NIB 1AC Conway 13

Contention One is Insolvency:

Our transportation infrastructure is at its worstonly NIB solves investor certainty,
jobs, manufacturing, and competitiveness
Galston and Davis 12/13
(William A., political theorist, Senior Fellow of Governance at the Brookings Institution, was a senior
adviser to President of the United States Bill Clinton on domestic policy, Korin, project manager at
Brookings, Brookings Institution, Governance Studies at Brookings, Setting Priorities, Meeting Needs:
The Case for a National Infrastructure Bank, p. 1-2, accessed 12/31/12, The God Card, HP: 5000, Atk:
5000, Def: 5000, YGS)

Our nations infrastructure is in desperate need of upgrading. From highly publicized bridge
collapses and levee breaches to airport delays and traffic congestion, every American has
experienced the frustrationand in some cases the dangersof aging, overcrowded, under-maintained facilities.
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) gave Americas infrastructure a cumulative grade of
D, a result of delayed maintenance and chronic underfunding . ASCEs most recent quadrennial
report card for Americas infrastructure found that more than a quarter of the nations bridges are
either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, with the number of such bridges in urban
areas on the rise. Roads fare no better. It is estimated that Americans spend 4.2 billion hours a year
stuck in traffic, costing the economy $78.2 billion annually. The poor condition of our roads costs motorists another
$67 billion a year in repairs and operating expenses. 1 Additional costs are incurred as a result of delays and
inefficiencies at our nations airports. In 2007, airline delays cost passengers $16.7 billion and
airlines $8.3 billion. Inefficiency in air transportation also had indirect effects on the U.S. economy,
decreasing productivity in other business sectors and reducing the 2007 U.S. gross domestic
product (GDP) by $4 billion. 2 Inadequacies in infrastructure dont just hurt us at home; they also hamper
us in the global market and render us less competitive. Everyone who travels abroad knows that
the U.S. no longer meets world-class infrastructure standards. The World Economic Forums 2011-
2012 Global Competitiveness Report ranks the U.S.s infrastructure at 16, down from our seventh
place ranking just four years ago. And we have slipped in every category: roads, ports, railroads,
andmost precipitouslyin air transport and the quality of the electricity supply. Indeed, the reliability of the U.S.
electric grid is now ranked 32nd , seven spots behind China. Despite these costs to taxpayers and the national economy, not to mention the
potential public safety hazards deficient infrastructure poses, real federal spending on infrastructure declined 4.7
percent annually between 2003 and 2007, the most recent year for which data is available. 3
ASCE has stated that current spending amounts to only about half of the needed investment. 4
Total public spending (which includes federal as well as state and local spending) has fallen steadily
since the 1960s and is now at around 2.4 percent of GDP. 5 Europe, on the other hand, invests 5
percent of GDP in its infrastructure, and China invests 9 percent. 6 The potential economic benefits
of investment in infrastructure are considerable. Not only do such investments create jobs
(particularly in manufacturing and construction, which are especially important to a strong middle class), but also,
efficiently transporting people, goods, and ideas increases productivity, decreases overhead, and spurs regional
economic growth. 7 To stay competitive and encourage economic growth, the United States must begin
investing more in our national infrastructure. Our current fiscal situation, however, gives us limited options. Appropriators
are loathe to increase spending without simultaneously generating new revenue, yet increasing taxes when the economic recovery is still
precarious is also not a popular option. And this is not to mention the general stalemate in which the opposing parties seem to be
permanently stuck. One need only look to the painful process of enacting a desperately needed transportation bill, once a heralded example
of bipartisanship, to see how slim the chances are for meaningful increases in infrastructure spending to pass. Moreover, our
current financing framework is ill-equipped to respond. State and local budgets are strained; the
highway trust fund, fueled by the federal gas tax, does not yield the revenues needed to maintain existing roads, let alone fund much-
needed expansions; project selection is based more on political logrolling than on calculations of
economic and social benefits; and there is no good means for planning and financing projects that
span state or even municipal borders. Our inability to find better ways to invest in infrastructure
represents a wasted opportunity and a failure of imagination. Not only is the need great, but also the
conditions are propitious. Millions of Americans remain unemployed or underemployedespecially in the
construction sector 8and a healthy labor market remains far off. Trillions of dollars of private
capital are sitting on the sidelines, and interest rates are at record lows. Investors are looking for reliable
alternatives to low-yielding Treasury securities, and they are willing to accept more modest yields
than they sought even five years ago. This is where innovative institutions can open a new path. As
Brookings scholars Emilia Istrate and Robert Puentes have pointed out, governments at every
level have turned to contractual relations with the private sector for a range of infrastructure
activities, from design and finance to operation and repair. Often, however, state and local
governments lack the technical capacity to ensure project quality and to protect the public
interest. 9 For that reason, Puentes has recommended the creation of a national-level Public/Private Partnership
Unit, housed within the Office and Management and Budget, to provide states, cities, and metropolitran entities with support and technical
assistance, create an environment that encourages private infrastructure investment, and begin the
process of forging an integrated national infrastructure agenda. 10 A national PPP Unit would be an important
and cost-effective first step. But to boost aggregate investment in infrastructure to the level our country needs while channeling it in
economically productive directions, we must go farther. The creation of a National Infrastructure Bank (NIB)the
focus of this reportwould allow us to attract private investment for public purposes, and it would
ensure that projects are funded on the basis of economic and social benefit, not political gain. The
issue is not just how much we invest, but how we invest it. We must invest in the right projects, and
we must make every dollar count.
Current systems are insufficientlack of a selection method and oversight
Mallet 11
(William, Specialist Transportation Policy, Maguire, Specialist Public Finance, and Kosar, Analyst
American National Government Steven, and Kevin, National Infrastructure Bank: Overview and Current
Legislation, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42115.pdf, 6/24/12, LS)

The current system for funding projects is subject to inefficiency and bureaucratic complication.
Funding for infrastructure improvements is divided unevenly among federal, state, local, and private
actors based on sector.24 Even in instances where the federal government provides funding, it has
often ceded or delegated project selection and oversight responsibilities to state, local, and other
recipients, weakening linkages to federal program goals and efforts to ensure accountability.25
Federal efforts are also hampered by organization and funding allocations based strictly on specific
types of transportation, as opposed to a system-wide approach, which create inefficiencies that
hinder collaboration and effective investment.
26
Complicating matters even further are the emergence
of multi-state megaregions, which have common needs that require multijurisdictional planning and
decision making ability.
27

The bank is key to innovative funding for cleaner, economically beneficial projects
expert authors agree
PR Newswire 10
(Cites a plethora of expert authors, including Puentes, January 20, Coalition Urges Congress and Obama
Administration to Create National Infrastructure Bank,
http://www.smartgridnews.com/artman/uploads/1/NIB.pdf, p. 1-3, accessed 7/20/12, YGS)

WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, at a news conference on Capitol Hill, a broad coalition of members of Congress,
experts and stakeholders called on Congress and the Obama Administration to create a National Infrastructure Bank (NIB) to help generate the
investment needed for infrastructure projects of regional and national importance. "America needs a variety of methods -- action by the
government and private sector, current and new revenues, and federal leadership and local innovation -- to repair and modernize our
nation's infrastructure," said Governor Ed Rendell (PA), Co-chair, Building America's Future. "A National Infrastructure Bank should play a
role as a funding and financing vehicle for projects that have major national or regional impact. This is an important reform that is urgently
needed to address our nation's infrastructure funding shortfalls." A National Infrastructure Bank would help improve the nation's roads
and highways, bridges, ports, rail (freight and passenger), drinking and waste water treatment plants, smart grid, broadband, and schools.
"Too many of our cities have structurally deficient bridges and outdated water and sewer pipes still made of wood," said Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger (CA), Co-chair, Building America's Future. "Faced with shrinking revenues and budget deficits, the
National Infrastructure Bank could help finance projects that will allow cities and states to provide the
high quality of life and safety our citizens deserve." A National Infrastructure Bank could also serve as
an effective vehicle to ensure that long-term funding was maximized and allocated to projects based
on merit, rather than politics. "Funding infrastructure projects that are in the pipeline and can be
started in the next year is one of the most effective ways Congress can support job creation and
economic growth," said Mayor Michael Bloomberg (NYC), Co-chair, Building America's Future. "But we
have to go further, with long-term reform of how projects get built in this country. One way to do that is through creation of an
independent, nonpartisan entity -- a National Infrastructure Bank -- that would fund our most vital needs based on merit, not politics."
"Any strategy for long-term job creation and economic growth must be centered on moving from a consumption economy to an economy
that puts people to work building things again," said Representative Rosa DeLauro (DCT). "That is why I introduced the National Infrastructure
Development Bank Act, to establish an independent entity that can objectively leverage significant investment into the transportation,
environmental, energy and telecommunications infrastructure systems critical to rebuilding America and keeping us competitive in the 21st
century. The coalition assembled today demonstrates the broad support behind moving forward with the establishment of a National
Infrastructure Bank as part of a bold, forward-looking and transformative U.S. infrastructure policy." "With a National Infrastructure Bank,
Los Angeles and other cities could jump start sustainable transit and infrastructure projects and energize the economic recovery," said Los
Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (D). "It's a win-win for everyone -- for jobs, the environment, public health, and the
economy." "A national infrastructure that facilitates America's competitive position in the 21st century will be essential for our future,"
said former Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE). "New and creative thinking and institutions, like a National Infrastructure Bank, will be required to
finance this critical infrastructure." "Establishing a National Infrastructure Bank is a solution that both sides of the aisle can readily embrace
for the simple fact that it is sure-fire economic policy," stated former House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt (D-MO), President and CEO,
Gephardt Government Affairs. "The urgency for jobs felt by individuals on Main Street is more acute than ever. A National Infrastructure Bank
will fuel economic opportunities at the local, state and national levels. We need the smartest policies in place now to ensure that the federal
government does what it can to improve our nation's infrastructure while at the same time improving our economy." "An
independent, adequately capitalized National Infrastructure Bank could leverage significant private
investment to rebuild America, strengthening our global competitiveness and creating jobs on a large
scale," said Ambassador Felix Rohatyn, President, FGR Associates LLC. "Whether we're talking about billions of
dollars lost as a result of traffic each year or billion gallons of water lost through leaky pipes, failing infrastructure has a negative impact on the
checkbook and quality of life of each and every American. Despite this, we have continued to woefully under-invest," said Andrew W.
Herrmann, P.E., F.ASCE, Chair of the American Society of Civil Engineers' 2009 Report Card for America's Infrastructure Advisory Council.
"Creating an Infrastructure Bank, however, will provide a dedicated source of finance and funding tools we can use to support projects of
regional and national significance. We're all familiar with that concept from the work we've done to maintain our own homes or cars, so it
shouldn't be surprising that it's going to take the same kind of long-term, sustained investment to improve the nation's infrastructure." "It will
continue to be difficult, if not impossible, to build the kind of complex, multi-year infrastructure projects we need to remain globally
competitive without having a viable National Infrastructure Bank," said Stephen E. Sandherr, CEO, Associated General Contractors of
America (AGC). "We need a comprehensive approach to tackling our infrastructure that includes robust multi-year funding, significant
regulatory reforms and a National Infrastructure Bank." "While a National Infrastructure Bank is no silver bullet, if appropriately designed
and with sufficient political autonomy, it could improve both the efficiency and effectiveness of future federal infrastructure projects of
national significance," said Robert Puentes, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution's Metropolitan Policy Program. "As the nation struggles to
address its growing transportation infrastructure needs, policymakers need to consider all current and new opportunities to support
investments in these areas," said Pete Ruane, President and CEO, American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA). "A National
Infrastructure Bank must be included in that evaluation." "In this era of constrained finances and mounting needs on
a national scale, the Infrastructure Bank would spur innovation in funding large-scale transportation
projects critical to job creation and to our future economy," said James Corless, Director,
Transportation for America. "Because projects would compete based on merit , it would help to
select the investments that do the most to advance our national goals, whatever the mode: rail,
highway, ports or public transportation." "Sound water and wastewater infrastructure is necessary to public health, a
successful economy, and our way of life," said Tom Curtis, Deputy Executive Director, American Water Works Association (AWWA). "A National
Infrastructure Bank would provide America's water and sewer systems with low-cost capital to increase investment in this vital sector."
"Investing in infrastructure creates jobs in the short term and economic growth in the long term," said
Robert L. Borosage, Co-Director, Campaign for America's Future. "A National Infrastructure Bank is a
vital step to rebuilding our economy and keeping us competitive in the global marketplace." "Working
people across the country are anxious to see what their elected representatives will do to address the crisis in American manufacturing," said
United Steelworkers International President Leo W. Gerard. "Creating a National Infrastructure Bank and passing the jobs bill are two ways the
current Congress can demonstrate their commitment to workers and their families." "History has shown that when our
nation invests in its core infrastructure needs, economic progress inevitably follows," said Mark H.
Ayers, President, Building and Construction Trades Department (AFL-CIO). "This is important to remember as we
grapple to address the twin problems of economic growth and job creation. Infrastructure development was the key driver that fueled our
nation's industrial dominance in the 20th century, and it can be poised to do so again in the 21st century. To meet our long-term
infrastructure needs we need the establishment of a National Infrastructure Bank, whereby federal resources will be allocated more
efficiently and effectively. When the National Infrastructure Bank is operational, America's Building Trades Unions and our members will be
ready to build the infrastructure that our 21st century economy so desperately needs." "CMAA strongly supports creation of a National
Infrastructure Bank because it would depoliticize infrastructure investment and create major new opportunities to fund vitally important
projects," said Bruce D'Agostino, President and CEO, Construction Management Association of America (CMAA). "We simply must make it a
national priority to repair, modernize, and expand our transportation and other resources. We need a sound long-term strategy that devotes
adequate and consistent funding to these tasks. They cannot be dealt with successfully through any series of quick fixes. We also need to
assure that this major funding is spent with accountability, transparency, and maximum application of recognized Construction Management
Standards of Practice." "America's infrastructure faces critical needs that unfortunately go well beyond the capacity of the traditional
funding mechanisms currently in existence," said David A. Raymond, President, American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC), the
business association of America's engineering industry, representing more than 5, 500 engineering companies and more than half a million
engineers and related professional services employees nationwide. "We need to expand those core funding programs, but it's absolutely
essential that we go further and employ new financing tools like the National Infrastructure Bank to meet urgent and critical infrastructure
needs." "If we're going to maintain the ability to move people, goods, and ideas that allowed America to become the most prosperous
nation in the world, we need to make significant investments in a 21st century infrastructure," said Jim Kessler, Vice President for Policy,
Third Way. "A National Infrastructure Bank would make a critical contribution by supporting projects on merit and harnessing public and
private capital to bridge the infrastructure gap."
Only NIB has all the facets to solveprivate investment, coordination, federal
oversight, economic efficiency, and cleaner projects
Cooper et al 12
(Donna, Senior Fellow with the Economic Policy team at the Center for American Progress, Kristina
Costa, Research Assistant in Economic Policy at the Center for American Progress, Keith Miller, intern
with the Economic Policy team at the Center for American Progress, September 2012, Creating a
National Infrastructure Bank and Infrastructure Planning Council: How Better Planning and Financing
Options Can Fix Our Infrastructure and Improve Economic Competitiveness, Center for American
Progress, http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/09/InfrastructureBankReport.pdf, p. 10-12, accessed 10/29/12, YGS)

A national infrastructure bank would help spur more infrastructure investment by creating a strong
federal lending authority capable of financing and coordinating high-value infrastructure
investments throughout the country. It could provide low-interest loans and loan guarantees to
state, local, and private investors, and help stakeholders connect available capital with financially
viable projects and willing partners. Because all of the funds distributed by the bank would be paid
back with interest by borrowers following the completion of their projects, the costs to the
federal government following the initial capitalization of the bank would be remarkably low. Every
federal dollar put into the bank would be able to achieve an impact well beyond its face value by
supporting project after project as long as the bank continued operation. Despite its low costs,
however, a national infrastructure bank could put a substantial dent in the infrastructure funding gap
by attracting billions of dollars in additional public and private investment. By providing the final
financial piece that many large projects require to get off the ground, federal infrastructure loans
and loan guarantees could enable hundreds of otherwise-abandoned projects to move forward. An
infrastructure bank proposal put forward by Sens. John Kerry (D-MA), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Mark Warner (D-VA), and Lindsey
Graham (R-SC) estimates that an initial $10 billion endowment could provide 11 Center for American Progress | Creating a National
Infrastructure Bank and Infrastructure Planning Council up to $160 billion in financial assistance over
the next decade, pulling in between $320 billion and $640 billion in additional nonfederal
spending. 22 Such levels of investment would pour billions of dollars into some of the economic
sectors hit worst by the recession, among them the construction industry and heavy manufacturing,
and could help put thousands of unemployed Americans back to work on projects with guaranteed economic and social returns. An
infrastructure bank could be particularly effective at leveraging additional investment because it
would be able to make such investment more attractive to private investors. A federal bank could
help inexperienced states and localities develop attractive public-private partnerships and could
connect willing private partners with these investment opportunities. Providing a single home for
such project proposals would eliminate the need for investors to make redundant pitches to
multiple federal, state, and local agencies, making the entire process of linking private capital with
critical infrastructure projects both more efficient and user-friendly. Federal oversight and guidance
could also perform the important task of promoting models that protect wages and collective
bargaining rights. For all of these reasons, both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American
Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations see significant benefits for their members
should a national infrastructure bank be created, and both have jointly come out in strong support
of establishing such a bank. 23 An infrastructure bank would also help overcome the many problems
associated with the annual appropriations process and could provide the types of financial
assistance that are most useful for infrastructure projects. By providing long-term loans and loan
guarantees, the new bank would make year-to-year federal support significantly more predictable.
Short-line railroad owners could hire employees, and clean energy operations could plan for
expansion without being constrained by the uncertainty of not knowing whether the critical federal
loan programs that support them will exist in a years time. Additionally, by building delayed-
repayment mechanisms into these loans, many crucial projects could be undertaken even if they
may take time to begin generating sufficient user fees or savings to begin repayment. Public and
private investors alike frequently find it difficult to acquire financing of this kind, but by filling this
void, a national infrastructure bank could further enable billions of dollars in investment.
Furthermore, introducing a centralized federal lending authority could help dramatically improve
coordination between federal agencies and the multiple lending Both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations see significant benefits for their members should a
national infrastructure bank be created.12 Center for American Progress | Creating a National Infrastructure Bank and Infrastructure
Planning Council initiatives they oversee. A recent Center for American Progress analysis estimated that in FY 2010, just under $124 billion in
total federal lending authority for infrastructure projects was spread out over six different programs in three different departments. (see
Figure 1) It would likely be more efficient for an infrastructure bank to assimilate these existing federal loan schemes. Such changes
would eliminate redundancies, build capacity to plan intermodal projects, and further improve
due diligence in project selection. Energy is a major cost driver when it comes to getting water to the tap and treating
wastewater, but our current system does not adequately account for energy needs when planning water-system improvements. A federal
lending authority, however, could allow for drinking and clean water infrastructure investments to be coordinated with the expansion of
electrical capacity required to support them. Or it could arrange for channel deepening at ports to be planned alongside the bridge
replacements required to ensure new and larger freight vessels can access harbors. Bank experts would be able to actively
seek out opportunities for cross-state and cross-sector cooperation, and encourage policymakers and
private investors to undertake the kinds of visionary and integrated projects that are the most
beneficial to economic growth. Finally, more efficiency-driven project selection could possibly
deliver the greatest gains. An independent bank with a professional staff could rank project
proposals by expected economic and social returns, and allot funds accordingly. They would not
have to be constrained by outmoded formulas or arbitrary allocation processes, and could instead
ensure that each dollar lent out achieves the greatest possible impact for the greatest number of people. With
funding for projects of all kinds becoming increasingly difficult to come by and with infrastructure
needs growing daily, we cannot afford to continue being inefficient with our spending. A national
infrastructure bank could help reduce such waste, while making the most of limited resources to
effectively promote valuable economic, social, and environmental goals. The creation of a national
infrastructure bank would thus help increase public investment, attract private investment, improve
investment coordination, and ensure investment efficiency. As the United States becomes more
integrated into an increasingly competitive global economy, we have no choice but to pursue
these goals, and we must do so with the greatest possible urgency. Indeed, the idea of an infrastructure bank is
not new to policymakers. (see box on following page)

THUS THE PLAN:
The United States federal government should substantially increase merit-based
transportation infrastructure loans in the United States issued by an independent
government-owned National Transportation Infrastructure Bank.
Contention Two is the Economy
Well isolate three scenarios
The first is Uncertainty:
Despite the deal, uncertainty is rampant and predictive models project 2013 slow
growth
OConnor 1/3
(Brian J., Finance Editor and columnist for Detroit News, winner of Christopher H. Welles Memorial Prize
for business journalism, The Detroit News Business, Fiscal cliff solution wont stop taxes from going
up, http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130103/BIZ/301030367/Fiscal-cliff-solution-won-t-stop-
taxes-from-going-up?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs, accessed 1/3/13, YGS)

After weeks of breathless headlines about the country heading over the so-called "fiscal cliff," canceled presidential vacations and midnight
votes on Capitol Hill, the last minute-tax deal worked out on New Year's Day between the White House and
Congress boils down to this: Anyone who works will see their taxes go up. Those tax hikes are
much smaller than they would have been if no deal had been reached. Most taxpayers will keep all
the deductions they enjoyed last year. With less money in their paychecks, consumers will cut back
and the economy will grow more slowly. Congress and the White House haven't tackled the huge
automatic federal spending cuts that are still due to kick in. Even if those cuts are reduced, they still
could slow the economy nearly to the point of stalling out on the edge of another recession. The
bargaining and economic hostage-taking is far from ended . Besides the spending cuts on the table,
another round of wrangling on the federal debt limit looms over the economy, extending the same
uncertainty that had had anxious business owners and consumers sitting on their wallets for
months. "The odds of a recession are elevated for 2013," said Robert Dye, chief economist for
Comerica Bank. "We could find ourselves in a situation where, even if we avoid recession, we'll have
such weak economic growth that the unemployment rate flat lines or increases, without an official
recession."
That independently risks nuclear war
Fordham 10
(Tina Fordham, senior policy analyst at Citi Private Bank, Financial Times, Investors cant ignore the rise
of geopolitical risk, June, 17, 2012, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/dc71f272-7a14-11df-9871-
00144feabdc0.html#axzz2Ak4daMVQ, accessed 10/11/12, YGS)

Geopolitical risk is on the rise after years of relative quiet potentially creating further headwinds to the global recovery just as
fears of a double-dip recession are growing, says Tina Fordham, senior political analyst at Citi Private Bank. Recently,
markets have been focused on problems within the eurozone and not much moved by developments in North Korea, new Iran
sanctions, tensions between Turkey and Israel or the unrest in strategically significant Kyrgyzstan,
she says. But taken together, we dont think investors can afford to ignore the return of geopolitical
concerns to the fragile post-financial crisis environment. Ms Fordham argues the end of post-Cold War US
pre-eminence is one of the most important by-products of the financial crisis. The post-crisis world order is
shifting. More players than ever are at the table, and theirinterestsoftendiverge. Emerging market
countries have greater weight in the system, yet many lack experience on the global stage. Addressing the
worlds challenges in this more crowded environment will be slower and more complex. This increases the potential for
proliferating risks: most notably the prospect of politically and/or economically
weakenedregimesobtaining nuclear weapons; and military action to keep themfromdoingso.
Leftunresolved, these challenges could disrupt global stability and trade. This would be a very unwelcome time
to see the return of geopolitical risk.
The second scenario is Growth:
Cross apply the OConnor evidence
Not a question of stimulus only NIBs selection process and leveraging of investment
solves jobs and growth
USTCEA 12
(US Treasury & Council of Economic Advisers, A New Economic Analysis of Infrastructure Investment,
3-23-2012, http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/economic-
policy/Documents/20120323InfrastructureReport.pdf, p. 33, accessed 9/24/12, YGS)

An analysis of the economic impact of transportation investment indicates that now is an optimal
time to increase the nations investment in transportation infrastructure. Investing in transportation
infrastructure would generate jobs to employ workers who were displaced because of the housing bubble. We estimate that the
average unemployment rate among those who would gain employment in the jobs created by
additional infrastructure investment has averaged approximately 13 percent over the past twelve months. There
is also accumulating evidence that construction costs are currently low because of underutilized resources, so it
would be especially cost-effective to seize this opportunity to build the quality infrastructure projects
that are ready to be built. Historically, we also know that state and local governments are more prone
to cut back on infrastructure spending during tough economic times, despite the growing need and
demand for these projects. Americans overwhelmingly support increasing our infrastructure
investment, as evidenced by consistent support for local investments on ballot initiatives. This is hardly
surprising given that our report documents that the American public is less satisfied with our transportation infrastructure than residents of
most other OECD nations. Merely increasing the amount that we invest, however, must not be our only goal.
Selecting projects that have the highest payoff is critically important, as is providing opportunities for
the private sector to invest in public infrastructure. Given the significant need for greater investment, the federal
government cannot, and should not, be expected to be the sole source of additional investment funds. More effectively leveraging
federal investment by pairing it with state, local, and private investment is necessary to meet the
challenges we face in expanding our transportation network. Thus, establishing a National
Infrastructure Bank, along with other significant reforms in our infrastructure financing system, should remain a top
priority. Evidence also shows that well-functioning infrastructure systems generate large rates of
return not only for the people who travel on the systems every day the direct beneficiaries but
also for those in the surrounding regions and our nation more generally. Investment in infrastructure
today will employ underutilized resources and raise the nations productivity and economic potential
in the future. By contrast, poorly planned, non-strategic investment is not only a waste of resources, but can also
lead to lower economic growth and production in the future. That is why any increase in investment
should be coupled with broad-based reform to select infrastructure projects more wisely. The Presidents
proposal to increase our nations investment in transportation infrastructure, coupled with broad-based reform of our transportation funding
system, would have a significant and positive economic impact in both the short and long term, raising
our nations economic output, creating quality middle-class jobs, and enhancing Americas global
economic competitiveness.

Without growth, US collapse spills over
Rahman 11
(Ashfaqur, former Ambassador and Chairman of the Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies, Another global
recession? September 21, 2011, http://www.cfasonline.org/articles/details.php?id=245, accessed
10/11/12, YGS)

Last week, murmurs were heard in high places around the world that the global economy would face another recession. Experts opine
that there is a 15% chance of a new recession. This is double the chance they believe existed at the
beginning of 2011. Several developments, especially in Europe and the US, fan this fear. First, the US
recovery from the last recession has been fragile. Its economy is much more susceptible to
geopolitical shocks. Second there is a rise in fuel prices. The political instability in the Middle East is far from over. This is causing risks
for the country and the international economy. Third, the global food prices in July this year is markedly higher than a year ago, almost 35%
more. Commodities such as maize (up 84%), sugar (up 62%), wheat (up 55%), soybean oil (up 47%) have seen spike in their prices. Crude oil
prices have also risen by 45%, affecting production costs. In the US, even though its debt ceiling has been raised and the country can now
continue to borrow, credit agencies have downgraded its credit rating and therefore its stock markets have started to flounder. World
Bank President Zoellick recently said: "There was a convergence of some events in Europe and the US
that has led many market participants to lose confidence in economic leadership of the key
countries." He added: "Those events, combined with other fragilities in the nature of recovery, have
pushed US into a new danger zone. " Employment in the US has, therefore, come near to a grinding
halt. Prices of homes there continue to slide. Consumer and business spending is slowing remarkably. So, when
the giant consumer economy slows down, there would be less demand for goods she buys from
abroad, even from countries like Bangladesh. This would lead to decline in exports from such countries to the
US. Then these economies would start to slide too, leading to factory closures and unemployment on a
large scale. There would be less money.
Economic collapse causes nuclear war
Broward 9 Member of Triond Will an Economic Collapse Kill You?,
http://newsflavor.com/opinions/will-an-economic-collapse-kill-you/ AD: 7-7-09 CS

Now its time to look at the consequences of a failing world economy. With five offical nations having
nuclear weapons, and four more likely to have them there could be major consequences of another
world war. The first thing that will happen after an economic collapse will be war over resources. The
United States currency will become useless and will have no way of securing reserves. The United States has little to no capacity to produce oil,
it is totatlly dependent on foreign oil. If the United States stopped getting foreign oil, the government would go
to no ends to secure more, if there were a war with any other major power over oil, like Russia or
China, these wars would most likely involve nuclear weapons. Once one nation launches a nuclear
weapon, there would of course be retaliation, and with five or more countries with nuclear weapons
there would most likely be a world nuclear war. The risk is so high that acting to save the economy is
the most important issue facing us in the 21st century.
The third is Competitiveness:
Cross apply the Galston evidence
Loss of US competitiveness leads to major war
Lieberthat & OHanlon 12
(Kenneth and Michael, foreign policy scholars at the Brookings Institution, The Fremont Tribune, The
Real National Security Threat: Americas Debt, June 6,
2012, http://fremonttribune.com/news/opinion/columnists/the-real-national-security-threat-america-s-
debt/article_52706e86-c775-11e1-8cbd-0019bb2963f4.html, accessed 10/21/12, YGS)

Second, such a chronic economic decline would undercut what has been 70 years of strong national
political consensus in favor of an activist and engaged American foreign policy. One reason the United States was so
engaged through the Cold War and the first 20 years of the post-Cold War world was fear of threats. But the other reason was that the strategy
was associated with improvements in our quality of life as well. America became even more prosperous, and all major segments of society
benefited. Alas, globalization and automation trends of the last generation have increasingly called the American dream into question for the
working classes. Another decade of underinvestment in what is required to remedy this situation will
make an isolationist or populist president far more likely because much of the country will question whether an
internationalist role makes sense for America especially if it costs us well over half a trillion dollars in defense spending annually yet seems
correlated with more job losses. Last, American economic weakness undercuts U.S. leadership abroad. Other
countries sense our weakness and wonder about our purported decline. If this perception becomes
more widespread, and the case that we are in decline becomes more persuasive, countries will begin
to take actions that reflect their skepticism about Americas future. Allies and friends will doubt our
commitment and may pursue nuclear weapons for their own security, for example; adversaries will
sense opportunity and be less restrained in throwing around their weight in their own neighborhoods.
The crucial Persian Gulf and Western Pacific regions will likely become less stable. Major war will
become more likely.
Contention Three is Climate Projects
Warming is anthropogenic and currently the transportation sector is fueling a rise in
emissionspredictive models prove
EPA 12
(Greenhouse Gas Emissions, June 4, 2012,
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html, accessed 1/3/12, YGS)

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. In 2010, CO2
accounted for about 84% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Carbon dioxide is
naturally present in the atmosphere as part of the Earth's carbon cycle (the natural circulation of carbon among the atmosphere, oceans, soil,
plants, and animals). Human activities are altering the carbon cycle--both by adding more CO2 to the
atmosphere and by influencing the ability of natural sinks, like forests, to remove CO2 from the
atmosphere. While CO2 emissions come from a variety of natural sources, human-related emissions
are responsible for the increase that has occurred in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.
[1] The main human activity that emits CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil)
for energy and transportation, although certain industrial processes and land-use changes also emit CO2. The main sources of
CO2emissions in the United States are described below. Electricity. Electricity is a significant source of energy in the United States and is used
to power homes, business, and industry. The combustion of fossil fuels to generate electricity is the largest single source of CO2 emissions in
the nation, accounting for about 40% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 33% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2009. The type of fossil fuel
used to generate electricity will emit different amounts of CO2. To produce a given amount of electricity, burning coal will produce more
CO2than oil or natural gas. Transportation. The combustion of fossil fuels. such as gasoline and diesel to
transport people and goods is the second largest source of CO2 emissions, accounting for about 31%
of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 26% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2010. This category includes
transportation sources such as highway vehicles, air travel, marine transportation, and rail. Industry. Many industrial processes emit CO2
through fossil fuel combustion. Several processes also produce CO2 emissions through chemical reactions that do not involve combustion, for
example, the production and consumption of mineral products such as cement, the production of metals such as iron and steel, and the
production of chemicals. Various industrial processes accounted for about 14% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 20% of total U.S. greenhouse
gas emissions in 2010. Note that many industrial processes also use electricity and therefore indirectly cause the emissions from the electricity
production. Carbon dioxide is constantly being exchanged among the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface as it is both produced and
absorbed by many microorganisms, plants, and animals. However, emissions and removal of CO2 by these natural processes tend to balance.
Since the Industrial Revolution began around 1750, human activities have contributed substantially to
climate change by adding CO2 and other heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere. In the United States, since
1990, the management of forests and non-agricultural land has acted as a net sink of CO2, which means that more CO2 is removed from the
atmosphere, and stored in plants and trees, than is emitted. This sink offset about 15% of total emissions in 2010 and is discussed in more
detail in the Land Use and Forestry section. To find out more about the role of CO2 warming the atmosphere and its sources, visit the Causes
of Climate Changepage and the Greenhouse Gas Indicators page in the Science section. Emissions and Trends Carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions in the United States increased by about 12% between 1990 and 2010. Since the
combustion of fossil fuel is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States,
changes in emissions from fossil fuel combustion have historically been the dominant factor affecting
total U.S. emission trends. Changes in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion are influenced by many factors, including
population growth, economic growth, changing energy prices, new technologies, changing behavior, and seasonal temperatures. Between 1990
and 2010, the increase in CO2 emissions corresponded with increased energy use by an expanding economy and population, although the
economic downturn starting in 2008 influenced the decrease in emissions in 2009. Transportation emissions also contributed
to the 12% increase, largely due to an increase in miles traveled by motor vehicles. Going forward,
CO2 emissions in the United States are projected to grow by about 1.5% between 2005 and 2020.
Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions The most effective way to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions is to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Many strategies for reducing CO2 emissions from energy are cross-cutting and
apply to homes, businesses, industry, and transportation.
The integrated, holistic approach and selection process of NIB is key to combat the
largest warming contributors
DOT 10
(Report to Congress, Transportations Role in Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Volume 1:
Synthesis Report, April 2010, http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/32000/32700/32779/DOT_Climate_Change_Report_-
_April_2010_-_Volume_1_and_2.pdf, 4-1, 4-2, accessed 1/3/12, YGS)

The level of GHG emissions from transportation depends on the carbon content of the fuels, the fuel efficiency of the
vehicles, the efficiency of the transportation system, and the level of travel activity. These latter two factorsthe efficiency of
the system and the level of travel activitycan be directly influenced through decisions that are
made by Federal, State, regional, and local governments regarding the planning, funding, design,
construction, and operations of the Nations transportation systems. Coordinating transportation
and land-use decisions and investments enhances the effectiveness of both and increases the
efficiency of Federal transportation spending. In most communities, jobs, homes, and other
destinations are located far away from one another, necessitating a separate car ride for every
errand and long delivery routes for goods. Strategies that support mixed-use development,
mixed-income communities, and multiple transportation options help to reduce traffic congestion,
lower transportation costs, improve access to jobs and opportunities, and reduce dependence on
foreign oil, in addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Prioritizing through planning low
carbon alternatives such as public transportation, pedestrian facilities for biking, and walking, and
lower carbon freight options such as rail or marine, can reduce GHGs, especially when deployed
with synergistic policies such as land use. Similarly, prioritizing strategies such as signal timing, real-time traveler
information, faster clearance of incidents, congestion pricing, freeway ramp meeting, and other intelligent transportation
systems can reduce the pressure for new capacity while modestly reducing GHG emissions. The
Federal government is an important partner with State and local governments in shaping the
Nations surface transportation infrastructure. The Federal government currently provides $52 billion116 in funding for
surface transportation annually, and Federal statute and regulations establish requirements for States and metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs) to undertake planning to determine how to use these resources. The Federal government also influences the
efficiency of the Nations air transportation system by operating the air traffic control system and providing assistance to improve the
capacity and safety of airports, and provides funding for investments in rail and marine modes as well. Federal leadership on
GHG mitigation and climate change planning can help convey the importance of GHG reduction to
State and local transportation agencies. Furthermore, Federal coordination of housing, transportation,
and environmental policies is key. A lack of coordination between these policies has contributed to the growth in vehicle
miles traveled and GHG emissions. Before discussing in more detail integrating climate change considerations
into a transportation planning process, it is important to place this integration into the broader
context of the current planning process. Planning is the information based policy framework by which
communities prepare and follow a reasoned course of action to achieving a desirable future vision.
Plans represent blueprints for communities to follow, enabling them to evolve in an optimal way
and influencing urban and rural development, economic prosperity, environmental quality, and social equity. Planning
is a cooperative process, bringing together a wide range of perspectives from different people,
organizations, and stakeholder groups to pursue common ground on a variety of issues. As such, it
must consider a wide range of forcessuch as mobility, health, economic growth, environmental
sustainability, and land usein determining a communitys ideal vision and identifying the priority
projects, programs, and strategies for achieving that vision. The transportation system, and its GHG
impact, is one element among many societal concerns. Planning includes comprehensive
consideration and choice of preferred action from a range of possible strategies. Successful planning
depends upon an information-driven evaluation process that encompasses diverse viewpoints, the
collaborative participation of relevant agencies and organizations, and open, timely, and meaningful public
involvement. Without broad and meaningful participation, there is a risk of making poor decisions, or decisions that have unintended
negative consequences. On the other hand, having broad participation makes it possible for all parties to work together in partnership to
make a lasting contribution to an areas quality of life. The public includes anyone who resides, has an interest in, or does business in a given
area potentially affected by the decisions, as well as regional and national representatives. Federal, State, and local agencies
with an interest in the region play a particularly important role in the achieving the vision. Many of those
agencies have statutory responsibilities that impact planning decisions. Coordination and cooperation among all
interested parties and relevant agencies is necessary to achieve the vision. This is particularly
important as State and local transportation planners do not often have control over land use
decisions, but can serve as conveners of stakeholder groups and work closely with land use
planning authorities. Similarly, by providing funding and requiring a planning process, the Federal
government is an important stakeholder, but much decisionmaking power appropriately resides at State and local levels.
While planning is an open and collaborative process, it also is disciplined by the need to abide by
important fiscal and environmental constraints. These constraints limit the extent of projects and
strategies that may be recommended in plans, forcing communities to make difficult tradeoffs. In the end, a plan
represents the communitys preferred actions, limited to those that are achievable within
reasonable constraints. Federal statute requires that States and MPOs engage in a transportation
planning process and develop a plan that include*s+ both long-range and short range program
strategies/actions that lead to the development of an integrated intermodal transportation system
which facilitates the efficient movement of people and goods. They must also develop a short-range program of
transportation improvements, based on the long-range transportation plan, designed to achieve the areas goals using spending,
regulating, operating, management, and financial tools. Transportation agencies confront a wide range of tradeoff
decisions within and between modes, policy objectives, performance goals, geographic regions, and market segments when developing these
plans and programs. Therefore, any decision on GHG reduction activities, including where to invest
limited resources, needs to be balanced with its impact on other goals and priorities.
This policy change would be internationally modeledempirical trends prove
Desombre 10
(Elizabeth R., Frost Associate Professor of Environmental Studies and Associate Professor of Political
Science at Wellesley, The United States and Global Environmental Politics: Domestic Sources of US
Unilateralism, 2010,http://www.polisci.ufl.edu/usfpinstitute/2010/documents/readings/DeSombre%2
0Chapter.pdf, p. 193-4, accessed 1/3/12, YGS)

To be sure, the effect of the administration of George W. Bush on the U.S. role in international environmental politics should not be
overlooked. Most important was his role on climate change, and the stated desire of the United States to unsign the Kyoto Protocol. 5
U.S. unwillingness to participate delayed the protocols entry into force and weakened the agreement
because without the United States it needed the participation of almost all industrialized
countries, many of which also refused to go along until their obligations were made more flexible
and less onerous. It also arguably decreased the likelihood that those states that did take on
obligations would meet them. Without serious action by the United States to decrease emissions,
other states knew their actions could not make a serious impact on the climate system. Canadas
decision to not meet its Kyoto obligations, for instance, made reference to the U.S. absence from
the UN climate negotiation process. 6 In addition, the recent unilateral behavior of the United States is not restricted to
issues of environmental cooperation; even apart from broader difficulties with the United Nations over Iraq, the United States has refused
to join the International Criminal Court; to sign the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-
Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (1997); or to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (1996), to name just a few recent issues.
The recent unwillingness of the United States to leador even join efforts at multilateral
environmental cooperation in the postCold War world thus seems overdetermined: it is neither an
entirely new phenomenon, nor one restricted to environmental issues, and it is certainly not one that can be
attributed to the administration of George W. Bush. It is an essential trend to understand, given a U.S. history of
strong domestic environmental action, previous U.S. leadership on global environmental issues, the
importance of the United States for addressing global environmental issues, and a new
administration that promises increased engagement with the world community. When does the United States
lead in addressing global environmental problems, and when does it refuse even to go along? A variety of approaches explains U.S. action
in terms of broader characteristics of the country or its ideological goals, the degree of uncertainty about the environmental problem, the
ecological vulnerability of the United States or the costs of taking action on the issue in question, or the domestic political power of industrial
actors likely to bear those costs. Ultimately the most promising explanation for the pattern of U.S. unilateralism on international
environmental issues involves characteristics of the domestic political system and the way in which national policymaking relates to
international negotiations. The issues on which the United States leads internationally are those on which it
has previously regulated domestically. The intersection between domestic politics and international relations can go a long
way toward explaining what we see, and what we should expect, from U.S. environmental leadership. It also explains why, despite the
particularly unilateralist bent of the George W. Bush administration, it is less the actions or the party of the president that matters, and
much more the regulatory processes undertaken by Congress that provide an explanation for U.S. environmental leadership or lack thereof.
If we want to understand what the United States has chosen to pursue or avoid internationally in
terms of environmental policy, and predict what future leadership is likely, we need to look at
what it has regulated or shunned domestically.
Clear US commitment is key to shaping the Durban Platform
Diringer 12
(Elliot, Executive Vice President at C2ES (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions), Climate Negotiators
Open a New Round, C2ES, May 18, 2012,http://www.c2es.org/blog/diringere/climate-negotiators-
open-new-round-bonn)

A new round of climate talks opened this week in Bonn, Germany, with the ambitious goal of reaching a comprehensive legal agreement
applicable to all Parties by 2015. Countries agreed to launch the new round last December in Durban, South Africa, as part of a package deal
that also keeps the Kyoto Protocol alive, at least for now. The so-called Durban Platform negotiations offer governments the chance to consider
new approaches andone can hopecommit themselves to meaningful action. Since the start of the U.N. Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) 15 years ago, theres been tension between two competing modelsbinding
targets-and-timetables vs. voluntary pledge-and-review. And in actuality, parties have now constructed both: the first in
the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the second in the parallel framework that emerged in Copenhagen in 2009 and was further
developed in Cancn and Durban. Quite clearly, neither approach is delivering the strong action we need. But over the next three and a half
years, negotiators will have plenty of opportunity to weigh the relative merits of the two, and perhaps see if theres a third way that borrows
the best of both. For the moment, their focus is primarily proceduralchoosing a chair, deciding on a work plan, etc. But as they take up these
questions, parties are laying down markers for the more substantive negotiations to come. The Durban
Platform does three things: First, it sets a 2015 deadline for an agreement to take effect in 2020.
Second, it requires that the agreement be an amendment, a protocol or otherwise have legal force.
To many, though not all, this means it must be legally binding. Third, it says the agreement will be applicable to all
Parties. This would appear to obliterate the strict binary differentiation between developed and developing countries embedded in the
Kyoto Protocol. But beyond that, it really offers no hint of an alternative approach to the ever-present issue of equity. Indeed, the Durban
Platform is more or less a blank slate. Which means parties have all the latitude they need to think
creatively about alternative pathwaysor to meander in endless circles. Pre-meeting submissions from the United States,
China, and the European Union give a flavor for how positions are beginning to line up. Neither the U.S. nor China appears
eager to rush things. The U.S. says this is a year for brainstorming and theres no need to agree now
on all the issues to be considered. China stresses the importance of future inputs, such as the Fifth Assessment of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and declares the fulfillment of past commitments by developed countries on finance and
technology the fundamental basis ... to make any progress.

Warming is real and causes extinction
Deibel 7 (Terry L. Deibel, professor of IR at National War College, Foreign Affairs Strategy,
Conclusion: American Foreign Affairs Strategy Today Anthropogenic caused by CO2)
Finally, there is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of a
nonviolent nature, which, though far in the future, demands urgent action. It is the threat of global
warming to the stability of the climate upon which all earthly life depends. Scientists worldwide have
been observing the gathering of this threat for three decades now, and what was once a mere
possibility has passed through probability to near certainty. Indeed not one of more than 900 articles
on climate change published in refereed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 doubted that
anthropogenic warming is occurring. In legitimate scientific circles, writes Elizabeth Kolbert, it is
virtually impossible to find evidence of disagreement over the fundamentals of global warming.
Evidence from a vast international scientific monitoring effort accumulates almost weekly, as this
sample of newspaper reports shows: an international panel predicts brutal droughts, floods and
violent storms across the planet over the next century; climate change could literally alter ocean
currents, wipe away huge portions of Alpine Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and malaria;
glaciers in the Antarctic and in Greenland are melting much faster than expected, andworldwide, plants are blooming several days earlier
than a decade ago; rising sea temperatures have been accompanied by a significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes;
NASA scientists have concluded from direct temperature measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record, with 1998 a close second;
Earths warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year as disease spreads;
widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidadkilled broad swaths of corals due to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures. The world is slowly
disintegrating, concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. They call it climate changebut we just call it
breaking up. From the founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels in
the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million (ppm). At present they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by
2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about double pre-industrial levels. Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so there is no way
immediately to reduce levels, only to slow their increase, we are thus in for significant global warming; the only debate is how much and how
serous the effects will be. As the newspaper stories quoted above show, we are already experiencing the effects of 1-2
degree warming in more violent storms, spread of disease, mass die offs of plants and animals,
species extinction, and threatened inundation of low-lying countries like the Pacific nation of Kiribati and the Netherlands at a warming
of 5 degrees or less the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could disintegrate, leading to a sea level of rise of 20 feet that would cover
North Carolinas outer banks, swamp the southern third of Florida, and inundate Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village. Another
catastrophic effect would be the collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation that keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer than its
latitude would otherwise allow. Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to the United States alone from moderate levels of
warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming could cost 13-26 percent of GDP. But the most frightening scenario is runaway
greenhouse warming, based on positive feedback from the buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere that is both caused by and causes hotter
surface temperatures. Past ice age transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree changes in average global temperatures, took place in just
decades, even though no one was then pouring ever-increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Faced with this specter, the best one
can conclude is that humankinds continuing enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing Russian roulette with the earths
climate and humanitys life support system. At worst, says physics professor Marty Hoffert of New York University, were just going to burn
everything up; were going to het the atmosphere to the temperature it was in the Cretaceous when there were crocodiles at the poles, and
then everything will collapse. During the Cold War, astronomer Carl Sagan popularized a theory of nuclear winter to describe how a
thermonuclear war between the Untied States and the Soviet Union would not only destroy both countries but possible end life on this planet.
Global warming is the post-Cold War eras equivalent of nuclear winter at least as serious and
considerably better supported scientifically. Over the long run it puts dangers form terrorism and
traditional military challenges to shame. It is a threat not only to the security and prosperity to the
United States, but potentially to the continued existence of life on this planet.