow. States expect to educate 540,000 more K-12 students and 2.5 million more public college and university students in the upcoming school year than in 2007-08.[1] And some 4.8 million more people are projected to be eligible for subsidized health insurance through Medicaid in 2012 than were enrolled in 2008, as employers

have cancelled their coverage and people have lost jobs and wages.[2] Consequently, even though the revenue outlook is trending upward, states have addressed large budget shortfalls by historical standards as they considered budgets for 2013. The vast majority of these shortfalls have been closed through spending cuts and other measures in order to meet balanced-budget requirements. As of publication all but five states have enacted their budgets, and those five will do so soon. To the extent these shortfalls are being closed with spending cuts, they are occurring on top of past years’ deep cuts in critical public

services like education, health care, and human services. The additional cuts mean that state budgets will continue to be a drag on the national economy, threatening hundreds of thousands of private- and public-sector jobs, reducing the job creation that otherwise would be expected to occur. Potential strategies for lessening the impact of deep spending cuts include more use of state reserve funds in states that have reserves, more

revenue through tax-law changes, and a greater role for the federal government.

2AC - Infrastructure Internal Link Physical infrastructure needs work nowSBCTF 12 <State Budget Crisis Task Force, Former New York Lieutenant Governor Richard Ravitch and former Federal Reserve Board Chair Paul Volcker created the State Budget Crisis Task Force, Full Report, 2012, https://www.minnpost.com/sites/default/files/attachments/Report-of-the-State-Budget-Crisis-Task-Force-Full.pdf>#SPS

The status of the nation’s physical infrastructure may be characterized as anywhere from discouraging to alarming, based on surveys of infrastructure condition and needs. Infrastructure has been “crumbling” for so long, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), that its condition deserves a grade of “D.”165 The nation, in the early 1960s, spent three percent of gross domestic product on our transportation and water infrastructure alone; this figure had fallen to 2.4 percent of GDP by 2007.166 In its analysis of the six study states, the Task Force focused on the three major types of infrastructure spending by state and local governments: transportation (roads, bridges, mass transit), water (drinking and waste water, dams) and buildings (general public buildings, K-12 schools, and higher education). Improving the situation in any of these areas will not come cheap. In 2009, ASCE’s report card highlighted an estimated five-year transportation investment shortfall (including only bridges, roads, and transit) of $739.6 billion. The National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission estimated a federal investment gap for surface transportation (including only highways and transit) of $2.3 trillion from 2010-2035.167 With water systems, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that $623 billion will be needed over the next 20 years (the six study states account for about $250 billion).168 Producing a state of good repair in the nation's most critical dams, which usually gain attention only after natural disasters, would require an estimated $16 billion over the next 12 years.169 There are few national estimates of capital needs for public buildings; but states often prepare their own estimates, using definitions and methods that vary from state to state. Virginia alone has an estimated $2 billion in capital needs; Texas’s estimate of its needs is $350 million.170 School districts, nationwide, have an estimated $271 billion of deferred building and grounds maintenance.171 In higher education, recent estimates prepared in individual states show needs of more than $2.2 billion in California, $3.6 billion in Illinois, $5.8 billion in New Jersey, about $5 billion in New York and $740 million in Texas.172 There are important limitations to these estimates.173 State governments, while they fund and regulate infrastructure, do not always collect information on the assets of their local governments, which are responsible for crucial elements such as waste water systems. While some local governments may keep inventories of assets and their condition, often best estimates and expert guesses are required. Definitions may vary; numbers may not be standardized. Thus, comparisons should be viewed with caution.174 The Value of Infrastructure The information required to estimate the value of infrastructure often is not publicly available, but state CAFRs tell how states measure the value of their capital assets. The most recently available state CAFRs show capital assets, net of depreciation, valued at $109 billion in California, $20.2 billion in Illinois, $22.8 billion in New Jersey, $93.2 billion in New York, $98.9 billion in Texas, and $22.5 billion in Virginia. As with other infrastructure numbers, cross-state comparisons may not be very useful; the underlying data vary, as states include different agencies and authorities in the counting. Some states may and some may not exclude assets held by local governments. Infrastructure Condition The Federal Highway Administration estimates that less than half of American highways are in better than fair, mediocre, or poor condition.175 The average age of a bridge in this country is 43 years; 25 percent of bridges are rated as structurally deficient or

functionally obsolete, with an existing or emerging need for maintenance, rehabilitation, or replacement.176 The Federal Transit Administration estimates that only 30 percent of the nation’s transit assets are in excellent or good condition.177 Conditions vary widely across states. (See Table 20.) Table 21 provides each state’s own assessment of future transportation capital needs (roads, highways, transit and, with the exception of New Jersey, bridges). It should not be used for comparisons, as the estimates cover different timeframes, definitions of needs and state-local responsibilities or data.178 Even so, the table illustrates the importance of population and size in the study states and the fact that all have made forward-looking assessments of basic needs. Generally, water infrastructure (drinking and waste water) is a matter for localities. States do not maintain inventories of assets, but localities sometimes have detailed inventories of their water infrastructure; and a 2007 U.S. Conference of Mayors survey found that cities have a general understanding of the condition of their drinking water distribution systems, including water pipes.179 The EPA estimates that $323 billion is needed over the next 20 years for drinking water (nearly $200 billion for buried network of transmission and distribution pipelines alone) and $298 billion for waste water infrastructure. The six states in this study account for around $250 billion of combined drinking and waste water need. Dams and levees are another essential component of water infrastructure. No comprehensive direct measure of their condition currently exists, but engineers consider age to be an important factor. The country’s dams — 884,134, according to the Army Corps of Engineers in 2010 — were built mainly between 1950 and 1979; their average age is 53 years.180 In the study states, dam ages for Illinois and Texas are somewhat below the average, at 48 and 49 years, respectively. But the figures are 60 years in Virginia, 65 years in California, 75 years in New York, and 80 years in New Jersey. Until 2007, there was no official inventory of the estimated 100,000 to 300,000 miles of U.S. levees; in that year the Army Corps of Engineers began compiling what is still a partial inventory.181 Most dams are privately owned and state-regulated; with levees, the roles are not so clearly demarcated. States have made efforts to inventory public buildings and their needs; but some inventories are deficient, and not all are complete. New Jersey has a commission to ensure comprehensive reviews of capital needs. California has a webbased inventory of buildings but does not include information on their condition. Illinois has ceased its inventory efforts in recent years. Future needs and cost estimates are rarely reported in the aggregate. Elementary and Secondary Schools: Data on educational structures, especially at the elementary and secondary levels, is far more robust than for other public buildings, mainly because of regulations mandating condition and needs assessments. In 2008-2009 there were 98,706 pre-kindergarten through 12th-grade public schools in the United States, including 4,694 charter schools. According to the 21st Century School Fund and Building Educational Success Together (BEST), school districts have approximately $271 billion of deferred building and grounds maintenance in their schools, excluding administrative facilities, averaging $4,883 per student.182 Higher Education: The evidence points to a pattern of deferred maintenance. The states themselves have recognized this. California dedicated 10 percent of the state’s total infrastructure spending to higher education between 2005 and 2010.183 Illinois released nearly $800 million in capital funds for such purposes in 2012.184 Texas plans to spend $16.1 million over five years for new construction, renovations, and infrastructure projects for higher education facilities.185 Virginia is proposing $412 million in spending on 19 capital projects at higher educational institutions for 2012 through 2014, although funding is committed only on an annual basis.186 Infrastructure Funding While the majority of spending for infrastructure does not occur at the federal level, federal efforts and involvement in the nation’s transportation system and other federally-owned assets are well known. The federal government provides a mix of formula grants, revolving loan programs, specific

appropriations, and competitive grants to further national infrastructure goals.187 It funds state and local infrastructure projects through both direct spending or grants and loan subsidies. About 80 percent of surface transportation funds distributed to states are transferred in the form of grants allocated by formula for road construction, rehabilitation, and safety programs. The remaining 20 percent are distributed for specific projects or purposes.188 User fees, tax credits, and legislative earmarks also fund projects. As the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found in 2007, the respective shares of spending by the federal government and the states and localities on water and transportation infrastructure have remained reasonably stable since the mid-1980s.189 Funding for drinking and waste water projects comes primarily from local sources, a pattern that is likely to continue.190 Local governments and utilities use mainly debt financing for such purposes, issuing bonds to be repaid through tax revenues and, increasingly, water and sewer user charges. After the 2008 economic decline and the failure to enact a new surface transportation act to replace the one that expired in 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) awarded $86.6 billion in federal funds to state and local transportation, energy, environment, and other infrastructure projects. ARRA provided incremental help but did not significantly reduce short-term needs. Furthermore, ARRA funds were non-recurring; and the program’s size, when compared with total long-term infrastructure needs, was marginal.191 While federal spending for transportation is significant, more than half the capital funding for such purposes comes from other levels of government. They often rely on dedicated revenues, including state gas and diesel taxes; but these revenues are in decline. All six study states employ fixed-rate gas taxes, with California, Illinois, and New York levying additional variable-rate taxes. The average effective state gas tax rate for the nation as a whole has fallen by 20 percent since such rates were last increased.192 Federal gasoline tax revenues are also stagnating, with dramatic effect on the availability of federal Highway Trust Fund (HTF) revenues. Under current policy, 88 percent of HTF revenues are devoted to highways and 12 percent to mass transit.193 In recent years, the gap between program costs in these areas and the federal gas tax revenue supporting them has increased. In 2008 through 2010, the federal government was forced to go beyond the HTF, tapping into its general fund for a total of approximately $35 billion to meet federal highway program obligations.194 The condition of the HTF is expected to worsen: The CBO forecasts that the average rate of annual revenue growth will be only about one percent from 2013 through 2022 and estimates that by 2013 the highway account, and by 2014 the transit account, will be unable to meet obligations in a timely manner. The total HTF deficit is expected to reach $67 billion between 2013 and 2017 and increase by another $69 billion by 2022.195 Unless the federal and state governments are willing to raise gas taxes or find alternative sources to pay debt service on bonds, there will be insufficient revenue to meet the nation’s transportation infrastructure needs. State and Local Government Spending on Infrastructure Spending for infrastructure capital, operations, and maintenance is symbiotic. Proper operation and maintenance can prolong infrastructure life and affect capital needs in both the short and long term. For example, when bridges deteriorate, the cost of keeping them in a safe condition can skyrocket. When infrastructure is well-maintained, that fact may sometimes lower future needs; sometimes, by increasing the life of existing infrastructure, it may raise ultimate capital replacement costs by making way for newer, more advanced technology, systems and design. Infrastructure spending by state and local governments, adjusted for inflation and population growth, has generally risen over the last three decades. However, it has not kept up with overall growth in the economy. Numerous studies have concluded that the condition of the nation’s infrastructure is inadequate, despite increased spending. There may be several reasons for this gap. The number of motor vehicles is increasing faster than the population, thus increasing the intensity of road

use and rate of wear and causing congestion. In addition, during part of this period, prices for asphalt and other road construction materials and services have risen more rapidly than overall economy-wide prices. Meanwhile, the need for investment in water infrastructure has been driven by regulatory standards that did not exist several generations ago and are getting tighter year by year: Businesses, governments, and the public are required to treat or eliminate contaminants that just a few years ago they were allowed to dump or ignore. Finally, even wellmaintained infrastructure can become functionally obsolete, requiring new, often expensive investment such as electronic scanning for tolls or other new technologies that reduce waiting times, speed travel, and make the economy more efficient. Real per-capita spending on transportation by state and local governments, both capital outlays and spending on operations and maintenance, is dominated by highways; the next largest category of spending is public transit. Percapita transportation spending, adjusted for inflation, has grown in the past 30 years, nationally and in all study states and their localities, with two exceptions: New Jersey local governments’ operations and maintenance spending remained virtually flat, while Virginia’s state government capital outlays declined by 35 percent. New Jersey state government is an outlier both nationally and among the six study states: From 1977 through 2008, the most recent year for which data were available, its real per-capita outlays on transportation grew at seven times the national average for capital spending and five times the national average for operations and maintenance. The U.S. average for state government spending on capital outlays and operations and maintenance did not even double during this time period.196 Spending on water utilities is done chiefly by local governments, often through independent municipal or regional utilities rather than city or county governments. These utilities generally finance infrastructure through water and sewer charges and property taxes. Except in California and New Jersey, there is very little state government spending in this area in the six study states; but many states, including states in this study, have revolving loan funds capitalized by federal and state appropriations that help make lower-cost loans possible for local water utilities. Nationally, localities’ real per-capita capital outlays on water systems have doubled over the past 31 years; the growth in operations and maintenance spending has more than doubled. But Virginia’s localities cut capital spending in this area by almost 37 percent while increasing their operations and maintenance spending slightly more than the national average. The report The Cost of Rehabilitating Our Nation’s Dams by the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, updated as of 2009, calculated that it would take approximately $16 billion to rehabilitate the nation's most critical dams to a state of good repair over the next 12 years, $8.7 billion for publicly owned dams and $7.3 billion for privately owned dams.197 There are no available federal funding sources and few state funding sources for dam repairs. Responsibility for building, rehabilitating, and maintaining primary and secondary education facilities typically falls to local school districts; capital outlay funding is generally provided through state and local taxes, with a small federal contribution.198 Nationally, between 2005 and 2008, state contributions for school capital costs averaged 30 percent but ranged from 100 percent (in three states) to zero percent (in 11 states). From 1977 through 2008, on average, real per-capita K-12 capital spending by localities and school districts grew by 216 percent, while operations and maintenance spending grew by 88 percent.199 Public institutions of higher education are largely controlled by states, and infrastructure funding for higher education is overwhelmingly provided by states.200 From 1977 through 2008, on average, national real per-capita spending by states on capital projects for higher education grew by 146 percent, while state government operations and maintenance spending grew by 118 percent. The six states in this study displayed highly diverse behavior over this period, depending on their baselines in 1977 and the policies they subsequently chose. Virginia was the extreme outlier: It went from capital

spending on higher education of half the real per-capita national average to more than twice that amount, a ten-fold increase. Though politics is inherently uncertain, it is reasonable to assume that the future will bring restraints on federal government spending, pressure to cut grants-in-aid to states, cuts in federal procurement, and uncertainty about federal tax changes. Such developments would hit the states in this study particularly hard. For one thing, they are among the top recipients of federal aid.201 In addition, their businesses and economies have strong links to the federal government. In 2010, Virginia, California, and Texas ranked first, second and third, with New York ninth, in receipts from federal procurement spending.202 Finally, according to the CBO, four of the study states (though not Texas, without a state income tax, or Illinois, with a flat state income tax) benefit more from the deduction than the nation as a whole.203 State treasuries will be hard-pressed to meet budget needs if the federal subsidy for state and local taxpayers disappears. Reports by government, research, and advocacy groups describe a bleak future if America does not address the neglect of transportation infrastructure soon; and the failure of the present Congress to extend existing federal transportation spending legislation does not inspire confidence in the federal commitment to raising and distributing national revenues to fund transportation infrastructure. Transportation costs the average American family more than $8,600 a year, second only to housing expenditures and a third more than food.204 The policy response long promoted by economists and now made possible through efficient technology is to price the use of transportation infrastructure so as to spread the traffic more efficiently and produce from users the revenue needed to build and repair roads and bridges. 205 The Federal Highway Administration considers four types of congestion pricing an option: variable-priced lanes, variable tolls, cordon fees, and area-wide pricing.206 Each of the states in this study has adopted, in selected ways, one or more of these approaches; some have failed to do so in other instances. For none of them has this model proved, yet, to be the total solution for funding transportation needs. Failing Grades and Future Needs The nation’s infrastructure presents a picture of failing report cards, visibly aged facilities, deferred maintenance, and mounting backlogs. The nation needs capital investment: the funding gaps are large. The gap between federal spending and investment needs for highways and transit, alone, is an estimated $400 billion for 2010-2015 or $2.3 trillion for 2010-2035.207 The inability of elected officials – both in Washington DC and at the individual state level – to address the consequences of the diminishing revenues from a crucial revenue source, the gasoline tax, stands out as a prominent public policy failure in recent years.

2AC - Utilities Are Major Cost Maintenance and utilities are a major source of budget stress for school districtsFilardo, Gutter, and Rowland 16 <Mary Filardo, Executive Director of the 21st Century School Fund; Rachel Gutter, Director Center for Green Schools, U.S. Green Building Council; Mike Rowland, State Facilities Director, Georgia Department of Education, 2016 President National Council on School Facilities “State of Our Schools: America’s K–12 Facilities” is a joint publication of the 21st Century School Fund, Inc., U.S. Green Building Council, Inc., and the National Council on School Facilities, https://kapost-files-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/published/56f02c3d626415b792000008/2016-state-of-our-schools-report.pdf?kui=wo7vkgV0wW0LGSjxek0N5A>#SPS

From 1994 through 2013, U.S. K–12 school districts collectively spent $925 billion (in 2014 dollars) on M&O [Maintenance and Operations]— an average of $46 billion each year. This spending was for utilities (electricity and energy for heating and cooling, water, telecommunications, refuse, and recycling services); building security; and labor, material, and contract services for custodial, grounds keeping, and maintenance. Between 1994 and 2013, total spending on M&O increased by 29 percent, from $38 billion to $49 billion; the high-water mark was $55 billion in 2009, before the Great Recession.26 However, in the three years from 2011 to 2013, districts reported spending an annual average of $50 billion a year — nearly 32 percent more, adjusted for inflation, than in 1994. M&O spending is a major cost for school districts; nationally it averaged 10 percent of their annual operating budgets between 1994 and 2013. The states with the lowest shares of M&O spending were Georgia (7.6 percent), Minnesota (7.7 percent), and North Carolina (8.1 percent). Those with the highest shares were Oklahoma (11.1 percent), Arizona (12.1 percent), and Alaska (12.9 percent). (Appendix A includes detailed state-bystate data.) K–12 Public Education Facilities Spending, 1994–2013 CHAPTER 3 14 STATE OF OUR SCHOOLS Over these 20 years, inflation-adjusted M&O spending increased in every state except Michigan. Average annual M&O spending varied greatly by state, as measured by spending per student and per gross square foot. The states that spent the most for M&O per student were Alaska ($2,096), New Jersey ($1,923), and New York ($1,759). At the other end of the range were Utah ($614), Idaho ($639), and North Carolina ($733). The spending per student and spending per square foot are affected by the labor and material costs in a state and the level of building utilization. For example, the average M&O spending per student in California — where schools are still crowded and labor costs are high — was $806 per student and $8.08 per gross square foot. During this same period, North Dakota school districts reported spending nearly the same amount per student ($862) but only $3.55 per gross square foot. Because the M&O data from NCES include the combined costs for cleaning, routine maintenance, utilities, minor repairs, and security, it is impossible to know which element of the total is driving changes in M&O spending. Expenditures for M&O definitely increased due to expanding square footage for maintenance and operations. But costs could be compounded by a lack of capital investment, which leads to more (and expensive) emergency repairs.

2AC - Green Schools Save Money Green schools save moneyChapman 12 <Paul, Inverness Associates is led by Paul Chapman who brings to his consulting a wealth of experience about education and how to develop good schools. His perspective has been shaped by a long career in education in which he served for over 25 years as Head of the Head-Royce School, a K-12 school in Oakland, CA. Previously he was Assistant Head and Academic Dean at San Francisco University High School and Associate Director of Admissions at Reed College in Portland, Oregon, “The Benefits of Green Schools, Finding Your Triple Bottom Line,” Independent School, Fall 2012, http://www.acischools.org/details/134details.pdf>#SPS

Perhaps most important in these tight economic times, green schools can save money. According to the National Wildlife Federation’s Eco-Schools Program, the nation’s schools spend more than $8 billion a year on energy, and as much as 30 percent of that energy is used either inefficiently or unnecessarily . “By being conscious of energy usage and taking advantage of energy efficient technologies,” the Federation argues, “schools have the potential to significantly cut their electricity use, save money, and reduce their burden on the environment.”2 Who could oppose saving money through energy efficiency and a vigorous embrace of renewable energy? These savings can then be allocated to meet more pressing educational needs. A decade ago, in “The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings,” a team of experts sponsored by the California Sustainable Building Task Force and the U.S. Green Building Council argued that “sustainable building is a cost-effective investment” and that the “findings should encourage communities across the country to ‘build green.’”3 They observe: “Integrating ‘sustainable’ or ‘green’ building practices into the construction of state buildings is a solid financial investment… and that a minimal upfront investment of about 2 percent of construction costs typically yields life-cycle savings of over 10 times the initial investment.” The benefits of building green, they argue, “include cost savings from reduced energy, water, and waste; lower operations and maintenance costs; and enhanced occupant productivity and health.” The report has led to powerful change in California schools where the state architect launched a 2007 initiative to produce “grid neutral” schools (schools that produce as much electricity as they use). One public school district in Irvine, California, with 39 campuses and 16 that have solar power, for example, saves an estimated $8 million annually; in time, the entire district will likely become grid neutral.

2AC - Schools Cost States Money States spend money on capital investmentFilardo, Gutter, and Rowland 16 <Mary Filardo, Executive Director of the 21st Century School Fund; Rachel Gutter, Director Center for Green Schools, U.S. Green Building Council; Mike Rowland, State Facilities Director, Georgia Department of Education, 2016 President National Council on School Facilities “State of Our Schools: America’s K–12 Facilities” is a joint publication of the 21st Century School Fund, Inc., U.S. Green Building Council, Inc., and the National Council on School Facilities, https://kapost-files-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/published/56f02c3d626415b792000008/2016-state-of-our-schools-report.pdf?kui=wo7vkgV0wW0LGSjxek0N5A>#SPS

State Funding Support Varies State funding roles and responsibilities for facility adequacy and equity vary widely. Nationally, states covered an average of 19 percent of K–12 public school facilities capital investments over the last 19 years. But in 2015, 12 states provided no direct funding or reimbursements to school districts for capital spending. At the other extreme is Hawaii, a unique state-level education district, which pays for all capital improvements using state funds. In addition, Wyoming has paid for 63 percent of its construction capital costs with state funding as a consequence of a series of state Supreme Court decisions and action on the part of the state legislature.30 Connecticut (57 percent), Delaware (57 percent), Massachusetts (67 percent), and Rhode Island (78 percent) also have assumed the responsibility for most capital investments. Among the other states, the state contribution for capital investments ranges from 1 percent to 37 percent. The share of state revenue for public school construction has increased over the past two decades. For example, the average state share rose from a low of 11 percent in 1999 to 20 percent in 2013. These increases in funding from the states were largely the result of legal challenges to the equity of states’ funding systems, which tie public school funding to the wealth of the local school districts.31

Environment Advantage

2AC - Buildings Key to Warming A new approach to building is critical to solving warmingVisscher et al, 16 – Professor of Housing Quality & Process Innovation - Department of OTB - Research for the Built Environment at the Delft University for Technology (Henk, Jacques Laubscher, Edwin Chan, Building governance and climate change: roles for regulation and related polices, BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION 2016 Vol. 44, Nos. 5–6, 461–467, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2016.1182786)

The contribution of buildings to climate change has become widely acknowledged. On 3 December 2015, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) held the first ‘buildings day’ at COP 21 (the UN Climate Change Conference) devoted to the decarbonization of the building stock. There are several forms of negative contributions that buildings make to climate change, but high on the list are embodied and operational energy demands, which largely depend on fossil fuels and result in greenhouse gas emissions.

Given the urgency of the risks associated with climate change, the mandate to contain global warming to 1.5– 2.08C and the urgency to reduce energy demand and decarbonize radically , a key challenge is what actions can be taken across a whole suite of areas relating to the building stock . Over the past 18 years, there have been several Building Research & Information special issues exploring this theme in terms of technical, social, environmental and economic aspects as well as numerous papers in regular issues.

This special issue explores the governance options and regimes for addressing climate change in the building stock. Specifically, it investigates how building regulatory systems and related polices are addressing the current and future effects of climate change . It considers alternative governance approaches. Key questions are whether the focus and scope of building regulations are adequate, what can be done to improve them, how to accelerate change, what other regimes and policies are needed, whether more flexibility in regulation is needed and whether today’s regulations sufficiently anticipate tomorrow’s problems and needs. In posing these questions, one must ask what is a clear, efficient, transparent policy (and process) for ensuring radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from both individual buildings and the building stock as a whole and when/how the regulations are applied over the various stages of a building’s life.

Although notable exceptions exist, the current approach to regulatory codes in the built environment largely originates from the past . It continues to be influenced by past events where adverse conditions often resulted in loss of human life and much financial damage. The result of this approach is not only a long time lag with the current requirements of the built environment but also a failure to anticipate and plan for the current challenges of mitigation and adaptation to climate change . It is evident that building regulations have been slow to engage with mitigating climate change and their design may not be suited to the task. Many traditional regulatory systems tend to be mandatory and prescriptive. One way to address these challenges is for the governance of buildings to embrace more integrative solutions that may include voluntary alternative approaches. These voluntary approaches are initially established to provide some incentives or recognition for buildings that meet higher requirements. Some of these approaches are market based, others are led by altruistic concerns.

The safety and health of building users are still the main influence on the present regulatory system for the built environment, although regulation has considerably tightened over the past 30–40 years on some issues involving energy efficiency. When considered against the background of the Brundtland Report: Our Common Future (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987), the lack of progress in the governance of the building stock is notable. For example, current building regulations take little account of dwindling resource availability and the impact of future climate change on buildings. These challenges necessitate a different regulatory approach in terms of the scope of concerns, and the points of intervention over the life cycle of a building.

2AC - Green Schools Spill Over Green schools spill over Zhao, He, and Meng 15 <Dong-Xue Zhao, School of Environment and Architecture, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Bao-Jie He, School of Environment and Architecture, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, and Fan-QinMeng, School of Environment and Architecture, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology; “The green school project: A means of speeding up sustainable development?,” Geoforum, Volume 65, October 2015, Pages 310-313, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718515301652>#SPS

3. The importance to promote green school campus For energy and environment related professionals, policy makers, students and researchers on environment and energy, they can accurately understand the above agreements and regulations, and they can actively put in place practices to protect environment and save energy. However, for personnel without any relation to these professions, they cannot fully understand these agreements and they have no idea on how to perform a sustainable concept. At present, although we have made great achievements, what we are doing is far from enough for universal access to sustainable development. Presently, to actively respond to sustainable development initiatives, many areas have carried out green community activities. Schools not only have to provide students with a good living environment, but also is also potentially the birthplace of advanced ideas and trends; hence the green school project is rising quietly in some areas of China (Choi et al., 2014). By providing students with energy conservation and environmental protection context, students’ consciousness of sustainable development will be greatly enhanced, at the same time they can actively participate in the green energy-saving campaign. Once they get out of the campus, they will become the main force of sustainable development. So it is of great significance to popularize the sustainable development (Simpson, 2003).

2AC - Impact Extension Warming is real, anthropogenic, and threatens extinction --- prefer new evidence that represents consensusGriffin, Claremont philosophy professor, 2015

(David, “The climate is ruined. So can civilization even survive?”, 4-14, http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/14/opinion/co2-crisis-griffin/)

Although most of us worry about other things, climate scientists have become increasingly worried about the survival of civilization. For example, Lonnie Thompson, who received the U.S. National Medal of Science in 2010, said that virtually all climatologists "are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization." Informed journalists share this concern.

The climate crisis "threatens the survival of our civilization," said Pulitzer Prize-winner Ross Gelbspan. Mark Hertsgaard agrees, saying that the continuation of global warming "would create planetary conditions all but certain to end civilization as we know it." These scientists and journalists, moreover, are worried not only about the distant future but about the condition of the planet for their own children and grandchildren. James Hansen, often considered the world's leading climate scientist, entitled his book "Storms of

My Grandchildren." The threat to civilization comes primarily from the increase of the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, due largely to the burning of fossil fuels. Before the rise of the industrial age, CO2 constituted only 275 ppm (parts per million) of the

atmosphere. But it is now above 400 and rising about 2.5 ppm per year. Because of the CO2 increase, the planet's average temperature has increased 0.85 degrees Celsius (1.5 degrees Fahrenheit). Although this increase may not seem much, it has already brought about serious changes. The idea that we will be safe from "dangerous climate change" if we do not exceed a temperature rise of 2C (3.6F) has been widely accepted. But many informed people have rejected this assumption. In the opinion of journalist-turned-activist Bill McKibben, "the one degree we've raised the temperature already has melted the Arctic, so we're fools to find out what two will do." His warning is supported by James Hansen, who declared that "a target of two degrees (Celsius) is

actually a prescription for long-term disaster." The burning of coal, oil, and natural gas has made the planet warmer than it had been since the rise of civilization 10,000 years ago. Civilization was made possible by the emergence about 12,000 years ago of the "Holocene" epoch, which turned out to be the Goldilocks zone - not too hot, not too cold. But now, says physicist Stefan Rahmstorf, "We are catapulting ourselves way out of the Holocene." This catapult is dangerous , because we have no evidence civilization can long survive with significantly higher temperatures . And yet,

the world is on a trajectory that would lead to an increase of 4C (7F) in this century. In the opinion of many scientists and the World Bank, this could happen as early as the 2060s. What would "a 4C world" be like? According to Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research (at the University of East Anglia), "during New York's summer heat waves the warmest days would be around 10-12C (18-21.6F) hotter [than today's]." Moreover, he has said, above an increase of 4C only about 10% of the human population will survive. Believe it or not, some scientists consider Anderson overly optimistic. The main reason for pessimism is the fear that the planet's temperature may be close to a tipping point that would initiate a "low-end runaway greenhouse," involving "out-of-control amplifying feedbacks." This condition would result, says Hansen, if all fossil fuels are burned (which is the intention of all fossil-fuel corporations and many

governments). This result "would make most of the planet uninhabitable by humans." Moreover, many scientists believe that runaway global warming could occur much more quickly, because the rising temperature caused by CO2 could release massive amounts of methane (CH4), which is, during its first 20 years, 86 times more powerful than CO2 . Warmer weather induces this release from carbon that has been stored in methane hydrates, in which enormous amounts of carbon -- four times as much as that emitted from fossil fuels since 1850 -- has been frozen in the Arctic's permafrost. And yet now the Arctic's temperature is warmer than it had been for 120,000 years -- in other words, more than 10 times longer than civilization has existed. According to Joe Romm, a physicist who created the Climate Progress website, methane release from thawing permafrost in the Arctic "is the most dangerous amplifying feedback in the entire carbon cycle." The amplifying feedback works like this: The warmer

temperature releases millions of tons of methane, which then further raise the temperature, which in turn releases more methane. The resulting threat of runaway global warming may not be merely theoretical. Scientists have long been convinced that methane was central to the fastest period of global warming in geological history, which occurred 55 million years ago. Now a group of scientists have accumulated evidence that methane was also central to the greatest extinction of life thus far: the end-Permian extinction about 252 million years ago. Worse yet, whereas it was previously

thought that significant amounts of permafrost would not melt, releasing its methane, until the planet's temperature has risen several degrees Celsius, recent studies indicate that a rise of 1.5

degrees would be enough to start the melting. What can be done then? Given the failure of political leaders to deal with the CO2 problem, it is now too late to prevent terrible developments. But it may -- just may -- be possible to keep global warming from bringing about the destruction of civilization. To have a chance, we must , as Hansen says, do everything possible to "keep climate close to the Holocene range" -- which means, mobilize the whole world to replace dirty energy with clean as soon as possible.

Warming causes extinction and turns every impactCribb, 17—principal of JCA, Fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, former Director, National Awareness, CSIRO (Julian, “The Baker,” Surviving the 21st Century Chapter 4, pg 91-94, dml)

This event, known as the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum or PETM, happened only about ten million years after the dinosaurs were smashed by an asteroid impact. This ‘hyperthermal’ period took place quite suddenly (in geological terms)—in less than 2000 years—and lasted for about 170,000 years before the planet again cooled. The heat spike was accompanied by a major wipe-out of ocean life in particular, though most small land mammals survived. Investigating the records of old marine sediments Zeebe was able to show there had been a sharp, 70 %, leap in atmospheric CO 2 concentrations at the time. However, he concluded there was only sufficient carbon available to force the climate to warm by 1–3 °C and that some other mechanism must have been triggered by the initial warming, which then drove the Earth’s temperature to fever pitch, up by another 4–6 °C (Zeebe et al. 2009). This process is the ‘ runaway global warming ‘ which now menaces us .

The significance of PETM is that it appears that about the same volume of carbon was dumped by natural processes into the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans as humans are currently dumping with the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of the world’s forests—about 3 trillion tonnes in all—and it was this that triggered the hyperthermal surge in planetary heating.

As to the mechanism that could suddenly release a huge amount of extra carbon into the atmosphere and oceans and project global temperatures up by 6–9 °C, the most likely explanation is the one described at the start of this chapter—the rapid melting and escape of billions of tonnes of frozen methane, CH 4 , currently locked in tundra and seabed sediments. This phenomenon, dubbed the “clathrate gun ” (Kennett et al. 2003), is now linked by scientists not only with the PETM event but also, according to palaeontologist Peter Ward, with the Great Death of the Permian, the worst annihilation in the history of life on Earth (Ward 2008). The significance of the clathrates is that they consist of methane, a gas that is 72 times more powerful than CO 2 as a climate forcing agent in the short run, and 25 times stronger over a century or so. The clathrates could be released by a process known as ‘ ocean overturning ’, a shift in global current patterns caused by moderate warming , which brings warmer water from the surface down into the depths, to melt the deposits of frozen gas. Unlocking several trillion tonnes of methane would cause global temperatures to rocket upwards sharply . Once such a process gets under way, most experts consider, warming will happen so fast it is doubtful if humans could do anything to stop it even if they instantly ceased all burning of fossil fuels.

This ‘ double whammy ’ of global warming caused by humans releasing three trillion tonnes of fossil carbon which then precipitates an uncontrollable second phase driven by the melting of all or part of

the five trillion tonnes of natural methane deposits (Buff et & Archer 2004) is the principal threat to civilisation in the twenty-first century and, combined with nuclear conflict (Chap. 4), to the survival of the human species.

The IPCC’s fifth report states that the melting of between 37 and 81 % of the world’s tundra permafrost is ‘virtually certain’ adding “There is a high risk of substantial carbon and methane emissions as a result of permafrost thawing ” ((IPCC 2014a), p. 74). This could involve the venting of as much as 920 billion tonnes of carbon. However, the Panel did not venture an estimate for methane emissions from the melting of the far larger seabed clathrates and a number of scientists have publicly criticised the world’s leading climate body for remaining so close-lipped about this mega-threat to human existence. The IPCC’s reticence is thought to be founded on a lack of adequate scientific data to make a pronouncement with confidence—and partly to fear of the mischief which the fossil fuels lobby would make of any premature estimates. However, it critics argue, by the time we know for sure that the Arctic and seabed methane is escaping in large volumes, it will be too late to do anything about it.

The difficulty is that no-one knows how quickly the Earth will heat up, as this depends on something that cannot be scientifically predicted: the behaviour of the whole human species and the timeliness with which we act. Failure to abolish carbon emissions in time will make a 4–5 °C rise in temperature likely. As to what that may mean, here are some eminent opinions :

• Warming of 5 °C will mean the planet can support fewer than 1 billion people—Hans-Joachim Shellnhuber, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (Kanter 2009)

• With temperature increases of 4–7 °C billions of people will have to move and there will be very severe conflict—Nicholas Stern, London School of Economics (Kanter 2009)

• Food shortages, refugee crises, flooding of major cities and entire island nations, mass extinction of plants and animals, and a climate so drastically altered it may be dangerous for people to work or play outside during the hottest times of the year—IPCC Fifth Assessment (IPCC 2014b)

• Corn and soybean yields in the US may decrease by 63–82 %—Schlenker and Roberts, Arizona State University (Schlenker & Roberts 2009a)

• Up to 35% of the Earth’s species will be committed to extincti on —Chris Thomas, University of Leeds (Thomas et al. 2004)

• Total polar melting combined with thermal expansion could involve sea levels eventually rising by 65 m (180 ft), i.e. to the 20th floor of tall buildings, drowning most of the world’s coastal cities and displacing a third or more of the human population (Winkelmann et al. 2015)

• Intensified global instability , hunger , poverty and conflict . Food and water shortages , pandemic disease , disputes over refugees and resources , and destruction by natural disasters in regions across the globe—Chuck Hagel, US Secretary for Defence (Hagel 2014)

• “Almost inconceivable challenges as human society struggles to adapt… billions of people forced to relocate.… worsening tensions especially over resources… armed conflict is likely and nuclear war is possible ”— Kurt Campbell, Center for Strategic and International Studies (Campell et al. 2007).

• “Unless we get control of (global warming), it will mean our extinction eventually”—Helen Berry, Canberra University (Snow & Hannam 2014).

2AC Cuts Key It is real and anthropogenic—rapid cuts now are key to check the worst impactsMilman, 8-30—the Guardian, citing Gavin Schmidt, director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Oliver, “Nasa: Earth is warming at a pace 'unprecedented in 1,000 years',” https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/30/nasa-climate-change-warning-earth-temperature-warming, dml)

The planet is warming at a pace not experienced within the past 1,000 years , at least, making it “ very unlikely ” that the world will stay within a crucial temperature limit agreed by nations just last year, according to Nasa’s top climate scientist . This year has already seen scorching heat around the world , with the average global temperature peaking at 1.38C above levels experienced in the 19th century, perilously close to the 1.5C limit agreed in the landmark Paris climate accord. July was the warmest month since modern record keeping began in 1880, with each month since October 2015 setting a new high mark for heat. But Nasa said that records of temperature that go back far further , taken via analysis of ice cores and sediments , suggest that the warming of recent decades is out of step with any period over the past millennium. “In the last 30 years we’ve really moved into exceptional territory,” Gavin Schmidt, director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said. “It’s unprecedented in 1,000 years . There’s no period that has the trend seen in the 20th century in terms of the inclination (of temperatures).” “Maintaining temperatures below the 1.5C guardrail requires significant and very rapid cuts in carbon dioxide emissions or co-ordinated geo-engineering. That is very unlikely. We are not even yet making emissions cuts commensurate with keeping warming below 2C.” Schmidt repeated his previous prediction that there is a 99% chance that 2016 will be the warmest year on record , with around 20% of the heat attributed to a strong El Niño climatic event. Last year is currently the warmest year on record, itself beating a landmark set in 2014. “It’s the long-term trend we have to worry about though and there’s no evidence it’s going away and lots of reasons to think it’s here to stay ,” Schmidt said. “There’s no pause or hiatus in temperature increase. People who think this is over are viewing the world through rose-tinted spectacles . This is a chronic problem for society for the next 100 years.” Schmidt is the highest-profile scientist to effectively write-off the 1.5C target , which was adopted at December’s UN summit after heavy lobbying from island nations that risk being inundated by rising seas if temperatures exceed this level. Recent research found that just five more years of carbon dioxide emissions at current levels will virtually wipe out any chance of restraining temperatures to a 1.5C increase and avoid runaway climate change . Temperature reconstructions by Nasa, using work from its sister agency the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, found that the global temperature typically rose by between 4-7C over a period of 5,000 years as the world moved out of ice ages. The temperature rise clocked up over the past century is around 10 times faster than this previous rate of warming. The increasing pace of warming means that the world will heat up at a rate “at least” 20 times faster than the historical average over the coming 100 years , according to Nasa. The comparison of recent temperatures to the paleoclimate isn’t exact, as it matches modern record-keeping to proxies taken from ancient layers of glacier ice, ocean sediments and rock. Scientists are able to gauge greenhouse gas levels stretching back more than 800,000 years but the certainty around the composition of previous climates is stronger within the past 1,000 years. While it’s still difficult to compare a single year to another prior to the 19th century, a Nasa reconstruction shows that the pace

of temperature increase over recent decades outstrips anything that has occurred since the year 500 . Lingering carbon dioxide already emitted from power generation, transport and agriculture is already likely to raise sea levels by around three feet by the end of the century, and potentially by 70 feet in the centuries to come. Increasing temperatures will shrink the polar ice caps , make large areas of the Middle East and North Africa unbearable to live in and accelerate what’s known as Earth’s “sixth mass extinction ” of animal species.

2AC Carbon Sinks It’s not too late to solve warming, but delays risk crossing critical thresholds that make the planet uninhabitable---only the plan maintains climate stability by both restricting emissions below 350PPM and repairing carbon sinks. Wood & Woodward 16 (Mary Christina Wood, Philip H. Knight Professor at the University of Oregon School of Law and Faculty Director of the school’s Environmental and Natural Resources Law Program, & Charles W. Woodward, J.D. University of Oregon School of Law, “ATMOSPHERIC TRUST LITIGATION AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A HEALTHY CLIMATE SYSTEM: JUDICIAL RECOGNITION AT LAST”, https://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/1607/6WJELP633.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y)

Amidst now common reports of global heating, glacier melt, sea level rise, ocean acidification, species extinction, persistent droughts, and other consequences of human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the 2015 United Nations Conference on Climate Change brought unprecedented international media attention to the planet’s climate crisis. Although the resulting accord ultimately fell short of presenting an adequate and substantive response, the Conference of Parties held in Paris (COP21) underscored the urgency at hand.1 Scientists have been predicting staggering damage to our lives and environment from climate change for some time.2 A recent report of the U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program says unequivocally: “Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present. . . . Precipitation patterns are changing, sea level is rising, the oceans are becoming more acidic, and the frequency and intensity of some extreme weather events are increasing.” 3 The year 2015 closed as the hottest year on record.4 The failure of international climate negotiations to adequately address climate disruption presents an unsettling backdrop for the ever-increasing clarion calls from the scientific community urging robust, decisive action . As Dr. James Hansen, former Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, stated: “[F]ailure to act with all deliberate speed in the face of the clear scientific evidence of the danger functionally becomes a decision to eliminate the option of preserving a habitable climate system .” 5This Article spotlights a recent Washington case, Foster v. Washington Department of Ecology, which breaks new judicial ground in forcing governments to control dangerous GHG emissions. The case is part of an urgent global litigation campaign known as Atmospheric Trust Litigation (ATL). The Article begins by summarizing the actions deemed necessary by scientists to avert climate catastrophe, and describes the ATL campaign that formed in response. Part II explains the public trust framework, which provides the legal foundation for this climate litigation. Part III examines the three stages of atmospheric trust cases and describes the litigation up until the Foster decision. Finally, Part IV analyzes the Foster decision for its path-breaking role and potential effect on the ATL climate campaign as a whole.

Carbon dioxide pollution not only disrupts the planet’s climate system but also imperils the world’s oceans. The oceans operate as natural carbon “sinks” absorbing carbon dioxide (CO2). This absorption causes a series of chemical reactions in marine water and results in ocean acidification. 6 In fact, since the Industrial Revolution, about one-third of human carbon emissions have been absorbed by the oceans, and unsurprisingly, the oceans are now thirty percent more acidic.7 Ocean acidification threatens biodiversity, fisheries, and aquaculture, undermines the food security of millions of people, and jeopardizes tourism and other sea-related economies.8

Atmospheric energy imbalances also warm the oceans. In the annual 2014 State of the Climate Report, United States’ government scientists reported record warming on the surface and upper levels of the oceans, with the Pacific Ocean registering four to five degrees Fahrenheit above normal.9 The oceans absorb more than ninety percent of man-made heat energy driving global warming. The rate of heat absorption has doubled since 1997.10 To put the matter into staggering perspective, half of the approximately 300ZJ11 of total heat energy absorbed by the planet since 1865 is attributable to the last eighteen years.12 Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein makes this analogy: in the last eighteen years alone, “Earth’s oceans have absorbed man-made heat energy equivalent to a Hiroshima-style bomb being exploded every second for seventy-five straight years.” 13

This marine warming brings devastating consequences for coral reefs, the oceans’ “rainforests.” 14 In 2015, half of the corals in the Caribbean Sea died after warming waters sparked a massive bleaching event, and U.S. scientists predict that the warm temperatures of 2016 will cause an additional sixpercent loss of coral reefs worldwide in that year alone.15 A survey conducted in early 2016 of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef reinforces the U.S. scientists’ predictions, finding that ninety-three percent of Australia’s reefs are already bleached, with the northern reefs suffering nearly fifty percent coral death.16

More recently, scientists have discovered significant oxygen depletion as a result of this heating.17 Overall, with each degree increase in ocean temperature, the oxygen concentration in the water decreases by two percent.18 Additionally, higher water temperatures decrease the rate of ocean circulation, causing stratification where the oxygen-rich upper layers mix less with the oxygen-depleted deeper layers.19 Over the past ten years, oxygen levels in the deep waters off the southern coast of California have decreased by twenty percent.20 While higher temperatures slow the rate of ocean circulation, the warmer waters also boost the metabolism of marine life, increasing their need for oxygen, and thereby further exacerbating the devastating effects of the warming ocean on marine ecology.21

Because humans today are both increasing carbon emissions into the atmosphere and also destroying the planet’s natural carbon sinks , the forests and oceans , the Earth’s climate system has lurched into a perilous imbalance.22 The dual, worsening crises of climate disruption and dying oceans cannot find relief without slashing greenhouse gas emissions across the globe. Though considerable climate harm is irrevocably underway, many leading scientists say it is still possible to restore climate equilibrium over

the long term. Such an effort requires reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to 350 parts per million (ppm), the uppermost level to limit total average planetary heating to a safe zone of one degree Celsius.23 In 2010, recognizing the need to quantify—for policymakers, judges, and citizens—the emissions reduction necessary to stay within the safe zone, NASA’s chief climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen, convened an international team of scientists to create a climate prescription for the planet.24

The resulting prescription addresses both carbon emissions and the planet’s natural carbon absorption mechanisms, as they are inextricably linked. The first part of the climate prescription calls for a dramatic slash of carbon emissions well beyond those targeted at COP21 . The prescription presents a trajectory, or “glidepath,” of annual emissions reduction towards an ultimate goal of near-zero emissions .25 The team stated that global emissions reduction of six percent annually, beginning in year 2013, was required to reach 350 ppm by the end of the century.26 Delaying reduction in carbon emissions sharply increases the level of necessary yearly reductions —to a point at which the reductions ultimately become too steep to plausibly salvage a habitable planet .27 For example, the Hansen team estimated that, had concerted action started in 2005, emissions reduction of just 3.5% a year could have restored equilibrium by the end of the century, yet in just eight years of inaction, that figure climbed to six percent a year.28 The scientists project that, if emissions reduction is delayed until 2020, society would need to reduce emissions by fifteen percent a year.29 At some point, the necessary cuts become too drastic for global society to accomplish . As the Hansen team emphasized: “[I]t is urgent that large, long-term emissions reductions begin soon.” 30

Moreover, it is important to understand that reducing emissions alone is not adequate to restore climate equilibrium. Because approximately forty percent of emissions persist in the atmosphere for over a thousand years at present removal rates, any planetary atmospheric rescue effort must also focus on remov ing much of the carbon dioxide that has already accumulated in the atmosphere.31 Accordingly, the second part of the scientific climate prescription addresses the “drawdown” of carbon dioxide through massive reforestation (because trees naturally absorb carbon dioxide) and improved agricultural measures (because soil also absorbs carbon dioxide). The Hansen team calculated that a full-scale massive restoration program consisting of reforestation and soil measures can draw down about 100 gigatons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, an amount key to restoring atmospheric carbon levels to 350 ppm.32

The global challenge of CO2 emissions reduction finds unprecedented urgency due to nature’s own “tipping points”— thresholds beyond which dangerous feedback processes are triggered. Such feedbacks can unleash uncontrollable , irreversible, “runaway” heating capable of destroying the balance of the planet ’s climate system .33 Such tipping points form the crux of the scientific community’s call for urgent action. Recognizing this danger, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stated in one climate case: “Several studies also show that climate change may be non-linear , meaning that there are positive feedback mechanisms that may push global warming past a dangerous threshold (the ‘tipping point’).” 34 Once fully triggered, these feedback loops continue despite any subsequent carbon reductions achieved by humanity.35

Though the precise threshold of atmospheric CO2 that represents the point-of-no-return is unknown,36 the global concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has surpassed 400 ppm.37 Already, some dangerous feedback loops are manifestly in motion . Vast areas of melting permafrost now release huge amounts of CO2 and methane (both of which are greenhouse gasses) into the atmosphere,38 and melting polar ice

caps intensify the heating, because less ice remains to reflect heat away from Earth—a dynamic known as the albedo effect.39 Gus Speth, the former Dean of the Yale School of Forestry, warns that if we maintain our largely inadequate course of action, the world “won’t be fit to live in” by mid-century .40

B. Atmospheric Trust Litigation: The Planet on the Docket

With such feedback loops looming, a rapid and decisive response to the planet’s atmospheric crisis is paramount to overcoming an existential threat to global civilization. As an indicator of the growing international recognition of climate danger, the recent COP21 talks in Paris produced an accord aiming to limit planetary heating to 1.5ºC.41 Despite this aspirational goal, the actual plans submitted by the participating countries would result in only half of the required greenhouse gas reductions necessary to limit the increase to just two degrees Celsius.42 Thus, while the remedy for the climate change crisis increasingly becomes more difficult and more expensive, not only in terms of monetary cost but in societal and cultural upheaval as well, the Paris accord continued the pattern of inadequate international action.43 Indeed, the failure of the Paris talks demonstrates that domestic processes must provide the imperative for carbon reduction . As Johannes Urpelainen of Columbia University summarized, “[i]n the end, the future of climate mitigation remains in the hands of national governments, political parties, interest groups, [and] sub-national jurisdictions.” 44

On the domestic level, the judiciary represents the third branch of government , and a latecomer to the crisis that has worsened in the hands of the legislative and executive branches . Only recently have citizens asserted through lawsuits their fundamental rights as a basis for climate action. Most notably, the global campaign known as Atmospheric Trust Litigation (ATL) was launched in 2011 to provide a legal structure geared toward forcing urgent emissions reduction around the world.45 ATL’s approach recognizes that, while there is no panacea to a climate negotiation stalemate , domestic courts have the power to order the political branches to take swift and decisive action responsive to the climate crisis .

In the first week of May 2011, young people organized by the non-profit Our Children’s Trust initiated legal processes in every state in the U.S. and began plans for suits in other countries as well.46 The original legal “hatch” consisted of lawsuits and administrative petitions filed against all fifty states and the federal government.47 The campaign represented an unprecedented effort at forcing a coherent approach to a global problem using the judicial system. All of the legal processes invoked the p ublic t rust d octrine and declared a uniform sovereign trust duty to protect the atmosphere needed by the youth and future generations for their long-term survival. The petitions and lawsuits all demanded enforceable Climate Recovery Plans from government trustees to reduce carbon emissions at the rate called for by the scientific prescription formulated by the Hansen team of scientists (or best available science).48 These plans would be backed up by annual carbon accountings to show compliance with the prescription. More than a dozen renowned scientists and experts submitted declarations in support of the litigation, and a nationwide group of law professors submitted amicus briefs supporting the youth plaintiffs in key ATL cases.

Unlike prior climate litigation brought under statutory law or nuisance law suits geared towards isolated parts of the climate problem, ATL presented for the first time a macro approach to climate crisis by focusing on the atmosphere as a single public trust asset in its entirety. The approach characterizes all nations on Earth as sovereign co-trustees of the atmosphere , bound together in a property-based framework of corollary and mutual responsibilities. As trustees, all nations owe a

primary fiduciary obligation toward their citizen beneficiaries to restore the atmospheric energy balance and climate system .

Emissions past climatic tipping elements cause disastrous ecological and social consequencesKopp et al 16 – Robert E. Kopp, Assistant Professor in the Department of Earth & Planetary Sciences and Associate Director of the Rutgers Energy Institute, Ph.D. in geobiology from Caltech, Rachael Shwom, Associate Professor, Department of Human Ecology, Rutgers University, Ph.D. in Sociology from Michigan State University, Gernot Wagner, Research associate and lecturer at Harvard, senior economist at the Environmental Defense Fund, Ph.D. in Political economy and Government from Harvard, Jiacan Yuan, Post-Doctoral Associate. Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences. School of Arts and Sciences, Ph.D. Meteorology, Peking University (“Tipping elements and climate-economic shocks: Pathways toward integrated assessment,” Earth’s Future, https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1603/1603.00850.pdf)

Nordhaus and Boyer [2000]’s list highlighted some potential state shifts in climatic tipping elements: a rapid sea-level rise driven by West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapse or by other sources; shifts in weather patterns like the Indian Summer Monsoon or

the West African Monsoon; shutdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC); or ‘runaway’ increases in climate sensitivity. Other studies have highlighted additional candidates, ranging from a collapse of Arctic summer sea ice, to ecological regime shifts in the Amazon or the Sahel, to a massive release of carbon from permafrost or seafloor methane hydrates [Lenton et al., 2008; National Research Council, 2013]. Modeling studies have revealed the potential for an atmospheric superrotation threshold that rapidly increases climate sensitivity by changing planetary cloudiness [Caballero and Huber, 2013; Pierrehumbert, 2013], Arctic winter sea ice collapse, and an abrupt drop in the volume of snow on the Tibetan Plateau [Drijfhout et al., 2015]. Some of these candidate tipping elements may exhibit Gladwellian tipping points, and so we categorize them as potentially Gladwellian tipping elements; others exhibit

a nonGladwellian disconnect between committed and realized change, and so we categorize them as non-Gladwellian (see Table 1 for an illustrative list). Potentially Gladwellian tipping elements generally involve components of the Earth systems with response timescales on the order of a decade or less. These components – many of which play an important role in ‘fast’ climate feedbacks [e.g.,

PALAEOSENS Project, 2012] – include the atmosphere, the surface ocean, and sea ice ; slower responding components, such as ice sheets or the deep ocean, introduce significant lags between commitment to a state shift and its realization. We describe some examples in greater depth below. 3.1 Potentially Gladwellian tipping elements AMOC is perhaps the most iconic climatic tipping element, and paleoclimatic evidence suggests that it can indeed exhibit Gladwellian behavior. Reconstructions based on Atlantic basin carbon isotopic records [Sarnthein et al., 1994] suggest that AMOC exhibited three modes during the last 30,000 years: a “normal” mode, similar to today, with vigorous North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW) forming in the Nordic Sea; a “slowed down” mode, with reduced NADW formed to the south of Iceland; and a “collapsed” mode, in which NADW formation ceased and Antarctic Bottom Water filled the Atlantic basin [Alley and Clark, 1999; Rahmstorf, 2002]. Abrupt Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) climatic oscillations during the last glacial period [Dansgaard et al., 1982] are thought to be expressions of transition between the AMOC modes [Buizert and Schmittner, 2015]. Geochemical proxies from the Bermuda Rise show that slowdowns and collapses of the AMOC occurred during Heinrich events, when icebergs discharge into the North Atlantic freshened the surface water, with no evidence for lags [Böhm et al., 2015]. While D-O and Heinrich events occur during glacial periods, AMOC has also exhibited instability during past interglacials. Based on sedimentary carbon isotopes from Eirik Drift, near Greenland, Galaasen et al. [2014] found abrupt, multicentennial reduction in NADW during the Last Interglacial (~116–128 thousand years ago), with the largest and longest NADW reduction immediately following an outburst flood and a marked surface freshening event. AMOC stability has also been investigated with numerical models of various complexities [Stommel, 1961; Bryan, 1986; Hawkins et al., 2011; Weaver et al., 2012]. In models, the existence of stable multiple equilibria for AMOC relies on the salt-advection feedback [Stommel, 1961]: a weakened AMOC decreases salinity in the North Atlantic and thus reduces the rate of deep water formation, which leads to further AMOC slowdown. In hosing experiments, which add freshwater to the North Atlantic, AMOC transitions to a collapsed mode once the input freshwater exceeds a threshold (~0.1-0.5 Sverdrups; [Rahmstorf, 2005]). AMOC also exhibits hysteresis: in order to restore the circulation once the system collapses, freshwater forcing must be reduced below a threshold that is smaller than the threshold originally required to cause the collapse [Rahmstorf, 1996, 2005; Hawkins et al., 2011]. Although Southern Ocean warming associated with increased radiative forcing may increase the stability of AMOC and the threshold for freshwater-induced AMOC collapse [Buizert and Schmittner, 2015], North Atlantic surface warming reduces the density of water there, which inhibits deep water formation and weakens the AMOC in CMIP5 models [Mikolajewicz and Voss, 2000; Gregory et al., 2005; National Research Council, 2013]. Therefore, AMOC strength is projected to decrease by the end of the century even in the low-emissions RCP 2.6 pathway; the magnitude of the decrease ranges between 5%–40% under RCP 4.5 and 15%–60% under RCP 8.5 [Weaver et al., 2012; Cheng et al., 2013]. A full collapse of AMOC in the 21st century is absent in most models except for FIO-ESM [Drijfhout et al., 2015]. Based on model projections, National Research Council [2013] concluded that an abrupt slowdown or collapse of the AMOC due to anthropogenic forcing is very unlikely to occur in the 21st century. AMOC transports a large amount of heat northward (up to 1x1015 W) [Ganachaud and Wunsch, 2000], so its changes have large impacts on regional temperature and precipitation in the North Atlantic and the Northern Hemisphere. The slowdown of AMOC may be an important contributing factor for the “global warming hole” in the North Atlantic south of Greenland [Drijfhout et al., 2012; Woollings et al., 2012b; Rahmstorf et al., 2015], where surface temperature displays a cooling trend that contrasts with the global warming trend [Rahmstorf et al., 2015]. Hosing experiments in coupled climate models [Laurian et al., 2009; Drijfhout, 2010, 2015; Jackson et al., 2015] suggest that full collapse of the AMOC results in a significant northern hemisphere cooling (~2-5°C in the subtropical gyre [Jackson et al., 2015]) and modest southern hemisphere warming (<1°C in most regions; [Jackson et al., 2015]). These asymmetric temperature changes led to a decrease in global mean temperature (~0.7°C in the ECHAM5/MPI-OM model [Laurian et al., 2009]) that offsets about ~15-20 years of global warming and causes a ~40-50 year warming hiatus [Drijfhout, 2015]. AMOC slowdown could also impact atmospheric circulations in several ways, including strengthening the North Atlantic storm track or reducing the frequency of ‘polar low’ cyclones in the subpolar North Atlantic [Woollings et al., 2012a, 2012b]. It could also lead to poleward expansion of Hadley cells [Drijfhout, 2010], which may decrease precipitation over the Northern Hemispheric midlatitudes and shift the Intertropical Convergence Zone southward [Jackson et al., 2015]. The general cooling and atmospheric circulation changes would result in weaker peak river flows and vegetation productivity, which may raise issues of water availability and crop production [Jackson et al., 2015]. Slowdown of the AMOC would also cause large and potentially rapid dynamic sea level changes; a collapse could raise sea level along the North American

Atlantic coast by as much as ~0.5 m [Gregory and Lowe, 2000; Levermann et al., 2005]. Both observational and modeling evidence suggests that, if it is a true tipping element, Arctic sea ice exhibits Gladwellian behavior. Observations show a significant decrease in seaice area in

response to recent warming, with linear trends of –54.6 ± 3.7 x103 km2 /year annually and –89.0 ± 9.5 x103 km2 /year in September between 1978 and 2013 [Stroeve et al., 2011, 2012; Simmonds, 2015]. Using the ECHAM5/MPI-OM GCM, Li et al. [2013] found no lag between changes in Northern Hemispheric temperature and changes Arctic sea ice area.

Arctic sea ice also has the potential to be a tipping element , as sea-ice loss can be amplified by feedbacks involving ice albedo, the warming effects of convective clouds, the open-water formation efficiency of thin ice,

and the increased temperature responsiveness of thinner, younger ice [Drijfhout et al., 2015]. Energy balance models and single

column models [Rose and Marshall, 2009; Björk et al., 2013] suggest that Arctic sea ice has a critical threshold below which rapid ice-cover shrinkage will occur and lead the Arctic to be seasonally ice free [Notz, 2009]. Bjork et al. [2013] placed this threshold at an annual-mean ice thickness of 1.7–2.0 m, but the tipping behavior of Arctic sea ice simulated in comprehensive GCMs is still controversial [Armour et al., 2011; Ridley et al., 2012; Li et al., 2013; Wagner and Eisenman, 2015]. In ECHAM5/MPI-OM, Li et al. [2013] found that summer sea-ice area declines linearly in response to increased CO2 concentration, while winter sea-ice area shows a rapid transition (at a temperature higher than that which causes a complete loss of summer sea ice) to a nearly ice-free state. On the other hand, an abrupt transition of Arctic sea ice is not found in any season in CCSM3 [Armour et al., 2011] or HadCM3 [Ridley et al., 2012]. There is also no consensus on the persistence or hysteresis of Arctic sea decline in comprehensive

GCMs [Armour et al., 2011; Li et al., 2013; Wagner and Eisenman, 2015]. In CMIP5 climate models, increasing greenhouse gas are projected to drive a steady decrease in Arctic sea ice, with a possibility of ice-free summer within a few decades [Stroeve et al., 2012; Overland and Wang, 2013; Overland et al., 2014].

Five CMIP5 models show an abrupt winter Arctic sea-ice abruptly collapse in the 22nd century in RCP8.5 simulations [Drijfhout et

al., 2015]. Overall, the evidence that winter Arctic sea ice is a tipping element is stronger than for summer Arctic sea ice. However, Bathiany et al. [2016] argue that the abruptness of winter Arctic sea ice collapse can be explained by a threshold without positive feedbacks, simply from a basinwide failure to cool

sufficiently to allow ice formation; if they are correct, neither winter nor summer Arctic sea ice may be tipping elements. A rapid decrease in Arctic sea ice could have far-reaching consequences . Arctic sea ice and the ice-albedo feedback are an important contributor to Arctic amplification, the phenomenon that surface warming over the Arctic is more rapid than at lower latitudes. Arctic amplification may slow down the mid-latitude jet streams, shift storm tracks over the North Atlantic, and increase the vertical propagation of energy into the stratosphere, which may lead to more frequent extreme weather events across the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes [Francis and Vavrus, 2012, 2015; Cohen et al., 2014; Tang et al., 2014]. However, some studies argue that the chance of mid-latitude cold extremes should decrease in response to future sea ice loss [Hassanzadeh et al., 2014; Screen et al., 2014]. In addition, this rapid warming over the Arctic due to sea-ice reduction may consequently increase the emission of methane from high-latitude wetland soils; Parmentier et al. [2015] estimated that methane emission over high-latitudes for 2005–

2010 are averagely ~1.7 Tg yr−1 higher than that during 1981–1990 due to a sea iceinduced warming in fall. The West African monsoon (WAM) may be another example of a Gladwellian tipping element. WAM contributes the bulk of Sahelian summer rainfall [Dong and Sutton, 2015]. Paleoclimatic evidence suggests that the bistability of the WAM is characterized by alternating status between long-lasting (decades to centuries) episodes of dry and wet conditions [Shanahan et al., 2009]. Both paleoclimatic

reconstructions [Asmerom et al., 2013] and GCM simulations [Giannini et al., 2003; Hoerling et al., 2006; Martin et al., 2014] suggests that the switch between these two quasi-stable states is driven by changing sea surface temperatures (SST) around Africa. Sediment-core and tree-ring reconstructions indicate that the WAM variability is coherent and in phase with the Atlantic SST variability at multidecadal time scale [Shanahan et al., 2009], suggesting Gladwellian behavior. The transition of WAM to its strong phase is associated with a wind-evaporation-SST positive feedback [Xie, 1999]: warming in SST in the North Atlantic relative to the South Atlantic drives stronger westerly winds and enhances the WAM, which reduces surface evaporation north of the equator and enhances it in the south, amplifying the interhemispheric SST gradient. In addition, a switch to strong WAM may also rely on the Saharan water vapor–temperature feedback [Evan et al., 2015]: long-wave radiation of surface water vapor raises the surface air temperature, which increases the low-level moisture convergence around the Saharan heat low. An enhanced WAM driven by anthropogenic greenhouse gas and aerosol forcing may have led to the substantial recovery of Sahel rainfall since the 1980s [Dong and Sutton, 2015]. Under RCP 8.5, about 80% of CMIP5 models agree on a modest drying around 20% over the westernmost Sahel (15°–5°W), while about 75% of models agree on an increase in precipitation over the Sahel between 0°and 30°E, with a large spread on the amplitude [Roehrig et al., 2013]. However, the CMIP5 models may underestimate the monsoon decadal variability, due to strong biases in simulated SST [Roehrig et al., 2013]. One model, BNU-ESM, found an abrupt increase in Sahel vegetation cover around 2050 in the RCP8.5 simulation [Drijfhout et al., 2015]. The projected WAM strengthening is related to a robust amplification of warming over the Sahel by about 10%–50% over the global mean [Roehrig et al., 2013]. Furthermore, the warming pattern induced by enhanced WAM facilitates the development of African easterly waves (AEWs), which are westward-propagating weather disturbances over North Africa during summer. In RCP8.5 simulations between 2075 and 2100, the occurrence frequency increased with a multimodel average of 39% for intense AEWs and of 72% for extremely intense AEWs along the Sahel−Sahara border [Skinner and Diffenbaugh, 2014]. The elevated AEW activity could further increase the Sahel rainfall, and strengthen Sahara dust transportation over Africa and Atlantic [Skinner and Diffenbaugh, 2014]. 3.2 Non-Gladwellian tipping elements Ice sheet melt provides clear examples of non-Gladwellian behavior. For the Greenland Ice Sheet, for example, feedbacks between ice sheet topography and atmospheric dynamics and between ice area and albedo give rise to multiple stable states [Ridley et al., 2009; Robinson et al., 2012; Levermann et al., 2013]. Robinson et al. [2012]’s coupled ice-sheet/regional climate model indicated that, at a temperature of 1°C above pre-Industrial, the stable states are at 100%, 60%, and 20% of present ice volume. At 1.6°C, however, their model produced only one stable configuration, at ~15% of the Greenland ice sheet’s present volume; thus, 1.6°C warming would represent a commitment to ~6 m of sea-level rise from the Greenland Ice Sheet. The rate of ice sheet mass loss is, however, limited by the flux at the ice sheet margins [e.g., Pfeffer et al., 2008], leading to a disconnect between committed and realized change that could persist for millennia, particularly for levels of warming near the threshold [Applegate et al., 2015]. In Antarctica, where about 23 m sea-level equivalent of ice sits vulnerably with its base below sea level [Fretwell et al., 2013], ice sheet mass loss is dominated by ocean/ice sheet/ice shelf interactions. For parts of the ice sheet sitting on reverse bed slopes, which shallow outward, a positive feedback sets up the marine ice sheet instability [Schoof, 2007; Gomez et al., 2010; Ritz et al., 2015]: as the ice sheet retreats, it thickens vertically, increasing ice sheet discharge and thus the rate of retreat. Such an instability appears to be occurring in multiple outlet glaciers of the Amundsen Sea Embayment sector of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, creating a sea-level rise commitment that could equal much or all of the 1.2 m sea-level equivalent in this sector [Joughin et al., 2014; Rignot et al., 2014]. In Wilkes Basin in East Antarctica, the instability threshold has not yet been crossed, but removal of an ‘ice plug’ containing ~8 cm sea-level equivalent could create a 3-4 m sea-level rise commitment [Mengel and Levermann, 2014]. Ice shelf buttressing can inhibit marine ice sheet instability, however, so some marine-based sectors may not exhibit threshold behavior but instead respond nearly linearly to sub-shelf temperature [Mengel et al., 2016]. On the other hand, most ice sheet models do not include ice cliff collapse and hydrofracturing, which destabilize ice shelves and may greatly increase the rate of ice sheet mass loss [Pollard et al., 2015; DeConto and Pollard, 2016]. Overall, the Antarctic ice sheet exhibits a clear separation between realized and committed change, and individual sectors of the ice sheet can exhibit threshold behavior associated with marine ice sheet instability. It is unclear, however, whether threshold

behavior occurs at the aggregate level of the ice sheet as a whole [Levermann et al., 2013]. Model evidence also suggests that large-scale ecosystems can exhibit a non-Gladwellian lag between committed and realized state shifts . Using the HadCM3LC climate/carbon cycle model, which was one of the first to

include a dynamic vegetation component, Jones et al. [2009] found a precipitous committed collapse in Amazon forest cover between 1°C and 3°C warming, even though the realized loss when their simulation reached 3°C was minimal. Similarly, they found a committed tripling of boreal forest cover at ~4°C warming,

even though the realized expansion was minimal. These results were not consistent across models [Cox et al., 2013]; among model participating in the Coupled Climate Carbon Cycle Model Intercomparison Project (C4MIP) exercise, only the HadCM3 models showed a net reduction in tropical land carbon over the 21st century. Conditioning the C4MIP models on the observed inter-annual variations in CO2 growth rate over 1960-2010 suggested that the tropical forests in the HadCM3 models are overly sensitive to warming [Cox et al., 2013], but to our knowledge no other models have been used to investigate the distinction between committed and realized ecosystem change. 3.3 Common worrisome traits of candidate climatic tipping elements Some candidate tipping elements exhibit full-fledged Gladwellian tipping points, others exhibit non-Gladwellian critical thresholds, and some, upon further investigation, may turn out not to be

tipping elements at all. But most of these ambiguous candidate tipping elements unambiguously exhibit other worrisome traits. First, almost all are characterized by deep uncertainty [Kasperson, 2008; Heal and Millner, 2014; Convery and Wagner, 2015], meaning that there are multiple plausible probability distributions that could be constructed for how likely they are to occur,

how fast they will occur, and what their consequences could be. This deep uncertainty complicates efforts to devise policies to minimize negative

consequences. Second, and closely related, they are absent from many of the coupled climate models used to project future changes: some models will generate the tipping behavior, some will not, and some are missing the element of the Earth system that could generate them. Third, many are rate-limited and so exhibit a committed change significantly larger than the initially realized change. Fourth, many exhibit hysteresis, so reversing a change in the system may require a larger forcing and/or more time than causing the change in the first place. For example, the reservoir of soil organic carbon in the Arctic permafrost may or may not abruptly ‘tip’. Arctic permafrost holds at least ~1300-1600 Gt C [Schuur et al., 2015]; as the

Arctic warms, microbes will transform this organic carbon into CO2 and CH4. If all of this carbon were instantaneously released as CO2, it would likely cause a global mean warming of ~1-3°C. Thus, there could be a positive feedback large enough to create a tipping point: the release of carbon could warm the planet enough to significantly accelerate the rate of carbon release. Moreover, laboratory incubations show that some organic-rich permafrost soils can decompose rapidly, with up to ~7% of organic C being lost in the first unfrozen year, [Schädel et al., 2014] and that abrupt permafrost thaw is common phenomenon in parts of the Arctic [e.g., Jorgenson et al., 2006]. Yet the real-world rate of permafrost carbon release is limited by the annual freeze-thaw cycle, by the rate of thermal diffusion into the deep permafrost, by the creation of new biomass, and by oxygen availability in water-logged soils [Schuur et al., 2015]. (Anaerobic decomposition creates methane, but current estimates indicate the higher warming potential of methane is insufficient to offset the decreased decomposition rate in oxygen-depleted soils.) A 17-author expert assessment estimated that ~5-15% of permafrost C is vulnerable to decomposition in the 21st century, and model projections suggested a somewhat larger share vulnerable to decomposition in the 22nd and 23rd centuries [Schuur et al., 2015]. If this assessment is correct, then the permafrost feedback on warming will be too small to be the principle driver of permafrost melt; there will be no threshold beyond which the momentum of escalating permafrost emissions carries the world to a permafrost-free state. Nonetheless, Arctic permafrost carbon still shares the four other traits common to many tipping elements – deep uncertainty, incomplete treatment in climate models, a separation between committed and realized change, and hysteresis. It thus revises our understanding of the coupled climate/carbon cycle system. A significant body of work over the last decade has shown that global mean warming increases approximately linearly with cumulative carbon dioxide emissions, and that global mean temperature is stable for centuries after emissions stop [e.g., Matthews and Caldeira, 2008; Allen et al., 2009; Solomon et al., 2009]. The IPCC concluded that “the principal driver of long-term warming is total emissions of CO2 and the two quantities are approximately linearly related” [Collins et al., 2013, p.1033]. These conclusions gave rise to the ‘carbon budget’ paradigm now common in policy discourse. But the models that led to these conclusions did not include permafrost carbon. Some newer Earth system models have incorporated the permafrost carbon feedback, at least in part. Schaefer et al. [2014]’s synthesis found a mean initial carbon pool among thirteen published studies of ~800 Gt C, roughly half the observational estimate. These models found that the permafrost carbon feedback lags anthropogenic emissions, giving rise to a difference between committed and realized emissions similar to that for ice sheet melt. As a consequence, the approximation that warming is proportional to cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions fails, and warming may continue after human emissions stop [MacDougall et al., 2012]. Using the UVic ESCM, an Earth system model of intermediate complexity (EMIC), MacDougall et al. [2015] found that incorporating the permafrost carbon feedback led to a ~10% reduction in the carbon budget for 2°C warming. The permafrost carbon feedback similarly led to an increase of ~10% in the amount of net anthropogenic carbon removal needed to restore a 2°C warming after overshooting to 3.2°C. Using another EMIC, IAP RAS CM, Eliseev et al.[2013] demonstrated hysteresis in the permafrost system, showing that permafrost melted faster in a warming world than it regrew in a cooling world at the same temperature. 3.4 Integrated assessment of climatic tipping elements Regardless of whether all proposed tipping elements do in fact tip, their potential state shifts are hazards; it is therefore worthwhile to identify and assess climate-economic shocks that they might cause. Indeed, since abstract ‘catastrophic’ impacts dominate damage estimates in two of the most commonly used benefit-cost IAMs, DICE and PAGE [Hope, 2013], improving their representation in IAMs may be critical to more accurate estimates of the cost of climate change [Revesz et al., 2014]. Lenton and Ciscar [2013] outlined one strategy for a stylized improvement of climatic tipping element representation in benefit-cost IAMs. A number of subsequent studies have focused on the welfare costs of uncalibrated or idealized ‘tipping points’. Lemoine and Traeger [2014] examine uncalibrated, instantaneous changes in climate sensitivity or carbon sinks in a variant of the DICE model; Lemoine and Traeger [2016] expanded this study to include ‘tipping points’ that affect the damage function directly and also show interactions between ‘tipping points.’ Daniel et al. [2015] decompose the impact of risk aversion to ‘tipping points’ from climate damages. Lontzek et al. [2015] consider a single idealized critical threshold in the damage function with a range of transition scales and final damage levels. Cai et al. [2016] implemented five interacting tipping elements (AMOC, West Antarctic Ice Sheet, Greenland ice sheet, the Amazon dieback, and El Niño-Southern Oscillation) with critical threshold probabilities calibrated to the expert elicitation study of Kriegler et al. [2009], transition timescales based on literature reviews, and economic consequences based upon the authors’ intuition. We propose an alternative strategy for improving representation of state shifts in tipping elements that draws upon more disaggregated

models of climate change impacts [e.g., Warszawski et al., 2014; Houser et al., 2015]. For risk and impact assessment, potential climatic tipping elements can be categorized by the physical parameters they affect that influence human systems . (For simplicity, we will put aside the

qualification ‘potential’ and refer to all potential tipping elements simply as ‘tipping elements’ for the remainder of this section.) Some tipping elements affect global warming, either through planetary albedo (e.g., Arctic sea ice) or the greenhouse effect (e.g., permafrost). Some tipping

elements influence on regional temperature or precipitation (e.g., changes in AMOC or Arctic sea ice). Tipping elements involving polar

ice sheets affect global mean sea level, and some tipping elements (e.g., AMOC) influence regional dynamic sea level. Finally, some tipping elements involve major ecosystems such as the Amazon , which may influence not only the greenhouse effect but also the regional availability of ecosystem services. Each category is amenable to a different risk assessment strategy. Both benefit-cost IAMs like DICE and some newer frameworks based on empirical and process model of climate change impacts [e.g., Houser et al., 2015] use simple climate models (SCMs) to project global mean temperature change. Tipping elements that affect global mean temperature could be incorporated into these SCMs. Although subject to well-known concerns about the damage functions in benefit-cost IAMs [e.g., Revesz et al., 2014], two studies have already attempted this for permafrost carbon. Hope and Schaefer [2016] augmented the PAGE09 IAM [Hope, 2013] with time series of permafrost CO2 and CH4 emissions [Schaefer et al., 2011]. They found that permafrost emissions increased the net present value cost of climate change by ~13%, consistent with the associated increased in cumulative CO2 emissions. González-Eguino and Neumann [2016] conducted a similar study with DICE-2013R. Similar approaches could be used to study the global mean temperature effect of Arctic albedo changes due to sea-ice collapse or boreal forest expansion, of a superrotation-induced decrease in cloudiness and increase in climate sensitivity, or of rapid changes in the land or ocean carbon sinks. Many tipping elements, however, have regional temperature and precipitation effects that extend beyond a scaling of regional changes with global mean temperature. Arctic sea ice loss decreases the pole-to-equator temperature gradient, which may affect the frequency of midlatitude weather patterns [Overland et al., 2015]. A reduction or collapse of AMOC has strong cooling effects in Europe, weaker cooling effects more broadly in the Northern Hemisphere, warming effects in the Southern Hemisphere, a southward shift in the Intertropical Convergence Zone, and sea-level rise in the North Atlantic [Vellinga and Wood, 2002; Levermann et al., 2013; Jackson et al., 2015]. A change in ENSO frequency or intensity would have temperature and precipitation effects around

the world [Power et al., 2013; Cai et al., 2014; Latif et al., 2015; Yuan et al., 2015]. GCMs must be used to identify the spatial and temporal patterns associated with state shifts in such tipping elements. Either direct GCM output or the extracted patterns can then be combined with empirical [e.g., Dell et al., 2014] or process [e.g., Warszawski et al., 2014] models to estimate regional impacts and damage functions that go beyond temperature impacts. A number of studies have attempted to assess the economic impact of AMOC collapse. Some [e.g., Keller et al., 2000, 2004; Mastrandrea and Schneider, 2001] have linked simple models of AMOC stability to arbitrary perturbations of the damage function of a simple benefitcost IAM like DICE. Link and Tol [2010] combined the spatial pattern of AMOC collapse from an experiment with the HadCM3 GCM with the impact functions from the FUND 2.8 IAM, which has temperature-driven damage functions for each of 16 regions and six impact categories. They found a small global effect (a ~0.1% reduction in global GDP in 2100), though larger negative effects (up to ~4% of GDP) in a few, mostly high-latitude countries. Kuhlbrodt et al. [2009] linked the temperature, precipitation, cloudiness and pressure precipitation projections downscaled from the Climber-3a intermediate-complexity Earth system model to the LPJmL dynamic vegetation model to assess the effect of an AMOC shutdown on European crop production; they found a fairly limited effect. Link and Tol [2009] linked the ocean temperature and AMOC projections of Climber-3a to a bioeconomic model of the Barents Sea cod fishery. They found that the direct effect of AMOC weakening on survival rates could lead to a fisheries collapse. Similar studies could be conducted for other tipping elements with regional climatic effects, and the empirical climate impact functions increasingly emerging in the econometric literature could be leveraged to link regional climate changes to their socio-economic consequences [e.g., Dell et al., 2014]. State shifts in ice-sheet tipping elements are conceptually the easiest to incorporate into risk assessments. Their primary impact is to change rates of sea-level rise, and so they can be assessed in the same frameworks used to assess sea-level rise impacts more broadly. For example, Nicholls et al. [2008] forced the FUND model with West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapse, represented by 5 m of global-mean sea-level rise in a period as short as 100 years. For a centurytimescale collapse, they found a ~40% drop in the length of the coastlines that it was benefit-cost optimal to protect, and a 15-fold increase in annual protection costs. Diaz [2015] and Diaz and Keller [2016] extended DICE with a stochastic representation of West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapse, with collapse probabilities loosely calibrated against the expert elicitation study of Bamber and Aspinall [2013]. Arguably, the possibility of large-scale ice-sheet collapse is already built into some probabilistic sea-level rise projections [e.g., Kopp et al., 2014], though these may understate the probability of this outcome [DeConto and Pollard, 2016]. For example, the Kopp et al. [2014] 99.9th percentile projections align with other estimates of the maximum physically plausible level of 21st century sea-level rise (~2.5 m) and require > 95 cm of rise driven by the Antarctic ice sheet in the 21st century. However, risk assessments based on these projections [Houser et al., 2015] have not examined outcomes that far into the tail of the analysis. Deliberate inspection of such tail risks would provide a natural way of incorporating ice-sheet tipping elements into coastal risk assessments. Ecological tipping elements may be the hardest to incorporate into economic risk assessments, particularly at a global scale. The difficulty reflects the state of the field of ecosystem services valuation. Generally, assessments of ecosystem services are either narrowly focused [e.g., Jenkins et al., 2010] or fairly vague [e.g., Costanza et al., 1997; de Groot et al., 2012]. The easiest risks of large-scale ecosystem changes to assess may be those that feedback onto global radiative balance, through either changes in the carbon cycle or changes in land surface albedo. In summary, potential climate-economic shocks associated with state shifts in different tipping elements can be independently assessed, for example, by (1) linking simple climate model scenarios for elements that affect greenhouse gas concentrations or albedo to impact models and (2) incorporating regional spatial-temporal patterns associated with tipping elements with regional climatic effects to impact models. Some tipping elements are driven by naturalsystem variables only partially reflected in current Earth system models and thus require alternative approaches, such as (3) extending coastal risk assessments into the tail of sea-level rise probability distributions, which should incorporate the possibility of rapid ice-sheet melt; and (4) tallying the net costs of climate impacts on monetizable ecosystem services. However, tipping elements are not necessarily independent of one another [e.g., Kriegler et al., 2009], so when estimating the economic risks of different elements, it is important to consider the correlations between different thresholds. For example, rapid Greenland ice mass loss increases the probability of AMOC collapse, which in turn leads to Southern Ocean warming and increases the probability of rapid West Antarctic Ice Sheet mass loss. In addition, the framework laid out above focuses on how a state shift in a tipping element may cause different individual types of impacts, but it is also important to consider how these impacts interact across sectors [e.g., Warren, 2011]. Severe negative (or positive) impacts on agriculture, for example, will affect food prices and lead to changes in economic structure. Similarly, migration away from coastlines could have either negative or positive economic effects. It is also important to keep in mind that one effect of a state shift may be to change the temporal and spatial correlations between extreme events, making once-rare ‘black swan’ [Taleb, 2007] alignments of extremes much more likely. 4 Climatically sensitive social tipping elements Given the sociological origins of the modern ‘tipping point’ concept, it is perhaps surprising that climate change tipping point research has focused almost exclusively on tipping elements in natural systems, leaving climatically relevant social tipping elements mostly unexplored. Broader social change theory has, however, recognized that change is often not gradual. Moser and Dilling [2007] identified four typical stages of social transformation that together form a S-curve. In the “predevelopment” phase, the system is in one stable state. During “take off,” it begins to accelerate towards a new state. The third stage, which they titled “breakthrough,” is the tipping point, where the rate of change accelerates until it reaches the fourth stage, “stabilization” in a new state. Influencing this accelerating rate of social change is typically a positive feedback mechanism involving network diffusion, by which one actor (e.g., a household, a legislature, or a corporation) changes, and others – via social cues – exponentially follow suit. Social tipping points can influence climate change, and climate change can influence social tipping points. Similarly, economic shocks may both cause and be caused by social tipping points. Like climatic tipping elements, social tipping elements both involve positive feedbacks and exhibit non-linear rates of change. This is a more restrictive definition of social tipping points than what is sometimes applied in the social scientific literature. While there are robust research fields that recognize thresholds in human-climate systems, they generally lack an explicit focus on positive feedbacks within social systems, instead considering the more generic case of systems with thresholds, like those shown in Figure 2b-d. For example, Bardsley and Hugo [2010, p.243] define a migration threshold as “a point at which the impacts of climate change are so severe or so frequent that the resilience of socio-ecological systems is breached, or that existing in situ adaptation options either fail or are perceived as inadequate, so that people make use of migration as an adaptation option in a manner that will fundamentally alter the form migration is taking”. While migration can be a tipping element, this description does not capture the role of the feedbacks that make it such. Other researchers have found that as climate change impacts increase in magnitude, there is a threshold where individuals’ responses change from being adaptive to maladaptive [Niemeyer et al., 2005]. Researchers conducting interviews that presented worsening climate change scenarios saw an increase in the “adaptive response” of concern and action for a warming scenario (2.5°C). When this scenario shifted to a greater magnitude of climate change (5°C), the researchers observed an increase in apprehension and a decline in trust and perceptions that institutions and other social actors will respond. The researchers saw this as an increase in maladaptation and suggest that there is a threshold between 2.5°C and 5°C at which people become less adaptive. This study suggests a threshold in social behavior, but not a positive feedback mechanism through which it occurs. In addition, socioecological studies examine how human actions, climate change, and other factors trigger ecological regime shifts, but the tipping elements in these studies are ecological, not social [Kinzig et al., 2006]. The term ‘adaptation tipping point’ [Kwadijk et al., 2010; Werners et al., 2013; Koukoui et al., 2015] has been occasionally used in the literature to refer to sigmoidal changes in the frequency of extreme events above a threshold at which “the current management strategy will no longer be able to meet [its] objectives” [Kwadijk et al., 2010, p. 730]. We advise against this use, as it is inconsistent with other uses of the term ‘tipping point.’ Although tipping points proper do produce sigmoidal changes, the sigmoidal changes associated with ‘adaptation tipping points’ do not arise from positive feedbacks and thus lack a crucial characteristic of true tipping points. They are simply a product of extreme value statistics, by which the number of exceedances of a threshold can grow approximately exponentially in response to a linear increase in the mean of a distribution. For example, the historical 1% average annual probability flood at the Battery tide gauge in New York City is ~1.8 m above mean high water. With 50 cm of sea-level rise, the expected number of such floods increases about 5 times; with 100 cm, by about 40 times, and with 150 cm, by about 2000 times [Buchanan et al., 2016]. If current management strategies cannot cope with a ‘1-in-100 year’ flood occurring with an annual probability >10%, the ‘adaptation tipping point’ would occur when sea-level rise exceeded ~70 cm. Social tipping points can be beneficial, costly, or neutral to human welfare. Beneficial social tipping points increase societal resilience and reduce climate change damages via mitigation or adaptation. Harmful social tipping points are more likely to occur where there are low levels of societal resilience, under which societal risks increase because of failure to effectively adapt or mitigate. Potential social tipping elements that are relevant to integrated assessment of the costs of climate change include (1) public opinion and policy change, (2) technology and behavior adoption for adaptation or mitigation, (3) migration, and (4) civil conflict. In environmental policy, the theory of ‘punctuated equilibrium’ explains intervals of long-term policy stasis and incrementalism, interrupted by abrupt changes to a new policy state [Baumgartner et al., 2014]. These “explosive change[s] for a short while” lead to “the establishment of a new policy equilibrium” [Baumgartner et al., 2014, p.61]. Unity in public opinion on an environmental issue, decreasing unity in opposition to policy change by negatively affected interest groups, and governmental openness to policy change can all influence policy change [Shwom, 2011]. These underlying factors are social phenomena that can experience positive feedbacks related to network influencer effects [Watts and Dodds, 2007]. Social scientists use “‘sand-pile’ models, ‘tipping point’ models, ‘small world’ models and other graph theoretic models, ‘complex adaptive systems models’, and models that produce punctuated dynamics via a hierarchy of time scales” [Brock, 2006, p.49] to capture the nonlinearity of social change dynamics. Modeling environmental policy change suffers from the typical modeling challenges for complex social systems, including the identification problem (identifying what variables should be included in the models). Our review did not find any models of public opinion or politics of

climate change, though there are a number of models of punctuated equilibrium and environmental policy change (see [Repetto, 2008] and [Garmestani, 2014] for reviews). Climate change mitigation and adaptation require adoption of new technologies and behaviors. For example, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, society will need to adopt energyefficient and low-carbon energy technologies. Researchers have historically used logistic substitution models to represent energy technology uptake over time [e.g., Marchetti and Nakicenovic, 1979]. Energy technologies exhibit a gradual diffusion in the introductory phase, then experience exponential growth as the learning curve and up-scaling of a technology takes place (the tipping point), after which growth tapers off as the technology approaches saturation [Grübler et al., 1999]. Wilson [2012] mapped a variety of energy production technologies and their capacity in the Netherlands over time and found that fossil fuel,

nuclear, and renewable energy technologies all exhibit this general pattern, though length of time in each phase varies. The “epidemic” model of technology diffusion [Geroski, 2000] posits that technology adoption is dependent upon information availability and experience spread through networks [Rogers, 2003]. For example, farmers in the Philippines used relatives and neighbors as a reliable source of information and credit to help adapt to drought [Acosta-Michlik and Espaldon, 2008]. Because proximity influences social networks and cues (e.g., a solar panel is visible on a neighbor’s roof), spatial agent-based models have been used to model technology diffusion and adoption processes [Berger, 2001; Noonan et al., 2015]. Many technological adaptations, such as raising houses, adopting air-conditioners, or modifying farming techniques, are innovations that experience these network feedbacks and will diffuse following a logistic curve. Recent models of technology adoption have evolved beyond the diffusion curve to provide system-dynamic accounts. Approaches like energy innovation systems [Gallagher et al., 2012] and socio-technical systems transitions [Geels, 2005; Geels and Schot, 2007] embed technology adoption within supply and demand dynamics, sources of technology change, the technology development cycle, innovation processes, and feedbacks between networks of actors and institutions. Learning and experience curves have been used as the basis for endogenous technological change in a number of formal models, but not without critique [see Wilson, 2012]. Clarke et al. [2008, p.413] highlight that “although learning-by-doing may be one of the factors underlying these curves, experience curves are a reflection of all factors that play into the change in technological performance and cost, including research and development, spillovers and economies of scale.” In an analysis focusing on innovation processes of five renewable energy case studies, Hekkert and Negro [2009] found that actions that turn knowledge into business opportunities (entrepreneurial activities) rise when there is guidance that positively affect visibility and clarity of specific wants among technology users (e.g., a policy goal aim for a certain percentage of renewable energy in a future year). However, they found that

technologies did not “tip” until there was market formation, such as the creation of a small protected market (via a subsidy or tax advantage) or a niche market for a specific application. Another potential social tipping element involves migration , which is generally costly to the source region but can potentially be beneficial for recipient regions and for overall human welfare. Migration is an adaptation to new environmental conditions. Climate-related migration can involve forced displacement, where climate change has made it difficult

to stay, or may take place in anticipation of future risks. Moving away from sub-Saharan Africa as desertification and water scarcity make survival more difficult is an example of climate displacement [Bogardi and Warner, 2009]. Migration can also be a response to social and economic destabilization that results from climate change impacts [Warner et al., 2010]. These are examples of migration as a mass general social response, but, as we discuss below, there can also be positive feedbacks in migration systems.

Migration-systems approaches identify “push” factors that encourage or enable people to leave their home location and “pull” factors that encourage them towards a new location [Mabogunje, 1970; Fawcett, 1989; Jennissen, 2007]. Social networks are an important pull factor; once a migration stream has been initiated, it tends to grow, as the networks provide a positive feedback [Boyd, 1989; Fawcett, 1989; Massey and Zenteno, 1999]. Massey and Zenteno [1999] built a dynamic model of mass migration that

account for feedbacks, providing the basis of an approach that could be used to model climate-related migration tipping points. As people migrate away in large numbers due to environmental change, a feedback can occur that changes a community’s ability to adapt [McLeman and Smit, 2006]. Civil conflict, and in particular the ‘conflict/development trap’, can give rise to a more unambiguously costly tipping point. The conflict/development trap is a well-established positive feedback cycle , in which failure to develop increases the likelihood of civil conflict, which in turns decreases the ability to develop and increases the future risks of conflict [Collier, 2003]. This can give rise to a counter-

development tipping point, as has arguably been seen in a number of strife-torn, low-income countries. Econometric results suggest that warmer temperatures can slow economic growth [Burke et al., 2015] and increase the likelihood of civil conflict [Hsiang and Burke, 2013; Hsiang et al., 2013]. Thus, climate change has the potential to make a conflict/development tipping point more likely, exacerbating the risk that nations may get trapped in a cycle of poverty and conflict that is difficult to break. Bentley et al. [2014] investigated whether early warning signs, such as a critical slowing down or an increase in variability, are associated with social tipping points. They found that, historically, many social systems have undergone tipping points without exhibiting such warning signs. For example, they point to the case of small English banks, which increased in number at about 2.7%/year for 150 years and then suddenly declined in 1810 with no data indicating such a change was impending. While social scientists can identify potential social tipping elements and associated mechanisms, it is far more difficult to predict when they will occur, and studies must consider that a range of biophysical, social,

cultural, political and economic factors influence social responses to climate changes [Nuttall, 2012]. Climatic tipping points may be one trigger for social tipping points. Another potential trigger are increases in the frequency of extreme events . Although the ‘adaptation tipping points’ of Kwadijk [2010] are not true tipping points, these dramatic increases in extreme event frequency may force true adaptation tipping points – state shifts in genuine social tipping elements, such as adaptive policies or behaviors, that lead to greater adaptation [Pelling and Dill, 2010]. For example, there may be a critical threshold in the frequency of days

over 30°C that triggers a technology-adoption tipping point for air-conditioners. Conversely, increased frequency of extreme events might also lead to costly tipping points; for example, crossing a threshold in the frequency of crop failures might trigger a migration or conflict tipping point. Sufficiently large or frequent extreme events might also trigger an environmental policy tipping point that accelerates greenhouse gas mitigation , or that leads to the deployment of large-scale climate engineering technologies such as SRM [Keith, 2013; Irvine et al., 2014]. Extreme events have the potential to serve as ‘focusing events’: sudden crises that result in calls for a remedy to reduce impacts of that crisis or chances of a future crisis. Natural disasters have long been seen as focusing events. Focusing events provide an opportunity for “interest groups, government leaders, policy entrepreneurs, the news media, or members of the public to identify new problems, or to pay greater attention to existing but dormant problems, potentially leading to a search for solutions in the wake of apparent policy failure” [Birkland, 1998]. As recognized by Bentley [2014], the acceleration of a trend towards a social tipping point often entails network feedbacks that amplify a message or behavior to many people [Gladwell, 2000]. The strength of the network matters: Birkland [1996] found that the expert community of scientists and government agencies around earthquakes is active and connected enough to keep earthquake safety on the national agenda between focusing events, whereas hurricanes have a sparse national expert network that results in hurricanes falling off the national agenda between events. In thinking more broadly about shifting U.S. public opinion and action on climate change, Nisbet and Kotcher [2009] suggested that a network of different types of opinion leaders that could be prepared before a climate-related focusing event and mobilized after might be effective in pushing public opinion towards a tipping point on climate action. However, to date, the negative feedback provided by groups leveraging public opinion leaders and networks to maintain policy stasis has generally been more effective [Jasny et al., 2015; Farrell, 2016]. The study of climatically influenced social tipping elements is still in an early phase, but may play an important role in the integrated assessment of the cost of climate change. Environmental policy and technological tipping points that affect mitigation or climate engineering can influence the climatic trajectory that causes damage, while those that affect adaptation can influence the system resilience that modulates the translation of physical impacts into human costs. Migration and conflict tipping points, as we discuss below, may be important drivers of economic shocks. We suggest that it is important for the research community to more broadly survey the landscape of potential climate-related social tipping elements, to investigate networks and other social mechanisms driving relevant positive feedbacks, and to further develop statistical and systems-dynamic models characterizing these mechanisms. Statistical and dynamical models of social tipping elements have the potential to bring greater realism to the socio-economic projections of IAMs and to help move the representation of decision processes within IAMs away from the dictatorship of the infinitely lived representative agent. 5 Economic shocks with potential climate linkages Tipping point research entered the IAM realm through an explicit though rather tenuous link to economic catastrophes in the DICE-99 model of Nordhaus and Boyer [Nordhaus and Boyer, 2000]. The previous two sections discussed climatic tipping elements and climatically sensitive social

tipping elements, and suggested ways they might be incorporated into risk assessment. A complementary approach might be to start with the end-point of a large economic shock and work backwards, asking: What sort of phenomena do we know to cause large economic shocks? Through what pathways might climate change affect the probability of these phenomena? Some of these pathways involve tipping elements; not all do. We begin with the observation that the specific pathway, in how climate damages affect the economy, matters. We then cover several potential climate-economy shocks. For some, including capital-destroying meteorological disasters, civil wars, and temperature-linked hits to economic growth, climatic links are well-established. For some others, like financial crises, international wars on a nation’s own soil, and large-scale political and economic restructuring, links cannot be excluded but are much less direct. Economic damages can be effected through several different channels, including damages to output (as typically represented in IAMs), to capital stock or savings [Fankhauser and Tol, 2005], to labor productivity [Graff Zivin and Neidell, 2014; Houser et al., 2015], to ecosystem services and other natural capital [Sterner and Persson, 2008], and to total factor productivity [Moyer et al., 2013]. Some damages affect primarily the level of these factors, which is the standard assumption in most IAMs; others affect growth rates and could lead to vastly larger long-run damages [Dell et al., 2012; Heal and Park, 2013; Burke et al., 2015; Moore and Diaz, 2015]. Like gradual economic damages, economic shocks could be effected through any of these channels. For a full accounting of the economic impacts of climate damages, it is crucial to specify the particular channel. Although Nordhaus [1994] defined an economic catastrophe with respect to global economic output, world GDP has risen nearly continuously since at least 1950, and world GDP per capita has experienced only a few individual years of stagnation (1975,

1982, 1991, and 2009) [The Maddison Project, 2013; Bolt and Zanden, 2014]. To collect data on economic shocks, we must therefore narrow our scope to a national level (Table 2). The large economic shocks with the most direct climate ties are associated with capital-destroying meteorological disasters. Hsiang and Jina [2014] showed that tropical cyclones cause a long-lasting (> 20 year) reduction in GDP. Among the countries ever hit by tropical cyclones, a “1-in-100 country-year” causes a persistent ~15% output reduction. Although Hsiang and Jina [2014] measured cyclones solely by their wind speed, a significant fraction of the damage caused by cyclones is flood-related, so it is reasonable to expect that sea-level rise will lead to more cyclone damage. Moreover, some

studies indicate a regional or global increase in the number and intensity of tropical cyclones with climate change, which would make large shocks more frequent [Emanuel, 2013; Knutson et al., 2013]. Though less directly influenced by climate than cyclones, civil wars both cause large economic shocks and also have an environmental connection [Hsiang et al., 2011, 2013]. Cerra and Saxena [2008]’s analysis of 190 countries for the period 1960 to 2001 found that civil wars caused a ~6 ± 1% output loss after one year, with ~3 ± 3% persisting for at least a decade. Civil wars that coincided with a strengthening of executive power led to more severe economic crises: an output reduction of ~15 ± 6% that persisted for over ten years after the crisis started. Moreover, as previously mentioned, econometric results indicate that certain climatic conditions make civic conflict more likely. A meta-analysis of 31 studies indicated that a 1-standard deviation increase toward higher temperatures or more extreme rainfall leads to a ~14% increase in the frequency of civil conflict [Hsiang and Burke, 2013; Hsiang et al., 2013]. Though this conclusion is not universally accepted, and though much work needs to be done to understand the mechanisms of the climate-conflict link [e.g., Hsiang and Meng, 2014; Buhaug, 2015], civil conflicts are a key area for future work assessing potential climate-economic

shocks. Warmer temperatures themselves also have the potential to create a slowly burning climate-economic shock through temperature-induced effects on economic growth rates . Empirical work shows that, in mid- and low-latitude countries (with an average annual temperature above ~13°C), higher annual average temperatures reduce economic growth rates [Dell et al., 2009, 2012; Burke et al., 2015].

Under high-end emissions projections (RCP 8.5) and a slow baseline growth scenario, Burke et al. [2015]’s mean estimated growth effect could make GDP per capita in nearly half of countries lower in 2100 than in 2010 – a genuine economic catastrophe for those countries, though not one tied to a specific triggering event. One possible pathway for this reduction in economic growth is the effect of extreme heat days on labor productivity [Heal and Park, 2013; Graff Zivin and Neidell, 2014]. Another contributing pathway is the well-established, nonlinear link between extreme heat and agricultural productivity [Schlenker and Roberts, 2008, 2009; Roberts and Schlenker, 2011; Feng et al., 2012; Tack et al., 2015].

2AC Impact Magnifier Climate change is a system disruptor and a risk amplifier---only mitigation prevents biodiversity loss, marine ecosystem collapse, resource wars, global food scarcity, and extreme weather events. Uniquely—has disparate impacts. Pachauri & Meyer 15 (Rajendra K. Pachauri Chairman of the IPCC, Leo Meyer Head, Technical Support Unit IPCC were the editors for this IPCC report, “Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report” http://epic.awi.de/37530/1/IPCC_AR5_SYR_Final.pdf IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp)

SPM 2.3 Future risks and impacts caused by a changing climate

Climate change will amplify existing risks and create new risks for natural and human systems . Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for disadvantaged people and communities in countries at all levels of development. {2.3}

Risk of climate-related impacts results from the interaction of climate-related hazards (including hazardous events and trends) with the vulnerability and exposure of human and natural systems, including their ability to adapt. Rising rates and magnitudes of warming and other changes in the climate system, accompanied by ocean acidification , increase the risk of severe, pervasive and in some cases irreversible detrimental impacts. Some risks are particularly relevant for individual regions (Figure SPM.8), while others are global. The overall risks of future climate change impacts can be reduced by limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change , including ocean acidification. The precise levels of climate change sufficient to trigger abrupt and irreversible change remain uncertain, but the risk associated with crossing such thresholds increases with rising temperature (medium confidence). For risk assessment, it is important to evaluate the widest possible range of impacts, including low-probability outcomes with large consequences . {1.5, 2.3, 2.4, 3.3, Box Introduction.1, Box 2.3, Box 2.4}

A large fraction of species face s increased extinction risk due to climate change during and beyond the 21st century, especially as climate change interacts with other stressors (high confidence). Most plant species cannot naturally shift their geographical ranges sufficiently fast to keep up with current and high projected rates of climate change in most landscapes; most small mammals and freshwater molluscs will not be able to keep up at the rates projected under RCP4.5 and above in flat landscapes in this century (high confidence). Future risk is indicated to be high by the observation that natural global climate change at rates lower than current anthropogenic climate change caused significant ecosystem shifts and species extinctions during the past millions of years. Marine organisms will face progressively lower oxygen levels and high rates and magnitudes of ocean acidification (high confidence), with associated risks exacerbated by rising ocean temperature extremes (medium confidence). Coral reefs and polar ecosystems are highly vulnerable . Coastal systems and low-lying areas are at risk from sea level rise, which will continue for centuries even if the global mean temperature is stabilized (high confidence). {2.3, 2.4, Figure 2.5}

Climate change is projected to undermine food security (Figure SPM.9). Due to projected climate change by the mid-21st century and beyond, global marine species redistribution and marine biod iversity

reduction in sensitive regions will challenge the sustained provision of fisheries productivity and other ecosystem services (high confidence). For wheat, rice and maize in tropical and temperate regions , climate change without adaptation is projected to negatively impact production for local temperature increases of 2°C or more above late 20th century levels, although individual locations may benefit (medium confidence). Global temperature increases of ~ 4°C or more 13 above late 20th century levels, combined with increasing food demand , would pose large risks to food security globally (high confidence). Climate change is projected to reduce renewable surface water and groundwater resources in most dry subtropical regions (robust evidence, high agreement), intensifying competition for water among sectors (limited evidence, medium agreement). {2.3.1, 2.3.2}

Until mid-century, projected climate change will impact human health mainly by exacerbat ing health problems that already exist (very high confidence). Throughout the 21st century, climate change is expected to lead to increases in ill-health in many regions and especially in developing countries with low income, as compared to a baseline without climate change (high confidence). By 2100 for RCP8.5, the combination of high temperature and humidit y in some areas for parts of the year is expected to compromise common human activities , including growing food and working outdoors (high confidence). {2.3.2}

In urban areas climate change is projected to increase risks for people, assets, economies and ecosystems, including risks from heat stress , storms and extreme precipitation, inland and coastal flooding, landslides, air pollution, drought, water scarcity, sea level rise and storm surges (very high confidence). These risks are amplified for those lacking essential infrastructure and services or living in exposed areas. {2.3.2}

Rural areas are expected to experience major impacts on water availability and supply, food security, infrastructure and agricultural incomes, including shifts in the production areas of food and non-food crops around the world (high confidence). {2.3.2}

Aggregate economic losses accelerate with increasing temperature (limited evidence, high agreement), but global economic impacts from climate change are currently difficult to estimate. From a poverty perspective, climate change impacts are projected to slow down economic growth , make poverty reduction more difficult, further erode food security and prolong existing and create new poverty traps , the latter particularly in urban areas and emerging hotspots of hunger (medium confidence). International dimensions such as trade and relations among states are also important for understanding the risks of climate change at regional scales. {2.3.2}

Climate change is projected to increase displace ment of people (medium evidence, high agreement). Populations that lack the resources for planned migration experience higher exposure to extreme weather events, particularly in developing countries with low income. Climate change can indirectly increase risks of violent conflicts by amplify ing well-documented drivers of these conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks (medium confidence). {2.3.2}

It magnifies the risk of every global conflict---causes prolif, nuclear terrorism, and nuclear warJürgen Scheffran 16, Professor at the Institute for Geography at the University of Hamburg and head of the Research Group Climate Change and Security in the CliSAP Cluster of Excellence and the Center

for Earth System Research and Sustainability, et al., April 2016, “The Climate-Nuclear Nexus: Exploring the linkages between climate change and nuclear threats,” http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/file/2016/01/WFC_2015_The_Climate-Nuclear_Nexus.pdf

Climate change and nuclear weapons represent two key threats of our time. Climate change endangers ecosystems and social systems all over the world . The degradation of natural resources, the decline of water and food supplies, forced migration , and more frequent and intense disasters will greatly affect population clusters, big and small. Climate-related shocks will add stress to the world’s existing conflicts and act as a “threat multiplier ” in already fragile regions . This could contribute to a decline of international stability and trigger hostility between people and nations. Meanwhile, the 15,500 nuclear weapons that remain in the arsenals of only a few states possess the destructive force to destroy life on Earth as we know multiple times over. With nuclear deterrence strategies still in place, and hundreds of weapons on ‘hair trigger alert’, the risks of nuclear war caused by accident, miscalc ulation or intent remain plentiful and imminent .

Despite growing recognition that climate change and nuclear weapons pose critical security risks, the linkages between both threats are largely ignored. However, nuclear and climate risks interfere with each other in a mutually enforcing way.

Conflicts induced by climate change could contribute to global insecurity , which, in turn, could enhance the chance of a nuclear weapon being used , could create more fertile breeding grounds for terrorism , including nuclear terrorism , and could feed the ambitions among some states to acquire nuclear arms . Furthermore, as evidenced by a series of incidents in recent years, extreme weather events, environmental degradation and major seismic events can directly impact the safety and security of nuclear installations. Moreover, a nuclear war could lead to a rapid and prolonged drop in average global temperatures and significantly disrupt the global climate for years to come, which would have disastrous implications for agriculture, threatening the food supply for most of the world. Finally, climate change, nuclear weapons and nuclear energy pose threats of intergenerational harm, as evidenced by the transgenerational effects of nuclear testing and nuclear power accidents and the lasting impacts on the climate, environment and public health by carbon emissions.

2AC AT: It’s Too Late Every bit of mitigation mattersNuccitelli 12 (Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area. This piece was originally published at Skeptical Science and was reprinted with permission. “Realistically What Might The Future Climate Look Like?” ThinkProgress http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/09/01/784931/realistically-what-might-the-future-climate-look-like/)

This is Why Reducing Emissions is Critical We’re not yet committed to surpassing 2° C global warming, but as Watson noted, we are quickly running out of time to realistically give ourselves a chance to stay below that ‘danger limit’. However, 2°C is not a do-or-die threshold. Every bit of CO2 emissions we can reduce means that much avoided future warming , which means that much avoided climate change impacts. As Lonnie Thompson noted, the more global warming we manage to mitigate , the less adaption and suffering we will be forced to cope with in the future. Realistically, based on the current political climate (which we will explore in another post next week), limiting global warming to 2°C is probably the best we can do. However, there is a big difference between 2°C and 3°C, between 3°C and 4°C, and anything greater than 4° C can probably accurately be described as catastrophic , since various tipping points are expected to be triggered at this level. Right now, we are on track for the catastrophic consequences (widespread coral mortality , mass extinctions , hundreds of millions of people adversely impacted by droughts, floods, heat waves , etc.). But we’re not stuck on that track just yet, and we need to move ourselves as far off of it as possible by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions as soon and as much as possible . There are of course many people who believe that the planet will not warm as much, or that the impacts of the associated climate change will be as bad as the body of scientific evidence suggests. That is certainly a possiblity, and we very much hope that their optimistic view is correct. However, what we have presented here is the best summary of scientific evidence available, and it paints a very bleak picture if we fail to rapidly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. If we continue forward on our current path, catastrophe is not just a possible outcome, it is the most probable outcome. And an intelligent risk management approach would involve taking steps to prevent a catastrophic scenario if it were a mere possibility, let alone the most probable outcome. This is especially true since the most important component of the solution – carbon pricing – can be implemented at a relatively low cost, and a far lower cost than trying to adapt to the climate change consequences we have discussed here (Figure 4).

Some warming’s inevitable but mitigation stops cascading feedbacks

Stover 15. (Dawn Stover, Contributing Editor for Energy, Environment, and Climate at BAS, Winner of the Knight-Risser Prize for Western Environmental Journalism, Editor at the Scientific American, MA in Journalism from New York University, BA in Biology from Carleton College, “Climate Change: Irreversible But Not Unstoppable”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2-26, http://thebulletin.org/climate-change-irreversible-not-unstoppable8044)

When scientific experts moved the hands of the Bulletin’s Doomsday Clock two minutes closer to midnight last month, calling current efforts to prevent catastrophic global warming “entirely insufficient ,” some people responded that climate change is a far less disastrous threat than nuclear war because it is reversible. This is a common misconception. In ongoing data collection by the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School, fewer than one in four people in a general population sample in Southeast Florida understood that if human beings stopped emitting carbon dioxide tomorrow, global temperatures would continue to rise. “Believers” in human-caused global warming were just as likely as “disbelievers” to misunderstand the extent to which we are already committed to future temperature rises. The widespread notion that the climate is something we can fix later—after more pressing priorities have been addressed—may be the biggest obstacle to actions and policies that would slow global warming, avoid some of its worst potential impacts, and allow more time for humans and other species to adapt to a changing climate. Even though scientists have repeatedly emphasized the urgency of the situation, their message isn’t getting through to the general public or to legislators who could make a difference. What’s missing are vivid, personalized depictions of what life will be like in the future if emissions continue unabated. Human activities have already altered the climate so radically that many scientists refer to the current geologic era as the Anthropocene, from the Greek words for “human” and “new.” But that sounds friendly and progressive compared with what actually lies ahead: a climate very similar to that of Earth’s last major warm period, the Pliocene epoch of several million years ago, minus the mastodons and mammoths. And unlike nuclear war, it’s not a question of whether climate change will rock our world, only of how bad things will get . Committed to climate change. Though we’re seeing obvious warning signs of what is to come, such as melting glaciers and steadily increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, thus far the global average surface temperature has risen by only about 0.8 of a degree Celsius (or 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) since 1880. However, the climate system has some built-in inertia, and the impacts of past human activities will be felt far into the future. Scientists refer to these unavoidable future changes as our climate change “commitment.” Some of the inertia comes from the elevated levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere. If humans were to cease their emissions overnight, the oceans would quickly absorb some of these gases. But the oceans also release gases back to the atmosphere, and the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would not subside back to pre-industrial levels for many centuries. Another problem is that industrial air pollution has a cooling, as well as a warming, effect. Fossil fuel combustion releases aerosols, tiny particles and droplets that reflect sunlight and enhance cloud formation, masking the impacts of greenhouse gases. If we stopped burning fossil fuels, this cooling effect—which is difficult to quantify, but probably has less than half the impact of the greenhouse warming effect—would end. “A large fraction of climate change is largely irreversible on human time scales,” the most recent assessment report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned. Only if human emissions were “strongly negative over a sustained period”—for example, if tree planting and other activities were to sequester far more carbon than humans release—would climate change begin to be reversed. At the moment, of course, emissions are still rising rapidly. Points of no return. If the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can be limited to a doubling—from about 280 parts per million (ppm) in the pre-industrial era to 560 ppm in the future (we’re currently at about 400 ppm)—the IPCC assessment estimated with “high confidence” that Earth’s temperature will reach an equilibrium somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures. However, the report cautioned, “some aspects of climate will continue to change even if temperatures are stabilized.” Among some of the most likely changes: The melting of snow and ice will expose darker patches of water and land that

absorb more of the sun’s radiation, accelerating global warming and the retreat of ice sheets and glaciers. Scientists agree that the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet has already gone into an unstoppable decline. Currents that transport heat within the oceans will be disrupted. Ocean acidification will continue to rise, with unknown effects on marine life. Thawing permafrost and sea beds will release methane, a greenhouse gas. Droughts predicted to be the worst in 1,000 years will trigger vegetation changes and wildfires, releasing carbon. Species unable to adapt quickly to a changing climate will go extinct. Coastal communities will be submerged, creating a humanitarian crisis. Some of these changes may persist for hundreds or even thousands of years after the Earth’s temperature stabilizes. Scientists worry that elements of the climate system could even reach tipping points beyond which abrupt and planetary-scale changes might occur, such as the disappearance of monsoon cycles or the Amazon’s vast tropical forests. Welcome to the Pliocene. Even if countries reduce emissions enough to keep temperatures from rising much above the internationally agreed-upon “danger” threshold of 2 degrees Celsius (which seems increasingly unlikely), we can still look forward to conditions similar to those of the mid-Pliocene epoch of 3 million years ago. At that time, the continents were in much the same positions that they are today, carbon dioxide levels ranged between 350 and 400 ppm, the global average temperature was 2 to 3 degrees Celsius higher than it is today (but up to 20 degrees higher than today at the northernmost latitudes), the global sea level was about 25 meters higher, and most of today’s North American forests were grasslands and savanna. A mid-Pliocene climate looks comfortable, though, compared with what will happen if we continue to emit carbon dioxide at today’s rate. As noted in the Doomsday Clock announcement, the IPCC “warned that warming— if unchecked by urgent and concerted global efforts to greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions—would reach 3 to 8 degrees Celsius (about 5.5 to 14.5 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century.” Social inertia. Is there any way to avoid Pliocene-like conditions? “If carbon dioxide emissions could be eliminated entirely,” two scientists argued in Nature Geoscience in 2010, “temperatures would quickly stabilize or even decrease over time. Future warming is therefore driven by socio-economic inertia, and is only as inevitable as future emissions.” That is about as helpful as telling obese people that if they just stopped eating, they would lose weight quickly. At the moment, we’d be doing well to cut humanity’s diet of fossil fuels to a level that would merely prevent further weight gain. Instead what we see is a planetary binge, with increases in fossil fuel consumption that have dwarfed the development of low-carbon energy sources during the past decade. The scientists, however, put their finger on what is needed to turn things in the right direction: socio-economic action. Changing self-destructive behaviors can be extremely difficult, as any dieter knows, and unrealistic optimism can be just as counterproductive as defeatism. In fact, these are the twin enemies of climate action. Even climate “believers” seem to feel that either there is little they can do to prevent disaster (beyond pointing fingers at “disbelievers,” of course) or, alternatively, that technology is making (or will make) speedy progress against the problem. Those in the over-optimistic camp may think that geoengineering, for example, can turn back the climate clock in a pinch. Unfortunately, although measures such as injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere merit increased research and development, they are not ready to be safely deployed at the scale necessary to combat climate change. As a National Research Council committee recently concluded, “there is no substitute for dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.” The world needs an emissions diet plan—and a full complement of socio-economic incentives and support systems to ensure its success. Out of the fire and into the frying pan. The inevitability of climate change doesn’t mean that we don’t have a choice to make: If we act quickly and boldly, there is a small window of opportunity in which we can work to keep global warming to a minimum. Or we can keep accelerating toward catastrophe. As

Richard Somerville, one of the climate scientists on the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board, recently told me: “People today, whether they realize it or not, have control of the thermostat that will set the climate for future generations.”

AND--short term mitigation matters--emissions reductions have immediate effects on temperature. Desjardins 13 – member of Concordia university Media Relations Department, academic writer, citing Damon Matthews; associate professor of the Department of Geography, Planning and Environment at Concordia University, PhD, Member of the Global Environmental and Climate Change Center

(Cléa, “Global Warming: Irreversible but Not Inevitable,” http://www.concordia.ca/now/what-we-do/research/20130402/global-warming-irreversible-but-not-inevitable.php)

Carbon dioxide emission cuts will immediately affect the rate of future global warming Concordia and MIT

researchers show Montreal, April 2, 2013 – There is a persistent misconception among both scientists and the public that there is a delay between emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and the climate’s response to those emissions. This misconception has led policy makers to argue that CO2 emission cuts implemented now will not affect the climate system

for many decades. This erroneous line of argument makes the climate problem seem more intractable than it actually is , say Concordia University’s Damon Matthews and MIT’s Susan Solomon in a recent Science article. The researchers show that

immediate decreases in CO2 emissions would in fact result in an immediate decrease in the rate of climate warming. Explains Matthews, professor in the Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, “If we can successfully decrease CO2 emissions in the near future, this change will be felt by the climate system when the emissions reductions are implemented – not in several decades." “The potential for a quick climate response to prompt cuts in CO2 emissions opens up the possibility that the climate benefits of emissions reductions would occur on the same timescale as the political decisions themselves . ” In their

paper, Matthews and Solomon, Ellen Swallow Richards professor of Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Science, show that the onus for slowing the rate of global warming falls squarely on current efforts at reducing CO2 emissions, and the resulting future emissions that we produce. This means that there are critical implications for the equity of carbon emission choices currently being discussed internationally. Total emissions from developing countries may soon exceed those from developed nations.

But developed countries are expected to maintain a far higher per-capita contribution to present and possible future warming. “This disparity clarifies the urgency for low-carbon technology investment and diffusion to enable developing countries to continue

to develop,” says Matthews. “Emission cuts made now will have an immediate effect on the rate of global warming,” he asserts. “I see more hope for averting difficult-to-avoid negative impacts by accelerating advances in technology development and diffusion, than for averting climate system changes that are already inevitable. Given the enormous scope and complexity of the climate

mitigation challenge, clarifying these points of hope is critical to motivate change.”

2AC AT: Adaptation Solves Adaptation fails---mitigation efforts now are key to prevent irreversible warming Joseph Romm 16, PhD in Physics, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, 2016, Climate change: What Everyone Needs to Know, pg 134-145

Most environmental problems that people, communities, and governments have experience dealing with are reversible. A polluted lake or river can be cleaned up and then used for swimming and fishing. A city with polluted air can put in place clean air standards and turn its brown haze into blue skies. However, climate change is different from most environmental problems. The scientific literature has made it increasingly clear that key impacts are irreversible on a time scale of centuries and possibly millennia. This means that climate change creates risks that are unparalleled in human history . It also means that if we follow the traditional way of dealing with an environmental problem , that is, wait until the consequences are obvious and unmistakable to everybody, it will be “too late " to undo those consequences for a long, long time. Climate inaction inherently raises issues of equity because it will harm billions of people who have contributed little or nothing to the problem. However, what makes the issue unique in the annals of history is that the large-scale harm is irreparable on any timescale that matters (and that we could avoid the worst of the irreparable harms at a surprisingly low net cost, as discussed in Chapter Four). Because irreversibility is such a unique and consequential fact about climate change, the world's leading climate scientists (and governments) took extra measures to emphasize the issue in the most recent international assessment of climate science by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the November 2014 full, final "synthesis" report in its Fifth Assessment all of the scientific and economic literature. In the IPCC's final "synthesis" report of its Fourth Assessment, issued in 2007, irreversibility was only mentioned two times and there was minimal discussion in the Summary for Policymakers. Seven years later, the "Summary for Policymakers" of the IPCC's synthesis report mentions "irreversible" 14 times and has extended discussions of exactly what it means and why it matters. The full report has an even more detailed discussion. What do the world's leading scientists mean by "irreversible impacts"? In the latest IPCC report, they explain that Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6 [where emissions are cut sharply]. Surface temperatures will remain approximately constant at elevated levels for many centuries after a complete cessation of net anthropogenic CO2 emissions. A large fraction of anthropogenic climate change resulting from CO2 emissions is irreversible on a multi-century to millennial time scale, except in the case of a large net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere over a sustained period … It is virtually certain that global mean sea-level rise will continue for many centuries beyond 2100, with the amount of rise dependent on future emissions. In other words, impacts will be much worse than described in this report after 2100 in every case but the one where we sharply cut carbon dioxide starting now (to stabilize at below 2°C total warming). In addition, whatever temperature the planet ultimately hits thanks to human-caused warming, that is roughly as high as temperatures will stay for hundreds of years after we bring total net human-caused carbon pollution emissions to zero. The "case of a large net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere over a sustained period" means a time far beyond when humanity has merely eliminated total net human-caused emissions—from deforestation and burning fossil fuels (and from whatever amplifying carbon-cycle feedbacks we have caused, such as defrosting permafrost). To start reversing the irreversible, we have to go far below zero net emissions to actually sucking vast quantities of diffuse CO2 out of the air and putting it someplace that is also permanent, which, according to a 2015 National Academy of Sciences report (discussed in Chapter Six), we currently do not know how

to do on a large scale. One can envision such a day when we might be able to go far below zero—if we sharply reduce net carbon pollution to zero by 2100, as we must to stabilize near 2°C. However, it is much more difficult to imagine when it would happen if emissions are anywhere near current levels by 2100, and we have started one or more major amplifying carbon-cycle feedbacks that make the job of getting to even zero net emissions doubly difficult. If we do not get on the 2°C path, then some of the most serious climate changes caused by global warming could last a thousand years or more. The IPCC explained in 2014, "Stabilisation of global average surface temperature does not imply stabilisation for all aspects of the climate system." That is to say, as we warm above 2°C, then even at a point many hundreds of years from now when temperatures start to drop, some changes in the climate—sea-level rise being the most obvious example—will likely keep going and going. The IPCC reports are primarily reviews of the scientific literature, so the new focus on the irreversible nature of climate change is no surprise. In a 2009 study titled "Irreversible Climate Change Because of Carbon Dioxide Emissions," researchers led by NOAA scientists concluded that "the climate change that is taking place because of increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop." It is significant to note that the NOAA-led study warned that it was not just sea-level rise that would be irreversible: Among illustrative irreversible impacts that should be expected if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase from current levels near 385 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to a peak of 450-600 ppmv over the coming century are irreversible dry-season rainfall reductions in several regions comparable to those of the "dust bowl" era and inexorable sea level rise. Recent studies strongly support that finding for both sea-level rise and Dust-Bowlification of some of the world's most productive agricultural lands, as we have seen. This 2014 Synthesis report may be the first time the world's leading scientists and governments explain why the irreversibility of impacts makes inaction so uniquely problematic. Here is the key finding (emphasis in original): Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts globally (high confidence). Mitigation involves some level of co-benefits and of risks due to adverse side-effects, but these risks do not involve the same possibility of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts as risks from climate change, increasing the benefits from near-term mitigation efforts. Why is this conclusion so salient? The IPCC is acknowledging that mitigation efforts taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have risks in addition to their cobenefits—"possible adverse side effects of large-scale deployment of low-carbon technology options and economic costs ," as the full report puts it. However, the risks involved in reducing emissions are both quantitatively and qualitatively different than the risks deriving from inaction because they are not likely to be anywhere near as "severe, widespread, and irreversible." The full 2014 "Synthesis" report expands on this point, noting that "Climate change risks may persist for millennia and can involve very high risk of severe impacts and the presence of significant irreversibilities combined with limited adaptive capacity." In sharp contrast, "the stringency of climate policies can be adjusted much more quickly in response to observed consequences and costs and create lower risks of irreversible consequences." Put another way, if some aspect of the emissions reduction strategy turns out to start having unexpected, significant negative consequences, humanity can quickly adjust to minimize costs and risks. However, inaction —failing to embrace strong mitigation— will lead to expected climate impacts that are not merely very long lasting and irreversible, but potentially beyond adaptation. For instance, sea-level rise would become so great, so rapid, and so unstoppable that we simply have to abandon the vast majority of coastal cities.

Competitiveness Advantage

1AC - Competitiveness U.S. is falling behind in education nowHeim 16 <Joe, Washington Post, “On the world stage, U.S. students fall behind,” 6 December, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/on-the-world-stage-us-students-fall-behind/2016/12/05/610e1e10-b740-11e6-a677-b608fbb3aaf6_story.html?utm_term=.010b526af0ff>#SPS

When it comes to math, U.S. high school students are falling further behind their international counterparts, according to results released Tuesday of an ongoing study that compares academic achievement in 73 countries. And the news is not much better in reading and science literacy, where U.S. high schoolers have not gained any ground and continue to trail students in a slew of developed countries around the globe. In the latest Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) measuring math literacy in 2015, U.S. students ranked 40th in the world. The U.S. average math score of 470 represents the second decline in the past two assessments — down from 482 in 2012 and 488 in 2009. The U.S. score in 2015 was 23 points lower than the average of all of the nations taking part in the survey. Although 6 percent of U.S. students who took the test had scores in the highest proficiency range, 29 percent of U.S. students did not meet the test’s baseline proficiency for math. In reading and science, U.S. students were basically treading water, their rankings relatively unchanged from previous years. The United States ranked 25th in science literacy and 24th in reading literacy. Singapore topped all nations in all three categories. China, Japan, Korea, Canada, Switzerland, Estonia, Australia and New Zealand were among the other top-performing countries. Begun in 2000 and conducted every three years, the PISA was created to measure the performance of 15-year-old students in science, math and reading literacy in the 35 industrialized countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The number of countries taking part has expanded to 73. Approximately 540,000 students took the assessment in 2015, including 5,700 U.S. public and private-school students. The PISA results come on the heels of another international study of fourth- and eighth-graders — the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, or TIMSS — that showed American students trailing their Asian peers in math and science achievement. Education experts differ about what the new PISA results mean for U.S. standards of learning. U.S. student performance in the most recent assessment should serve as a “Sputnik moment” for U.S. leaders and educators, said Marc Tucker, president of the National Center on Education and the Economy. Tucker pointed specifically to the results from Chinese students and said that the United States should study how a country that is still relatively poor can outperform students in the wealthiest country in the world. “We’re living in a world that is highly integrated, ” Tucker said. “And the United States cannot long operate a world-class economy if our workers are, as the OECD statistics show, among the worsteducated in the world.” Tucker said that he would advise the incoming Trump administration to “focus like a laser” on the data provided by these results as it addresses education decision-making. “Donald Trump as candidate basically staked his candidacy on the plight of industrial workers in the United States, ” he said. “The Chinese workers are vastly better educated than the typical American worker and willing to work for one-fifth of what the equivalent American workers are willing to work for. That is a proposal for economic disaster.” Tucker said China’s investment in teachers is key to the country’s success in math, science and reading literacy. “They have redesigned their schools to take advantage of very highly educated and trained teachers, ” he said. “They have organized their schools so that teachers work together in teams in a very disciplined way to get better and better at teaching and to constantly improve the performance of their students.” But other experts dismiss the value of the PISA results and say they ignore integral aspects of education.

“The results basically tell us how well these students took the test, that’s all, ” said Yong Zhao, a professor in the School of Education at the University of Kansas. “Whether that performance has anything to do with real life or the quality of education, we don’t know. There’s no other evidence. We don’t have to really jump on this, let alone try to borrow policies or ideas from other places.” Zhao said he views the PISA as a “joke” and thinks that similar international test rankings should be scrapped. “I disregard all these tests because no test actually measures exceptionality, ” he said. “But an economy, especially today, is driven by individual exceptionality. Entrepreneurship, entertainment, inventiveness, creativity — no tests can measure that.” Calling the PISA results “sobering news, ” U.S. Education Secretary John B. King Jr. acknowledged that U.S. students are well behind their peers. “We’re losing ground — a troubling prospect when, in today’s knowledge-based economy, the best jobs can go anywhere in the world, ” he said. But King pointed to Massachusetts, where students excelled on the PISA test, as an example of how states can get education right.

Green schools increase performance - environmental education spills over and indoor environment mattersConnelly 13 <Gail, Executive Director, National Association of Elementary School Principals, “Is Becoming a Green School Right For Your School?,” No date given, latest cited source is from 2013, http://www.naesp.org/sites/default/files/greenschoolsdigitalcopy.pdf>#SPS

A green school positively impacts student learning and performance in two ways. First, a green school improves overall student learning and performance through its curriculum--in part by engaging students in the natural world and age-appropriate topics that will be part of their future. Studies indicate that environmental education especially increases student engagement and performance in science. Such an increase is likely due to the fact that environmental education connects classroom learning to the real world: when given a choice, students often gravitate toward environmental topics and material. For many of the same reasons, studies have shown that environmental education can also improve student achievement in other core subject areas such as reading (sometimes dramatically), math, and social studies. In this same study, schools using the environment as an integrating context or theme across the curriculum also saw: reduced student discipline and classroom management problems; increased student engagement and enthusiasm for learning; and, greater student pride and ownership in accomplishments. 13 Environmental education also helps to address “nature deficit disorder.” A Kaiser Foundation study found that, unlike prior generations, children today spend an average of seven hours each day in front of the computer and TV but less than four minutes a day in unstructured outdoor play. This lack of outdoor play and discovery has been correlated with such effects as obesity, loneliness, depression, attention problems, and greater social isolation. Field trips, schoolyard habitats, and outdoor exercise can all help combat this widespread and growing deficiency. Second, the quality of the school building and environment itself has a direct impact on a student's ability to concentrate and learn. Students perform better academically in a school with better indoor air quality and ventilation, good acoustics, and daylighting. For example, a recent survey of green schools found that 74% of the respondents reported that green buildings help improve student productivity and test scores. About half of those who make green building improvements also link improved acoustics and daylighting with increased attentiveness and student engagement. And 83% report that teacher satisfaction increases as a result of being in a green school, which can also have an impact on productivity.

Public education is the bedrock of competitiveness – national success is determined by students success and innovation Vockley 8 (Martha Vockley. Owner of Vockley•Lang, LLC. Master of Arts, Professional Writing from Carnegie Mellon University - 21st Century Skills,

Education & Competitiveness - http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/21st_century_skills_education_and_competitiveness_guide.pdf)

In an economy driven by innovation and knowledge … in marketplaces engaged in intense competition and constant renewal … in a world of tremendous opportunities and risks … in a society facing complex business, political, scientific, technological, health and environmental challenges … and in diverse workplaces and communities that hinge on collaborative relationships and social networking … the ingenuity, agility and skills of the American people are crucial to U.S. competitiveness . Our ability to compete as a nation—and for states, regions and communities to attract growth industries and create jobs—demands a fresh approach to public education . We need to recognize that a 21st century education is the bedrock of competitiveness — the engine, not simply an input, of the economy . And we need to act accordingly: Every aspect of our education system—preK–12, postsecondary and adult education, after-school and youth development, workforce development and training, and teacher preparation programs—must be aligned to prepare citizens with the 21st century skills they need to compete.

IEQ affects outcomesChoi et al 13 < SeonMi Choi, PhD Researcher, Interior Design, College of Design, University of Minnesota Denise A. Guerin, PhD Professor, Interior Design, College of Design, University of Minnesota Hye-Young Kim, PhD Assistant Professor, Design, Housing, and Apparel, University of Minnesota Jonee Kulman Brigham, AIA, LEED AP Research Fellow, Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Design, University of Minnesota Theresa Bauer PhD candidate, Interior Design, College of Design, University of Minnesota, “Indoor Environmental Quality of Classrooms and Student Outcomes: A Path Analysis Approach,” Vol 2, No 2 (2013) Journal of Learning Spaces, Accessed Via Baylor Online Libraries>#SPS

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between indoor environmental quality (IEQ) in a set of university classrooms and students’ outcomes, i.e., their satisfaction with IEQ, their perception of the effect of IEQ on learning, and, subsequently, their course satisfaction. Many researchers have found that IEQ affects people’s performance whether they are in work, home, or learning environments. This can be true for schools where it has been found that poor indoor environments may reduce students’ performance (Fisk, 2000; Mendell et al., 2002). It is important to study IEQ of schools because of the age of the buildings, that they house vulnerable people, i.e., students and children, and that historically their construction, maintenance, and renovation are underfunded (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1995). Especially, when considering that students spend more time in the classrooms than in any other interior environments of schools for academic achievement, IEQ of the classroom can directly influence student outcomes, such as satisfaction and learning. In this study, a conceptual model representing various IEQ criteria associated with physical environments of classrooms was developed and tested for their relationships to college students’

satisfaction with their learning environments and courses as well as their perceived learning. In so doing, a path analysis was conducted to simultaneously investigate structural relationships among variables, which can deepen our understanding of designed environments and human outcomes. Because there are many variables that may be interdependent, it was important to develop a conceptual model based on theoretical propositions and empirical evidence. By incorporating new insights and methodological advances in research, this study can contribute to the current literature on the effect of classroom design on students’ satisfaction and learning. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. First, relevant literature is comprehensively reviewed and then the conceptual model and the related research hypotheses are presented. Subsequently, the applied research methodology and the results are discussed. Finally, important implications for educators and design practitioners and directions for future research are provided. Literature Review Background IEQ has been found to both support and hinder people’s comfort, performance, and satisfaction with their physical environments and, therefore, can contribute to environmental and economic goals for sustainable building. Appropriate indoor environmental qualities of air, temperature, sound, light, visible and physical space, and occupants' ability to personally control these are the building's contributions to the biological bases of occupant comfort, health, and well-being (Buildings, Benchmarks, and Beyond- Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines (B3-MSBG), 2012). The effect of IEQ on people has become a significant research issue with the advent of sustainable design guidelines such as LEED™ (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) or the B3-MSBG, which call for architects, engineers, and interior designers to meet specific IEQ standards in the interiors of the buildings they design. One way to determine if designing to meet IEQ standards is successful is by conducting a post-occupancy evaluation (POE) about one year after the sustainable building is occupied. In schools, this would be an evaluation of students’ opinions and perceptions of the influence the interior environment has on their learning and how it is related to their satisfaction with the classroom and, perhaps, even satisfaction with their courses. The issue with schools is that they are historically poorly funded, which means they may be underfunded in the initial building design stage and often go without proper maintenance or repair. These design, maintenance, and operations issues may lead to indoor environments where the IEQ is hazardous to students’ health and can be related to students’ poor health, attendance, and performance. Almost 20 years ago, the U.S. General Accounting Office (1995) reported that 63% of US students attended schools with dissatisfactory indoor environments, that is, they are in need of repair or renovation, or contaminants are present. They also reported that nearly 14 million students learn in spaces that are below standard or dangerous. Additionally, these figures were related to physical deterioration of the spaces and did not include specific IEQ criteria, which were just being uncovered at that time. Although much has been done in the last 20 years to improve schools’ indoor environments, they are still vulnerable to underfunding, overuse, and lack of research investigating the effect of IEQ criteria, which could affect building and renovation budgets. Data about student outcomes in elementary and secondary schools are more readily available than data related to college students, and few studies have been completed on various IEQ criteria of college classrooms. The need to maximize college students’ academic achievement through their increased satisfaction and improved learning is a vested interest of administrators who must establish institutional credibility or accreditation and must prepare young professionals for a knowledge-based workforce. Further, students themselves need to maximize their learning as they prepare to seek positions in a competitive job market (Duque & Weeks, 2010; Roberts, 2009). Therefore, it is important to determine if there is any relationship between college students’ outcomes and classroom IEQ. Researchers have looked at various drivers in this equation by studying

faculty perceptions of student learning (Duyar, 2010; Earthman & Lemasters, 2009; Kelting & Montoya, 2011), the relationship between attendance and performance (Mendell & Heath, 2005), the influence of school climate (Duyar, 2010; Uline & Tschannen-Moran, 2008), and instructional delivery methods (Brookhart, 1999; Terenzini, Cabrera, Colbeck, Parente, & Bjorklund, 2001). However, the issue of linking students’ satisfaction and learning to classroom’s physical environment has been investigated on a limited basis. Several studies linked the physical environment of the classroom setting to students’ attendance and students’ learning (Daisey, Angell, & Apte, 2003; Mendell &Heath, 2005; Schneider, 2002; Tanner, 2009). Strange and Banning (2001) cited research that links improved classroom attractiveness and lighting to students’ improved motivation and task performance. Graetz and Goliber (2002) summarized research that linked lighting to psychological arousal, overheated spaces to hostility, and density with low student achievement. None of these studies, however, comprehensively investigate the relationships between various IEQ criteria typically associated with the physical environment and student outcomes. A closer look at several of IEQ criteria provides an overview of the relationships involved. IEQ of the Classroom Environment and Student Outcomes IEQ criteria of the built environment are typically evaluated in various combinations using different environmental features and addressing different characteristics associated with user outcomes, e.g., satisfaction, performance, achievement, absenteeism, health, and comfort. In the early 1980’s, indoor air quality (IAQ) emerged as a substantial focus in the literature when the World Health Organization (WHO) (1986) reported that up to 30% of the new and remodeled buildings across the world had received excessive complaints concerning IAQ. Subsequently, IAQ was associated with sick building syndrome (SBS), which was related to occupant exposure or time spent in a building. IAQ was also linked to building related illness (BRI), which was diagnosed as illnesses identified directly with airborne building containments (EPA, 1991). Not surprisingly, national statistics prior to 2000 revealed that over 43% of the U.S. schools had reported problems with IAQ (Kelting &Montoya, 2011; National Center for Educational Statistics, 2000). IAQ, ventilation, and CO2 ratings in schools provided concern for health issues related to respiratory illness (asthma), chemical sensitivities, volatile organic compounds, and biological pathogens (Daisey et al., 2003). More specifically, early studies found temperature control (including air conditioning) and air quality as significant IEQ features that contributed most to student learning performance (Cash, 1993; Earthman, 2004). Mendell and Heath (2005) found the evidence that there were direct or indirect connections of indoor pollutants (biological, chemical, or particulate pollutants) and thermal conditions (temperature and humidity) to student performance and absenteeism in school environments. Given the overriding concern for health and performance issues, there was a greater amount of research that focused on IAQ and thermal and ventilation conditions than on other IEQ criteria. Lighting conditions have long been an important IEQ criterion in the built environment as it includes both electric and daylight sources and ambient and task uses. Each one of these elements has a unique role in assessing user experiences within the built environment. Exposure to various types of light can be associated with physiological responses in human performance, and daylight from windows can provide both visual lighting and an opportunity for a view to the outside or natural environment, which have also been found to positively influence human behavior. Studies conducted in elementary school settings found a positive and significant correlation between the presence of daylight and student performances across three different school districts (Heschong Mahone Group, 1999). In addition, daylighting provided through skylights also provides a positive effect on students in their classrooms. Subsequent studies involving classrooms with greater amounts of daylighting compared to classrooms with the least amount of daylighting showed a 21% increase in student performance (Heschong Mahone Group, 2003; Kelting

& Montoya, 2011). Similarly, electric lighting has long been found to improve test scores, reduce off-task behavior, and plays a role in student achievement (Jago &Tanner, 1999). Studies involving acoustics have looked at different aspects of the classroom environment, e.g., the presence of unwanted noise and types of indoor finishes such as hard surface and soft surface floorcovering, to better understand the relationship between acoustic conditions and student learning performance (Earthman, 2004; Tanner & Langford, 2003; Uline &Tschannen-Moran, 2008). Learning performance is understandably improved when discussions between students and instructors can be easily heard and clearly distinguished from outside influences. Research examining acoustic conditions in classrooms located near noisy vehicular traffic, community noises, and in rooms without any acoustic treatment have shown decreased student performance when compared with classroom settings located in quiet neighborhoods or with noise abatement treatment, e.g., rubber floor mats, acoustical tiles, etc., included in the classroom (Earthman, 2004, Uline & Tschannen-Moran, 2008). Lastly, schools with soft floorcovering such as carpet found student achievement higher in those rooms than in those classrooms with hard surface flooring. In addition, there was a preference by the instructors to teach in classrooms with carpeting due to improved acoustical conditions and lower reverberation times (Tanner &Langford, 2003). Classroom furniture plays a strategic role in addressing different learning styles and pedagogical delivery methods. New insights into how students learn and the various methods to enhance this opportunity are changing how furniture serves the learning experience (Felix & Brown, 2011). Moreover, technology requirements have become integrated into many seating, table, and presentation furniture items used classroom environments today. Furniture that is flexible and adjustable to the mode of teaching also contributes to supportive learning spaces (Brown &Lippincott, 2003). Assuming a human-factors or user-centered design approach, Cornell (2002) identified four important criteria that can be used in the assessment of learning experience in the classroom environment: 1) functionality (wire management, flexibility, and mobility); 2) comfort, safety, and health (not harmful); 3) usability (easy to use, with little or no training, prevent accidents, and optimize use); and 4) aesthetics (a design that is pleasing or acceptable for future use). The concern for ergonomics cannot be understated when one considers the amount of time that is spent in seated positions throughout the day (Castellucci, Arezes, &Viviani, 2010; Chung &Wong, 2007; Milanese &Grimmer, 2004). Discussions involving aesthetics frequently invoke images of attributes such as color, materials, ambiance, and cleanliness. In research regarding IEQ and student learning, the concept of aesthetics is more often associated with building age, features, condition, cleanliness, and overall image. Earthman (2004) found that school environments that are considered newer or adequately maintained reflect higher learning achievements among students than those settings where facilities were considered inadequate. In a somewhat related case study, student test scores from students in a remodeled school environment were found to be noticeably higher after the remodel (Baker &Bernstein, 2012). Additional criteria related to student learning outcomes include classroom layout and availability of technology (Lei, 2010). Many studies in the last 10 years have shown that school design and layout, including spatial configuration, affect students’ learning (Schneider, 2002). Use of technology in the classroom for teaching and learning as well as students’ ability to see the instructor and teaching materials, i.e., the visual images shown on a screen, seem to be obviously related to student learning performance and satisfaction with the physical environment as well as, perhaps, the course. It can be seen from the previous research that many IEQ criteria of the classroom environment seem to be related to student outcomes. The need for continued research on ways to improve student satisfaction and learning has become more imperative as demands for increased performance, efficiency, and a tightening economy exert pressure on higher education

faculty and administrators. Concerns for educational and sustainable performance have also risen because of ongoing legislation issues, e.g., state-assisted institutions of higher education are faced with dwindling legislative financial support. In addition, post-occupancy evaluation studies have been a method by which researchers have investigated occupants’ self-reported satisfaction, performance, and health issues related to various IEQ criteria in high school education environments (Khalil, Husin, Wahab, Kamal, &Mahat, 2011). Therefore, it is appropriate to continue the use of POEs in higher education classrooms to determine the influence of IEQ on college students’ satisfaction and learning. Further, although this literature review is not exhaustive, it is important to note that not all IEQ criteria were equally represented in research studies, yet any one or combination of IEQ criteria could be reasoned to enhance or hinder students’ learning process as well as their satisfaction. Additionally, research has demonstrated that occupants’ satisfaction with one or more IEQ criteria did not necessarily reflect satisfaction with the overall environment (Humphreys, 2005; Khalil et al., 2011). Therefore, it is important to study the IEQ of classrooms in a comprehensive way that includes all IEQ criteria so that the contribution of each, any, or all criteria can be determined, as well as the interaction effect. This study then used a theoretical framework to investigate the influence of various IEQ criteria on students’ satisfaction and learning.

Economic competitiveness allows America to effectively project power Elbridge Colby 14, the Robert M. Gates fellow at the Center for a New American Security; and Paul Lettow, was senior director for strategic planning on the U.S. National Security Council staff from 2007 to 2009, 7/3/14, “Have We Hit Peak America?,” http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/03/have_we_hit_peak_america

Many foreign-policy experts seem to believe that retaining American primacy is largely a matter of will -- of how America chooses to exert its power abroad. Even President Obama, more often accused of being a prophet of decline than a booster of America's future, recently asserted that the United States "has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world." The question, he continued, is "not whether America will lead, but how we will lead." But will is unavailing without strength . If the U nited States wants the international system to continue to reflect its interests and values -- a system, for example, in which the global commons are protected, trade is broad-based and extensive, and armed conflicts among great nations are curtailed -- it needs to sustain not just resolve, but relative power . That , in turn, will require acknowledging the uncomfortable truth that global power and wealth are shifting at an unprecedented pace, with profound implications. Moreover, many of the challenges America faces are exacerbated by vulnerabilities that are largely self-created, chief among them fiscal policy. Much more quickly and comprehensively than is understood, those vulnerabilities are reducing America's freedom of action and its ability to influence others. Preserving America's international position will require it to restore its economic vitality and make policy choices now that pay dividends for decades to come. America has to prioritize and to act. Fortunately, the United States still enjoys greater freedom to determine its future than any other major power, in part because many of its problems are within its ability to address . But this process of renewal must begin with analyzing America's competitive position and understanding the gravity of the situation Americans face.

U.S. hegemony is vital to global stability --- decline causes nuclear great power war --- best scholarship provesBrooks, Ikenberry, and Wohlforth 13 (Stephen, Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College, John Ikenberry is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, William C. Wohlforth is the Daniel Webster Professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College “Don’t Come Home America: The Case Against Retrenchment,” International Security, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Winter 2012/13), pp. 7–51)

A core premise of deep engagement is that it prevents the emergence of a far more dangerous global security environment. For one thing, as noted above, the United States’ overseas presence gives it the leverage to restrain partners from taking provocative action . Perhaps more important, its core alliance commitments also deter states with aspirations to regional hegemony from contemplating expansion and make its partners more secure, reducing their incentive to adopt solutions to

their security problems that threaten others and thus stoke security dilemmas. The contention that engaged U.S. power dampens the baleful effects of anarchy is

consistent with influential variants of realist theory. Indeed, arguably the scariest portrayal of the war-prone world that would emerge absent the “ America n Pacifier” is provided in the works of

John Mearsheimer, who forecasts dangerous multipolar regions replete with security competition, arms races, nuclear prolif eration and associated preventive war temptations, regional rivalries, and even runs at regional hegemony and full-scale great power war . 72 How do retrenchment advocates, the bulk of whom are realists, discount this benefit? Their arguments are

complicated, but two capture most of the variation: (1) U.S. security guarantees are not necessary to prevent dangerous rivalries and conflict in Eurasia; or (2) prevention of rivalry and conflict in Eurasia is not a U.S. interest. Each response is connected to a different theory or set of theories, which makes sense given that the whole debate hinges on a complex future counterfactual (what would happen to Eurasia’s security setting if the United States truly disengaged?). Although a certain answer is impossible, each of these responses is nonetheless a weaker argument for retrenchment than advocates acknowledge. The first response flows from defensive realism as well as other international relations theories that discount the conflict-generating potential of anarchy under contemporary conditions. 73 Defensive realists maintain that the high expected costs of territorial conquest, defense dominance, and an array of policies and practices that can be used credibly to signal benign intent, mean that Eurasia’s major states could manage regional multipolarity peacefully without the American pacifier. Retrenchment would be a bet on this scholarship, particularly in regions where the kinds of stabilizers that nonrealist theories point to—such as democratic governance or dense institutional linkages—are either absent or weakly present. There are three other major bodies of scholarship, however, that might give decisionmakers pause before making this bet. First is regional expertise. Needless to say, there is no consensus on the net security effects of U.S. withdrawal. Regarding each region, there are optimists and pessimists. Few experts expect a return of intense great power competition in a post-American Europe, but many doubt European governments will pay the political costs of increased EU defense

cooperation and the budgetary costs of increasing military outlays. 74 The result might be a Europe that is incapable of securing itself from various threats that could be destabilizing within the region and beyond (e.g., a regional conflict akin to the 1990s Balkan wars), lacks capacity for global security missions in which U.S. leaders might want European participation, and is vulnerable to the influence of outside rising powers. What about the other parts of Eurasia where the United States has a substantial military presence?

Regarding the Middle East , the balance begins to swing toward pessimists concerned that states currently backed by Washington— notably Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia—might take actions upon U.S. retrenchment that would intensify security dilemmas . And concerning East Asia , pessimism regarding the region’s prospects without the American pacifier is pronounced. Arguably

the principal concern expressed by area experts is that Japan and South Korea are likely to obtain a nuclear capacity and increase their military commitments, which could stoke a destabiliz ing reaction from China. It is notable that during the Cold War, both South Korea and

Taiwan moved to obtain a nuclear weapons capacity and were only constrained from doing so by a still-engaged United States. 75 The second body of scholarship casting doubt on the bet on defensive realism’s sanguine portrayal

is all of the research that undermines its conception of state preferences. Defensive realism’s optimism about what would happen if the United States retrenched is very much dependent on its

particular—and highly restrictive—assumption about state preferences; once we relax this assumption, then much of its basis for optimism vanishes. Specifically, the prediction of post-American tranquility throughout Eurasia rests on the assumption that security is the only relevant state preference, with security defined narrowly in terms of protection from violent external attacks on the homeland. Under that assumption, the security problem is largely

solved as soon as offense and defense are clearly distinguishable, and offense is extremely expensive relative to defense. Burgeoning research across the social and other sciences, however, undermines that core assumption: states have preferences not only for security but also for prestige , status, and other aims , and they engage in trade-offs among the various objectives. 76 In addition, they define security not just in terms of territorial protection but in view of

many and varied milieu goals. It follows that even states that are relatively secure may nevertheless engage in highly competitive behavior. Empirical studies show that this is indeed sometimes the case . 77 In sum, a bet on a benign postretrenchment Eurasia is a bet that leaders of major

countries will never allow these nonsecurity preferences to influence their strategic choices. To the degree that these bodies of scholarly knowledge have predictive leverage, U.S. retrenchment would result in a significant deterioration in the security environment in at least some of the world’s key regions. We have already mentioned the third, even more alarming body of scholarship. Offensive realism predicts that the withdrawal of the American pacifier will yield either a competitive regional multipolarity complete with associated insecurity, arms racing, crisis instability , nuclear proliferation, and the like, or bids for regional hegemony, which may be

beyond the capacity of local great powers to contain (and which in any case would generate intensely

competitive behavior, possibly including regional great power war). Hence it is unsurprising that retrenchment advocates are prone to focus on the

second argument noted above: that avoiding wars and security dilemmas in the world’s core regions is not a U.S. national interest. Few doubt that the United States could survive the return of insecurity and conflict among Eurasian powers, but at what cost? Much of the work in this area has focused on the economic externalities of a renewed threat of insecurity and war, which we discuss below. Focusing on the pure security ramifications, there are

two main reasons why decisionmakers may be rationally reluctant to run the retrenchment experiment. First, overall higher levels of conflict make the world a more dangerous place. Were Eurasia to return to higher levels of interstate military competition, one would see overall higher levels of military spending and innovation and a higher likelihood of competitive regional proxy wars and arming of client states—all of which would be concerning, in part because it would promote a faster diffusion of military power away from the United States. Greater regional insecurity could well feed proliferation cascades , as states such as Egypt, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Saudi Arabia all might choose to create nuclear forces. 78 It is unlikely that proliferation

decisions by any of these actors would be the end of the game: they would likely generate pressure locally for more proliferation. Following Kenneth Waltz, many retrenchment advocates are proliferation optimists, assuming that

nuclear deterrence solves the security problem. 79 Usually carried out in dyadic terms, the debate over the stability of proliferation changes as the numbers go up. Proliferation optimism rests on assumptions of rationality and narrow security preferences . In social science, however, such assumptions are inevitably probabilistic. Optimists assume that most states are led by rational leaders, most will overcome organizational problems and resist the temptation to preempt before feared neighbors

nuclearize, and most pursue only security and are risk averse. Confidence in such probabilistic assumptions declines if the world were to move from nine to twenty, thirty, or forty nuclear states. In addition, many of the other dangers noted by analysts who are concerned about the destabilizing effects of nuclear proliferation—including the risk of accidents and the prospects that some new nuclear powers will not have truly survivable forces—seem prone to go up as the number of nuclear powers grows. 80 Moreover, the risk of “unforeseen crisis dynamics” that

could spin out of control is also higher as the number of nuclear powers increases. Finally, add to these concerns the enhanced danger of nuclear leakage, and a world with overall higher levels of

security competition becomes yet more worrisome. The argument that maintaining Eurasian peace is not a U.S. interest faces a second problem. On widely accepted realist assumptions, acknowledging that U.S. engagement preserves peace dramatically narrows the difference between retrenchment and deep engagement. For many supporters of retrenchment, the optimal strategy for a power such as

the United States, which has attained regional hegemony and is separated from other great powers by oceans, is offshore balancing: stay over the horizon and “pass the buck” to local powers to do the dangerous work of counterbalancing any local rising power. The United States should commit to onshore balancing only when local balancing is likely to fail and a great power appears to be a credible contender for regional hegemony, as in the cases of Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union in the midtwentieth century. The problem is that China’s rise puts the possibility of its attaining regional hegemony on the table, at least in the medium to long term. As Mearsheimer notes,

“The United States will have to play a key role in countering China , because its Asian neighbors are not strong enough to do it by themselves.” 81 Therefore, unless

China’s rise stalls, “the United States is likely to act toward China similar to the way it behaved toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War.” 82 It follows that the United States should take no action that would compromise its capacity to move to onshore balancing in the future. It will need to maintain key alliance relationships in Asia as well as the formidably expensive military capacity to intervene there. The implication is to get out of Iraq and

Afghanistan, reduce the presence in Europe, and pivot to Asia— just what the United States is doing. 83 In sum, the arg ument that U.S. security commitments are unnecessary for peace is countered by a lot of scholarship , including highly influential realist scholarship. In addition, the argument that Eurasian peace is

unnecessary for U.S. security is weakened by the potential for a large number of nasty security consequences as well as the need to retain a latent onshore balancing capacity that dramatically reduces the savings retrenchment might bring. Moreover, switching between offshore and onshore balancing could well be difªcult. Bringing together the thrust of many of the arguments discussed so far underlines the degree to which the case for retrenchment

misses the underlying logic of the deep engagement strategy. By supplying reassurance, deterrence, and active management, the United States lowers security competition in the world’s key regions, thereby preventing the emergence of a hothouse atmosphere for growing new military capabilities. Alliance ties dissuade partners from ramping up and also provide leverage to prevent military transfers to potential rivals. On top of all this, the United States’ formidable military machine may deter

entry by potential rivals. Current great power military expenditures as a percentage of GDP are at historical lows, and thus far other major powers have shied away from seeking to match top-end U.S. military capabilities. In addition, they have so far been careful to avoid attracting the “focused enmity” of the United States. 84 All of the world’s most modern militaries are U.S. allies (America’s alliance system of more than sixty countries now accounts for some 80 percent of global military spending), and the gap between the U.S. military capability and that of potential rivals is by many measures growing rather than shrinking. 85

2AC - Green Schools Increase Achievement Five years of data from Australia prove the linkMartty 13 <Mercedes, Architecture Journalist, “Green Schools Can Improve Student Performance,” https://sourceable.net/green-schools-can-improve-student-performance/>#SPS

A new report by the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA), The Future of Australian Education: Sustainable Places for Learning, outlines up-to-date research and case studies which can help Australian schools invest in better buildings and achieve better learning outcomes. The GBCA said the report offers a possible solution to the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Reform Council's recent report detailing the performance of the country’s educational system. “The report is a reminder that ‘where’ students learn is just as important as ‘what’ they learn and ‘who’ teaches them,” the GBCA said. The COAG report, Education in Australia 2012: Five years of performance, found that while students in Australian primary schools have improved in some areas, secondary school attendance has decreased and there has been little improvement in reading and numeracy. According to that report, reducing the educational disadvantage experienced by Indigenous young people, young people from the lowest socio-economic backgrounds and from rural or remote places remains a challenge. The GBCA said research showing that eco-friendly buildings produce more productive workers than less sustainable buildings provides a clear path for the country as it seeks to improve its educational performance. “Just as investing in quality teaching and quality resources is essential, so too is investing in quality learning environments,” GBCA chief executive Romilly Madew said. “Many employers are reporting significant increases in productivity and worker retention, decreases in absenteeism and large reductions in operational costs after their move to a Green Star building.” “So, if we know that office space that provides light and fresh air improves performance, why are we satisfied for our children to learn in school environments that are too cold in winter, too hot in summer, badly lit and poorly ventilated?” she said. The future of Australian education: Sustainable places for learning aims to help governments, architects and the education sector find ways of designing schools that will help improve student achievement. The report suggests that access to daylight and views enhances students’ performance, high indoor air quality improves health and concentration, improved acoustics boost learning potential, and comfortable indoor temperatures increase occupant satisfaction. It says good lighting and ventilation can deliver a 41.5 per cent improvement in the health of students and teachers and a 25 per cent improvement on test scores; students with access to good daylight in their classrooms progress 20 per cent faster in maths and 26 per cent faster in reading; and the classroom environment can affect a child’s academic progress by as much as 25 per cent. “Australia has more than 9,500 schools around the country, and our goal is for students and teachers in each and every school to have access to sustainable places for learning, and for all students and teachers to reap the benefits of healthy, productive, efficient education facilities,” Madew said. “This report for COAG confirms that not all our students are gaining the quality education they deserve. One of the solutions is to invest in quality buildings that save taxpayer dollars. We call on governments, the education sector, industry and the broader community to commit to working together to achieve this. The result will be better outcomes for our students, our teachers, our nation and our planet.” The GBCA says green schools not only deliver better outcomes for students, they can also improve the health and comfort of teachers, who spend up to 90 per cent of their working day indoors. Teachers can benefit significantly from buildings that are designed to provide natural daylight, fresh air and access to external views. “We hope that The future of Australian

education – Sustainable placesfor learning sparks a new conversation about how high-performance green schools can deliver high-performance students,” Madew said

2AC - Education Key to Competitiveness K-12 education is in crisis- collapsing our competitivenessToscano, 8 -- Virginia House of Delegates House Minority Leader

[David, "The Crisis in Math and Science Education," 11-16-8, davidtoscano.com/issues/math-and-science-education, accessed 6-14-17]

The scientific and academic community has been warning about the crisis in math and science education for years; our schools are not producing the scientists, engineers and mathematicians necessary for this country to maintain its science and technological preeminenc e , thereby putting our global economic prominence at risk. Look at what is happening around us. In 2007, foreigners accounted for 46% of all PhDs in Math and Science granted by American universities. This is the discipline that fuels innovation in the semiconductor industry. In 2009, the average US mathematics literacy score for a 15 year old student was below the average of all 34 OECD (Organized for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries, a group of the world’s most advanced economies. In 2009, the average US science literary score for a 15 year old student was average among the 34 OECD countries. We are not preparing and inspiring our youngsters to enter the scientific pipeline early. Our universities do a terrific job with students once they arrive, but our K-12 efforts have not been as effective as they need to be. The United States has one of the lowest high school graduation rates in the industrialized world; 3 of every 10 ninth graders do not graduate on time. Our performance on math and science tests, while comparable to other industrialized nations in the fourth grade, decline by the 12th grade, where we rank near the bottom. Virginia does somewhat better than the nation as a whole, but only 38% of our eighth graders were at or above proficiency in math. Part of the problem is that we do not have enough qualified math and science teachers; only 52% of our math teachers and 74% of our science teachers in Virginia actually majored in the courses that they teach. Without action, this statistic is likely to worsen as experienced teachers retire and are not replaced with others trained in these disciplines. Our investment in science and research and development is lagging by comparison to other nations. Singapore is engaged in a multibillion-dollar effort to make it the leader in stem-cell and health-related research, and is recruiting scientists from all over the world, including the U.S. In the next year, Saudi Arabia will launch a new research university with an endowment of $10 billion (by comparison, UVa’s endowment now stands at $3.1 billion). Our high technology trade balance has shifted from a positive of $33 billion in 1990 to a negative of $132 billion in 2006 and the United States is now ranked 7th in the world in its research and development spending as a percentage of GDP.

K-12 Education is a crucial pipeline to higher education and the workforceAugustine et al, 6 -- National Academies Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century Chair

[Norman R., retired Lockheed Martin Chairman and CEO, report written by the National Academies (The National Academy of Sciences, The National Academy of Engineering, The Institute of Medicine, and The National Research Council) Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century, “Rising Above The Gathering Storm”]

Enlarge the pipeline of students who are prepared to enter college and graduate with a degree in science, engineering, or mathematics by increasing the number of students who pass AP and IB science and mathematics courses. The competitiveness of US knowledge industries will be purchased largely in the K–12 classroom: We must invest in our students’ mathematics and science education. A new generation of bright, well-trained scientists and engineers will transform our future only if we begin in the 6th grade to significantly enlarge the pipeline and prepare students to engage in advanced coursework in mathematics and science.

The educated workforce is critical to competitivenessAugustine et al, 6 -- National Academies Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century Chair

[Norman R., retired Lockheed Martin Chairman and CEO, report written by the National Academies (The National Academy of Sciences, The National Academy of Engineering, The Institute of Medicine, and The National Research Council) Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century, “Rising Above The Gathering Storm”]

The most effective way for the United States to meet the challenges of a flatter world would be to draw heavily and quickly on its investments in human capital. We need people who have been prepared for the kinds of knowledge-intensive occupations in which the nation must excel. Yet the United States has for a number of decades fallen short in making the kinds of investments that will be essential in a global economy. An educated, innovative, motivated workforce—human capital—is the most precious resource of any country in this new, flat world. Yet there is widespread concern about our K–12 science and mathematics education system, the foundation of that human capital in today’s global economy.

US leadership is in danger – our knowledge base is key and can shift quicklyAugustine et al, 6 -- National Academies Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century Chair

[Norman R., retired Lockheed Martin Chairman and CEO, report written by the National Academies (The National Academy of Sciences, The National Academy of Engineering, The Institute of Medicine, and The National Research Council) Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century, “Rising Above The Gathering Storm”]

Having reviewed trends in the United States and abroad, the committee is deeply concerned that the scientific and technological building blocks critical to our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strength. We strongly believe that a worldwide strengthening will benefit the world’s economy—particularly in the creation of jobs in countries that are far less well-off than the United States. But we are worried about the future prosperity of the United States.

Although many people assume that the United States will always be a world leader in science and technology, this may not continue to be the case inasmuch as great minds and ideas exist throughout the world. We fear the abruptness with which a lead in science and technology can be lost—and the difficulty of recovering a lead once lost, if indeed it can be regained at all. The committee found that multinational companies use criteria such as the following in determining where to locate their facilities and the jobs that result: • Cost of labor (professional and general workforce). • Availability and cost of capital. • Availability and quality of research and innovation talent. • Availability of qualified workforce. • Taxation environment. • Indirect costs (litigation, employee benefits such as healthcare, pensions, vacations). • Quality of research universities. • Convenience of transportation and communication (including language). • Fraction of national research and development supported by government. • Legal-judicial system (business integrity, property rights, contract sanctity, patent protection). • Current and potential growth of domestic market. • Attractiveness as place to live for employees. • Effectiveness of national economic system.

Although the US economy is doing well today, current trends in each of these areas indicate that the United States may not fare as well in the future without government intervention. This nation must prepare with great urgency to preserve its strategic and economic security. Because other nations have, and probably will continue to have, the competitive advantage of a low wage structure, the United States must compete by optimizing its knowledge- based resources, particularly in science and technology, and by sustaining the most fertile environment for new and revitalized industries and the well-paying jobs they bring. We have already seen that capital, factories, and laboratories readily move wherever they are thought to have the greatest promise of return to investors.

2AC - U.S. Behind PISA and NAEP scores are gradually decreasing – other competitive nations are outperforming the US DeSilver 2-15-17 (Drew DeSilver is a senior writer at the Pew Research Center - U.S. students’ academic achievement still lags that of their peers in many other countries - http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/15/u-s-students-internationally-math-science/)

How do U.S. students compare with their peers around the world? Recently released data from international math and science assessments indicate that U.S. students continue to rank around the middle of the pack, and behind many other advanced industrial nations . One of the biggest cross-national tests is the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which every three years measures reading ability, math and science literacy and other key skills among 15-year-olds in dozens of developed and developing countries. The most recent PISA results , from 2015, placed the U.S. an unimpressive 38 th out of 71 countries in math and 24th in science . Among the 35 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which sponsors the PISA initiative, the U.S. ranked 30th in math and 19th in science. Younger American students fare somewhat better on a similar cross-national assessment, the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. That study, known as TIMSS, has tested students in grades four and eight every four years since 1995. In the most recent tests, from 2015, 10 countries (out of 48 total) had statistically higher average fourth-grade math scores than the U.S., while seven countries had higher average science scores . In the eighth-grade tests, seven out of 37 countries had statistically higher average math scores than the U.S., and seven had higher science scores. Another long-running testing effort is the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a project of the federal Education Department. In the most recent NAEP results, from 2015, average math scores for fourth- and eighth-graders fell for the first time since 1990. A team from Rutgers University is analyzing the NAEP data to try to identify the reasons for the drop in math scores.

2AC - K2 Achievement High quality schools K2 student achievementMagzaman et al. 17 <Dr. Sheryl, Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences; Adam P. Mayer PhD, Research Associate, Department of Sociology,; Stephanie Barr MS, Research Associate, Institute for the Built Environment; Lenora Bohren PhD, Research Advisor, Institute for the Built Environment; Brian Dunbar MArch, Director, Institute for the Built Environment; Dale Manning PhD, Assistant Professor Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics; Stephen J. Reynolds PhD, Professor, Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences; Joshua W. Schaeffer PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences; Jordan Suter PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics; Jennifer E. Cross PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology; Colorado State University, “A Multidisciplinary Research Framework on Green Schools: Infrastructure, Social Environment, Occupant Health, and Performance,” Journal of School Health, Volume 87, Issue 5, May 2017, Pages 376–387, Accessed Via Baylor Libraries>#SPS

High quality school facilities can be conceptualized as an additional “teacher” in which children learn from interactions with the physical environment.[64-68] Many older school buildings do not have control of thermal environment, adequate lighting, or adequate maintenance practices[33] which have been found to foster productive learning environments.[69] Several cross-sectional studies using objective measures of school building quality have found a positive relationship between facility conditions and standardized test scores,[70, 71] grades,[72] and attendance,[73] though other studies reported no effect.[21, 23, 30] Recent evidence demonstrates that facility location, in particular—proximity to trees and vegetation—have been positively linked to scholastic outcomes.[74] Environmental stressors found in buildings with inadequate infrastructure or maintenance schedules, such as noise, odors, poor lighting, or temperature, may result in low motivation and learned helplessness,[75-78] and may manifest as decreased academic achievement.[75-77, 79] In extreme cases, unsafe school facilities have been found to significantly contribute to poor school attendance and behavior, with relatively small effects on grades[80] or standardized tests.[81] Despite the strong theoretical evidence for the role of school-based environmental stressors for deficits in learning,[78] we have not identified empirical evidence that links these physical stressors, other than crime,[82, 83] to psychosocial health and academic achievement.

Solvency

2AC - Solvency SolvencyFilardo, Gutter, and Rowland 16 <Mary Filardo, Executive Director of the 21st Century School Fund; Rachel Gutter, Director Center for Green Schools, U.S. Green Building Council; Mike Rowland, State Facilities Director, Georgia Department of Education, 2016 President National Council on School Facilities “State of Our Schools: America’s K–12 Facilities” is a joint publication of the 21st Century School Fund, Inc., U.S. Green Building Council, Inc., and the National Council on School Facilities, https://kapost-files-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/published/56f02c3d626415b792000008/2016-state-of-our-schools-report.pdf?kui=wo7vkgV0wW0LGSjxek0N5A>#SPS

Providing healthy, safe, educationally appropriate, and environmentally sustainable facilities for our nation’s students is a complex and challenging responsibility. As the world changes and understanding of health, safety, education, and the environment grows, teaching and learning environments necessarily evolve. Although many states and school districts have made significant improvements and investments in their public education infrastructure, the nation overall is not prepared to deliver on its responsibility to provide all students access to an excellent education. As a nation, we need to close the gap between what has been spent for public school facilities and what is needed going forward to fulfill this promise. Most troubling is the inequity of K–12 public school facilities from community to community. Some children learn in state-of-the art school buildings, with the most modern labs, classrooms, and computer centers available. But too many students suffer in buildings that were out of date decades ago and are an embarrassment in the world’s richest country. Because local wealth is the primary source of capital construction funds, underinvestment disproportionately affects children from low income families. The results affect both students’ well-being and their educational opportunities. Effectively addressing the shortfalls and inequities will require disrupting traditional approaches to planning, managing, and funding public school facilities. Encouragingly, a number of states and communities already have begun this work. Instances of innovation and inspiration abound — within the K–12 sector and beyond. They point to a rich landscape of opportunities, if communities can harness their will to address these common challenges. While this report provides a national overview of the issues, challenges, and opportunities, decisions about school facilities are ultimately local. We encourage communities across the country to use the information contained in this report (and the state-level supplemental online data) to do their own analyses and host their own conversations. The goal: ensure that every student in every community has the opportunity to attend K–12 public schools that provide a quality education in facilities that are healthy, safe, and conducive to learning. Below are four ideas to help prompt constructive discussions. 1. Understand Your Community’s Public School Facilities Addressing the nationwide funding gap requires that the American public and policymakers better understand the conditions in their own schools and how these facilities impact student and teacher health and performance, the environment, the local economy, and overall community vitality. A key requirement is to have better data on public school infrastructure. The data need to be up-to-date, comprehensive, accurate, and accessible to citizens and officials. The lack of common definitions and inconsistent spending and investment data nationally and in most states present challenges. Appendix A offers a state-by-state table showing the data discrepancies that raise questions about data accuracy, classification, and reporting. Communities must insist on getting access to accurate data on their schol facilities. 2. Engage in Education Facilities Planning Ultimately, the power to decide whether and how to deliver quality public educational facilities rests with taxpayers and voters. Education leaders need to

better understand the power of facilities in advancing education quality and equity and must clearly and consistently communicate to the general public the value of safer and healthier environments for learning. The solutions to fixing poor facilities conditions and inequities should be planned systematically. Gaps cannot be closed overnight. Priorities must be established. Learning from best practices across the country, local communities can develop creative and practical plans to improve their public school facilities. In our democratic society, community members and school-based personnel both need to be a part of this integrated planning process. 3. Support New Public Funding Adequate public funding is required to make it possible to meet the country’s responsibilities to the generation of students currently in schools and the generations to come. If we as a nation continue to rely primarily on the local property tax, we cannot expect better results. States are critical partners to their local districts. In the 12 states that provided no capital construction funding to districts, along with the 13 other states that provided less than 10 percent, a critical step is to identify state-level solutions to ensure equitable educational opportunities for all. Many states have been working to find dedicated revenue to support facilities in their local districts. New Mexico uses revenues from oil and gas reserves and Wyoming uses revenues from coal lease bonuses for their school facilities. Ohio dedicated its tobacco settlement revenue to pay for its statewide school construction program. The Georgia Legislature enabled its counties to pass a special option sales tax that can be dedicated to school construction. Iowa and Massachusetts have dedicated a portion of their state sales taxes for school construction. South Carolina recently established a statewide property tax to ensure adequate and equitable schools, including facilities. However, even the most creative state and local partnerships leave some districts behind. It is time to explore how the federal government can help eliminate extreme inequities in school facilities conditions. It is time for a non-partisan dialogue on the appropriate federal role for helping states and districts meet our collective responsibilities. 4. Leverage Public and Private Resources Innovative solutions will be necessary to sustain the scale of investment required to provide the schools that every student in every community deserves. To more fully leverage public facilities investment, a new generation of structures, funding streams, and partnerships will be needed. Leveraging these investments means finding ways to use land and building assets to raise and save funds, such as public-private and public-public development partnerships, revolving loan funds, social impact investing, and other scalable and sustainable financing solutions. Private sector partners have an important role to play in identifying and maximizing opportunities. With private support, school districts can leverage staff and contractors toward their highest possible value, using proper controls, transparency, and oversight of decisions. Whether implementing financing solutions, structuring joint use of buildings and grounds, or locating improvements to maximize building efficiency, school districts and their state-level partners need technical and regulatory support in solving their investment shortfalls. A Call to Action Federal, state, and local stakeholders — from senators to state legislators to superintendents, community leaders to impact investors — must collaborate to create, pilot, and scale new solutions and document successful strategies. Community and investment partners must come to the table. Five states already have created separate agencies dedicated to school facilities. Some are focused primarily on state allocation of capital funds. Others are engaged in planning and project management and construction itself. One — New Mexico Public School Authority — is involved in the continuum of facilities from M&O to design and construction. However, the current reality is that most districts in most states must deliver 21st century school facilities on their own. Thought leaders from education, government, industry, and communities are invited to use and improve on the data and standards framework presented in this report to brainstorm, share, and pilot creative new solutions to these common facilities challenges.

Successful strategies that emerge from these pilots must be documented, refined, and adapted for scale. The result: school facilities that meet the needs of today’s students, in every community, and for generations to come.

Solvency/AT: States?Bernstein 16 <Jared, a former chief economist to Vice President Biden, is a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and author of the new book 'The Reconnection Agenda: Reuniting Growth and Prosperity., “Fixing our school facilities: An essential combination of education and infrastructure policy,” 30 March 2016, The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/30/fixing-our-school-facilities-an-essential-combination-of-education-and-infrastructure-policy/?utm_term=.2e8d159f0f03>#SPS

We can argue all day about the role of government in our economy, but there are two areas where that role is widely agreed to be essential: education and public infrastructure. Well, there’s a great way to roll those roles together: a deep investment in the quality of our public school facilities. Here are some facts to get you thinking about the scope of the problem, from a careful and timely new study by three groups that brought some heavy analytic firepower to this question of the state of our schools: — Every school day, 50 million students and 6 million adults (mostly teachers) meet at the 100,000 K-12 public schools nationwide. These buildings, along with supporting areas, such as bus lots and storage areas, comprise 7.5 billion square feet, the equivalent of half the total commercial space in the country. After highways, this is the biggest piece of our public infrastructure. — Although considerable variation exists, the average age of the main building of a public school today is about 44. That means many roofs, windows, boilers, and ventilation, plumbing and electrical systems need to be fixed, upgraded or replaced. — Although the local share of operating costs is 42 percent, localities are responsible for 82 percent of capital costs (which is what pays for infrastructure). Given the increase in income inequality by place, that fact automatically maps inequality into our public education infrastructure. — That imbalanced investment formula is especially damaging given the relationship between learning and learning environment. “Because local wealth is the primary source of capital construction funds, underinvestment disproportionately affects children from low-income families. The results affect both students’ well-being and their educational opportunities.” I find this last point particularly motivating. When a child who is already held back by disadvantages in her neighborhood attends a school with poor air quality, hazardous materials, poor acoustics, and inadequate heating and cooling, research shows she will have a new set of problems. Those conditions are correlated with elevated levels of truancy, absenteeism, higher teacher turnover and even lower student performance. Other new research on this issue from my CBPP colleague Liz McNichol confirms that schools with the poorest students need the most repairs. Of course, we should fill the potholes. But the above linkages — neighborhood inequality, local funding of public school infrastructure and the negative impact of impaired facilities — suggest that these investments could make critical, lasting differences in the lives of less advantaged kids. The report makes a solid case for spending an additional $46 billion a year for school maintenance and operation ($8 billion), and construction ($38 billion); that’s about a third less than we’re currently spending. Again, there’s great variation here. Some localities are pulling this off, often by dedicating a stream of funding to this purpose. New Mexico dedicates oil and gas revenue (Wyoming uses coal revenue); Ohio used revenue from its tobacco settlement; in Georgia, Iowa and Massachusetts, a portion of sales taxes pay for school construction. South Carolina recently passed a statewide property tax to help fund facilities and balance the inequities described above. But most others just muddle through, and this problem is

too important to leave to chance. Two ideas, a small one and a big one, come to mind. The small idea, or maybe better framed as “temporary,” is a one-time federally funded investment in bringing the most neglected school facilities up to present standards. I’ve worked with others in the past on this idea, and we pushed FAST! (the “!” is part of the title, like a Broadway show!) — Fix America’s Schools Today! The bill garnered some bipartisan support in former Congresses. Interest rates are low, there’s still slack in the job market and the benefits here, especially over the course of these kids’ lives, may well outpace the costs. We should do this, and FAST! But the report correctly notes that absent a longer-term fix, most facilities will eventually fall back into disrepair. As noted, a lot of state experimentation is going on in this space, and one obvious way forward is for states to educate one another, an idea that’s being operationalized by one of the report’s authors, the National Council on School Facilities. Ultimately, there needs to be a federal role here as well. At a minimum, the feds could help with information dissemination regarding best practices for facility upgrades and upkeep. But one could also see a role, perhaps out of the Environmental Protection Agency, for funding health-related upgrades around issues such as the lead in school water fountains, a truly outrageous development , but also asbestos, mold, PCBs, radon and so on. Or the Energy Department could support the greening of school infrastructures, replacing boilers, windows and roofing, an initiative that also would generate savings against heating and cooling costs.

States CP - Answers

States Fail - Race to the Bottom Local governments fail with buildings – creates a “race to the bottom” Cotten 12 (Marya, Assistant Professor of Law Baruch Law, Cornell Real Estate Review, "The Wisdom of LEED's Role in Green Building Mandates," scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=crer, 1/26)

The shortcomings of local regulation include the danger of a “race to the bottom ” where localities will compete for real estate development, especially in a weak economy, by having the least stringent standards.72 It is also the case that while many localities have building codes in place, many of them have not been updated in more than ten years. The most obvious downside to local regulation is that while some externalities are felt more intensely locally, like soil erosion, water pollution, and air quality, environmental ills do not stop at municipal or state borders. To make true progress in achieving clean air and water for all, as well as addressing a resource constrained world and the scourge of climate change, a national (or even international)

effort would be more efficient in achieving measurable progress. The uniformity of national standards with respect to green building would in some ways assist developers who could then work with one set of standards. Even if there is cost associated with more stringent requirements, it would still be administratively efficient for developers to master and build in accordance to one standard than try to learn the patchwork of city, county, and state regulations that vary widely jurisdiction by jurisdiction . However, in the current political climate, a national green building bill would require bipartisan support to pass and may not be likely to happen soon with a nation focused on a recovering economy and national security. While a sustainable economy that conserves resources actually aids an economy and national security in the long run, this kind of long range view is not one that U.S. Congress or its constituents prioritize.

State regulation creates a tragedy of the commons – only a national standard solvesRawlins and Paterson 10 (Rachel, Senior Lecturer in Land Use and Environmental Law, Graduate Program in Community and Regional Planning, The University of Texas at Austin, Robert, Associate Professor, Community and Regional Planning, and Director of the Planning Doctoral Program at The University of Texas at Austin, Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy Vol 19 Iss 2, "Sustainable Buildings and Communities: Climate Change and the Case for Federal Standards," scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1307&context=cjlpp, 2/2)

There is no time to dabble. If the United States is really interested in reducing energy consumption, it needs a national building code. Per capita electricity consumption in the United States increased by nearly 50% over the past 30 years, yet California's per capita electricity use has remained almost flat, due in part to cost-effective building standards.1 34 If the rest of the country were to even just catch up with California's current standards, it would be a tremendous improvement. As a country, we should go even further and strive to achieve Architecture 2030's goals. The federal government should take decisive action. In 2005, the G8 adopted a plan that specifically noted that "[e]nergy efficiency standards for new buildings should be set by national or state governments and should aim to minimize total costs over a 30-year lifetime."' 135 Cities and counties have started to pave the way, but they alone cannot produce the mandatory across-the-board regulations needed to radically reduce emissions levels. The scientific assessment is that the world must reduce emissions on the order of 50% of 1990 levels, in addition to the cessation of wide scale deforestation, to stabilize the composition of the atmosphere.' 36 The U.S. contributes nearly 25% to total global greenhouse gas emissions, 137 and the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human sources have increased an estimated 16.7% from 1990 levels. 138 In a matter

this important, we should not be relying on private organizations that are not accountable to the people or to the international community to alone draft the model codes, and we cannot rely on the states to take aggressive action . It is amazing that we have come as far as we have with our piecemeal approach, although this is perhaps partly due to the fact that life cycle costs really do make green buildings more economically efficient. Nevertheless, the current approach is unlikely to be effective, and is wholly inefficient. Relying on discretionary local regulation risks the free-rider problem and the tragedy of the commons . A single local government that seeks to address the climate change problem through stricter regulation will absorb all the cost of the effort, but all communities will reap the benefits. Strict local regulation may also turn builders, and the economic benefits that they produce, to neighboring jurisdictions with more lax regulation . Developing ad hoc supplemental code provisions at the municipal level is a significant burden that requires the participation of trained professionals to analyze what is feasible and appropriate, and requires training municipal staff to ensure effective enforcement. 139 New York City's adoption of its new building code took four years of work by four hundred volunteers. 140 We do not have the time to move forward with incremental city-by-city efforts that may or may not come to fruition. Speed is particularly important in the context of building codes and standards where simple and inexpensive climate friendly options, like solar access site design, or the width of walls for insulation, will not be easily available through retrofitting programs.

CP also won’t be enforced – states lack enforcement capacityRawlins and Paterson 10 (Rachel, Senior Lecturer in Land Use and Environmental Law, Graduate Program in Community and Regional Planning, The University of Texas at Austin, Robert, Associate Professor, Community and Regional Planning, and Director of the Planning Doctoral Program at The University of Texas at Austin, Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy Vol 19 Iss 2, "Sustainable Buildings and Communities: Climate Change and the Case for Federal Standards," scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1307&context=cjlpp, 2/2)

Even when codes are adopted by local jurisdictions, there have been issues with the adequacy of enforcement and institutional support. Although available data is not robust, it does signal a significant and widespread lack of code compliance. 150 According to the Building Codes Assistance Project: "A 2005 review of state compliance studies reported relatively low compliance with energy codes in all states, with the possible exception of those in the Pacific Northwest (Montana, Oregon, and Washington) and California."' 151 Difficulties identified included a "lack of manpower," insufficient time to spend on project sites, relatively low priority among regulators to ensure energy code compliance as compared to compliance with health and safety codes, and inadequate training time for local enforcement agents. 152 In a large national study, using data from a survey of over 800 U.S. cities, Professors Raymond J. Burby, Peter J. May, and Robert G. Paterson found that the cities with the highest rates of code compliance facilitated compliance with "(1) an adequate number of technically competent staff; (2) strong leadership ; (3) adequate legal support; and (4) a consistently strong effort to check building and development plans , inspect building and development sites, and provide technical assistance." 15 3 The researchers found that compliance with codes was most problematic in places where there was economic duress, lack of proficiency in the contractor community, and corruption in the enforcement process. 154 We need national building codes and strong enforcement programs with resources and training programs commensurate with the importance of this sector in the context of climate change. We need to eliminate private restrictions, preempt any state and local laws that

significantly interfere with solar or other alternative energy sources, and adopt laws to affirmatively protect solar access.

States Fail - Empirics State mandates fail to keep up with innovationsGruber 14 (Joseph, JD University of San Francisco School of Law, University of San Francisco Law Review, "Green Efficiency at Its Finest: Shifting the Building Permit Process to Promote Sustainable Buildings," Lexis, 1/25)

B. Mandatory Ordinances Both the LEED and GreenPoint systems have really served as a gateway to allow for the continued development of these

green building measures over time. California, often perceived as one of the more forward-thinking states in the union, has implemented a number [*546] of mandatory measures on both the state and citywide level. n79 While these measures have promoted the green building

agenda, issues still exist that require further action to continue the development of sustainable buildings. 1.

California's Implementation of Mandatory Measures To address the necessity of sustainable buildings, some states and cities have established mandatory ordinances requiring building developers to take steps to make their buildings more sustainable. California implemented the California Green Building Standards ("CALGreen") in 2010 to improve public health, safety, and general welfare. n80 By focusing on planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality, California hopes to

reduce negative impact or promote positive impact for the environment. n81 CALGreen lays out separate tasks and benchmarks that developers must meet when they are constructing a building. n82 These mandates range from the salvaging or reusing of nonhazardous construction or demolition waste, n83 to the 20 percent reduction of potable water. n84 In contrast, the city and county of San Francisco took a different approach in mandating sustainable building practices in that city. In 2008, San Francisco enacted an ordinance, updated in 2010 to include the new CALGreen requirements, which mandated certain environmentally friendly provisions in the building process . n85 Instead of laying out bit by bit what

the requirements are, San Francisco requires that all single-family residential homes score seventy-five points or higher through the GreenPoint system. n86 Residential high-rise buildings are mandated to meet the LEED Silver standard n87 while commercial buildings must meet the LEED Gold standard. n88 Even though California and San

Francisco have taken huge steps in making the building process more sustainable, these efforts are not [*547] without issues and do not effectively advance the necessity of reforming and advancing environmental changes . 2. The Shortcomings and Critiques of California's Green Building Measures While the mandating of sustainable building practices may be one of the most effective methods of alleviating

environmental concerns, it does not come without problems. Many concerns arise in terms of relying on the viability of the implementation of constantly changing fields. By shifting from a code driven model to a centralized decision making body, these alterations can be more effectively implemented and maintained, helping to push forward the change we need.