De-Dev - Michigan7 2014

{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
DeDevelopment Neg
CFJMP Labs DeDev File
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Uniqueness
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
1NC Collapse Inevitable

Economic collapse is inevitable peak oil, climate change, food
and water scarcity continued growth leads to widespread
instability transition now solves quality of life and inequality
Ahmed 6/4 -
Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Research and Development (IPRD), an independent
think tank focused on the study of violent conflict, and taught at the Department of International Relations,
University of Sussex (2014, Dr. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, The Guardian, Scientists vindicate 'Limits to Growth'
urge investment in 'circular economy', http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earthinsight/2014/jun/04/scientists-limits-to-growth-vindicated-investment-transition-circular-economy // SM)
According to a new peer-reviewed scientific report, industrial

civilisation is likely to deplete its low-cost mineral resources within
the next century, with debilitating impacts for the global economy
and key infrastructures within the coming decade. The study, the 33rd report to
the Club of Rome, is authored by Prof Ugo Bardi of the University of Florence's Earth Sciences Department, and
includes contributions from a wide range of senior scientists across relevant disciplines. The Club of Rome is a
Swiss-based global think tank consisting of current and former heads of state, UN bureaucrats, government officials,
diplomats, scientists, economists and business leaders. Its first report
in 1972, The Limits to
Growth, was conducted by a scientific team at the Massachusetts Institute for Technology (MIT), and
warned that limited availability of natural resources relative to
rising costs would undermine continued economic growth by around the
second decade of the 21st century. Although widely ridiculed, recent scientific
reviews confirm that the original report's projections in its 'base
scenario' remain robust. In 2008, Australia's federal government
scientific research agency CSIRO concluded that The Limits to Growth forecast of
potential "global ecological and economic collapse coming up in the
middle of the 21st Century" due to convergence of "peak oil, climate
change, and food and water security", is "on-track." Actual current trends in
these areas "resonate strongly with the overshoot and collapse displayed in the book's 'business-as-usual
scenario.'" In 2009, American Scientist published similar findings by other scientists. That review, by leading
systems ecologists Prof Charles Hall of State University of New York and Prof John W Day of Louisiana State
University, concluded that while the limits-to-growth model's "predictions of extreme pollution and population
the model results are: "... almost exactly on course

some 35 years later in 2008 (with a few appropriate assumptions)... it is important to recognise
that its predictions have not been invalidated and in fact seem quite on target. We are not aware of
any model made by economists that is as accurate over such a long
time span." The new Club of Rome report says that: "The phase of mining by humans is a spectacular but
decline have not come true",
very brief episode in the geological history of the planet The limits to mineral extraction are not limits of quantity;
they are limits of energy. Extracting minerals takes energy, and the more dispersed the minerals are, the more
energy is needed Only conventional ores can be profitably mined with the amounts of energy we can produce
mineral depletion, associated radioactive and heavy

metal pollution, and the accumulation of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel
exploitation is leaving our descendants the "heavy legacy" of a virtually
terraformed world: "The Earth will never be the same; it is being transformed into a new and different
planet." Drawing on the work of leading climate scientists including James Hansen, the former head of NASA's
today." The combination of
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
warns that a continuation of 'business

as usual' exploitation of the world's fossil fuels could potentially
trigger runaway global warming that, in several centuries or thousands of years,
permanently destroy the planet's capacity to host life. Despite this verdict,
the report argues that neither a "collapse" of the current structure of civilisation,
nor the "extinction" of the human species are unavoidable. A
fundamental reorganisation of the way societies produce, manage
and consume resources could support a new high-technology civilisation, but
this would entail a new "circular economy" premised on wide-scale practices
of recycling across production and consumption chains, a wholesale shift to renewable energy,
application of agro-ecological methods to food production, and with all
that, very different types of social structures. In the absence of a major technological
Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the report
breakthrough in clean energy production such as nuclear fusion which so far seems improbable - recycling,
conservation and efficiency in the management of the planet's remaining accessible mineral resources will need to
Limits to
economic growth, or even "degrowth", the report says, do not need to imply an end
to prosperity, but rather require a conscious decision by societies to
lower their environmental impacts, reduce wasteful consumption,
and increase efficiency changes which could in fact increase quality of
life while lowering inequality. These findings of the new Club of Rome report have been
confirmed by other major research projects. In January last year , a detailed scientific study by
Anglia Ruskin University's Global Sustainability Institute commissioned by
the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, found "overwhelming" evidence for resource
constraints: "... across a range of resources over the short (years) and medium (decades) term
Resource constraints will, at best, increase energy and commodity prices over the next century
and, at worse, trigger a long term decline in the global economy and civil
unrest." The good news, though is that "If governments and economic agents anticipate resource constraints
be undertaken carefully and cooperatively, with the assistance of cutting-edge science.
and act in a constructive manner, many of the worst affects can be avoided." According to Dr Aled Jones, lead
author of the study and head of the Global Sustainability Institute: "Resource constraints will, at best, steadily
increase energy and commodity prices over the next century and, at worst, could represent financial disaster, with
the assets of pension schemes effectively wiped out and pensions reduced to negligible levels." It is imperative to
recognise that "dwindling
resources raise the possibility of a limit to

economic growth in the medium term." In his 2014 report to the Club of Rome, Prof Bardi
takes a long-term view of the prospects for humanity, noting that the many technological achievements of industrial
societies mean there is still a chance now to ensure the survival and prosperity of a future post-industrial
civilization: "It is not easy to imagine the details of the society that will emerge on an Earth stripped of its mineral
ores but still maintaining a high technological level. We can say, however, that most of the crucial technologies for
our society can function without rare minerals or with very small amounts of them, although with modifications and
at lower efficiency." Although expensive and environmentally intrusive industrial structures "like highways and
plane travel" would become obsolete, technologies like "the Internet, computers, robotics, long-range
communications, public transportation, comfortable homes, food security, and more" could remain attainable with
the right approach - even if societies undergo disastrous crises in the short-run. Bardi is surprisingly matter-of-fact
about the import of his study. "I am not a doomster," he told me. "Unfortunately, depletion is a fact of life, not unlike
death and taxes. We cannot ignore depletion - just like it is not a good idea to ignore death and taxes "If we insist
in investing most of what remains for fossil fuels; then we are truly doomed. Yet I think that
we still have
time to manage the transition. To counter depletion, we must invest a substantial amount of
the remaining resources in renewable energy and efficient recycling technologies - things which are not subjected
to depletion.
And we need to do that before is too late, that is before the
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
energy return on investment of fossil fuels has declined so much

that we have nothing left to invest."
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2NC Growth Unsustainable

Global collapse is inevitable - the current consumption model
is unsustainable and we will eventually run out of resources tech doesn't solve and we need a transition now - that's
Gilding
Growth is the universes way of making equilibrium
emergence of complex civilization is just a manifestation of the
laws of physics
Korowicz, 14 - David Korowicz is a physicist who studies the interactions
between economics, energy, climate change, food security, supply chains, and
complexity. David is an independent consultant. He was a ministerial appointment
to the council of Comhar, Irelands sustainable development commission. He was
head of research at The Ecology Foundation, and is on the executive committee of
Feasta, The Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability: a Think Tank, (David,
How to be Trapped: An Interview with David Korowicz, Resilience,
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-03-19/how-to-be-trapped-an-interview-withdavid-korowicz)//Roetlin
Theres an even broader perspective.
The growth of complex organization

can spontaneously emerge where
there are constrained energy gradients. The existence of such
energy gradients, and indeed the arrow of time, depend upon the
thermodynamic conditions at the beginning of the universe.
Complexity growth is the universes optimal way of finding
equilibrium. From this point of view, the emergence of our complex
global civilization and its inevitable collapse is just the laws of
physics being made manifest through us. The broad point here is
that growth and collapse is a much more fundamental process than
capitalism, the debt-based monetary system or technological
change, as the history of collapsed civilizations and extinct species
can attest. Its part of us, part of life .
(star, planet, life, human social organization)
Economic growth is unsustainable mineral depletion and

industrial ag tech and substitutions fail, only transition now
solves
Ahmed 6/4 - Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Research and Development (IPRD), an
independent think tank focused on the study of violent conflict, and taught at the Department of International
Relations, University of Sussex (2014, Dr. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, The Guardian, Exhaustion of cheap mineral
resources is terraforming Earth scientific report, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earthinsight/2014/jun/04/mineral-resource-fossil-fuel-depletion-terraform-earth-collapse-civilisation // SM)
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
A new landmark scientific report drawing on the work of the world's leading mineral experts
forecasts that industrial civilsation's extraction of critical minerals
and fossil fuel resources is reaching the limits of economic feasibility,
and could lead to a collapse of key infrastructures unless new ways
to manage resources are implemented. The peer-reviewed study the 33rd Report to the Club
of Rome is authored by Prof Ugo Bardi of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Florence, where he teaches
physical chemistry. It includes specialist contributions from fifteen senior scientists and experts across the fields of geology,
agriculture, energy, physics, economics, geography, transport, ecology, industrial ecology, and biology, among others. The Club of
Rome is a Swiss-based global think tank founded in 1968 consisting of current and former heads of state, UN bureaucrats,
government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists and business leaders. Its latest report, to be released on 12th June, conducts
a comprehensive overview of the history and evolution of mining, and argues that the increasing costs of mineral extraction due to
pollution, waste, and depletion of low-cost sources will eventually make the present structure of industrial civilisation unsustainable.
Much of the report's focus is on the concept of Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI), which measures the amount of energy
the report finds

that "extraction is becoming more and more difficult as the easy ores are
depleted. More energy is needed to maintain past production rates ,
and even more is needed to increase them." As a consequence, despite large quantities of remaining mineral reserves: " The
production of many mineral commodities appears to be on the verge
of decline we may be going through a century-long cycle that will lead to the disappearance of mining as we know it."
The last decade has seen the world shift to more expensive and
difficult to extract fossil fuel resources, in the form of unconventional
forms of oil and gas, which have much lower levels of EROEI than
conventional oil. Even with technological breakthroughs in fracking and
associated drilling techniques, this trend is unlikely to reverse
significantly. A former senior executive in Australia's oil, gas and coal industry, Ian Dunlop, describes in the report how
needed to extract resources. While making clear that "we are not running out of any mineral,"
fracking can rise production "rapidly to a peak, but it then declines rapidly, too, often by 80 to 95 percent over the first three years."
This means that often "several thousand wells" are needed for a single shale play to provide "a return on investment." The average
EROEI to run "industrial society as we know it" is about 8 to 10. Shale oil and gas, tar sands, and coal seam gas are all "at, or below,
that level if their full costs are accounted for Thus fracking, in energy terms, will not provide a source on which to develop
sustainable global society." The Club of Rome report also applies the EROEI analysis to extraction of coal and uranium.
coal production
World
could peak as early as 2020. US coal

future production will be determined largely by
China. But rising domestic demand from the latter, and from India,
could generate higher prices and shortages in the near future: "Therefore, there is definitely
no scope for substituting for oil and gas with coal." As for global uranium supplies, the report says that current
uranium production from mines is already insufficient to fuel
existing nuclear reactors, a gap being filled by recovery of uranium military stockpiles and old nuclear
warheads. While the production gap could be closed at current levels of demand, a worldwide expansion of
nuclear power would be unsustainable due to "gigantic
investments" needed. Report contributor Michael Dittmar, a nuclear physicist at CERN, the European
Organisation for Nuclear Research, argues that despite large quantities of uranium in the
Earth's crust, only a "limited numbers of deposits" are
"concentrated enough to be profitably mined." Mining less
concentrated deposits would require "far more energy than the
mined uranium could ultimately produce." The rising costs of uranium mining, among other
costs, has meant that nuclear power investment is tapering off. Proposals to extract uranium from
seawater are currently "useless" because "the energy needed to
will peak by 2050 latest, and
production has already peaked, and
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
extract and process uranium from seawater would be about the

same as the energy that could be obtained by the same uranium
using the current nuclear technology." Therefore within this decade, the report forecasts an "unavoidable"
production decline from existing uranium mines. US Geological Survey data analysed by the report shows that chromium,
molybdenum, tungsten, nickel, platinum-palladium, copper, zinc,
cadmium, titanium, and tin will face peak production followed by
declines within this century. This is because declared reserves are often "more
hypothetical than measured", meaning the "assumption of mineral
bonanzas are far removed from reality." In particular, the report highlights the fate of copper,
lithium, nickel and zinc. Physicist Prof Rui Namorado Rosa projects an "imminent slowdown of copper availability" in the report.
'Peak
copper' is likely to hit by 2040, but could even occur within the next decade. Production of
lithium production, presently used for batteries electric cars, would also be strained under a
large-scale electrification of transport infrastructure and vehicles,
Although production has grown exponentially, the grade of the minerals mined is steadily declining, lifting mining costs.
according to contributor Emilia Suomalainen, an industrial ecologist of the University of Lausanne, Switzerland. Sustainable lithium
Nickel and zinc, which are used to

combat iron and steel corrosion and for electricity storage in batteries, also could face production peaks
in just "a few decades" though nickel might be extended some 80 years according to engineer and metals
production requires 80-100% recycling currently this stands at less than 1%.
specialist Philippe Bihoux: "The easily exploited part of the reserves has been already removed, and so it will be increasingly difficult
While substitution could help in many

cases, it would also be costly and uncertain, requiring considerable
investment. Perhaps the most alarming trend in mineral depletion
concerns phosphorous, which is critical to fertilise soil and sustain
agriculture. While phosphorous reserves are not running out, physical, energy and economic
factors mean only a small percentage of it can be mined. Crop yield on
40 percent of the world's arable land is already limited by economical phosphorus
availability. In the Club of Rome study, physicist Patrick Dery says that several major regions of rock
phosphate production such as the island of Nauru and the US, which is the world's second largest producer
are post-peak and now declining, with global phosphorous supplies potentially
becoming insufficient to meet agricultural demand within 30-40
years. The problem can potentially be solved as phosphorous can be recycled. A parallel trend documented
in the report by Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) agronomist Toufic El Asmar is an
accelerating decline in land productivity due to industrial
agricultural methods, which are degrading the soil by as much as 50% in some areas. Prof Rajendra K. Pachauri,
and expensive to invest in and exploit nickel and zinc mines."
chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said that the report is "an effective piece of work" to assess the
planet's mineral wealth "within the framework of sustainability." Its findings offer a "valuable basis for discussions on mineral policy."
the window for meaningful
action is closing rapidly.
But
policy
"The main alarm bell
is the trend in the prices of mineral commodities," Prof Bardi told me. "Prices have gone up by a factor 3-5 and have remained at
these level for the past 5-6 years. They are not going to go down again, because they are caused by irreversible increases in
production costs. These prices are already causing the decline of the less efficient economies (say, Italy, Greece, Spain, etc.). We are
not at the inversion point yet, but close - less than a decade?"
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Economic collapse is inevitable - unsustainable consumption

Gilding 12 (Paul, international thought leader and advocate for sustainability,
served as head of Greenpeace International, and is currently a faculty member for
Cambridge University's Programme for Sustainability Leadership, February 2012
TED Talks, The Earth is full,
http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_gilding_the_earth_is_full.html )
Let me begin with four words that will provide the context for this week, four words that will come to define this
The Earth is full. It's full of us, it's full of our stuff, full of our
waste, full of our demands. Yes, we are a brilliant and creative species, but we've
created a little too much stuff -- so much that our economy is now bigger
than its host, our planet. This is not a philosophical statement, this
is just science based in physics, chemistry and biology. There are many
science-based analyses of this, but they all draw the same conclusion -- that we're living beyond
our means. The eminent scientists of the Global Footprint Network, for example, calculate that we
need about 1.5 Earths to sustain this economy. In other words, to keep operating at
century. Here they are:
our current level, we need 50 percent more Earth than we've got. In financial terms, this would be like always
spending 50 percent more than you earn, going further into debt every year. But of course, you can't borrow natural
when I say full, I

mean really full -- well past any margin for error, well past any
dispute about methodology. What this means is our economy is
unsustainable. I'm not saying it's not nice or pleasant or that it's bad for polar bears or forests, though it
certainly is. What I'm saying is our approach is simply unsustainable. In other words,
thanks to those pesky laws of physics, when things aren't
sustainable, they stop. But that's not possible, you might think. We can't stop economic growth.
Because that's what will stop: economic growth. It will stop because
of the end of trade resources. It will stop because of the growing
demand of us on all the resources, all the capacity, all the systems
of the Earth, which is now having economic damage. When we think about
economic growth stopping, we go, "That's not possible," because economic growth is so
essential to our society that is is rarely questioned. Although growth has
resources, so we're burning through our capital, or stealing from the future. So
certainly delivered many benefits, it is an idea so essential that we tend not to understand the possibility of it not
Even though it has delivered many benefits, it is based on a

crazy idea -- the crazy idea being that we can have infinite growth
on a finite planet. And I'm here to tell you the emperor has no clothes. That the crazy idea
is just that, it is crazy, and with the Earth full, it's game over . Come on,
you're thinking. That's not possible. Technology is amazing. People
are innovative. There are so many ways we can improve the way we
do things. We can surely sort this out. That's all true. Well, it's mostly true. We are certainly amazing, and we
being around.
regularly solve complex problems with amazing creativity. So if our problem was to get the human economy down
The problem is we're

just warming up this growth engine. We plan to take this highlystressed economy and make it twice as big and then make it four
from 150 percent to 100 percent of the Earth's capacity, we could do that.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
times as big -- not in some distant future, but in less than 40 years, in
the life time of most of you. China plans to be there in just 20 years. The only problem with this
plan is that it's not possible. In response, some people argue, but we
need growth, we need it to solve poverty. We need it to develop technology. We need it to
keep social stability. I find this argument fascinating, as though we can kind of bend the rules of
physics to suit our needs. It's like the Earth doesn't care what we need. Mother nature doesn't
negotiate; she just sets rules and describes consequences. And these are
not esoteric limits. This is about food and water, soil and climate, the basic
practical and economic foundations of our lives. So the idea that we
can smoothly transition to a highly-efficient, solar-powered,
knowledge-based economy transformed by science and technology so that nine billion people
can live in 2050 a life of abundance and digital downloads is a delusion . It's not that it's not possible to
feed, clothe and house us all and have us live decent lives. It certainly is. But the idea that we can
gently grow there with a few minor hiccups is just wrong, and it's
dangerously wrong, because it means we're not getting ready for
what's really going to happen. See what happens when you operate a
system past its limits and then keep on going at an everaccelerating rate is that the system stops working and breaks down.
And that's what will happen to us. Many of you will be thinking, but surely we can still stop
this. If it's that bad, we'll react. Let's just think through that idea. Now we've had 50 years of warnings. We've had
science proving the urgency of change. We've had economic analysis pointing out that, not only can we afford it, it's
the reality is we've done pretty much nothing to

change course. We're not even slowing down. Last year on climate,
for example, we had the highest global emissions ever. The story on
food, on water, on soil, on climate is all much the same. I actually don't say
cheaper to act early. And yet,
this in despair. I've done my grieving about the loss. I accept where we are. It is sad, but it is what it is. But it is also
time that we ended our denial and recognized that we're not acting, we're not close to acting and we're not going to
act until this crisis hits the economy. And that's why the end of growth is the central issue and the event that we
So when does this transition begin? When does this breakdown

begin? In my view, it is well underway. I know most people don't see it that way. We tend to look at the
need to get ready for.
world, not as the integrated system that it is, but as a series of individual issues. We see the Occupy protests, we
see spiraling debt crises, we see growing inequality, we see money's influence on politics, we see resource
constraint, food and oil prices. But we see, mistakenly, each of these issues as individual problems to be solved. In
it's the system in the painful process of breaking down -- our

system, of debt-fueled economic growth, of ineffective democracy,
of overloading planet Earth, is eating itself alive.
fact,
Collapse is inevitable, reflexivity risk, peak oil, debt, incoming

credit bubble, and increasing interconnectivity and complexity
we need to re-start growth if our society is to continue
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
DK: Its a good idea, sort of. Its part of our worldview, methodologies, our
institutional structures, its what our society is adaptive to. Eco nomic growth is
not just an indicator, it represents and sometimes obscures a

complex structural dependency. If we dont have it there are major
social, economic and political implications. If we want all the things
we take for granted to continue, yes, of course we should re-start
growth. The problem is that continued economic growth is not
necessarily our choice. I suspect we are at the limits to growth
about now (I wont argue over a few years). Our financial and monetary
system, whose ties of trust and expectation animate the world in an act of faith is
increasingly unstable because it has far over-promised what can
ever be delivered; the oil (and thus food) flows that maintain global socioeconomic organization are peaking; and increasingly the effects of climate
change and water shortages are biting at our heels. Whats more, our
dependency on a complex globalised economy, its structure and
dynamics, makes us exceedingly vulnerable to such constraints.
Were likely entering a ragged globally developing deflationary spiral;
a cycle of falling confidence, credit and money supply that leads to
rising unemployment, falling wages and government income,
growing bad debts, bank failures and an increase in the real cost of
debt. There will also be an attendant and growing risk of a
catastrophic financial and monetary system shocks with severe
multi-system implications. A global credit bubble effectively pushed
out the timing of peak oil, a deflationary spiral will bring it upon us .
That said, we might not notice oil constraints initially (energy prices may fall
significantly although it may be less affordable) because a depression and
even a potentially catastrophic financial shock will have shattered

the global economys capacity to use energy and resources. And if this
happens therell be no going back, well have entered a new phase of forced
localization and huge new challenges. Its pretty easy to point out the
problems with our dependence upon a debt based monetary system

or fossil fuels, or with the lack of redundancy in critical
infrastructure. There are plenty of ardent promoters of, for
example; non-debt based money spent-into-circulation; using
quantitive easing to extinguish private debt; or a new Chicago Plan
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
putative white chargers coming to the rescue. But to frame such ideas
as solutions to problems is to mis-represent our predicament, which
is at best a process of risk management. What one hears far less of are the
implicit risks and uncertainties in such proposals. This is not to say they should not
be part of dynamic risk management but that in our present context they cannot be
de-risked or outcomes made certain. Just one aspect of this, for example, is
massive reflexivity risk , that is, actions to avert a crisis may end up
sparking the crisis by causing pre-emptive behavior change.
Furthermore to undertake such risk management decisions one needs to
understand or intuit the nature of contemporary dependency what
could be lost and how fast it could all happen especially if things go
awry and very few members of the public, politicians and policymakers really do.
Or to put it more directly, if you want to do radical surgery on the monetary system,
whats your food security planning like? This is particularly acute for anybody trying
to do deal with large-scale systemic risk whatever is done, there are far
greater downside risks than upside ones , which understandably makes

monetary officials conservative. Theres a vast difference between
promoting a solution from the side-lines and risk managing an
intrinsically uncertain and dangerous process where one might be held
accountable for a catastrophe. Even if we were to solve our financial and
monetary problems, wed walk straight into oil and food crises
which are systemically de-stabilizing. Our predicament and the tragedy of
attempting change is: given time and resource constraints and the reality that we
depend upon a de-localized networked system without central control, how do we
change the system while ensuring we do not collapse its essential functions.
Decreasing global resilience and the increasing complexity,

interdependence, tight coupling and the speed of the processes we
depend upon make this a fundamentally uncertain, dauntingly
complex and very dangerous set of challenges. So we dig in because
we cant dig out. We grasp for growth, we buy time and kick the
can, and with each step become more vulnerable. So the idea that
growth is a good or bad idea is a bit beside the point- were not
going to get it for much longer, nor is there much we can do about
it.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Global economic decline is inevitable - resources are finite and

dwindling
Brent 11 (Jason, frequent contributor to Countercurrents, expert on population
and demographic issues, Cessation Of Growth: Voluntary And Coercive Population
Control", July 18 2011, http://www.countercurrents.org/brent180711.htm)
Earth is finite in size. 2. Population and economic growth must cease .

Infinite population and/or economic growth cannot occur on the finite Earth.
3. Both population and the economy grow in a compound/exponential manner .
4. Compound/exponential growth is the most powerful force in the universe, it
overwhelms everything. 5. If anything were to grow at the compound
growth rate of one percent per year it would double in about 70
years; increase by a factor of four in 140 years; a factor of eight in
210 years and a factor of 1,000 (actually 1,024) in 700 years. If growth were to continue at the
1. The
same compound rate for an additional 700 years, total of 1,400 years, it would increase by a factor of 1 million and
if growth continued at the same rate for a total of 2,100 years the factor would be 1 billion. At the extremely small
rate of growth of one quarter of one percent (0.0025) it would take about 2,800 years, less time than from the
construction of the pyramids until today, for either the economy or the population to grow by a factor of greater
than 1,000. And 2,800 years is almost an infinitely small period of time when compared to the 160 million years
the
economy and the population of the world must cease their growth in the very
near future. I can state with almost absolute certainty that if either were to grow at the compound rate of
that the dinosaurs ruled the earth. 6. Since compound/exponential growth is so powerful, both
one percent per year growth will cease no later than 140 years from today as such a growth rate would cause both
the Earth could not support a population four times as

a world economy four times as great as the
current world economy. 7. The resources used by humanity can be
divided into two groups, nonrenewable and renewable. By definition
nonrenewable resources are finite and will eventually be used up by
humanity. Many, if not most, renewable resources are being used up
by humanity faster than nature can replace them and, therefore,
they also must be considered nonrenewable. 8. Recycling, substitution of
one resource for another resource, new technologies, environmentalism, and
any other action taken by humanity will not permit continuous compound economic
and/or population growth. Alternative energy resources will not
permit continuous compound population and/or economic growth. Humanity has withdrawn
from the Earth the most easily accessible resources which the Earth can provide . In the future
resources will become more expensive and difficult to obtain as they
will be substantially less accessible and will be more difficult to process into usable a form.
9. The concept of obtaining resources from extraterrestrial planets or
transferring part of humanity to extraterrestrial planets is a nonworkable fallacy.
of them to increase by a factor of four and
great as the present population or
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Sustained economic growth is impossible in the future

laundry list of issues
Trainer 11 (Ted, University of New South Wales, Australia, "The radical implications of a zero
growth economy", September 6 2011,
http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue57/Trainer57.pdf)
The planet is now racing into many massive problems, any one of
which could bring about the collapse of civilization before long. The most
serious are the destruction of the environment, the deprivation of
the Third World, resource depletion, conflict and war, and the breakdown of
social cohesion. The main cause of all these problems is over-production
and over-consumption people are trying to live at levels of
affluence that are far too high to be sustained or for all to share.
Our society is grossly unsustainable the levels of consumption,
resource use and ecological impact we have in rich countries like Australia
are far beyond levels that could be kept up for long or extended to
all people. Yet almost everyones supreme goal is to increase 1 This paper elaborates and extends a
discussion of themes published in The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, Fall, 2010; see Trainer 2010a.
71real-world economics review, issue no. 57 material living standards and the GDP and production and
There is no
element in our suicidal condition that is more important than this
mindless obsession with accelerating the main factor causing the
condition. The following points drive home the magnitude of the overshoot. If the 9 billion
people we will have on earth within about 50 years were to use
resources at the per capita rate of the rich countries, annual
resource production would have to be about 8 times as great as it is
now. If 9 billion people were to have a North American diet we
would need about 4.5 billion ha of cropland, but there are only 1.4
billion ha of cropland on the planet. Water resources are scarce and
dwindling. What will the situation be if 9 billion people try to use water as we in rich countries do, while the
greenhouse problem reduces water resources. The worlds fisheries are in serious
trouble now, most of them overfished and in decline. What happens if 9 billion
people try to eat fish at the rate Australians do now? Several mineral and other
resources are likely to be very scarce soon, including gallium, indium, helium, and
there are worries about copper, zinc, silver and phosphorous. Oil and gas are likely to be in
decline soon, and largely unavailable in the second half of the
century. If 9 billion were to consume oil at the Australian per capita rate, world
demand would be about 5 times as great as it is now. The
seriousness of this is extreme, given the heavy dependence of our
society on liquid fuels. Recent "Footprint" analysis indicates that it
takes 8 ha of productive land to provide water, energy, settlement
area and food for one person living in Australia. (World Wildlife Fund, 2009.) So
consumption, investment, trade, etc., as fast as possible and without any limit in sight.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
if 9 billion people were to live as we do about 72 billion ha of

productive land would be needed. But that is about 10 times all the
available productive land on the planet. The most disturbing
argument is to do with the greenhouse problem. It is very likely that
in order to stop the carbon content of the atmosphere rising to
dangerous levels CO2 emissions will have to be totally eliminated by
2050 (Hansen says 2030). (Hansen, 2009, Meinschausen et al., 2009.) Geosequestration cant
enable this, if only because it can only capture about 85% of the 50% of emissions that come from
stationary sources like power stations. These kinds of figures make it abundantly clear that rich world
material living standards are grossly unsustainable. We are living in ways
that it is impossible for all to share. We are not just a little beyond sustainable levels of resource consumption -- we
have 72real-world economics review, issue no. 57 overshot by a factor of 5 to 10. Few seem to realise the
Now add the

implications of growth The above figures refer to the present
situation, but that does not define the problem we face. The
problem is what will the situation be in future given the
determination to increase production and consumption continuously
magnitude of the overshoot, nor therefore about the enormous reductions that must be made.
and without limit? At least 3% p.a. economic growth is demanded and usually achieved in this society. If Australia
had 3% p.a. increase in output to 2050 and by then all 9 billion people expected had risen to the material living
world would be producing almost 20 times as

much as it does today. Yet the present level is alarmingly
unsustainable.
standards Australians would have, the
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Transition
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
1NC Transition
Econ collapse creates a mindset shift towards small local
civilizations this solves the environment and war globally
Lewis 2K Chris H. Lewis, Ph.D. University of Colorado at Boulder (Chris H, The
Coming Age of Scarcity: Preventing Mass Death and Genocide in the Twenty-First
Century p.44 p.45)//Roetlin
With the collapse of global industrial civilization, smaller, autonomous,

local and regional civilizations, cultures, and polities will emerge. We can
reduce the threat of mass death and genocide that will surely
accompany this collapse by encouraging the creation and growth of
sustainable, self-sufficient regional polities. John Cobb has already made
a case for how this may work in the United States and how it is working in Kerala,
India. After the collapse of global industrial civilization, First and
Third World peoples won't have the material resources, biological

capital, and energy and human resources to re-establish global
industrial civilization. Forced by economic necessity to become
dependent on local resources and ecosystems for their survival,
peoples throughout the world will work to conserve and restore
their environments. Those societies that destroy their local environments and
economies, as modern people so often do, will themselves face collapse and ruin.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Exts Transition Key
Without a radical change in our societal foundation the

affirmative will never be able to solve consumer-capitalist
society does not allow for a sustainable future the only
chance for solvency is dedevelopment turns case
Trainer, 07 - Senior Lecturer in Sociology, School of Social Work, University of
New South Wale (Ted, Renewable Energy: No Solution for Consumer Society,
Inclusive Democracy,
http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/vol3/vol3_no1_Trainer_renewable_energy.
htm#_edn3)//Roetlin
Consumer-capitalist society is also grossly unjust, imposing a global

market system which delivers most of the worlds wealth to the
corporations and consumers of the rich countries. A market
economy inevitably gears the productive capacity of the Third World
to the effective demand of the rich and cannot attend to the needs
of people, society or future generations. Again it is obvious that Third
World problems cannot be solved until the rich countries stop
taking most of the worlds resource wealth ; as Gandhi said long ago,
The rich must live more simply so that the poor may simply live .
That is not possible in a society committed to affluence and growth. Thus
considerations of sustainability and of justice both lead to the

conclusion that the problems cannot be solved without huge and
radical systemic change. In my view the core factor determining the trajectory
of Western society in the past hundred years and in the near future is resource
scarcity. Consumer society flared after 1945 on abundant cheap oil. We are now
probably at the peak of oil availability and headed for rapid decline, which probably
means catastrophic breakdown. Some believe 3 billion are likely to die off in coming
decades. (See www.dieoff.com) About 480 million are fed by food irrigated by petrol
engines. Thus, thinking about alternative ways must focus on this scarcity factor. It
has powerful implications for many classic sociological and philosophical debates.
For instance, it means that a good society cannot be an affluent society.
Marxists as much as free-marketers have been mistaken about this.

It means that globalization is over. It means that industrialization is
not the future ( indeed the dominant mode of production will probably be
craft.) It means that viable settlements in an era of scarcity must be
run on anarchist principles; they will not be able to meet their needs
from local resources via systems they have to run for themselves
unless they are highly participatory and equalitarian. 4. The answer?
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
The only way out of this alarming and rapidly deteriorating situation is to
move to some kind of Simpler Way[6], which Chapter 11 of Renewable
Energy discusses at length. This must involve non-affluent (but quite
sufficient) material living standards, mostly small, highly selfsufficient local economies. Economic systems under social control
and not driven by market forces or the profit motive and highly
cooperative and participatory systems. Obviously, such radical
systemic changes could not be made without profound change in
values and world view, away from some of the most fundamental
elements in Western culture, especially to do with competitive, acquisitive
individualism. There are good reasons for thinking that we have neither the wit nor
the will to face up to changes of this order, especially given that they are not on the
agenda of official or public discussion. A major factor that has kept them off the
agenda has been the strength of the assumption all wish to believe, that renewable
energy sources can substitute for fossil fuels and therefore can sustain consumercapitalist society.
Dedev is the only chance for solvency we live in a growtheconomy not an economy with growth
New South Wale (Ted, The Radical Implications of a Zero-Growth Economy, Real
World Economics Review,
http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue57/Trainer57.pdf)//Roetlin
For 50 years literature has been accumulating pointing out the

contradiction between the pursuit of economic growth and
ecological sustainability, although this has had negligible impact on
economic theory or practice. A few, notably Herman Daly (2008), have
continuedto attempt to get the notion of a steady-state economy onto the agenda
but it has only been in the last few years that discussion has begun
to gain momentum. Jacksons Prosperity Without Growth (200) has been widely
recognised, there is now a substantial European De-growth movement(Latouche,
2007), and CASSE (2010) has emerged. The argument in this paper is that the
implications of a steady-state economy have not been understood at

all well, especially by its advocates. Most proceed as if we can and
should eliminate the growth element of the present economy while
leaving the rest more or less as it is. It will be argued firstly that
this is not possible, because this is not an economy which has
growth; it is a growth-economy, a system in which most of the core
structures and processes involve growth. If growth is eliminated
then radically different ways of carrying out many fundamental
processes will have to be found. Secondly, the critics of growth typically
proceed as if it is the only or the primary or the sufficient thing that has to be fixed,
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
but it will be argued that the major global problems facing us cannot be
solved unless several fundamental systems and structures within

consumer-capitalist society are radically remade . What is required is
much greater social change than Western society has undergone in several hundred
years. Before offering support for these claims it is important to sketch the general
limits to growth situation confronting us. The magnitude and seriousness
of the global resource and environmental problem is not generally

appreciated. Only when this is grasped is it possible to understand that the social
changes required must be huge, radical and far reaching. The initial claim being
argued here (and detailed in Trainer 2010b) is that consumer-capitalist
society cannot be reformed or fixed; it has to be largely scrapped

and remade along quite different lines.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2NC Mindset Shift

Mindset shift works
Gpel 4/28 - Maja Gpel heads the Berlin office of the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and
Energy. Her research focuses on system transformations and new prosperity models. Preceding this post she helped
start up the World Future Council and later directed its Future Justice program with a focus on the representation of
future generations and long-termism in current governance structures. Maja has a PhD in political economy and
diploma in media/communications, she lectures at universities and enjoys working in international networks. (2014,
Maja, Postwachstum, Getting to Postgrowth: The Transformative Power of Mind- and Paradigm Shifts,
http://blog.postwachstum.de/getting-to-postgrowth-the-transformative-power-of-mind-and-paradigm-shifts20140428 // SM)
Before an individual chooses to act, he or she requires a story or

mindset to make sense of what the situation is about. Acting rationally in this
sense means to act with reason, in congruence with ones worldview and the individual interpretation of the rules
Individual mindsets, however, are not fixed when we are born, but the result
of learning and socialization processes in which the collective
imaginary and narratives about life, society and desirable futures
provide the reference framework. So what happens if this reference
framework becomes unconvincing or even unbelievable as it seems to be
the case with the narrative of continuous economic growth? It
causes a lot of confusion, mistrust, politicization, fear and opportunity for
change. The latter is what the postgrowth, de-growth and beyond GDP
movement is aiming at, as well as big sections of the emerging
sustainability transformation research community and groups
calling for strong sustainability. I want to highlight that the overarching
stories and rationales for change, as well as the values, principles and rules for its realization
n, are very aligned. What we see emerging qualifies for a paradigm
shift cutting across theory and practice which is a high leverage
point for system transformations. The term paradigm shift originates
from the philosophy of science and usually references Thomas Kuhn as the original thinker in
this context. In scientific terms, paradigms comprise assumptions that are
epistemological (what we can know), ontological (what can be said to exist and how we group it)
and methodological (which guideline framework for solving a problem is suitable). In the
context of worldviews, many add axiological aspects (which values are
of the game.
adopted). Depending on how these are defined, one and the same event will be interpreted very differently. Kuhn
also observed that usually several paradigms exist, but only one seems to become dominant as it was the case
with mainstream economics over the last 200 years.
Mindset shift theory is true

{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
the call
for a paradigm shift or (great) transformations has become standard in the
discourse around the post2015 development agenda, the emerging Sustainable
Development Goals or the new IPCC assessment report: a renewed opportunity for deep
structural change. System transformation researchers like those at the Nesta Foundation in the UK
brought forward a list of five main ingredients for successful
transformation: Failures and frustrations with the current system
multiply as negative consequences become increasingly visible. The
landscape in which the regime operates shifts as new long-term trends emerge or
sudden events drastically impact the general availability or persuasiveness of
particular solutions. Niche alternatives start to develop and gain momentum; coalitions emerge that
The world now had 20 years to observe the empirical consequences of these mathematical stunts, and
coalesce around the principles of a new approach. New technologies are energizing the upcoming alternative
In
order to achieve far-reaching regime changes, dissents and fissures
within the regime itself are key, rather than small adaptations and cosolutions either in the form of alternative products or opportunities for communication and connection.
optation into the old regime.[3] A core element in this sequence is the new approach mentioned in point 3. Just as
the challenging
of these paradigms and their crisis equally holds the emancipatory
power for system transformations. While many argue that, with regard to the development
paradigms and hegemonic mindsets have a hampering effect on alternative proposals,
story of economic growth, such alternatives are still dispersed happenings and nowhere near providing a consistent
approach, I think we are at a tipping point. A first superficial review of a few movements shows a lot of
commonalities between the core principles of, for example, the Economy for the Common Good[4], the Transition
Town movement[5], and the Commoning movement[6], or the international efforts to measure a new development
Cross-cutting ideas and

rationales juxtaposed to the mainstream economic ones are: A
holistic understanding of human needs and prosperity beyond
consumption Equitable and balanced progress of the whole socioecological system A vision of sufficiency providing freedom from fear
of falling behind in the race for more wealth and freedom from constantly
created shopping-wants that impede wellbeing Growth in creativity, capacities, time
wealth and conviviality (process utility) in co-creative relationships A culture of
respect, precaution and caring for what is already there Shedding
old paradigms and imaginaries of life, society and desirable futures
usually goes alongside crises in the real world. We are looking at a rocky ride ahead, but the more
clarity we have about where we want to get and how it can be done,
the better we can coordinate. This leaves me to finish with Milton Friedman: Only a
crisis-actual or perceived-produces real change. When that crisis
occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying
around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to
existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the
politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable.
paradigm led by Bhutan with its Gross National Happiness approach[7] .
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2NC - US Econ
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2NC Debt
US economic collapse is inevitable - debt
Pelerin 13 (Monty Pelerin, AB, MBA and PhD degrees from Duke University, the
University of Chicago and Syracuse University in finance and economics, "Extreme
fear is reasonable: Economic collapse is inevitable", July 26 2013,
http://www.sott.net/article/264399-Extreme-fear-is-reasonable-Economic-collapse-isinevitable)
It is nearly impossible to convince people that an economic collapse is likely, perhaps inevitable. It is beyond
anything they have seen or can imagine. I attribute that to a normalcy bias, an inherent weakness of experiential
learners. For many, accepting something that has not occurred during their time on the planet is not possible. The
laws of economics and mathematics may shape history but they are not controlled by history. The form of
cataclysm and its timing is indeterminable. Political decisions continue to shape both. The madmen who are
responsible for the coming disaster continue to behave as if they can manage to avoid it. Violating Einstein's
definition of insanity, they continue to apply the same poison that caused the problem. These fools believe they can
manage complexities they do not understand. We are bigger fools for providing them the authority to indulge their
hubris and wreak such damage. Apocalypse In One Picture James Quinn provided the following graph. If a picture is
The route to economic demise is

depicted below: The relationships in this graph are terrifying! Debt is shown relative to GDP. GDP
growth has been one-third the growth in debt for the period. That
is, the economy required $3 of debt to produce $1 more in real GDP.
In recent years diminishing returns to debt required $6 of debt to increase
GDP a $1. Whatever the benefits of debt, they have clearly diminished, almost to zero. Debt expansion has
worth a thousand words, this graph is worth millions.
gone exponential in order to salvage the weak growth in GDP. To put this into a perspective the average reader can
The "family" depicted above has to

borrow each year in order to maintain its spending level. Imagine
the condition of your family if you borrowed 6 times the amount of
incremental spending each year. Then imagine the condition of your
family after forty years of continuously increasing your debt levels
substantially in excess of your income. It is impossible for a family without a printing
understand, think of GDP as a household's spending.
press and a cooperative Federal Reserve to engage in such behavior. The government is different, you say? Surely it
is, but not necessarily in a meaningful financial manner. Just as you would not survive such behavior, governments
cannot either. History is full of examples of government collapses resulting from excessive debt and overspending.
A printing press only provides the luxury of more time before the failure. You may object that a macroeconomy is
different from a family. Debt (parroting the political claim) makes an economy grow faster. The evidence shown to
Government reported GDP growth rates are

shrinking as the debt expansion accelerates. Since 1965 the growth
rate of the economy has been declining. Even if you accept government GDP reporting,
the chart to the right shows a trend this is pointing to an average declining standard of living. That point
will be reached when the GDP growth falls below the population
growth. The US economy has been underperforming since the 1970s according to government's statistics. That
the right does not support this claim.
is after all the games have been played with these numbers. How much longer can these trends continue and what
happens at the end? No one can reasonably answer either of these questions. What Is Known And Not Known Two
So long as borrowing increases faster than GDP, the

ability to repay diminishes. That has been occurring for more than
forty years and the differential growth rates have widened
dramatically in recent years. Not borrowing at this pace would likely
things are known:
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
have decreased reported GDP dramatically. While that may have been a proper
economic response, it is now politically impossible (or highly unlikely). Continuing to increase
debt at a rate greater than GDP ensures financial collapse. Stopping or
slowing down at this point likely leads to the same point. This country has maneuvered
itself into a no-escape situation. What would happen to GDP and the standard of living if
borrowing were dramatically reduced? How much of the last $10 trillion in debt borrowed between 2000 and 2009
went directly into reported GDP? Is it possible that reported GDP for this period could have been $10 trillion lower?
If there is indeed a monetary/fiscal multiplier as Keynesians insist, then results would have been worse. Answers to
these questions are speculative. Those in favor of more debt argue that a calamity would have occurred had the
massive rise in debt and its accompany stimulative effects not happened. For the Paul Krugmans of the world, more
Rapidly
increasing amounts of debt since 1965 have been accompanied by
falling rates of growth. One may speculate what this growth would have been with different rates of
debt and stimulus is always the answer. All problems look like nails when you own only a hammer.
debt expansion. Whether the rate of debt expansion increased or decreased the rate of real GDP is moot.
Economists can use their competing paradigms to duel over this issue, but cannot come to a conclusion that is
acceptable to most. Mathematics, on the other hand, is definitive. There are mathematical limits that control the
ability to service debt. Once these limits have been breached, some amount of the debt will be defaulted on. The
breach point is referred to as a debt death spiral. The US has passed this mathematical point and is in a death
The political class in America, either via misguided economic

policies or a deliberate attempt to hide the true condition of the
country, has put us here. They will continue to employ whatever
policies they believe will keep things going for a while longer. The
tragic ending has been cast. Economics cannot trump mathematics .
spiral.
Economic collapse is inevitable without the gold standard debt proves

Sprott 6/16 (Eric Sprott, Bachelor of Arts / Science at Carleton University,
formed a brokerage firm before setting up his own money management firm two
decades, regarded as one of the countrys legendary precious metals investors,
"Twelve Numbers that Prove Economic Collapse is Inevitable", June 16 2014,
http://sprottmoneyblog.com/twelve-numbers-that-prove-economic-collapse-isinevitable/#)
The total debt of the US government stands at roughly 17.5 trillion

dollars and is growing as each second passes. This number is so staggering that the
average man on the street has difficulty understanding it. Sadly, the reality of the situation is bleak. This
ballooning debt is completely unsustainable and cannot be repaid.
Remember, what cannot be repaid will not be repaid. The US
government is on a path towards total collapse. The debt levels have
gone over the cliff and like the infamous cartoon character Wile E. Coyote, it is only a
matter of time before gravity takes hold and the economy comes
crashing down. Even more shocking is the fact that there are numbers even bleaker than those of the US
debt level. The Economic Collapse Blog has compiled a list of economic numbers that everyone should take the
time to read and understand: -$1,280,000,000,000 - Most people are really surprised when they hear this number.
there is only 1.28 trillion dollars worth of U.S. currency

floating around out there. -$17,555,165,805,212.27 - This is the size of the U.S. national
Right now,
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
debt. It has grown by more than 10 trillion dollars over the past ten
years. -$32,000,000,000,000 - This is the total amount of money that the global elite have stashed in offshore
banks (that we know about). -$48,611,684,000,000 - This is the total exposure that Goldman Sachs has to
derivatives contracts. -$59,398,590,000,000
- This is the total amount of debt

(government, corporate, consumer, etc.) in the U.S. financial system. 40 years ago, this number
was just a little bit above 2 trillion dollars. -$70,088,625,000,000 - This is the total
exposure that JPMorgan Chase has to derivatives contracts. -$71,830,000,000,000 - This is the approximate size of
the GDP of the entire world. -$75,000,000,000,000 - This is approximately the total exposure that German banking
giant, Deutsche Bank, has to derivatives contracts. -$ 100,000,000,000,000
- This is the
total amount of government debt in the entire world. This amount
has grown by $30 trillion just since mid-2007. -$223,300,000,000,000 - This is the
approximate size of the total amount of debt in the entire world. -$236,637,271,000,000 - According to the U.S.
government, this is the total exposure that the top 25 banks in the United States have to derivatives contracts. But
the exposure of
our largest banks to derivatives outweighs their total assets by a
ratio of about 25 to 1. -$710,000,000,000,000 to $1,500,000,000,000,000 - The estimates
of the total notional value of all global derivatives contracts
generally fall within this range. At the high end of the range, the
ratio of derivatives exposure to global GDP is about 21 to 1 . After reading
these numbers, read them again. Take a moment to let reality sink in. Since going off the gold
standard, Western governments have entered into a Ponzi schemebased economy. The only savior for your finances will be precious metals. Take a moment to consider
those banks only have total assets of about 9.4 trillion dollars combined. In other words,
that all the gold in the world is only worth $6,647,314,169,784. A drop in the bucket compared to the numbers
listed above. If you read these numbers and believe that the government has a magical solution, then you live in a
These numbers point to one conclusion only. An inevitable,

eventual collapse.
fantasy world.
US economic decline is inevitable - empirics demonstrate the

vulnerability of the global economy
Biancuzzo 13 (Marty Biancuzzo, Chief Technology Analyst at Tech & Innovation
Daily, previous Director of Trading Services at Money Map Press and Associate
Director of Trading Services at Oxford Club / Wall Street Daily / Money Map Press,
"The Inevitable Economic Default", April 25 2013,
http://www.capitolhilldaily.com/2013/04/economic-default/)
Most people think that the story of the ultimate economic collapse
has already been told. The Great Depression The dot-com bust The housing and credit crisis of
2008 But the greatest economic collapse is a story thats still being
written. It started when Presidents Bush and Obama spent over $1 trillion in stimulus aid and lowered
interest rates to near 0% levels to fix the economic crisis. By doing so, they essentially solved
the problem with the same exact measures that created the
problem in the first place. They created another bubble. Only this
time, its within our Federal Reserve. And when it pops, like every
bubble does, it will take us all down with it. The Stakes Have Never Been Higher All it
will take for this next bubble to burst is a debt default. And when it happens, we wont be able to solve our
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
We cant lower interest its already at rockbottom lows. We cant further stimulate, as that would require
larger stimulus packages and deepen our burden even more. Ultimately,
our foreign creditors will do one of two things: Theyll either stop lending us
money, or theyll devalue the newly printed dollars were using to
pay off our debt. Either way, once our creditors expose the true
value of the dollar game over. Countries will look to exchange with a currency of greater
problems with the same old methods.
value, and the United States will be forced to say goodbye to the Federal Reserve. This isnt something that might
happen, either.
Its inevitable. So inevitable, in fact, that the Fed can no

longer hide it. The federal government recently issued a call to
action to all 50 states and five of our nations largest banks to
prepare for the coming collapse. And states arent taking any chances An Awakening of the
State Some states saw the writing on the wall long before any official warning came from the Fed. Take Texas and
Wyoming, for example. They took the first proactive measures toward what is now becoming a nationwide, state-bystate internal assessment. They formulated Doomsday Preparation Bills that, once passed, would establish crisis
committees. The Bills: Texas HB 568 Self Sufficiency Act Wyoming HB 85 State Run Government Continuity
Task Force They seek to establish measures that protect the state and its citizens in the event of federal default.
Furthermore, the bills initiate the necessary steps to becoming a sovereign state. The states have decided to:
Analyze how dependent they are on federal funding. Begin stashing emergency funds for surviving without
federal aid. Prepare a state-run army to defend against the imminent resource scarcity and threats that will arise
from federal default. This includes stockpiling military technologies. Arrange the issuance of alternative currency.
And they arent the only ones working on alternative solutions Virginia, Utah, North Carolina and South Carolina
have already legislated the use of gold and silver as currency for intra-state transactions. Utah was the first to
introduce the currency bill that allows residents to use U.S.-minted gold and silver coins. Theyre currently
developing a system where citizens could use debit cards linked to their gold and silver holdings. South Carolina
took it one step further by allowing any form of gold and silver coin, including other currencies like the Philippine
peso. And Paul Broun, Jr. of Georgia reintroduced Ron Pauls Competition in Currency Act at the beginning of this
year. CICA2013 intends to repeal the illegal use of foreign gold and silver coins nationwide. As the Fed continues to
devalue the dollar, its the logical step to take when considering using another form of legal tender. Something to
Consider It seems absurd to think the United States the worlds most powerful nation could be facing economic
collapse. Its a concept that seems radical to most people, especially when the United States has a AAA rating and
The 2008 crisis brought the world

economy to its knees. We witnessed the destruction of big
businesses Lehman Brothers, Behr Sterns, AIG, Fannie and Freddie. And weve seen
prosperous nations falter Iceland, Greece, Italy, Spain and
Portugal. Our government has taken on a suicidal amount of burden
and injected worthless money into a broke system all in an effort
to delay the inevitable. Remember, people once laughed at the thought
of the housing and credit market failing. Things appeared to be
going too well for any such talk. But with major players in the
government and private sector making preparations, its pretty
clear that our worst fears are quickly coming to fruition.
the markets are at all-time highs. But think about it.
Debt and unemployment make US economic collapse inevitable

- consensus of experts
Newsmax 6/25 (Newsmax, website and magazine that covers the latest
developments in politics, national and world news, health, faith, personal finance,
and technology with a unique American perspective, June 25 2014, "Billionaire Tells
Americans to Prepare For 'Financial Ruin'",
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
http://www.moneynews.com/Outbrain/Trump-Aftershock-AmericanEconomy/2012/11/06/id/462985/)
The United States could soon become a large-scale Spain or Greece,

teetering on the edge of financial ruin. Thats according to Donald Trump, who painted a
very ugly picture of where this country is headed. Trump made the comments during a recent appearance on Fox
According to Trump, the United States

is no longer a rich country. When youre not rich, you have to go
out and borrow money. Were borrowing from the Chinese and
others. Were up to $16 trillion in debt. He goes on to point out that the
downgrade of U.S. debt is inevitable. We are going up to $16
trillion [in debt] very soon, and its going to be a lot higher than that
before he gets finished. When you have [debt] in the $21-$22 trillion, you are
talking about a downgrade no matter how you cut it. Ballooning debt and a
credit downgrade arent Trumps only worries for this country. He says that the official
unemployment rate of 8.2 percent isnt a real number and that the real figure is closer to
15 percent to 16 percent. He even mentioned that some believe the unemployment rate to be as
News On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.
high as 21 percent. Right now, frankly, the country isnt doing well, Trump added, Recession may be a nice
While 15 percent to 16 percent unemployment, a looming credit

downgrade, and ballooning debt are a bleak outlook for the United
States, they are hardly as alarming as the scenario laid out by
another economist. Without earning celebrity status or having his
own television show, Robert Wiedemer did something else that grabbed headlines across the
country: He accurately predicted the economic collapse that almost sank
the United States. In 2006, Wiedemer and a team of economists foresaw the coming collapse of the
word.
U.S. housing market, equity markets, private debt, and consumer spending, and published their findings in the book
Wiedemers outlook for the U.S.

economy today makes Trumps observations seem almost optimistic.
Where Trump sees ballooning debt and a credit downgrade,
Wiedemer sees much more widespread economic destruction. In a recent
interview for his newest book Aftershock, Wiedemer says, The data is clear, 50%
unemployment, a 90% stock market drop, and 100% annual inflation
. . . starting in 2012. When the host questioned such wild claims, Wiedemer unapologetically
Americas Bubble Economy. Editors Note: But
displayed shocking charts backing up his allegations, and then ended his argument with, You see, the medicine will
The interview has become a wake-up call for those

unprepared (or unwilling) to acknowledge an ugly truth: The
countrys financial rescue devised in Washington has failed
miserably.
become the poison.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2NC Laundry List

A US financial crisis is inevitable - 6 reasons
Denning 13 (Steve Denning, Director of knowledge management (1996-2000) at
the World Bank, director of the Scrum Alliance, fellow of the Lean Software Society,
and contributor to Forbes, citing Alan S. Blinder, the Gordon S. Rentschler Memorial
Professor of Economics and Public Affairs at Princeton University, Vice Chairman of
the Promontory Interfinancial Network, and regular columnist for The Wall Street
Journal, "Alan Blinder: Six Reasons Why Another Financial Crisis Is (Still) Inevitable",
September 12 2013, http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/09/12/alanblinder-six-reasons-why-another-financial-crisis-is-still-inevitable/)
As we approach the five-year anniversary of Lehman DaySeptember 15, 2008

the day when Lehman Brothers collapsed, financial markets froze
and the global financial system almost disintegrated , its good to get a
reminder that the underlying issues that caused the debacle still havent
been fixed. The reminder comes from Alan S. Blinder, professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton
University, former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, and the author of the excellent history of the financial
crisis, After the Music Stopped: The Financial Crisis, the Response, and the Work Ahead. He has now written an
interesting article in the Wall Street Journal, entitled Alan Blinder: Five Years Later, Financial Lessons Not Learned.
another financial crisis is inevitable. Now

Professor Blinder presents six smoking gun reasons why the
problems of the financial sector still arent fixed and in effect, why
another financial crisis is still inevitable. First, the Dodd-Frank Act
of 2010 hasnt been implemented. Even this comparatively weak
legislative attempt at reform is withering on the regulatory vine. Far
Earlier this year, I explained in this column why
from being tamed, the financial beast has gotten its mojo backand is winning. The people have forgottenand
Second, the requirement that Wall Street firms have some

skin n the game in the securitization of mortgages has been
hamstrung. The Dodd-Frank law included a risk-retention rule that would require issuers of asset-backed
securities to keep at least 5 percent of the credit risk, rather than pass it all on to investors. But
regulations implementing the provision have still not been issued.
are losing.
The proposal now being reviewed would exempt almost 95 percent of all mortgages from the skin-in-the-game
Result: the
intent of the law is gutted. Third, the $5 trillion banking assets in
derivatives are still off-balance sheet and unregulated . Bad
mortgages were a serious problem in 2008, but it was unregulated
derivatives that turned the problem into a global disaster. Derivatives
requirement. Even an alternative strong proposal would exempt 75 percent of all mortgages.
based on mortgages were a principal source of the reckless leverage that backfired so badly during the crisis,
imposing huge losses on investors and many financial firms. Yet the Dodd-Frank law exempts the vast majority of
derivatives from any regulation. Since the $5 trillion that the big banks have in derivatives are undisclosed and off
Elementary transparency is
lacking, as Sandy Weill noted earlier in the week. Fourth, a serious reformer of
derivatives is being hounded out of town. Gary Gensler, the chairman of the
their -balance sheets, no investor can evaluate the risks involved.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission ran into a wall of resistance from the industry, from European regulators,
and from American colleagues when he tried to implement even the weak Dodd-Frank provisions for derivatives.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
And Mr. Genslers days leading the CFTC look numbered. The fate of any other would-be reformers looks similarly
Fifth, the rating agencies are still hired and paid by the very
companies whose securities they rate. The credit-rating agencies
contributed mightily to the financial mess they blessed financial
junk with coveted triple-A ratings The rating agencies are still hired and paid by the very
dim.
companies whose securities they rate. The Dodd-Frank Act called on federal agencies to study the situation and
Sixth,
the Volcker Rule forbidding proprietary trading by banks has not
been implemented. The idea of the Volcker Rule was to prevent
banks from gambling with FDIC-insured funds Dodd-Frank was signed into law in
make improvements. Those studies that have been done are gathering dust. Action to date: none.
July 2010. The Volcker rule has been tied up ever since by internal bureaucratic squabbles and external pressure
Professor Blinder concludes that the principal

problems that led to the financial meltdown of 2008 remain
unresolved. Is there any reason to think that yet another massive financial crisis is not inevitable? Some
from the banking industry. In short,
would argue that we will not see a repeat of the recent financial crisis because it was driven by mortgages being
There is
now little risk of that particular kind a mortgage crisis for the
foreseeable future. But thats not to say that there wont be other
financial crises in the future; in particular from the massive hidden
activity in derivatives.
extended to people who should have never received them, partly at the behest of government.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2NC - Global Econ
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2NC Laundry List

Global economic collapse is inevitable - unsustainable
Snyder 2/13 (Michael, graduate of the University of Florida law school and an
attorney in Washington D.C., also known for his work as the publisher of The
Economic Collapse Blog, "20 Signs That The Global Economic Crisis Is Starting To
Catch Fire", February 13 2014, http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/20signs-that-the-global-economic-crisis-is-starting-to-catch-fire)
Over the past few years, the Federal Reserve and other global
central banks have inflated an unprecedented financial bubble with
their reckless money printing. Much of this "hot money" poured into emerging markets all over
the world. But now that the Federal Reserve has begun "tapering"
quantitative easing, investors are taking this as a sign that the
party is ending. Money is being pulled out of emerging markets all
over the globe at a staggering pace and this is creating a tremendous
amount of financial instability. In addition, the economic problems that
have been steadily growing over the past few years in established
economies throughout Europe and Asia just continue to escalate.
The following are 20 signs that the global economic crisis is starting
to catch fire... #1 The unemployment rate in Greece has hit a brand
new record high of 28 percent. #2 The youth unemployment rate in
Greece has hit a brand new record high of 64.1 percent. #3 The
percentage of bad loans in Italy is at an all-time record high. #4
Italian industrial output declined again in December, and the Italian
government is on the verge of collapse. #5 The number of
jobseekers in France has risen for 30 of the last 32 months, and at this
point it has climbed to a new all-time record high. #6 The total number
of business failures in France in 2013 was even higher than in any
year during the last financial crisis. #7 It is being projected that
housing prices in Spain will fall another 10 to 15 percent as their
economic depression deepens. #8 The economic and political
turmoil in Turkey is spinning out of control. The government has resorted to blasting
protesters with pepper spray and water cannons in a desperate attempt to restore order. #9 It is being estimated
the inflation rate in Argentina is now over 40 percent, and the

peso is absolutely collapsing. #10 Gangs of armed bandits are
roaming the streets in Venezuela as the economic chaos in that
troubled nation continues to escalate. #11 China appears to be very
serious about deleveraging. The deflationary effects of this are
going to be felt all over the planet. The following is an excerpt from Ambrose Evansthat
Pritchard's recent article entitled "World asleep as China tightens deflationary vice"... China's Xi Jinping has cast the
die. After weighing up the unappetising choice before him for a year, he has picked the lesser of two poisons. The
balance of evidence is that most powerful Chinese leader since Mao Zedong aims to prick China's $24 trillion credit
bubble early in his 10-year term, rather than putting off the day of reckoning for yet another cycle. This may be
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
#12
There was a significant debt default by a coal company in China last
well-advised for China, but the rest of the world seems remarkably nonchalant over the implications.
Friday... A high-yield investment product backed by a loan to a debt-ridden coal company failed to repay investors
when it matured last Friday, state media reported on Wednesday, in the latest sign of financial stress in China's
Japan's Nikkei stock index has already fallen by 14

percent so far in 2014. That is a massive decline in just a month and
a half. #14 Ukraine continues to fall apart financially... The worsening
political and economic circumstances in Ukraine has prompted the
Fitch Ratings agency to downgrade Ukrainian debt from B to a pre
default level CCC. This is lower than Greece, and Fitch warns of future financial instability. #15 The
unemployment rate in Australia has risen to the highest level in
more than 10 years. #16 The central bank of India is in a panic over
the way that Federal Reserve tapering is effecting their financial
system. #17 The effects of Federal Reserve tapering are also being felt in Thailand... In the wake of
the US Federal Reserve tapering, emerging economies with
deteriorating macroeconomic figures or visible political instability
are being punished by skittish markets. Thailand is drifting towards both these
tendencies. #18 One of Ghana's most prominent economists says that the
economy of Ghana will crash by June if something dramatic is not done.
shadow bank sector. #13
#19 Yet another banker has mysteriously died during the prime years of his life. That makes five "suspicious banker
deaths" in just the past two weeks alone. #20 The behavior of the U.S. stock market continues to parallel the
things don't look good right now, but it

is important to keep in mind that this is just the beginning. This is
just the leading edge of the next great financial storm . The next two years
behavior of the U.S. stock market in 1929. Yes,
(2014 and 2015) are going to represent a major "turning point" for the global economy. By the end of 2015, things
None of the problems that caused the

last financial crisis have been fixed. Global debt levels have grown
by 30 percent since the last financial crisis, and the too big to fail
banks in the United States are 37 percent larger than they were
back then and their behavior has become even more reckless than
before. As a result, we are going to get to go through another "2008-style crisis", but I believe that this next
are going to look far different than they do today.
wave is going to be even worse than the previous one. So hold on tight and get ready. We are going to be in for
quite a bumpy ride.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2NC Models
MIT models prove collapse is coming now despite technological
improvements
Simms 12 (Andrew Simms, studied at the London School of Economics, author
and Fellow at the New Economics Foundation, author of Ecological Debt: The Health
of the Planet & the Wealth of Nations (2005) and The New Economics (2009),
"Clinging to economic growth suffocates the imagination", February 1 2012,
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/01/limits-to-economic-growth)
For one thing, the model used by the MIT scientists didn't make precise "predictions", but projected what was likely
Their real
finding was not that collapse was likely to occur by a particular year,
but that population and the global economy would contract rapidly
after peaking. The only circumstances under which some kind of
stabilisation, rather than collapse, was achieved, was constraining
population and the scale of the economy. Models and reality are not the same thing.
But strikingly given the relatively crude computer modelling available at the time the MIT
projections have proved remarkably accurate. Today they can be
checked against decades of actual data. Population, industrial
output, pollution and food consumption all track the lines in the
model. There is a popular view that economic growth can be saved
by efficiency measures, recycling and technological substitution,
such as nuclear and renewable energy replacing fossil fuels. Yet the
model allowed even for these variables, and crashed under the
pressure of growth just the same. I took part in a debate last week with Michael Jacobs who
to happen if certain trends continued, allowing for "adjustable assumptions" of resource use.
was an environmental adviser to Gordon Brown's Treasury. My job was to respond to a lecture he gave at University
College London called The Green Moment? The Crises of Capitalism and the Response of Progressive Politics.
Jacobs's critique, which several on the left share, is that pointing out the non-viability of economic growth (at least
at the global aggregate level and where rich countries are concerned) is a mistaken article of faith in the green
movement. His argument is that, firstly, opposing growth is bad politics, it's bad spin for the green movement that
"puts people off". Secondly he argues that low growth is compatible, even in rich countries, with environmental
constraints. The first point is immaterial if the limits are scientifically real. It is an inconvenient reality that cannot
be spun away. The second point is a claim that must be backed with evidence, it cannot simply be asserted. And
I have yet to see any figures to illustrate how growth in rich

countries can, in perpetuity, be compatible with environmental
limits, several assessments point to the opposite conclusion. The Tyndall
Centre for Climate Change Research at Manchester University found that to prevent dangerous
global warming, economic growth in rich countries would not be
possible. With colleagues at the New Economics Foundation, I came to a similar conclusion. Jacobs quotes,
while
admiringly, the work of Tim Jackson on "prosperity without growth" with the former government advisory body the
Sustainable Development Commission. Yet Jackson's work too, as the name suggests, foresees a future without
growth. Work by the Stockholm Resilience Centre on environmental "planetary boundaries" shows several have
already been transgressed, requiring large absolute reductions of consumption in rich countries. One thing is sure:
advocates of growth need to be able to show not only that environmental impact can be cancelled out by efficiency
and resource substitution, but that deep, absolute reductions in resource use can be achieved simultaneously, and
that such gains can be made year, after year, after year, ad infinitum. A
key insight by the
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
original MIT group was the problem of time lag. Environmental

problems became obvious and were acted on too late. Damage
became locked in. This is the moment we are now living through. Nasa climate scientist James Hansen
recently pointed out that if the rich world had started reducing emissions as recently as 2007, the annual reductions
necessary would have been 3%. Wait until next year and the figure rises to 6%, wait further until 2020 and the
annual target leaps to a staggering 15% reduction per year.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2NC Peak Oil

Debt and peak oil ensure economic collapse acting now
solves the transition
Korowicz 11 (David, physicist and human systems ecologist, the director of The
Risk/Resilience Network in Ireland, a board member of FEASTA (The Foundation for
the Economics of Sustainability), In the world, at the limits to growth", May 14
2011, http://www.feasta.org/2011/05/14/in-the-world-at-the-limits-to-growth/)
our economy and civilisation exist only by virtue of

resource flows from our environment. The only laws in economics are
the laws of physics, everything else is contingent, supposition or vanity. An economy, growing
in size and complexity, is firstly a thermodynamic system requiring
increasing energy flows to grow and avoid decay. Waste, be it
greenhouse gasses or landfill is also a natural outcome of such a
thermodynamic process. News from Elsewhere Its been part of the background noise for over half a century,
Yet our feet of clay are that
warnings about resource scarcity, biodiversity loss, soil erosion or climate change. But impacts were always on the imaginative
horizon. Sometime, far enough into the future to be re-assuring to a species that evolved with a clear preference for the short-term.
Or on the hinterland between our safe European home and the barbarian other, where starvation, environmental disasters, angry
mobs and crazy despots have always demanded our attention, at least while on TV. Yes we can! Yes we can! - chanted the posse of
teenagers following Al Gore through a pavilion in Poznan, Poland for the annual gathering of climate policy acronyms. When not
distracted by the ever-present, weve responded to these warnings with treaties and laws, technology and exhortation. Of course,
every ecological indicator kept getting worse. And we kept on about treaties and laws, and break-through technologies. Our mythic
world-views gave us the shared faith that we may not be there yet, but we could, once a brilliant scheme is in place, a climate law
passed, technologies adopted, evil bankers restrained, or once people just realised our predicament. Yes We Can! Yes We Can!
Indeed, we could transcend our grubby selfishness and short-termism so we tied together the belief that we could will ecological
resource and environmental sink demands

keep increasing, ecological indicators decline and inequality rises. The
reality is that we are locked into an economy adapted to growth, and that
means rising energy and resource flows and waste. By lock-in, we mean that our
sustainability and global equity. Still, our
ability to change major systems we depend upon is limited by the complexity of interdependencies, and the risk that the change will
undermine other systems upon which we depend. So we might wish to change the banking or monetary system, but if the real and
dynamic consequences lead to a major bank freeze lasting more than a couple of days we will have major food security risks,
massive drops in economic production, and risks to infrastructure. And if we want to make our food production and distribution more
resilient to such shocks, production will fall and food prices will need to be higher, which will in the short-to-medium term drive up
unemployment, lead to greater poverty, and pose even greater risks to the banking system. It is an oxymoron to say we can do
something unsustainable forever. How would you know if we were approaching a limit, the end of growth? By warnings? Listen. By
the great and the good, standing shoulder-to-shoulder, saying Ladies & gentleman we have a really big problem!? Politicians and
civil servants, the IMF and the OECD, all missed the credit crisis of 2007, despite having expertise in the area and an abundant
historical literature about asset bubbles. They embody the dogmatism of the age, they are a pivot point about which are world-views
are confirmed. They mirror the authority of the court of Pope Urban VIII, stuffed with astronomer-astrologers, the economists of their
Galileos of today
are saying is that we are at or near the peak of global oil production
now. That as affordable oil declines, the global economy must contract.
That we do not have the time, nor resources to keep the economy
growing by substituting for oil with efficiency measures, renewable
or nuclear energy, or technology. That talk of an electric car future, advanced IT-renewable energy
age, confirming the earth centric universe against Galileo and Copernicus before him. What the
convergent infrastructure, and global super-grids is a fancy. The most obvious problem with focusing on this vision at the horizon is
that you dont see that the ground is opening up beneath your feet. We will not get to that horizon
things you need
because all the
to get there- monetary and financial systems, purchasing power and economies of scale, production
systems, infrastructure and global trust networks-
will be undermined by the convergence of
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
a peak of global oil production, a peak of food production, and a

giant credit bubble. The ground will open up, we will fall, and our
visions will fall further and further from our grasp. They are saying that
global food production is hitting an array of ecological constraints,
while population growth and changing diets are driving up demand .
They note that current food production is massively subsidised through
fossil fuel inputs, and that as those inputs become less available,
and people become poorer due to economic contraction, food
productivity and access will be undermined. In totality, we are at the edge
of an evolving systemic crisis. Peak oil and food constraints are
likely to undermine the stability of our integrated globalised
economy. The core pillars of that economy: critical infrastructure,
production flows, economies of scale, the financial and monetary
system, behavioural adaptation, resource access and energy flowsare likely to begin forcing contagious failure. The driving force of
this failure is likely to be the fastest and most unstable process-the
impact of energy and food constrained economic growth, and an
already vulnerable monetary and financial system dependent upon
continuing growth. Tightening binds Whatever of Irelands economic woes, the real debt bubble is global. The
debt relative to GDP is far greater now in the US, UK, and much of Europe, than it
ever was leading up to the great depression. Like many countries
we responded to our debt bubble with more debt, we just shifted it
onto the sovereign or the printing press. The indebted world, even without oil and food price
rises is straining at the limits of debt servicing and credibility. Yet it is demanding even more credit, while its ability to
service the debt is being undermined by debt deflation, austerity,
rising job losses, and defaults. The bank lenders of that money can
only lose so much before they are too are insolvent. Rising food and
energy prices are driving the deflationary forces even harder. And if central
banks misinterpret the cause of food and oil price rises, and raise interest rates, the deflationary pressures risk becoming cyclonic.
The cost of essentials and debt servicing rise, while income declines. Discretionary spending will collapse, job losses and defaults
rise, income will declines further. This re-enforcing spiral of decline will increase, and spread to more and more countries. The fear of
Eurozone defaults are not merely that they could

topple French, UK, and German banks, but that this could brink
down US banks and effectively shut down the global financial
system in very short shift. The destabilising force is not just that the banks are already in a precarious
position, but a monstrous pile of derivative contracts worth ten to twenty
times the global economy that hangs over the financial system . Some of
contagion from peripheral
those contracts are effectively insurance against default. If bank defaults start spreading, then other banks and the shadow financial
system will be forced to cover obligations on default, or increase premiums on their insurance. This may cause a fire-sale of assets,
whereby the banks bluff is called, and they are shown to have values far below what is required for solvency. What everybody wants
and needs is a sudden and explosive increase in the production of real goods and services (GDP) to make their continual debt
requirements serviceable. But that, even were it remotely possible, would require a big increase in oil flows through the global
This means that the

global financial system is essentially insolvent now. The only choice
is default or inflation on a global scale. It mean banks are insolvent, because their assets
(loans) cannot be repaid; or they can be solvent (assuming appropriate action taken) but their depositors
economy, just as global oil production has peaked and begins its decline. It cannot happen.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
cannot redeem their deposits at anything like their real value. It means the vast overhang of stocks and bonds, including pensions,
our monetary systems, dependent on

fiat money, fractional reserve banking, and interest can only
collapse. High oil and food prices are essentially probing the limits
of the stability of the globalised economy. They will probe until
there is a major collapse in global economic production. At which point our
and insurance cannot be realised in real goods. It means
energy prices may fall, but our real income and purchasing power will fall faster. And markets will discover this truth quicker than
. Its expression will be in deeper and deeper

economic stresses and major systemic banking collapses. Official responses will
monetary authorities and governments
become more and more impotent, as their fundamental economic and policy tools no longer work, and their patina of control
becomes hollow. If and when banking system contagion spreads to supply-chain contagion we may face existential challenges.
Even were we to have the perfect monetary and financial system,

without debt and well controlled, peak oil and food would present
an unprecedented shock. As incomes shrunk while essentials such
as food and energy become more expensive, non-discretionary
spending would be squeezed out. In the developed world, non-discretionary
goods and services are just about all we produce. So the result
would still be mass unemployment. Our critical infrastructure would
still be increasingly vulnerable for various reasons, and monetary
instability would still destabilise supply-chains. Facing Ourselves & Facing Our Future We
are at the beginning of a process in which our world-views crash against a fundamentally
unstable financial system and ecological constraints. A time where we will learn
that what was, will never return; and what was expected, can never be. We are facing a time of loss and uncertainty. A time of bankruns, lost savings and pensions, of mass unemployment, electricity and mobile phone black-outs, of hunger and empty super-market
A localised economy will no longer be something

environmentalists aspire to develop; rather it will be forced upon us
as bank failures, monetary uncertainty, and lost purchasing power
sever links in the web of the global economy. But we no longer have indigenous
shelves.
economies to fall back upon. The gap between expectations and what can be realised is historically a major source of popular anger,
and can ignite a cycle of fear, blame, violence, scape-goating, and authoritarian leadership from either left or right. It can give the
avaricious the power and cover to appropriate wealth that might better be used for collective welfare. Yet who gave us the right to
our expectations? They were built on the semi-blind self-organisation of a complex human society over generations. They were built
on deep threads of human behaviour-competition and cooperation, mating selection and status-that result from our evolution over
the history of life on earth. They were built on the deposits of ancient sunlight hidden below the Earths surface, the minerals in soil,
and the global climate that provided the stability for our species to flourish. As a species there is no one to blame, unless we cling to
we can and will build a

largely local economy out of the ruins of a collapsed globalised one. It
will be a much poorer one and one where we will have lost much of what we take for granted. It can also provide
a good life, where our basic needs are met, where meaningful lives
can be lived, and a rich texture of experience found. event triggers. This includes
the delusion that we are the displaced God who transcended our own ecology. Yes,
storing essential physical goods and keeping them in your possession. Things like long-term food supplies, barterable goods,
monetary goods, self defense armaments and having a well thought out preparedness plan will, if nothing else, provide you with the
means necessary to stay out of the way it all hits the fan.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Offensive Turns
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
War
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
1NC
Economic growth causes war
A. Economic growth makes conflict escalation more likely
Increases resolve of leaders.
Boehmer, 10 [Charles Boehmer is a Ph.D. in Political Science from Pennsylvania State University,
Economic Growth and Violent International Conflict: 1875-1999,
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10242690903568801#tabModule]JAKE LEE
economic growth increases perceptions of

state strength, increasing the likelihood of violent interstate
conflicts. Economic growth appears to increase the resolve of
leaders to stand against challenges and the willingness to escalate
disputes. A non-random pattern exists where higher rates of GDP
growth over multiple years are positively and significantly related to
the most severe international conflicts, whereas this is not true for overall conflict
The theory set forth earlier theorizes that
initiations. Moreover, growth of mililary expenditures, as a measure of the war chest proposition, does not offer any
explanation for violent interstate conflicts. This is not to say lhat growth of military expenditures never has any
effect on the occurrence of war, although such a link is not generally true in the aggregate using a large sample of
states. In comparison, higher rates of economic growth are significantly related to violent interstate conflicts in the
States with growing economies are more apt to reciprocate

military challenges by other states and become involved in violent
interstate conflicts. The results also show that theories from the Crisis-Scarcity
perspective lack explanatory power linking GDP growth rates to war
at the state level of analysis. This is not to say thai such theories completely lack explanatory
power in general, but more particularly that they cannot directly link economic growth
rates to state behavior in violent interstate conflicts. In contrast, theories
of diversionary conflict may well hold some explanatory power, although not
regarding GDP growth in a general test of states from all regions of
the world across time. Perhaps diversionary theory better explains state
behaviors short of war, where the costs of externalizing domestic
tensions do not become too costly, or in relation to the foreign policies of particular
countries. In many circumstances, engaging in a war to divert attention away from
domestic conditions would seemingly exacerbate domestic crisis
conditions unless the chances of victory were practically assured.
Nonetheless, this study does show that domestic conflict is associated with interstate conflict. If
diversionary conflict theory has any traction as an economic explanation of violent
interstate conflicts, it may require the study of other explanatory variables
besides overall GDP growth rates, such as unemployment or inflation rales. The contribution
of this article has been to examine propositions about economic growth in a global study. Most existing
studies on this topic focus on only the United States, samples of
countries that are more developed on average (due to data availability in the past),
aggregate.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
or are based on historical information and not economic GDP data .

While I have shown that there is no strong evidence linking military expenditures to violent interstate conflicts at
the state level of analysis, much of the remaining Growth-as-Catalyst perspective is grounded in propositions that
are not directly germane to questions about state conflict behavior, such as those linking state behavior to longcycles, or those that remain at the systemic level. What answer remains linking economic growth to war once we
eliminate military expenditures as an explanation? Considering that the concept of foreign policy mood is difficult to
identify and measure, and that the bulk of the literature relies solely on the American historical experience, I do not
rely on that concept. It is still possible that such moods affect some decision-makers. Instead, similar to Blainey, I
economic growth, when sustained over a stretch of years, has

its strongest effect on states once they find themselves in an
international crisis. The results of this study suggest that states such as China, which have
a higher level of opportunity to become involved in violent
interstate conflicts due to their capabilities, geographic location,
history of conflict, and so on, should also have a higher willingness to
fight after enjoying multiple years of recent economic growth. One does
not have to assume that an aggressive China will emerge from growth. If conflicts do present themselves,
then China may be more likely to escalate a war given its recent national
performance
find that
B. New upswing in the K-Wave will make WWIII happenshift in

thinking a new transition
DE GREENE 06 [Kenyon B. De Greene is a professor at the Institute of Safety and Systems
Management, University of Southern California, USA. Toward New Conceptual Models of the
Kondratiev Phenomenon 2006 http://digamo.free.fr/devezas6.pdf] JAKE LEE
Instability, for both better and worse, seems immanent in the KCS from the
terminal part of the stage of depression to the middle of the stage
of prosperity. Now, as humankind's impact on Earth penetrates all aspects of Nature, "international
stability"
assumes an even more global and ominous meaning. Throughout history, wars have been
fought over
Preventing imminent major wars may be beyond human

without radical and revolutionary new thinking. It seems unlikely that the
technologically advanced nations will go to war against one another in the near future.
land, water, minerals, and so forth.
capability
Patterns leading to such major war must be seen in the absence
18 K.B. De Greene / Toward New Conceptual
Kondratiev Phenomenonof the clutter or noise caused by

continuing guerrilla wars, wars for ethnic liberation, and the socalled war on terrorism. However, intervention by the technologically advanced
countries in these smaller wars may lead to the passing of some
critical threshold and explosion into World War III. The United States is
presently the major intervening nation, but it seems likely that
Russia, China, India, and perhaps Brazil will also play such roles in the near
future as their internal situations improve. All nations must realize that war cannot be won, only
Models of the
prevented. Note the analogy with virus diseases that can be prevented through inoculation but not cured.
Unfortunately, there are aspects of humanity that suggest that humanity is not a learning system [3], [39].[40],
[41], [42], and we can ask why the United States insists on pursuing military actions on six continents, actions
that accrue to a worsening of social and environmental conditions and perhaps the foundering of democracy
itself [41, [43]. The U.S. is the world's most powerful country--indeed, the most powerful in history. She faces no
major military threats. Increasing militarization of American society during the Cold War generated a momentum
as fits Kondratiev theory, the

macropsychological order parameter of national thought became
that should have been
reigned in but was not. Instead,
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
increasingly conservative, and power-driven, even fanatical, leaders harnessed

the momentum. As Lord Acton's warned: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Part of
these dynamics of course stems from the limitations immanent in all bureaucracies. Bureaucrats will not use
information that challenges the way they are used to doing business. Organizations try to solve "known
problems "while ignoring problems they do not understand [44]
C. Resource wars
Trainer 10 [Ted Trainer is a Conjoint Lecturer in the School of Social Sciences, University of New
South Wales. He has taught and written about sustainability and justice issues for many years. He is
also developing Pigface Point, an alternative lifestyle educational site near Sydney, and a website for
use by critical global educators, which can be viewed at: http://socialsciences.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/
Global Peace and Conflict October 10, 2010 https://socialsciences.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/PEACE.htm]
JAKE LEE
Throughout history conflict and war have mostly been caused by the
determination to take the resources of others, or to take more than a fair share of
the available resources. The armed conflicts in the world today are mostly
explicable in these terms. It is not possible to understand the
problem of peace and war in the world today if we do not connect it
to the taken for granted affluence of rich countries. Our high "living
standards" in rich countries would not be possible if we were not
getting far more than our fair share of the world's resources. The
global economy is massively unjust; it increasingly allocates most of
the world's wealth to the rich few. This is not possible without a) the
deprivation of the Third World, because most of their resources are
flowing to the rich countries, and b) armed conflict, because the
situation cannot be maintained without the use of force and
violence . If we insist on remaining as affluent as we are we will have to support repressive regimes and
remain heavily armed and ready to use force to preserve our access to more than our fair share of the world's
--- Resources are scarce and many are being

depleted at a rapid rate. --- Rich countries are heavily and
increasingly dependent on imports for their resources and energy.
We have only about 15% of the world's population but we get about
80% of resources produced. --- Thus the distribution of world resource use is extremely unjust; a
few rich countries are getting most of them, through the normal operation of the
global market economy. If the already-rich countries insist on
becoming even richer the distributions will become even worse. --wealth.
CONSIDER OUR SITUATION
Many of the resources the rich countries consume are taken from poor countries through normal economic
best Third
World land grows crops to export, not to feed hungry local people.
--- World population will probably reach 9+ billion somewhere after
2060, so there are likely to be 1.5 times as many people demanding
resources as there are now. --- Land available for agriculture might
processes which seriously deprive the majority of the world's people. For example much of the
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
not increase at all, because the rate at which it is being eroded and
otherwise lost to production. Water resources, fish and forests are
rapidly becoming more scarce. There will be much greater demand for these biological
resources in the near future. However the most serious problems are probably going to be set by the peaking of
petroleum supply, possibly between 2005 and 2010. (See
If all the people the world

will probably have by 2060 were to have the per capita resource
consumption that people in rich countries average now, demand for
resources would be about 8 times as great as it is now. ...and everyone, including even
people in the richest countries, is obsessed with increasing living
standards, economic output, production and consumption and
affluence as fast as possible and without end! The inescapable conclusion:- While
http://socialwork.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/D08ThePetroleumSit.html) ---
all parties remain dedicated to greater and greater affluence regardless of how rich they already are, and there are
nowhere near enough resources to enable all to be as affluent as the rich are now, there can be no outcome other
In other words,
global peace is not possible unless there is movement towards a
society in which we can all live well on far lower per capita resource
use rates than at present.
than increasing competition and conflict between nations for resources and markets.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Exts State Resolve

Growth encourages overconfidence and cyclical violence
makes war more likely and severe
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10242690903568801#tabModule]
The earliest literature predicting that economic growth leads to war dates back nearly a century. The basic theme advanced is that
economic growth expands war-making capability. This is known as the war-chest proposition. Nikolai
Kondratieff (1926) associated the frequency of war and other social upheavals to long-cycles in the global economy of roughly 25
year phases of economic growth followed by contractions of similar length. Scholars in economics and political science have
theorized that the power capabilities of states, particularly the major powers, also follow cycles (but not necessarily Kondratieff
cycles) (Doran, 1983, 1985; Doran and Parsons, 1980), result in power transitions as states growing in power surpass states that had
been at the top of the international power hierarchy (Organski and Kugler, 1980), or more generally relate to economic expansion
(Kuznets, 1966; Choucri and North, 1975). Some scholars have provided evidence supporting Kondratieffs claim that
expansions in the global economy increase the frequency or severity of international

conflicts (Hansen, 1932; Vyrynen, 1983; Goldstein, 1988; Mansfield, 1988; Pollins, 1996; Pollins and Murrin, 1999). However,
studies that argue long cycles affect the behavior of individual states without direct observation of state behavior commit an
ecological fallacy. It is possible that the foreign policies of most states could be unaffected by periodicities or patterns at the
This study, in contrast, studies the effect of economic growth at

the state (monadic) level of analysis. Blaineys (1988) analysis suggests that the war chest theme can be
systemic level of analysis.
generalized to the state level of analysis. Kennedy (1987) also offers a historical discussion of the war chest theme to explain the
rise and fall of major powers.
Some studies argue that it is not increases in military capabilities from economic growth alone that raise the risk of conflict but also
a higher willingness to use such capabilities by directly affecting the decision-making process. Some scholars
argue that
growth leads to optimism or bellicose foreign policy moods (Kondratieff, 1926; MacFie, 1938;
Klingberg, 1952, 1983; Kuznets, 1966; Vyrynen, 1983; Holmes, 1985; Elder and Holmes, 1985; Blainey, 1988; Holmes and Keck,
1999; Pollins and Schweller, 1999). The studies by Klingberg, Holmes and his associates, and Pollins and Schweller (1999),
war and other disputes are more likely to

occur when the American economy is in growth phases. Two studies avoid the ecological
fallacy mentioned above by linking American foreign policy to Kondratieff cycles (Pollins and
investigate foreign policy moods in the American case and find that
Schweller, 1999; Holmes and Keck, 1999). To directly test this proposition cross-nationally is difficult given that public opinion data
are limited, especially for non-democratic regimes, which could lead to sample bias.
However, Blaineys theory can in part be generalized to the state level of analysis and is hence most relevant to this study. Blainey
growth perverts perceptions of power, leading states to

be more optimistic about their chances of victory in international contests. While
argues that economic
there may be no clear pattern to war, one clue we have is that optimism abounds at their onset (Blainey, 1988: 41). Economic
growth increases optimism that states will triumph in international crises, leading to a heightened risk of war. Blainey attempted to
be systematic in his review of history using informal case studies or examples to support his hypothesis, although few studies have
undertaken a similar test using quantitative data. Hence, this study seeks to test Blaineys proposition, which is most appropriate at
the monadic level of analysis.
Empirically provengrowth makes states overestimate

strength, makes all conflicts violent
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10242690903568801#tabModule]
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Still, states often experience economic growth, whereas violent interstate conflicts are rare events. I do not argue that economic
growth acts as a catalyst,

pouring fuel on fires where conflicts have already commenced . Economic growth should
growth is a general and direct source of conflict between states. I contend instead that
influence the perceptions state leaders have about their states performance. I argue that economic growth acts as a catalyst for
by increasing the willingness of states to use military force in foreign policy,

particularly to reciprocate militarized threats and uses of force or to escalate conflicts in a
violent manner. Most and Starr (1989: 22) define willingness as the willingness to choose (even if the choice is no action),
violent interstate conflicts
and to employ available capabilities to further some policy option over others. Most and Starr situate willingness against a
background of opportunity. Naturally, not all states have the same opportunity to realistically choose policies that lead to interstate
violence or war, at least with an equal chance of victory.
Hence, the opportunity for war varies for states. Later I will present control variables for conflict opportunities but for now will note
that some factors increase or decrease opportunity, and are important here. Our goal must be to isolate and control for opportunity
variables. First, states that are major powers will have a higher capability of sustaining war and foreign policies that increase the
chance of international conflict globally. Second, states with fewer neighbors are less likely to be involved in conflicts compared to
those with many neighbors. In summary, economic growth is not a simple and direct cause of war or lesser conflicts because it
affects the willingness of leaders in certain contexts that change from state to state and over time. Economic growth is an indicator
to leaders that their state may be strong and may win international conflicts, although this may be more perception than fact. Iraqs
GDP growth averaged 16% between 1974 and 1979 before Saddam Husseins regime initiated the IraqIran War in 1980, although
the war became an eight-year struggle of attrition nonetheless. Turning back to the Chinese example, policy-makers may view
Chinese growth through different lenses. Those that are Realists, pessimistic, or generally fearful of Chinese power may see such
growth in GDP and military expenditures as a threat, whereas others that are Liberal may see the creation of an economy of scale
and increasing economic interaction with the West that has resulted in a booming economy. Predictions of future bellicose Chinese
foreign policy must be evaluated against a background of opportunity. As China develops, it may face fewer severe conflicts, which
threaten war with its main trading partners, and also with its bordering states with whom there may be competing territorial claims,
although as a major power it faces a higher potential for conflict compared with a state such as Slovakia or Costa Rica. In addition,
its proximity to numerous other states means there are more potential rivals or enemies compared with what New Zealand, for
example, faces in its neighborhood. The point here is to make it clear that war need not be a result of economic growth but that
when growth does contribute to interstate violence it does so by serving as a catalyst of willingness against a backdrop of
opportunities. Chinese leaders may be less likely to back away from violent interstate conflict if a crisis occurs during a period of
economic growth than they would before economic growth, and this risk is higher for China because its major power status and
region provide more opportunities relative to most other states.
Based on the rationale above, I do not predict that economic growth makes it more likely that states will initiate militarized conflicts
with other states, or that it increases their overall conflict propensity. Economic growth appears dangerous in those situations where
states are already involved in a conflict by making it more likely that a state will reciprocate or escalate conflicts. Considering that
war is a suboptimal outcome (Gartzke, 1999), states would not risk escalating conflicts to violence or war if they have reason to
believe that they may lose. Hubris may lead states into conflicts that turn deadly by providing an increased willingness to fight or
even distorting and inflating leaders perception of state strength. States often march off to war thinking that the war will be short
and that their side will prevail (Blainey, 1988); I suspect economic growth increases this resolve to stand against challenges from
other states and to escalate crises.
Finland went to war with the USSR because of its refusal to acquiesce to territorial
demands made by the Soviets. The Soviets initiated war in 1939 after their GDP grew by 8.9% in the prior five years. The Finnish
Hungary stood its ground by reciprocating Soviet threats that
in 1956. Hungarian growth had been 5.5% over the prior five years and Soviet GDP growth was
economy had grown by 6.6% over the same period.

escalated to war
Ethiopia was willing to reciprocate hostilities

initiated by Eritrea, resulting in war, after experiencing 6.6% growth in the five years prior to 1988. The
just short of 5% over the same period. Similarly,
Football War between El Salvador and Honduras may not have occurred if the GDP
growth rates of both states had not each grown on average by 6% in the five years
prior to 1969. Of course, economic growth may not necessarily be a good indicator of state strength or the prospects of victory in
any given case; there may be a distinct gap in the actual probability of victory in a crisis relative to the perceived probability, for
which economic growth may serve as one indicator prone to error. Leaders may nonetheless use GDP growth as an indicator and be
more resolved to stand their ground and thus escalate a crisis.
Economic growth fosters competition in states that cause war

and genocide
Stewart, 2011
[Frances, University Professor of Development Economics, Working paper for

MICROCON: A Micro Level Analysis of Violent Conflict, Institute of Development Studies at the
University of Sussex, Economic and Political Causes of Genocidal Violence: A comparison with findings
on the causes of civil war. March, Online, http://www.microconflict.eu/publications/RWP46_FS.pdf] JAKE
LEE
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
classifications of genocide, some include a specific economic objective, and

thus implicitly an economic motive. For example, Dadrian defines utilitarian genocide (one of four
types) as using mass killings in order to obtain control over economic
resources; Fein describes developmental genocide (also one of four types) where the perpetrator
destroys peoples who stand in their way in relation to the
exploitation of resources; Smith also refers to utilitarian genocide , which is
motivated by material gain, and includes colonial killings and post-colonial developments
devastating aboriginal groups. Chalk and Jonassohn differentiate motives for genocide, one (of four
again) being to acquire economic wealth. These motives are akin to the rentseeking motives argued to underly the motives of many (particularly leaders) in mobilising
for civil wars. In line with this, (Valentino 2000)Bae and Ott (2008) argue that mass killings (not
specifically genocide) are motivated by the leaders expectations of gain. Again,
in common with some findings on civil war, some have pointed to economic
depression as predisposing to genocide (Midlarsky 2005)(Valentino 2000). For
example, in the German holocaust, the depression of the 1920s and 1930s
was an important factor behind Hitlers popularity, and thus an
indirect cause of the genocide.
In the manifold
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2NC K Wave Impact

WWIII will use nuclear weaponsextinction
Krieger & Ellisberg 12 [David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Daniel
Ellsberg is a distinguished senior fellow at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and a former strategic
analyst for the Department of Defense. He released the Pentagon Papers. This statement represents
the authors individual views. The authors benefitted greatly from consultations with Steven Starr and
Alan Robock. The Potential to Launch World War III and Precipitate Human Extinction: Eradicate ALL
Land-based DOOMSDAY Missiles March 29, 2012 http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/03/for-nuclearsecurity-beyond-seoul-eradicate-land-based-doomsday-missiles/] JAKE LEE
The Air Force rationale for doing these tests is to ensure the
reliability of the US nuclear deterrent force; but launch-ready landbased nuclear-armed ballistic missiles are the opposite of a
deterrent to attack. In fact, their very deployment has the potential to launch World War III
and precipitate human extinction
as a result of a false alarm. Were not exaggerating.
Heres why: These nuclear missiles are first-strike weapons most of them would not survive a nuclear attack. In
the event of a warning of a Russian nuclear attack, there would be an incentive to launch all 450 of these
If the
warning turned out to be false (there have been many false
warnings), and the US missiles were launched before the error was
detected, World War III would be underway. The Russians have the same incentive to
Minuteman missiles before the incoming enemy warheads could destroy them in their silos.
launch their land-based missiles upon warning of a perceived attack. Both US and Russian land-based missiles
remain constantly on high-alert status, ready to be launched within minutes. Because of the 30-minute flight times
of these missiles, the presidents of both the US and Russia would have only approximately 12 minutes to decide
whether to launch their missiles when presented by their military leaders with information indicating an imminent
Thats only 12 minutes or less for

the president to decide whether to launch global nuclear war. While this
attack (after lower-level threat assessment conferences).
scenario is unlikely, it is definitely possible: Presidents have repeatedly rehearsed it, and it cannot be ruled out due
to the graveness of its potential consequences. Russia came close to launching its missiles based on a warning
that came Jan. 25, 1995. President Yeltsin was awakened in the middle of the night and told a US missile was
headed toward Moscow. Fortunately, Yeltsin was sober and took longer than the time allocated for his decision on
In the extended time, it

became clear that the missile was a weather sounding rocket from
Norway and not a US missile headed toward Moscow. Disaster was only narrowly
whether to launch Russian nuclear-armed missiles in response.
averted.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Exts K-Waves
A huge upswing would trigger a conflict
Narkus 12 [Sarunas Narkus is from the University of Oslo This paper was his master thesis for the
degree of Master of Philosophy in Environmental and Development Economics Kondratieff, N. and
Schumpeter, Joseph A. long-waves theory Analysis of long-cycles theory May 2012
https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/38107/Sarunas-Narkus.pdf?sequence=1] JAKE LEE
The dynamic of wars and postwar depressions is being broadly realized in the
history of North America. The existence of war centered cycles occurring every
fifty to sixty years is undisputed. Besides that, it is clear that several postwar depressions which could be separated by eras
of good feelings follow after each war. Kondratieff established the causes and
consequences of wars as the phenomenon of economic life 30. The periodic nature
of wars was one of elements in his calculation when searching for
the evidence of long waves (Barnett, 1998, p. 107). Kondratieff came to the
conclusion that wars and postwar depressions serve not only as
components of long wave . Besides that they might be a consequence which keeps the Long wave moving. He called
that wars are natural product caused by capitalist countries: Wars
and revolutions influence the course of economic development very
strongly. However wars and revolutions do not come out of a clear sky. Rather they are not caused by arbitrary acts of individual personalities and originate from real
economic circumstances. The assumption that wars and revolutions occurs as a response to outside circumstances that cause the
evoked long waves raise the question why do economies themselves follow each other with regularity
and solely during the upswing of long waves. Much more probable is the assumption that wars originate in
the acceleration of the pace and the increased tension of economic life, heightened
economic struggle for markets and raw materials. Social shocks happen most easily under the
pressure of new economic forces. Therefore, wars and revolutions can be fitted in the
rhythm of the long waves and do not prove to be the forces from which these movements originate. Rather they are proven to be 30
Kondratieff published two-hundred pages length economic analysis called The World Economy and its
Conjuncture During and After the War in 1922. 44 one of their symptoms. Once they are present, they
naturally exercise a potential influence on the phase and direction of economic dynamics. ( Kondratieff) Moreover, the
relationship between wars and long cycles is supported by the
theory of technological innovation. It is obvious that during wartime the government seeks for new inventions that could
help to overtake the positions of war leader. Military planes that started
to be extensively used during WWI would be a primarily example of this. Booming motor industry followed
It caused new military innovations (e.g. tanks and whippets)

that were started to be operated also during WWI. On the other
hand, these inventions contributed to the economic growth in the
pre-war era too. However, this information could not be able to be widely used due to the military secrets issue. At the age of prosperity, countries consume a large
after the war.
amount of resources that would be used to satisfy civilian needs in
the peace periods. During the peace periods several countries dispose the surplus of material resources. The
some countries for defense equipment while other countries invest it into armament.
excess resources and over-capacity manufacturing levels are appointed by
Subsequently the war threat arises as it is not possible to fully

control the arms market. The point that supply of armaments increases during the prosperity time is suggested by Gerhand Mensch:
One cannot predict that a period is particularly threatened by war simply because nations possess large
defensive stockpiles. Rather the danger of war arises when one or more nations actively begin to increase its arms supplies. These sudden
increases in armament levels have always occurred in our
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
economic history at times when the era of prosperity in the most

highly developed industrial nations has given way to an era of
stagnation. Defense contracts had to be substituted for sluggish private demands. According to the Kuznets model, these inflection points in the past growth
trends occurred in 1801, 1858, and 1912. These dates provide us with the guess for the hindsight prediction of which years were particularly vulnerable to
an outbreak of war. Since the economy-boosting defense contracts that a
state in a critical situation would suddenly promote would need to be justified
domestically by the engagement in war-threatening behavior
abroad.
Large upswing in the K- Wave would escalate to conflict

RUMYANTSEVA 06 [Svetlana RUMYANTSEVA is a professor in the Economic Department of
St.Petersburg State University, Chaikovskogo str., 62, St.Petersburg, Russia Long Cycles, Global
Wars and
World Energy Consumption 2006 http://digamo.free.fr/devezas6.pdf] JAKE LEE
Despite the recurrence of world wars in the scale of Kondratieff Waves

and Modelskis Long Cycles [1] which was discovered by number of
specialists the War is supposed to be caused by deep specific
economic factors. At the age of globalization two factors play a
significant role in the history of world civilization. Firstly, there are primary
energy resources that are important for economic development of
various nations, especially newly industrialized. Secondly, that is
financial flows that provide free allocation of resource through the
world economy. Arising resource scarcity and environmental damages in world economy fall upon the
period of spreading the living standard stereotype around the world. High living standard as intellectual value
creates a sharp competition in postindustrial world between different nations struggling for development
This competition is pushing new ambitious players into the

process of world income distribution. In these conditions the power
of the long wave depression as a trigger for cluster of basis
innovations[2] is decreasing. Recently a lot of innovations in
different branches of economy have been implemented, none of
them could be considered as revolutional in Kondratieff Waves, Warfare and World
resources.
Security T.C. Devezas (Ed.) IOS Press, 2006 2006 IOS Press. All rights reserved. 180technological or ecological
new economic branches and

industries and provide new forms of economic activity. But it is hardly
terms. Of course cellular, Internet and biotechnologies create
possible that such innovations could provide any serious breakthrough for the problem of resource scarcity.
Moreover, majority of abovementioned innovations based on the technological background of old IV long wave
technological paradigm, especially on the base of semiconductor industry. Hence new technological upswing is not
The
competition for primary energy resources in world economy will be
stronger and stronger as time passes. First of all major world energy producers and the
supposed to
be considered as revolutionary new one from technological point of view.
representatives of
main financial centers are searching for financial rent sources and the way to redistribute
the
That seems to be the main obstacle for adoption of new

technologies and energy resources. So the problems of world
instability and the danger of world war are the institutional ones.
financial flows.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
There are institutional obstacles forming these problems essense that damage the
adoption of new resource
Its underestimation of basic resource saving

innovation economic features that follows the main resourse market
players desire to save their rent incomes. The present task is to show new
obstacles for innovation having recently appeared inside the long wave mechanism of
global economy.
saving technologies.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2NC Resource Wars Impact

Resource wars will cause extinction
Klare 6 [Michael Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College in
Amherst, Mass., and the author of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing
Petroleum Dependency . The Coming Resource Wars March 9, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/33243/the_coming_resource_wars] JAKE LEE
resource wars is upon us. In a major London address, British Defense

Reid warned that global climate change and dwindling
natural resources are combining to increase the likelihood of violent
conflict over land, water and energy. Climate change, he indicated, "will make
scarce resources, clean water, viable agricultural land even scarcer"
-- and this will "make the emergence of violent conflict more rather
than less likely." Although not unprecedented, Reid's prediction of an upsurge in resource conflict is
significant both because of his senior rank and the vehemence of his remarks. " The blunt truth is
that the lack of water and agricultural land is a significant
contributory factor to the tragic conflict we see unfolding in Darfur," he declared. "We
should see this as a warning sign." Resource conflicts of this type are most likely
to arise in the developing world, Reid indicated, but the more advanced and affluent
It's official: the era of
Secretary John
countries are not likely to be spared the damaging and destabilizing effects of global climate change. With sea
levels rising, water and energy becoming increasingly scarce and prime agricultural lands turning into deserts,
internecine warfare over access to vital resources will become a global phenomenon. Reid's speech, delivered at
is but the
most recent expression of a growing trend in strategic circles to
view environmental and resource effects -- rather than political
orientation and ideology -- as the most potent source of armed
conflict in the decades to come. With the world population rising, global consumption rates
the prestigious Chatham House in London (Britain's equivalent of the Council on Foreign Relations),
soaring, energy supplies rapidly disappearing and climate change eradicating valuable farmland, the stage is being
set for persistent and worldwide struggles over vital resources. Religious and political strife will not disappear in this
scenario, but rather will be channeled into contests over valuable sources of water, food and energy. Prior to Reid's
address, the most significant expression of this outlook was a report prepared for the U.S. Department of Defense
by a California-based consulting firm in October 2003. Entitled "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its
Implications for United States National Security," the report warned that global climate change is more likely to
result in sudden, cataclysmic environmental events than a gradual (and therefore manageable) rise in average
temperatures. Such events could include a substantial increase in global sea levels, intense storms and hurricanes
and continent-wide "dust bowl" effects. This would trigger pitched battles between the survivors of these effects for
access to food, water, habitable land and energy supplies. "Violence
and disruption
stemming from the stresses created by abrupt changes in the
climate pose a different type of threat to national security than we
are accustomed to today," the 2003 report noted. "Military
confrontation may be triggered by a desperate need for natural
resources such as energy, food and water rather than by conflicts
over ideology, religion or national honor." Until now, this mode of analysis has failed to
command the attention of top American and British policymakers. For the most part, they insist that ideological and
the clash between values of tolerance and

democracy on one hand and extremist forms of Islam on the other -remain the main drivers of international conflict. But Reid's speech at Chatham
religious differences -- notably,
House suggests that a major shift in strategic thinking may be under way. Environmental perils may soon dominate
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
the world security agenda. This shift is due in part to the growing weight of evidence pointing to a significant
human role in altering the planet's basic climate systems. Recent studies showing the rapid shrinkage of the polar
ice caps, the accelerated melting of North American glaciers, the increased frequency of severe hurricanes and a
number of other such effects all suggest that dramatic and potentially harmful changes to the global climate have
begun to occur. More importantly, they conclude that human behavior -- most importantly, the burning of fossil
fuels in factories, power plants, and motor vehicles -- is the most likely cause of these changes. This assessment
may not have yet penetrated the White House and other bastions of head-in-the-sand thinking, but it is clearly
gaining ground among scientists and thoughtful analysts around the world. For the most part, public discussion of
global climate change has tended to describe its effects as an environmental problem -- as a threat to safe water,
arable soil, temperate forests, certain species and so on. And, of course, climate change is a potent threat to the
environment; in fact, the greatest threat imaginable. But viewing climate change as an environmental problem fails
to do justice to the magnitude of the peril it poses. As Reid's speech and the 2003 Pentagon study make clear, the
but rather
the disintegration of entire human societies, producing wholesale
starvation, mass migrations and recurring conflict over resources.
"As famine, disease, and weather-related disasters strike due to abrupt
greatest danger posed by global climate change is not the degradation of ecosystems per se,
climate change," the Pentagon report notes, "many countries' needs will exceed their carrying capacity" -- that is,
their ability to provide the minimum requirements for human survival. This "will create a sense of desperation,
which is likely to lead to offensive aggression" against countries with a greater stock of vital resources. "Imagine
eastern European countries, struggling to feed their populations with a falling supply of food, water, and energy,
eyeing Russia, whose population is already in decline, for access to its grain, minerals, and energy supply." Similar
scenarios will be replicated all across the planet, as those without the means to survival invade or migrate to those
with greater abundance -- producing endless struggles between resource "haves" and "have-nots." It is this
In particular, he expressed concern

over the inadequate capacity of poor and unstable countries to cope
with the effects of climate change, and the resulting risk of state collapse, civil
war and mass migration. "More than 300 million people in Africa currently lack access to safe
prospect, more than anything, that worries John Reid.
water," he observed, and "climate change will worsen this dire situation" -- provoking more wars like Darfur. And
even if these social disasters will occur primarily in the developing world, the wealthier countries will also be caught
up in them, whether by participating in peacekeeping and humanitarian aid operations, by fending off unwanted
migrants or by fighting for access to overseas supplies of food, oil, and minerals. When reading of these
nightmarish scenarios, it is easy to conjure up images of desperate, starving people killing one another with knives,
staves and clubs -- as was certainly often the case in the past, and could easily prove to be so again. But these
scenarios also envision the use of more deadly weapons. "In this world of warring states," the 2003 Pentagon report
As oil and natural gas disappears,

more and more countries will rely on nuclear power to meet their
energy needs -- and this "will accelerate nuclear proliferation as
countries develop enrichment and reprocessing capabilities to
ensure their national security." Although speculative, these reports make one thing clear:
predicted, "nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable."
when thinking about the calamitous effects of global climate change, we must emphasize its social and political
consequences as much as its purely environmental effects. Drought, flooding and storms can kill us, and surely will
-- but so will wars among the survivors of these catastrophes over what remains of food, water and shelter. As
Reid's comments indicate, no society, however affluent, will escape involvement in these forms of conflict. We can
respond to these predictions in one of two ways: by relying on fortifications and military force to provide some
degree of advantage in the global struggle over resources, or by taking meaningful steps to reduce the risk of
No doubt there will be many politicians and

pundits -- especially in this country -- who will tout the superiority
of the military option, emphasizing America's preponderance of
strength. By fortifying our borders and sea-shores to keep out
unwanted migrants and by fighting around the world for needed oil
supplies, it will be argued, we can maintain our privileged standard of living for longer than other countries
cataclysmic climate change.
that are less well endowed with instruments of power. Maybe so. But the grueling, inconclusive war in Iraq and the
failed national response to Hurricane Katrina show just how ineffectual such instruments can be when confronted
with the harsh realities of an unforgiving world. And as the 2003 Pentagon report reminds us, "constant battles over
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Military
superiority may provide an illusion of advantage in the coming
struggles over vital resources, but it cannot protect us against the ravages of global climate
diminishing resources" will "further reduce [resources] even beyond the climatic effects."
change. Although we may be somewhat better off than the people in Haiti and Mexico, we, too, will suffer from
storms, drought and flooding. As our overseas trading partners descend into chaos, our vital imports of food, raw
True, we could establish military outposts

in some of these places to ensure the continued flow of critical
materials -- but the ever-increasing price in blood and treasure required to pay for this will eventually exceed
materials and energy will disappear as well.
our means and destroy us. Ultimately, our only hope of a safe and secure future lies in substantially reducing our
emissions of greenhouse gases and working with the rest of the world to slow the pace of global climate change.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Exts Resource Wars Impact

Resource wars go global and nuclear
Klare, 8 (Michael, Professor of Peace and World Security Studies @ Hampshire
College, March 10, The Coming Resource Wars,
http://www.alternet.org/environment/33243)
It's official: the era of resource wars is upon us. In a major London address, British Defense Secretary John Reid
warned that global climate change and dwindling natural resources are combining to increase the likelihood of
violent conflict over land, water and energy.
Climate change, he indicated, "will make scarce

resources, clean water, viable agricultural land even scarcer" -- and this will "make the
emergence of violent conflict more rather than less likely." Although not unprecedented,
Reid's prediction of an upsurge in resource conflict is significant both because of his senior rank and the vehemence
of his remarks. "The blunt truth is that the lack of water and agricultural land is a significant contributory factor to
the tragic conflict we see unfolding in Darfur," he declared. "We should see this as a warning sign." Resource
conflicts of this type are most likely to arise in the developing world, Reid indicated, but the more advanced and
affluent countries are not likely to be spared the damaging and destabilizing effects of global climate change. With
sea levels rising, water and energy becoming increasingly scarce and prime agricultural lands turning into deserts,
internecine warfare over access to vital resources will become a global phenomenon. Reid's speech, delivered at
the prestigious Chatham House in London (Britain's equivalent of the Council on Foreign Relations), is but the most
recent expression of a growing trend in strategic circles to view environmental and resource effects -- rather than
political orientation and ideology -- as the most potent source of armed conflict in the decades to come. With the
world population rising, global consumption rates soaring, energy supplies rapidly disappearing and climate change
eradicating valuable farmland, the stage is being set for persistent and worldwide struggles over vital resources.
Religious and political strife will not disappear in this scenario, but
rather will be channeled into contests over valuable sources of
water, food and energy. Prior to Reid's address, the most significant expression of this outlook was a
report prepared for the U.S. Department of Defense by a California-based consulting firm in October 2003. Entitled
"An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security," the report warned
that global climate change is more likely to result in sudden, cataclysmic environmental events than a gradual (and
therefore manageable) rise in average temperatures. Such events could include a substantial increase in global sea
levels, intense storms and hurricanes and continent-wide "dust bowl" effects. This would trigger pitched battles
between the survivors of these effects for access to food, water, habitable land and energy supplies. "Violence and
disruption stemming from the stresses created by abrupt changes in the climate pose a different type of threat to
national security than we are accustomed to today," the 2003 report noted. "Military confrontation may be
triggered by a desperate need for natural resources such as energy, food and water rather than by conflicts over
ideology, religion or national honor." Until now, this mode of analysis has failed to command the attention of top
American and British policymakers. For the most part, they insist that ideological and religious differences -notably, the clash between values of tolerance and democracy on one hand and extremist forms of Islam on the
other -- remain the main drivers of international conflict. But Reid's speech at Chatham House suggests that a major
shift in strategic thinking may be under way. Environmental perils may soon dominate the world security agenda.
This shift is due in part to the growing weight of evidence pointing to a significant human role in altering the
planet's basic climate systems. Recent studies showing the rapid shrinkage of the polar ice caps, the accelerated
melting of North American glaciers, the increased frequency of severe hurricanes and a number of other such
effects all suggest that dramatic and potentially harmful changes to the global climate have begun to occur. More
importantly, they conclude that human behavior -- most importantly, the burning of fossil fuels in factories, power
plants, and motor vehicles -- is the most likely cause of these changes. This assessment may not have yet
penetrated the White House and other bastions of head-in-the-sand thinking, but it is clearly gaining ground among
scientists and thoughtful analysts around the world.For the most part, public discussion of global climate change
has tended to describe its effects as an environmental problem -- as a threat to safe water, arable soil, temperate
forests, certain species and so on. And, of course, climate change is a potent threat to the environment; in fact, the
greatest threat imaginable. But viewing climate change as an environmental problem fails to do justice to the
magnitude of the peril it poses. As Reid's speech and the 2003 Pentagon study make clear, the greatest danger
posed by global climate change is not the degradation of ecosystems per se, but rather the disintegration of entire
human societies, producing wholesale starvation, mass migrations and recurring conflict over resources. "As
famine, disease, and weather-related disasters strike due to abrupt climate change," the Pentagon report notes,
countries' needs will exceed their carrying capacity" -- that is,

their ability to provide the minimum requirements for human
"many
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
survival. This "will create a sense of desperation, which is likely to

lead to offensive aggression" against countries with a greater stock
of vital resources. "Imagine eastern European countries, struggling
to feed their populations with a falling supply of food, water, and
energy, eyeing Russia, whose population is already in decline, for
access to its grain, minerals, and energy supply." Similar scenarios
will be replicated all across the planet, as those without the means
to survival invade or migrate to those with greater abundance -producing endless struggles between resource "haves" and "havenots." It is this prospect, more than anything, that worries John Reid. In particular, he expressed concern over the
inadequate capacity of poor and unstable countries to cope with the effects of climate change, and the resulting
risk of state collapse, civil war and mass migration. "More than 300 million people in Africa currently lack access to
safe water," he observed, and "climate change will worsen this dire situation" -- provoking more wars like Darfur.
And even if these social disasters will occur primarily in the developing world, the wealthier countries will also be
caught up in them, whether by participating in peacekeeping and humanitarian aid operations, by fending off
unwanted migrants or by fighting for access to overseas supplies of food, oil, and minerals.When reading of these
nightmarish scenarios, it is easy to conjure up images of desperate, starving people killing one another with knives,
staves and clubs -- as was certainly often the case in the past, and could easily prove to be so again. But these
scenarios also envision the use of more deadly weapons. "In this world of warring states," the 2003 Pentagon report
predicted, "nuclear
arms proliferation is inevitable." As oil and natural

gas disappears, more and more countries will rely on nuclear power
to meet their energy needs -- and this "will accelerate nuclear
proliferation ascountries develop enrichment and reprocessing
capabilities to ensure their national security." Although speculative, these reports
make one thing clear: when thinking about the calamitous effects of global climate change, we must emphasize its
Drought, flooding and

storms can kill us, and surely will -- but so will wars among the
survivors of these catastrophes over what remains of food, water
and shelter. As Reid's comments indicate, no society, however
affluent, will escape involvement in these forms of conflict.
social and political consequences as much as its purely environmental effects.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Exts Resource Wars

Economic growth ensures violent recourse wars.
Trainer 07 (Ted, Senior Lecturer of School of Social Work @ University of New South
Wales Renewable Energy Cannot Sustain A Consumer Society, p. 125-159)
If all nations go on trying to increase their wealth, production, consumption

and "living standards" without limit in a world of limited resources, then we
must expect increasing armed conflict. Rich-world affluent lifestyles
require us to be heavily armed and aggressive, in order to guard the empire
from which we draw more than our fair share of resources . Many people within
the Peace Movement fail to grasp that there is no possibility of a peaceful world while
a few are taking far more than their fair share and the rest aspire to live as
the rich few do. If we want to remain affluent we should remain heavily armed, so we can prevent
others from taking "our" oil fields etc. (For a detailed argument see Trainer, 2002.
Resource Wars
Heinberg 11 [Richard Heinberg is Senior Fellow-in-Residence at Post Carbon Institute. He is the
author of ten books, including The Partys Over, Peak Everything, and the soon-to-be-released The End
of Growth. He is widely regarded as one of the worlds most effective communicators of the urgent
need to transition away from fossil fuels., The Shrinking Pie: Post-Growth Geopolitics; June 17, 2011
http://www.countercurrents.org/heinberg170611.htm]JAKE LEE
As nations compete for currency advantages, they are also eyeing

the worlds diminishing resourcesfossil fuels, minerals, agricultural land, and water. Resource wars have been
fought since the dawn of history, but today the competition is entering a new phase. Nations
need increasing amounts of energy and materials to produce
economic growth, butas we have seenthe costs of supplying new
increments of energy and materials are increasing. In many cases all that remains are
lower-quality resources that have high extraction costs. In some instances, securing access to these
resources requires military expenditures as well. Meanwhile the struggle for
the control of resources is re-aligning political power balances
throughout the world. The U.S., as the worlds superpower, has the
most to lose from a reshuffling of alliances and resource flows. The nations
leaders continue to play the game of geopolitics by 20th century rules: They are still obsessed with the Carter Doctrine and focused on petroleum as the
worlds foremost resource prize (a situation largely necessitated by the countrys continuing overwhelming dependence on oil imports, due in turn to a
series of short-sighted political decisions stretching back at least to the 1970s). The ongoing war in Afghanistan exemplifies U.S. inertia: Most experts
agree that there is little to be gained from the conflict, but withdrawal of forces is politically unfeasible. The United States maintains a globe-spanning
network of over 800 military bases that formerly represented tokens of security to regimes throughout the worldbut that now increasingly only provoke
This enormous military machine requires a vast supply

system originating with American weapons manufacturers that in
turn depend on a prodigious and ever-expanding torrent of funds
from the Treasury. Indeed, the nations budget deficit largely stems
from its trillion-dollar-per-year, first-priority commitment to
continue growing its military-industrial complex. Yet despite the countrys gargantuan
resentment among the locals.
expenditures on high-tech weaponry, its armed forces appear to be stretched to their limits, fielding around 200,000 troops and even larger numbers of
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
the U
support personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, where supply chains are both vulnerable and expensive to maintain. In short,
nited
tates
remains an enormously powerful nation militarily, with thousands of nuclear weapons in addition to its unparalleled conventional forces, yet it
suffers from declining strategic flexibility. The European Union, traditionally allied with the U.S., is
increasingly mapping its priorities independentlypartly because of increased energy dependence on Russia, and partly because of economic rivalries and
currency conflicts with America. Germanys economy is one of the few to have emerged from the 2008 crisis relatively unscathed, but the country is faced
with the problem of having to bail out more and more of its neighbors. The ongoing European serial sovereign debt crisis could eventually undermine the
German economy and throw into doubt the long-term soundness of the euro and the E.U. itself.[1] The U.K. is a mere shadow of its former imperial self,
with unsustainable levels of debt, declining military budgets, and falling oil production. Its foreign policy is still largely dictated in Washington, though
many Britons are increasingly unhappy with this state of affairs. China is the rising power of the 21st century, according to many geopolitical pundits, with
a surging military and lots of cash with which to buy access to resources (oil, coal, minerals, and farmland) around the planet. Yet while it is building an
imperial-class navy that could eventually threaten Americas, Beijing suffers (as we have already seen) from domestic political and economic weaknesses
that could make its turn at the center of the world stage a brief one. Japan, with the worlds third-largest national economy, is wary of China and
increasingly uncertain of its protector, the U.S. The country is tentatively rebuilding its military so as to be able to defend its interests independently.
Disputes with China over oil and gas deposits in the East China Sea
are likely to worsen, as Japan has almost no domestic fossil fuel
resources and needs secure access to supplies. Russia is a resource powerhouse but is
also politically corrupt and remains economically crippled. With a residual military force at the ready, it vies with China and
the U.S. for control of Caspian and Central Asian energy and mineral
wealth through alliances with former Soviet states. It tends to strike tentative deals with China to counter American interests, but ultimately
Beijing may be as much of a rival as Washington. Moscow uses its gas exports as a bargaining chip for influence in Europe. Meanwhile, little of the income
from the countrys resource riches benefits the populace. The Russian peoples advantage in all this may be that they have recently been through one
political-economic collapse and will therefore be relatively well-prepared to navigate another. Even as countries like Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and
Nicaragua reject American foreign policy, the U.S. continues to exert enormous influence on resource-rich Latin America via North American-based
China is now actively

contracting for access to energy and mineral resources throughout
this region, which is resulting in a gradual shift in economic spheres
of interest. Africa is a site of fast-growing U.S. investment in oil and other mineral extraction projects (as evidenced by the establishment in
corporations, which in some cases wield overwhelming influence over entire national economies. However,
2009 of Africom, a military strategic command center on par with Centcom, Eucom, Northcom, Pacom, and Southcom), but is also a target of Chinese and
Proxy conflicts there between and among these powers may intensify in
the years aheadin most instances, to the sad detriment of African peoples.[2] The Middle East
maintains vast oil wealth (though reserves have been substantially overestimated due to rivalries inside OPEC), but
is characterized by extreme economic inequality, high population
growth rates, political instability, and the need for importation of
non-energy resources (including food and water). The revolutions and protests in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, and Yemen in
European resource acquisition efforts.
early 2011 were interpreted by many observers as indicating the inability of the common people in Middle Eastern regimes to tolerate sharply rising food,
water, and energy prices in the context of autocratic political regimes.[3]As economic conditions worsen,
many more nations
could become destabilized;
including ones outside the Middle East

the ultimate consequences are unknowable at this
point, but could well be enormous. Like China, Saudi Arabia is buying farmland in Australia, New Zealand, and the U.S. Nations like Iraq and Iran need
advanced technology with which to maintain an oil industry that is moving from easy plays to oilfields that are smaller, harder to access, and more
expensive to produce, and both Chinese and U.S. companies stand ready to supply it. The deep oceans and the Arctic will be areas of growing resource
interest, as long as the worlds wealthier nations are still capable of mounting increasingly expensive efforts to compete for and extract strategic materials
both military maneuvering and engineeringmining efforts will see diminishing returns as costs rise and payoffs
diminish. Unfortunately, rising costs and flagging returns from
resource conflicts will not guarantee world peace. History suggests
that as nations become more desperate to maintain their relative
positions of strength and advantage, they may lash out in ways that
serve no rational purpose. Again, no crisis is imminent as long as cool heads prevail. But the world system is losing
stability. Current economic and geopolitical conditions would appear to
support a forecast not for increasing economic growth, democracy, and peace,
but for more political volatility, and for greater government military
mobilization justified under the banner of security.
in these extreme environments.[4] However,
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2NC Water Wars Module

Water wars lead to extinction growth is the primary cause
Chellaney 3/13 Brahma Chellaney, a geostrategist, is the author of Water, Peace, and War (2014,
Bramha, Washington Times, CHELLANEY: The coming era of water wars,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/13/chellaney-the-coming-era-of-water-wars/?page=all // SM)
Adequate availability of water, food and energy is critical to global security.

Water, the sustainer of life and livelihoods, is already the worlds
most exploited natural resource. With natures freshwater
renewable capacity lagging behind humanitys current rate of
utilization, tomorrows water is being used to meet todays need.
Consequently, the resources of shared rivers, aquifers and lakes have
become the target of rival appropriation plans. Securing a larger portion of
the shared water has fostered increasing competition between
countries and provinces. Efforts by some countries to turn transnational water resources into an
instrument of power has encouraged a dam-building race and prompted growing calls for the United Nations to
the struggle for water is

exacerbating impacts on the earths ecosystems. Humanity is
altering freshwater and other ecosystems more rapidly than its own scientific
understanding of the implications of such change. Degradation of water resources has
resulted in aquatic ecosystems losing half of their biodiversity since
just the mid-1970s. Groundwater depletion, for its part, is affecting
natural streamflows, groundwater-fed wetlands and lakes, and
related ecosystems. The future of human civilization hinges on
make water a key security concern. More ominously,
sustainable development.
If resources like water are degraded and depleted, environmental
refugees will follow. Sanaa in Yemen risks becoming the first capital city to run out of water. If Bangladesh bears the
main impact of Chinas damming of River Brahmaputra, the resulting exodus of thirsty refugees will compound
Indias security challenges. Internal resource conflicts are often camouflaged as civil wars. Sudans Darfur conflict,
for example, arose from water and grassland scarcity. Interstate water wars in a political and economic sense are
being waged in several regions, including by building dams on international rivers and by resorting to coercive
diplomacy to prevent such construction. Examples include Chinas frenetic upstream dam building in its
borderlands, and downriver Egypts threats of military reprisals against the ongoing Ethiopian construction of a
large dam on the Blue Nile. Upstream Turkey, inspired by Chinas strengthening hydro-hegemony, is accelerating its
diversion of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. This will exacerbate water stress in the two violence-torn, downriver
states of Syria and Iraq. Meanwhile, Israel, with its control of the water-rich Golan Heights and the West Bank
aquifers, has leveraged its role as water supplier to Palestinians and Jordanians. The yearly global economic losses
from water shortages are conservatively estimated at $260 billion. Water-stressed South Korea is encouraging its
corporate giants to produce water-intensive items from food to steel for the home market in overseas lands.
This strategy has created a grass-roots backlash against South Korean firms in Madagascar and Indias Odisha
the use of
water as a weapon of war or a tool of terrorism would become more
likely in the next decade. Water is a renewable but finite resource.
state. A report reflecting the joint judgment of U.S. intelligence agencies has warned that
Unlike mineral ores, fossils fuels and resources from the biosphere such as fish and timber, water (unless bottled) is
The human population has doubled since 1970

alone, though, while the global economy has grown even faster.
Consumption growth , however, is the single biggest driver of water
not a globally traded commodity.
stress. Rising incomes, for example, have promoted changing diets,
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
especially a greater intake of meat, whose production is notoriously

water-intensive.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Exts Water Wars

Growth leads to water scarcityleads to water warsrisk is at
2050
GrowingBlue 14 [GrowingBlue is was created to tell the important story of how water is as
essential to our economic and social growth as it is to ensuring healthy ecosystems and our natural
environment. This site is meant to serve as a resource for credible, accurate information on water. It is
also aimed at increasing global awareness of our water challenges and the need for thoughtful
solutions. In that regard, we hope Growing Blue is a catalyst and platform for dialogue on this
important topic. Water is one of the most critical factors in determining how and at what pace our
world can support humanitys continued growth. That story needs to be told with a greater voice and
to a broader audience, now and in the future. The Future of Water Requires a Sustainable, Blue Path
2014 http://growingblue.com/water-in-2050/] JAKE LEE
Today, many regions of the world are already water stressed due to
population and economic growth . In fact, 2.5 billion people (36% of
the world population) live in these regions and more than 20% of
the global GDP is already produced in risky, water-scarce areas
affecting production, as well as corporate reputations when
competition over water usages develops . Given todays
accelerated pace of human development and the slow pace of
managing issues as complex as water resources, tomorrows
challenges are already at our door. Whether improving our governance models or our
infrastructure systems, years and even decades (not weeks or months) are required to implement change! This is
especially troubling when considering analysis by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), which
more than half the worlds population and

approximately half of global grain production will be at risk due to
water stress by 2050 if status quo, business-as-usual behavior is followed. The IFPRI study
also found that 45% of total GDP ($63 trillion) will be at risk due to water stress by 2050. Thats 1.5
times the size of todays entire global economy! By wasting less,
polluting less, reusing more, managing effectively and becoming
more efficient in all uses of water individual, collective,
agricultural and industrial we can achieve higher water
productivity levels (economic output per drop) and reduce water
stress. Continued evolution of technology and infrastructure improvements will enhance water supply capacity
found that 4.8 billion people
for cities and industries while helping deliver clean drinking water and sanitation services to rural populations and
In so doing, more than 1 billion people and about $17

trillion in GDP will no longer be at risk of unsustainable water
supplies by 2050.
the urban poor.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2NC DeDev Solves War

De-developing to a system without growth can be achieved
economic decline is key to peaceimpact is global destruction
Heinberg, 10 [Richard Heinberg- is Senior Fellow-in-Residence at Post Carbon Institute. He is the
author of ten books, including The Partys Over, Peak Everything, and the soon-to-be-released The End
of Growth. He is widely regarded as one of the worlds most effective communicators of the urgent
need to transition away from fossil fuels. March 4th, 2010 ; Countercurrents.org; pg.;
http://www.countercurrents.org/heinberg040310.htm] JAKE LEE
absence of growth does not imply a lack of change or

improvement. Within a non-growing or equilibrium economy there can
still be a continuous development of practical skills, artistic
expression, and technology. In fact, some historians and social scientists argue that life in an
equilibrium economy can be superior to life in a fast-growing economy: while growth creates
opportunities for some, it also typically intensifies competitionthere
are big winners and big losers, and (as in most boom towns) the quality of
relations within the community can suffer as a result. Within a nongrowing economy it is possible to maximize benefits and reduce
factors leading to decay, but doing so will require pursuing appropriate goals: instead of more, we
must strive for better; rather than promoting increased economic activity for
its own sake, we must emphasize whatever increases quality of life
without stoking consumption. One way to do this is to reinvent and redefine growth itself.
The transition to a no-growth economy (or one in which growth is
defined in a fundamentally different way) is inevitable, but it will go
much better if we plan for it rather than simply watching in dismay
as institutions we have come to rely upon fail, and then try to improvise a survival
strategy in their absence. In effect, we have to create a desirable "new normal"
that fits the constraints imposed by depleting natural resources.
Maintaining the "old normal" is not an option ; if we do not find new
goals for ourselves and plan our transition from a growth-based economy to a healthy
equilibrium economy, we will by default create a much less desirable "new
normal" whose emergence we are already beginning to see in the
forms of persistent high unemployment, a widening gap between rich and
poor, and ever more frequent and worsening financial and
environmental crisesall of which translate to profound distress for individuals, families, and
The
communities.
De-development solves for global conflict

Trainer 95, Ted Trainer, Senior Lecturer in Sociology, School of Social Work,
University of New South Wales, 1995, The Conserver Society, p. 165//Roetlin
If the foregoing analysis is valid, not much needs to be said about the alternative.
We must develop ways of life in which all can live well without
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
taking more than their fair share and therefore without living in fear of
someone else threatening what we have. That is precisely what a
radical conserver society involves. A world made up of relatively small
communities which were supplying their own needs mostly from their local
resources, and concerned primarily with enjoying a life rich in cultural and craft and
community activities, without any interest in constantly increasing the amount they
consume, would be a far more secure world. There would be no point in
you attacking anyone, because you would not want much and what
you did want you would have in abundance from local sources.
Similarly you would not feel any need for weapons with which to defend
yourself, because you would know that others were living
comfortable and interesting lives without wanting more resources
than they could supply for themselves and therefore they would have
no interest in attacking you. Security is an impossible goal if it is conceived in
terms of developing the arms needed to defend our imperial interests and to defend
ourselves against attack while we insist on lifestyles which inevitably involve us
in taking more than our fair share and therefore asserting control over ours oilfields
in the Middle East and in turn having to be armed to the teeth to fight off threats to
them. Real security consists in knowing no one has any desire to
threaten you.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
AT: Diversionary War Theory

No impact-- history proves
Ferguson 6 [Niall Ferguson Laurence A. Tisch prof of History at Harvard. William Ziegler of
Business Administration at Harvard. MA and D.Phil from Glasgow and Oxford , The Next War of the
World, September/October 2006,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/the_next_war_of_the_world.html] JAKE LEE
What may be the most familiar causal chain in modern historiography links the
Depression to the rise of fascism and the outbreak of World War II. But that simple story
leaves too much out. Nazi Germany started the war in Europe only after its
economy had recovered. Not all the countries affected by the Great Depression were taken over by
fascist regimes, nor did all such regimes start wars of aggression. In fact, no general relationship between
economics and conflict is discernible for the century as a whole. Some wars
came after periods of growth, others were the causes rather than the consequences of economic catastrophe, and some
severe economic crises were not followed by wars.
Nor can economic crises explain the bloodshed.
Great
No impact---Royals diversionary war thesis is wrong and

doesnt go nuclear
Jervis 11 [Robert Jervis is Professor in the Department of Political Science and School of International
and Public Affairs at Columbia University, December 2011 Force in Our Times
http://www.siwps.com/programs/SWP.attachment/saltzmanworkingpaper151816/SaltzmanWorkingPaper15.PDF] JAKE LEE
Even if war is still seen as evil, the security community could be dissolved if severe conflicts of interest were to
arise. Could the more peaceful world generate new interests that would bring the members of the community into
sharp disputes?45 A zero-sum sense of status would be one example, perhaps linked to a steep rise in
a worsening of the current economic difficulties,

which could itself produce greater nationalism, undermine democracy,
and bring back old-fashioned 18 beggar-thy-neighbor economic
policies. While these dangers are real, it is hard to believe that the
conflicts could be great enough to lead the members of the
community to contemplate fighting each other. It is not so much
that economic interdependence has proceeded to the point where it could not
be reversed states that were more internally interdependent than anything seen internationally have
fought bloody civil wars. Rather it is that even if the more extreme versions
of free trade and economic liberalism become discredited, it is hard
to see how without building on a pre-existing high level of political conflict leaders and mass
opinion would come to believe that their countries could prosper by
impoverishing or even attacking others. Is it possible that problems will not only become
severe, but that people will entertain the thought that they have to be solved by war? While a
pessimist could note that this argument does not appear as
outlandish as it did before the financial crisis, an optimist could
reply (correctly, in my view) that the very fact that we have seen
such a sharp economic down-turn without anyone suggesting that
nationalism. More likely would be
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
force of arms is the solution shows that even if bad times bring
about greater economic conflict, it will not make war thinkable
No risk of diversionary wars no suitable targets and unlikely

the population will be persuaded
Tir 10 [Jaroslav Tir - Ph.D. in Political Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and is an Associate
Professor in the Department of International Affairs at the University of Georgia, Territorial Diversion: Diversionary
Theory of War and Territorial Conflict, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 72, No. 2, April 2010, Pp. 413425//SM]
suitable diversionary targets

are quite difficult to find. For just about all the states in the international
system, the loss of strength gradient (Boulding 1962) is so serious that they
are only able to interact militarily with their immediate neighbors.
This would limit diversionary opportunities significantly for all but the most powerful
states. Furthermore, many countries would make poor targets because
they are important economic, security, or diplomatic partners or because
First, Levy (1998; see also Tir and Jasinski 2008) observes that
the attack would go against the constraints posed by the democratic peace (Russett and Oneal 2001). Cognizant of
these issues, Mitchell and Prins (2004), for example, focus on diversions between enduring rivals. Enduring rivals
(e.g., India-Pakistan) have a history of antagonism, which indicates that they are willing and able to interacting
militarily. Moreover, the context of rivalry can provide an aura of credibility to the leaders claim that their actions
are conducted not out of selfish interest but for the benefit of the country. And given their already poor relations,
The problem, however, is that

rivalry-related diversionary opportunities are available to only few
countries. Enduring rivals constitute only 5.4% of dyads that experience militarized international conflict
the attacks would not be particularly damaging to their relationship.6
(Diehl and Goertz 2000) and an even smaller fraction of all dyads (.4% to 3.75%, depending on how politically
relevant dyads are defined). The above concerns may be lessened in the context of territorial diversion. First, the
power projection capability is not necessarily an issue because most territorial conflicts take place precisely
diversionary action has

to be perceived by the population as so important that it is
persuaded that the conflict (i.e., the diversion) is worth the cost of damaging or even
breaking the otherwise important ties. Territorial diversion is arguably in a good position to help the
between neighboring countries (Tir 2003, 2006; Vasquez 1993). Second,
leader do this because territorial issues are seen as so central to the matters of national survival and protection of
identity that economic, diplomatic, and other considerations can be subordinated. These important points suggest
that diversionary behavior could be a cross-national phenomenon, not limited to the most powerful or rival states.
The second critique challenges diversionary theorys core logical

mechanism, which is rooted in the ingroup, outgroup premise (Coser 1956). Diversions are
launched to unify a fractured society (i.e., transform it into the ingroup) by
painting the foreign enemy as the outgroup.7 Morgan and Anderson (1999; Morgan
and Bickers 1992), however, argue that overcoming the societal division to
create a cohesive ingroup is no easy task. If the leader calculates that
surmounting this important obstacle is unlikely, then they would presumably be deterred
from diverting. I argue below that territorial diversion provides what is probably the most promising option for
unifying the society, because territorial issues have the unique ability to speak to and connect with the broad
swaths of the population
Diversionary theory is false - empirics

Tir 10 [Jaroslav Tir - Ph.D. in Political Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and is an Associate
Professor in the Department of International Affairs at the University of Georgia, Territorial Diversion: Diversionary
Theory of War and Territorial Conflict, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 72, No. 2, April 2010, Pp. 413425//SM]
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
According to the diversionary theory of war, the cause of some militarized

conflicts is not a clash of salient interests between countries, but rather problematic domestic circumstances.
Under conditions such as economic adversity or political unrest, the countrys

leader may attempt to generate a foreign policy crisis in order
both to divert domestic discontent and bolster their political
fortunes through a rally around the flag effect (Russett 1990). Yet,
despite the wide-ranging popularity of this idea and some evidence of U.S. diversionary
behavior (e.g., DeRouen 1995, 2000; Fordham 1998a, 1998b; Hess and Orphanides 1995; James and Hristolouas
after five decades of research broader

empirical support for the theory remains elusive (e.g., Gelpi 1997; Gowa;
1994; James and Oneal 1991; Ostrom and Job 1986),
1998; Leeds and Davis 1997; Levy 1998; Lian and Oneal 1993; Meernik and Waterman 1996). This has prompted
one scholar to conclude that seldom
has
so much common sense in
theory found so
little support in practice (James 1987, 22), a view reflected in the more recent research (e.g.,
Chiozza and Goemans 2003, 2004; Meernick 2004; Moore and Lanoue 2003; Oneal and Tir 2006). I argue that
this puzzling lack of support could be addressed by considering the possibility that the embattled leader may
anticipate achieving their diversionary aims specifically through the initiation of territorial conflict2a
phenomenon I call territorial diversion.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Biodiversity
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
1NC Biodiversity
Economic growth leads destruction of the environment that
ensures extinction. A new paradigm is critical.
Vandana Shiva 12, founder of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and
Ecology, Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Western Ontario, chairs the
Commission on the Future of Food set up by the Region of Tuscany in Italy and is a
member of the Scientific Committee which advises President Zapatero of Spain,
( March 1, 2012, Imposed Austerity vs Chosen Simplicity: Who Will Pay For Which
Adjustments?, online: http://www.ethicalmarkets.com/2012/03/01/imposedausterity-vs-chosen-simplicity-who-will-pay-for-which-adjustments/// SM)
The dominant economic model
based on limitless growth on a limited planet
is leading
to an overshoot of the human use of the earths resources. This is

leading to an ecological catastrophe . It is also leading to intense and
violent resource grab of the remaining resources of the earth by
the rich from the poor. The resource grab is an adjustment by the rich
and powerful to a shrinking resource base land, biodiversity, water
without adjusting the old resource intensive, limitless growth

paradigm to the new reality. Its only outcome can be ecological scarcity for the poor in the short term,
it means the extinction of our species ,
as climate catastrophe and extinction of other species makes the planet
un-inhabitable for human societies. Failure to make an ecological adjustment
to planetary limits and ecological justice is a threat to human
survival . The Green Economy being pushed at Rio +20 could well become the biggest resource grabs in human history
with deepening poverty and deprivation. In the long run
with corporations appropriating the planets green wealth, the biodiversity, to become the green oil to make bio-fuel, energy
plastics, chemicals everything that the petrochemical era based on fossil fuels gave us. Movements worldwide have started to
But an ecological adjustment is possible, and

is happening . This ecological adjustment involves seeing ourselves as a part of
the fragile ecological web, not outside and above it, immune from
the ecological consequences of our actions. Ecological adjustment also implies that we
say No to the Green Economy of the 1%.
see ourselves as members of the earth community, sharing the earths resources equitably with all species and within the
Ecological adjustment requires an end to resource grab, and the

privatization of our land, bio diversity and seeds, water and atmosphere. Ecological adjustment is based on the
recovery of the commons and the creation of Earth Democracy. The dominant economic model
based on resource monopolies and the rule of an oligarchy is not just in conflict
with ecological limits of the planet . It is in conflict with the
principles of democracy , and governance by the people , of the people, for the
people. The adjustment from the oligarchy is to further strangle democracy
human community.
and crush civil liberties and peoples freedom . Bharti Mittals statement that politics should
not interfere with the economy reflects the mindset of the oligarchy that democracy can be done away with. This anti-
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
democratic adjustment includes laws like homeland security in U.S., and multiple security laws in India. The calls for a
democratic adjustment from below are witnessed worldwide in the rise of non-violent protests, from the Arab
spring to the American autumn of Occupy and the Russian winter challenging the hijack of elections and
movements for democratic adjustment are also

rising everywhere in response to the austerity programmes imposed
electoral democracy. And these
by IMF, World Bank and financial institutions which created the financial crisis. The Third World had its structural
Adjustment and Forced Austerity, through the 1980s and 1990s, leading to IMF riots. Indias structural
adjustment of 1991 has given us the agrarian crisis with quarter million farmer suicides and food crisis pushing
every 4th Indian to hunger and every 2nd Indian child to severe malnutrition; people are paying with their very
lives for adjustment imposed by the World Bank/IMF. The trade liberalization reforms dismantled our food
security system, based on universal PDS. It opened up the seed sector to seed MNCs. And now an attempt is
being made through the Food Security Act to make our public feeding programmes a market for food MNCs. The
forced austerity continues through imposition of so called reforms, such as Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in
retail, which would rob 50 million of their livelihoods in retail and millions more by changing the production
system. Europe started having its forced austerity in 2010. And everywhere there are anti-austerity protests
from U.K., to Italy, Greece, Spain, Ireland, Iceland, and Portugal. The banks which have created the crisis want
society to adjust by destroying jobs and livelihoods, pensions and social security, public services and the
The people want financial systems to adjust to the limits

set by nature, social justice and democracy. And the precariousness of the living
commons.
conditions of the 99% has created a new class which Guy Standing calls the Precariate. If the Industrial
Revolution gave us the industrial working class, the proletariat, globalization and the free market
which is destroying the livelihoods of peasants in India and China through land grabs, or the chances of
economic security for the young in what were the rich industrialized countries,
has created a
global class of the precarious. As Barbara Ehrenreich and John Ehrenreich have written in
The making of the American 99%, this new class of the dispossessed and excluded include middle class
professional, factory workers, truck drivers, and nurses as well as the much poorer people who clean the
Forced austerity based

on the old paradigm allows the 1% super rich, the oligarchs, to grab the
planets resources while pushing out the 99% from access to
resources, livelihoods, jobs and any form of freedom, democracy and economic security. It is
houses, manicure the fingernails, and maintain the lawn of the affluent.
often said that with increasing growth, India and China are replicating the resource intensive and wasteful lifestyles of the
Western countries. The reality is that while a small 3 to 4% of India is joining the mad race for consuming the earth with more
and more automobiles and air conditioners, the large majority of India is being pushed into de-consumption losing their
entitlements to basic needs of food and water because of resource and land grab, market grab, and destruction of livelihoods.
The hunger and malnutrition crisis in India is an example of the de-consumption forced on the poor by the rich, through the
imposed austerity built into the trade liberalization and economic reform policies.
There is another
paradigm emerging which is shared by Gandhi and the new movements of the 99%, the paradigm
of voluntary simplicity of reducing one ecological foot print while increasing

human well being for all. Instead of forced austerity that helps the
rich become super rich, the powerful become totalitarian, chosen
simplicity enables us all to adjust ecologically, to reduce over
consumption of the planets resources, it allows us to adjust socially to
enhance democracy and it creates a path for economic adjustment
based on justice and equity. Forced austerity makes the poor and working
families pay for the excesses of limitless greed and accumulation by
the super rich. Chosen simplicity stops these excesses and allow us to flower
into an Earth Democracy where the rights and freedoms of all species and all people are protected and respected.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2NC Now Key

Continued growth guarantees extinctioncollapse now is our
only hope
Barry 8 President and Founder of Ecological Internet. Ph.D. in "Land Resources" from the University of
Wisconsin-Madison, a Masters of Science in "Conservation Biology and Sustainable Development" also from
Madison, and a Bachelor of Arts in "Political Science" from Marquette University (Glen, Economic Collapse and
Global Ecology, 14 January 2008, http://www.countercurrents.org/barry140108.htm)
Humanity and the Earth are faced with an enormous conundrum -- sufficient climate policies enjoy political support only in times of
rapid economic growth. Yet this growth is the primary factor driving greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental ills. The
growth
pushed the planet well beyond its ecological carrying capacity, and unless
constrained, can only lead to human extinction and an end to complex life. With every economic downturn, like
machine has
the one now looming in the United States, it becomes more difficult and less likely that policy sufficient to ensure global ecological
sustainability will be embraced. This essay explores the possibility that from a biocentric viewpoint of needs for long-term global
ecological, economic and social sustainability; it would be better for the economic collapse to come now rather than later. Economic
growth is a deadly disease upon the Earth, with capitalism as its most virulent strain. Throw-away consumption and explosive
population growth are made possible by using up fossil fuels and destroying ecosystems. Holiday shopping numbers are covered by
media in the same breath as Arctic ice melt, ignoring their deep connection. Exponential economic growth destroys ecosystems and
Humanity has proven itself unwilling and unable to address

climate change and other environmental threats with necessary haste and ambition. Action on coal,
pushes the biosphere closer to failure.
forests, population, renewable energy and emission reductions could be taken now at net benefit to the economy. Yet, the losers -primarily fossil fuel industries and their bought oligarchy -- successfully resist futures not dependent upon their deadly products.
economic growth, and necessary climate and other ecological policies, are
fundamentally incompatible. Global ecological sustainability depends critically upon
establishing a steady state economy , whereby production is right-sized to not diminish natural capital. Whole industries
Perpetual
like coal and natural forest logging will be eliminated even as new opportunities emerge in solar energy and environmental
restoration. This critical transition to both economic and ecological sustainability is simply not happening on any scale. The
challenge is how to carry out necessary environmental policies even as economic growth ends and consumption plunges. The
natural response is going to be liquidation of even more life-giving ecosystems, and jettisoning of climate policies, to vainly try to
maintain high growth and personal consumption. We know that humanity must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80%
over coming decades. How will this and other necessary climate mitigation strategies be maintained during years of economic
downturns, resource wars, reasonable demands for equitable consumption, and frankly, the weather being more pleasant in some
places? If efforts to reduce emissions and move to a steady state economy fail; the collapse of ecological, economic and social
systems is assured. Bright greens take the continued existence of a habitable Earth with viable, sustainable populations of all
species including humans as the ultimate truth and the meaning of life. Whether this is possible in a time of economic collapse is
crucially dependent upon whether enough ecosystems and resources remain post collapse to allow humanity to recover and
It may be better for the Earth and humanity's future that

economic collapse comes sooner rather than later, while more ecosystems and opportunities to return to
nature's fold exist. Economic collapse will be deeply wrenching -- part Great Depression, part African famine. There
reconstitute sustainable, relocalized societies.
will be starvation and civil strife, and a long period of suffering and turmoil. Many will be killed as balance returns to the Earth. Most
people have forgotten how to grow food and that their identity is more than what they own. Yet there is some justice, in that those
who have lived most lightly upon the land will have an easier time of it, even as those super-consumers living in massive cities
collapse now means

humanity and the Earth ultimately survive to prosper again. Human suffering -- already the norm for
many, but hitting the currently materially affluent -- is inevitable given the degree to which the planet's carrying
capacity has been exceeded. We are a couple decades at most away from societal strife of a much greater
magnitude as the Earth's biosphere fails. Humanity can take the bitter medicine now , and recover while
emerging better for it; or our total collapse can be a final, fatal death swoon . A successful
revolutionary response to imminent global ecosystem collapse would focus upon bringing down the Earth's
industrial economy now. As society continues to fail miserably to implement necessary changes to allow creation to
finally learn where their food comes from and that ecology is the meaning of life. Economic
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Exts Biodiversity Impact

Extinction
Chen 2k dean of the law school at Louisville, law professor at the University of Minnesota (Jim, 9 Minn. J. Global Trade 157,
Globalization and its losers, HeinOnline)
decisions to allow the extinction of a species or the destruction of an entire ecosystem epitomize the
"irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources" that NEPA is designed to retard. 312 The original Endangered Species Act gave
such decisions no quarter whatsoever; 313 since 1979, such decisions have rested in the hands of a solemnly convened "God Squad." 314 In its permanence and gravity, natural
extinction provides the baseline by which all other types of extinction should be judged. The
Conscious
Endangered Species Act explicitly acknowledges the "esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value" of endangered species and the biodiversity they
represent. 315 Allied bodies of international law confirm this view: 316 global biological diversity is part of the commonly owned heritage of all humanity and deserves full legal
protection. 317 Rather remarkably, these broad assertions understate the value of biodiversity and the urgency of its protection. A Sand County Almanac, the eloquent bible of the
modern environmental movement, contains only two demonstrable biological errors. It opens with one and closes with another. We can forgive Aldo Leopold's decision to close with that
elegant but erroneous epigram, "ontogeny repeats phylogeny." 318 What concerns [*208] us is his opening gambit: "There are some who can live without wild things, and some who
cannot." 319 Not quite.
None of us can live without wild things. Insects are so essential to life as we know it that if they "and
were to disappear, humanity probably could not last more than a few
other land-dwelling anthropods ...
months." 320 "Most of the amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals," along with "the bulk of the flowering plants and ... the physical structure of most forests and other
terrestrial habitats" would disappear in turn. 321 "The land would return to" something resembling its Cambrian condition, "covered by mats of recumbent wind-pollinated vegetation,
sprinkled with clumps of small trees and bushes here and there, largely devoid of animal life." 322 From this perspective, the mere thought of valuing biodiversity is absurd, much as any
attempt to quantify all of earth's planetary amenities as some trillions of dollars per year is absurd. But the frustration inherent in enforcing the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species (CITES) has shown that conservation cannot work without appeasing Homo economicus, the profit-seeking ape. Efforts to ban the international ivory trade through
CITES have failed to stem the slaughter of African elephants. 323 The preservation of biodiversity must therefore begin with a cold, calculating inventory of its benefits. Fortunately,
defending biodiversity preservation in humanity's self-interest is an easy task. As yet unexploited species might give a hungry world a larger larder than the storehouse of twenty plant
species that provide nine-tenths of humanity's current food supply. 324 "Waiting in the wings are tens of thousands of unused plant species, many demonstrably superior to those in
favor." 325 As genetic warehouses, many plants enhance the productivity of crops already in use. In the United States alone, the [*209] genes of wild plants have accounted for much of
"the explosive growth in farm production since the 1930s." 326 The contribution is worth $ 1 billion each year. 327 Nature's pharmacy demonstrates even more dramatic gains than
nature's farm. 328 Aspirin and penicillin, our star analgesic and antibiotic, had humble origins in the meadowsweet plant and in cheese mold. 329 Leeches, vampire bats, and pit vipers
all contribute anticoagulant drugs that reduce blood pressure, prevent heart attacks, and facilitate skin transplants. 330 Merck & Co., the multinational pharmaceutical company, is
helping Costa Rica assay its rich biota. 331 A single commercially viable product derived "from, say, any one species among ... 12,000 plants and 300,000 insects ... could handsomely
animals, plants, and microorganisms also provide ecological

services. 333 The Supreme Court has lauded the pesticidal talents of migratory birds. 334 Numerous organisms process the air we
breathe, the water we drink, the ground we stroll. 335 Other species serve as sentries. Just as canaries warned coal miners of lethal gases, the decline
repay Merck's entire investment" of $ 1 million in 1991 dollars. 332 Wild
or disappearance of indicator species provides advance warning against deeper [*210] environmental threats. 336 Species conservation yields the greatest environmental amenity of all:
ecosystem protection.
Saving discrete species indirectly protects the ecosystems in which they live. 337
Some larger animals may not carry great utilitarian value in themselves, but the human urge to protect these charismatic "flagship species" helps protect their ecosystems. 338 Indeed,
to save any species, we must protect their ecosystems. 339 Defenders of biodiversity can measure the "tangible economic value" of the pleasure derived from "visiting, photographing,
painting, and just looking at wildlife." 340 In the United States alone, wildlife observation and feeding in 1991 generated $ 18.1 billion in consumer spending, $ 3 billion in tax revenues,
and 766,000 jobs. 341 Ecotourism gives tropical countries, home to most of the world's species, a valuable alternative to subsistence agriculture. Costa Rican rainforests preserved for
ecotourism "have become many times more profitable per hectare than land cleared for pastures and fields," while the endangered gorilla has turned ecotourism into "the third most
important source of income in Rwanda." 342 In a globalized economy where commodities can be cultivated almost anywhere, environmentally [*211] sensitive locales can maximize
The value of endangered species and the biodiversity

is "literally ... incalculable." 343 What, if anything, should the law do to preserve it? There are those that invoke the story of Noah's Ark as a
their wealth by exploiting the "boutique" uses of their natural bounty.

they embody
moral basis for biodiversity preservation. 344 Others regard the entire Judeo-Christian tradition, especially the biblical stories of Creation and the Flood, as the root of the West's
deplorable environmental record. 345 To avoid getting bogged down in an environmental exegesis of Judeo-Christian "myth and legend," we should let Charles Darwin and evolutionary
The loss of biological diversity is quite arguably the

gravest problem facing humanity. If we cast the question as the contemporary phenomenon that "our descendants
[will] most regret," the "loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats" is worse than even
"energy depletion, economic collapse, limited nuclear war , or conquest by a totalitarian government." 347 Natural evolution may in due course renew
biology determine the imperatives of our moment in natural "history." 346
the earth with a diversity of species approximating that of a world unspoiled by Homo sapiens -- in ten million years, perhaps a hundred million. 348
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Exts Biodiversity
Collapse is key to solve environmental collapse
Speth 8 JD Yale, law professor, Carter's environmental advisor, former head of the UN's largest agency for international
development, former chairman of the of the Council on Environmental Quality, NRDC co-founder (James, "The bridge at the end of
the world: Capitalism, the environment, and crossing from crisis to sustainability", p. 1-2)
But the much larger and more threatening impacts stem from the economic activity of those of us participating in
world
economy. This
the
modern, increasingly prosperous
is consuming vast quantities of resources from the environment and returning to

waste products. The damages are already huge and are on a path to be ruinous
activity
the environment vast quantities of
in the future. So, a fundamental 7 facing societies todayperhaps the fundamental questionis how can the operating instructions for the
modern world economy be changed so that economic activity both protects and restores the natural world? With increasingly few exceptions, modern
capitalism is the operating system of the world economy. I use modern capitalism here in a broad sense as an actual, existing system of political
economy, not as an idealized model. Capitalism as we know it today encompasses the core economic concept of private employers hiring workers to
produce products and services that the employers own and then sell with the intention of making a profi t. But it also includes competitive markets, the
price mechanism, the modern corporation as its principal institution, the consumer society and the materialistic values that sustain it, and the
administrative state actively promoting economic strength and growth for a variety of reasons. Inherent in the dynamics of capitalism is a powerful drive
to earn profi ts, invest them, innovate, and thus grow the economy, typically at exponential rates, with the result that the capitalist era has in fact been
characterized by a remarkable exponential expansion of the world economy. The capitalist operating system, whatever its shortcomings, is very good at
generating growth. These features of capitalism, as they are constituted today, work together to produce an economic and political reality that is highly
commitment to economic growth at almost any cost;

enormous investment in technologies designed with little regard for the environment ;
powerful corporate interests whose overriding objective is to grow by generating profit, including
profi t from avoiding the environmental costs they create; markets that systematically fail to recognize environmental
costs unless corrected by government; government that is subservient to corporate interests and the growth
imperative; rampant consumerism spurred by a worshipping of novelty and by sophisticated advertising; economic activity so large in scale
that its impacts alters the fundamental biophysical operations of the planet all combine to deliver
an ever-growing world economy that is undermining the planets ability to sustain life . The fundamental
destructive of the environment. An unquestioning society-wide
question thus becomes one of transforming capitalism as we know it: Can it be done? If so, how? And if not, what then? It is to these questions that this
book is addressed. The larger part of the book proposes a variety of prescriptions to take economy and environment off collision course. Many of these
prescriptions range beyond the traditional environmental agenda. In Part I of the book, Chapters 13, I lay the foundation by elaborating the fundamental
economic
activity that occurred in the twentieth century and continues today is the predominant (but not sole) cause of the
environmental decline that has occurred to date. Yet the world economy, now increasingly integrated and globalized, is poised for
challenge just described. Among the key conclusions, summarized here with some oversimplifi cation, are: The vast expansion of
unprecedented growth. The engine of this growth is modern capitalism or, better, a variety of capitalisms. A mutually reinforcing set of forces associated
capitalism
yield economic activity inimical to
sustainability
with todays
combines to
environmental
. This
result is partly the consequence of an ongoing political defaulta failed politicsthat not only perpetuates widespread market failureall the nonmarket
environmental costs that no one is payingbut exacerbates this market failure with deep and environmentally perverse subsidies. The result is that
our
economy is operating on wildly wrong market signals, lacks other correcting

mechanisms, and is thus out of control environmentally. The upshot is that societies now face
environmental threats of unprecedented scope and severity, with the possibility of
various catastrophes, breakdowns, and collapses looming as distinct possibilities, especially as environmental issues link with social inequities and
tensions, resource scarcity, and other issues. 9 Todays mainstream environmentalismaptly characterized as incremental and pragmatic
problem solvinghas proven insufficient to deal with current challenges and is not up to coping
with the larger challenges ahead. Yet the approaches of modern-day environmentalism, despite their limitations, remain essential: right now,
they are the tools at hand with which to address many very pressing problems. The momentum of the current systemfi fty-fi ve trillion
dollars in output in 2004, growing fast, and headed toward environmental disaster is so great that only powerful forces
will alter the trajectory. Potent measures are needed that address the root causes of
todays destructive growth and transform economic activity into something environmentally benign and restorative. In
market
short, my conclusion, after much searching and considerable reluctance, is that most environmental deterioration is a result of systemic failures of the
capitalism that we have today and that long-term solutions must seek transformative change in the key features of this contemporary capitalism. In Part II,
I address these basic features of modern capitalism, in each case seeking to identify the transformative changes needed.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Growth hurts biodiversitynegatively affects human lives

NEMANA 12 Graduate Student of Economics at New York University Online
Projects Assistant at Development Research Institute Fact Checking Intern at the
New York Times Syndicate at The New York Times (VIVEKANANDA, New York Times,
India Pledges Millions for Global Biodiversity, OCTOBER 16, 2012,
http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/india-pledges-millions-for-globalbiodiversity/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 //SRSL)
While scientists and environmentalists welcomed the Indian governments international commitment Tuesday,
rapid growth especially in

areas like farming, mining and urbanization at the expense of the
environment . India is considered to be one of the worlds 17 megadiverse countries, and is home to
45,000 types of plants and 90,000 types of animals, according to United Nations estimates. But as a
growing economy and fast-rising population increase demands for
many say the government pursues policies at home that emphasize
the Earths resources, rapid expansion in commercial agriculture

and urban development have threatened many of those species. All
over the country you find that, in the name of economic growth ,
ecosystems are being diverted for destructive projects like mining
and nuclear power plants, said Ashish Kothari, founder of the environmental group
Kalpavriksh. Belinda Wright, director of the Wildlife Protection Society of India, said that while India once took the
lead in conservation efforts, the government is no longer serious about protecting the countrys wildlife. The
forest and wildlife habitats of India are biodiversity hotspots that have to be protected under any circumstances,
said Ms. Wright. And for that, we need leadership to show a very strong policy view on protecting biodiversity,
forest land and wildlife. But they just say were spending millions without pushing the policy that reflects that
commitment. Activists acknowledge that the government has passed some strong legislation to protect the
environment but say it often fails in implementation. For instance, in his speech Mr. Singh heralded the Forest
Rights Act, which gives property and resource rights to the mainly tribal communities that live in forests, as an
example of new models of inclusive conservation.
Mr. Kothari said the act went far to

preserve forests and the rights of forest dwellers but was often not
enforced in forests with mining interests. Legislation that is supposed to save forest
peoples rights is not being implemented, and on the other hand massive land-grabbing is taking
place in the name of development, Mr. Kothari said. Government officials argue that India
is balancing the need for development with the need to protect its environment. We really have an excellent
record, you know, considering the population and biodiversity we support on our relatively small piece of land, said
M.F. Farooqui, the Ministry of Environment and Forests official overseeing the United Nations biodiversity
convention. We are striking the right balance between the imperative for growth and development and at the
same time the need for sustainability and biodiversity. During his speech, the prime minister said that
conservation efforts were especially necessary for the poor, who disproportionately depend on the ecosystem for
correlation between biodiversity

conservation and poverty eradication, Mr. Singh said. Our efforts have focused on
their livelihoods. Indias initiatives acknowledge the
biodiversity conservation while protecting and promoting livelihoods, particularly in our rural areas. Madhusudan
Katti, an ecologist at California State University who co-authored a report titled Cities and Biodiversity Outlook,
which was released at the convention, said that half of Indias population is expected to live in cities by 2045, but
urban
development pays attentions to ecological needs, then you could
incorporate elements that allow for the movement of animals and so
on, he said. A lot of Indian wildlife has actually evolved to life around the edges of human inhabitations. But I
that the cities need to be better planned to co-exist with a wide range of species. If
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
dont see the government or ecologists giving much attention to these big changes that are happening in terms
recognize how
environmental damage from growth hurts human lives and are
working to fix it. For instance, Bangalore is currently spending 1.4 billion rupees (about $30 million) per
year to revive its polluted lakes, many of which are too toxic to support aquatic life. Bangalore is a
very unique city because there is no running water around , said Brijesh
Kumar, who heads the project. So Bangalore is very critically dependent on
lakes for drinking water and ecosystem services. Mr. Singh also said that the
of urbanization and climate change. Government officials say they
Indian government created a 34 million-page database of traditional medicinal and agricultural techniques, in order
to fight patents issued on traditional knowledge like Ayurveda a major concern at the convention and that it
would increase efforts to save endangered species like snow leopards and lions. The rest of the convention on
biological diversity, which ends on Friday, will focus on how many other countries agree to the Nagoya protocol and
provide resources to meet the Aichi targets. Diversity
is natures insurance against

extreme events that may disturb the delicate balance of this
planet, said Mr. Singh. We need to work together and act before a catastrophe is upon us.
Err neg statistics prove humans are wrecking the

environment
The remarkable charts that introduce this book reveal the story of humanitys impact on the natural earth.1 The
pattern is clear: if we could speed up time, it would seem as if
the global economy is crashing
against the earththe Great Collision. And like the crash of an asteroid, the damage is enormous. For all the
material blessings economic progress has provided, for all the disease and destitution avoided, for all the glories
the costs to the natural world, the costs to the glories of nature,
have been huge and must be counted in the balance as tragic loss. Half the worlds tropical and
temperate forests are now gone.2 The rate of deforestation in the tropics continues at about an
acre a second.3 About half the wetlands and a third of the mangroves are gone.4 An estimated 90
percent of the large predator fi sh are gone, and 75 percent of marine fisheries are now overfished or
that shine in the best of our civilization,
fi shed to capacity.5 Twenty percent of the corals are gone, and another 20 percent severely threatened. 6
Species are disappearing at rates about a thousand times faster than normal.7 The
planet has not seen such a spasm of extinction in sixty-five million years , since the
dinosaurs disappeared.8 Over half the agricultural land in drier regions suffers from some degree of
deterioration and desertification.9 Persistent toxic chemicals can now be found by the dozens in essentially
each and every one of us.10 Human impacts are now large relative to natural systems. The
earths stratospheric ozone layer was severely depleted before the change was discovered.
Human activities have pushed atmospheric carbon dioxide up by more than a third and have
started in earnest the dangerous process of warming the planet and disrupting climate. Everywhere earths
ice fi elds are melting.11 Industrial processes are fixing nitrogen , making it biologically active, at a
rate equal to natures; one result is the development of more than two hundred dead zones in
the oceans due to overfertilization.12 Human actions already consume or destroy each year about 40
percent of natures photosynthetic output, leaving too little for other species.13 Freshwater withdrawals
doubled globally between 1960 and 2000, and are now over half of accessible runoff .14 The
following rivers no longer reach the oceans in the dry season: the Colorado, Yellow, Ganges, and Nile, among
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
others.15 Societies are now traveling together in the midst of this unfolding
path that links two worlds. Behind is the world we have lost, ahead the world we are making.
calamity
down a
Feedbacks escalatingshift from growth key

global-scale environmental problems, as well as acid deposition and ozone layer depletion,
do not exist in isolationthey are constantly interacting with one another, typically worsening
the situation. The loss of forests, for example, contributes to biodiversity loss, climate
change, and desertification. Climate change, acid rain, ozone depletion, and water reductions can
in turn adversely affect world forests. Changing climate will aff ect everything. Among other things, it is
These eight
likely to worsen desertifi cation, lead to both additional fl ooding and increased droughts, reduce freshwater
supplies, adversely aff ect biodiversity and forests, and further degrade aquatic ecosystems. What is one to make of
all this? A number of prominent scientists have taken a hand at describing what all these trends mean. In 1998,
ecologist Jane Lubchenco, in her address as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
drew the following conclusions: The conclusions . . . are inescapable: during the last few decades, humans have
emerged as a new force of nature. We are modifying physical, chemical, and biological systems in new ways, at
Humans have unwittingly

embarked upon a grand experiment with our planet. The outcome of this experiment is unknown,
but has profound implications for all of life on Earth. 72 In 1994, fi fteen hundred of the worlds top
faster rates, and over larger spatial scales than ever recorded on earth.
scientists, including a majority of living Nobel Prizewinners, issued a plea for more attention to environmental
problems: The earth is fi nite, they stated. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effl uents is fi nite. Its
ability to provide food and energy is fi nite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is fi nite. Moreover,
we are fast approaching
the earths limits. Current economic practices that damage

cannot be continued with the risk
that vital global systems will be damaged beyond repair. 73 Millennium Ecosystem
many of
the environment, in both developed and underdeveloped nations,
Assessment was a massive four-year eff ort involving 1,360 scientists and other experts worldwide to assess
conditions and trends regarding the worlds ecosystems. At the conclusion of this unprecedented eff ort in 2005, the
board governing the assessment issued the following statement: Nearly
provided by nature to humankind are
two thirds of the services
in decline worldwide. In eff ect, the benefi ts reaped

it
living on borrowed time. By using up supplies of fresh groundwater faster than
found to be
from our engineering of the planet have been achieved by running down natural capital assets. In many cases ,
is literally
a matter of
they can be recharged, for example, we are depleting assets at the expense of our children. . . . Unless we
acknowledge the debt and prevent it from growing, we place in jeopardy the dreams of citizens everywhere to rid
the world of hunger, extreme poverty, and avoidable diseaseas well as increasing the risk of sudden changes to
the planets life-support systems from which even the wealthiest may not be shielded. We also move into a world
in which the variety of life becomes ever-more limited. The simpler, more uniform landscapes created by human
activity have put thousands of species under threat of extinction, aff ecting both the resilience of natural service
the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved its

Doomsday Clock closer to midnight, citing environmental threats .75 The Doomsday Clock
reminds us that todays alarming environmental trends have consequences far beyond the
environment. They can also contribute to conflicts over human access to water, food,
land, and energy; ecological refugees and humanitarian emergencies; failed states;
and armed movements spurred by declining circumstances . They are profound aff ronts to
and less tangible spiritual or cultural values.74 In 2007,
fundamental fairness and justice in the world and discriminate against both those too poor and powerless to hold
their own against these tides and voiceless future generations. And they bring large economic costs. The Stern
Review estimated that the total cost of a business-as-usual approach to climate change could be around a 20%
reduction in current per capita consumption, now and forever. And thats just from climate change.76 An
interesting and important question is whether measures can be devised to sum up the various human impacts on
the planets environment. The most sustained eff orts in this regard have been made by the Global Footprint
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Network, which has developed the Ecological Footprint for each nation. It seeks to measure a countrys demand on
the biosphere in terms of the area of biologically productive land and sea required to provide the resources
consumed in each country and absorb the wastes generated. The footprint of a country includes all the cropland,
grazing land, forest, and fi shing grounds required to produce the food, fi ber, and timber it consumes, to absorb the
wastes emitted in generating the energy it uses, and to provide space for its infrastructure. Since the late 1980s,
the Global Ecological Footprint has exceeded the earths biocapacity, as of 2003 by about 25 percenta measure of
the degree we are not living off natures interest but instead are drawing down its capital. For how long will this be
possible? they ask. A moderate business-as-usual scenario, based on United Nations projections showing slow,
growth of economies and populations, suggests that by mid-century, humanitys

demand on nature will be twice the biospheres productive capacity . At this level of
steady
ecological defi cit, exhaustion of ecological assets and large-scale ecosystem collapse become increasingly
likely.77
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
AT: EKC
EKC doesnt apply to biodiversity loss their evidence only
looks at individual species our evidence takes into account
overall biodiversity
Majumder 6Professors at the University of New Mexico Robert Berrens, and Alok Bohara [Pallab, Is There
an Environmental Kuznets Curve for the Risk of Biodiversity Loss?, The Journal of Developing Areas, Volume 39,
Number 2, Spring 2006, pp. 175-190, muse]
The empirical robustness of the inverted U-shape relationship remains a debatable issue (Dasgupta et al. 2002;
inverted U-shape relationship

applies only to a subset of environmental measures. Such arguments require investigating the
Grossman and Krueger, 1996). Stern (1998) argues that the evidence for the
EKC relationship for as broad an array of possible types of pollutants. Whether the EKC relationship holds for
studies
(McPherson and Nieswiadomy 2000; Dietz and Adger 2001; and Naidoo and Adamowicz 2001) investigating
the EKC relationship for biodiversity, they are subject to various limitations. Specifically, all the
prior EKC studies for biodiversity looked into the diversity of a particular species or a number
of species rather than a broader measure or index of overall biodiversity. In addition, these
studies do not account for variations in ecosystems that directly affect species diversity. We
investigate the EKC hypothesis for the overall risk of biodiversity loss by using the multivariate
biodiversity loss or the risk of biodiversity loss, remains an open issue. While there are several recent
National Biodiversity Risk Assessment Index (NABRAI; Ryers et al. 1998, 1999) and several variants, which include
genetic, species, and ecosystem diversity.1 Analyzing cross-country data, our findings suggest that
there is no
EKC
relationship for the risk of biodiversity loss. The EKC relationship has generated extensive debate and
empirical investigation. Various empirical EKC studies have employed different methods, and evaluated different
environmental indicators resulting in a broad spectrum of findings. Based on a number of empirical findings
supporting the EKC, some analysts (e.g., Beckerman 1992) argue that there exists a general inverted U-shape
relationship between economic growth and the environment. They tend to draw the broad policy conclusion that
economic growth in a society will somehow automatically take care of most environmental problems. On the
contrary, others argue that there is no blanket inverted U-shape relationship between income and overall
even if the
EKC relationship holds over some historical range, it may not hold in the future due to
ecological thresholds and carrying capacities (e.g. Arrow et al. 1995). Since the EKC results are
environmental quality (e.g., Stern 1998; Stern and Common 2001; Harbaugh et al. 2002).2 Further,
usually estimated from a reduced form equation, a variety of conflicting theoretical explanations may be consistent
with the EKC. Suggested reasons for observed EKC results are: shiftable externalities (Arrow et al. 1995), industry
composition (Grossman and Krueger 1996), environmental regulation [End Page 176] (Grossman and Krueger
1996), technology (Grossman and Krueger 1996), net migration (Berrens et al. 1997) and differences in trade policy
regimes (Copeland and Taylor 2003). In a recent meta-analysis synthesizing the results of numerous EKC studies,
Cavlovic et al. (2000) show that EKC relationships and their corresponding income turning points depend on the
scale of analysis and the type of pollutants. The view that the
EKC
relationship
holds only for a subset of
pollutants or disamenities is supported by a number of different perspectives. From the

it is simply easier to live with some pollutants than others, or it is
easier to shift the externality effect for some types of pollutants than others.3 As income
rises, households are more likely to spend to have access to safe drinking water, but not
necessarily to spend for less directly visible measures, such as biodiversity protection, with the
environmental
consumption-side view,
same urgency. On the other hand, production-side EKC theories imply that with higher per capita income, countries
there may be some

environmental damages that cannot be continuously substituted with better production
technology due to ecological thresholds (Dasgupta, 2000) and the unique nature of the
damage (e.g., loss of critical habitat and keystone species). From a broad perspective, biodiversity refers to the
will be able to substitute environmental-friendly production technology. However,
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
variety of life on earth, and includes genetics, species, ecosystems and the ecological processes of which they are a
part (Ecosystem Health 2001). As is common, Turner et al. (1993) divide the notion of biodiversity into three
different categories: (1) genetic diversity, (2) species diversity and (3) ecosystem diversity. The richness and
diversity of genetic information stored in the genes of plants, animal and microorganisms is referred as genetic
diversity. The richness and variety of different species is referred as species diversity, where species variety is most
commonly used to proxy biodiversity. The richness and variety of ecological process is referred to as ecosystem
diversity. Recently, some biologists measure biodiversity as an index that incorporates all three aspects (Ryers et al.
1998). Ryers et al. (1998, 1999) developed the National Biodiversity Risk Assessment Index (NABRAI), which
attempts to account for all three aspects of biodiversity and is potentially more accurate than simpler measures of
biodiversity (i.e., counts of species, or types of species). There are several recent EKC studies for biodiversity that
use these simpler measures. McPherson and Nieswiadomy (2000) examined the EKC relationship for threatened
birds and mammals and found an N-shape relation for threatened birds; the implication is that biodiversity loss
ultimately increases with higher level of income. They found no evidence of an EKC relationship for threatened
mammals. Naidoo and Adamowicz (2001) examined the EKC relationship for birds and mammals as well as for
amphibians, reptiles, fishes, invertebrates and found a general U-shape relationship for amphibians, reptiles, fishes,
and invertebrates. However, they find an inverted U-shape relationship for birds and mammals. Dietz and Adger
(2001) examined the EKC hypothesis using species area-relationship in a number of tropical countries. They found
no EKC relationship between income and biodiversity loss, but did find that conservation effort increases with
income. These studies focused on the diversity of particular species rather [End Page 177] than some overall
proper measure of biodiversity should include

other factors that directly affect species diversity. Land exposed to high disturbance levels, human population
density, other endemic species, genetically invented new species etc. can be the examples of such factors. None
of the earlier studies took these factors into account in exploring EKC relationship for
biodiversity stock or index. More preferably, a
biodiversity. To fill this gap, we investigate the EKC relationship using cross-sectional (country-level) data and the
recently introduced NABRAI, which measures the overall biodiversity risk considering species diversity, genetic
diversity and ecosystem diversity.4
EKC only addresses the capacity to care for the environment,

the founders of the EKC concede that growth doesnt save the
environment, its about what policies happen
Carson 09 Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego. Ph.D., University of California,
Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics (Richard T, The Environmental Kuznets Curve:
Seeking Empirical Regularity and Theoretical Structure, 22 December 2009,
http://reep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/4/1/3)
In the popular press, economic growth per se began to be touted as the answer to
environmental problems (e.g., Bartlett 1994).8 However, this was not quite what Grossman
and Krueger (1991) had said. They were clear about the nature of their assumptions and put in the usual caveats
typical of careful researchers. They were particularly forthcoming about the fact that the
reduced-form nature of their model limited the policy implications of their results. Still
Grossman and Krueger (1996) felt compelled to reiterate these points again in a policy forum piece in
Environment and Development Economics and to emphasize that "there is nothing inevitable about
the relationship between growth and environment that has been observed in the past." Taking on
their most prominent critics, Grossman and Krueger noted: Arrow et al. (1995) conclude, economic liberalization
and other
policies that promote
GNP
growth are not substitutes for environmental
policy. We would agree. But we would go further and state that neither is the suppression of economic growth or
of economic policies conducive to it a suitable substitute for environmental policy.
And theres no motive

Speth 08
law profServed as President Jimmy Carters White House environmental adviser and as head of
the United Nations largest agency for international development Prof at Vermont law school. Former dean of the
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University . Former Professor of Law at Georgetown
University Law Center, teaching environmental and constitutional law. .Former Chairman of the Council on
Environmental Quality in the Executive Office of the President. Co-founder of the Natural Resources Defense
Council. Was law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo L. Black JD, Yale. (James Gustave, The Bridge at the Edge
of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability, Gigapedia, 1-2,)
Each of these indicators measures environmental impact in some way, and each shows that
impacts are
increasing, not declining. It is significant that these growth rates of resource consumption and
pollution are lower than the growth of the world economy. The eco-efficiency of the economy
is improving through dematerialization, the increased productivity of resource inputs, and the reduction of
wastes discharged per unit of output. However, eco-efficiency is not improving fast enough to
prevent impacts from rising. Donella Meadows summed it up nicely: things are getting worse at a
slower rate.14 What the environment cares about, moreover, is not the rate of growth but
the total loading. These loadingsfor example, the amount of fi sh harvestedwere already huge in 1980,
so that even modest growth per decade produces large increases in environmental impacts
impacts that were already too large. By 2004, the world was consuming annually 369 million tons of paper
products, 275 million tons of meat, and 9 trillion tons of fossil fuels (in oil equivalent). Freshwater for human use
was being withdrawn from natural supplies at a rate of about a thousand cubic miles a year. Behind these numbers
is the phenomenon of exponential expansion. A dominant feature of modern economic activity is its exponential
growth. A thing grows linearly when it increases by the same quantity over a given time. If college tuition goes up
three thousand dollars a year, the increase is linear. A thing grows exponentially when it increases in proportion to
The modern
economy tends to grow exponentially because a portion of each years output is invested
to produce even more output. The amount invested is related to the amount of the economic activity.
what is already there. If college tuition goes 52 up 5 percent a year, the increase is exponential.
Food production, resource consumption, and waste generation also increase because they are linked to population
and output growth. Or so it has been thus far. But what of the future?
The
world
economy
is poised for
could double in size in a mere fi fteen to twenty years. So the

potential is certainly present for large and perhaps catastrophic increases in environmental
impacts in a period when they should be decreasing rapidly. There are many good reasons for concern that
future growth could easily continue its environmentally destructive ways. First, economic
activity and its enormous forward momentum can be accurately characterized as out of
control environmentally, and this is true in even the advanced industrial economies that have
modern environmental programs in place. Basically, the economic system does not work when it comes
explosive exponential economic growth. It
to protecting environmental resources, and the political system does not work when it comes to correcting the
economic system. Economist Wallace Oates has provided a clear description of market failure, one reason the
market does not work for the environment: Markets generate and make use of a set of prices that serve as signals
to indicate the value (or cost) of resources to potential users. Any activity that imposes a cost on society by using
up some of its scarce resources must come with a price, where that price equals the social cost. For most goods and
services (private goods as economists call them), the market forces of supply and demand generate a market
price that directs the use of resources into their most highly valued employment. There are, however,
circumstances where a market price may not emerge to guide individual decisions. This is often the case for various
the
absence of an appropriate price 53 for certain scarce resources (such as clean air and water) leads to
their excessive use and results in what is called market failure. The source of this failure is what economists
term an externality. A good example is the classic case of the producer whose factory spreads smoke over an
adjacent neighborhood. The producer imposes a real cost in the form of dirty air, but this cost is external to
the firm. The producer does not bear the cost of the pollution it creates as it does for the labor,
forms of environmentally damaging activities. . . . The basic idea is straightforward and compelling:
capital, and raw materials that it employs. The price of labor and such materials induces the fi rm to economize on
there is no such incentive to control smoke emissions and thereby conserve clean
whenever a scarce resource comes free of charge (as is typically the
case with our limited stocks of clean air and water), it is virtually certain to be used to excess. Many of
their use, but
air. The point is simply that
our environmental resources are unprotected by the appropriate prices that would constrain their use. From this
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
perspective, it is hardly surprising to fi nd that the environment is overused and abused. A market system simply
doesnt allocate the use of these resources properly.15 Political failure perpetuates, indeed magnifi es, this market
failure. Government policies could be implemented to correct market failure and make the market work for the
environment rather than against it. But powerful economic and political interests typically stand to gain by not
making those corrections, so they are not made or the correction is only partial. Water could be conserved and used
more effi ciently if it were sold at its full cost, including the estimated cost of the environmental damage of
overusing it, but both politicians and farmers have a stake in keeping water prices low. Polluters could be made to
pay the full costs of their actions, in terms of both damages and cleanup, but typically they do not. Natural
ecosystems give societies economic services of tremendous value. A developers actions can reduce these services
Governments not only tend to shy

away from correcting market 54 failure but exacerbate the problem by creating subsidies and other
to society, but rarely does the developer pay fully for those lost services.
practices that make a bad situation worse. In Perverse Subsidies, Norman Myers and Jennifer Kent estimate that
governments worldwide have established environmentally damaging subsidies that amount to about $850 billion
annually. They conclude that the impact of these subsidies on the environment is widespread and profound. They
note: Subsidies for agriculture can foster overloading of croplands, leading to erosion and compaction of topsoil,
pollution from synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, denitrifi cation of soils, and release of greenhouse gases, among
other adverse eff ects. Subsidies for fossil fuels aggravate pollution eff ects such as acid rain, urban smog, and
global warming, while subsidies for nuclear energy generate exceptionally toxic waste with an exceptionally long
half-life. Subsidies for road transportation lead to overloading of road networks, a problem that is aggravated as
much as relieved by the building of new roads when further subsidies promote overuse of cars; the sector also
generates severe pollution of several sorts. Subsidies for water encourage misuse and overuse of water supplies
that are increasingly scarce. Subsidies for fi sheries foster overharvesting of already depleted fi sh stocks. Subsidies
for forestry encourage overexploitation at a time when many forests have been reduced by excessive logging, acid
prices are a principal signal

for guiding economic activity. When prices refl ect environmental values as poorly as todays prices do, the
system is running without essential controls. And there are other problems too, discussed shortly.
rain, and agricultural encroachment.16 We live in a market economy where
Todays market is a strange place indeed. At the core of the economy is a mechanism that does not recognize the
most fundamental thing of all, the living, evolving, sustaining natural world in which the economy is operating.
the market lacks the sensory organs that

to this natural world. Its flying blind.
Unaided,
would
allow it to understand and adjust
Kuznets curves are wronggrowth cant be made

environmental
Antal and Van Den Bergh 13 [Mikls Antal is a Researcher at Autonomous University of
Barcelona, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technologies **SpainInstitute for Environmental
Science and Technology and at the Department of Economics and Economic History at the Universitat
Autnoma in Barcelona and a member of the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, and
Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam March 2013, Macroeconomics, financial
crisis and the environment: Strategies for a sustainability transition Environmental Innovation and
Societal Transitions Volume 6 Science Direct] JAKE LEE
According to mainstream macroeconomics (e.g., Mankiw, 2004 and Krugman, 2012), the solution to environmental
problems is the decoupling of environmental pressures from aggregate income (or economic growth), that is, the
assuming growth
as a binding condition leaves no other option. In this view, there is no
conflict between indefinite labor productivity2 growth and resulting income growth on the one hand
and full employment and decreasing total environmental pressure on the other. The first
question posed in this article is whether such a strategy of decoupling is feasible or not. Due to the
magnitude of contemporary environmental problems, very large
changes are needed to address these issues. Jackson (2009, Chapter 5, notably Fig.
strategy of sustainable or green growth. This perspective is often kept implicit, but
17) shows this for climate change: under a range of income and population scenarios and a policy target of 450
ppm for atmospheric CO2 in 2050, carbon intensity the average amount of carbon emitted to produce a unit of
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
economic output has to be reduced by 9599.2% between 2007 and 2050. The lower-end value of 95% is
calculated with 1.4% economic growth, which is relatively low compared to historical average growth rates. In view
the feasibility of such

dramatic reductions over the course of 35 decades through efficiency
improvements and structural change while preserving growth (i.e.,
decoupling) is highly uncertain. In fact, there is no historical evidence of
anything that comes close to achieving this aim. Environmental
Kuznets curve research (Stern, 2004), which is often referred to as providing a reason for optimism,
has only found decoupling for mainly local and less important
environmental problems, while it disregards relocation of dirty activities and associated changes in
of historical trends of average energy efficiency improvements in most countries,
trade patterns as well as the shifting of environmental problems from one domain to another (Peters et al., 2011).
looking merely at history may easily lead one to

underestimate the potential of decoupling as a means of reducing
environmental pressures, because so far we have not seen any
widespread implementation of stringent, effective environmental
policies. In other words, historical decoupling was largely autonomous rather than induced by policy.
Scaling up efforts to increase environmental efficiency is absolutely
critical for sustainability transitions. Nevertheless, there are a
number of reasons to be skeptical about decoupling opportunities, as
indicated in Table 1. Given the considerations in the table, it is unlikely that we will achieve
sufficient efficiency gains to tackle the major environmental
problems and compensate the rise of material throughput that
accompanies economic growth. Recent trends of relevant indicators are alarming. For example,
On the other hand,
after improving by approximately 25% between 1980 and 2000, global energy intensity has stagnated between
global
economic growth and rising energy intensity have both contributed
to increased absolute energy use in 2010 and 2011. In view of the formidable
2000 and 2010 (Yoder, 2011) and in the last two years it has deteriorated (WEO, 2012). So
environmental challenges and the concerns expressed in Table 1, decoupling as a main or single strategy can be
judged as taking an irresponsibly large risk with our common future. Even a minimal consideration of the
precautionary principle requires being open to strict environmental policies that may slow down growth or even
result in reductions of GDP. Therefore, strategies are needed to make periods of low or negative growth socially and
politically acceptable
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
AT: Efficiency
Theres no incentive to solve and its not fast enough
Each of these indicators measures environmental impact in some way, and each shows that
impacts are
increasing, not declining. It is significant that these growth rates of resource consumption and
pollution are lower than the growth of the world economy. The eco-efficiency of the economy
is improving through dematerialization, the increased productivity of resource inputs, and the reduction of
wastes discharged per unit of output. However, eco-efficiency is not improving fast enough to
prevent impacts from rising. Donella Meadows summed it up nicely: things are getting worse at a
slower rate.14 What the environment cares about, moreover, is not the rate of growth but
the total loading. These loadingsfor example, the amount of fi sh harvestedwere already huge in 1980,
so that even modest growth per decade produces large increases in environmental impacts
impacts that were already too large. By 2004, the world was consuming annually 369 million tons of paper
products, 275 million tons of meat, and 9 trillion tons of fossil fuels (in oil equivalent). Freshwater for human use
was being withdrawn from natural supplies at a rate of about a thousand cubic miles a year. Behind these numbers
is the phenomenon of exponential expansion. A dominant feature of modern economic activity is its exponential
growth. A thing grows linearly when it increases by the same quantity over a given time. If college tuition goes up
three thousand dollars a year, the increase is linear. A thing grows exponentially when it increases in proportion to
The modern
economy tends to grow exponentially because a portion of each years output is invested
to produce even more output. The amount invested is related to the amount of the economic activity.
what is already there. If college tuition goes 52 up 5 percent a year, the increase is exponential.
Food production, resource consumption, and waste generation also increase because they are linked to population
and output growth. Or so it has been thus far. But what of the future?
The
world
economy
is poised for
could double in size in a mere fi fteen to twenty years. So the

potential is certainly present for large and perhaps catastrophic increases in environmental
impacts in a period when they should be decreasing rapidly. There are many good reasons for concern that
future growth could easily continue its environmentally destructive ways. First, economic
activity and its enormous forward momentum can be accurately characterized as out of
control environmentally, and this is true in even the advanced industrial economies that have
modern environmental programs in place. Basically, the economic system does not work when it comes
explosive exponential economic growth. It
to protecting environmental resources, and the political system does not work when it comes to correcting the
economic system. Economist Wallace Oates has provided a clear description of market failure, one reason the
market does not work for the environment: Markets generate and make use of a set of prices that serve as signals
to indicate the value (or cost) of resources to potential users. Any activity that imposes a cost on society by using
up some of its scarce resources must come with a price, where that price equals the social cost. For most goods and
services (private goods as economists call them), the market forces of supply and demand generate a market
price that directs the use of resources into their most highly valued employment. There are, however,
circumstances where a market price may not emerge to guide individual decisions. This is often the case for various
forms of environmentally damaging activities. . . . The basic idea is straightforward and compelling:
the
absence of an appropriate price 53 for certain scarce resources (such as clean air and water) leads to
their excessive use and results in what is called market failure. The source of this failure is what economists
term an externality. A good example is the classic case of the producer whose factory spreads smoke over an
adjacent neighborhood. The producer imposes a real cost in the form of dirty air, but this cost is external to
the firm. The producer does not bear the cost of the pollution it creates as it does for the labor,
capital, and raw materials that it employs. The price of labor and such materials induces the fi rm to economize on
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
there is no such incentive to control smoke emissions and thereby conserve clean
air. The point is simply that whenever a scarce resource comes free of charge (as is typically the
case with our limited stocks of clean air and water), it is virtually certain to be used to excess. Many of
their use, but
our environmental resources are unprotected by the appropriate prices that would constrain their use. From this
perspective, it is hardly surprising to fi nd that the environment is overused and abused. A market system simply
doesnt allocate the use of these resources properly.15 Political failure perpetuates, indeed magnifi es, this market
failure. Government policies could be implemented to correct market failure and make the market work for the
environment rather than against it. But powerful economic and political interests typically stand to gain by not
making those corrections, so they are not made or the correction is only partial. Water could be conserved and used
more effi ciently if it were sold at its full cost, including the estimated cost of the environmental damage of
overusing it, but both politicians and farmers have a stake in keeping water prices low. Polluters could be made to
pay the full costs of their actions, in terms of both damages and cleanup, but typically they do not. Natural
ecosystems give societies economic services of tremendous value. A developers actions can reduce these services
Governments not only tend to shy

away from correcting market 54 failure but exacerbate the problem by creating subsidies and other
to society, but rarely does the developer pay fully for those lost services.
practices that make a bad situation worse. In Perverse Subsidies, Norman Myers and Jennifer Kent estimate that
governments worldwide have established environmentally damaging subsidies that amount to about $850 billion
annually. They conclude that the impact of these subsidies on the environment is widespread and profound. They
note: Subsidies for agriculture can foster overloading of croplands, leading to erosion and compaction of topsoil,
pollution from synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, denitrifi cation of soils, and release of greenhouse gases, among
other adverse eff ects. Subsidies for fossil fuels aggravate pollution eff ects such as acid rain, urban smog, and
global warming, while subsidies for nuclear energy generate exceptionally toxic waste with an exceptionally long
half-life. Subsidies for road transportation lead to overloading of road networks, a problem that is aggravated as
much as relieved by the building of new roads when further subsidies promote overuse of cars; the sector also
generates severe pollution of several sorts. Subsidies for water encourage misuse and overuse of water supplies
that are increasingly scarce. Subsidies for fi sheries foster overharvesting of already depleted fi sh stocks. Subsidies
for forestry encourage overexploitation at a time when many forests have been reduced by excessive logging, acid
prices are a principal signal

for guiding economic activity. When prices refl ect environmental values as poorly as todays prices do, the
system is running without essential controls. And there are other problems too, discussed shortly.
rain, and agricultural encroachment.16 We live in a market economy where
Todays market is a strange place indeed. At the core of the economy is a mechanism that does not recognize the
most fundamental thing of all, the living, evolving, sustaining natural world in which the economy is operating.
the market lacks the sensory organs that

this natural world. Its flying blind.
Unaided,
to
would
allow it to understand and adjust
Efficiency cant solve, overall energy consumption will

increase.
Another reason for concern about the growth coming our way is the absence of adequate natural self-correcting
forces within the economy. One area of hope in this regard has been the natural evolution of technology. The
economy of the future will not be identical to that of the past because technology is changing. It is creating
opportunities to reduce materials consumed and wastes produced per unit of output; it is opening up new areas and
new products
that are lighter, smaller, more efficient. Clearly these things are happening. Resource
productivity is increasing. There is a large literature on these trends. The principal fi nding is refl ected in the
conclusion of a 2000 report of fi ve major European and U.S. research centers: Industrial economies are becoming
but waste generation continues to increase. . . . Even as

decoupling between economic growth and resource throughput occurred on a per capita and
per unit GDP basis, overall resource use and waste flows into the environment continued to grow .
more efficient in their use of materials,
We found no evidence of an absolute reduction in resource throughput. One half to three quarters of annual
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
resource inputs to industrial economies are returned to the environment as wastes within a year.19 Tellingly, one
review of a large number of countries found that with the exception of one specifi c case, no absolute decline of
direct material input of industrial economics took place as those economies grew. . . . [ T]he
trend of
material use in industrial countries is relatively steady. It also found that, as economies
grow, pressures on domestic resources are reduced by shifting the burden abroad to
developing economies.20 More resource-intensive goods are imported . Another major review of
studies of dematerialization found that there is no compelling macroeconomic evidence that
the U.S. economy is decoupled from material inputs, and we know even less about the net
environmental eff ects of many changes in materials use. We caution against gross generalizations
about materials use, particularly the gut feeling that technical change , substitution, and a shift
to the information age inexorably lead to decreased materials intensity and reduced environmental
impact.21 Technology expert Arnulf Grubler has noted, At best, dematerialization has led to
a stabilization of absolute material use at high levels. . . . Improved materials and increased
environmental productivity have substantially lessened the environmental impacts of output growth, even if, to
date, output growth has generally outstripped improvements.22
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
AT: Tech solves

Tech doesnt solve
Trainer 12
Dr. Ted Trainer is a Conjoint Lecturer in the School of Social Sciences, University of New South Wales
and a contributing author at the Simplicity Institute. (Ted, Simplicity Institute , BUT CANT TECHNOLOGICAL
ADVANCE SOLVE THE PROBLEMS? , 2012, http://simplicityinstitute.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/04/LimitsOfTechnologyTrainer.pdf //SRSL)
There is therefore a considerable case that global problems cannot be

solved by technical advance, mainly because the drive for affluence and
growth has now created resource and environmental costs that are
far too big. The problems can only be solved by moving to far less affluent ways and quite different social systems which
do not generate them. The Simpler Way argument is that the pursuit of ever
increasing wealth is a serious mistake, thwarting the development
of satisfactory societies. These are more likely to be achieved if people cooperate in running stable local
communities geared to meeting social and spiritual needs, from local resources without any concern to get rich or raise the GDP.
Tech cant solveonly improves efficiency of which materials

are bing used and aff authors are ill-informed
North No Date
engineer and with qualifications in economics and accountancy (Peter, Pacific Ecologist, Can
Economic Growth Save the Environment?, no date, http://pacificecologist.org/archive/growthenvi.html //SRSL)
the environmental and resource situation on

the planet has changed considerably in the past few years, the economics by
which we run the world has barely changed at all. In the 19th century economics
Technology - the elixir of growth While
didn't need to recognise the world as finite, as the impact of the world economy was much smaller. Little regard
the finiteness of the

earth is now a major issue, both in terms of handling waste and
providing resources, the economic model of endless growth is still in
vogue. In fact, the environmental and resource problems faced by the
world are so blindingly obvious even economists have taken note.
However rather than change the growth-based economic system,
economists claim resources and environmental problems can be
managed. As their solution, economists cite technology as the reason the
economy can continue to grow indefinitely despite the restraints of
the physical universe. The word technology has become a mantra
that now regularly makes its appearance in economic articles. Magicians
of past eras would utter "abracadabra" to make things happen ; today's economists and
politicians think invoking the word "technology" will produce the
miracles needed to overcome the shortcomings of their policies.
Technology is the wand of growth economics. Merely by waving this
magic wand, all the annoying impediments of growth are meant to
disappear! The technology explanation comes in three parts: Technology improves the
efficiency with which materials are used. Therefore, the use of
resources will diminish. When we run out of one resource,
was paid to resource limitations and none at all to the environment. Though
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
technology will find us a substitute. Technology will find a solution

to environmental problems. Despite the economic "theory" on the subject, an
enormous amount of evidence shows that historically use of
resources hasn't diminished with economic growth and improved
technology. Consumption of resources is increasing exponentially though at about half the economic growth rate. Technology has
improved the efficiency with which materials are used, but not
sufficiently to curb the ever-increasing demand for resources. In the
short term, the second claim, that substitutes will always be found for depleted resources, is valid in cases where
substitutes are available. Though if we accept that the earth is a closed economic system (some economists don't)
then in the very long term it cannot provide for endless growth either. If growth has no limits - logic requires an
infinite number of substitutes to supplement the supply of exhausted resources. But more importantly, there are
some resources, such as fossil fuels and fresh water, for which substitutes are clearly not available.
Technology is not alchemy. It can't create resources out of nothing.

The non-availability of substitutes for vital resources that are
running out is a major weakness of the claim technology will find
substitutes for resources that become exhausted. The third claim, that
technology will solve the waste disposal problems of the growth economy, is not travelling well. Technology
clearly isn't solving the world's waste problems. Carbon dioxide
build-up, solid waste disposal, and liquid waste disposal, are all
major unsolved issues that growth economists are currently
ignoring. Why don't our leaders act on the evidence? One of the problems with growth
economists, most politicians and most people now running the planet is that, as a group, they are
mostly technologically and scientifically illiterate. Though growth
economists state technology will provide solutions for the growth
economy, few technologists share this view. No wide circle of
scientists and technologists has agreed to discharge their duty of
finding the solution to the problems growth economics is creating . In
fact, scientists such as E.O.Wilson and David Suzuki say growth economists have taken leave of their senses (if they
ever had any in the first place). Scientists in institutions like the CSIRO express similar opinions. Wilson, Suzuki and
the rest, point out that the very scientists and technologists charged with the responsibility for creating the future
The idea technology

will fix the problems we have created is an expression of faith by
the technologically ill-informed in the technologically informed,
who are not normally consulted on the matter. It is easy for the
technologically illiterate to acquire an exaggerated idea of the
power of technology. Technology has been the great success story underpinning industrial society.
technological fix to sustain the future, claim the miracle is unlikely to occur.
Technology has been very successful at the micro level, but at the macro level, its power is more limited. The forces
of nature are still several magnitudes greater than the biggest engineering projects man can muster and this is
unlikely to change. Technology has had little success in producing rainfall, controlling volcanoes, preventing
hurricanes, taming tornadoes and abating global warming. Scientists concerned about the effect on the natural
world of the inexorable march of economic activity have rung alarm bells many times, pointing out the world's most
intractable large technology problems are looking distinctly unfixable. Carbon dioxide "sequestering" by storing the
gas in disused holes in the ground like exhausted oil wells and coalmines has in recent times become a buzz phrase
amongst economists, but no technology has emerged to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in an
economic manner. Storage of solid wastes has not been solved; neither has the storage of radioactive waste, liquid
or solid. Fresh water is in short supply everywhere. Deserts are expanding. The climate is changing. These are big
problems that economists, who are for the most part technologically and biologically illiterate, blithely assure us
technology will fix. Prominent Australian Labor Party federal MP Lindsay Tanner, technically unqualified, as are
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
almost all Australian politicians, believes in the technology wand. Mr Tanner authored a book, "Open Australia," to
explain his vision for the future to promote an expanding role for Australia on the global stage. Mr Tanner dismisses
environmental objections to endless growth in a single paragraph, part of which reads: "The one credible argument
against a larger population is the restraints imposed by our geography. Yet even this argument rests on the
fallacious assumptions that we can continue our reckless use of arable land and water resources, and that other
countries have more of these resources per head of population, and that technology will not change." Based on his
confidence in a technology he doesn't define, and probably does not understand, Mr Tanner recommends Australia
grows its economy, increases its population thereby exacerbating the ecological problems the country is currently
not solving. The alternative view (entirely consistent with proven principles of good maintenance) is this. Before
implementing policies, such as increasing the population that will exacerbate the environmental problem, surely we
should first fix the problems populations cause. As pioneer ecologist, Dr David Suzuki, once remarked: "If you don't
know how to fix something, don't keep breaking it." Throwing in the Towel The growth economy can exist for
years on the assumption that problems it is creating can later be fixed. But every now and again, something
emerges showing the assumption is erroneous, that the problems cannot be fixed. By this time of course it's too
late to solve the problems the policies have caused. For example, the problem of dryland salinity in Australia has
been known about for at least a century. Yet the country has done very little to prevent it, in the belief the problem
could one day be reversed. On 6 October 2001, a symposium, organised by the Australian Agricultural Resource
Economics Society was held in Melbourne to discuss salinity. At the conference of distinguished economists, David
Parnell, Professor of Agricultural and Research Economics of the University of Western Australia, broached the
delicate subject of giving up on dryland salinity. Professor Parnell said: ". . .as painful as it sounds, we might have to
The salinity
problem illustrates the weakness of assuming technological fixes
will come along in the future to fix the problems now being created.
Global warming is in a similar category to salinity. For over ten years,
sacrifice parts of the Australian landscape. The battle against salt is, frankly, too expensive.
conservationists lobbied for sensible economic and ecological policies without success. At the 2002 round of climate
talks held in New Dehli in October 2002, the first signs emerged that conservationists were throwing in the towel on
this issue. The industrial lobby groups were too strong. The growth economists had the ear of government particularly the US government. It was considered all too hard to reverse, stop or even slow down the consumer
economy. The emphasis of the New Dehli conference shifted from curbing carbon dioxide emissions to putting up
with the consequences.
problem.
No magic wand technologies had emerged to fix the
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
1NC Ocean Biodiversity

Economic development has pushed marine ecosystems to the
brink of collapse
Clausen and Clark 8 (Rebecca Clausen has her PhD in Sociology from the University of
Oregon and is Assistant Professor of Sociology and Environmental Studies at Fort Lewis
College, Brett Clark is an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Utah. From
2008-2012, he was an assistant professor at North Carolina State University, The Oceanic
Crisis: Capitalism and the Degradation of Marine Ecosystem,
http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-oceanic-crisis-capitalism-and-the-degradation-of-marineecosystem, 2008)dt
The world ocean covers approximately 70 percent of the earth. It has been an integral part of human history, providing food and ecological services. Yet
conservation efforts and concerns with environmental degradation have mostly focused on terrestrial issues. Marine scientists and oceanographers have
recently made remarkable discoveries in regard to the intricacies of marine food webs and the richness of oceanic biodiversity. However, the excitement
over these discoveries is dampened due to an awareness of the rapidly accelerating threat to the biological integrity of marine ecosystems.1 At the start
marine scientists focused on the rapid depletion of

marine fish, revealing that 75 percent of major fisheries are fully
exploited, overexploited, or depleted. It is estimated that the global ocean has
lost more than 90% of large predatory fishes. The depletion of ocean fish stock due to
overfishing has disrupted metabolic relations within the oceanic ecosystem at multiple trophic and spatial scales.2 Despite warnings
of impending collapse of fish stock, the oceanic crisis has only
worsened. The severity is made evident in a recent effort to map the scale of human impact on the world ocean. A team of scientists
of the twenty-first century
analyzed seventeen types of anthropogenic drivers of ecological change (e.g., organic pollution from agricultural runoff, overfishing, carbon dioxide
No area of the world ocean is

unaffected by human influence, and over 40 percent of marine ecosystems are heavily affected by multiple
factors. Polar seas are on the verge of significant change. Coral reefs and continental shelves have
suffered severe deterioration. Additionally, the world ocean is a
crucial factor in the carbon cycle, absorbing approximately a third
to a half of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. The
increase in the portion of carbon dioxide has led to an increase in
ocean temperature and a slow drop in the pH of surface waters
making them more acidicdisrupting shell-forming plankton and
reef-building species. Furthermore, invasive species have negatively
affected 84 percent of the worlds coastal watersdecreasing
biodiversity and further undermining already stressed fisheries. 3
Scientific analysis of oceanic systems presents a sobering picture of
the coevolution of human society and the marine environment
during the capitalist industrial era. The particular environmental
problems related to the ocean cannot be viewed as isolated issues
or aberrations of human ingenuity, only to be corrected through
further technological development. Rather these ecological
conditions must be understood as they relate to the systematic
expansion of capital and the exploitation of nature for profit. Capital
has a particular social metabolic orderthe material interchange
between society and naturethat subsumes the world to the logic
of accumulation. It is a system of self-expanding value, which must
emissions, etc.) for marine ecosystems. The findings are clear:
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
reproduce itself on an ever-larger scale.4 Here we examine the

social metabolic order of capital and its relationship with the oceans
to (a) examine the anthropogenic causes of fish stock depletion, (b)
detail the ecological consequences of ongoing capitalist production
in relation to the ocean environment, and (c) highlight the
ecological contradictions of capitalist aquaculture.5 Marine Metabolism: Biological
Richness, Energy Cycles, and Trophic Levels Ecologists now appreciate the complexity of biological relationships at multiple scales, including primary
productivity, carbon sequestration, and intricate food webs. New light is being shed on oceanic ecosystems offering an emerging picture of the seas
metabolism. In particular, research reveals great complexity and a resultant integrity among trophic level interactions (food webs) between microscopic
organisms, plankton, and larger predators. Ivan Valiela, a marine biologist, states: No topic within marine ecology and biological oceanography has
changed morethan our notions about components and structure of planktonic food webs. Knowledge about marine water column food webs has been
considerably enlarged, and made much more complex, by recent findings about the existence and role of smaller organisms, release and reuse of
dissolved organic matter, and reassessment of the function of certain larger organisms.6 The metabolic interactions expressed among trophic levels are
proving to be the underlying source of great biological wealth and ocean resiliency. According to marine scientists, the genetic, species, habitat, and
ecosystem diversity of the oceans is believed to exceed that of any other Earth system. For example, ocean environments contain seventeen different
taxa of life forms compared to eleven land-based taxa. Oceans account for 99 percent of the volume that is known to sustain lifemost of which is still
unknown. Scientists exploring the oceans middle depths have discovered a host of new species composing productive ecosystems. The deep-sea bottom,
of which little more than 1.5 percent has been explored, has recently been the object of great interest due to its abundant biodiversity. For example, in one
such Atlantic seafloor with an area of approximately twenty-one square meters, scientists sampled and found 90,672 individual organisms representing
798 species, of which 460 were previously unknown. These new discoveries have yielded important insights regarding marine ecosystems. At the same
time, they produce an appreciation of the great uncertainty that still exists for much of the marine environments processes, such as the role of currents,
nutrient cycles, and biomass.7 Recent advances in trophic level understanding have developed in three areas: microbial interactions, multi-tiered trophic
dynamics, and upper trophic level controls. First, the new array of facts offered by studying the base of the food web (diatoms, dinoflagellates, and other
microalgae) has led marine researchers to propose a new view of the planktonic food web that includes a microbial loop. In the microbial loop, organic
matter cycles through microbes before entering the classic food web; this is a more complicated relationship than was previously assumed. Second, it has
been found that oceanic food webs often have five trophic levels or more, as opposed to freshwater systems where three levels are more typical. Valiela
describes this yet-unexplained discovery as a significant qualitative difference between the two environments. Previously, trophic interactions among
freshwater fish were thought to be analogous to pelagic fish and management decisions were based on such comparisons. Exploring the multi-tiered
dynamics of ocean food webs as unique from freshwater systems provides a more complex research question for the scientific community. Uncertainty
colors all speculation of how vulnerable ocean systems are compared to freshwater and land ecologies.8 Finally, researchers have found that species in
the upper trophic positions seem to be closely coupled to food availability. This means that the top predators exist near the carrying capacity of their
environment. This is not the case with most bony fishes in freshwater environments, which usually exist in an environment with an abundant prey
population. The life history characteristics of the upper trophic creatures suggest they are easily susceptible to overexploitation. Little room exists in the
population of top marine predators to absorb losses of food resources. For example, the ability of whales to recover to their earlier abundance after
massive human predation is now dependent on the availability of krill. Although the large-scale hunting of whales has dramatically declined, the massive
exploitation of krill as a protein source and as an animal-feed additive may now jeopardize recovering whale populations dependent on krill as a food
supply.9 There is a significant amount of interaction and dependence of the oceans top predators on lower trophic levels. Trophic level interactions
represent a marine food web based on energy flow and describe one element of the oceans metabolism. Many other relationships besides trophic level
interactions exist between ocean organisms, such as the relation between organisms and their immediate habitat, which can include coral reefs and kelp
forests. Both of these realms, on which species depend, are highly vulnerable to resource exploitation. Capitalism and Marine Fishery Exploitation Humans
have long been connected to the oceans metabolic processes by harvesting marine fish and vegetation. Harvesting methods and processes have varied
depending on the structure of social production. Subsistence fishing is a practice woven throughout human history, beginning with the harvesting of
shellfish along seashores and shallow lakes, and progressing with the development of tools such as stone-tipped fishing spears, fishhooks, lines, and nets.
This was originally based upon fishing for use of the fish. What was caught was used to feed families and communities. Through the process of fishing,
human labor has been intimately linked to ocean processes, gaining an understanding of fish migrations, tides, and ocean currents. The size of a human
population in a particular region influenced the extent of exploitation. But the introduction of commodity markets and private ownership under the
capitalist system of production altered the relationship of fishing labor to the resources of the seas. Specific species had an exchange value. As a result,
certain fish were seen as being more valuable. This led to fishing practices that focused on catching as many of a particular fish, such as cod, as possible.
Non-commercially viable species harvested indiscriminately alongside the target species were discarded as waste. As capitalism developed and spread,
intensive extraction by industrial capture fisheries became the norm. Increased demands were placed on the oceans and overfishing resulted in the severe
depletion of wild fish stocks. In Empty Ocean, Richard Ellis states, Throughout the worlds oceans, food fishes once believed to be immeasurable in
number are now recognized as greatly depleted and in some cases almost extinct. A million vessels now fish the worlds oceans, twice as many as there
were twenty-five years ago. Are there twice as many fish as before? Hardly. How did this situation develop?10 The beginning of capitalist industrialization
marked the most noticeable and significant changes in fisheries practices. Mechanization, automation, and mass production/consumption characterized an
era of increased fixed capital investments. Profit-driven investment in efficient production led to fishing technologies that for the first time made the
exhaustion of deep-sea fish stocks a real possibility. Such transformations can be seen in how groundfishing, the capture of fish that swim in close
proximity to the oceans bottom, changed through the years. Industrialization began to influence the groundfishery around the early 1900s, as
technological developments were employed to further the accumulation of capital. The introduction of steam-powered trawlers from England in 1906
heralded a significant change in how groundfish were caught and rapidly replaced the sail-powered schooner fleets. Prior to steam trawling, groundfish
were caught on schooners with baited lines during long journeys at sea. Due to lack of refrigeration and freezing, most of the cod catch was salted. The
competitive markets organized under capitalist production welcomed the increased efficiency of steam-powered vessels, without a critical assessment of
the consequences of increased harvest levels. More captured fish meant more profit. The switch to trawling was complete by 1920, and the consequences
of the second industrial revolution organized under capitalist forces would soon change the human-nature relationship to the ocean, extending the reach
of capital. The expanded geographic range and speed of fishing fleets allowed for increased productivity of catch as well as increased diversity of captured
species that were deemed valuable on the market. Technological developments and improved transportation routes allowed the fishing industry to grow,
increasing its scale of operations. Cold storage ensured that fish would be fresh, reducing spoilage and loss of capital. In Cod: A Biography of the Fish that
Changed the World, Mark Kurlansky explains, Freezing [cod] also changed the relationship of seafood companies to fishing ports. Frozen fish could be
bought anywherewherever the fish was cheapest and most plentiful. With expanding markets, local fleets could not keep up with the needs of the
companies. Advances in the transportation infrastructure allowed people in the Midwest to consume the increased harvests of cod and haddock, leading
to a significant expansion in the market. Major marketing campaigns promoted the consumption of fish to increase sales. Together these factors enhanced
the accumulation of capital within the fishing industry, and companies invested some of this capital back into their fleets.11 By 1930 there were clear
signals that the groundfishing fleets ability to capture massive quantities of fish had surpassed natural limits in fisheries. A Harvard University
investigation reported that in 1930 the groundfishery landed 37 million haddock at Boston, with another 7090 million juvenile haddock discarded dead at
sea. The sudden rise in fisheries harvest (creating a subsequent rise in consumer demand through marketing campaigns) resulted in stress in the
Competitive markets create incentives to

expand production, regardless of resource decline. Thus, in reaction to decreased stocks
groundfish populations, and landings plummeted.
due to overfishing, groundfishing fleets moved farther offshore into waters off of the coast of Canada to increase the supply of valuable fish to new
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
markets. The fleets ability to continue moving into unexploited waters obscured recognition of the severe resource depletion that was occurring. As a
result, the process of overfishing particular ecosystems to supply a specific good for the market expanded, subjecting more of the ocean to the same
system of degradation.12 The distant water fleets were made possible by the advent of factory trawlers. Factory trawlers represent the pinnacle of capital
investment and extractive intensification in the global fisheries. In Distant Water William Warner presents a portrayal of a factory trawlers capacity: Try to
imagine a mobile and completely self-contained timber cutting machine that could smash through the roughest trails of the forest, cut down trees, mill
them, and deliver consumer-ready lumber in half the time of normal logging and milling operations. This was exactly what factory trawlers didthis was
exactly their effect on fishin the forests of the deep. It could not long go unnoticed. Factory trawlers pull nylon nets a thousand feet long through the
ocean, potentially capturing 400 tons of fish during a single netting. Industrial trawlers can process and freeze their catch as they travel.13 Such
technological development extended the systematic exploitation

and scale of harvesting of fishes. The natural limits of fish populations combined with capitals need to expand
led to the development of immense trawlers that increased the productive capacity and efficiency of operations. These ships allowed fishermen to seek
out areas in the ocean where valuable fish were available, providing the means to capture massive quantities of fish in a single trip. Overcoming the
shortage of fishes in one area was accomplished by even more intensive harvesting with new ships and equipment, such as sonar, in other regions of the
oceans. The pursuit of vast quantities of commercial fishes in different areas of the ocean expanded the depletion of other species, as they were exploited
and discarded as bycatch. The swath of the seas subjected to the dictates of the market increased, whether a fish was sold as a commodity or thrown
overboard as a waste product.14 Competition for market share between companies and capitals investment in advanced technology intensified fishery
exploitation. Competing international companies sought natures diminishing bounty, causing further international conflict in the race for fish. President
Truman responded to these disputes by attempting to expand U.S. corporate interests. He issued two proclamations expanding U.S. authority beyond
territorial waters trying to further territorial enclosure of its adjacent seas out to the limits of the continental shelf. Coastal states around the world
struggled to transform the property rights of the open ocean to benefit their nations. In response to growing conflict, the United Nations convened the First
United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in Geneva in 1958. Eventually, most nations voted to sign the UN Law of the Sea article, irrevocably
transforming international law and constituting a fundamental revision of sometimes age-old institutions.15 (The U.S. Senate, however, has still not
ratified the Law of the Sea Convention.) In the end, the convention established a property regime according to the prescription of an exclusive economic
zone (EEZ). The EEZ put regions of the high seas adjacent to coastal waters entirely within the management purview of the coastal state, up to two
hundred miles from their shore. In this zone, states have exclusive rights to living and non-living resources for extraction and economic pursuits. The
collapse of fisheries due to overexploitation coupled with the expanding seafood market forced companies to look elsewhere for the most traded animal
commodity on the planet. African nationssuch as Senegal, Mauritania, Angola, and Mozambiqueconfronting dire economic conditions sold fishing
access to European and Asian nations and companies. In the case of Mauritania, selling fishing access provided over $140 million a year, which equaled a
fifth of the governments budget. Few countries can resist such bait, given the need for monetary resources. Industrialized trawlers descended into African
waters, combing their seas for the treasured fish commodities. In the past three decades, Africas fish population in the ocean has decreased by 50
The expansion of capitalist fishing

practices continues to decimate fisheries and spread ecological
degradation, as profits and food are funneled back to core nations.
The Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that the world
capture from fisheries increased from approximately 20 million tons
in 1950 to 84.2 million tons in 2005. A dominant narrative explains that human population growth is solely
responsible for this increase in capture; however, recent research demonstrates that social
structural factors such as economic growth are also propelling the
depletion. Since around 1989 the world capture of marine fish has declined by 500,000 tons per year amidst increasing fishing effort. There
percent and thousands of fishermen have become unemployed.16
have been sharp declines in the populations of tuna, cod, and marlins. During the 1960s and 70s, shelf fisheries in the Atlantic started to collapse as a
result of overfishing. Operations moved to the deep sea. Deepwater fishing has seriously affected the populations of deep-sea fish, such as the roundnose
grenadier, onion-eye grenadier, spiny eel, spinytail skate, and blue hake. The populations of these deep-sea fishes have plummeted by over 87 percent in
seventeen years. It is expected that these fishes will be driven to the point of extinctionto the detriment of the ecosystems in which they live. Part of the
vulnerability of these fishes is that they can live to around sixty years of age and do not sexually mature until their late teen years.17 Changes in the
market can transform the demand for particular fish species. In the early 1900s, bluefin tuna was seen as being only suitable for use as pet food. But
given their strength and sizeweighing up to three quarters of a ton and [having] a length of four metersthey were deemed worthy opponents to be
hunted. In the later half of the twentieth century, bluefin tuna became the most desirable food fish in the world with the spread of sushi and sashimi
restaurants. Given the machinations of capitalism, this has also caused them to become the most endangered of all large fish species. The bluefin tuna
population continues to be decimated by overfishing, and the practice of capturing half-grown tuna at sea and placing them in floating pensknown as
tuna rancheswhere they are fed until they are ready for market has only worsened the situation. While this helps control the production process, it
involves catching the fishes before they are old enough to breed and keeping them penned up until they are killed. As a result of this practice and
geographic span of ocean exploitation

has widened as capitalist operations of extraction continue. Even
the Antarctic waters are increasingly under assault as the fishing
industry gears up to plunder the krill population. Since the 1970s the numbers of krill have
declined by 80 percent, largely due to global warming. But fishing operations are adding to the
depletion. These tiny crustaceans eat carbon-rich food near the surface of the water, thereby they help remove the greenhouse gas carbon
overfishing, bluefin tuna are threatened with depletion.18 The
dioxide. They have long been one of the primary sources of food for seals, whales, and penguins. Progressively they have been incorporated into the
insatiable appetite of global capital. Suction harvesting swallows up huge quantities that are processed, frozen, and stored on newly outfitted ships.
From here, the krill are to be used as feed for fish-farms (aquaculture) or transformed into omega-3 oil and other health supplements.19 Fleets of ships
burning fossil fuels to harvest from the open oceans have exacerbated the deterioration of marine ecosystems. The depletion of fish stock increases the
distance that is necessary to travel in order to catch certain species of fish, such as tuna and swordfish. It also expands the regional scope of exploitation,
the number of species captured as bycatch, and the scale of depletion. In 2000, 80 million tons of fish required the burning of 13 billion gallons of fuel and
the release of approximately 134 million tons of carbon dioxide. This means that global fisheries used up to 12.5 times the amount of fuel energy that they
provided as edible-protein energy.20 During the 1970s and 80s fishing ships became more automated, with the trend toward full automation becoming
common. Today, navigational aids, such as geographic positioning systems (GPS), and weather prediction models enhance the ability of fishing fleets to
catch the most amount of fishes in the shortest amount of time, with the least amount of human labor. The synthesis of technical development and
transformed property rights under the competitive framework of global capitalism has resulted in the massive extraction of marine fish and an intensified
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
social metabolism organized for the pursuit of profit. Ecological Degradation of Marine Ecoystems Species-Level Effects The intensified extraction of fish
from already stressed oceanic ecosystemsfueled by capital accumulation and the free appropriation of naturehas resulted in significant consequences
to the metabolic interactions between marine trophic levels. Marine scientists note that the removal of 100 million metric tons (which includes both
capture and aquaculture) of fish from the world ocean will lead to long-term, large-scale disruptions in marine ecology. Of direct concern are species level
effects, in particular the removal of target and non-target marine life. Continued harvest of fish species to population levels that are below the
sustainable numbers required for reproduction will eventually lead to extinction. The orange roughy, for example, began to be commercially exploited ten
years ago. This fish lives to be 150 years old and only begins to reproduce at age 25. By continually removing the oldest fish first, the industry has
depleted the population of reproducing adults. (Harvesting this fish generally results in the destruction of coral forests.) The orange roughy species is now
threatened with extinction. As mentioned earlier, the depletion of fish stock for commercial fishing in coastal waters led to the capture of fishes in the
deep seasuch as roundnose grenadier, onion-eye grenadier, spiny eel, spinytail skate, and blue hakesubjecting them to the dictates of the market,
driving them to the point of extinction.21 Industrialized capitalist fishing allows for vast quantities of target fish to be harvested at once. At the same time,
it leads to an immense amount of non-target marine lifebycatchbeing captured. Bycatch are commercially unviable species, thus they are seen as
waste. The trash fish are often ground up and thrown back into the ocean. Part of the bycatch includes juveniles of the target fish, which, if the mortality
is increased among this population, undercuts the success of recovery. Obviously, the populations of the discarded species are negatively affected by this
practice, furthering the depletion of marine life. The most wasteful operation is trawling for shrimp. The capture and discarding of bycatch disrupts the
habitats and trophic webs within ecosystems. The scale of the disruption is quite significant. It is estimated that an average of 27 million tons of fish are
discarded each year in commercial fisheries around the world, and that the United States has a .28 ratio of bycatch discard to landings.22
Species extinction is the direct impact of overfishing, which is in

part driven by the pursuit of capital accumulation and is facilitated
by the technological innovations that are employed for this
particular purpose, in what has become known as a race for
fish.23 Capitalist practices are creating a loss of marine
biodiversity and undermining the resiliency of marine ecosystems.
Valiela states, The magnitude of the fishing harvest and the
examples of major alterations to marine food webs by predator
removal suggest that effects of fishing are ecologically substantial
at large spatial scales. The major alteration to marine food webs
due to overexploitation provides the clearest example of ecological
degradation in the metabolic processes of the ocean.24 Fishing Down the Food Chain
Equally disrupting, but less apparent than species effects, are the
ecosystem effects caused by fishery exploitation, especially fishing
down the food chain.25 As overfishing depletes the most
commercially viable top predators (i.e., snapper, tuna, cod, and
swordfish), competition drives commercial fishers to begin harvest ing
species of lower trophic levels. The downward shift is global,
according to the model analysis of UN statistics describing
worldwide catches of fish over a forty-year time span. If this quest
is pursued to its logical end, scientists warn it will lead to the
wholesale collapse of marine ecosystems. Fishing down the food
chain erodes the base of marine biodiversity and undermines the
biophysical cornerstone of ocean fisheries. The recent discoveries of marine trophic interactions
suggest that the lower trophic levels of marine food webs provide an integral and complex foundationdisrupting this base undermines the metabolic
cycle of energy flows within marine ecosystems. Overfishing of lower trophic levels has shortened the food chain and sometimes has removed one or more
of the links, increasing the systems vulnerability to natural and human induced stresses. For example, in the North Sea the cod population has been so
depleted that fishermen are now harvesting a lower trophic species called pout, which the cod used to eat. The pout eat krill and copepods. Krill also eat
copepods. As the pout are commercially harvested, the krill population expands and the copepod population declines drastically. (In other areas of the
ocean, krill are captured and used as an animal-feed additive, hindering the recovery of the whales that depend upon them for food.) Because copepods
are the main food of young cod, the cod population cannot recover from initial fisheries exploitation.26 Fishing down the food chain illustrates how capture
fisheries organized under competitive market conditions and the drive to accumulate capital are dismantling the marine ecological system that has been
developing for millions of years. In addition, fishing for lower trophic level species deceptively masks marine fish extraction, as millions of tons of fish are
harvested each year from the oceans. People continue to be provided with seafood on their menus, never realizing the full impact of overfishing the top
predators. Fishing down the food chain, due to overfishing in the higher tropic levels, depletes the food resources on which predatory fishes depend. As
noted earlier, marine predatory species are extremely vulnerable to losses of prey. Collapse of Coastal Marine Ecosystems The previous examples
demonstrate how species extinction decreases the resiliency of trophic level interactions. Even more problematic, however, is the widespread collapse of
entire ecosystems resulting from overfishing. Historical data suggests that species and population declines due to overfishing are direct preconditions for
the collapse of entire coastal ecosystems. The collapse of whole-scale ecosystems not only threatens the ecological resiliency of the marine environment,
but also disrupts the human populations that rely on the coastal ecosystem for subsistence or livelihoods. Overfishing and ecological extinction predate
and precondition modern ecological investigations and the collapse of marine ecosystems in recent times, raising the possibility that many more marine
ecosystems may be vulnerable to collapse in the near future.27 Kelp forests, coral reefs, seagrass beds, and estuaries are examples of coastal
ecosystems that have collapsed in parts of the world due to overfishing and other forms of environmental degradation. These ecosystems provide
complex habitats for a multitude of species and often are the foundation of many local fishing communities. For example, the kelp forests of the Gulf of
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Maine experienced severe deforestation and widespread reductions in the number of trophic levels due to the population explosion of sea urchins, the
primary herbivores that eat kelp. The following account details such a sequence of events: Atlantic cod and other large ground fish are voracious predators
of sea urchins. These fishes kept sea urchin populations small enough to allow persistence of kelp forests despite intensive aboriginal and early European
hook-and-line fishing for at least 5000 years. New mechanized fishing technology in the 1920s set off a rapid decline in numbers and body size of coastal
cod in the Gulf of Maine.Kelp forests disappeared with the rise in sea urchins due to removal of predatory fish.28 In other words, industrial fishing
operations intensified the exploitation of marine ecosystems, transforming natural conditions. A number of human activities are leading to the collapse of
coral reefs. Overfishing is one of the causes. Deforestation is another. Clearing forests leads to muddy rivers filled with sediment, which moves
downstream and smothers coral reefs. But the main force driving massive destruction of coral reefs is global warming. The increase of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere contributes to a warming and increase in the acidity of ocean water. As a result, multicolored, healthy coral reefs filled with a rich
abundance of biodiversity are being bleached and turned into gray-white skeletons. Without radical changes to the social metabolic order, the death of the
worlds coral reefs could take place within a few decades. When coral reefs die, the fauna dependent upon them also die.29 Natural conditions,
everywhere, are being transformed by the social metabolic order of capitalism. A general progression of environmental degradation accompanies this
system of growth, creating ecological crises in the conditions of life. The most recent changes to coastal ecosystems caused by overfishing involve
microbial population explosions. The microbial loop has been found to be more sophisticated and complex than ever expected. Population explosions of
microbes are responsible for increasing eutrophication, diseases of marine species, toxic bloom, and even diseases such as cholera that affect human
health.30 Chesapeake Bay is now a bacterially dominated ecosystem with a trophic structure unrecognizable from that of a century ago. This rapid and
drastic change in ecosystem composition is due to the overfishing of suspension feeders that filtered microbes out of the water column. Bacterial
domination of Chesapeake Bay and the deforestation of kelp beds in the Gulf of Maine serve as two examples of how depletion of top predators leads to
the collapse of entire ecosystems. The immense problems associated with the overharvest of industrial capture fisheries has led some optimistically to
offer aquaculture as an ecological solution. However, capitalist aquaculture fails to reverse the process of ecological degradation. Rather, it continues to
sever the social and ecological relations between humans and the ocean. Aquaculture: The Blue Revolution? The massive decline in fish stocks has led
capitalist development to turn to a new way of increasing profitsintensified production of fishes. Capitalist aquaculture represents not only a quantitative
change in the intensification and concentration of production; it also places organisms life cycles under the complete control of private for-profit
ownership.31 This new industry, it is claimed, is the fastest-growing form of agriculture in the world. It boasts of having ownership from egg to plate
and substantially alters the ecological and human dimensions of a fishery.32 Aquaculture (sometimes also referred to as aquabusiness) involves subjecting
nature to the logic of capital. Capital attempts to overcome natural and social barriers through its constant innovations. In this, enterprises attempt to
commodify, invest in, and develop new elements of nature that previously existed outside the political-economic competitive sphere: As Edward Carr
wrote in the Economist, the sea is a resource that must be preserved and harvested.To enhance its uses, the water must become ever more like the
land, with owners, laws and limits. Fishermen must behave more like ranchers than hunters.33 As worldwide commercial fish stocks decline due to
overharvest and other anthropogenic causes, aquaculture is witnessing a rapid expansion in the global economy. Aquacultures contribution to global
supplies of fish increased from 3.9 percent of total worldwide production by weight in 1970 to 27.3 percent in 2000. In 2004, aquaculture and capture
fisheries produced 106 million tons of fish and aquaculture accounted for 43 percent.34 According to Food and Agriculture Organization statistics,
aquaculture is growing more rapidly than all other animal food producing sectors. Hailed as the Blue Revolution, aquaculture is frequently compared to
agricultures Green Revolution as a way to achieve food security and economic growth among the poor and in the third world. The cultivation of farmed
salmon as a high-value, carnivorous species destined for market in core nations has emerged as one of the more lucrative (and controversial) endeavors in
aquaculture production.35 Much like the Green Revolution, the Blue Revolution may produce temporary increases in yields, but it does not usher in a
solution to food security (or environmental problems). Food security is tied to issues of distribution. Given that the Blue Revolution is driven by the pursuit
of profit, the desire for monetary gain trumps the distribution of food to those in need.36 Industrial aquaculture intensifies fish production by transforming
the natural life histories of wild fish stocks into a combined animal feedlot. Like monoculture agriculture, aquaculture furthers the capitalistic division of
nature, only its realm of operation is the marine world. In order to maximize return on investment, aquaculture must raise thousands of fish in a confined
net-pen. Fish are separated from the natural environment and the various relations of exchange found in a food web and ecosystem. The fishs
reproductive life cycle is altered so that it can be propagated and raised until the optimum time for mechanical harvest. Aquaculture interrupts the most
fundamental metabolic processthe ability of an organism to obtain its required nutrient uptake. Because the most profitable farmed fish are carnivorous,
such as Atlantic salmon, they depend on a diet that is high in fishmeal and fish oil. For example, raising Atlantic salmon requires four pounds of fishmeal to
produce every one pound of salmon. Consequently, aquaculture production depends heavily on fishmeal imported from South America to feed the farmed
carnivorous species.37 The inherent contradiction in extracting fishmeal is that industries must increase their exploitation of marine fish in order to feed
the farm-raised fishthereby increasing the pressure on wild stocks to an even larger extent. Such operations also increase the amount of bycatch. Three
of the worlds five largest fisheries are now exclusively harvesting pelagic fish for fishmeal, and these fisheries account for a quarter of the total global
catch. Rather than diminishing the demands placed on marine ecosystems, capitalist aquaculture actually increases them, accelerating the fishing down
the food chain process. The environmental degradation of populations of marine species, ecosystems, and tropic levels continues.38 Capitalist aquaculture
which is really aquabusinessrepresents a parallel example of capital following the patterns of agribusiness. Similar to combined animal feedlots,
farmed fish are penned up in high-density cages making them susceptible to disease. Thus, like in the production of beef, pork, and chicken, farmed fish
are fed fishmeal that contains antibiotics, increasing concerns about antibiotic exposure in society. In Silent Spring of the Sea, Don Staniford explains,
The use of antibiotics in salmon farming has been prevalent right from the beginning, and their use in aquaculture globally has grown to such an extent
that resistance is now threatening human health as well as other marine species. Aquaculturists use a variety of chemicals to kill parasites, such as sea
lice, and diseases that spread quickly throughout the pens. The dangers and toxicities of these pesticides in the marine environment are magnified
because of the long food chain.39 Once subsumed into the capitalist process, life cycles of animals are increasingly geared to economic cycles of
exchange by decreasing the amount of time required for growth. Aquabusiness conforms to these pressures, as researchers are attempting to shorten the
growth time required for fish to reach market size. Recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) has been added to some fish feeds to stimulate growth in
fishes in aquaculture farms in Hawaii. Experiments with fish transgenicsthe transfer of DNA from one species to anotherare being done to increase the
rate of weight gain, causing altered fish to grow from 60 percent to 600 percent larger than wild stocks.40 These growth mechanisms illustrate capitalist
aquacultures drive to transform nature to facilitate the generation of profit. In addition, aquaculture alters waste assimilation. The introduction of net-pens
leads to a break in the natural assimilation of waste in the marine environment. The pens convert coastal ecosystems, such as bays, inlets, and fjords, into
aquaculture ponds, destroying nursery areas that support ocean fisheries. For instance, salmon net-pens allow fish feces and uneaten feed to flow directly
into coastal waters, resulting in substantial discharges of nutrients. The excess nutrients are toxic to the marine communities that occupy the ocean floor
beneath the net-pens, causing massive die offs of entire benthic populations.41 Other waste products are concentrated around net-pens as well, such as
diseases and parasites introduced by the caged salmon to the surrounding marine organisms. The Blue Revolution is not an environmental solution to
declining fish stocks. In fact, it is an intensification of the social metabolic order that creates ruptures in marine ecosystems. The coastal and marine
support areas needed for resource inputs and waste assimilation [is]50,000 times the cultivation area for intensive salmon cage farming.42 This form of
aquaculture places even more demands upon ecosystems, undermining their resiliency. Although aquabusiness is efficient at turning fish into a commodity
for markets given the extensive control that is executed over the productive conditions, it is even more energy inefficient than fisheries, demanding more
fuel energy investment than the energy produced.43 Confronted by declines in fish stock, capital is attempting to shift production to aquaculture.
However, this intense form of production for profit continues to exhaust the oceans and produce a concentration of waste that causes further problems for
ecosystems, undermining their ability to regenerate at all levels. Turning the Ocean into a Watery Grave The world is at a crossroads in regard to the
ecological crisis. Ecological degradation under global capitalism extends to the entire biosphere. Oceans that were teeming with abundance are being
decimated by the continual intrusion of exploitive economic operations. At the same time that scientists are documenting the complexity and
interdependency of marine species, we are witnessing an oceanic crisis as natural conditions, ecological processes, and nutrient cycles are being
undermined through overfishing and transformed due to global warming. The expansion of the accumulation system, along with technological advances in
fishing, have intensified the exploitation of the world ocean; facilitated the enormous capture of fishes (both target and bycatch); extended the spatial
reach of fishing operations; broadened the species deemed valuable on the market; and disrupted metabolic and reproductive processes of the ocean.
The quick-fix solution of aquaculture enhances capitals control over

production without resolving ecological contradictions. It is wise to
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
recognize, as Paul Burkett has stated, that short of human

extinction, there is no sense in which capitalism can be relied upon
to permanently break down under the weight of its depletion and
degradation of natural wealth.44 Capital is driven by the competition for the accumulation of wealth, and shortterm profits provide the immediate pulse of capitalism. It cannot operate under conditions that require reinvestment in the reproduction of nature, which
may entail time scales of a hundred or more years. Such requirements stand opposed to the immediate interests of profit. The qualitative relation between
humans and nature is subsumed under the drive to accumulate capital on an ever-larger scale. Marx lamented that to capital, Time is everything, man is
nothing; he is at the most, times carcase. Quality no longer matters. Quantity alone decides everything.45 Productive relations are concerned with
production time, labor costs, and the circulation of capitalnot the diminishing conditions of existence. Capital subjects natural cycles and processes (via
controlled feeding and the use of growth hormones) to its economic cycle. The maintenance of natural conditions is not a concern. The bounty of nature is
taken for granted and appropriated as a free gift. As a result, the system is inherently caught in a fundamental crisis arising from the transformation and
destruction of nature. Istvn Mszros elaborates this point, stating: For today it is impossible to think of anything at all concerning the elementary
conditions of social metabolic reproduction which is not lethally threatened by the way in which capital relates to themthe only way in which it can. This
is true not only of humanitys energy requirements, or of the management of the planets mineral resources and chemical potentials, but of every facet of
the global agriculture, including the devastation caused by large scale de-forestation, and even the most irresponsible way of dealing with the element
without which no human being can survive: water itself.In the absence of miraculous solutions, capitals arbitrarily self-asserting attitude to the objective
An
analysis of the oceanic crisis confirms the destructive qualities of
private for-profit operations. Dire conditions are being generated as
the resiliency of marine ecosystems in general is being undermined.
To make matters worse, sewage from feedlots and fertilizer runoff
from farms are transported by rivers to gulfs and bays, overloading
marine ecosystems with excess nutrients, which contribute to an
expansion of algal production. This leads to oxygen-poor water and
the formation of hypoxic zonesotherwise known as dead zones
because crabs and fishes suffocate within these areas. It also compromises natural
determinations of causality and time in the end inevitably brings a bitter harvest, at the expense of humanity [and nature itself].46
processes that remove nutrients from the waterways. Around 150 dead zones have been identified around the world. A dead zone is the end result of
unsustainable practices of food production on land. At the same time, it contributes to the loss of marine life in the seas, furthering the ecological crisis of
Coupled with industrialized capitalist fisheries and

aquaculture, the oceans are experiencing ecological degradation
and constant pressures of extraction that are severely depleting the
populations of fishes and other marine life. The severity of the
situation is that if current practices and rates of fish capture
continue marine ecosystems and fisheries around the world could
collapse by the year 2050.47 To advert turning the seas into a
watery grave, what is needed is nothing less than a worldwide
revolution in our relation to nature, and thus of global society itself.
the world ocean.
Loss in marine biodiversity causes extinction

Solan 4
BSc Hons, PhD AND Ph.D. AND Ph.D. University of ChicagoM.S. University of ChicagoB.A. Lawrence
University AND PhD AND 2012-present Full Professor, biology, University of Washington2005-2012 Associate
Professor, biology, University of Washington2008 Fulbright Fellow, Namibia1999-2005 Assistant Professor, biology,
University of Washington1996-1999 Post-doctoral fellow, University of British ColumbiaPhD 1996 Zoology,
University of WashingtonMPhil 1990 Botany, Cambridge UniversityBA 1989 Ecology and Systematics, Cornell
University AND professor (Martin Solan1,*, Bradley J. Cardinale2, Amy L. Downing3, Katharina A. M. Engelhardt4,
Jennifer L. Ruesink5, Diane S. Srivastava6,, Science AAAS, Extinction and Ecosystem Function in the Marine
Benthos, 23 September 2004, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5699/1177.short //SRSL)
Rapid changes in biodiversity are occurring globally, yet the

ecological impacts of diversity loss are poorly understood. Here we
use data from marine invertebrate communities to parameterize
models that predict how extinctions will affect sediment
bioturbation, a process vital to the persistence of aquatic
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
communities. We show that species extinction is generally expected

to reduce bioturbation, but the magnitude of reduction depends on
how the functional traits of individual species covary with their risk
of extinction. As a result, the particular cause of extinction and the
order in which species are lost ultimately govern the ecosystemlevel consequences of biodiversity loss.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Exts Ocean BioD

Data proves growth is at the root of overfishing, ocean
pollution, and dead zones
Clausen and York 8 (Rebecca Clausen has her PhD in Sociology from the
University of Oregon and is Assistant Professor of Sociology and Environmental
Studies at Fort Lewis College, Professor of Sociology and Environmental Studies,
University of Oregon Economic Growth and Marine Biodiversity: Influence of Human
Social Structure on Decline of Marine Trophic Levels,
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/doi/10.1111/j.15231739.2007.00851.x/pdf, 2008)dt
Examining the relationship between social structural factors and

marine ecosystem health invites a substantive discussion of how trends in human organization
affect the natural world. Our results contradicted both the economic and
urbanization EKC hypotheses, indicating that economic development
and urbanization led to marine biodiversity loss. Likewise,
population growth clearly led to depletion of marine fisheries. These
factors had both direct and indirect effects on the MTL. Here, the phrase direct effect describes the variables'
relationships in path analysis. In translating this result to a substantive interpretation, however, one must recognize
that a variable's direct effect in a statistical model actually reflects multiple mediating factors on the ground. There
are three possible mediating factors that clarify the mechanisms by which modernization and human population
First, economic growth and modernization spur

investment in new fishing technologies that not only influence the
scale of harvest but qualitatively alter how fish are caught. Enlarged
growth led to declining MTL.
fleets, fish-tracking sonar, and factory ships that can catch and process the catch in distant waters mean that fish
new technologies
surely came about in part due to the increased availability of capital to
invest in the fishing fleets. Second, intensification of production due
to economic growth increases extraction from marine sources and
contributes excessive waste to ocean environments. Pollution
sources ranging from plastic debris to polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons enter the oceans from industrial sources and result in
persistent alteration of marine food webs. Point-source pollution may be
spatially acute, such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Nevertheless, persistent
hydrocarbon contamination continues to affect Alaska's food web 17
years after the accident occurred (Ott 2005). Nonpoint source pollution, such as
excess nitrogen washing off industrial agriculture fields, can result
in nutrification of nearby estuaries and rearing habitat. One
hundred fifty dead zones now occur in the world's oceans because
of the cascade effect of nitrogen pollution. As economic production
escalates, so does waste accumulation, and marine ecosystems bear
much of the burden.
can be targeted with greater accuracy and faster techniques (Warner 1983). These
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Growth destroys life on earthincluding oceans

Smith 13
economic historian. He has written extensively for the New Left Review, Monthly Review and The
Ecologist. This is an excerpt from his essay, "Capitalism and the destruction of life on Earth," published in the RealWorld Economics Review. His new book To Save the Planet, Turn the World Upside Down will be published in 2014.
(Richard, adbusters, Sleepwalking to Extinction Capitalism and the destruction of life and earth., 14 November
2013, https://www.adbusters.org/magazine/110/sleepwalking-extinction.html //SRSL)
Super Typhoon Haiyan has sent a chill through the global nervous system. Thousands dead. Weather scientists in
shock. Lives destroyed. The greatest typhoon to touch land in recorded history brings with it more than total
destruction. It ups the level of urgency for a new economic paradigm one that puts the planet first .
Radical
economist Richard Smith shows us a way out of the climate

madness about to descend everywhere. . . . When, on May 10th, scientists at Mauna
Loa Observatory on the big island of Hawaii announced that global CO2 emissions had crossed a threshold at 400
parts per million (ppm) for the first time in millions of years, a sense of dread spread around the world and not only
CO2 emissions have been relentlessly climbing since

Charles David Keeling first set up his tracking station near the
summit of Mauna Loa Observatory in 1958 to monitor average daily
global CO2 levels. At that time, CO2 concentrations registered 315 ppm. CO2 emissions
and atmospheric concentrations have been rising ever since and
have recently passed a dangerous tipping point: 400ppm. For all the
climate summits, promises of voluntary restraint, carbon trading and carbon taxes, the growth of
CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations have not just been
unceasing, they have been accelerating in what scientists have
dubbed the Keeling Curve. In the early 1960s, CO2 ppm concentrations in the atmosphere
among climate scientists.
grew by 0.7ppm per year. In recent decades, especially as China has industrialized, the growth rate has tripled to
2.1 ppm per year. In just the first 17 weeks of 2013, CO2 levels jumped by 2.74 ppm compared to last year.
Carbon concentrations have not been this high since the Pliocene period, between 3m and 5m years ago, when
global average temperatures were 3C or 4C hotter than today, the Arctic was ice-free, sea levels were about 40m
higher and jungles covered northern Canada; Florida, meanwhile, was under water along with other coastal
Crossing this
threshold has fuelled fears that we are fast approaching converging
tipping points melting of the subarctic tundra or the thawing
and releasing of the vast quantities of methane in the Arctic sea
bottom that will accelerate global warming beyond any human
capacity to stop it. I wish it werent true, but it looks like the world is going to blow through the 400
locations we now call New York, London, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Sydney and many others.
ppm level without losing a beat, said Scripps Institute geochemist Ralph Keeling, son of Charles Keeling. At this
pace, well hit 450 ppm within a few decades. It feels like
the inevitable march toward
disaster, said Maureen E. Raymo, a scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, a unit of Columbia
University. Why are we marching toward disaster, sleepwalking to extinction as the Guardians
George Monbiot once put it? Why cant we slam on the brakes before we ride off
the cliff to collapse? Im going to argue here that the problem is
rooted in the requirement of capitalist production. Large
corporations cant help themselves; they cant change or change
very much. So long as we live under this corporate capitalist system
we have little choice but to go along in this destruction, to keep
pouring on the gas instead of slamming on the brakes, and that the
only alternative impossible as this may seem right now is to
overthrow this global economic system and all of the governments
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
of the 1% that prop it up and replace them with a global economic

democracy, a radical bottom-up political democracy, an eco-socialist
civilization. Although we are fast approaching the precipice of
ecological collapse, the means to derail this train wreck are in the
making as, around the world we are witnessing a near
simultaneous global mass democratic awakening
as the Brazilians call it
from Tahir Square to Zucotti Park, from Athens to Istanbul to Beijing and beyond such as the world has never seen.
To be sure, like Occupy Wall Street, these movements are still inchoate, are still mainly protesting whats wrong
rather than fighting for an alternative social order. Like Occupy, they have yet to clearly and robustly answer that
crucial question: Dont like capitalism, whats your alternative? Yet they are working on it, and they are for the
most part instinctively and radically democratic; in this lies our hope
. Capitalism is,
overwhelmingly, the main driver of planetary ecological collapse

From climate change to natural resource overconsumption to
pollution, the engine that has powered three centuries of
accelerating economic development, revolutionizing technology,
science, culture and human life itself is, today, a roaring out-ofcontrol locomotive mowing down continents of forests, sweeping
oceans of life , clawing out mountains of minerals, pumping out lakes of fuels, devouring the planets last
accessible natural resources to turn them into product, while destroying fragile global ecologies built up over eons
of time. Between 1950 and 2000 the global human population more than doubled from 2.5 to 6 billion. But in these
same decades, consumption of major natural resources soared more than sixfold on average, some much more.
Natural gas consumption grew nearly twelvefold, bauxite (aluminum ore) fifteenfold. And so on. At current rates,
Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson says that half the worlds great forests have already been leveled and half the
worlds plant and animal species may be gone by the end of this century. Corporations arent necessarily evil,
though plenty are diabolically evil, but they cant help themselves. Theyre just doing what theyre supposed to do
for the benefit of their shareholders. Shell Oil cant help but loot Nigeria and the Arctic and cook the climate. Thats
what shareholders demand. BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and other mining giants cant resist mining Australias abundant
coal and exporting it to China and India. Mining accounts for 19% of Australias GDP and substantial employment
even as coal combustion is the single worst driver of global warming. IKEA cant help but level the forests of Siberia
and Malaysia to feed the Chinese mills building their flimsy disposable furniture (IKEA is the third largest consumer
of lumber in the world). Apple cant help it if the cost of extracting the rare earths it needs to make millions of
new iThings each year is the destruction of the eastern Congo violence, rape, slavery, forced induction of child
soldiers, along with poisoning local waterways. Monsanto and DuPont and Syngenta and Bayer Crop Science have
no choice but to wipe out bees, butterflies, birds, small farmers and extinguish crop diversity to secure their grip on
the worlds food supply while drenching the planet in their Roundups and Atrazines and neonicotinoids. This is how
giant corporations are wiping out life on earth in the course of a routine business day. And the bigger the
corporations grow, the worse the problems become. In Adam Smiths day, when the first factories and mills
produced hat pins and iron tools and rolls of cloth by the thousands, capitalist freedom to make whatever they
wanted didnt much matter because they didnt have much impact on the global environment. But today, when
everything is produced in the millions and billions, then trashed today and reproduced all over again tomorrow,
when the planet is looted and polluted to support all this frantic and senseless growth, it matters a lot. The
worlds climate scientists tell us were facing a planetary emergency. Theyve been telling us since the 1990s that if
we dont cut global fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions by 80-90% below 1990 levels by 2050 we will cross critical
tipping points and global warming will accelerate beyond any human power to contain it. Yet despite all the ringing
alarm bells, no corporation and no government can oppose growth and, instead, every capitalist government in the
world is putting pedal to the metal to accelerate growth, to drive us full throttle off the cliff to collapse. Marxists
have never had a better argument against capitalism than this inescapable and apocalyptic contradiction.
Solutions to the ecological crisis are blindingly obvious but we cant take the necessary steps to prevent ecological
collapse because, so long as we live under capitalism, economic growth has to take priority over ecological
concerns.
We all know what we have to do: suppress greenhouse gas

emissions. Stop over-consuming natural resources. Stop the
senseless pollution of the earth, waters, and atmosphere with toxic
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
chemicals. Stop producing waste that cant be recycled by nature.

Stop the destruction of biological diversity and ensure the rights of
other species to flourish. We dont need any new technological
breakthroughs to solve these problems. Mostly, we just stop doing
what were doing. But we cant stop because were all locked into an
economic system in which companies have to grow to compete and
reward their shareholders and because we all need the jobs. James
Hansen, the worlds preeminent climate scientist, has argued that to save the humans: Coal emissions must be
phased out as rapidly as possible or global climate disasters will be a dead certainty ... Yes, [coal, oil, gas] most of
the fossil fuels must be left in the ground. That is the explicit message that the science provides. [] Humanity
treads today on a slippery slope. As we continue to pump greenhouse gases in the air, we move onto a steeper,
even more slippery incline. We seem oblivious to the danger unaware of how close we may be to a situation in
which a catastrophic slip becomes practically unavoidable, a slip where we suddenly lose all control and are pulled
into a torrential stream that hurls us over a precipice to our demise. But how can we do this under capitalism?
After his climate negotiators stonewalled calls for binding limits on CO2 emissions at Copenhagen, Cancun, Cape
Town and Doha, President Obama is now trying to salvage his environmental legacy by ordering his EPA to impose
tough new emissions limits on existing power plants, especially coal-fired plants. But this wont salvage his legacy
or, more importantly, his daughters futures because how much difference would it make, really, if every coal-fired
power plant in the U.S. shut down tomorrow when U.S. coal producers are free to export their coal to China, which
they are doing, and when China is building another coal-fired power plan every week? The atmosphere doesnt care
where the coal is burned. It only cares how much is burned. Yet how could Obama tell American mining companies
to stop mining coal? This would be tantamount to socialism. But if we do not stop mining and burning coal,
capitalist freedom and private property is the least well have to worry about. Same with Obamas tough new fuel
economy standards. In August 2012 Obama boasted that his new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
standards would double fuel efficiency over the next 13 years to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, up from 28.6 mpg
at present cutting vehicle CO2 emissions in half, so helping enormously to save the planet. But as the Center
for Biological Diversity and other critics have noted, Obama was lying, as usual. First, his so-called tough new
CAFE standards were so full of loopholes, negotiated with Detroit, that they actually encourage more gas-guzzling,
not less. Thats because the standards are based on a sliding scale according to vehicle footprints the bigger
the car, the less mileage it has to get to meet its standard. So in fact Obamas tough standards are (surprise)
custom designed to promote what Detroit does best produce giant Sequoias, mountainous Denalis, Sierras,
Yukons, Tundras and Ticonderogas, Ram Chargers and Ford F series luxury trucks, grossly obese Cadillac Escalades,
soccer-kid Suburbans, even 8,000 (!) pound Ford Excursions and let these gross gas hogs meet the fleet
standard. These cars and light trucks are among the biggest selling vehicles in America today (GMs Sierra is #1)
and they get worse gas mileage than American cars and trucks half a century ago. Cadillacs current Escalade gets
worse mileage than its chrome bedecked tail fin-festooned land yachts of the mid-1950s! Little wonder Detroit
applauded Obamas new CAFE standards instead of damning them as usual. Secondly, what would it matter even if
Obamas new CAFE standards actually did double fleet mileage when American and global vehicle fleets are
growing exponentially? In 1950 Americans had one car for every three people. Today we have 1.2 cars for every
American. In 1950 when there were about 2.6 billion humans on the planet, there were 53 million cars on the
worlds roads about one for every 50 persons. Today, there are 7 billion people but more than 1 billion cars and
industry forecasters expect there will be 2 to 2.5 billion cars on the worlds roads by mid-century. China alone is
expected to have a billion. So, at the end of the day, incremental half measures like CAFE standards cant stop
rising GHG missions. Barring some technical miracle, the only way to cut vehicle emissions is to just stop making
them drastically suppress vehicle production, especially of the worst gas hogs. In theory, Obama could simply
order GM to stop building its humongous gas guzzlers and switch to producing small economy cars. After all, the
federal government owns the company! But of course, how could he do any such thing? Detroit lives by the mantra
big car big profit, small car small profit. Since Detroit has never been able to compete against the Japanese and
Germans in the small car market, which is already glutted and nearly profitless everywhere, such an order would
only doom GM to failure, if not bankruptcy (again) and throw masses of workers onto the unemployment lines. So
given capitalism, Obama is, in fact, powerless. Hes locked in to promoting the endless growth of vehicle production,
even of the worst polluters and lying about it all to the public to try to patch up his pathetic legacy. And yet, if
we dont suppress vehicle production, how can we stop rising CO2 emissions? In the wake of the failure of climate
negotiators from Kyoto to Doha to agree on binding limits on GHG emissions, exasperated British climate scientists
Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows at the Tyndall Centre, Britains leading climate change research center, wrote in
September 2012 that we need an entirely new paradigm: Government policies must radically change if
dangerous climate change is to be avoided We urgently need to acknowledge that the development needs of
many countries leave the rich western nations with little choice but to immediately and severely curb their
greenhouse gas emissions... [The] misguided belief that commitments to avoid warming of 2C can still be realized
with incremental adjustments to economic incentives. A carbon tax here, a little emissions trading there and the
odd voluntary agreement thrown in for good measure will not be sufficient ... long-term end-point targets (for
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
example, 80% by 2050) have no scientific basis. What governs future global temperatures and other adverse
climate impacts are the emissions from yesterday, today and those released in the next few years. And not just
scientists. In its latest world energy forecast released on November 12, 2012, the International Energy Agency (IEA)
warns that despite the bonanza of fossil fuels now made possible by fracking, horizontal and deepwater drilling, we
cant consume them if we want to save the humans: The climate goal of limiting global warming to 2C is
becoming more difficult and costly with each year that passes... no more than one-third of proven reserves of fossil
fuels can be consumed prior to 2050 if the world is to achieve the 2C goal... Of course the science could be wrong
about this. But so far climate scientists have consistently underestimated the speed and ferocity of global warming,
and even prominent climate change deniers have folded their cards. Still, its one thing for James Hansen or Bill
McKibben to say we need to leave the coal in the hole, the oil in the soil, the gas under the grass, to call for
severe curbs in GHG emissions in the abstract. But think about what this means in our capitalist economy. Most
of us, even passionate environmental activists, dont really want to face up to the economic implications of the
science we defend. Thats why, if you listen to environmentalists like Bill McKibben for example, you will get the
impression that global warming is mainly driven by fossi- fuel-powered electric power plants, so if we just switch to
renewables this will solve the main problem and we can carry on with life more or less as we do now. Indeed,
green capitalism enthusiasts like Thomas Friedman and the union-backed green jobs lobby look to renewable
energy, electric cars and such as the next great engine of industrial growth the perfect win-win solution. This is
a not a solution. This is a delusion: greenhouse gasses are produced across the economy not just by power plants.
Globally, fossil-fuel-powered electricity generation accounts for 17% of GHG emissions, heating accounts for 5%,
miscellaneous other fuel combustion 8.6%, industry 14.7%, industrial processes another 4.3%, transportation
14.3%, agriculture 13.6%, land use changes (mainly deforestation) 12.2%. This means, for a start, that even if we
immediately replaced every fossil-fuel-powered electric generating plant on the planet with 100% renewable solar,
wind and water power, this would only reduce global GHG emissions by around 17%. What this means is that, far
from launching a new green-energy-powered industrial growth boom, barring some tech-fix miracle, the only way
to impose immediate and severe curbs on fossil fuel production/consumption would be to impose an EMERGENCY
CONTRACTION in the industrialized countries: drastically retrench and in some cases shut down industries, even
entire sectors, across the economy and around the planet not just fossil fuel producers but all the industries that
consume them and produce GHG emissions autos, trucking, aircraft, airlines, shipping and cruise lines,
construction, chemicals, plastics, synthetic fabrics, cosmetics, synthetic fiber and fabrics, synthetic fertilizer and
agribusiness CAFO operations. Of course, no one wants to hear this because, given capitalism, this would
unavoidably mean mass bankruptcies, global economic collapse, depression and mass unemployment around the
world. Thats why in April 2013, in laying the political groundwork for his approval of the XL pipeline in some form,
President Obama said the politics of this are tough. The earths temperature probably isnt the number one
concern for workers who havent seen a raise in a decade; have an underwater mortgage; are spending $40 to fill
their gas tank, cant afford a hybrid car; and face other challenges. Obama wants to save the planet but given
capitalism his number one concern has to be growing the economy, growing jobs. Given capitalism today,
tomorrow, next year and every year economic growth will always be the overriding priority ... till we barrel right
off the cliff to collapse. The necessity of denial and delusion Theres no technical solution to this problem and no
market solution either. In a very few cases electricity generation is the main one a broad shift to renewables
could indeed sharply reduce fossil fuel emissions in that sector. But if we just use clean green energy to power
more growth, consume ever more natural resources, then we solve nothing and would still be headed to collapse.
Producing millions of electric cars instead of millions of gasoline-powered cars, as I explained elsewhere, would be
just as ecologically destructive and polluting, if in somewhat different ways, even if they were all run on solar
power. Substituting biofuels for fossil fuels in transportation just creates different but no less environmentallydestructive problems: converting farm land to raise biofuel feedstock pits food production against fuels. Converting
rainforests, peatlands, savannas or grasslands to produce biofuels releases more CO2 into the atmosphere than the
fossil fuels they replace and accelerates species extinction. More industrial farming means more demand for water,
synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. And so on. Cap and trade schemes cant cut fossil fuel emissions because
business understands, even if some environmentalists do not, that dematerialization is a fantasy, that theres no
Since cutting growth is

unacceptable to business, labor and governments, cap and trade
has been abandoned everywhere. Carbon taxes cant stop global warming either because
win-win tech solution, that capping emissions means cutting growth.
they do not cap emissions. Thats why fossil fuel execs like Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil (the largest private oil
company in the world) and Paul Anderson, CEO of Duke Energy (the largest electric utility in the U.S.) support
carbon taxes. They understand that carbon taxes would add something to the cost of doing business, like other
taxes, but they pose no limit, no cap on growth. ExxonMobil predicts that, carbon tax or no carbon tax, by 2040
global demand for energy is going to grow by 35%, 65% in the developing world and nearly all of this is going to be
supplied by fossil fuels. ExxonMobil is not looking to leave the oil in the soil as a favor to Bill McKibben and the
humans. ExxonMobil is looking to pump it and burn it all as fast as possible to enrich its shareholders. Hansen,
McKibben, Obama and most of us really dont want to face up to the economic implications of the need to put
the brakes on growth and fossil fuel-based overconsumption. We all need to live in denial, and believe in
delusions that carbon taxes or some tech fix will save us because we all know that capitalism has to grow or well
all be out of work. And the thought of replacing capitalism seems so impossible, especially given the powers
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
arrayed against change. But whats the alternative? In the not-so-distant future, this is all going to come to a
screeching halt one way or another either we seize hold of this out-of-control locomotive, or we ride this train
right off the cliff to collapse. Emergency Contraction or Global Ecological Collapse? If theres no market
mechanism to stop plundering the planet then, again, what alternative is there but to impose an emergency
contraction on resource consumption? This doesnt mean we would have to de-industrialize and go back to riding
horses and living in log cabins. But it does mean that we would have to abandon the consumer economy shut
down all kinds of unnecessary, wasteful and polluting industries from junkfood to cruise ships, disposable Pampers
to disposable H&M clothes, disposable IKEA furniture, endless new model cars, phones, electronic games, the lot.
Plus all the banking, advertising, junk mail, most retail, etc. We would have completely redesign production to
replace fast junk food with healthy, nutritious, fresh slow food, replace fast fashion with slow fashion, bring
back mending, alterations and local tailors and shoe repairmen. We would have to completely redesign production
of appliances, electronics, housewares, furniture and so on to be as durable and long-lived as possible. Bring back
appliance repairmen and such. We would have to abolish the throwaway disposables industries, the packaging and
plastic bag industrial complex, bring back refillable bottles and the like. We would have to design and build housing
to last for centuries, to be as energy efficient as possible, to be reconfigurable, and shareable. We would have to
vastly expand public transportation to curb vehicle use but also build those we do need to last and be shareable like
Zipcar or Paris municipally-owned Autolib shared electric cars. These are the sorts of things we would have to do
if we really want to stop overconsumption and save the world. All these changes are simple, self-evident, no great
technical challenge. They just require a completely different kind of economy, an economy geared to producing
what we need while conserving resources for future generations of humans and for other species with which we
share this planet. The spectre of eco-democratic revolution Economic systems come and go. Capitalism has had a
300 year run. The question is: will humanity stand by and let the world be destroyed to save the profit system?
That outcome depends to a great extent on whether we on the left can answer that question whats your
alternative? with a compelling and plausible vision of an eco-socialist civilization. We have our work cut out for us.
But what gives the growing global eco-socialist movement an edge in this ideological struggle is that capitalism has
no solution to the ecological crisis, no way to put the brakes on collapse, because its only answer to every problem
is more of the same growth thats killing us. History was supposed to have ended with the fall of communism
and the triumph of capitalism two decades ago. Yet today, history is very much alive and it is, ironically, capitalism
itself which is being challenged more broadly than ever and found wanting for solutions. Today, we are very much
living in one of those pivotal world-changing moments in history. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that this is the
most critical moment in human history. We may be fast approaching the precipice of ecological collapse, but the
means to derail this train wreck are in the making as, around the world, struggles against the destruction of nature,
against dams, against pollution, against overdevelopment, against the siting of chemical plants and power plants,
against predatory resource extraction, against the imposition of GMOs, against privatization of remaining common
lands, water and public services, against capitalist unemployment and precarit are growing and building
momentum.
Today we are riding a swelling wave of near simultaneous

global mass democratic awakening, an almost global mass
uprising. This global insurrection is still in its infancy, still unsure of
its future, but its radical democratic instincts are, I believe,
humanitys last best hope. Lets make history!
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2NC Marine Life

Development and growth harms marine life
Waage and Chase 9
Campaign Director, Washington, DC, joined NRDC in 2007 after stints as a field
organizer for the U.S Public Interest Research Group and legislative director for the Center for Biological
Diversity.AND policy analyst in the oceans program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. She works on MidAtlantic and federal efforts to protect and restore our ocean and coastal health. Ali has worked for a number of
environmental organizations, including the League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club, and with a political
consulting firm to design public education campaigns. She attended Colgate University and has a Master of Public
Administration in Environmental Science and Policy from Columbia University. (Melissa and Alison, NRDC,
Protecting Our Ocean and Coastal Economies: Avoid Unnecessary Risks from Offshore Drilling ,September
2009 , http://www.nrdc.org/oceans/offshore/files/offshore.pdf //SRSL)
Healthy oceans are critically important to marine life and to coastal

communities whose economies rely on tourism and fishing. Opening
up new offshore areas to drilling risks permanent damage to our
oceans and beaches without reducing our dependence on oil. When
oil spills occur they can bring catastrophic harm to marine life and
devastating losses for local businesses. Even routine exploration
and drilling activities bring harm to many marine species. The
Administration and Congress must
work together to assess the environmental impacts of offshore
drilling before making key decisions about offshore oil and gas
activities in new areas or Alaska.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2NC Overfishing
Growth causes overfishing

Limberg et al., 11 Professor Faculty of Environmental and Forest Biology SUNY College of
Environmental Science & Forestry AND Professor, Senior Research Fish Assemblage Ecology, Ph.D Fisheries Oregon
State University, Resource Planning & Conservation University of Michigan, A.B., Psychology/Biology, ANDAuburn
University Ph.D., Fisheries Management University of Arkansas M.S., Zoology/Limnology University of Arkansas
B.S., Zoology AND Ph.D. in renewable natural resources studies from the University of Arizona with a minor in
political science. The founding President of CASSE, Brian is also a Visiting Professor at Virginia Tech, where he
teaches ecological economics in the National Capitol Region. (Karin E. Limburg, Robert M. Hughes, Donald C.
Jackson, Brian Czech, Human Population Increase, Economic Growth, and Fish Conservation: Collision Course or
Savvy Stewardship?, 15 Feb 2011,
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/03632415.2011.10389053#.U626ShZZYpF //SRSL)
Globally, fishes and fisheries are in severe decline, driven in large

part by economic and human population growth. Despite progress in
environmental philosophies, legislation, and protection, conflicts
between economic/human population growth and fish conservation
remain and are intensifying at continental and global scales. The
growth of the human enterprise ad infinitum is impossible because
of dependence on finite resources; hence policies should leave a
margin of error when dealing with the biophysical environment. We
suggest a re-definition of Earth stewardship to serve as a conceptual bridge between ecology and economics,
recognizing the hubris behind most economic models, which assume that the biosphere is a subset of the economy
or else an externality, when in fact Homo sapiens is a species operating within the biosphere. Additional indicators
that focus on a different suite of values (e.g., social justice, corporate responsibility, and ethics) would underscore
the complexity of economic and human population growth effects on societies and ecosystems, and could help
guide us away from unsustainable actions toward those that are savvier in terms of co-existence with the
resources upon which we depend.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
AT: EKC (Ocean Specific)

Not true for oceans and Kuznets concedes findings are merely
speculative
Clausen and York 8 (Rebecca Clausen has her PhD in Sociology from the
University of Oregon and is Assistant Professor of Sociology and Environmental
Studies at Fort Lewis College, Professor of Sociology and Environmental Studies,
University of Oregon Economic Growth and Marine Biodiversity: Influence of Human
Social Structure on Decline of Marine Trophic Levels,
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/doi/10.1111/j.15231739.2007.00851.x/pdf, 2008)dt
Our investigation of the social influences on global marine

biodiversity decline offers three key findings. First, an increase in
population within nations led to a decline in MTL due to the positive
relationship between population and increased catch. Second,
economic growth had both direct and indirect effects on the marine
trophic structure, and the combined effects indicated that MTL
declined with economic growth. This finding refuted the EKC
hypothesis. Similarly, when combining direct and indirect effects, increased urbanization led to a decline in
MTL, refuting the urbanization EKC hypothesis. Our model suggested that, in addition to the
overharvest of marine resources, continued economic growth,
urbanization, and population increase will degrade global marine biodiversity. As
Conclusion
academic societies and the general public begin to understand the ecological crisis on a global scale, the
responsibility to understand the environmental impact of social structural trends over time and across nations lies
at least in part with social science practitioners. Our results suggest that increased modernization (characterized by
economic growth and urbanization) leads to the deterioration of biodiversity in marine ecosystems. This finding
raises important questions about the nonbiological factors influencing overexploitation and biodiversity decline. Our
conclusions do not directly speak to a specific policy proposal; rather, they address underlying issues that frame
Can nations grow their way out of

environmental problems? Is continued economic growth compatible
with conserving biodiversity? Our results suggest the answer to both
these question is no, which echoes the words of Kuznets himself when he
cautioned that his speculative findings should not be seized on as a
starting point for distorted use or for unwarranted dogmatic
generalizations (Kuznets 1961:13). The Wildlife Society, Society for Conservation Biology (North
much of the conservation-policy debate.
America Section), and the U.S. Society for Ecological Economics have adopted position statements on the conflict
between economic growth and conservation of biodiversity. Numerous other professional societies are similarly
considering the relationship between human organization and ecological impact (Czech 2007). The position
statements reflect that, although natural scientists recognize the important contributions of biological research,
they must also consider the social and historical context in which biological trends unfold.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Warming
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
1NC
Collapse key to solve warming extinction is inevitable without
dedev
Li 10
Dr. Minqi Assistant Professor Department of Economics, University of Utah, The 21st Century Crisis:
Climate Catastrophe or Socialism Paper prepared for the David Gordon Memorial Lecture at URPE Summer
Conference 2010
The global average surface temperature is now about 0.8C (0.8 degree Celsius) higher than the pre-industrial time. Under the current trend,
the world is on
track towards a long-term warming between 4C and 8C. At this level of global warming, the world would be in an extreme greenhouse
state not seen for almost 100 million years, devastating human civilization and destroying nearly all forms of life on
the present earth (Conner and McCarthy 2009). The
scientific community has reached the consensus that the current
warming results from the excessive accumulation in the atmosphere of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other
greenhouse gases (such as methane and nitrous oxide) emitted by human economic activities. The capitalist historical epoch has been
characterized by the explosive growth of material production and consumption. The massive expansion of the world economy has
been powered by fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas). Since 1820, the world economy has expanded by about seventy times and the
global
world emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels burning have increased by about sixty times (see Figure 1). At the United Nations conference on climate change concluded at
Copenhagen in December 2009, the worlds governments officially committed to the objective of limiting global warming to no more than 2C. However, according to the
Climate Action Tracker,
despite the official statement, the national governments current pledges regarding
emission reduction in fact imply a warming of at least 3C by the end of the 21st century with more warming to come in the following centuries
(Climate Action Tracker 2010). In reality, all the major national governments are committed to infinite economic
growth and none of them is willing to consider any emission reduction policy that could
undermine economic growth. This is not simply because of intellectual ignorance or lack of political will. The pursuit of endless accumulation of
capital (and infinite economic growth) is derived from the basic laws of motion of the capitalist economic system. Without fundamental social
transformation, human civilization is now on the path to self-destruction. The next section (Section 2)
reviews the basic scientific facts concerning the climate change crisis. Without an end of economic growth, it is virtually
impossible for meaningful climate stabilization to be achieved (Section 3). However, both capitalist enterprises
and states are constantly driven to expand production and consumption. The system of nation states effectively rules out a meaningful global political solution to
the climate change crisis (Section 4). The climate change crisis is but one of several long-term historical trends that are now leading to the structural crisis of
capitalism (Section 5). The resolution of the crisis and the survival of the humanity require the building of a fundamentally different social system that is based on social ownership of
the means of production and society-wide planning (Section 6).
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2NC Now Key

Now Is Key Growth Will Push Rapid Warming
Simms 10 (Andrew, Policy Director and Head of Climate Change New Economics
Foundation, Victoria Johnson, climate change and energy researcher New
Economics Foundation, and Peter Chowla, program manager Bretton Woods
Project, Growth isnt possible: Why we need a new economic direction, New
Economics Foundation, January,
http://www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/Growth_Isnt_Possible.pd
f)
To date, the nearest, in fact, only, leading contender to provide the environmental
Plimsoll line is the Ecological Footprint. Before the Contraction and Convergence
model, which is designed to manage safely greenhouse gas emissions, was ever
thought of, Daly identified its basic mechanism as the way to manage the global
environmental commons. First, he said, you need to identify the limit of
whichever aspect of our natural resources and biocapacity

concerns you, then within that, allocate equitable entitlements and, in order to
allow flexibility, make them tradable. Such an approach could be applied to the
management of the worlds forests and oceans as much as CO2. Daly credits the
innovative American architect and polymath Richard Buckminster Fuller for first
suggesting the approach. At a fundamental level, this is the primary mechanism
to avoid the tragedy of the commons. In addition, an indicator such as the Happy
Planet Index410 which incorporates the Ecological Footprint helps to reveal the
degree of efficiency with which precious natural resources are converted into the
meaningful human outcomes of long and happy lives. At the eventually
moment, or rather well before, these other ways of organising and measuring the
economy become vital. In one sense it has already passed. According to the
Ecological Footprint, the world has been over-burdening its biocapacity consuming too
many natural resources and producing more waste than can be safely absorbed since the
mid-1980s. Weve been living beyond our ecological means. But, at what point does the
damage become irreversible? This will be different for different ecosystems. But,
where climate change is concerned, we have drawn a line in the atmospheric sand at the end
of 2016. Based on current trends and several conservative assumptions, at that point,
greenhouse gas concentrations will begin to push a new, more perilous phase of global
warming.41
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2NC Turns Growth

The environment will collapse before we are able to make
much more wealth
New South Wale (Ted, The Radical Implications of a Zero-Growth Economy, Real
World Economics Review,
http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue57/Trainer57.pdf)//Roetlin
But growth will make us so rich we will be able to afford to save the environment.
This statement is characteristic of the conventional economic mind

just create more monetary wealth and we can solve all problems
with it. The fatal mistake in the argument is transparent. If we
dont reduce wealth production dramatically and quickly the
environmental consequences will soon eliminate our capacity to
produce any wealth at all.
continue, maybe the best strategy to achieve global ecological sustainability is economic sabotage to hasten the day. It is more
fragile than it looks.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Exts Warming Impact

Warming is real and causes extinction
Costello 11 , Anthony, Institute for Global Health, University College London, Mark Maslin, Department of Geography, University College
London, Hugh Montgomery, Institute for Human Health and Performance, University College London, Anne M. Johnson, Institute for Global Health,
University College London, Paul Ekins, Energy Institute, University College London [Global health and climate change: moving from denial and
catastrophic fatalism to positive action May 2011 vol. 369 no. 1942 1866-1882 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society]
Advocacy about the health consequences will ensure that climate change is a high priority. The United Nations Convention on Climate Change was set up in 1992 to
ensure that nations worked together to minimize the adverse effects, but McMichael and Neira noted that, in preparation for the Copenhagen conference in December
global warming caused by rising

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will threaten mass populations through increased transmission of some
infections, heat stress, food and water insecurity, increased deaths from more frequent and extreme climate events,
2009, only four of 47 nations mentioned human health as a consideration [1]. With business as usual,
threats to shelter and security, and through population migration [2]. On the one hand it is necessary in the media to counter climate change sceptics and denialists, but
it is also important not to allow climate catastrophists , who tell us it is all too late, to deflect us
from pragmatic and positive action. Catastrophic scenarios are possible in the long er term, and
effective action will be formidably difficult, but evidence suggests that we do have the tools, the time and the resources to bring
about the changes needed for climate stability . 2. Climate change evidence and denial Given the current body of evidence, it is
surprising that global warming and its causal relationship with atmospheric GHG pollution is disputed
any more than the relationship between acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) and human immunodeficiency
virus (HIV) infection, or lung cancer and cigarette smoking . The basic principles that determine the Earths temperature are, of
on the other
course, relatively simple. Some of the short-wave solar radiation that strikes the Earth is reflected back into space and some is absorbed by the land and emitted as
long-wave radiation (heat). Some of the long-wave radiation is trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases, which include water vapour, carbon dioxide and
methane. Without GHGs the Earth would be on average 33C colder. Over the last 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution, humans have been adding more carbon
dioxide and methane into the atmosphere. The result is that the Earths atmosphere, ocean and land are indeed warmingdue to increased atmospheric greenhouse
There is compelling,
comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the
climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend. The most recent report by the
gas concentrations [3]. Gleick et al. [4], from the US National Academy of Sciences, wrote a letter to Science stating
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [5], amounting to nearly 3000 pages of detailed review and analysis of published research, also declares that the
scientific uncertainties
are essentially resolved. This report states that there is clear evidence for a 0.75C rise in
global temperatures and 22 cm rise in sea level during the twentieth century. The IPCC synthesis also predicts that global temperatures could
rise further by between 1.1C and 6.4C by 2100, and sea level could rise by between 28 and 79 cm, or more if the melting of Greenland and Antarctica
of global warming
accelerates. In addition, weather patterns will become less predictable and the occurrence of extreme climate events, such as storms, floods, heat waves and droughts,
will increase. There is also strong evidence for ocean acidification driven by more carbon dioxide dissolving in the oceans [6]. Given the current failure of international
negotiations to address carbon emission reductions, and that atmospheric warming lags behind rises in CO2 concentration, there is concern that global surface
temperature will rise above the supposedly safe limit of 2C within this century. Each doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration alone is expected to
produce 1.94.5C of warming at equilibrium [7]. Of course, climate modelling is an extremely complex process, and uncertainty with projections relating to future
emissions trajectories means that the time scale and magnitude of future climate change cannot be predicted with certainty [8]. These uncertainties are magnified
when future climate predictions are used to estimate potential impacts. For example, the environmental impacts of climate change are also uncertain, but could
underestimate such impacts because they detrimentally interact with habitat loss, pollution and loss of biodiversity due to other causes. There is also the additional
problem that switching from biome to biome may not be directly reversible. For example, rainforest recycles a huge amount of water so it can survive a significant
amount of aridification before it burns and is replaced by savannah. But the region then has to get much wetter before rainforest can return, as there is greatly reduced
water cycling in savannah [9]. In the policy arena, further uncertainty surrounds the desire for international agreements on emission cuts, and the possible routes to
such agreement and implementation. The feasible speed of technological innovation in carbon capture and provision of renewable/low-carbon energy resources is also
Denying the
evidence
is irrational
uncertain.
causes or the current weight of
for anthropogenic climate change
, just as the existence of
uncertainties should not be used to deny the need for proportionate action, when such uncertainties could underestimate the risks and impact of climate change. There
is no reason for inaction and there are many ways we can use our current knowledge of climate change to improve health provision for current and future generations.
3. Catastrophism At the other end of the scale are doom-mongers who predict catastrophic population collapse and the end of civilization. In the early nineteenth
century, the French palaeontologist Georges Cuvier first addressed catastrophism and explained patterns of extinction observed in the fossil record through catastrophic
natural events [10]. We know now of five major extinctions: the OrdovicianSilurian extinction (439 million years ago), the Late Devonian extinction (about 364 million
years ago), the PermianTriassic extinction (about 251 million years ago), the End Triassic extinction (roughly 199 million to 214 million years ago) and the Cretaceous
Tertiary extinction (about 65 million years ago). These mass extinctions were caused by a combination of plate tectonics, supervolcanism and asteroid impacts. The
understanding of the mass extinctions led Gould & Eldredge [11] to update Darwins theory of evolution with their own theory of punctuated equilibrium. Many scientists
have suggested that the current human-induced extinction rates could be as fast as those during these mass extinctions [12,13]. For example, one study predicted that
58 per cent of species may be committed to extinction by 2050 due to climate change alone [14], though this paper has been criticized [15,16]. Some people have even
human extinction may not be a remote risk [1719]. Sherwood & Huber [7] point to continued heating
effects that could make the world largely uninhabitable by humans and mammals within 300 years. Peak heat stress,
suggested that
quantified by the wet-bulb temperature (used because it reflects both the ambient temperature and relative humidity of the site), is surprisingly similar across diverse
hyperthermia in
humans and other mammals would occur as dissipation of metabolic heat becomes
impossible, therefore making many environments uninhabitable.
climates and never exceeds 31C. They suggest that if it rose to 35C, which never happens now but would at a warming of 7C,
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
AT: Warming False

Warming real and anthro scientific consensus
Rohricht 6/27
Masters Candidate, American University, School of International Service, M.A. Ethics, Peace,
and Global Affairs. B.A. Professional Writing and B.A. Philosophy at Kutztown University of Pennsylvania. (2014,
Alyssa, Capitalism & Climate Change, CounterPunch, http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/27/capitalism-climatechange/ // SM)
We are currently experiencing, without a doubt, the greatest crisis to face

human kind. Indications of climate change are being seen around the globe:
accelerated melting of the Arctic sea ice, rapidly receding glaciers,
rising sea levels, warming oceans and ocean acidification, more
frequent and longer-lasting droughts, stronger and more frequent
storms, higher temperatures than ever recorded, and a rapid extinction of
species are direct result of a warming climate. There is a scientific
consensus that the climate is rapidly changing and that these rapid
changes are due to anthropogenic causes. The science is clear: the humancaused emissions of great amounts of greenhouse gases primarily carbon dioxide,
methane, and nitrous oxide are causing global environmental damage.
change. ...
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Exts Warming
Economic collapse is key switching to alternatives wont
happen fast enough and growth means consuming more
resources is inevitable
Siegel 09 (Lee, Is Global Warming Unstoppable? Theory Also Says Energy Conservation Doesnt Help, 22
November 2009)
In a provocative new study, a University of Utah scientist argues that rising carbon dioxide emissions - the major
warming - cannot be stabilized unless the world's economy collapses or

society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each day. "It looks unlikely
that there will be any substantial near-term departure from recently observed acceleration in
carbon dioxide emission rates," says the new paper by Tim Garrett, an associate professor of
atmospheric sciences. Garrett's study was panned by some economists and rejected by several journals
cause of global
before acceptance by Climatic Change, a journal edited by renowned Stanford University climate scientist Stephen
Schneider. The study will be published online this week. The study - which is based on the concept that physics can
be used to characterize the evolution of civilization - indicates: Energy
conservation or efficiency doesn't

really save energy, but instead spurs economic growth and accelerated energy
consumption. Throughout history, a simple physical "constant" - an unchanging mathematical value links global energy use to the world's accumulated economic productivity, adjusted for inflation. So
it isn't necessary to consider population growth and standard of living in predicting society's
future energy consumption and resulting carbon dioxide emissions. "Stabilization of carbon dioxide emissions at
current rates will require approximately 300 gigawatts of new non-carbon-dioxide-emitting power production
capacity annually - approximately one new nuclear power plant (or equivalent) per day," Garrett says. "Physically ,
there are no other options without killing the economy ." Getting Heat for Viewing Civilization as
a "Heat Engine" Garrett says colleagues generally support his theory, while some economists are critical. One
economist, who reviewed the study, wrote: "I am afraid the author will need to study harder before he can
contribute." "I'm not an economist, and I am approaching the economy as a physics problem," Garrett says. "I end
up with a global economic growth model different than they have." Garrett treats civilization like a "heat engine"
that "consumes energy and does 'work' in the form of economic production, which then spurs it to consume more
energy," he says. "If society consumed no energy, civilization would be worthless," he adds. "It is only by
consuming energy that civilization is able to maintain the activities that give it economic value. This means that if
we ever start to run out of energy, then the value of civilization is going to fall and even collapse absent discovery
of new energy sources." Garrett says his study's key finding "is that accumulated economic production over the
course of history has been tied to the rate of energy consumption at a global level through a constant factor." That
"constant" is 9.7 (plus or minus 0.3) milliwatts per inflation-adjusted 1990 dollar. So if you look at economic and
energy production at any specific time in history, "each inflation-adjusted 1990 dollar would be supported by 9.7
Garrett tested his theory and found this
constant relationship between energy use and economic production at any given time
milliwatts of primary energy consumption," Garrett says.
by using United Nations statistics for global GDP (gross domestic product), U.S. Department of Energy data on
global energy consumption during1970-2005, and previous studies that estimated global economic production as
long as 2,000 years ago. Then he investigated the implications for carbon dioxide emissions. "Economists think you
need population and standard of living to estimate productivity," he says. "In my model, all you need to know is
how fast energy consumption is rising. The reason why is because there is this link between the economy and rates
of energy consumption, and it's just a constant factor." Garrett adds: "By finding this constant factor, the problem of
[forecasting] global economic growth is dramatically simpler. There is no need to consider population growth and
changes in standard of living because they are marching to the tune of the availability of energy supplies." To
acceleration of carbon dioxide emissions is unlikely to change soon

because our energy use today is tied to society's past economic productivity. "Viewed from
this perspective, civilization evolves in a spontaneous feedback loop maintained only by energy
consumption and incorporation of environmental matter," Garrett says. It is like a child that "grows by
Garrett, that means the
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
consuming food, and when the child grows, it is able to consume more food, which enables it to grow more." Is
Meaningful Energy Conservation Impossible? Perhaps the most provocative implication of Garrett's theory is that
conserving energy doesn't reduce energy use, but spurs economic growth and more energy use. "Making
civilization more energy efficient simply allows it to grow faster and consume more energy," says Garrett. He says
the idea that resource conservation accelerates resource consumption - known as Jevons paradox - was proposed in
the 1865 book "The Coal Question" by William Stanley Jevons, who noted that coal prices fell and coal consumption
soared after improvements in steam engine efficiency. So is Garrett arguing that conserving energy doesn't matter?
"I'm just saying
it's not
really
possible to conserve energy
in a meaningful way
because
the current
rate of energy consumption is determined by the unchangeable past of economic production . If

it feels good to conserve energy, that is fine, but there shouldn't be any pretense that it will make a difference." Yet,
Garrett says his findings contradict his own previously held beliefs about conservation, and he continues to ride a
bike or bus to work, line dry family clothing and use a push lawnmower. An Inevitable Future for Carbon Dioxide
Garrett says often-discussed strategies for slowing carbon dioxide emissions and global
warming include mention increased energy efficiency, reduced population growth and a switch to
power sources that don't emit carbon dioxide, including nuclear, wind and solar energy and
underground storage of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning. Another strategy is rarely mentioned:
a decreased standard of living, which would occur if energy supplies ran short and the
economy collapsed, he adds. "Fundamentally, I believe the system is deterministic," says Garrett. "Changes
Emissions?
in population and standard of living are only a function of the current energy efficiency. That leaves only switching
to a non-carbon-dioxide-emitting power source as an available option." "The problem is that,
in order to
stabilize emissions, not even reduce them, we have to switch to non-carbonized energy
sources at a rate about 2.1 percent per year. That comes out to almost one new nuclear
power plant per day." "If society invests sufficient resources into alternative and new, non-carbon energy
supplies, then perhaps it can continue growing without increasing global warming," Garrett says. Does Garrett fear
global warming deniers will use his work to justify inaction? "No," he says. "Ultimately ,
policy decisions have the capacity to change the
future
course
it's not clear that
of civilization."
Growth is the key cause of warming

Speth 08
law profServed as President Jimmy Carters White House environmental adviser and as head of
the United Nations largest agency for international development Prof at Vermont law school. Former dean of the
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University . Former Professor of Law at Georgetown
University Law Center, teaching environmental and constitutional law. .Former Chairman of the Council on
Environmental Quality in the Executive Office of the President. Co-founder of the Natural Resources Defense
Council. Was law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo L. Black JD, Yale. (James Gustave, The Bridge at the Edge
of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability, Gigapedia, 1-2,)
In short, there is little doubt that the process of human-induced global warming has begun in earnest, that the
consequences are already serious, and that they could be devastating if the buildup of
greenhouse gases is not halted.24 Yet the process of halting their buildup has hardly
started. Global carbon dioxide emissions climbed by 22 percent between 1980 and 2000. Since 2000,
the growth rate of emissions has tripled over the average for 19901999.25 The International
Energy Agency projects that if societies continue on a business-as-usual path between 2004 and 2030, the
result will be a rise in carbon dioxide emissions of 55 percent globally. Even in its most optimistic
scenario, where environmental actions are taken, global emissions climb by 31 percent.26 Congress is fi nally
industrial nations have contributed far more to the

buildup of greenhouse gases than developing countries. The developed countries with 20 percent of
waking up, but it is terribly late. To date,
the worlds people have contributed more than 75 percent of the cumulative carbon dioxide emissions and are
responsible for about 60 percent of todays emissions. The United States emits roughly the same amount of
rich countries have reaped

huge economic benefits in the process . That said, developing country emissions of greenhouse gases
greenhouse gases as 2.6 billion people living in 150 developing nations. The
are increasing rapidly, especially in China and India. The developing world was the source of the majority of carbon
{FILE TITLE}
dioxide emissions growth in 2004.
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
It is doubtful that the developing nations will act to curb
their emissions
unless the industrial nations help provide powerful incentives, technology, and other
assistance, as well as a good example.
Studies prove that an economic downturn is the only way to

solve warming
Klimas, 12 [Liz Klimas, Technology and Science Editor For The Blaze Journal,
Bachelor in Science, and Participant at NOAA, 5-7-2012, Study: Big Economic
Downturn Needed to SlowGlobal Warming, The Blaze Journal,
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/05/07/study-big-economic-downturn-neededto-slow-global-warming/]
A new report from the University of Michigan starts off its press
release with a not so optimistic phrase: Its a message no one wants to
hear. Just what message is this? That it would take an extreme economic
downturn to slow the effects of global warming. The research
conducted by Jos Tapia Granados and Edward Ionides of U-M and
scar Carpintero of the University of Valladolid in Spain is
considered the first to assess fluctuations in carbon dioxide based
on measurable levels, instead of less accurate carbon emission estimates. If
business as usual conditions continue, economic contractions the
size of the Great Recession or even bigger will be needed to reduce
atmospheric levels of CO, Tapia Granados, a researcher at the U-M Institute
for Social Research, said in a statement (via Science Daily). The research,
published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science and Policy, evaluated
natural phenomena volcanic eruptions and the El Nio Southern oscillation, which
the release states are believed to impact CO2 levels the worlds
population, and the world economy based on worldwide GDP and

their correlation with changes in atmospheric CO2 levels. Heres what
they found: Tapia Granados and colleagues found no observable relation between
short-term growth of world population and CO concentrations, and they show that
recent incidents of volcanic activity coincided with global recessions, which brings
into question the reductions in atmospheric CO previously ascribed to these
volcanic eruptions. In years of above-trend world GDP, from 1958 to 2010,
the researchers found greater increases in CO concentrations. For

each trillion in U.S. dollars that the world GDP deviates from trend,
CO levels deviate from trend about half a part per million, they found.
Concentrations of CO were estimated to be 200-300 ppm during
preindustrial times. They are presently close to 400 ppm, and levels around
300 ppm are considered safe to keep a stable climate. Detroits CBS affiliate
explains further, that since El Nio cannot be controlled by man, the sole
modifiable factor is economic activity. What is suggested to break
economic habits that are contributing to the rise in this
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
greenhouse gas and subsequent global warming according to the

researchers are enormous economic changes. In addition, CBS reports
Tapia Granados saying [...] climate change will soon have a serious
impact on the world, and the time is growing short to take
corrective action . One solution that has promise is a carbon tax levied on
any activity producing CO in order to create incentives to reduce emissions, Tapia
Granados said. The money would be returned to the population on a per capita
basis so the tax would not mean any extra fiscal burden.
Continued Economic Growth Creates More Rapid Warming

Most Accurate Studies Prove
Gerken, 12 [James Gerken, Green Editor at The Huffington Post, Graduate at
Colgate University, 5-1-2012, Climate Change And Sustained Economic Growth Link
Observed In New Study, The Huffington Post,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/climate-change-economic-growthlinked_n_1468100.html]
Will sustained global economic growth intensify the effects of climate change? A
new study from the University of Michigan's Institute for Social

Research suggests that a transformation of the world's economies
or a limit to economic growth may be needed to curb the rise of
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Published online in the
journal Environmental Science & Policy, the study examined the impacts on
global CO2 levels caused by the world economy (measured in global
GDP), population, volcanic eruptions and the El Nio Southern oscillation. It is the
"first analysis to use measurable levels of atmospheric carbon
dioxide" rather than only estimates, "which are less accurate,"
according to a press release. Jos Tapia Granados and Edward Ionides,
both from Michigan, and scar Carpintero of the University of Valladolid, Spain,
discovered "no observable relation" between short-term global population growth
and CO2 levels, but greater carbon dioxide levels were observed in
years of "above-trend world GDP" between 1958 and 2010. The
researchers found that for each trillion in U.S. dollars that global
GDP deviates from the trend, there is an accompanying deviation in
CO2 levels of about half a part per million (ppm), reported LiveScience.
Noting that the study "more or less" echoes 1972's "The Limits to Growth," author
and environmental activist Bill McKibben told HuffPost in an email, "We should
change the meaning of 'business-as-usual' to focus on building more resilient,
localized, community-focused economies, instead of the sprawling ones that for the
last few decades have been awarding their bounty to the 1%." Study co-author Jos
Tapia Granados offered a remedy, saying in a press release, One solution that
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
has promise is a carbon tax levied on any activity producing CO2 in

order to create incentives to reduce emissions. The money would be
returned to the population on a per capita basis so the tax would not mean any
extra fiscal burden." The Michigan study comes at the same time as research from
PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, a Dutch national
environmental policy institute, which found that annual global equivalent CO2
emissions in 2020 are likely to exceed 2010 estimates by 2.5 billion tons. The
projected 50.9 billion ton annual output in 2020 is "some 7-11 billion tones [sic]
beyond levels needed to prevent runaway climate change," reports Reuters.
Global Collapse of the Economy Is The Only Solution To

Warming
Allen, 11 [Dan, Writer at the Energy Bulletin, 7-17-2011, Deus ex Machina: Will
economic collapse save us from climate catastrophe?, Resilience,
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2011-06-17/deus-ex-machina-will-economiccollapse-save-us-climate-catastrophe]
So I repeat, there are NO ways to address our climate predicament
with the technologies of industrial civilization existing or proposed.

Were running up against a pressing biophysical deadline, the hard material and
energy limits of a finite planet, an ecosphere in an advanced stage of material and
energetic dissipation, and the iron-clad Laws of Thermodynamics. And none those
inconvenient truths are gonna give one damn bit, no matter how desperately we
plead. And as for that fabled last-minute, miracle-technology break-though all my
high school students are banking on, Id say this: dont hold your breath except
that Hansen reminds us that we dont even have TIME to hold our breath. Its
money-time NOW -- and we got no money. The abject failure of even more
technology to solve this problem of essentially too much

technology points to one remaining solution: a rapid return to
simplicity by any means possible. OUR OPTIONS NARROW TO ONE So it now
becomes painfully obvious that our options have narrowed to one: JUST QUIT
BURNING FOSSIL FUELS replacements be damned -- and figure out the
monumental (impossible?) adjustments on the fly. Wow. We really let it come to
this? Really? Wow. The wise ape? Now while our lone just stop it option can be
either voluntary or involuntary, we have already dismissed the voluntary option
above as requiring a political phase change thats very unlikely to happen in time.
So were left with this sad truth: Likely the only thing that will save our
species (and all species) from climate catastrophe at this point is a

global collapse of the industrial economy -- beginning in the next
few years and progressing rapidly to an extremely low level of
technological complexity. The 6% annual decrease in CO2 emissions
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
modeled by Hansen dictates that emissions get halved about every

twelve years. Thats what we need. And we might even need it faster. Tipping
points loom large and dark still partially concealed in the mists of complexity, but
there nonetheless. Now, do I realize the extreme amount of human suffering a rapid
economic collapse will cause? Yes. Do I realize that neither I nor my loved ones will
likely make it through unscathed or maybe even alive? Yes. But I answer with this:
Whats the alternative? The answer here also stands alone --climate catastrophe.
Thats it. Thats where we are. Thats the bed weve made. So, sadly, at this late
hour, we just flat-out NEED the dark angel of economic collapse to
swoop down onto the stage, Deus ex Machina style, and save the day.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2NC DeDev Solves

Economic crisis reverses the trend of CO2 emissions 2008
proves
Alier 10/1 - Joan Martnez Alier is a Professor at the Department of Economics and Economic History,
Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, since 1975. He has directed the Doctoral Programme in Environmental
Sciences (in the option of Ecological Economics and Environmental Management) since 1997, at the Institute of
Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA) of the UAB. He was a research fellow / senior associate member of St.
Antony's College, University of Oxford (1966-73 y 1984-85), and visiting professor at the Universidade Estadual de
Campinas (Brasil) in 1974, Free University of Berlin in 1980-81, Stanford University and University of California
(Davis) (1988-89), Yale University, 1999- 2000, and FLACSO Sede-Ecuador, 1994-95 and 2007. He is a member
since 2000 of the Scientific Committee of the European Environment Agency. He is a founding member and has
been president (2006, 2007) of the International Society for Ecological Economics. He has a doctorate in Economics
(Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona). His research interests comprise Agrarian History, Environmental History,
Ecological Economics, Environmental Policy, Political Ecology. In 2008, he is directing the research projects Social
Metabolism, trends and reactions" (MEC, Spain) and CEECEC (Civil Society Engagement with Ecological
Economics) (FP7, EU), and takes part in the integrated project ALARM (FP6). He direct also the research group
(00571) Economic Institutions, Standards of Living, and Environment, recognised by the Catalan government. He is
the author of many academic articles, and a member of the editorial committee of Ecological Economics,
Environmental Values, Journal of Agrarian Change and other journals. He has written and still writes for alternative
journals such as Cuadernos de Ruedo Ibrico, Bicicleta, Mientras Tanto, Archipilago, and he has edited since 1990
the journal Ecologa Poltica (Icaria Editorial, Barcelona). He works with environmental groups such as Accin
Ecolgica, Quito, and its Instituto de Estudios Ecologistas del Tercer Mundo whose honorary rector he is. His main
books (in ERnglish) are Labourers and Landowners in Southern Spain (1971), Haciendas, Plantations and Collective
Farms: Cuba and Peru (1977), Ecological Economics: Energy, Environment and Society (1987), Varieties of
Environmentalism: Essays North and South (with Ramachandra Guha, 1997), The Environmentalism of the Poor: a
Study of Ecological Conflicts and Valuation (2002). He has edited with Robert Costanza and Olman Segura, Getting
down to earth: practical applications of ecological economics (1996), with Alf Hornborg and John Mc Neill,
Rethinking Environmental History: World-Systems History and Global Environmental Change (2007), and with Inge
Ropke, Recent Developments in Ecological Economics (2 vols, 2008). (2013, Joan Martnez, The Encyclopedia of
Earth, Herman Daly Festschrift: Socially Sustainable Economic Degrowth,
http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/153488/ // SM)
The world peak in carbon dioxide emissions has been reached because
of the economic crisis. Emissions are now (finally?) going down. This might become a unique historical chance.
In May 2008 it was announced that carbon dioxide concentration in
the atmosphere was at a record level of 387 parts per million (ppm)
according to the measurements at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawai. This meant
an increase of 30 per cent above the level of 300 ppm that Svante Arrhenius used in his article of 1895, when he pointed out that
burning coal would increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and would increase temperatures. Between 1970
, since 2001 and until 2007 growth

in concentration reached 2.1 ppm. In early 2008 the world was still
travelling at all speed towards 450 ppm to be reached in about
thirty years. The great increase in the prices of oil, gas, and other commodities until July 2008, and the
economic crisis in the second half of 2008 and in 2009, stopped economic
growth and changed the trend in carbon dioxide emissions. From
the point of view of climate change, the economic crisis should
certainly be welcome.
and 2000, the concentration had increased by 1.5 ppm per year
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
AT: Emission Cuts

Climate Change Cant Be Solved In a Consumer SocietyImmediate Economic Collapse is Crucial
Trainer, 10 [Ted Trainer, Ph.D and Professor at the University of New South Wales,
Australia, 6-2010, The Problems of Climate Change Cannot Be Solved By Consumer
Societies, Journal of Cosmology,
http://journalofcosmology.com/ClimateChange106.html]
One of the fundamental contributing factors to the many global

problems threatening civilization and the living creatures of this planet, is
simply our grossly unsustainable level of over-consumption and the
consequence production of waste (Cairns 2010; NAS 2010a,b,c). The rate
at which the rich countries use up resources is far beyond that which
can be kept up for long, even more so as the ability to mass consume spreads
to the emerging middle classes in developing nations (reviewed by Moriarty and
Honnery 2010). Yet it appears that many people totally fail to grasp
the magnitude of the threats posed by increased consumption which is
necessarily accompanied by the emissions of green house gases and other
poisons and wastes (Meinschausen et al., 2009; NAS 2010a,b,c). The reductions
required to prevent catastrophe are so big that they probably

cannot be achieved within a consumer-capitalist society the very
foundations of which rest upon economic growth and the devouring
of resources (Moriarty and Honnery 2010). As detailed in three major
monographs published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS 2010a,b,c), by
the year 2050, the U.S. must cut carbon emissions by 50% to 80% from 1990 levels.
However, even if these drastic cuts were immediately put into effect,
the U.S., would still produce 200 billion tons of greenhouse gases
between the years 2010 and 2050. To survive, extremely radical
change to our systems and culture are necessary (Cairns 2010;
Meinschausen et al., 2009; Moriarty and Honnery 2010). Here are three lines of
argument leading to this conclusion. 1. Several resources are already
becoming alarmingly scarce, including petroleum, water, land, fish and food
(Cairns 2010; Moriarty and Honnery 2010). If all the worlds people today were to
consume resources at the per capita rate we in rich countries do, the annual supply
rate would have to be more than 5 times as great as at present (Mason 2003); and
if the world's population were to increase to 9 billion it would have to be about 8
times as great. Mason (2003) shows how these scarcities will probably come to a
head in the 2030 Spike. 2. The per capita area of productive land needed to
supply one Australian with food, water, settlements and energy, is 8 ha. The US
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
figure is closer to 12 ha (reviewed by Moriarty and Honnery 2010). But when world
population reaches 9 billion the per capita area of productive land available in the
world will be less than .8 ha (Mason 2003). In other words the Australian footprint is
already 10 times that which it will be possible for all to have. 3. An
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NAS 2010a,b,c), have concluded that
average global atmosphere temperatures were about 1.4 degrees warmer in the
2000-2010 decade compared with a century ago and that future fossil-fuel
emissions of greenhouse gases will increase temperatures by 4 degree in the year
2015 and 11 degrees by 2100. In May of 2010, NASA and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration independently reported that 2010 has been the
warmest year so far recorded worldwide. Increase temperatures result in
glacial melt, and rising sea levels . Therefore, ocean levels could rise by 5
feet by the end of the century. As most large cities are located near the coast and
inland water ways, rising sea levels would require the movement of infrastructure
and hundreds of millions of city dwellers to higher ground. The only way to
combat this is through drastic reductions in carbon emissions to

nearly 1990 levels (Meinschausen et al., 2009; NAS 2010a,b,c)
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
AT: Tech Solves (General)

Traditional innovation fails three warrants
Chapple 13 Alice Chapple is an economist and a specialist in impact investment and impact assessment.
She is director of ImpactValue, a consultancy that helps investors and businesses to design their activities to have a
more positive impact on people and the environment. Before establishing Impact Value, Alice worked as Director of
Sustainable Financial Markets at Forum for the Future. She worked on projects exploring the scope for innovative
financial instruments, more effective valuation techniques, better risk assessment, and longer-term investment
strategies. Areas of research while at Forum for the Future included finance for clean technologies, sustainability
reporting, the market potential for impact investment, the future of social impact bonds, and structural barriers
preventing the transition to a low-carbon economy. She worked with a wide range of organizations including Aviva
Investors, Barclays, the Co-operative Group, the Department for International Development, Friends Provident
Foundation, Actis and the Rockefeller Foundation. Prior to Forum for the Future, she worked for many years at UK
development finance institution CDC as financial analyst, fund manager and social and environmental advisor. In
the late 1990s, she established a program for evaluation of development impact and in the 2000s she designed
processes for fund managers to assess the social, environmental and governance aspects of their investments.
Alice has an MA in Economics from Cambridge University and is a chartered accountant. (1/22/13, Alice, Guardian
Professional, Finding a sustainable model of economic growth fit for the future,
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/sustainable-model-economic-growth-future-supply // SM)
Traditional economics tells us that the market will sort us out. When
resources become scarce, the price goes up, people start innovating
to develop or market alternatives, and the problem is resolved. However,
there are at least three fundamental problems with that analysis:
First, those of us who are richer are cushioned against the impacts of scarcity
or instability, while poorer people are already suffering from a lack of
water, less fertile land, changing climate and resulting conflicts. We
won't react until we are the ones feeling the pain. Second, our
accounting system simply doesn't put an adequate value on many of the
resources and particularly the ecosystems services we depend on, so that
the price does not reflect the importance of maintaining them and
the market does not send the right signals. Third, there is a time lag.
By the time the market recognises the problem, starts to value these
resources and sends the signals, it may be too late. It takes time to
develop alternatives clean technologies to replace fossil fuels, new ways to purify or access water,
new farming techniques that are less damaging to the topsoil. It is therefore surely irrational to
assume that we will be able to pull a technological or economic
rabbit out of the tired old business model's hat without a more deliberate process.
Tech fails capitalism is inherently opposed to sustainable

existence
Rohricht 6/27
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Searching for market-based solutions to the climate crisis will not

work. When capitalism attempts to put a price on the natural world,
it takes into account only the interests of those with the greatest
purchasing power. Capital accumulation is the primary objective, and any costs that can
be externalized onto nature and the global poor will be. Technology
in the capitalist system has helped us to create ever-more energyefficient processes, yet a paradoxical relationship arises, where
increased energy-efficiency leads to increased economic expansion,
negating any reduction in resource-use. Likewise, transforming our
infrastructure to more sustainable energy sources would require a
such massive output of GHGs from fossil fuels to build that
implementing the change would push us over the climate cliff.
Geoengineering, the solution touted by many cheerleaders of the capitalist system as the saving grace
of humanity, absurdly argues for altering the earths natural systems
even further, hoping that capitalism can continue undiminished.
Technology may help pass the buck to future generations, but it will
not solve the problem. Capitalism would have us grow indefinitely, but the earths natural carrying
capacity would have us reverse this trend. The interminable drive for accumulation on
which capitalism is solely focused has led humanity down a path of neardisaster with the very systems that we rely on to sustain life human and otherwise.
If we continue down this path of relentless accumulation inherent in
the capitalist system, we cannot stop the climate disaster.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
AT: Tech Solves (Geoengineering)

Geoengineering fails disastrous side effects and failure to
address the systematic causes of the increase in GHGs
Rohricht 6/27
However, further investing in technologies and in geoengineering is not a bold, new decision, as Giddens contends.
Solar Radiation
Management (SRM) techniques (one area of geoengineering) such
as adding sulfate aerosols to the stratosphere to increase the
albedo effect the amount of the Suns energy that is reflected back into space and cool the planet are
being seriously considered by many scientists and policy makers.
The absurdity of pursuing massive projects that would greatly alter
the natural systems of the earth and that could have disastrous side
effects is evident. Gavin Schmidt, climate modeler at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies,
It is doubling down on exactly what we have been doing for decades.
created the following analogy for geoengineering: Imagine the climate as a small boat on a choppy ocean, rocking
back and forth. One of the passengers in the boat decides to stand up and deliberately rock the boat violently to the
protests of the other passengers. Another passenger suggests that with his knowledge of chaotic dynamics, he can
counterbalance the rocking of the first passenger. To do so, he needs many sensors, computational resources, and
so on so that he can react efficiently, though he cannot guarantee that it will absolutely stabilize the boat, and since
the boat is already unsteady, it may make things worse. Schmidt asks, So is the answer to a known and increasing
human influence on climate an ever more elaborate system to control the climate? Or should the person rocking the
Market reactions to large-scale geoengineering such as

releasing sulfate aerosols, would result in the continued
acceleration of resource use and further capital accumulation, not
to mention, it would do little to solve our problems. Sulfate injection,
to start, doesnt actually help to remove any CO2 from the atmosphere. It
also doesnt address other areas of climate change, including ocean acidification,
which has far-reaching implications for many species of marine life. Whats
worse, since sulfate injection only manages to reflect more of the suns
energy without addressing any of the systematic causes of the increase of
greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere, further increases of GHGs can
continue, thus assuming the deployment of future sulfate injections
and other geoengineering solutions to no end.
boat just sit down?
Geoengineering Makes Warming Worse It Creates Expansive

Temperature Increases
Heyes, 2-26 [ J.D. Heyes, Journalist for NaturalNews.com and Public Policy
Analyst, 2-26-2014, Geoengineering could cause real global warming, Natural
News.com.
http://www.naturalnews.com/044076_geoengineering_global_warming_solar_radiatio
n.html#]
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
NaturalNews) Climate-change researchers at the University of Washington
(UW), in considering a range of mitigation scenarios, say that the
injection of sulfate particles into the earth's atmosphere to reflect

sunlight away from the planet's surface to curb warming might pose
a further threat if it is not maintained indefinitely and additionally
supported with strict restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. The
results of the study, published Feb. 18 in IOP Publishing's journal Environmental
Research Letters, " has highlighted the risks of large and spatially
expansive temperature increases if solar radiation management
(SRM) is abruptly stopped once it has been implemented ," said a
press release from the university. The scientists said SRM is one proposed
method of geoengineering that is being floated as a potential
technique to control warming. It involves injecting tiny sulfatebased aerosols into the upper atmosphere to reflect sunlight and
cool the planet -- theoretically, anyway. "The technique has been shown
to be economically and technically feasible; however, its efficacy
depends on its continued maintenance, without interruption from
technical faults, global cooperation breakdown or funding running
dry," said the press release. Temps could rise if the technique is stopped?
According to the UW study, global temperature increases could
eventually double if SRM is implemented for a period of decades
and then stopped suddenly -- in relation to expected temperature
increases if the technique is not implemented at all. The scientists
utilized a global climate model to demonstrate that if an extreme emissions
pathway -- RCP8.5 -- is followed up until the year 2035, which would allow for
temperatures to rise 1C above the 1970-1999 mean, and the technique is
implemented for 25 years and then ended suddenly, global temperatures could rise
by 4C in the following decades. Such a rate of increase, which would be caused by
the resultant buildup of background greenhouse gas emissions, could grow beyond
boundaries experienced in the 20th century, the scientists said. " According to
our simulations, tropical regions like South Asia and Sub-Saharan

Africa are hit particularly hard, the very same regions that are home
to many of the world's most food insecure populations," said lead
author of the research, Kelly McCusker, from the University of Washington. "The
potential temperature changes also pose a severe threat to biodiversity." "The
primary control over the magnitude of the large temperature increases after an SRM
shutoff is the background greenhouse gas concentrations. Thus, the greater the
future emissions of greenhouse gases, the larger the temperature increases would
be, and, similarly, the later the termination occurs while GHG emissions continue,
the larger the temperature increases," continued McCusker. " The only way to
avoid creating the risk of substantial temperature increases through

SRM, therefore, is concurrent strong reductions of GHG emissions."
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Not everyone is convinced that geoengineering is the right

approach in the first place, however. Need for perspective "Although not
necessarily a negative impact, measuring any potential of solar radiation
management (including the use of stratospheric aerosol injection) is nearly
impossible - the climate is too complex an entity in order to do so effectively," David
Baake, an expert with Money Crashers, told me. "There's also the possibility that the
use of such aerosols may actually decrease precipitation and rainfall on a global
level. And since the possibility exists that such aerosols can transform into sulphuric
acid, acid rain levels may rise. "It may further deplete the ozone as well. And finally,
the use of solar radiation management has its benefits," Baake continued, "but it
does nothing to solve the underlying causes of global warming - it only serves as a
stopgap solution." Indeed, longtime environmental activist Pablo Solomon argues,
the entire issue of global warming and climate change needs some perspective.
"The debate over 'climate change' should not be censored and the
opposition bullied into submission," Solomon said in an email to Natural
News. "The Left continues to literally threaten those who oppose the
global warming view. It is nearly impossible to get a grant or even a

university job if you openly oppose the global warming theory. I was
appalled when President Obama basically said the debate was over so shut up and
get in line. In science, the debate is never over and never should be." Solomon
added that, if anything, slight warming of the planet would be advantageous. "We
are over populated and what resources we have are poorly

distributed," he said. "A slight climate change over several
centuries--and that is what is really possible not a sudden sea level
rise of Biblical proportions--would create vast new areas of farmland
in Canada, Poland, Russia," and other cold regions of the planet.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
AT: Cap Good - Agriculture

Capitalism leads to unsustainable agriculture deteriorates
nature
Rohricht 6/27
Karl Marx first employed the concept of metabolic interactions between humans and nature in the 19th century,
recognizing the complex interdependence between the two. Since man lives from nature and derives the very
necessities to survive from it, nature is his body. He is a part of nature and they are inextricably linked and so man
must be in dialogue with it in order to survive. This complex interchange he likened to the metabolism or
a
rupture occurred with the relations between man and the natural
world. This rupture, driven by capitalist expansion, intensified with
large-scale agriculture, harmful industries, and the global market.
material exchange within the body. But as man began to adopt practices that disrupted this interchange,
Marx saw this rupture, or metabolic rift, occur as populations began to flock toward cities. In contrast to traditional
this new type of agriculture

meant nutrients (food) were being shipped to cities to feed the growing
population, and thus not cycled back into the soil. This caused the
natural fertility of the soil to decline and nutrients in the city to
accumulate as waste and pollution. As soil fertility worsened, more and
more intensive agricultural methods were needed, increasing the
use of artificial fertilizers, further harming the nutrient cycles of the
soil. Capitalism continued to demand higher and higher yields,
requiring more and more intensive and harsh farming methods, greater fertilizer use, and
so on, creating a cycle of deterioration of the natural processes, and a
rift between man and nature. Humans have disrupted the natural processes of the earth in
agriculture, where waste from food is recycled back into the soil,
unimaginable ways. The very composition of the air we breathe is being altered by our ever-growing emissions of
GHGs. The system we have put our faith in for many years rests on a ceaseless hunger for accumulation, spurred
on by fossil fuels. As our energy sources become more and more scarce and difficult to find and extract,
instead of scaling back and recognizing natures natural boundaries,

capitalism doubles down and employs even more dangerous
methods.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
AT: EKC
Kuznets Theory isnt Applicable to Climate Change
UNEP,3-11 [United Nations Environmental Programme, 3-11-2014, THE
ENVIRONMENTAL KUZNETS CURVE, Make Wealthy History: Because The Earth Cant
Afford Our Lifestyle, http://makewealthhistory.org/2014/03/11/the-environmentalkuznets-curve/]
So the first problem is that the curve theory doesnt hold across all
environmental problems . It doesnt apply to the most serious issue

of our time, climate change. Of course, proponents of the curve
simply say that carbon emissions do have a peak at which they
would start declining, and we just havent reached the required per
capita income threshold so perhaps just a little, more economic growth is
what we need. Since weve already overshot the safe limits and begun
to destabilise the climate, one wonders how much faith we want to
put in the theory. Given that there are tipping points that would
throw the climate into unstoppable climate change, increasing
emissions is a luxury we dont have. The second problem is that the
Environmental Kuznets Curve really only applies within countries.
Britains economy has moved away from heavy industry, but we
havent stopped using the goods of heavy industr y we still want to
drive petrol-driven cars and build things out of cement. Our own mines have closed,
but we still use vast quantities of tin and copper and iron from elsewhere. Our
environmental impact has been displaced, not eliminated. Countries may improve
their decoupling performance most easily by outsourcing material-intensive
extraction and processing to other countries and by importing concentrated
products instead says the UNEP.
Kuznets Go Neg Results Show An Increase In Warming

Francois, 4-14 [ Joseph Francois, Professor of Economic at Johannes Kepler
University, 4-14-2014, "Revisiting the Environmental Kuznets Curve" , Global Trade
Analysis Project, https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/res_display.asp?
RecordID=4417]
The view that human released CO2 emissions are one of the main
causes of anthropogenic global warming is now widespread among
the scienti c community. Ranging from rising sea levels to land and water
shortages the e ects of climate change on the global ecosystem and the world
economy will be severe. This makes the existence of a U-shaped
relationship between economic development and pollution the Holy

Grail of environmental economics. While there is theoretical support for this
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
so called Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC), epirical evidence is far from
robust, sometimes even contradicting theoretical suggestions. Here we test for the
existence of an inverted U-shaped relationship between carbon dioxide emissions
and real income for a panel of 78 individuals (66 countries and 12 composite
regions) for the years 1997, 2001, 2004 and 2007. We contribute to the literature in
two ways. First, by applying multi-region input output (MRIO) methodology on the
GTAP database we can also take CO2 consumption into account besides established
production-based measures. Secondly, we also apply a threshold model alongside
conventional lniear models on our dataset. Applying the linear models we
can adress methodological issues of the existing literature. Our

results show a linear relationship between real income and the
production and consumption of CO2 emissions. We have some
support for the hypothesis that consumption of CO2 is indeed
increasing with income , which we want to testify with an threshold
approach. The existence or non-existence of an EKC for CO2 is of
considerable importance of the design of global mitigation
mechanisms and agreements on climate.
EKC flips negeconomic growth leads to warming

Tierney 9 [John Tierney writes a column, Findings, for the Science Times section. He
previously wrote the Big City column for the Times Magazine and the Metro section,
the Political Points column for the Washington bureau, and an Op-Ed column. He is
the co-author, with the social psychologist Roy Baumeister, of the New York Times
best-seller, Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength (Penguin Press,
2011). An excerpt, Do You Suffer from Decision Fatigue?, ran in the Times
Magazine. It was reviewed in the Times by Steven Pinker and named one of
Amazons Best Books of 2011. Use Energy, Get Rich and Save the Planet April 20,
2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/science/earth/21tier.html?_r=1&] JAKE
LEE
American environmentalists had good

reason to feel guilty. The nations affluence and advanced technology
seemed so obviously bad for the planet that they were featured in a
famous equation developed by the ecologist Paul Ehrlich and the physicist John P.
When the first Earth Day took place in 1970,
Holdren, who is now President Obamas science adviser. Their equation was I=PAT, which means that
environmental impact is equal to population multiplied by affluence multiplied by technology. Protecting the planet
seemed to require fewer people, less wealth and simpler technology the same sort of social transformation and
energy revolution that will be advocated at many Earth Day rallies on Wednesday. But among researchers who
analyze environmental data, a lot has changed since the 1970s. With the benefit of their hindsight and improved
There will be no green revolution in

energy or anything else. No leader or law or treaty will radically
change the energy sources for people and industries in the United
States or other countries. No recession or depression will make a lasting change in consumers
equations, Ill make a couple of predictions: 1.
passions to use energy, make money and buy new technology and that, believe it or not, is good news,
I realize this
second prediction seems hard to believe when you consider the
because... 2. The richer everyone gets, the greener the planet will be in the long run.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
carbon being dumped into the atmosphere today by Americans, and

the projections for increasing emissions from India and China as
they get richer. Those projections make it easy to assume that
affluence and technology inflict more harm on the environment. But
while pollution can increase when a country starts industrializing, as
people get wealthier they can afford cleaner water and air . They start using
sources of energy that are less carbon-intensive and not just because theyre worried about global warming. The
process of decarbonization started long before Al Gore was born. The old wealth-is-bad IPAT theory may have
made intuitive sense, but it didnt jibe with the data that has been analyzed since that first Earth Day .
By the
1990s, researchers realized that graphs of environmental impact
didnt produce a simple upward-sloping line as countries got richer.
The line more often rose, flattened out and then reversed so that it
sloped downward, forming the shape of a dome or an inverted U
whats called a Kuznets curve. (See nytimes.com/tierneylab for an example.) In dozens of
studies, researchers identified Kuznets curves for a variety of environmental problems. There are exceptions to the
trend, especially in countries with inept governments and poor systems of property rights, but in general, richer is
eventually greener. As incomes go up, people often focus first on cleaning up their drinking water, and then later on
air pollutants like sulfur dioxide. As their wealth grows, people consume more energy, but they move to more
efficient and cleaner sources from wood to coal and oil, and then to natural gas and nuclear power, progressively
This global decarbonization trend has been

proceeding at a remarkably steady rate since 1850, according to
Jesse Ausubel of Rockefeller University and Paul Waggoner of the
Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station. Once you have lots of high-rises filled
emitting less carbon per unit of energy.
with computers operating all the time, the energy delivered has to be very clean and compact, said Mr. Ausubel,
the director of the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller. The long-term trend is toward natural gas
and nuclear power, or conceivably solar power. If the energy system is left to its own devices, most of the carbon
will be out of it by 2060 or 2070. But what about all the carbon dioxide being spewed out today by Americans
American suburbanites do emit more

greenhouse gases than most other people in the world (although New Yorkers
arent much different from other affluent urbanites). But the United States and other
Western countries seem to be near the top of a Kuznets curve for
carbon emissions and ready to start the happy downward slope. The amount of carbon emitted by
commuting to McMansions? Well, its true that
the average American has remained fairly flat for the past couple of decades, and per capita carbon emissions have
started declining in some countries, like France. Some researchers estimate that the turning point might come when
a countrys per capita income reaches $30,000, but it can vary widely, depending on what fuels are available.
Meanwhile, more carbon is being taken out of the atmosphere by the expanding forests in America and other
Deforestation follows a Kuznets curve, too. In poor

countries, forests are cleared to provide fuel and farmland, but as
people gain wealth and better agricultural technology, the farm
fields start reverting to forestland. Of course, even if rich countries greenhouse impact
declines, there will still be an increase in carbon emissions from China,
India and other countries ascending the Kuznets curve. While that
prospect has environmentalists lobbying for global restrictions on
greenhouse gases, some economists fear that a global treaty could
ultimately hurt the atmosphere by slowing economic growth,
thereby lengthening the time it takes for poor countries to reach
the turning point on the curve. But then, is there much reason to
affluent countries.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
think that countries at different stages of the Kuznets curve could

even agree to enforce tough restrictions? The Kyoto treaty didnt
transform Europes industries or consumers. While some American
environmentalists hope that the combination of the economic crisis
and a new president can start an era of energy austerity and green
power, Mr. Ausubel says theyre hoping against history. Over the
past century, he says, nothing has drastically altered the long-term
trends in the way Americans produce or use energy not the Great
Depression, not the world wars, not the energy crisis of the 1970s
or the grand programs to produce alternative energy. Energy systems evolve
with a particular logic, gradually, and they dont suddenly morph into something different, Mr. Ausubel
says. That doesnt make for a rousing speech on Earth Day. But in
the long run, a Kuznets curve is more reliable than a revolution.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
AT: Efficiency/Renewables
DeDev Solves Warming Efficient Consumption and
Renewables Isnt Sufficient
Garret & Siegel, 09 [Tim Garrett, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science,
Lee J. Siegel, Science New Specialist, University of Utah Public Relations, 11-222009, IS GLOBAL WARMING UNSTOPPABLE? THEORY ALSO SAYS ENERGY
CONSERVATION DOESN'T HELP, The University of Utah: News Center,
http://www.unews.utah.edu/old/p/112009-1.html]
Nov. 22, 2009 - In a provocative new study, a University of Utah scientist
argues that rising carbon dioxide emissions - the major cause of
global warming - cannot be stabilized unless the world's economy
collapses or society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power

plant each day. "It looks unlikely that there will be any substantial
near-term departure from recently observed acceleration in carbon
dioxide emission rates," says the new paper by Tim Garrett, an associate
professor of atmospheric sciences. Garrett's study was panned by some economists
and rejected by several journals before acceptance by Climatic Change, a journal
edited by renowned Stanford University climate scientist Stephen Schneider. The
study will be published online this week. The study - which is based on the
concept that physics can be used to characterize the evolution of

civilization - indicates: Energy conservation or efficiency doesn't
really save energy, but instead spurs economic growth and
accelerated energy consumption . Throughout history, a simple
physical "constant" - an unchanging mathematical value - links
global energy use to the world's accumulated economic productivity,
adjusted for inflation. So it isn't necessary to consider population
growth and standard of living in predicting society's future energy
consumption and resulting carbon dioxide emissions. "Stabilization of
carbon dioxide emissions at current rates will require approximately 300 gigawatts
of new non-carbon-dioxide-emitting power production capacity annually approximately one new nuclear power plant (or equivalent) per day," Garrett
says. "Physically , there are no other options without killing the

economy ." Getting Heat for Viewing Civilization as a "Heat Engine" Garrett says
colleagues generally support his theory, while some economists are critical. One
economist, who reviewed the study, wrote: "I am afraid the author will need to
study harder before he can contribute." "I'm not an economist, and I am
approaching the economy as a physics problem," Garrett says. "I end up with a
global economic growth model different than they have." Garrett treats civilization
like a "heat engine" that "consumes energy and does 'work' in the form of economic
production, which then spurs it to consume more energy," he says. "If society
consumed no energy, civilization would be worthless," he adds. "It is only by
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
consuming energy that civilization is able to maintain the activities

that give it economic value. This means that if we ever start to run
out of energy, then the value of civilization is going to fall and even
collapse absent discovery of new energy sources ." Garrett says his
study's key finding "is that accumulated economic production over
the course of history has been tied to the rate of energy
consumption at a global level through a constant factor ." That
"constant" is 9.7 (plus or minus 0.3) milliwatts per inflation-adjusted 1990 dollar. So
if you look at economic and energy production at any specific time in history, "each
inflation-adjusted 1990 dollar would be supported by 9.7 milliwatts of primary
energy consumption," Garrett says. Garrett tested his theory and found this
constant relationship between energy use and economic production at any given
time by using United Nations statistics for global GDP (gross domestic product), U.S.
Department of Energy data on global energy consumption during1970-2005, and
previous studies that estimated global economic production as long as 2,000 years
ago. Then he investigated the implications for carbon dioxide emissions.
"Economists think you need population and standard of living to estimate
productivity," he says. "In my model, all you need to know is how fast
energy consumption is rising. The reason why is because there is
this link between the economy and rates of energy consumption, and
it's just a constant factor." Garrett adds: "By finding this constant factor, the
problem of [forecasting] global economic growth is dramatically simpler. There is no
need to consider population growth and changes in standard of living because they
are marching to the tune of the availability of energy supplies." To Garrett, that
means the acceleration of carbon dioxide emissions is unlikely to
change soon because our energy use today is tied to society's past
economic productivity. "Viewed from this perspective, civilization evolves in a
spontaneous feedback loop maintained only by energy consumption and
incorporation of environmental matter," Garrett says. It is like a child that "grows by
consuming food, and when the child grows, it is able to consume more food, which
enables it to grow more." Is Meaningful Energy Conservation Impossible? Perhaps
the most provocative implication of Garrett's theory is that

conserving energy doesn't reduce energy use, but spurs economic
growth and more energy use. "Making civilization more energy
efficient simply allows it to grow faster and consume more energy,"
says Garrett. He says the idea that resource conservation accelerates resource
consumption - known as Jevons paradox - was proposed in the 1865 book "The Coal
Question" by William Stanley Jevons, who noted that coal prices fell and coal
consumption soared after improvements in steam engine efficiency. So is Garrett
arguing that conserving energy doesn't matter? "I'm just saying it's not really
possible to conserve energy in a meaningful way because the current rate of energy
consumption is determined by the unchangeable past of economic production. If it
feels good to conserve energy, that is fine, but there shouldn't be any pretense that
it will make a difference." Yet, Garrett says his findings contradict his own previously
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
held beliefs about conservation, and he continues to ride a bike or bus to work, line
dry family clothing and use a push lawnmower. An Inevitable Future for Carbon
Dioxide Emissions? Garrett says often-discussed strategies for slowing
carbon dioxide emissions and global warming include mention

increased energy efficiency, reduced population growth and a switch to power
sources that don't emit carbon dioxide, including nuclear, wind and solar energy
and underground storage of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning. Another
strategy is rarely mentioned: a decreased standard of living, which would
occur if energy supplies ran short and the economy collapsed, he

adds. "Fundamentally, I believe the system is deterministic," says Garrett.
"Changes in population and standard of living are only a function of the current
energy efficiency. That leaves only switching to a non-carbon-dioxide-emitting
power source as an available option." "The problem is that, in order to
stabilize emissions, not even reduce them, we have to switch to noncarbonized energy sources at a rate about 2.1 percent per year. That comes out to
almost one new nuclear power plant per day."
Efficiency fails Jevons Paradox

Rohricht 6/27
Pursuing sustainable energy sources is an equally dubious

response to the climate crisis. Just as with geoengineering, the thought is that
human ingenuity and investment in new technologies will lead to
cleaner and more efficient industrial practices, thus reducing our GHG
emissions. Yet this ignores the very nature of the capitalist system
of endless growth and accumulation, and given the opportunity to
expand further while expending less on energy and resources, capitalism will
naturally expand to fill the newly opened space. This concept is often called
Jevons Paradox, after William Stanley Jevons, a 19th century economist who sought to examine why
increased efficiency in the use of coal led to increased consumption. What Jevons noted was a
positive correlation between efficiency and resource consumption,
observing that as the use of coal became more efficient and thus more
cost effective, it became more desirable to consumers, creating
more demand and thus more production and consumption. On and on it goes.
This is called the rebound effect whereby gains in efficiency lead to a drop in the price of
a given commodity and a rise in demand and consumption. Any gains in efficiency, then, do not lead to a decrease
in consumption, but often have the opposite effect. In fact, over the period of 1975 to 1996, carbon efficiency
increased dramatically in the US, Japan, the Netherlands, and Austria. However, studies show that during the same
gains in
fossil fuel efficiency have resulted in increased use by the capitalist,
industrialized societies. As Karl Marx noted, capitalism prevents the
rational application of technologies because gains are only
period, total emissions of carbon dioxide and per capita emissions increased across the board. Thus
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
reinvested in the capitalist system and used to further expand and

grow capital accumulation.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
AT: Renewables
Renewables fail huge emissions required to switch and
massive environmental damage
Rohricht 6/27
Renewable energy poses similar problems. Drastic measures would need to be taken
to change the entire infrastructure currently built around fossil fuels. In order to keep global
warming to a 2C increase by purely technical means, about 80% of the worlds
energy use would have to be switched to carbon-neutral
technologies like wind, solar, and bio-fuels. An article in the New Yorker on inventor
Saul Griffith noted that this would require building the equivalent of all the following: a hundred square metres of
new solar cells, fifty square metres of new solar-thermal reflectors, and one Olympic swimming pools volume of
genetically engineered algae (for biofuels) every second for the next twenty-five years; one three-hundred-footdiameter wind turbine every five minutes; one hundred-megawatt geothermal-powered steam turbine every eight
To construct all of this

carbon-neutral technology would require emitting huge amounts of
GHGs into the atmosphere, over and above what we are already
emitting to continue running the current system. Furthermore,
large-scale renewables can be just as destructive as other forms of
energy. Large-scale dams used for hydropower a supposedly clean energy
have led to destruction of habitats for both aquatic and land
species, destruction of flood plains, river deltas, wetlands, and
ocean estuaries, reduction of water quality and nutrient cycling and
have been known to cause earthquakes. Biofuels, similarly, cause huge
environmental damage, sometimes using more energy to grow and
transport the crops than energy gained from it, not to mention the
issue of creating competition for arable land with the food industry.
Once again, a boon for the capitalist economy in creating new industry
hours; and one three-gigawatt nuclear power plant every week.
in sustainable energy is to the great detriment of the environment

and the climate,
so long as the harms caused by these new technologies
can be written off as externalities. Focusing on technology whether

through methods to increase efficiency, through sustainable energy, or through geoengineering do nothing
to change the underlying capitalist system of unfettered growth that
has been at the source of the climate change problem from the beginning. They are merely
attempts at treating the symptoms of climate change, not the
cause.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
A switch to renewables cant solve Growth consumes

resources and energy no matter what kind it is tech only
allows us to find and process energy not create it due to
declining marginal returns growth inherently limits
technological advancement collapse is inevitable
If so, cannot we just switch to green growth? DK: First of all, if it is
growth, it will still be energy and resource consuming . Secondly, the

starting point will still be path dependent and thus constrained .
Thirdly, technology cannot make energy, only help to find, process
and distribute what is already there . And whats potentially left,

renewable or not, is less economy-adaptive, is of lower quality and
lower energy return than what its replacing. So there is no magic
way around our central predicament. Anyway, what do we mean by
switch? It suggests a level of insight and control of the globalised
economy that we do not have. It implies a rapid transformation that
in reality is inherently rate limited (energy revolutions have happened over
many decades), and dependent upon the continuing coherence of the
globalised economy and its constituent critical systems. In addition
problem solving in a complex society suffers from declining
marginal returns. New solutions require more and more scientific, economic and
social efforts and economies of scale and resources. They dont live in a vacuum,
they live in this interdependent system- the globalised economy. For example, the
smallest particle, the electron, discovered in the 1890s was done

by Thompson on a lab bench; now it takes 10,000 PhDs and a 27km
high tech ring, and the coherence of our modern globalized
economy to reveal the newest particle, the Higgs Boson. The
discovery of penicillin in the 1920s in todays money cost almost
nothing and had a revolutionary impact; now we are spending
100s of millions to make minor improvements on niche drugs. To
solve the problems of growth with green growth still requires the rising cost of
complex problem solving- and that requires rising energy and resource flows- which
themselves are suffering from declining marginal returns (Energy-Return-
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
On-Energy-Invested). In the end though, weve run out of time. The
implications of crossing the limits to growth are the complex

globalised systems (financial, monetary, adaptive social behaviors, supplychains, critical infrastructures, factories, resource access and processing, R&D etc)
needed to invent, manufacture, and deploy at scale begin to stress,

lose resilience and finally break down. In such a case our green
growth aspirations will fall away from our grasp as the socioeconomic ground collapses beneath our feet .
Renewable energy can only generate enough electricity to

sustain 3% of the rich world per capita electricity
consumption rate the amount of coal required to keep us up
and running would still create unsafe levels of greenhouse
gases
htm#_edn3)//Roetlin
Plug the gaps with fossil fuels? Could the gaps left when there is little sun
or wind be filled by use of coal without risking the greenhouse

problem? Unfortunately the gaps are far too big. The IPCC emission
scenarios[4] indicate that to keep the carbon concentration in the
atmosphere to a safe level world per capita fossil fuel use should
cut world carbon emissions to no more than 2 GT/y. For the expected
9 billion people this means average per capita carbon use would
have to be about .11 tonnes p.a. This amount would generate
about .03 kW which is about 3% of the rich world per capita
electricity consumption rate. Electricity conclusions? Renewables could
provide a considerable fraction of electricity demand, probably in
excess of 25% in some countries, but a) much of the generating
capacity would have to be duplicated in the form of fossil or nuclear
plant for use when there is little sun or wind, b) the amount of coal
use still required would far exceed safe greenhouse gas emission
limits.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
The affs investment in renewables will just be wasted when we

eventually dedevlop it would be more productive to just let
the collapse happen
But it is still better to have green growth than business-as-usual? If we did it
right, then investing in some of the things that are considered in

green growth plans could help to make us more resilient in the
future, but only marginally. Mostly though, green growth is designed
for and adaptive with the assumption of continued economic growth
and the persistence of system integration within the global
economy. For example, if we are putting renewable energy onto a
large-scale networked grid and we hit a crisis because or our
financial system fails, say, and the demand drops by 80%, then a lot
of that variable supply may end up being effectively useless . One
reason is because a certain level of base-load on a grid is needed to support a level
of variable (renewable) supply, another is that the network loses economies of
scale. In such a scenario it may become just another wasted investment.
It would be more resilient if we were to put renewable energy into

localized networks, adaptive to variability, resilient to supply-chain
breaks, and used to protect something critical for collective welfare
such as sanitation. Such an investment would make no economic
sense at present, its completely inefficient. Again though, I think
weve pretty much running out of time for any type of growth.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
AT: Wind
Wind energy isnt a viable solution wind doesnt blow all the
time and theres no way to store large amounts of electricity
backup generators running on fossil fuels would be required,
defeating the purpose
htm#_edn3)//Roetlin
It is necessary to divide a discussion of renewable energy potential into two parts,
one to do with electricity and the other to do with liquid fuels. Liquid fuels set the
biggest problem. 1. Electricity Many sources could contribute some renewable
electricity, but the big three are wind, photovoltaic solar and solar thermal. a) Wind
An examination of wind maps indicates that the annual quantity of

wind energy that is available could well be considerably greater
than demand, but the important question is what fraction of this
can be harvested in view of the variability problem; that is,
sometimes there is little or no wind. In the past it was usually assumed that
for this reason wind might be able to contribute up to 25% of demand. However, the
Germans with far more wind mills than any other country, and the Danish with the
worlds highest ratio of wind output to electricity consumption, have run into
problems integrating wind into the grid while wind is supplying only about 5% of
demand[2]. (Denmarks output is equivalent to c.18% of demand but most of this is
not used locally and is exported.) A mill at a good site might run over time
at 33% of its maximum or peak capacity, but this should not be

taken as a performance likely from a whole wind system. Sharman
reports that even in Denmark in 2003 the average output of the wind system was
about 17% of its peak capacity and was down to around 5% for several months at a
time. The E.On Netz report for Germany, the country with more wind mills than any
other, also says that in 2003 system capacity was 16%, and around 5% for months.
They stress that 2003 was a good wind year. Another significant problem is that
because the wind sometimes does not blow at all, in a system in which
wind provided a large fraction of demand there might have to be almost as much
back-up capacity from other sources as there is wind generating capacity. E.On Netz
has emphasised this problem with respect to the German experience. So if we built
a lot of wind farms we might have to build almost as many coal, gas or nuclear
power stations to turn to from time to time. This means that renewable sources tend
to be alternative rather than additive. We might have to build two or even
four separate systems (wind, PV, solar thermal and coal/nuclear)

each capable of meeting much or all of the demand, with the
equivalent of one to three sitting idle all the time. This would
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
obviously be very expensive. In addition, electricity distribution grids

would have to be reinforced and extended, especially to cope with the
new task of enabling large amounts of power to be sent from wherever the winds
were high at that time. Centralised coal or nuclear generators do not have this
problem. These costs must be added to get the full cost of renewable
systems. Davey and Coppin[3] carried out a valuable study of what the situation
would be if an integrated wind system aggregated output from mills across 1,500
km of south east Australia. Coppin points out that this region has better wind
resource than Europe in general. Linking mills in all parts of the region would reduce
variability of electricity supply considerably, but it would remain large. Calms would
affect the whole area for days at a time. My interpretation of their Figure 3 is that
the aggregated system would be generating at under 26% of capacity about 30% of
the time, and for 20% of the time it would be under 20% of capacity. Clearly a very
large wind system would have to be backed up by some other large

and highly reliable supply system, and that system would be called
on to do a lot of generating (and would exceed safe greenhouse
emission limits ). Electricity storage? These problems of variability and
integration could be overcome if electricity could be stored in large
quantities. This cant be done and satisfactory solutions are not
foreseen. The best option is to use electricity to pump water up into
dcams, then generate with this later. This works well, but the
capacity is very limited. World hydro generating capacity is about 7
10% of electricity demand, so there would often be times when it
could not come anywhere near topping up supply.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
AT: Solar
Solar energy is too intermittent because of the lack of an
ability to store large amounts of power it can only feed surplus
into a grid its only works if coal or nuclear plants are running
24/7 to act as a battery
htm#_edn3)//Roetlin
b) Photovoltaic solar electricity The big problem with PV is that it too is an
intermittent source, and its possible contribution to a wholly

renewable energy system is therefore quite limited without the
capacity for very large scale storage. No matter how cheap it
became, it can power nothing for some 16 hours a day, or over a run
of cloudy days. It is fine (though costly) when it can feed surpluses
from house roofs etc., into a grid running on coal, while drawing
power from that grid at night. But this only works when a lot of coal
or nuclear power plants are running all the time to act as a giant
battery into which PV can send surpluses.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
AT: Solar Thermal

During the winter solar thermal generators both 1. Are unable
to store energy and 2. Function at 20% capacity the only
other type cant store energy at all and are even more
expensive
htm#_edn3)//Roetlin
c) Solar Thermal Electricity After wind, Europes best option for renewable
electricity will probably be solar thermal plants located in the Sahara region. These
will impose significant transmission losses but their big advantage

is their capacity to store energy as heat to generate and transmit
electricity when it is needed. However, the magnitude of the potential
is uncertain, and especially doubtful in winter . Solar thermal trough
systems do not work very well in lower solar incidence. Even in the
best locations output in winter is about 20% of summer output. The
winter incidence of solar energy in the Sahara is not that impressive, perhaps 6
kWh/m/d towards Libya and Egypt and a long way south of the Mediterranean.
Solar thermal dishes perform better than troughs in winter, but they
cost more and their big disadvantage is that because each tracks
the sun it is difficult to take heat via flexible couplings to a central
generator or store. They are being developed with Stirling engine generators at
each focal point, meaning that heat energy cant be stored to generate
electricity when it is needed. Central receiver or tower systems can store, but like
troughs they have reduced winter performance. It is likely that solar thermal
systems will be located only in the hottest regions, will have to supply major
demand centres by long transmission lines, and will not be able to make a large
contribution in winter.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
AT: Hydrogen
Hydrogen fuel is extremely inefficient youll only get at most
25% of the energy you put in
htm#_edn3)//Roetlin
Hydrogen There are weighty reasons why we are not likely to have a
hydrogen economy. If you make hydrogen from electricity you lose

30% of the energy that was in the electricity. If you then compress,
pump, store and re-use the hydrogen the losses at each of these steps
will result in something like only 25% of the energy generated
being available for use, e.g., to drive the wheels of a fuel-cell
powered car.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
AT: Biomass
To produce enough liquid fuel for rich countries only wed need
24 billion hectares of biomass plantations the earth has
13billion total
htm#_edn3)//Roetlin
2. Liquid fuels The limits to the hope of meeting liquid fuel demand via
renewable energy sources are much clearer than those for meeting
electrical demand. A very large scale supply would have to be via
ethanol produced from woody biomass. The current view among the main
researchers and agencies is that in the future it will be possible to
produce about 7 GJ of ethanol (net of all production energy costs)

from each tonne of biomass.[5] People in rich countries such as
Australia use about 128 GJ of liquids (oil plus gas) per year, so to
provide this via ethanol would require 16.3 tonnes of biomass each
year. It is probable that for very large scale biomass production the
yield will be 7 t/ha/y. This would mean each person would need 2.6
hectares of land growing biomass to provide for their liquid and gas
consumption (in the form of ethanol net, not primary energy amount.) To
provide the 9+ billion people we will probably have on earth by
2060 we would therefore need 24 billion hectares of biomass
plantations. This is a slight problem here because the worlds total land
area is only 13 billion hectares , and the total forest, cropland and
pasture adds to only about 8 billion hectares, just about all heavily
overused already. So vary the above assumptions as you wish (e.g., assume 15
t/ha/y for willows grown in Europe) and there is no possibility of explaining
how all people could ever have something like the present rich
world liquid fuel consumption from biomass.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Dedevelopment Aff
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Misc.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2AC Dedev
Mindset shift fails
if the status quo is

challenged, it translates into a deviation from the normal way of
doing things which creates higher transaction costs, (presumably) higher
risks and a fear of losing roles, identities and privileges. On top of this,
standardized procedures, legal institutionalization and the creation
of material-economic infrastructures leads to further lock-ins that
The socio-economic concept of path dependencies sheds some light on the underlying reasons:
take a lot of political will to change. This plethora of self-stabilizing

path dependencies in our minds and institutions is what Antonio
Gramsci captured in his concept of hegemony. Next to the more visible
exertion of power in form of money, jurisdiction or other types of
coercion, it is the widely established convictions and canonized knowledge, cultural narratives, belief-systems and the
derived needs in a given society that play out in favor of those benefiting from the status quo.[1] These allow for
leadership with least resistance, if supported by a programmatic
social myth which provides the imagination and justifications as
to why this particular set of values, norms, practices, institutions
and regulations is of general interest. The idea of endless economic
growth benefiting all may have been the most powerful example for
such a social myth. Its perseverance has been the biggest roadblock
for getting the sustainable development agenda on track. The Rio
Declaration of the United Nations made sustainable development the
overarching policy principle of international cooperation. According to its
official definition it means development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs while giving priority to the needs of the poor and acknowledging the limitations that social and
technological activities impose on natures ability to replenish means. [2] Economic, social and environmental concerns were to be
What happened instead was that environmental and social

aspects were fitted into the economic growth story and its
underlying paradigm- which tells us nothing meaningful about
human needs and keeps us blind to natural reproduction cycles. Needs are reduced to the
general concept of utility maximization and, based on the
ontological assumption that humans are selfish, insatiable and
rational, it is concluded that this goal is best serviced by ever
increasing consumption. Equipped with so-defined representative
actors, markets in which everything of value will find a price and is subject to
supply and demand, are considered the most efficient and just
integrated.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
institutions for progress. Consequently, it is assumed that wealth

accumulation on the top will trickle down to the poor as long as they
offer anything valuable. According to this rationale of universal
monetarization, the need to assess natures ability to replenish
resources became unnecessary. The concept of capital
substitutability crept into our development story which means that loss of nature can
be compensated by other capital or input factors created by humans. As a
consequence, the myth of economic growth became shielded against the
attack of limits to growth reports and co-opted into the
hegemonic regime , as Antonio Gramsci would say.
No atlternatives
Mead 09 Walter Russell, Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign
Relations and the author of God and Gold: Britain, America and the Making of the Modern World. Lauren Gottlieb
provided research assistance for this article. February 04, 2009 http://www.tnr.com/article/only-makes-you-stronger
Only Makes You Stronger: Why the recession bolstered America
But, in many other countries where capitalism rubs people the wrong way, this is not the case. On
either side of the

Atlantic, for example, the Latin world is often drawn to anti-capitalist movements and rulers on
both the right and the left. Russia, too, has never really taken to capitalism and liberal society-whether during the time of the czars, the commissars, or the post-cold war leaders who so
signally failed to build a stable, open system of liberal democratic capitalism even as many former
Warsaw Pact nations were making rapid transitions. Partly as a result of these internal cultural pressures, and partly because, in
much of the world, capitalism has appeared as an unwelcome interloper, imposed by foreign forces and shaped to fit foreign rather
When crisis strikes, they are

quick to decide that capitalism is a failure and look for alternatives.
So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the
societies that have tried them in a progressively worse position, farther behind the
front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that of
than domestic interests and preferences, many countries are only half-heartedly capitalist.
the Baltic states and Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and
professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisis
can also strengthen the

hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists who are
determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies
and banks based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the
consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier societies.
As a result, developing countries and countries where capitalism has relatively recent and
shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes--as,
inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than
challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet again.
None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help
capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If
financial crises have been

a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the
Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises.
Renewable technology makes infinite growth possible

Worstall 12 (Tim, Senior Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute in London, and one
of the global experts on the metal scandium, "Infinite growth on a finite planet?
Easy-peasy!", May 18 2012,
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/timworstall/100017248/infinite-growth-on-afinite-planet-easy-peasy/)
You'll have heard this before, no doubt: infinite growth is impossible on a

finite planet. It's something of a mantra for environmentalists and is used as absolute proof that we're just
going to have to do without that pesky economic growth thing. The problem here is that the
conclusion isn't justified by the premise: it's driven by ignorance of
what economic growth actually is. The basic idiocy starts with the observation that there
isn't an infinite amount of stuff out of which we can make stuff. This is obviously true and no one asserts differently.
it's entirely possible to have a system which is finite in one

dimension, and this will not limit growth within that system in
another, entirely different, direction. Using good old neoclassical economics, we define
economic growth as an increase in GDP (not quite, but that's close enough for us). GDP is the value at
market prices of all final goods and services. This is, by definition,
equal to the value produced in that economy, the value as perceived
by those doing the buying of all those things. GDP is by no means perfect. Simon
However,
Kuznets, who invented it, pointed out much the same things that Ms Lucas and all the rest point out now. It
doesn't measure distribution, doesn't measure exhaustion of natural

resources and so on. But it is what it is, and it is what we normally mean by economic growth. So,
using GDP, can we have infinite economic growth on a finite planet
by just making ever more things? No, clearly, we cannot: there is a limit to the number of
atoms available to us. But that's not actually what we're measuring in GDP:
we're not measuring the amount, tonnage (it was the Soviets who measured that), volume or
even number of things that are made. We are measuring the value. So, is there a
limit to the amount of value that we can add? A useful way of thinking about
technological advance is that it offers us either better ways of doing old
things or the opportunity to do entirely new things. Either of which
can also be described as the ability to add more value. Which leads us to the
conclusion that as long as technology keeps advancing then we can
continue to add more value and thus we can continue to have more
economic growth. Strange as it may seem, this explanation built purely on standard neoclassical
economics is exactly the same as the diagnosis that Herman Daly gives us in ecological economics. He tells us that
we face real and imminent resource constraints (I don't agree, but let's go with his argumenent) and that thus we
can have no more quantitative growth. This "quantitative" is the same as the above "more stuff". Daly also talks
about qualitative growth. The "qualitative" is equal to the "add more value" and I suspect the only reason Daly
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
doesn't say so is that he wants to be able to define what is valuable for people: you know the sort of thing, more
walking in forests, more digging our own veg patches, rousing choruses of Kumbaya, as opposed to the neoclassical
method of measuring value, which is what you, each and individually, value. Walks in the woods are just fine but so
are steaks, excessive booze and even Simon Cowell. Whatever floats your boat. As an example, let's have a glimspe
of an extreme form of Daly's "steady-state economy". This is one where resources from the environment are taken
Renewables are used only at the rate

at which they can be renewed. We're not chewing up mounntains to
make copper: we're only recycling that copper we've already got. Is
economic growth possible here? Yes, obviously it is. For while we've got limited
only at the rate that that environment can support.
resources to play with, it is still always open to us to find new ways to add value to them. To be silly about it,
we've got 1 million tonnes of copper and that's it. We use that
copper to make paperweights. Then we learn how to make copper
into computer motherboards and we recycle all paperweights into
computers. We value the computers more than the paperweights:
we've just had GDP growth, we've just had economic growth , with no increase
in the consumption of resources. Even in this steady-state economy
therefore, even one in which everything is recycled, we can still
have economic growth through advancing technology . This advancing
technology is known as an increase in total factor productivity (TFP). What we'd like to know next is how much
limiting ourselves to only this type of growth is going to limit total growth. Bob Solow once worked out that 80 per
cent of the economic growth in 20th-century market economies came from TFP growth. Only 20 per cent came from
more resource use: in the socialist economies there was no TFP growth, and all growth came from greater resource
can indeed have quite a lot of economic growth even in the

greenest of economies, can we not?
use. So we
US economic collapse is not inevitable - laundry list of reasons

Amadeo 5/4 (Kimberly, President of WorldMoneyWatch.com and has 20 years
senior-level experience in economic analysis and business strategy working for
major international corporations, M.S., Sloan School of Business, M.I.T. and M.S.
Planning, Boston College, "10 Reasons Why the U.S. Economy Won't Collapse", May
4 2014, http://useconomy.about.com/b/2014/05/04/10-reasons-why-the-u-seconomy-wont-collapse.htm)
Frequently, I receive emails from readers and friends asking if the U.S.
economy or the U.S. dollar are going to collapse. I don't know why they've
suddenly become concerned. Not one of them sent me a similar email the week
of September 17, 2008 when the U.S. economy almost DID collapse.
Things have gotten slower in 2014, but last year the U.S. economy is
poised had one of its best years since 2007. The stock market set
new records, housing prices were headed in the right direction, GDP
was be in the healthy 2-3% growth zone. Although this year is a
little shakier, that's a far cry from a collapse. Maybe all the gloom-and-doomers who
make money by selling gold (which is dropping), guns and canned food -- not to mention their own books on how to
10 reasons why the U.S.

economy, and the dollar, won't collapse: The U.S. debt, though high,
won't cause a collapse. Unlike Greece, the U.S. prints its own money.
survive -- are worried because things ARE ACTUALLY OK. Anyway, here's
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
The U.S. could possibly run a much higher debt to GDP ratio than it
does now and still not face economic collapse. Obama Added to the
Debt to get us out of recession, not send us toward collapse . The
U.S. won't Default on Its Debt. China Isn't Selling Its Dollar Holdings.
China and Japan won't cause a Dollar Collapse. The Dollar Is Slowly
Declining, not collapsing. The dollar won't be replaced as the World's
Global Currency. The Fed's Quantitative Easing program can't cause
Hyperinflation. There are too many failsafe measures that will
prevent a U.S. Economic Collapse.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
AT: Mindset Shift
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
AT: Collapse Inev

Infinite growth is possible - energy growth is distinct from
economic growth
Harford 1/24 (Tim, senior columnist for the Financial Times, won the Bastiat
Prize for economic journalism in 2006, runner up in 2010, member of the Royal
Economic Society council and a visiting fellow at Nuffield College, Oxford, "Can
Economic Growth Continue Forever? Of Course!", January 24 2014,
http://freakonomics.com/2014/01/24/can-economic-growth-continue-forever-ofcourse/)
Can economic growth continue forever? The internet seems to be full of physicists explaining that economists are
clueless on this topic. Theres the late Albert Bartletts hugely popular videos or Tom Murphys article Exponential
The key issue is that exponential growth will

eventually take you to impossible places. And by eventually, the physicists mean
sooner than we expect. Exponential growth is any kind of growth that
compounds like interest payments. The classic example is the rice on the chessboard.
Economist Meets Finite Physicist.
According to an old story, the inventor of the game of chess was offered a reward by a delighted king. He requested
a modest-sounding payment: one grain of rice on the first square of the chessboard, two on the second, four on the
third, doubling each time. Yet this is actually a colossal amountmany times the annual rice production of the
entire planet. The chessboard prize was 100 percent growth per square; but 10 percent, 1 percent or even 0.0001
it all becomes trouble eventually, because

each little bit of growth will itself be multiplied by growth in the
future. As Albert Einstein, yet another physicist, is famously said to have declared (but probably did not),
the most powerful force in the universe is compound interest. The
implication for economic growth seems obvious. Our economy grows
at a few percent a year. That hasnt presented many insuperable problems so far. But growth of a
few per cent a year is nevertheless exponential growth, and eventuallythe physicists worrywell
reach a square on the economic chessboard that we just cant fill.
percentits all exponential growth. And
Economists understand this point perfectly well. One of the very first people to be called an economist was the
Reverend Thomas Malthus, who died almost two hundred years ago. Malthus was worried about exponential
in the short term

technological progress was faster than population growth . More
recently population growth has been slowing down dramatically.
Theres every reason to believe that the population of the planet is
going to stabilize. I dont think anybody believes zero population
growth is unsustainable. You might well respond that even if population growth stops, growth in the
population growth, and his math was incontrovertible. Fortunately,
economy in GDP will continue, and fall foul of the rice-on-the-chessboard problem. But I think that here we find
a serious gap in the logic of the exponential doomsayers. Theyre

looking at exponential growth in physical processesthings like
heating, cooling, lighting, movement. This is understandable, because they are, after all,
physicists. Tom Murphys blog post is particularly startling on this point. He points out that if our energy
consumption grows at 2.3 percent a yearless than historical rates but enough to
increase energy consumption tenfold each centurythen the entire planet will reach
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
boiling point in just four centuries. Its not the greenhouse effect at work; its irrelevant to
Professor Murphys point whether the energy comes from fossil fuels, solar power or fairy dust. This is
simply about the waste heat given off, inevitably, when we use energy to
do useful work. And its pretty hard to argue with the laws of thermodynamics. The calculation sounds
shocking, but its just the rice on the chessboard all over again. Heres the logic lapse: energy
growth is not the same as economic growth. GDP merely measures
what people are willing to pay for, which is not necessarily
connected to the use of energy, or any other physical resource. True,
since the beginning of the industrial revolution the two have tended
to go hand in hand, but theres no logical reason why that tendency
needs to continue. Indeed, it appears to have stopped already. Would you like
to take a guess at energy growth per person in the United States over the last
quarter of a century? Its not just less than 2.3 percent. Its less than zero. The same is true
for other developed economies such as Germany, Japan and the
United Kingdom. Now this is partly due to offshoring to China but the offshoring effect just doesnt
seem big enough to explain what is going on. Its also about the changing nature of what is bought and sold in a
modern economy. Think of New York City. Its a high-income place, and has for more than a century been a creative
energy consumption
per person in New York City is lower than in the United States as a
wholein fact, its lower than the average in any American state .
Ultimately, we can do a lot of the things we value including value in the grubby
pecuniary sense of are willing to pay lots of cash forwithout expending vast amounts of
energy. Its easy to grasp why exponential economic growth is not the same
as exponential energy growth. If Im worried about money, I may turn off my heating and wear
powerhouse: publishing, music, fashion, art, finance, software, you name it. But
a coat and hat indoors; a bit of extra money will mean I take off the hat and coat and use more energy. But that
doesnt mean that if I win the lottery I will celebrate by boiling myself alive. I fully agree with the environmentalists
who worry that we cannot continue consuming more and more water, spewing out more and more carbon dioxide
The problem comes if we then leap to the

conclusion that the economy itself cannot keep growing. Thankfully,
that just doesnt follow.
and burning more and more coal.
Sustainable and infinite growth is possible - mathematically

proven
Leach 1/31 (Andrew, Ph.D. from Queens University in Economics, and a B.Sc
(Environmental Sciences) and M.A. (Economics) from the University of Guelph,
previous Assistant Professor at HEC Montreal, currently the Associate Professor in
the Alberta School of Business and I hold the Enbridge Professorship in Energy
Policy, "Finite Resources and Infinite Growth", January 31 2014,
http://andrewleach.ca/uncategorized/finite-resources-and-infinite-growth/)
increasing economic growth with a finite resource, you

need an increase in productivity. Suppose that you still have the same finite resource stock,
If you want to get to
but that you become 3% more productive each year in your use of resources you generate 3% more total product
from each unit of resource extraction.
The growth in productivity allows you to use
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
fewer resources each year, while still increasing production. Resource

stocks still decline, and approach zero asymptotically, but its like going half the distance to the goal line in football
youll get closer every time but youll never score. Resource extraction with
how do you increase productivity? Energy is used in our
economy as a complement to labour and capital, so if you want to
increase the productivity of your finite resource then increase
energy efficiency, decrease the resource-intensity of energy,
increase labour productivity, or increase the quality of your human
and physical capital. This is what Queens University economist John Hartwick had in mind when he
wrote down the Hartwick rule the mathematical proof of what Ive just tried to do in words: as long as
you invest sufficiently in improvements in productivity, and manage
resources optimally, its possible to sustain infinite growth from a
finite resource. Of course, the Hartwick rule is not a law it doesnt guarantee that this will
increasing So,
always be achieved, and it certainly doesnt say that it can be accomplished with any level of investment it just
tells you that its mathematically possible. Saying that its

impossible to achieve exponential growth infinitely with finite
resources does nothing to advance our discussions of resource
management and ignores plenty of evidence to the contrary in the
economics literature. What we should be discussing instead is how to make sure we follow Hartwicks rule, but
thats another story for another day.
Human ingenuity solves resource constraints.

Lomborg 12 is a Danish author, academic, and environmental writer. He is an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen
Business School, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre and a former director of the Environmental Assessment Institute in
Copenhagen. (Bjorn, 2012, 6-21 Environmental Alarmism, Then and Now http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137681/bjornlomborg/environmental-alarmism-then-and-now)
Forty years on, how do the predictions stack up? Defenders like to point out that The
Limits to Growth carefully hedged its bets, with its authors claiming that they were not
presenting "exact predictions" and that they were "deliberately . . . somewhat vague" on time frames
because they wanted to focus on the general behavior of the system. But this is sophistry . It was obvious from the way
the book was both presented and understood that it made a number of clear predictions, including that the world would soon run
The Limits to Growth calculated

how soon after 1970 various resources would be exhausted. Their conclusion was
that before 2012, the world would run out of aluminum, copper, gold, lead, mercury,
molybdenum, natural gas, oil, silver, tin, tungsten, and zinc -- 12 of the 19 substances they looked
at. They were simply and spectacularly wrong .
out many nonrenewable resources. Assuming exponentially increasing demand,
They singled out mercury, claiming that its known global reserves in 1970 would
last for only 13 years of exponential growth in demand, or 41 years if the reserves magically quintupled. They noted that
"the prices of those resources with the shortest static reserve indices have already begun to increase. The price of mercury, for
Since then, however, technological innovations

have led to the replacement of mercury in batteries, dental fillings, and
thermometers. Mercury consumption has collapsed by 98 percent, and by 2000, the
price had dropped by 90 percent. They predicted that gold might run out as early as 1979
example, has gone up 500 percent in the last 20 years."
and would certainly do so by 1999, based on estimations of 10,980 tons of known reserves in 1970. In the subsequent 40 years,
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
however, 81,410 tons of gold have been mined, and
gold reserves are now estimated to be 51,000
tons.
Known reserves of copper in 1970 came to 280 million tons. Since then, about 400 million tons have been produced globally, and
copper reserves are now estimated at almost 700 million tons . Since 1946, new copper
reserves have been discovered faster than existing copper reserves have been
depleted. And the same goes for the other three most economically important metals: aluminum, iron, and zinc. Despite a 16fold increase in aluminum consumption since 1950, and despite the fact that the world has consumed
four times the 1950 known reserves in the years since, aluminum reserves now
could support 177 years of the present level of consumption. The Limits to Growth also worried about running out of
oil (in 1990) and natural gas (in 1992). Not only have those not run out, but their reserves, measured in terms of years of
current consumption, are larger today than they have ever been since 1970, even though
consumption has increased dramatically.
world
WHAT THEY MISSED
The Limits to Growth seemed intuitive, even obvious: if ever-more people use ever-more stuff,
overlooked
human ingenuity.
The basic point of
eventually they will bump into the planet's physical limits. So why did the authors get it wrong? Because they
The authors of The Limits to Growth named five drivers of the world system, but they left out the most important one of all: people,
and their ability to discover and innovate.
If you think there are only 280 million tons of copper in the
ground, you'll think you'll be out of luck once you have dug it out. But talking about "known reserves" ignores the many ways
available resources can be increased.
Prospecting has improved, for example. As recently as 2007, Brazil found the Sugar Loaf oil field off the coast of So Paulo, which
Extraction techniques have also been improving . The oil

industry now drills deeper into the ground, farther out into the oceans, and higher up in the Arctic. It drills horizontally
could hold 40 billion barrels of oil.
and uses water and steam to squeeze out more from existing fields.
And shale gas can now be liberated with new fracking technology , which has helped double U.S.
potential gas resources within the past six years. This is similar to the technological breakthrough of chemical flotation for copper,
which made it possible to mine ores that had previously been thought worthless, and similiar to the Haber-Bosch process, which
made nitrogen fixation possible, yielding fertilizers that now help feed a third of humanity. Aluminum is one of the most common
metallic elements on earth. But extracting it was so difficult and expensive that not so long ago, it was more costly than gold or
platinum. Napoleon III had bars of aluminum exhibited alongside the French crown jewels, and he gave his honored guests aluminum
forks and spoons while lesser visitors had to make do with gold utensils. Only with the invention of the Hall-Hroult process in 1886
did aluminum suddenly drop in price and massively increase in availability. Most often, however, ingenuity manifests itself in much
less spectacular ways, generating incremental improvements in existing methods that cut costs and increase productivity.
None of this means that the earth and its resources are not finite. But it does
suggest that the amount of resources that can ultimately be generated with the
help of human ingenuity is far beyond what human consumption requires. This is true
even of energy, which many think of as having peaked. Costs aside, for example, by itself, the Green River Formation in the western
United States is estimated to hold about 800 billion barrels of recoverable shale oil, three times the proven oil reserves of Saudi
Arabia. And even with current technology, the amount of energy the entire world consumes today could be generated by solar
panels covering just 2.6 percent of the area of the Sahara.
Worries about resources are not new. In 1865, the economist William Stanley Jevons wrote a damning book on
the United Kingdom's coal use. He saw the Industrial Revolution relentlessly increasing the country's demand for
coal, inevitably exhausting its reserves and ending in collapse: "It will appear that there is no reasonable prospect
of any release from future want of the main agent of industry." And in 1908, it was Andrew Carnegie who fretted:
"I have for many years been impressed with the steady depletion of our iron ore supply. It is staggering to learn
that our once-supposed ample supply of rich ores can hardly outlast the generation now appearing, leaving only
the leaner ores for the later years of the century." Of course, his generation left behind better technology, so
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
today, exploiting harder-to-get-at, lower-grade ore is easier and cheaper.
Another way to look at the resource question is by examining the prices of various
raw materials. The Limits to Growth camp argues that as resource constraints get tighter, prices will rise. Mainstream
economists, in contrast, are generally confident that human ingenuity will win out and prices will drop. A famous bet
between the two groups took place in 1980. The economist Julian Simon, frustrated by incessant claims that the planet would run
out of oil, food, and raw materials, offered to bet $10,000 that any given raw material picked by his opponents would drop in price
over time. Simon's gauntlet was taken up by the biologist Ehrlich and the physicists John Harte and John Holdren (the latter is now
U.S. President Barack Obama's science adviser), saying "the lure of easy money can be irresistible." The three staked their bets on
chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten , and they picked a time frame of ten years. When the decade
was up, all five commodities had dropped in price, and they had to concede defeat (although they continued to stand by
their original argument). And this was hardly a fluke: commodity prices have generally declined over the last century and a half (see
Figure 2).
In short, the authors of The Limits to Growth got their most famous factor, resources, spectacularly wrong. Their graphs show
Reserves of
zinc, copper, bauxite (the principal ore of aluminum), oil, and iron have all been going spectacularly up
resource levels starting high and dropping, but the situation is precisely the opposite: they start low and rise.
(see Figure 3).
Self-correction is inherent to capitalism

Goldberg 6/30 Goldberg is a bestselling author and columnist. Prior to joining National Review, he was
a founding producer for Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg on PBS and wrote and produced several other PBS
documentaries. He is the recipient of the prestigious Lowell Thomas Award. His first book, Liberal Fascism
(Doubleday, 2008), quickly became a New York Times bestseller. (2014, Jonah, AEIdeas, Capitalisms Capacity for
Self-correction Example Is the School of Mankind, http://www.aei-ideas.org/2010/04/capitalisms-capacity-forself-correction-%E2%80%94-example-is-the-school-of-mankind/ // SM)
Example is the school of mankind, observed Edmund Burke, and

they will learn at no other. This is the fundamental insight of both conservatism and
libertarianism. People learn from their mistakes. To use Dodds logic, I am just as vulnerable
as ever to riding my bike without holding the handlebars. But I dont do that anymore, even though the federal
government has done nothing to make it harder for me to do it again. Why? Because I learned from my mistakes.
Even the federal government has been known to learn from its
errors. As Christopher DeMuth noted at the 2008 AEI chairmans dinner: One of the reasons to
doubt that the financial crisis will produce not just a hard recession but a 1930sstyle depression is that we have a truer knowledge of monetary
policy. Back then the conventional wisdom was that because supply and demand were falling, therefore less
money was needed for exchange, therefore the money supply should be contracted. Essentially no one thinks that
That the goal of monetary policy should be price stability is

knowledge that was acquired at great cost through decades of
study and contentious debate. In facing our current crisis, it is an asset as valuable as the
Federal Reserves balance sheet. This is not to say that the financial crisis doesnt justify any reforms. But lets
not forget that inherent to capitalism is the capacity for selfcorrection. Surely the disappearance of Lehman Brothers and the
dismantling of AIG is an example that many can learn from. The real
way today.
danger seems to me that people like Dodd havent learned the lesson that government is not the onlyor best
corrective to the excesses of capitalism.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Infinite econ growth possibledepends on productivity

Leach 14 Marketing, Business Economics and Law (Andrew, rescuing the frog,
Finite Resources and Infinite Growth ,January 31, 2014,
http://andrewleach.ca/uncategorized/finite-resources-and-infinite-growth/ //SRSL)
If you believe that the economy

is structured in such a way that it needs to grow continually in order
to survive, it states, then it will take an endless supply of energy to feed
it. The article then raises the question, How does an economy grow exponentially
forever if the one element it needs more than anything to flourish is
contracting with time? This is a common refrain from environmentalists such as David Suzuki (here, here, here and likely a
Todays Globe and Mail featured a column by Gary Mason on a world without oil.
thousand other places): its absurd to rely on economies based on constant growth on a finite planet. But, is it? Ill have more on this at Macleans in a
Intuitively, it sounds simple if I use up a

certain amount of a finite quantity each year, it will eventually run
out. But that tells you that you cant have constant or increasing
resource extraction from a finite resource, it doesnt tell you
couple of days, but this will serve as a technical primer.
anything about what you do with the resources you extract, how
productive they are, or whether or not they enable continued
economic growth. Its certainly possible to sustain exponential
growth infinitely with finite resources, as long as productivity
improve s. Let me take you through an example (this is a really basic model, but Ive fit it with some reasonable numbers so its intuitive).
Suppose that gross world product (real, including all environmental costs) is given by 1450*R*X, where R is resource productivity and X is extraction. If you
use oil extraction as a proxy for resources, and we extract about 31.4 billion barrels of oil per year, and let R equal 1, youll get a gross world product of
$45,515 billion, about the same as the CIA World Factbook estimate of 2012 gross world product. Lets also suppose, for the sake of this argument, that
the 1.8 trillion barrels of oil in current global reserves represents the sum total of all the oil which will ever be extracted a finite resource. With those
numbers, the myopic approach to maintaining constant growth with no change in productivity would lead to all oil resources being exhausted in 55 years,
this would not actually happen, since prices

would adjust even if there were no productivity changes. To understand what
and then instant economic collapse. Of course,
would happen, go to the last period before the collapse a period in which the world extracts 35 billion barrels of oil out of a remaining stock of about 40
Knowing what was going to happen if you stuck with that

plan, youd likely decide that it makes sense to carry some extra oil
through to the following year, to stave off collapse and/or to profit
from absurdly high prices. In doing so, youd raise prices in that year. Of course, people would have seen this coming too,
billion barrels.
leading to conservation of oil from previous years as well. This is a clumsy explanation of what Harold Hotelling wrote down almost 100 years ago that
since oil is like a capital asset, owners will act to maximize returns and this will smooth price and extraction decisions over time. If you imposed a Hotelling
solution one which maximized the value of oil over time, youd end up with something which looks something like this: However, Hotelling doesnt get
you to economic growth with finite resources production is still decreasing over time, and tends asymptotically to zero its just that there is no collapse
and oil is distributed over time such that there are no gains in net present value to be achieved by shifting production forward or back in time. (In the
If you want to get to

increasing economic growth with a finite resource, you need an
increase in productivity. Suppose that you still have the same finite resource stock, but that you become 3% more
graph above, I approximated a 400 year solution I didnt solve the full optimal control problem).
productive each year in your use of resources you generate 3% more total product from each unit of resource extraction. The growth in productivity
allows you to use fewer resources each year, while still increasing production. Resource stocks still decline, and approach zero asymptotically, but its like
going half the distance to the goal line in football youll get closer every time but youll never score. So, how do you increase productivity?
Energy is used in our economy as a complement to labour and

capital, so if you want to increase the productivity of your finite
resource then increase energy efficiency, decrease the resourceintensity of energy, increase labour productivity, or increase the
quality of your human and physical capital. This is what Queens University economist John Hartwick
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
had in mind when he wrote down the Hartwick rule the mathematical proof of what Ive just tried to do in words: as long as you invest sufficiently in
improvements in productivity, and manage resources optimally, its possible to sustain infinite growth from a finite resource. Of course, the Hartwick rule is
not a law it doesnt guarantee that this will always be achieved, and it certainly doesnt say that it can be accomplished with any level of investment it
Saying that its impossible to achieve

exponential growth infinitely with finite resources does nothing to
advance our discussions of resource management and ignores
plenty of evidence to the contrary in the economics literatur e. What we should
just tells you that its mathematically possible.
be discussing instead is how to make sure we follow Hartwicks rule, but thats another story for another day.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
AT: US Econ Collapse Inev

Evidence that growth is inevitable is statistical not
mechanistically deterministic
People can be uncomfortable with such evolutionary explanations.

However, theyre not mechanistically deterministic, but statistical ,
people and small groups will always surprise more than very large
human groups. After all coming across a convent of celibates is not a
sign that human sex is dead! Nor do such arguments rigidly define
behavior . For example, Stephen Pinker marshals diverse evidence (in The Better
Angels of Our Nature) to show that theres been a remarkable fall in the risk of
personal violence that he has associated with rising wealth, globalisation, states
and independent legal systems, changing cultures and the expansion of empathy.
Of course we remain highly sensitive to the risk of violence, and theres no reason
the situation cannot reverse, but he demonstrates weve become much nicer to
each-other in all sorts of ways!
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
War
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2AC Collapse = War

Economic decline risks great power conflict and increase
nations belligerence.
Green and Schrage 9 [Michael J Green, Senior Advisor and Japan Chair at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and Associate Professor at Georgetown University. Steven P
Schrage, the CSIS Scholl Chair in International Business and a former senior official with the US Trade
Representative's Office, State Department and Ways & Means Committee. Asia Times. March 26 2009.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Asian_Economy/KC26Dk01.html]JAKE LEE
the Great Depression taught us that a downward global

economic spiral can even have jarring impacts on great powers. It
is no mere coincidence that the last great global economic
downturn was followed by the most destructive war in human
history. In the 1930s, economic desperation helped fuel autocratic
regimes and protectionism in a downward economic-security
death spiral that engulfed the world in conflict. This spiral was
aided by the preoccupation of the United States and other leading
nations with economic troubles at home and insufficient attention
to working with other powers to maintain stability abroad . Today's
However,
challenges are different, yet 1933's London Economic Conference, which failed to stop the drift toward deeper depression and world war, should be a
cautionary tale for leaders heading to next month's London Group of 20 (G-20) meeting. There is no question the US must urgently act to address
banking issues and to restart its economy. But the lessons of the past suggest that we will also have to keep an eye on those fragile threads in the
international system that could begin to unravel if the financial crisis is not reversed early in the Barack Obama administration and realize that
economics and security are intertwined in most of the critical challenges we face. A disillusioned rising power? Four areas in Asia merit particular
attention, although so far the current financial crisis has not changed Asia's fundamental strategic picture. China is not replacing the US as regional
hegemon, since the leadership in Beijing is too nervous about the political implications of the financial crisis at home to actually play a leading role in
solving it internationally. Predictions that the US will be brought to its knees because China is the leading holder of US debt often miss key points.
China's currency controls and full employment/export-oriented growth strategy give Beijing few choices other than buying US Treasury bills or
harming its own economy. Rather than creating new rules or institutions in international finance, or reorienting the Chinese economy to generate
greater long-term consumer demand at home, Chinese leaders are desperately clinging to the status quo (though Beijing deserves credit for short-
The greater danger with China is not an

eclipsing of US leadership, but instead the kind of shift in
strategic orientation that happened to Japan after the Great
Depression. Japan was arguably not a revisionist power before 1932 and sought instead to converge with the global economy through
open trade and adoption of the gold standard.
The worldwide depression and
protectionism of the 1930s devastated the newly exposed
Japanese economy and contributed directly to militaristic and
autarkic policies in Asia as the Japanese people reacted against
what counted for globalization at the time. China today is
similarly converging with the global economy, and many experts
believe China needs at least 8% annual growth to sustain social
stability. Realistic growth predictions for 2009 are closer to 5%. Veteran China hands were watching closely when millions of migrant
term efforts to stimulate economic growth).
workers returned to work after the Lunar New Year holiday last month to find factories closed and jobs gone. There were pockets of protests, but
nationwide unrest seems unlikely this year, and Chinese leaders are working around the clock to ensure that it does not happen next year either.
However, the economic slowdown has only just begun and nobody is certain how it will impact the social contract in China between the ruling
communist party and the 1.3 billion Chinese who have come to see President Hu Jintao's call for "harmonious society" as inextricably linked to his
promise of "peaceful development". If the Japanese example is any precedent, a sustained economic slowdown has the potential to open a
It is noteworthy that
North Korea, Myanmar and Iran have all intensified their defiance
in the wake of the financial crisis, which has distracted the world's
leading nations, limited their moral authority and sown potential
dangerous path from economic nationalism to strategic revisionism in China too. Dangerous states
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
discord. With Beijing worried about the potential impact of North Korean belligerence or instability on Chinese internal stability, and leaders
in Japan and South Korea under siege in parliament because of the collapse of their stock markets, leaders in the North Korean capital of Pyongyang
have grown increasingly boisterous about their country's claims to great power status as a nuclear weapons state. The junta in Myanmar has chosen
this moment to arrest hundreds of political dissidents and thumb its nose at fellow members of the 10-country Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
Iran continues its nuclear program while exploiting differences between the US, UK and France (or the P-3 group) and China and Russia - differences
that could become more pronounced if economic friction with Beijing or Russia crowds out cooperation or if Western European governments grow
is possible that the economic downturn will

make these dangerous states more pliable because of falling fuel
prices (Iran) and greater need for foreign aid (North Korea and
Myanmar), but that may depend on the extent that authoritarian
leaders care about the well-being of their people or face internal
political pressures linked to the economy. So far, there is little evidence to suggest either and
nervous about sanctions as a tool of policy. It
much evidence to suggest these dangerous states see an opportunity to advance their asymmetrical advantages against the international system.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2AC Diversionary War

Diversionary conflict theory proves
Friedberg 2009 - (Aaron Friedberg and Gabriel Schoenfeld, Professor of politics
and international relations at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School, Visiting
scholar at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, Senior editor of Commentary, The
Dangers of a Diminished America, Accessed Online at the WSJ)
The stabilizing effects of our presence in Asia, our continuing commitment to

Europe, and our position as defender of last resort for Middle East energy sources
and supply lines could all be placed at risk. In such a scenario there are shades
of the 1930s, when global trade and finance ground nearly to a halt, the
peaceful democracies failed to cooperate, and aggressive powers
led by the remorseless fanatics who rose up on the crest of economic
disaster exploited their divisions. Today we run the risk that rogue states
may choose to become ever more reckless with their nuclear toys, just
at our moment of maximum vulnerability. The aftershocks of the
financial crisis will almost certainly rock our principal strategic competitors
even harder than they will rock us. The dramatic free fall of the Russian
stock market has demonstrated the fragility of a state whose economic
performance hinges on high oil prices, now driven down by the global
slowdown. China is perhaps even more fragile, its economic growth
depending heavily on foreign investment and access to foreign markets. Both will
now be constricted, inflicting economic pain and perhaps even sparking
unrest in a country where political legitimacy rests on progress in the long march
to prosperity. None of this is good news if the authoritarian leaders of these
countries seek to divert attention from internal travails with external
adventures. As for our democratic friends, the present crisis comes when many
European nations are struggling to deal with decades of anemic growth, sclerotic
governance and an impending demographic crisis. Despite its past dynamism, Japan
faces similar challenges. India is still in the early stages of its emergence as a world
economic and geopolitical power.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Diversionary War True--Empirics

Empirics ProveCold War
A. Saddam Hussein and the Iraq war
Kanat 11 [Kilic Bugra Kanat is "Leadership Style And Diversionary Theory Of Foreign Policy: The Use
Of Diversionary Strategies By Middle
Eastern Leaders During And In The Immediate Aftermath Of The Gulf War" (2011).Political Science Dissertations.Paper 104. http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1103&context=psc_etd]
JAKE LEE
In 1990, the Iraqi economy was undergoing a huge crisis , and the society
was heading toward turmoil. The Iran Iraq War, which lasted for eight years, had
socially and economically devastated both countries. Saddam Hussein s attempt to
repair the economy had failed, which led to the rise of social
resentment against the regime in Baghdad. Finally, the end of the
Cold War and the fall of communist totalitarian and authoritarian
regimes in Central and Eastern Europe countries, which had been the natural allies of the Iraqi regime for
decades, had brought anxiety to the strong man of Baghdad. The Iran-Iraq War was the
bloodiest and longest war of the twentieth century.42 Almost one million people died and the war did not bring
any substantial gain for either party. It was also one of the costliest conflicts of the twentieth century in terms of
Cities in both Iraq

and Iran were destroyed and social services in both countries were
disrupted. In Iraq, Basra and in particular the oilfields around the
city were destroyed. In addition, the industrial plants and
infrastructures of Khur al-Zubair and Fao were seriously damaged
(Farouk-Sluglett and Sluglett, 1990: 21). According to Alnasrawi, after the war, Iraq
the impact that it had on the economies of the
parties (Alnasrawi, 1986: 869).
experienced one of the worst economic crises of its history . Alnasrawi

stated, Its oil exporting capacity from the southern fields was destroyed, its infrastructure was
seriously damaged, a major 42 The relationship between Iran and
Iraq had never been stable. Saddam Hussein had always considered
Iran to be Iraqs most dangerous neighbor. In 1979, the revolution took place in Iran
and Ayatollah Khomeini became its leader. Saddam Hussein was already worried by the rise of Shia ideology and
he tried to prevent the spread of revolutionary ideologies among Iraqi Shia groups. He believed that with a sudden
attack he could win a quick victory which would garner him immense political capital within Iraq and the Arab world.
129 | P a g e segment of the its labor force had been drafted into military service and a large number of foreign
workers had to be imported, its development plans were disorganized and lacking in investment funds, its foreign
debt was high and its service was a major drain on a declining level of oil income, progress along the path of
industrialization and diversification was blunted, its reliance on food imports increased, and inflation was rampant
During the war and in its aftermath, Saddam Hussein

unsuccessfully tried to repair this devastated economy by
implementing economic reforms, including liberalization of the
economic sector and privatization.43 One of the most acute problems in the Iraqi economy
(Alnasrawi, 1992: 336).
in the early 1990s was the foreign debt. Before the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq was debt-free with the accumulation of 35
billion dollars in foreign reserves. However, most of these reserves were exhausted in the first years of the war
(Sanford, 2003: 14). With the prolongation of the war, Iraq began to borrow huge sums of money from Western
and Arab countries, most of which were spent on purchasing arms and military equipment. 44 After the eight-year
war with Iran, Iraq had the third largest debt of any country in the world (Musallam, 1996: 85). Iraqs estimated
foreign debt in 1990 was 80 billion dollars and Western estimates put the cost of reconstruction at 230 billion
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
According to estimates, even if all oil

revenues had been directed to the reconstruction effort, it would
have taken almost twenty years to repair the damage. Meanwhile,
the interest on the debts was also mounting and foreign
companies and governments were reluctant to extend any more 43
For the economic consequences of the Iran- Iraq War, see Alnasrawi 1986, Alnasrawi 1992,
dollars (Freedman and Karsh, 1993: 39).
Gause, 2002, Lawson, 1992, Chaudhry, 1991. 44 Iraqs estimated arm purchases during the war were between 52
and 102 billion dollars (Sanford, 2003: 14). The estimated overall cost of the war for Iraq was 452 billion dollars
According to Mofid, this number does not

include inflationary costs, the loss of services and earnings by the
many hundred thousands of people killed, the depletion of natural
resources, the postponement of crucial development projects or the
cost of the delayed training and education of the young people.
Finally, the figure does not include the cost of the welfare payments
to the hundreds of thousands injured in the war, who are not able to
contribute fully to the creation of wealth for the national economy
(Alnasrawi, 1992; Mofid 1990: 53).
(1990: 53).
130 | P a g e
credit to Iraq (Karsh and Rautsi, 2002: 202). In addition, the reflection of the
conditions in the GDP was staggering. The GDP per capita, which had
been 4.083 dollars in 1980, plummeted to 1.537 dollars in 1988
(Alnasrawi 2002: 233 Cited in Sanford, 2003: 11) and inflation
reached a record high of 400% in 1989 (Sanford, 2003: 17). As
stated above, in order to solve these problems, Hussein adopted
some market reforms, which included policies designed to
encourage the growth of private enterprise and market based
relations of production in the countrys economic affairs (Lawson, 1992:
deteriorating economic
157). After the first wave of
privatization in 1985-86, the regime embarked on another series of economic reforms
which included selling state lands, farms and factories to the

private sector, and encouraging private enterprise and
deregulating of the labor market (Alnasrawi, 1992: 338). However, despite the new
measures in 1990, the overall state of the economy was more worrisome to
Saddam Hussein than it had been in 1988. Contrary to the expectations of Saddam
Husseins regime, the increasing privatization and market reforms brought high levels of
inflation, unemployment, and shortages in basic goods, growing
and highly visible economic inequality, and the emergence of a brisk
black market in foreign currencies (Chaudhry, 1991: 17). In fact, the social consequences
of these reforms, such as increasing unemployment and declining living
standards, which were not well- calculated in advance, began to
cause important social troubles for the regime. Among the
economic problems in Iraq in 1990, the most distressing was the
increasing unemployment. The privatization of the state-owned enterprises brought a huge
in 1987,
wave of unemployment in Iraq. In the absence of any employment regulation in privatization, the first act of the
entrepreneurs who bought state-owned businesses was to restructure employment. According to estimates, the
owners of industries and agricultural businesses dismissed between 40 and 80 percent of their work forces (ibid).
In addition, the labor unions were dissolved during the privatization 131 | P a g e program and the minimum
wage was abolished (Chaudhry, 1994: 9). Most of the newly unemployed found themselves in an already
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Another major source of

unemployment was the demobilization of Iraqi soldiers. Under the
Baath government, the size of Iraqs army had increased by an
incredible scale. It increased from six divisions in the mid 1960s to
forty-four divisions during the eight-year war with Iran (al-Khafaji, 2000:
competitive job market and without any social guarantees.
267). By 1988, the size of the armed forces in Iraq had reached 1 million, which constituted 22% of the labor force
in the country (Alnasrawi, 1992: 337). In order to compensate for the civilian workforces loss of Iraqis to the
Iraq admitted large numbers of workers from other countries,

particularly Egypt. In addition, under the laws of the Arab
Cooperative Council, founded in 1988, Yemen, Egypt, and Jordan
were permitted to export labor freely to Iraq (Chaudhry, 1994: 9). After the end of
the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam Husseins regime began to demobilize its soldiers because of
the high cost of feeding one million soldiers and the possible
danger of an armed insurrection by these free soldiers. Demobilized soldiers began
to return to their hometowns in the first months of 1989. As a first step to deal with the
demobilization-related unemployment, the Iraqi government
squeezed 2 million migrant workers and slashed the remittances
they were allowed to send home (Freedman and Karsh, 1993: 39). However, this was not
military,
enough to secure jobs for the demobilized soldiers. The discharged men of Iraq desperate for jobs began to
participate in street fights against Egyptian workers, which spread to various big cities in Iraq (Aburish, 2001:
The governments attempt to suppress these fights resulted in

increasing reaction to the security forces and attacks on public
buildings.
261).
B. Assad and Syria

Kanat 11 [Kilic Bugra Kanat is "Leadership Style And Diversionary Theory Of Foreign Policy: The Use
Of Diversionary Strategies By Middle
Eastern Leaders During And In The Immediate Aftermath Of The Gulf War" (2011).Political Science Dissertations.Paper 104. http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1103&context=psc_etd]
JAKE LEE
There were important domestic challenges to Assads rule in the last days
of 1980s, including an ailing economy and growing social instability
(Huber, 1992: 55). Moreover, changes in the
international system and its repercussions for Syria were not helping
The changes in Eastern and Central Europe and the

fall of the Soviet Union affected politics and the economy in Syria.
the Assad regime either.
With the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein in 1990, Assad faced another major challenge. Throughout the
1980s, Assad had supported Iran in its war against Iraq and had been the archenemy of Saddam Husseins
regime. He had also been isolated from the Arab regional order because of this support. After the international
Assad rushed to
bandwagon with the American-led international coalition despite
the opposition of Arab and Syrian masses. Although Assads regime
was one of the most significant beneficiaries of the Gulf War in
terms of economic and financial aid, it also faced a great deal of adverse effects from
reaction to the invasion and the deployment
of American soldiers to the Gulf region,
pursuing this foreign policy. The most important problem that the Assad regime was confronting in the first
months of the 1990s related to the changes in the international system. The fall of the authoritarian regimes of
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Central and Eastern Europe, which had been natural allies and trade partners of Syria for decades,
226 | P a g e
The wave of democratization and political

openness in these countries was a major source of concern for the
authoritarian regimes of the Middle East. Middle Eastern leaders
were particularly worried about a possible domino effect that could
destroy their rule. The fall of the communist regime in Romania and
was a huge blow to the Assad regime.
the execution of the toppled president
Ceausescu and his wife particularly traumatized Hafiz Assad. The rise of
the regime in Syria and endanger his life

and his family. Despite the high level of censorship and
surveillance, the walls of Damascus began to be filled with graffitis that said Assadcescu or every
similar mass movements
could overthrow
Ceausescu has his day (Zisser, 2001: 48). In an editorial in Al Hayat of London during this time, Hafiz Assad was
compared to Ceausescu and was called an Arab Ceausescu (Pipes, 1991: 14). In addition, during these days he
was feeling societal pressure from different segments of Syrian society, including new business class, who wanted
to transform its economic power to a political one and the Sunni majority, whose members were asking for greater
Assad
first tried to use his censorship mechanisms to stop dissemination
of information about the incidents in Eastern Europe. Later, he made some important public
political inclusion (Robinson, 1998: 170). In order to stop a possible public reaction against his
regime,
appearances and underlined the differences between Romania and Syria and stressed that he would not share the
same fate as Ceausescu of Romania. Thus, in a direct response to upheavals in Eastern Europe, Assadstressed
that Syria would not copy, and had never copied in the past, the examples of other countries. Changes in
Eastern Europe were not going to compel Syria to alter its system, in as much as Syria had been ahead of these
countries, implementing a multi- party system and a mixed economy as early as 20 years previously. Freedom,
Assad said, would have to be organized(Bahout, 1994: 65) 227 | P a g e He also took some extra precautions,
such as increasing surveillance and monitoring of political groups, in his well-controlled country in order to make
not take place within Syrian territories. The regime
changes and peoples movements in Central and Eastern Europe
also brought some important changes in the relationships of these
countries with Syria. For decades, many of these countries foreign policies had been shaped by the
sure that something of this magnitude would
principles and doctrines of the Warsaw Pact. In most of these countries relations with Syria, they had followed a
common foreign policy and had become natural allies of Syria. The members of the Warsaw Pact had particularly
a result,
Syria had received a huge amount of armaments and financial and
technical aid from these countries. In fact, during most of the Cold
War, the Soviet Union had been the primary source of political, military, and economic
endorsed the
position and policies of the Syrian government in Syrias confrontation with Israel. As
assistance and support for the Syrians, and she had provided strategic backing in the face of possible Israeli or US
attack on Syria (Zisser, 2001: 45). The communist regimes in these countries had refused to extend and improve
diplomatic relations with the state of Israel. After regime changes in these countries, the new leaders not only
renounced ties with the friends of old regime, but . they were also waiting in line to renew relations with
Israel. Moreover, adding insult to injury, new governments in Central Europe have atoned for past sins by
turning confidential files over to Israel intelligence (Pipes, 1991: 14). These changes constituted important
Assad stated
several times that the biggest loser of the change in the
international system were Syria and himself. In fact, a high ranking
official in an interview pronounced that Syrians and the loyalists of
the Assad regime regretted the fall of Soviet Union more than
Russians or any other people living in communist countries (Pipes, 1996:
strategic, political, and economic losses for the Syrian government. As Pipes mentioned,
8).
228 | P a g e
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2AC Growth Solves War

Growth prevents conflict
Reghr 13 [Ernie Reghr is Senior Fellow in Arctic Security at The Simons Foundation, 2-4-13,
Intrastate Conflict: Data, Trends and Drivers http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Articles/SpecialFeature/Detail/?
lng=en&id=158597&tabid=1453496807&contextid774=158597&contextid775=158627] JAKE LEE
The most robustly significant predictor of [armed] conflict risk

and its duration is some indicator of economic prosperity. At a
higher income people have more to lose from the destructiveness
of conflict; and higher per-capita income implies a better
functioning social contract, institutions and state capacity.[3]
This correlation between underdevelopment and armed conflict is
confirmed in a 2008 paper by Thania Paffenholz[4] which notes
that since 1990, more than 50% of all conflict-prone countries
have been low income states. Two thirds of all armed conflicts take place in African
countries with the highest poverty rates. Econometric research found a correlation between the poverty rate
and likelihood of armed violence.[T]he lower the GDP per capita in a country, the higher the likelihood of
armed conflict. Of course, it is important to point out that this is not a claim that there is a direct causal
connection between poverty and armed conflict. To repeat, the causes of conflict are complex and context
there is a clear correlation between a low

and declining per capita income and a countrys vulnerability to
conflict. It is also true, on the other hand, that there are low income countries that experience precipitous
specific, nevertheless, says Paffenholz,
economic decline, like Zambia in the 1980s and 1990s, without suffering the kind of turmoil that has visited
economically more successful countries like Kenya and Cote dIvoire. Referring to both Zambia and Nigeria,
Pafenholz says these are cases in which the social compact has proven to be resilient. Both have formal and
informal mechanisms that are able to address grievances in ways that allowed them to be aired and resolved or
managed without recourse to violence. A brief review of literature on economics and armed conflict, published in
the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, indicates the complexity and imprecision behind the question,
does poverty cause conflict? While many of the worlds poorest countries are riven by armed conflict, and
while poverty, conflict and under-development set up a cycle of dysfunction in which each element of the cycle
is exacerbated by the other, it is also the case that conflict obviously does not just afflict the poorest countries
as Northern Ireland and the former Yugoslavia demonstrate. Many poor countries are not at war; shared
poverty may not be a destabilizing influence. Indeed, economic growth can destabilize, as the wars in countries
afflicted by an abundance of particular natural resources appear to show.[5] Another review of the literature
makes the general point that the
escalation of conflict during economic

downturns is more likely in countries recovering from conflict, or
fragile states. That makes Africa especially vulnerable on two counts: economic deprivation and
recent armed conflict are present in a relatively high number of states, making the continent especially
vulnerable to economic shocks. As a general rule, weak
economies often translate

into weak and fragile states and the presence of violent conflict,
which in turn prevents economic growth. One study argues
that the risk of war in any given country is determined by the
initial level of income, the rate of economic growth and the level
of dependency on primary commodity exports. Changes in rates
of economic growth thus lead to changes in threats of conflict. As
unemployment rises in fragile states this can exacerbate conflict
due to comparatively better income opportunities for young men
in rebel groups as opposed to labour markets.[6] The concentration of armed
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
conflict in lower income countries is also reflected in the conflict tabulation by Project Ploughshares over the
past quarter century. The 2009 Human Development Index ranks 182 countries in four categories of Human
Development Very High, High, Medium, Low. Of the 98 countries in the Medium and Low categories of human
development in 2009, 55 per cent experienced war on their territories in the previous 24 years. In the same
period, only 24 per cent of countries in the High human development category saw war within their borders,
while just two (5 per cent) countries in the Very High human development ranking had war on their territory (the
The wars of the recent past were

overwhelmingly fought on the territories of states at the low end
of the human development scale. A countrys income level is thus
a strong indicator of its risk of being involved in sustained armed
conflict. Low income countries lack the capacity to create
conditions conducive to serving the social, political, and economic
welfare of their people. And when economic inequality is linked to
differences between identity groups, the correlation to armed
conflict is even stronger. In other words, group based inequalities are
especially destabilizing.[7] These failures in human security are of course heavily shaped by
external factors, notably international economic and security conditions and
the interests of the major powers (in short, globalization),[8] and these
factors frequently combine with internal political/religious/ethnic
circumstances that create conditions especially conducive to
conflict and armed conflict.
UK re Northern Ireland and Israel).
Absent economic growth war is more likely

Strauss-Kahn 9 (Dominique, "Managing Director at the International Monetary
Fund at the Global Creative Leadership Summit, Economic Stability, Economic
Cooperation, and PeaceThe Role of the IMF", September 23 2009,
https://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2009/092309.htm)
human and social costs might get

worse before they get better. This is especially true in low-income
countries. Here, we dont just care about growth for growths sake, we
also want to safeguard peace and prevent war. Indeed, when low-income
countries were doing well over the past decade or so, the incidence of war
declined significantly. The great fear is that this trend could be reversed. Wars
might justifiably be called development in reverse. They entail huge economic costs and
are the cause of great suffering. They lead to death, disability,
disease, and displacement. One particular issue that causes great strain on the country itself and
Avoiding war As I noted, the crisis is not over. Indeed, its
neighboring countries is the issue of refugees. Already, in the world today, there are about 9 million refugees and a
further 14 million who are internally displacedin each case, about half are in low-income countries. So this is a
Wars also increase poverty. They reduce growth potential

by destroying infrastructure and leading to a loss in financial and
human capital. They divert resources toward violence, rent-seeking,
and corruption. They weaken institutions. Most wars since the 1970s have been wars
within states. It is hard to estimate the true cost of a civil war. Recent research suggests that one year of
major risk factor.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
conflict can knock 2-2 percentage points off a countrys growth

rate. And since the average civil war lasts 7 years, that means an economy that is 15 percent smaller than it
would have been with peace. The overall cost of a typical civil war, including forced migration and increased
disease, amounts to around 250 percent of GDP on average. Of course, no cost can be put on the loss of life or the
The causality also runs the other

way. Just as wars devastate the economy, a weak economy makes a
great human suffering that always accompanies war.
country more prone to war . Economic factors matter more than

many people think. The evidence is quite clear on this pointlow income
or slow economic growth increases the risk of a country falling into
civil conflict. Poverty and economic stagnation lead people to
become marginalized, lacking a stake in the productive economy .
With little hope of employment or a decent standard of living, they might turn
instead to violent activities, where income opportunities might be
higher. Dependence on natural resources is also a risk factorcompetition for control over these resources can
trigger conflict and income from natural resources can finance war. And so we can see a vicious circle war
makes economic conditions and prospects worse, and weakens
institutions, and this in turn increases the likelihood of war. Once a war
has started, its hard to stop. And even if it stops, its easy to slip back into conflict. During the first decade after a
war, there is a 50 percent chance of returning to violence, partly because of weakened institutions.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2AC Interdependence
Economic decline kills US interdependence
Royal 10[Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S.
Department of Defense, Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal, and Political
Perspectives, pg 213-215]
However, if the expectations of future trade decline,particularly for
difficult to replace item such as energy resources, the likelihood for

conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain
access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for
decreased trade expectations either on its own or because ittriggers
protectionist moves by interdependent states. Third, others have
considered the link between economic decline and external armed
conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong
correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly
during periods of economic downturn. They write, The linkages between internal
and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic
conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the

favor. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the
extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce
each other. (Blomberg and Hess, 2002, p. 89)
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
AT: K-Wave
Reject the theory of K waves -- no theoretical or empirical
correlations.
North 9 [Gary North is economic analyst, PhD in History, Austrian School, Remnant Review, formerly
served as Research Assistant for Congressman Ron Paul, The Myth of the Kondratieff Wave, 6/27/09,
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north725.html] JAKE LEE
Kondratieff had at most two and a half cycles in his two papers. That
number was available for only four data series. Of the 36 data
series, he could find evidence of cycles in only 11 of them. The
monetary series and the real series correlated in only 11 of 21
series, all short. Pugsley then cited extensively from an article by C. Van Ewijk of the University of
Amsterdam (The Economist, Nov. 3, 1981). Van Ewijk noted that Kondratieff
followed no consistent methodology in choosing the types of
trend curves that he selected for different data sources.
Kondratieff used various statistical techniques to smooth the
curves to make them appear as long waves. "In case after case,
no wave could be identified." He used price data, but these did
not correlate with the actual economic output of the four
economies that he studied. Then the waves that he presented were further "idealized" by
whoever created the chart that has circulated ever since. Pugsley noted: " The upward
movement of prices from 1933 to the present has already
spanned fifty years, which is supposed to be the average length
of a complete cycle." So far, price inflation has extended for about 75
years. Yet the deflationists are still predicting long-term, severe price
deflation, and some of them invoke the Kondratieff wave to prove
their assertion. Pugsley concluded: In not one case does the evidence
corroborate the existence of the wave. Prices and output are not
directly related if anything they are inversely related. The fortyfive to sixty-year period of the wave is only partially evident in
the nineteenth century, and then only in the price series. Price
moves in the twentieth century do not correspond to this
periodicity, as claimed by long-wave proponents. There is absolutely no statistical
correlation between series of real variables such as production
and consumption, and monetary series such as prices and interest
rates. Production and prices of the four countries studied do not
statistically correlate; thus there is no wave operating
coincidentally in the industrialized countries. In other words,
Kondratieff's hypothesis is simply not supported by any evidence.
The long wave exists only in the minds of a few misguided
analysts, but not in the real world. It is pure hokum.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
AT: Resource Wars

No resource wars
Tetrais 12 (Bruno, Senior Research Fellow at the Fondation pour la Recherche
Stratgique (FRS), Past positions include: Director, Civilian Affairs Committee, NATO
Assembly (1990-1993); European affairs desk officer, Ministry of Defense (19931995); Visiting Fellow, the Rand Corporation (1995-1996); Special Assistant to the
Director of Strategic Affairs, Ministry of Defense (1996-2001), "The Demise of Ares:
The End of War as We Know It?", Summer 2012,
csis.org/files/publication/twq12SummerTertrais.pdf)
The Unconvincing Case for New Wars Is the demise of war reversible? In recent years, the metaphor of a new
Dark Age or Middle Ages has flourished. 57 The rise of political Islam, Western policies in the Middle East, the
development of emerging countries, population growth, and

climate change have led to fears of civilization, resource, and
environmental wars. We have heard the New Middle Age theme before. In 1973, Italian
writer Roberto Vacca famously suggested that mankind was about to enter an
era of famine, nuclear war, and civilizational collapse. U.S. economist Robert
fast
Heilbroner made the same suggestion one year later. And in 1977, the great Australian political scientist Hedley Bull
also heralded such an age. 58 But
the case for new wars remains as flimsy as
it
was in the 1970s. Admittedly, there is a stronger role of religion in civil conflicts. The proportion of internal
wars with a religious dimension was about 25 percent between 1940 and 1960, but 43 percent in the first years of
the 21st century. 59 This may be an effect of the demise of traditional territorial conflict, but as seen above, this has
not increased the number or frequency of wars at the global level. Over the past decade, neither Western
governments nor Arab/Muslim countries have fallen into the trap of the clash of civilizations into which Osama bin
Laden wanted to plunge them. And ancestral hatreds are a reductionist and unsatisfactory approach to
explaining collective violence. Professor Yahya Sadowski concluded his analysis of post-Cold War crises and wars,
The Myth of Global Chaos, by stating, most
of the conflicts around the world are

not rooted in thousands of years of history they are new and can be
concluded as quickly as they started. 60 Future resource wars are
unlikely. There are fewer and fewer conquest wars. Between the Westphalia
peace and the end of World War II, nearly half of conflicts were fought over territory. Since the end of the Cold War,
it has been less than 30 percent. 61 The invasion of Kuwait a nationwide bank robbery may go down in history as
being the last great resource war. The U.S.-led intervention of 1991 was partly driven by the need to maintain the
free flow of oil, but not by the temptation to capture it. (Nor was the 2003 war against Iraq motivated by oil.) As for
the current tensions between the two Sudans over oil, they are the remnants of a civil war and an offshoot of a
botched secession process, not a desire to control new resources. Chinas and Indias energy needs are sometimes
seen with apprehension: in light of growing oil and gas scarcity, is there not a risk of military clashes over the
This seemingly consensual idea rests on two fallacies. One is that

there is such a thing as oil and gas scarcity, a notion challenged by many energy
experts. 62 As prices rise, previously untapped reserves and nonconventional hydrocarbons become economically attractive. The
other is that spilling blood is a rational way to access resources. As shown by the work of historians and
political scientists such as Quincy Wright, the economic rationale for war has always
been overstated. And because of globalization, it has become cheaper
to buy than to steal. We no longer live in the world of 1941, when fear of lacking oil and raw materials
was a key motivation for Japans decision to go to war. In an era of liberalizing trade, many
natural resources are fungible goods. (Here, Beijing behaves as any other actor: 90
control of such resources?
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
percent of the oil its companies produce outside of China goes to the global market, not to the domestic one.) 63
There may be clashes or conflicts in regions in maritime resource-rich areas such as the South China and East China
seas or the Mediterranean, but they will be driven by nationalist passions, not the desperate hunger for
hydrocarbons.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Warming
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2AC Growth Solves Warming

Growth solves warming [research, the California effect, the EKC, and
better tech]
Norberg, 03 Fellow at Timbro and CATO [Johan Norberg, In Defense of Global Capitalism, pg 225-237]
All over the world, economic progress and growth are moving hand in hand with
intensified environmental protection. Four researchers who studied these
connections found a very strong, positive association between our
[environmental] indicators and the level of economic development . A country that is
very poor is too preoccupied with lifting itself out of poverty to bother about the environment at all. Countries
When they grow richer,

they start to regulate effluent emissions, and when they have still more resources
they also begin regulating air quality. 19 A number of factors cause environment protection to
usually begin protecting their natural resources when they can afford to do so.
increase with wealth and development. Environmental quality is unlikely to be a top priority for people who
barely know where their next meal is coming from. Abating misery and subduing the pangs of hunger takes
When our standard of living rises we start attaching

importance to the environment and obtaining resources to improve it. Such was
the case earlier in western Europe, and so it is in the developing countries today. Progress of this
kind, however, requires that people live in democracies where they are able and allowed to
mobilize opinion; otherwise, their preferences will have no impact. Environmental destruction is
worst in dictatorships. But it is the fact of prosperity no less than a sense of responsibility that makes
environmental protection easier in a wealthy society. A wealthier country can afford to tackle
environmental problems; it can develop environmentally friendly technologies
precedence over conservation.
wastewater and exhaust emission control, for exampleand begin to rectify past mistakes. Global
environmental development resembles not so much a race for the bottom as a

race to the top, what we might call a California effect. The state of California's Clean Air Acts,
first introduced in the 1970s and tightened since, were stringent emissions regulations that
made rigorous demands on car manufacturers. Many prophets of doom predicted
that firms and factories would move to other states, and California would soon be
obliged to repeal its regulations. But instead the opposite happened: other states
gradually tightened up their environmental stipulations. Because car companies needed
the wealthy California market, manufacturers all over the United States were forced to develop new techniques
for reducing emissions. Having done so, they could more easily comply with the exacting requirements of other
Anti-globalists usually claim

that the profit motive and free trade together cause businesses to entrap
politicians in a race for the bottom. The California effect implies the opposite: free
trade enables politicians to pull profit-hungry corporations along with them in a
race to the top. This phenomenon occurs because compliance with environmental rules
accounts for a very small proportion of most companies' expenditures . What firms are
states, whereupon those states again ratcheted up their requirements.
primarily after is a good business environmenta liberal economy and a skilled workforce not a bad natural
A review of research in this field shows that there are no clear

indications of national environmental rules leading to a diminution of exports or
to fewer companies locating in the countries that pass the rules. 20 This finding
undermines both the arguments put forward by companies against environmental
regulations and those advanced by environmentalists maintaining that
globalization has to be restrained for environmental reasons. Incipient signs of
environment.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
the California effect's race to the top are present all over the world, because
globalization has caused different countries to absorb new tech niques more rapidly, and
the new techniques are generally far gentler on the environment. Researchers have investigated
steel manufacturing in 50 different countries and concluded that countries with
more open economies took the lead in introducing cleaner technology. Production
in those countries generated almost 20 percent less emissions than the same
production in closed countries. This process is being driven by multinational corporations because
they have a lot to gain from uniform production with uniform technology. Because they are restructured more
rapidly, they have more modern machinery. And they prefer assimilating the latest, most environmentally
friendly technology immediately to retrofitting it, at great expense, when environmental regulations are
Brazil, Mexico, and Chinathe three biggest recipients of foreign

investmenthave followed a very clear pattern: the more investments they get,
the better control they gain over air pollution . The worst forms of air pollution have diminished
tightened up.
in their cities during the period of globalization. When Western companies start up in developing countries, their
production is considerably more environment-friendly than the native production, and they are more willing to
comply with environmental legislation, not least because they have brand images and reputations to protect.
Only 30 percent of Indonesian companies comply with the country's environmental regulations, whereas no
fewer than 80 percent of the multinationals do so. One out of every 10 foreign companies maintained a
standard clearly superior to that of the regulations. This development would go faster if economies were more
open and, in particular, if the governments of the world were to phase out the incomprehensible tariffs on
environmentally friendly technology. 21 Sometimes one hears it said that, for environmental reasons, the poor
countries of the South must not be allowed to grow as affluent as our countries in the North. For example, in a
compilation of essays on Environmentally Significant Consumption published by the National Academy of
find anthropologist Richard Wilk fretting that: If everyone develops a

desire for the Western high-consumption lifestyle, the relentless growth in
consumption, energy use, waste, and emissions may be disastrous. 22 But
studies show this to be colossal misapprehension . On the contrary, it is in the developing
Sciences, we
countries that we find the gravest, most harmful environmental problems. In our affluent part of the world, more
and more people are mindful of environmental problems such as endangered green areas. Every day in the
developing countries, more than 6,9000 people die from air pollution when using wood, dung, and agricultural
waste in their homes as heating and cooking fuel. UNDP estimates that no fewer than 2.2 million people die
every year from polluted indoor air. This result is already disastrous and far more destructive than
atmospheric pollution and industrial emissions. Tying people down to that level of development means
It is not true that pollution in the modern

sense increases with growth. Instead, pollution follows an inverted U-curve. When
growth in a very poor country gathers speed and the chimneys begin belching smoke, the
environment suffers. But when prosperity has risen high enough , the environmental
indicators show an improvement instead: emissions are reduced, and air and water show
condemning millions to premature death every year.
progressively lower concentrations of pollutants. The cities with the worst problems are not Stockholm, New
York, and Zrich, but rather Beijing, Mexico City, and New Delhi. In addition to the factors already mentioned,
this is also due to the economic structure changing from raw-material-intensive to knowledge-intensive
production. In a modern economy, heavy, dirty industry is to a great extent superseded by service enterprises.
Banks, consulting firms, and information technology corporations do not have the same environmental impact
as old factories. According to one survey of available environmental data, the turning point generally comes
before a country's per capita GDP has reached $8,000. At $10,000, the researchers found a positive connection
between increased growth and better air and water quality. 23 That is roughly the level of prosperity of
Argentina, South Korea, or Slovenia. In the United States, per capita GDP is about $36,300. Here as well, the
environment has consistently improved since the 1970s, quite contrary to the picture one gets from the media.
In the 1970s there was constant reference to smog in American cities, and rightly so: the air was judged to be
unhealthy for 100300 days a year. Today it is unhealthy for fewer than 10 days a year, with the exception of
Los Angeles. There, the figure is roughly 80 days, but even that represents a 50 percent reduction in 10 years.
24 The same trend is noticeable in the rest of the affluent worldfor example, in Tokyo, where, a few decades
ago, doomsayers believed that oxygen masks would in the future have to be worn all around the city because of
the bad air. Apart from its other positive effects on the developing countries, such as ameliorating hunger and
sparing people the horror of watching their children die, prosperity beyond a certain critical point can improve
the environment. What is more,
this turning point is now occurring
progressively
earlier
in the
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
because they can learn from more affluent countries' mistakes and
use their superior technology. For example, air quality in the enormous cities of China, which are the
developing countries,
most heavily polluted in the world, has steadied since the mid-1980s and in several cases has slowly improved.
This improvement has coincided with uniquely rapid growth. Some years ago, the Danish statistician and
Greenpeace member Bjrn Lomborg, with about 10 of his students, compiled statistics and facts about the
world's environmental problems. To his astonishment, he found that what he himself had regarded as selfevident, the steady deterioration of the global environment, did not agree at all with official empirical data. He
found instead that air pollution is diminishing, refuse problems are diminishing, resources are not running out,
more people are eating their fill, and people are living longer. Lomborg gathered publicly available data from as
many fields as he could find and published them in the book The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real
State of the World. The picture that emerges there is an important corrective to the general prophesies of doom
that can so easily be imbibed from newspaper headlines. Lomborg shows that air pollution and emissions have
been declining in the developed world during recent decades. Heavy metal emissions have been heavily
reduced; nitrogen oxides have diminished by almost 30 percent and sulfur emissions by about 80 percent.
Pollution and emission problems are still growing in the poor developing countries, but at every level of growth
annual particle density has diminished by 2 percent in only 14 years. In the developed world, phosphorus
emissions into the seas have declined drastically, and E. coli bacteria concentrations in coastal waters have
plummeted, enabling closed swimming areas to reopen. Lomborg shows that, instead of large-scale
deforestation, the world's forest acreage increased from 40.24 million to 43.04 million square kilometers
between 1950 and 1994. He finds that there has never been any large-scale tree death caused by acid rain. The
oft-quoted, but erroneous statement about 40,000 species going extinct every year is traced by Lomborg to its
sourcea 20-year-old estimate that has been circulating in environmentalist circles ever since. Lomborg thinks
it is closer to 1,500 species a year, and possibly a bit more than that. The documented cases of extinction
during the past 400 years total just over a thousand species, of which about 95 percent are insects, bacteria,
and viruses. As for the problem of garbage, the next hundred years worth of Danish refuse could be
accommodated in a 33-meter-deep pit with an area of three square kilometers, even without recycling. In
addition, Lomborg illustrates how increased prosperity and improved technology can solve the problems that lie
ahead of us. All the fresh water consumed in the world today could be produced by a single desalination plant,
powered by solar cells and occupying 0.4 percent of the Sahara Desert. It is a mistake, then, to believe that
growth automatically ruins the environment. And claims that we would need this or that number of planets for
the whole world to attain a Western standard of consumptionthose ecological footprint calculationsare
equally untruthful. Such a claim is usually made by environmentalists, and it is concerned, not so much with
emissions and pollution, as with resources running out if everyone were to live as we do in the affluent world.
Clearly, certain of the raw materials we use today, in presentday quantities, would not suffice for the whole
world if everyone consumed the same things. But that information is just about as interesting as if a prosperous
Stone Age man were to say that, if everyone attained his level of consumption, there would not be enough
Raw material consumption is not static. With more and more

people achieving a high level of prosperity, we start looking for ways of using other raw materials. Humanity
is constantly improving technology so as to get at raw materials that were previously
inaccessible, and we are attaining a level of prosperity that makes this possible.
New innovations make it possible for old raw materials to be put to better use and for
stone, salt, and furs to go around.
garbage to be turned into new raw materials. A century and a half ago, oil was just something black and sticky
that people preferred not to step in and definitely did not want to find beneath their land. But our interest in
finding better energy sources led to methods being devised for using oil, and today it is one of our prime
resources. Sand has never been all that exciting or precious, but today it is a vital raw material in the most
powerful technology of our age, the computer. In the form of siliconwhich makes up a quarter of the earth's
There is a simple market mechanism that

averts shortages. If a certain raw material comes to be in short supply, its price
goes up. This makes everyone more interested in economiz ing on that resource, in
finding more of it, in reusing it, and in trying to find substitutes for it. The trend over the last few
crust it is a key component in computer chips.
decades of falling raw material prices is clear. Metals have never been as cheap as they are today. Prices are
falling, which suggests that demand does not exceed supply. In relation to wages, that is, in terms of how long
we must work to earn the price of a raw material, natural resources today are half as expensive as they were 50
years ago and one-fifth as expensive as they were a hundred years ago. In 1900 the price of electricity was
eight times higher, the price of coal seven times higher, and the price of oil five times higher than today. 25 The
risk of shortage is declining all the time, because new finds and more efficient use keep augmenting the
available reserves. In a world where technology never stops developing, static calculations are uninteresting,
and wrong. By simple mathematics, Lomborg establishes that if we have a raw material with a hundred years'
use remaining, a 1 percent annual increase in demand, and a 2 percent increase in recycling and/or efficiency,
that resource will never be exhausted. If shortages do occur, then with the right technology most substances
{FILE TITLE}
can be recycled. One-third of the world's steel production, for example, is being reused already.
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Technological
advance can outstrip the depletion of resources . Not many years ago, everyone was
convinced of the impossibility of the whole Chinese population having telephones, because that would require
several hundred million telephone operators. But the supply of manpower did not run out; technology developed
instead. Then it was declared that nationwide telephony for China was physically impossible because all the
world's copper wouldn't suffice for installing heavy gauge telephone lines all over the country. Before that had
time to become a problem, fiber optics and satellites began to supersede copper wire. The price of copper, a
commodity that people believed would run out, has fallen continuously and is now only about a tenth of what it
was 200 years ago. People in most ages have worried about important raw materials becoming exhausted. But
on the few occasions when this has happened, it has generally affected isolated, poor places, not open, affluent
ones. To claim that people in Africa, who are dying by the thousand every day from supremely real shortages,
must not be allowed to become as prosperous as we in the West because we can find theoretical risks of
shortages occurring is both stupid and unjust.
Growth is good it allows for the proliferation of technology

that solves our dependence on carbon-emitters, mitigates
inefficient land use, and risk of ecological collapse and
resource depletion is empirically denied failure to maintain it
leads to a shift towards ecologically detrimental practices
Ridley, 4/25
(Matt,
Matt Ridley's books have sold over a million copies, been translated into 30 languages, been short-listed for nine major
literary prizes and won several awards. His TED talk "When Ideas Have Sex" has been viewed more than two million times.
With BA and DPhil degrees from Oxford University, he worked for the Economist for nine years as science editor, Washington
correspondent and American editor, before becoming a self-employed writer and businessman. He was founding chairman of the
International Centre for Life in Newcastle. He was non-excutive chairman of Northern Rock plc and Northern 2 VCT plc. He also
commissioned the Northumberlandia landform sculpture and country park. He currently writes the Mind and Matter column in the
Wall Street Journal and writes regularly for The Times. As Viscount Ridley, he was elected to the House of Lords in February 2013. He
is a fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a foreign honorary member of the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences Wall Street Journal, The Worlds Resources Arent Running Out
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014240527023042799045795178626122
87156?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories&mg=reno64-wsj, April 25, 2014, ak.)
The World's Resources Aren't Running Out: Ecologists worry that the
world's resources come in fixed amounts that will run out, but we have broken
through such limits again and again
How
many times have you heard that we humans are "using up" the
world's resources, "running out" of oil, "reaching the limits" of the
atmosphere's capacity to cope with pollution or "approaching the
carrying capacity" of the land's ability to support a greater
population? The assumption behind all such statements is that there is a fixed
amount of stuffmetals, oil, clean air, landand that we risk exhausting it through
our consumption. "We are using 50% more resources than the Earth can sustainably produce, and
unless we change course, that number will grow fastby 2030, even two planets will not be enough," says Jim
Leape, director general of the World Wide Fund for Nature International (formerly the World Wildlife Fund). But
here's a peculiar feature of human history: We burst through such

limits again and again . After all, as a Saudi oil minister once said, the Stone Age
didn't end for lack of stone. Ecologists call this " niche construction "that
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
people (and indeed some other animals) can create new opportunities for
themselves by making their habitats more productive in some way.
Agriculture is the classic example of niche construction: We stopped relying
on nature's bounty and substituted an artificial and much larger
bounty. Economists call the same phenomenon innovation. What frustrates them about ecologists is the
latter's tendency to think in terms of static limits. Ecologists can't seem to see that when whale oil
starts to run out, petroleum is discovered, or that when farm yields
flatten, fertilizer comes along, or that when glass fiber is invented,
demand for copper falls. That frustration is heartily reciprocated. Ecologists think
that economists espouse a sort of superstitious magic called
"markets" or "prices" to avoid confronting the reality of limits to
growth. The easiest way to raise a cheer in a conference of ecologists is to make a rude joke about economists.
I have lived among both tribes. I studied various forms of ecology in an academic setting for seven years and then
worked at the Economist magazine for eight years. When I was an ecologist (in the academic sense of the word, not
the political one, though I also had antinuclear stickers on my car), I very much espoused the carrying-capacity
there are no limits

because we can invent new ways of doing more with less. This
disagreement goes to the heart of many current political issues and explains much about why people
disagree about environmental policy. In the climate debate, for example,
viewpointthat there were limits to growth. I nowadays lean to the view that
pessimists see a limit to the atmosphere's capacity to cope with extra carbon dioxide without rapid warming. So a
continuing increase in emissions if economic growth continues will eventually accelerate warming to dangerous
economic growth leading to technological change that

would result in the use of lower-carbon energy. That would allow
warming to level off long before it does much harm. It is striking, for example,
that the I ntergovernmental P anel on C limate C hange 's recent
forecast that temperatures would rise by 3.7 to 4.8 degrees Celsius compared with
preindustrial levels by 2100 was based on several assumptions: little
technological change, an end to the 50-year fall in population
growth rates, a tripling (only) of per capita income and not much
improvement in the energy efficiency of the economy. Basically, that
would mean a world much like today's but with lots more people
burning lots more coal and oil, leading to an increase in emissions.
Most economists expect a five- or tenfold increase in income, huge
changes in technology and an end to population growth by 2100:
not so many more people needing much less carbon. In 1679, Antonie van
rates. But optimists see
Leeuwenhoek, the great Dutch microscopist, estimated that the planet could hold 13.4 billion people, a number that
most demographers think we may never reach. Since then, estimates have bounced around between 1 billion and
Economists point out that we

keep improving the productivity of each acre of land by applying
fertilizer, mechanization, pesticides and irrigation. Further
innovation is bound to shift the ceiling upward. Jesse Ausubel at
Rockefeller University calculates that the amount of land required to
grow a given quantity of food has fallen by 65% over the past 50
years, world-wide. Ecologists object that these innovations rely on nonrenewable resources, such as oil
100 billion, with no sign of converging on an agreed figure.
and gas, or renewable ones that are being used up faster than they are replenished, such as aquifers. So current
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
yields cannot be maintained, let alone improved. In his recent book "The View from Lazy Point," the ecologist Carl
Safina estimates that if everybody had the living standards of Americans, we would need 2.5 Earths because the
world's agricultural land just couldn't grow enough food for more than 2.5 billion people at that level of
consumption. Harvard emeritus professor E.O. Wilson, one of ecology's patriarchs, reckoned that only if we all
turned vegetarian could the world's farms grow enough food to support 10 billion people. Economists respond by
since large parts of the world, especially in Africa, have yet to gain
access to fertilizer and modern farming techniques, there is no
reason to think that the global land requirements for a given
amount of food will cease shrinking any time soon. Indeed, Mr. Ausubel, together
with his colleagues Iddo Wernick and Paul Waggoner, came to the startling conclusion that, even with
generous assumptions about population growth and growing
affluence leading to greater demand for meat and other luxuries,
and with ungenerous assumptions about future global yield
improvements, we will need less farmland in 2050 than we needed
in 2000. (So long, that is, as we don't grow more biofuels on land that
could be growing food.) But surely intensification of yields depends on inputs that may run out? Take
water, a commodity that limits the production of food in many places. Estimates made in the 1960s and
1970s of water demand by the year 2000 proved grossly overestimated: The world
used half as much water as experts had projected 30 years before.
The reason was greater economy in the use of water by new irrigation
techniques. Some countries, such as Israel and Cyprus, have cut water use for irrigation through the use of
drip irrigation. Combine these improvements with solar-driven desalination of
seawater world-wide, and it is highly unlikely that fresh water will
limit human population. The best-selling book "Limits to Growth," published in 1972 by the Club of
saying that
Rome (an influential global think tank), argued that we would have bumped our heads against all sorts of ceilings by
now, running short of various metals, fuels, minerals and space. Why did it not happen? In a word,
technology: better mining techniques, more frugal use of materials,

and if scarcity causes price increases, substitution by cheaper
material. We use 100 times thinner gold plating on computer
connectors than we did 40 years ago. The steel content of cars and
buildings keeps on falling. Until about 10 years ago, it was reasonable to
expect that natural gas might run out in a few short decades and oil
soon thereafter. If that were to happen, agricultural yields would plummet, and the world would be faced
with a stark dilemma: Plow up all the remaining rain forest to grow food, or starve. But thanks to
fracking and the shale revolution, peak oil and gas have been
postponed. They will run out one day, but only in the sense that you
will run out of Atlantic Ocean one day if you take a rowboat west out
of a harbor in Ireland. Just as you are likely to stop rowing long before you bump into Newfoundland,
so we may well find cheap substitutes for fossil fuels long before they
run out. The economist and metals dealer Tim Worstall gives the example of tellurium, a key ingredient of
some kinds of solar panels. Tellurium is one of the rarest elements in the Earth's crustone atom per billion. Will it
soon run out? Mr. Worstall estimates that there are 120 million tons of it, or a million years' supply altogether. It is
sufficiently concentrated in the residues from refining copper ores, called copper slimes, to be worth extracting for a
very long time to come. One day, it will also be recycled as old solar panels get cannibalized to make new ones. Or
take phosphorus, an element vital to agricultural fertility. The richest phosphate mines, such as on the island of
Nauru in the South Pacific, are all but exhausted. Does that mean the world is running out? No: There are extensive
lower grade deposits, and if we get desperate, all the phosphorus atoms put into the ground over past centuries still
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
exist, especially in the mud of estuaries. It's just a matter of concentrating them again. In 1972, the ecologist Paul
Ehrlich of Stanford University came up with a simple formula called IPAT, which stated that the impact of humankind
was equal to population multiplied by affluence multiplied again by technology. In other words, the damage done to
Earth increases the more people there are, the richer they get and the more technology they have. Many ecologists
still subscribe to this doctrine, which has attained the status of holy writ in ecology. But the past 40 years haven't
greater affluence and new technology have led

to less human impact on the planet, not more. Richer people with
new technologies tend not to collect firewood and bushmeat from
natural forests; instead, they use electricity and farmed chickenboth
of which need much less land. In 2006, Mr. Ausubel calculated that no country with a
GDP per head greater than $4,600 has a falling stock of forest (in density
been kind to it. In many respects,
as well as in acreage). Haiti is 98% deforested and literally brown on satellite images, compared with its green, well-
Haiti's poverty, which causes

it to rely on charcoal for domestic and industrial energy, whereas the
Dominican Republic is wealthy enough to use fossil fuels,
subsidizing propane gas for cooking fuel specifically so that people
won't cut down forests. Part of the problem is that the word "consumption" means different things
forested neighbor, the Dominican Republic. The difference stems from
to the two tribes. Ecologists use it to mean "the act of using up a resource"; economists mean "the purchase of
But in what sense

is water, tellurium or phosphorus "used up" when products made
with them are bought by the public? They still exist in the objects
themselves or in the environment. Water returns to the
environment through sewage and can be reused. Phosphorus gets
recycled through compost. Tellurium is in solar panels, which can be
recycled. As the economist Thomas Sowell wrote in his 1980 book "Knowledge and Decisions,"
"Although we speak loosely of 'production,' man neither creates nor
destroys matter, but only transforms it." Given that innovationor "niche
construction"causes ever more productivity, how do ecologists justify the
claim that we are already overdrawn at the planetary bank and
would need at least another planet to sustain the lifestyles of 10
billion people at U.S. standards of living? Examine the calculations done by a group
goods and services by the public" (both definitions taken from the Oxford dictionary).
called the Global Footprint Networka think tank founded by Mathis Wackernagel in Oakland, Calif., and supported
by more than 70 international environmental organizationsand it becomes clear. The group assumes that the
fossil fuels burned in the pursuit of higher yields must be offset in the future by tree planting on a scale that could
soak up the emitted carbon dioxide. A widely used measure of "ecological footprint" simply assumes that 54% of
what if tree planting wasn't

the only way to soak up carbon dioxide? Or if trees grew faster
when irrigated and fertilized so you needed fewer of them? Or if we
cut emissions, as the U.S. has recently done by substituting gas for
coal in electricity generation? Or if we tolerated some increase in emissions (which are
the acreage we need should be devoted to "carbon uptake." But
measurably increasing crop yields, by the way)? Any of these factors could wipe out a huge chunk of the deemed
ecological overdraft and put us back in planetary credit. Helmut Haberl of Klagenfurt University in Austria is a rare
example of an ecologist who takes economics seriously. He points out that his fellow ecologists have been using
"human appropriation of net primary production"that is, the percentage of the world's green vegetation eaten or
prevented from growing by us and our domestic animalsas an indicator of ecological limits to growth. Some
ecologists had begun to argue that we were using half or more of all
the greenery on the planet. This is wrong , says Dr. Haberl, for several
reasons. First, the amount appropriated is still fairly low: About
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
14.2% is eaten by us and our animals, and an additional 9.6% is

prevented from growing by goats and buildings, according to his
estimates. Second, most economic growth happens without any
greater use of biomass. Indeed, human appropriation usually
declines as a country industrializes and the harvest growsas a
result of agricultural intensification rather than through plowing
more land. Finally, human activities actually increase the production of
green vegetation in natural ecosystems. Fertilizer taken up by crops is carried into
forests and rivers by wild birds and animals, where it boosts yields of wild vegetation too (sometimes too much,
causing algal blooms in water). In places like the Nile delta, wild ecosystems are more productive than they would
be without human intervention, despite the fact that much of the land is used for growing human food. If I could
have one wish for the Earth's environment, it would be to bring together the two tribesto convene a grand
powwow of ecologists and economists. I would pose them this simple question and not let them leave the room
until they had answered it:
How can innovation improve the environment?
Warming Can Be Solved Without Impairing Economic Growth

KofKoff, 2-3 [Writer and Editor at Uloop News at Columbia University,
Congressional Staffer, 2-3-2014, A New Approach To Global Warming, The Bottom
Line, http://www.cbs-bottomline.com/news/view.php/5665/A-New-Approach-ToGlobal-Warming]
I don't doubt the good intentions of those that believe global warming is an extreme
threat to mankind. If you believe that global warming will ultimately lead to
destruction and death it is admirable to want to do what is necessary to protect
people. At the same time, it would be imprudent to ignore the virtues that have
arisen from the growth of non-renewable, yet reliable, energy sources over the
course of history. So here we are, attempting to fight the supposed
effects of industrialization without impairing the necessary growth

and improvement of the global economy. Unfortunately, the
suggested cure of the day - via reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions - may leave us with less growth and the environmental
catastrophes we fear. Take Germany as an example of a country that takes
global warming seriously. The country plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
80 - 95% by 2050 versus 1990 levels. While a valiant effort no doubt, Germany only
accounts for 2.3% of global emissions and will account for even less going forward
as developing nations continue to grow and industrialize. It is hard to believe that
Germany's actions alone can possibly thwart global warming. Their actions seem as
unrealistic as if Luxembourg spent enormous sums of its GDP on its military in the
hopes of ensuring world peace. At the end of the day, Luxembourg simply cannot tip
the scales in any recognizable fashion. Similarly, if the US, EU, China and India are
not also committed to reducing emissions, it seems that Germany's effort - which is
already bearing some of the world's highest energy costs - will be for naught. The
EU, following Germany's lead, recently proposed cutting its carbon emissions by
40% by 2030 from 1990 levels - an ambitious goal that the International Energy
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Agency supports, but admits will reduce Europe's competitiveness for at least 20years. According to the IEA, however, even if the EU stopped emitting greenhouse
gases altogether by 2030, it would not be sufficient to achieve its desired ends. As a
result, if the IEA is correct, the EU's carbon austerity - at the 40% level - seems like
a fool's errand. To be fair, if mankind is responsible for global warming and
greenhouse gas emissions are the culprit, then directionally, less greenhouse gases
are certainly better than more. But reducing emissions alone is just a
means to an end - not the end itself. Ultimately the goal should be
protecting the most vulnerable in the manner that results in the
lowest risk-adjusted cost possible, where risk is tied to the
likelihood of success. Consider telling the citizens of the Maldives that they will
be better off three feet underwater rather than six. At the end of the day, if
the efforts to limit global warming aren't sufficient to curtail the
catastrophes many predict (ex. Low-lying areas are still flooded), the efforts
will have been in vain. Granted, there will always be victories on the margin,
but it does beg the question: What amount of carbon austerity and
economic impact are we willing to bear in the name of global
warming, and if we bear these economic hardships and the ice caps
continue to melt and the temperature continues to rise, will we see
it as a call for even further emissions limits or will we finally change
our approach? Germany's Federal Environmental Agency says that
to reduce global temperatures by 2o C, it would require global
carbon reductions of 50% by 2050 versus 1990 levels. If we assume
these estimates are accurate, a big if (remember in 2008 when Al Gore said the
polar ice caps would be gone in 5-years?), it would still require too many variables
to work out as planned for it to be achievable in a world filled with the variety of
nations, economies and viewpoints of which it is currently comprised. Would it not
be more effective, on a risk-adjusted basis, to focus our efforts on preparing for
what we expect is to come or towards creating the innovative technology necessary
to stop climate change more abruptly? Why not begin to pare back government
subsidies for home insurance in flood prone areas to prod families to move towards
safer zones? Or create contingency plans to conserve water in flood years for years
when there are droughts? Or better yet, lift restrictions on drought-resistant
genetically modified crops (queue the non-GMO hysteria!). And why not build
infrastructure like flood walls in at risk areas (i.e. the Maldives, New York City, etc.)
that will help to protect against rising sea levels and catastrophic natural disasters
(which will happen even if global warming doesn't)? By planning for global
warming rather than trying to stop global warming, either this

money will be spent to defend against catastrophes that do not
materialize or we will have successfully protected humanity from
disaster without so severely stemming global economic growth.
Conversely, we can follow the current path, imparting high cost
emissions restrictions on industrialized countries and stifling the
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
rise of resource-rich, developing nations, while hoping that our

estimates are correct and that our efforts will assuage nature's fury.
Growth is Key to Solve The Consequences Of Warming

Goklany, 11 [Indur M. Goklany, Science and technology policy analyst for the
United States Department of the Interior, where he holds the position of Assistant
Director of Programs, Science and Technology Policy, December 2011, Misled on
Climate Change: How the UN IPCC (and others) Exaggerate the Impacts of Global
Warming, Reasons,
http://reason.org/files/how_ipcc_misleads_on_climate_change_impacts.pdf]
Although the IPCC notes that sustainable development can reduce
vulnerability to climate change, and climate change could impede

nations abilities to achieve sustainable development pathways,49
many proponents of greenhouse gas controls dwell only on the
latter (downside) aspect of economic development while generally ignoring
the upside.50 But does global warming hinder sustained development or does
sustained development make it easier to cope with warming, and which effect, if
either, is predominant? It is possible to answer these questions using results from
the previously discussed British government-sponsored Fast Track Assessments
(FTAs) of the global impacts of global warming.51 The FTAs provide estimates
of the contribution of global warming to the total populations at risk

of malaria, hunger and coastal flooding due to sea level rise for
2085 . Notwithstanding the implausibility of any forecast of events in 2085, these
estimates of populations at risk may be converted into mortality estimates by
comparing historical mortality estimates from the World Health Organization (for
1990, the base year) against FTA estimates of populations at risk for that year. The
results indicate that under the IPCCs warmest (A1FI) scenario,

global warming would contribute no more than 13% of the total
mortality from malaria, hunger and coastal flooding in 2085.52 The
remaining 87% or more is due to non-global warming related
factors. Had improvements in adaptive capacity been appropriately
accounted for, the mortality attributed to both global warming and
non-global warming factors would have been much smaller, but
probably by a similar amount, so the proportional contribution from
each would likely not be changed much. FTA results also indicate that by
2085, global warming would reduce the global population at risk of water shortages,
although some areas would see increases.53 This finding is contrary to the
erroneous impression conveyed by the IPCCs AR4s Working Group II Summary for
Policy Makers54 because that summary emphasizes the number of people that may
experience an increase in water shortage but neglects to provide corresponding
estimates for the number that would see a reduction in water shortage.55 However,
the finding that the net population experiencing water shortage

would be reduced is consistent with other studies of the global
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
impact of global warming on water resources. Remarkably, this result is

obtained despite the fact that the author of the study does not allow for any
adaptation and, consequently, nor does it account for advances in adaptive capacity
that should logically occur under the IPCC scenarios.57 Had adaptation been
considered, the net population at risk of water shortage due to

global warming would have decreased even more substantially than
the author indicates. Partly due to increases in net primary productivity
because of CO2 fertilization, the amount of habitat devoted to cropland would be
halved by global warming under the A1FI scenario, at least through 2100.58 Since
diversion of habitat to cropland is perhaps the single largest threat

to species and ecosystems, 59 this means that global warming could
actually reduce pressures on biodiversity.60 Thus, at least through
20852100, GW may relieve some of the problems that some poor
countries face currently (e.g., water shortage and habitat loss), while in
other instances, the contribution of GW to the overall problem (e.g.,
cumulative mortality from malaria, hunger and coastal flooding)
would be substantially smaller than that of non-GW related factors.
Notably , economic development, one of the fundamental drivers of
GW, would reduce mortality problems regardless of whether they
are due to GW or non-GW related factors (see Figure 4). Hence, lack of
economic development would be a greater problem than global
warming , at least through 20852100. This reaffirms the story told by Figure 6,
which shows that notwithstanding global warming and despite
egregiously overestimating the negative consequences of global
warming while underestimating its positive impacts, future net GDP
per capita will be much higher than it is today under each scenario
through at least 2200. Note that Figure 6 also shows that through 2200,
notwithstanding global warming, net GDP per capita will be highest under the
warmest scenario, and lowest under the poorest scenario (A2). This suggests
that if humanity has a choice of which development path to take, it

ought to strive to effect the scenario that has the highest economic
growth, whether or not that exacerbates global warming .61 The
additional economic development would more than offset the cost
of any warming. No less important, it is far cheaper for the world to
advance economic development than mitigate climate change by a
meaningful amount.62 This is consistent with the aforementioned analysis of
various climate-sensitive infectious diseases, whose authors observe that: [D]eaths
will first increase, because of population growth and climate change, but then fall,
because of development As climate can only be changed with a
substantial delay, development is the preferred strategy to reduce

infectious diseases even if they are exacerbated by climate change.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Development can increase the capacity to cope with projected increases in

infectious diseases over the medium to long term.63 Thus, it is most unlikely that
under the IPCCs warmest scenario, global warming will overwhelm
economic development in countries that are currently poor, regardless
of the Stern Reviews upper bound damage estimates. Second, economic
development should be given priority over reducing greenhouse gas

emissions. It would enable poorer countries to cope not only with
any negative impacts of climate change, but more importantly,
other larger problems that they will face.64 This is most obvious from an
examination of Figures 3 through 5, which indicate that malnutrition, infant
mortality and life expectancy improve most rapidly with economic development at
its lowest levels.
Economic Growth Is The Solution to Climate Change

Worstall, 11 [Tim Worstall, Writer on Economics at Forbes, 8-10-2011, Solving
Climate Change, Forbes,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/08/10/solving-climate-change/]
We know very well that theres a connection between economic

growth and population size. Richer countries on average have lower fertility
rates so as the world becomes richer fewer children are born. So more economic
growth leading to peaking and declining population really isnt a
surprise at all. However, look at that light green line. The RCP 2.6 one, the
whew, we dodged it one. The highest economic growth model leads to
the lowest level of emissions considered. Less economic growth
leads to higher emissions. Note again that these are not my assumptions.
They are those of the IPCC process. Which is something of a body
blow to those telling us that we must cease economic growth if
calamity is to be averted: the very assumptions built into the whole proof that
climate change is something we should worry about say exactly the opposite.
Economic growth is the way out, not the problem. By the way, the assumption there
about the rate of economic growth, from a roughly $50 trillion global economy in
2000 to a roughly $300 trillion one in 2100. Thats not all that far off the growth rate
we had in the 20th century. This is how much energy were going to use and where
were going to get it from. We need to be more parsimonious in our use of energy,
yes. We need to use less of it per unit of GDP (which is known as energy intensity
and their desired decrease in that isnt far off what the advanced economies already
manage) but we dont actually need to use less of it overall. Less oil, yes, but we
can near double our energy consumption and still hit that we missed the problem
sweet spot. Its also amusing to note what a small role for solar and wind power is
necessary to hit that target. Again, I want to point out that these arent my
assumptions, theyre not made up out of whole cloth by some denialist, these are
the assumptions which the very scientists who tell us about climate change
themselves think are the driving forces and likely outcomes. Which leads to a very
interesting conclusion indeed. We dont have to stop economic growth at
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
all, we can quite happily have around the same amount of it that we
had in the 20 th century. So thats a large number of the Green
Miserablists shown to be wrong. We dont have to reduce or even
severely limit our energy consumption: we just have to get the
growth in our consumption from other than the usual sources. A large
number of the Energy Miserablists shown to be wrong there too. Or, to boil it
right down, the IPCC is telling us that the solution to climate change
is economic growth and low-carbon energy generation. Thats
absolutely all we have to do.
Economic Growth is The Way Out of Warming IPCC Proves

GWPF, 11 [The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 10-08-11, IPCC: ONLY
ECONOMIC GROWTH CAN SOLVE CLIMATE AND ENERGY CHALLENGES,
http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-only-economic-growth-can-solve-climate-and-energychallenges/]
The IPCC process has just released their first update to these models
since 2000. The overview paper is here. Im not going to delve into all of the details
(for which readers will no doubt than me) I just wanted to make a few general points
with the use of a couple of their graphs. As a handy guide, RCPnumber should be
interpreted thusly: the higher the number after the RCP the closer we
are to boiling Flipper as the last humans fight on the desert shores
of Antarctica. The lower the number the more we can say, Phew,
we dodged the problem. More specifically, RCP2.6 means CO2 peaks out at
490 ppm and then declines. RCP8.5 means it gets to 1370 ppm and perhaps keeps
going leading to that dolphin BBQ. Note please that I dont have to believe these
numbers, you dont, no one has to believe any of this at all. However, we do need to
realise that these are the numbers which are being fed into the climate change
models (perhaps more accurately, that these are the numbers that will be) and thus
produce those IPCC reports. Which means that anyone taking the outputs of those
IPCC reports seriously needs to take these inputs seriously. My general points can be
made quite simply with the aid of two of their charts.We know very well that theres
a connection between economic growth and population size. Richer countries
on average have lower fertility rates so as the world becomes richer

fewer children are born. So more economic growth leading to
peaking and declining population really isnt a surprise at all.
However, look at that light green line. The RCP 2.6 one, the whew, we
dodged it one. The highest economic growth model leads to the
lowest level of emissions considered. Less economic growth leads to
higher emissions. Note again that these are not my assumptions. They are
those of the IPCC process. Which is something of a body blow to those
telling us that we must cease economic growth if calamity is to be
averted: the very assumptions built into the whole proof that climate change is
something we should worry about say exactly the opposite. Economic growth is
the way out, not the problem. By the way, the assumption there about the
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
rate of economic growth, from a roughly $50 trillion global economy in 2000 to a
roughly $300 trillion one in 2100. Thats not all that far off the growth rate we had in
the 20th century
Global Warming can be Solved without Drastic Burdens on The

Economy
Siegel, 07 [Jeremy J. Siegel, Professor of Finance at the Wharton School of the
University of Pennsylvania, October 2007, How to End Global Warming, Going
Green, http://m.kiplinger.com/article/investing/T038-C000-S002-how-to-end-globalwarming.html]
The mere mention of global warming raises the temperature level of

political discourse. On one side, many conservatives concede that the earth is
getting warmer, but they do not believe that human activity is necessarily the cause
-- and even if it is, they argue, there's little we can do about it. On the other side,
some environmentalists believe that radical measures are called for -- measures
that could grind economic growth to a halt. Unfortunately, all the heated rhetoric
obscures some viable, middle-of-the-road approaches. I strongly believe in the
power of free markets, and I think we can use free-market solutions

to attack global warming without imposing an undue burden on the
world economy. Key facts I believe that global warming is real, that it
stems mostly from the increase in greenhouse gases and that it
does pose a long-term threat. The basic facts are well known. The world is
pumping about 8 billion tons of carbon emissions from fossil fuels into the
atmosphere each year, up nearly 500% from 1950. That number is likely to
double by mid century if nothing is done to curtail emissions. Global
warming is expected to accentuate climatic extremes. Some areas of the world,
particularly those in the far north, may benefit as the length of growing seasons
increases. But warming is likely to bring excessive rain to some regions and drought
to others. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expects an
increase in the frequency of major cyclonic storms, such as the intense hurricanes
that hit the Gulf Coast in 2005. In my opinion, the most costly consequence of
global warming is the possibility of rising ocean levels caused by melting ice and the
expansion of warming water. Sea levels would rise by 23 feet if all of Greenland's ice
sheet melted, and another 230 feet if all of Antarctica's ice melted. The latter
scenario would submerge more than half the world's population. The IPCC predicts
that sea levels will rise only 7 inches to 2 feet by the end of this century, although it
is said the figure could be much greater, depending on ice-flow dynamics and other
factors. But even modest melting could trigger climate changes that would make
many of the world's largest cities uninhabitable and dramatically reduce the world's
arable land. Many believe that any attempt to curtail carbon
emissions will sharply reduce economic growth and cause severe

economic hardships. I disagree. For starters, one study has shown that
just by using today's technologies, it would be possible to reduce
emissions by several billion tons per year without doing much harm
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
to world economic output. This could be accomplished by increasing the

amount of electricity produced at nuclear-power plants, doubling the fuel efficiency
of automobiles and using more-energy-efficient technologies in buildings. Consider
the energy-efficiency improvements in California, which has the toughest
environmental laws in the country. On a per-person basis, Californians use about
one-third less energy than the average American and emit only about half as much
carbon dioxide. Yes, energy prices are high in California, but no one I know would
call the state impoverished because of its energy-saving initiatives.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2AC EKC
Kuznets Curve Indicates Growth Leads a Good Environment
Arman, 14 [Hasan Arman, Professor and Doctor at United Arab Emirates
University, January 2014, The effects of economic growth on environment: an
application of environmental kuznets curve in United Arab Emirates, Tojsat: The
Online Journal of Science and Technology,
http://www.tojsat.net/index.php/tojsat/article/view/148]
The correlation between economic growth and environmental

degradation is becoming important as a result of the concerns for
environment and sustainable development. The correlation has been
empirically modeled through CO2 emissions and per capita income
relationship by many researchers. The results of such researches have
been formulated by environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis.
According to EKC hypothesis there is an inverted Ushape relationship
between environmental degradation and income per capita so that,
eventually, growth reduces the environmental impact of economic
activity. Having such trend in a country is thought to be one of the
most important indicators of sustainable economic development. The
main objective of this study is to analyze the effect of economic growth on
environment by applying EKC approach to UAE economy. The long-run EKC
relationship for CO2 emission and UAEs per capita income over the 1970- 2010
period was analyzed. An autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) model was used to
determine the effects of per capita income, openness ratio of UAE economy, and
human development index (HDI) on CO2 emission. According to the results
there was a inverted-U shape relationship between CO2 emission

and per capita income of UAE. In addition to that even though there
were expected significant negative effects of energy consumption,
opening ratio and HDI on CO2 emission, their effects were not
statistically significant. According to results of the analysis one can
conclude that the economic growth in UAE is leading a decent
environment, which is supporting the EKC hypothesis.
Economic Growth Is Beneficial to Solving Warming and the

Environment Kuznets Curve
Neumayer, 10 [Eric Neumayer, Professor of Environment and Development in
the Department of Geography and Environment, 2010, The environmental Kuznets
curve, LSE Research Online, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/30809/1/The%20environmental
%20kuznets%20curve(lsero).pdf]
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
The presumption is often made that economic growth and trade

liberalization are good for the environment. The risk being that
policy reforms designed to promote growth and liberalization may
be encouraged with little consideration of the environmental
consequences (Arrow et al., 1995). At the early stages of the environmental
movement some scientists began to question how natural resource
availability could be compatible with sustained economic growth
(Meadows, Meadows, Zahn, & Milling, 1972). Neoclassical economists, on the other
hand, fiercely defended that limits to growth due to resource constraints were not a
problem (e.g. Beckerman, 1974). Thus the debate between the so-called
environmental pessimists and optimists began as centered on

nonrenewable resource availability. Although the debate has continued
throughout the years (e.g. Beckerman, 1992; Lomborg, 2001; Meadows, Meadows,
& Randers, 1992; Meadows, Meadows, & Randers, 2004) the pessimists were
perhaps nave in extrapolating past trends without considering how technical
progress and a change in relative prices can work to overcome apparent scarcity of
limits (Neumayer, 2003b: 46). In the 1980s large issues such as ozone
layer depletion, global warming and biodiversity loss began to

refocus the debate around the impacts of environmental
degradation on economic growth. Interest was shifting away from
natural resource availability towards the environment as a medium
for assimilating wastes (i.e. from source to sink) (Neumayer, 2003b: 47).
Also, following the Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987), the discourse of
sustainable development largely embraced the economic growth
logic as a way out of poverty, social depravation and also
environmental degradation particularly for the developing world.
Thus the relationship between economic growth and the environment came under
increased scrutiny. In the 1990s the empirical literature on the link
between economic growth and environmental pollution literally

exploded (see Cole & Neumayer, 2005; Stern, 2003; 2004 for overviews). Much
of this literature sought to test the Environmental Kuznets Curve
(EKC) hypothesis, which posits that in the early stages of economic
development environmental degradation will increase until a certain
level of income is reached (known as the turning point) and then
environmental improvement will occur. This relationship between per
capita income and pollution is often shown as an inverted U-shaped curve. This
curve is named after Kuznets (1955) who hypothesized that economic
inequality increases over time and then after a threshold becomes

more equal as per capita income increases. In the early 1990s the EKC
was introduced and popularized with the publication of Grossman and Kruegers
(1991) work on the potential environmental impacts of NAFTA, and the 1992 World
Bank Report (Shafik & Bandyopadhyay, 1992; World Bank, 1992). This chapter will
critically review the theoretical and empirical literature on the EKC. We find that
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
recent improvements in empirical methods address a number of

past criticisms, which adds robustness to the EKC results for certain
environmental pollutants. However economic growth and
liberalization should not be thought of as a panacea for
environmental problems particularly in the developing world. Recent
work has demonstrated the unpleasant implications for many less developed
countries
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2AC Tech Solves

Tech innovation solves sustainability and even if it doesnt
tech utopianism is good because it causes self awareness and
social movements
Robertson 07 [Ross, Senior Editor at EnlightenNext, former NRDC member, A
Brighter Shade of Green, What is Enlightenment, Oct-Dec,
http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j38/bright-green.asp?page=1]
This brings me to Worldchanging, the book that arrived last spring bearing news of an environ-mental paradigm so
shamelessly up to the minute, it almost blew out all my green circuits before I could even get it out of its stylish
slipcover. Worldchanging: A Users Guide for the 21st Century. Its also the name of the group blog, found at
Worldchanging.com, where the material in the book originally came from. Run by a future-savvy environmental
journalist named Alex Steffen, Worldchanging is one of the central hubs in a fast-growing network of thinkers
defining an ultramodern green agenda that closes the gap between nature and societybig time. After a good solid
century of well-meaning efforts to restrain, reduce, and otherwise mitigate our presence here on planet Earth,
theyre saying its
time for environmentalism to do a one-eighty. Theyre

ditching the long-held tenets of classical greenitude and harnessing
the engines of capitalism, high technology, and human ingenuity to
jump-start the manufacture of a dramatically sustainable future. They
call themselves bright green, and if youre at all steeped in the old-school dark green worldview (their term),
theyre guaranteed to make you squirm. The good news is, they just might free you to think completely differently
as well. Worldchanging takes its inspiration from a series of speeches given by sci-fi author, futurist, and cyberguru
Bruce Sterling in the years leading up to the turn of the millenniumand from the so-called Viridian design
movement he gave birth to. Known more in those days as one of the fathers of cyberpunk than as the prophet of a
new twenty-first-century environmentalism, Ster-ling nevertheless began issuing a self-styled prophecy to the
design world announcing the launch of a cutting-edge green design program that would embrace consumerism
rather than reject it. Its mission: to take on climate change as the planets most burning aesthetic challenge. Why
is this an aesthetic issue? he asked his first audience in 1998 at San Franciscos Yerba Buena Center for the Arts
near my old office at the Natural Resources Defense Council. Well, because its a severe breach of taste to bake
and sweat half to death in your own trash, thats why. To boil and roast the entire physical world, just so you can
pursue your cheap addiction to carbon dioxide. Explaining the logic of the bright green platform, Sterling writes:
Its a question of tactics. Civil society does not respond at all well to
moralistic scolding. There are small minority groups here and there who are perfectly aware that it is
immoral to harm the lives of coming generations by massive consumption now: deep Greens, Amish, people
practicing voluntary simplicity, Gandhian ashrams and so forth. These public-spirited voluntarists are not the
problem. But theyre not the solution either, because most
human beings wont volunteer

to live like they do. . . . However, contemporary civil society can be
led anywhere that looks attractive, glamorous and seductive. The
task at hand is therefore basically an act of social engineering.
Society must become Green, and it must be a variety of Green that
society will eagerly consume. What is required is not a natural
Green, or a spiritual Green, or a primitivist Green, or a blood-andsoil romantic Green. These flavors of Green have been tried and
have proven to have insufficient appeal. . . . The world needs a new,
unnatural, seductive, mediated, glamorous Green. A Viridian Green, if you will.
Sterling elaborates in a speech given to the Industrial Designers Society of America in Chicago in 1999 : This
cant be one of these diffuse, anything-goes, eclectic, postmodern
things. Forget about that, thats over, thats yesterday. Its got to be a narrow,
doctrinaire, high-velocity movement. Inventive, not eclectic. New, not cut-and-pasted from
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
the debris of past trends. Forward-looking
and high-tech, not William Morris medieval arts-andcraftsy. About abundance of clean power and clean goods and clean products, not
conservative of dirty power and dirty goods and dirty products. Explosive, not thrifty. Expansive, not niggling.
Mainstream, not underground. Creative of a new order, not

subversive of an old order. Making a new cultural narrative, not
calling the old narrative into question. . . . Twentieth-century design is over now.
Anything can look like anything now. You can put a pixel of any color anywhere you like on a screen, you can put a
precise dot of ink anywhere on any paper, you can stuff any amount of functionality into chips. The
limits
arent to be found in the technology anymore. The limits are behind
your own eyes, people. They are limits of habit, things youve accepted, things youve been told, realities
youre ignoring. Stop being afraid. Wake up. Its yours if you want it. Its yours if youre bold enough. It was a
philosophy that completely reversed the fulcrum of environmental thinking, shifting its focus from the flaws
inherent in the human soul to the failures inherent in the world weve designeddesigned, Sterling emphasized.
Things are the way they are today, he seemed to be saying, for no greater or
lesser reason than that we made them that wayand theres no
good reason for them to stay the same. His suggestion that its time to hang
up our hats as caretakers of the earth and embrace our role as its
masters is profoundly unnerving to the dark green environmentalist in me. But at this point in history, is it
any more than a question of semantics? With PCBs in the flesh of Antarctic penguins,
there isnt a square inch of the planets surface that is
unmanaged anymore; there is no more untouched natural
state. We hold the strings of global destiny in our fingertips, and
the easy luxury of cynicism regarding our creative potential to resolve things is starting to look catastrophically expensive. Our lessthan-admirable track record gives us every reason to be cautious
and every excuse to be pessimists. But is the risk of being
optimistic anyway a risk that, in good conscience, we can really
afford not to take? Sterlings belief in the fundamental promise of human creativity is reminiscent of
earlier de-sign visionaries such as Buckminster Fuller. I am convinced that creativity is a priori to the integrity of
the universe and that life is regenerative and conformity meaningless, Fuller wrote in I Seem to Be a Verb in 1970,
the same year we had our first Earth Day. I seek, he declared simply, to reform the environment instead of trying
to reform man. Fullers ideas influenced many of the twentieth centurys brightest environmental lights, including
Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalog and the online community The WELL, an early precursor of the
internet. Brand took Fullers approach and ran with it in the sixties and seventies, helping to spearhead a techfriendly green counterculture that worked to pull environmentalism out of the wilderness and into the realms of
sustainable technology and social justice. We
are as gods, and might as well get
good at it, he wrote in the original 1968 edition of the Whole Earth Catalog, and hes managed to keep
himself on the evolving edge of progressive thought ever since. Brand went on to found the Point Foundation,
CoEvolution Quarterly (which became Whole Earth Review), the Hackers Conference, the Global Business Network,
and the Long Now Foundation. As he gets older, he recently told the New York Times, he continues to become more
rational and less romantic. . . . I keep seeing the harm done by religious romanticism, the terrible conservatism of
romanticism, the ingrained pessimism of romanticism. It builds in a certain immunity to the scientific frame of
mind. Bright Green Many remember the Whole Earth Catalog with a fondness reserved for only the closest of
personal guiding lights. It was sort of like Google in paperback form, thirty-five years before Google came along,
recalls Apple cofounder Steve Jobs. It was idealistic, and overflowing with neat tools and great notions. For Alex
Steffen, its the place where a whole generation of young commune-kid geeks like myself learned to dream weird.
And at Worldchanging, those unorthodox green dreams have grown into a high-speed Whole Earth Catalog for the
internet generation, every bit as inventive, idealistic, and brazenly ambitious as its predecessor: We need, in the
next twenty-five years or so, to do something never before done, Steffen writes in his introduction to
Worldchanging. We
need to consciously redesign the entire material basis

of our civilization. The model we replace it with must be
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
dramatically more ecologically sustainable, offer large increases in

prosperity for everyone on the planet, and not only function in areas
of chaos and corruption, but also help transform them . That alone is a task of
heroic magnitude, but theres an additional complication: we only get one shot. Change takes time, and time is
what we dont have. . . . Fail to act boldly enough and we may fail completely. Another world is possible, goes the
popular slogan of the World Social Forum, a yearly gathering of antiglobalization activists from around the world.
bright green
environmentalism is less about the problems and limitations we
need to overcome than the tools, models, and ideas that already
exist for overcoming them. It forgoes the bleakness of protest and
dissent for the energizing confidence of constructive solutions. As
Sterling said in his first Viridian design speech, paying homage to William Gibson : The future is
already here, its just not well distributed yet. Of course, nobody
knows exactly what a bright green future will look like; its only
going to become visible in the process of building it. Worldchanging: A Users
No, counters Worldchanging in a conscious riff on that motto: Another world is here. Indeed,
Guide is six hundred pages long, and no sin-gle recipe in the whole cornucopia takes up more than a few of them.
Its an inspired wealth of information I cant even begin to do justice to here , but
it also presents a
surprisingly integrated platform for immediate creative action, a
sort of bright green rule set based on the best of todays knowledge
and innovationand perpetually open to improvement.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2AC Growth Solves Impact

Economic growth mitigates the impact of global warming
Kreutzer 13 David W. Kreutzer, Ph.D. is a Research Fellow in Energy Economics and Climate Change.
From 1984 to 2007, he taught economics at Madison University in Harrisonburg, Va., where he also served as
Director of the International Business Program. In addition, Kreutzer was a Visiting Economist at the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration in 1994 and was a visiting economics instructor at Ohio University in the early 1980s. Kreutzer
earned a doctorate in economics from George Mason University in 1984. He also has a bachelor's and master's
degrees in economics from Virginia Tech. (5/28/2013, David, The Heritage Foundation, A Cure Worse Than the
Disease: Global Economic Impact of Global Warming Policy, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/acure-worse-than-the-disease-global-economic-impact-of-global-warming-policy // SM)
Although most poverty policies address relative poverty, absolute poverty is a greater concern when assessing the
As countries become richer, they can afford to aircondition larger fractions of their homes, businesses, and factories.
In addition, the climate-sensitive agricultural sector typically becomes a
smaller fraction of GDP. At the same time, richer countries can afford to
plant the more expensive, climate-tolerant hybrid seeds and spend
more on irrigation and other yield-enhancing agricultural capital. As
with virtually all adversity, a stronger economy helps to overcome
the challenges posed by warmingalthough not all effects of warming on income are
negative.[6] By the same logic, as weak economies grow stronger, the
impact of global warming becomes less problematic.
impact of climate on income.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2AC Geoengineering
Economic Growth Leads to CCS And That Combats Climate

Change
World Bank, 12 [World Bank, United Nations international financial institution
that provides loans to developing countries for capital programs, 11-12-2012,
Emerging economies foster economic growth, consider CCS, Global CCS Institute,
http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/insights/authors/sforbes/2012/11/12/emergingeconomies-foster-economic-growth-consider-ccs]
Why should a developing country bear the extra costs and impacts of CCS if the rest
of the world isnt using the technology? From an emerging economy
perspective, the costs and efficiency losses associated with CCS

pose significant challenges. The country-specific actions described here are
not comprehensive, but they do give a sense of how three key emerging economies
are thinking about CCS. It is worth noting that collectively, these actions
extend beyond international cooperation and include forwardthinking policies and plans to determine whether and how CCS fits
into the future energy portfolio. China Research for CCS in China has
been conducted since 2006 under the National Basic Research
Program of China (973 Program), and since 2007 under the National High-tech
Research and Development Program of China (863 Program), which includes a
focused research area on CCS. China is also investing in CCS
demonstrations abroad, including a September 2012 investment in one of the
US demonstrations, the Texas Clean Energy Project. Importantly, a series of
CCS demonstrations are planned and under way in China, which is
something the Institute highlighted in the Global Status of CCS : 2012
report. CCS demonstration efforts in China include pre-and postcombustion capture research and demonstration as well as
demonstrations of geologic storage and enhanced oil recovery (CO2EOR). In August 2012, the Asian Development Bank announced plans to
work with the National Development Reform Commission to develop a roadmap
for CCS deployment in China. Key milestones in development of CCS in
China include: the National Medium and Long-term Science and Technology
Development Plan (2006-2020), which formally establishes CCS as a
leading-edge technology; Chinas National Climate Change Program
(2007~2010), which sets the goal of the development and dissemination of CCS;
Chinas Special Science and Technology Action in Response to Climate Change
(2007~2020), which establishes the key task of R&D on CCS; and the National 12th
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Five-Year Plan Science and Technology Development Plan (2011-2015), which
prompts CCS research and development with provisions to: develop

carbon sink techniques (e.g. grass carbon sequestration), mitigation of
greenhouse gases in agriculture and land use, and carbon capture
use and storage (CCUS) technologies to tackle climate change
challenges; and focus on the research and development of advanced
technologies, including Gen IV Nuclear Energy Systems, hydrogen and fuel cells,
ocean energy, geothermal energy and CCUS. There has been significant
international cooperation on CCS research in China, including engagement
with the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF) and the Institute, as well as
focused cooperative research efforts such as the EU-UK CCS Cooperative Action
within China, the US-China Clean Energy Research Center, the China-EU
Cooperation on Near Zero Emissions Coal, and the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean
Development and China. Cooperative efforts under these programs have
spanned basic and applied research, and have also included efforts
designed to inform policy and regulatory developments that would
enable CCS in China.[2]
Growth Is Key to Geoengineering That Solves Carbon

Pollution
Wagner, 12 [Gernot Wagner, Economist, Environmental Defense Fund and
author, 10-31-12, Geoengineering: Ignore Economics and Governance at Your Peril,
The Blog, Huffpost Green, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gernotwagner/geoengineering-ignore-economics_b_2049335.html]
You can see where economics enters the picture. The first form of
geoengineering won't happen unless we place a serious price on
carbon pollution. The second may be too cheap to resist. In a recent
Foreign Policy essay, Harvard's Martin Weitzman and I called the forces pushing us
toward quick and dirty climate modification "free driving." Crude attempts to,
say, inject sulfur particles into the atmosphere to counter carbon
dioxide already there would be so cheap it might as well be free. We

are talking tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a year. That's
orders of magnitude cheaper than tackling the root cause of the
problem. Given the climate path we are on, it's only a matter of time
before this "free driver" effect takes hold. Imagine a country badly hit by
adverse climate changes: India's crops are wilting; China's rivers are drying up.
Millions of people are suffering. What government, under such circumstances, would
not feel justified in taking drastic action, even in defiance of world opinion? Once we
reach that tipping point, there won't be time to reverse warming by pursuing
collective strategies to move the world onto a more sustainable growth path.
Instead, speed will be of the essence, which will mean trying untested and largely
hypothetical techniques like mimicking volcanoes and putting sulfur particles in the
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
stratosphere to create an artificial shield from the sun. That artificial sunscreen may
well cool the earth. But what else might it do? Floods somewhere, droughts in other
places, and a host of unknown and largely unknowable effects in between. That's
the scary prospect. And we'd be experimenting on a planetary scale, in warp speed.
That all leads to the second key point: we ought to do research in

geoengineering, and do so guided by sensible governance principles
adhered to be all. We cannot let research get ahead of public
opinion and government oversight. The geoengineering governance
initiative convened by the British Royal Society, the Academy of Sciences for the
Developing World, and the Environmental Defense Fund is a necessary first step in
the right direction. Is there any hope in this doomsday scenario? Absolutely.
Country after country is following the trend set by the European

Union to institute a cap or price on carbon pollution. Australia, New
Zealand, South Korea, and also California are already -- or will soon be -- limiting
their carbon pollution. India has a dollar-a-ton coal tax. China is experimenting with
seven regional cap-and-trade systems. None of these is sufficient by itself. But let's
hope this trend expands -- fast -- to include the really big emitters like the whole of
China and the U.S., Brazil, Indonesia, and others. Remember, the question is not if
the "free driver" effect will kick in as the world warms. It's when.
Growth leads to carbon sequestration

Anderson 4, Terry, Executive Director of the Political Economy Research Center
[Why Economic Growth is Good for the Environment April 24 th,
http://www.perc.org/articles/article446.php]
The link between greenhouse gas emissions and economic prosperity is no different.
Using data from the United States, Professor Robert McCormick finds that "higher
GDP reduces total net [greenhouse gas] emissions." He goes a step further by
performing the complex task of estimating net U.S. carbon emissions. This requires
subtracting carbon sequestration (long-term storage of carbon in soil and water)
from carbon emissions. Think of it this way: When you build a house, the wood in it
stores carbon. In a poor country that wood would have been burned to cook supper
or to provide heat, thus releasing carbon into the atmosphere. McCormick shows
that economic growth in the United States has increased carbon sequestration in
many ways, including improved methods of storing waste, increased forest
coverage, and greater agricultural productivity that reduces the acreage of
cultivated land. Because rich economies sequester more carbon than poor ones,
stored carbon must be subtracted from emissions to determine an economy's net
addition to greenhouse gas emissions. McCormick's data show that "rich countries
take more carbon out of the air than poorer ones" and that "the growth rate of
net carbon emission per person will soon be negative in the United States." Put
differentlyricher may well be cooler. Global-warming policy analysts agree that
greenhouse gas regulations such as those proposed at Kyoto would have negative
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
impacts on the economy. Therefore, as McCormick warns, we should take great care
that regulations in the name of global warming "not kill the goose that lays the
golden eggs."
That solves warming

Science Daily 7 [Carbon Capture And Storage To Combat Global Warming
Examined, June 11th,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070611153957.htm]
Carbon capture and storage, also called carbon sequestration, traps carbon dioxide
after it is produced and injects it underground. The gas never enters the
atmosphere. The practice could transform heavy carbon spewers, such as coal
power plants, into relatively clean machines with regard to global warming. ''The
notion is that the sooner we wean ourselves off fossil fuels, the sooner we'll be able
to tackle the climate problem,'' said Sally Benson, executive director of the Global
Climate and Energy Project (GCEP) and professor of energy resources engineering.
''But the idea that we can take fossil fuels out of the mix very quickly is unrealistic.
We're reliant on fossil fuels, and a good pathway is to find ways to use them that
don't create a problem for the climate.'' Carbon capture has the potential to reduce
more than 90 percent of an individual plant's carbon emissions, said Lynn Orr,
director of GCEP and professor of energy resources engineering. Stationary facilities
that burn fossil fuels-such as power plants or cement factories-would be candidates
for the technology, he said. Capturing carbon dioxide from small, mobile sources,
such as cars, would be more difficult, Orr said. But with power plants comprising 40
percent of the world's fossil fuel-derived carbon emissions, he added, the potential
for reductions is significant. Not only can a lot of carbon dioxide be captured, but
the Earth's capacity to store it is also vast, he added.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2AC Renewables Solve

Renewables Solve Key to Reducing Emissions
Wasserman, 4-16 [Harvery Wasserman, Financial Advisor at Morgan Stanley
Smith Barney and Graduate from American University, 4-16-2014, UN Panel:
Renewables, Not Nukes, Can Solve Climate Crisis, The Progressive,
http://www.progressive.org/news/2014/04/187639/un-panel-renewables-not-nukescan-solve-climate-crisis]
The authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has left

zero doubt that we humans are wrecking our climate. It also
effectively says the problem can be solved, and that renewable
energy is the way to do it, and that nuclear power is not. The United
Nations IPCC is the worlds most respected authority on climate.
This IPCC report was four years in the making. It embraces several
hundred climate scientists and more than a thousand computerized
scenarios of what might be happening to global weather patterns.
The panels work has definitively discredited the corporate contention that humanmade carbon emissions are not affecting climate change. To avoid total
catastrophe, says the IPCC, we must reduce the industrial spew of

global warming gasses by 40-70 percent of 2010 levels. Though the warning is
dire, the report offers three pieces of good news. First, we have about 15 years to
slash these emissions. Second, renewable technologies are available
to do the job. And third, the cost is manageable. Though 2030 might seem a
tight deadline for a definitive transition to Solartopia, green power
technologies have become far simpler and quicker to install than

their competitors, especially atomic reactors. They are also far cheaper,
and we have the capital to do it. The fossil fuel industry has long scorned the
idea that its emissions are disrupting our Earths weather. The oil companies and
atomic reactor backers have dismissed the ability of renewables to provide
humankinds energy needs. But the IPCC confirms that green
technologies, including efficiency and conservation, can in fact

handle the job---at a manageable price. It doesnt cost the world to
save the planet, says Professor Ottmar Edenhofer, an economist who led the
IPCC team. The IPCC report cites nuclear power as a possible means of lowering
industrial carbon emissions. But it also underscores considerable barriers involving
finance and public opposition. Joined with widespread concerns about ecological
impacts, length of implementation, production uncertainties and unsolved waste
issues, the reports positive emphasis on renewables virtually guarantees nuclears
irrelevance. Some climate scientists have recently advocated atomic
energy as a solution to global warming. But their most prominent
spokesman, Dr. James Hansen, also expresses serious doubts about the current
generation of reactors, including Fukushima, which he calls that old technology.
Instead Hansen advocates a new generation of reactors. But the designs are
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
untested, with implementation schedules stretching out for decades. Financing is
a major obstacle as is waste disposal and widespread public

opposition, now certain to escalate with the IPCCs confirmation
that renewables can provide the power so much cheaper and faster .
With its 15-year deadline for massive carbon reductions the IPCC has effectively
timed out any chance a new generation of reactors could help. And with its clear
endorsement of green power as a tangible, doable, affordable solution for the
climate crisis, the pro-nuke case has clearly suffered a multiple meltdown. With
green power, says IPCC co-chair Jim Skea, a British professor, a renewable
solution is at hand. Its actually affordable to do it and people are

not going to have to sacrifice their aspirations about improved
standards of living.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2AC AT: Collapse Solves
Econ collapse doesnt solve warming [try or die for growth]

Elliot 8, Larry, economics editor at the Guardian [Can a dose of recession solve climate change? August 24 th,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/aug/25/economicgrowth.globalrecession]
This may strike some as a strange way of looking at things. Sure, the global economy is slowing. But what's so bad
about that? Is it, in fact, bad news that the world economy will no longer grow at its recent rate of 5% a year? And if
wouldn't it be good news if this modest retrenchment was

turned into a full-blown slump? Indeed, why stop there? Shouldn't those who fear for the future of the
planet pursue something akin to the Great Depression of the 1930s? It's an interesting thought. Logically, if the
obsession with growth at all costs has increased emissions to the point where rising
temperatures pose a threat to mankind's existence (as many experts believe) then a
prolonged period of slow or negative growth will limit the damage to the environment .
the answer to that question is "no",
At the very least, it would provide a breathing space to come up with an international agreement on how to tackle
it is not quite as simple as that. My rudimentary

concentrations of greenhouse gases have been
building up over many decades, and you can't simply turn them off like a tap .
Even a three- or four-year 1930s-style global slump would have little or no impact ,
particularly if it was followed by a period of vigorous catch-up growth. On a chart showing growth since
the dawn of the industrial age 250 years ago, the Great Depression is a blip. Similarly, Britain's
the problem. There are many reasons why
understanding of the science of climate change is that
trade deficit always comes down in recessions because imports go down, but then widens again once the economy
Politically, recessions are not helpful to the cause of

environmentalism. Climate change is replaced by concerns about unemployment and
returns to its trend rate of growth.
stimulating growth. To be fair, politicians respond to what they hear from voters: Gordon Brown's survival as prime
minister depends on how well his package of economic measures is received, not on what he does or doesn't do to
it is clear that every advance in the green movement

has coincided with period of strong growth - the early 1970s, the late 1980s and the first half of the
current decade. It was tough enough to get world leaders to make tackling climate
change a priority when the world economy was experiencing its longest period of
sustained growth: it will be mightily difficult to persuade them to take measures that
might have a dampen growth while the dole queues are lengthening. Those most
likely to suffer are workers in the most marginal jobs and pensioners who will have to pay perhaps
20% of their income on energy bills . Hence, recession does not offer even a temporary
solution to the problem of climate change and it is a fantasy to imagine that it
does. The real issue is whether it is possible to challenge the "growth-at-any-cost model" and come up with an
limit greenhouse gases. Looking back,
alternative that is environmentally benign, economically robust and politically feasible. Hitting all three buttons is
attempting to do so is a heck of a lot more constructive than waiting for

industrial capitalism to collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.
mightily difficult but
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Korowicz concludes aff Dedev will never be able to solve

warming sure GhG emissions go down but so does are
adaptive capacity to the climate change that would continue
in an effort to survive wed start unsustainably using resources
in our localities and damage the ecosystem beyond repair
You dont believe then in a kind of steady-state non growing economy? Steadystate from where we are now is, according to many ecological indicators,
way in overshoot. So if there were to be something like a

sustainable steady-state economy it would be in terms of resource
consumption far below where we are now. Far, far below. And how do
we get there? For all sorts of reasons the possibility of a controlled
orchestrated de-growth to some viable steady-state position is
probably deluded in the extreme . Ill just point to one thing, such a view
tends to embody the confusion that because the globalised economy is
human-made it is therefore designed, understandable and
controllable humans can do this in niches, but the emergent
structure of multiple niches interacting on many scales over time is
not. This mirrors the sort of argument made famous by William Paley in his Natural
Theology who said that the existence of living organisms proved the existence of a
divine creator/ designer by analogy with how the finding of a watch would lead one
to believe in the existence of an intelligent watchmaker. Half a century later Darwin
and then his followers showed that natural selection could do emergent design
without a controller- the blind watchmaker in Richard Dawkins words. But as
believers in Mans progress we seem to have taken on the role that Paley once
ascribed to god- that is, as the creators of the complex globalised economy
it is therefore designable and controllable and potentially

perfectible if only the right people and ideas were in the cockpit. We
find all sorts of confusion arising from this when attempts are made to take
linguistic dominion over the economy by confusing complex interdependent
emergence with intentional design (as in, the economy is capitalist/ neoliberal/
socialist, or, we need to change the monetary architecture). So even without
getting into details about irreversibility in complex systems or the myriad
practical problems with a controllable de-growth, the power of the
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
belief in its possibility seems, to me at least, to represent Titanic

hubris. That said, a disorderly de-growth/collapse would bring us to a
new era where we would end up with a much reduced capacity to
access and use resources and dump waste. But wed still have to respond
to problems and that would generally require whatever energy and resources were
at hand. For example, anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions would
likely nose-dive, a good thing of course, although the effects of climate
changes would continue to get worse because of lags in the climate

system while our adaptive capacity compared to today would have
been shattered. Thus the real cost of climate change would escalate
beyond our ability to pay quite suddenly and much faster than
conventional climate-economic models would suggest. The danger
here is that in a state of poverty and forced localization our
attempts to respond to such emergent stress and crises mean we
start undermining our local environments and their on-going
capacity to support us. So any form of steady-state economy in the
foreseeable future is inherently problematic.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Biodiversity
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2AC EKC
Economic Growth Minimizes the Harms on the Environment
Like Pollution
Green, 12 [ Kenneth P. Green, Environmental Scientist and Studies Public Policy
about Energy and Natural Resource at Fraser Institute, 11-7-2012, Why Growth Is
the Environments Best Friend, The American,
http://www.american.com/archive/2012/november/why-growth-is-the-environmentsbest-friend]
The single best thing we could do to minimize energys impact on

the environment is to not only maximize our own economic growth
but also to help developing countries increase theirs. Editors note: This
is part four in a series of essays on energy system dynamics and energy policy.
[The] dirtiest water and air are not found in the rich countries, rather they are found
in the developing nations. As pollution is rapidly becoming a global issue,
worldwide prosperity should be viewed as the solution to, not the

cause of, the problem. Hans-Joachim Ziock, Klaus Lackner, and Douglas
Harrison Most people know that energy production causes considerable
environmental damage. And indeed, energy production, distribution, and
use are responsible for much of the damage that humanity inflicts
on the environment. Globally, energy production generates
prodigious amounts of air pollution, water pollution, habitat
destruction, landscape destruction, wildlife mortality, and much
more . But what people are often confused about is the nature of the relationship
between energy use and environmental damage over time. Since the time of Paul
Ehrlich and The Population Bomb, not to mention Al Gores Earth in the Balance,
environmental activists have asserted that there is a linear relationship between
energy and the environment and that its a bad one. In their equation, more
humanity, plus more energy use, automatically equates to more damage. As Ehrlich
once famously opined about the possibility for unlimited energy for humanity, it
would be like giving a machine gun to an idiot child. Jeremy Rifkin, another
environmental activist, said that its the worst thing that could happen to our
planet. The Environmental Kuznets Curve But the above view of the relationship
between energy and the environment is both nave and misleading. Economists
have long observed that there is a better way to look at the triad
relationship of humans, energy, and the environment, and that is a
much more optimistic one, based on observations of how energys
impact on the environment changes as countries go through
development. Rather than displaying a linear relationship between energy use
and environmental degradation, the real relationship looks more like an inverted
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
letter U. This relationship is generally called the environmental
Kuznets curve, or the environmental transition curve. Figuure 1 is a

graphic representation of the Kuznets curve. The bottom axis is economic
growth, and the upright axis represents environmental use of a natural resource
such as timber, water, or soil. The upright axis might also represent the use of
environmental services such as diluting waste products in the air or the service one
gets from a rivers ability to break down a certain quantity of waste in a manner
that harms neither fish nor people. figure1_green As the figure illustrates, for any
given environmental resource, society passes through a series of phases . As
countries develop, they use natural resources and environmental

waste management services to build wealth with which people
satisfy their basic needs for housing, food, education, health care,
mobility, and so on. If a country grows large enough, a society will
often use more than its local environment can sustain. That is the
point marked on the figure as PO, the point where overutilization of
a resource commences. The horizontal line represents the sustainable-use level
of the resource, which should be understood as a dynamic capacity that changes
over time, as populations change and as climates fluctuate. It must be evaluated on
an ongoing basis. The point of perception (PP), where people notice they are
overutilizing a resource, quickly follows, and people take steps to reduce their
overuse, both as individuals and as a society. This is the point of action, or PA.
Finally, and usually in relatively short order, the overuse ends, and resource use is
reduced, one hopes, to the maximum sustainable level (PSUST). Driving
environmental resource use to zero, whether its the consumption of

a given fuel or the use of natures waste remediation ability,
represents a massive amount of lost economic value that could
instead be put to a myriad of good uses, such as alleviating poverty
here and abroad or paying for the many entitlements that the
United States has adopted over the last century. Air Pollution and the
Kuznets Curve For an example of the Kuznets curve, lets take air pollution the
production and use of fossil fuels is a major source of air pollutants
around the world. From mining to refining, virtually every step in
energy production, conversion, distribution, and, often, use results
in the emission of a variety of air pollutants. These pollutants include
coarse and fine particulate matter, oxides of nitrogen, sulfur oxides, ozone
precursors, and yes, some of the greenhouse gases as well, including carbon
dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane. Air pollution takes a significant toll on
human health, causing respiratory and cardiovascular problems in

sensitive members of the population. And in the early days of our
development, we certainly did foul our air. Who hasnt heard of the infamous smog
of Los Angeles in the 1950s? But here in the United States, we are long past the
point of perception, which began around 1900. And the cleanup began shortly
thereafter. As researcher Indur M. Goklany, a student of environmental transitions,
points out, By 1912 the federal Bureau of Mines reported that 23 of the 28 cities
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
that had populations in excess of 200,000 were making some effort to control
smoke. And air pollution levels continue to decline sharply as newer technologies
and pollution control devices combine to make our system of energy production
cleaner every year. Figure 2 shows how air pollution levels in the United States have
improved, even as our energy use continues to increase.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
EKC True
Air pollution proves EKC theory development results in net
less pollution
Green 12 (Kenneth P. Green D.Env., environmental science and engineering, UCLA, M.S., molecular
genetics, San Diego State University B.S., biology, UCLA, Green has testified before regulatory and legislative
bodies at the local, state and federal levels, including many times before the U.S. House of Representatives and the
U.S. Senate. He was also a designated expert reviewer for two reports by the United Nations' Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Green has studied energy and energy-related environmental policy for nearly 20 years.
Why Growth Is the Environments Best Friend, http://www.american.com/archive/2012/november/why-growth-isthe-environments-best-friend, November 7, 2012)dt
energy
production, distribution, and use are responsible for much of the
damage that humanity inflicts on the environment. Globally, energy production
Most people know that energy production causes considerable environmental damage. And indeed,
generates prodigious amounts of air pollution, water pollution, habitat destruction, landscape destruction, wildlife
But what people are often confused about is the

nature of the relationship between energy use and environmental
damage over time. Since the time of Paul Ehrlich and The Population Bomb, not to mention Al Gores
mortality, and much more.
Earth in the Balance, environmental activists have asserted that there is a linear relationship between energy and
the environment and that its a bad one. In their equation, more humanity, plus more energy use, automatically
equates to more damage. As Ehrlich once famously opined about the possibility for unlimited energy for humanity,
it would be like giving a machine gun to an idiot child. Jeremy Rifkin, another environmental activist, said that its
the worst thing that could happen to our planet. The Environmental Kuznets Curve But the above view of the
Economists have
long observed that there is a better way to look at the triad
relationship of humans, energy, and the environment, and that is a much more
optimistic one, based on observations of how energys impact on the environment changes as countries
go through development. Rather than displaying a linear
relationship between energy use and environmental degradation,
the real relationship looks more like an inverted letter U. This relationship is
generally called the environmental Kuznets curve, or the environmental transition curve.
relationship between energy and the environment is both nave and misleading.
Figure 1 is a graphic representation of the Kuznets curve. The bottom axis is economic growth, and the upright axis
represents environmental use of a natural resource such as timber, water, or soil. The upright axis might also
represent the use of environmental services such as diluting waste products in the air or the service one gets from
a rivers ability to break down a certain quantity of waste in a manner that harms neither fish nor people. As the
As
countries develop, they use natural resources and environmental
waste management services to build wealth with which people
satisfy their basic needs for housing, food, education, health care, mobility, and so on. If a country
grows large enough, a society will often use more than its local environment
can sustain. That is the point marked on the figure as PO, the point where overutilization of a resource
figure illustrates, for any given environmental resource, society passes through a series of phases.
commences. The horizontal line represents the sustainable-use level of the resource, which should be understood
as a dynamic capacity that changes over time, as populations change and as climates fluctuate. It must be
The point of perception (PP), where people notice

they are overutilizing a resource, quickly follows, and people take
steps to reduce their overuse, both as individuals and as a society.
This is the point of action, or PA. Finally, and usually in relatively short order, the
evaluated on an ongoing basis.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
overuse ends, and resource use is reduced, one hopes, to the maximum
sustainable level (PSUST). Driving environmental resource use to zero, whether its the
consumption of a given fuel or the use of natures waste remediation ability, represents a massive amount of lost
economic value that could instead be put to a myriad of good uses,

such as alleviating poverty here and abroad or paying for the many
entitlements that the United States has adopted over the last
century. Air Pollution and the Kuznets Curve For an example of the Kuznets curve, lets take air pollution
the production and use of fossil fuels is a major source of air pollutants around the world. From mining to refining,
virtually every step in energy production, conversion, distribution, and, often, use results in the emission of a
variety of air pollutants. These pollutants include coarse and fine particulate matter, oxides of nitrogen, sulfur
oxides, ozone precursors, and yes, some of the greenhouse gases as well, including carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide,
and methane. Air pollution takes a significant toll on human health, causing respiratory and cardiovascular
in the early days of our

development, we certainly did foul our air. Who hasnt heard of the infamous smog of
Los Angeles in the 1950s? But here in the United States, we are long past the
point of perception, which began around 1900. And the cleanup began shortly thereafter. As
problems in sensitive members of the population. And
researcher Indur M. Goklany, a student of environmental transitions, points out, By 1912 the federal Bureau of
Mines reported that 23 of the 28 cities that had populations in excess of 200,000 were making some effort to
air pollution levels continue to decline sharply as newer

technologies and pollution control devices combine to make our
system of energy production cleaner every year. Figure 2 shows how air pollution
levels in the United States have improved, even as our energy use continues to increase. But the
situation is far worse in the developing world, where outdoor
pollution takes a high toll, and indoor pollution is higher still. According
control smoke. And
to the World Health Organization (WHO): More than half of the worlds population relies on dung, wood, crop waste,
or coal to meet their most basic energy needs. Cooking and heating with such solid fuels on open fires or stoves
without chimneys leads to indoor air pollution. This indoor smoke contains a range of health-damaging pollutants
including small soot or dust particles that are able to penetrate deep into the lungs. In poorly ventilated dwellings,
indoor smoke can exceed acceptable levels for small particles in outdoor air 100-fold. Exposure is particularly high
among women and children, who spend the most time near the domestic hearth. Every year, indoor air pollution is
responsible for the death of 1.6 million people thats one death every 20 seconds. Furthermore, according to
WHO: indoor air pollution [is] the 8th most important risk factor and [is] responsible for 2.7 percent of the global
burden of disease. Globally, indoor air pollution from solid fuel use is responsible for 1.6 million deaths due to
pneumonia, chronic respiratory disease, and lung cancer, with the overall disease burden (in Disability-Adjusted Life
Years or DALYs, a measure combining years of life lost due to disability and death) exceeding the burden from
outdoor air pollution five-fold. In high-mortality developing countries, indoor smoke is responsible for an estimated
3.7 percent of the overall disease burden, making it the most lethal killer after malnutrition, unsafe sex, and lack of
safe water and sanitation. The Importance of Understanding the Kuznets Curve Energy is clearly not
environmentally benign our use of energy pollutes air and water, degrades land and sea, and more. However,
as societies continue to
develop, their environmental impact will reduce over time. Indeed, the
environmental transition curve suggests that the single best thing we could do to
minimize energys impact on the environment is to not only
maximize our own economic growth but also to help developing
countries increase theirs, allowing them to switch to ever cleaner,
less polluting forms of energy. Caveats apply, of course some economists argue that the
understanding the environmental transition curve suggests that
environmental transition curve does not apply to all pollutants and all societies and that while it might work for
local-area pollutants and resource protection, it may not work for global pollutants, such as soot or other
greenhouse gases. They fear that certain wealthy countries might bring pollution to other parts of the world, as
various businesses are forced to relocate to remain competitive. That may well be true, but it does not negate the
idea of an environmental transition; it simply lengthens the time it takes to turn things around for certain global
pollutants, because remediation then becomes dependent on other countries passing through their own
environmental transitions.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2AC Tech solves

Growth solves biodiversity Improved tech, agriculture,
effective and peaceful governments the Environmental
Kuznets Curve proves
The Economist 13
Well-established economics magazine (9/14/2013, The Economist, Contrary to

popular belief, economic growth may be good for biodiversity, http://www.economist.com/news/specialreport/21585100-contrary-popular-belief-economic-growth-may-be-good-biodiversity-long-view // SM)
as the contrasting fortunes

of forests (a fair proxy for biodiversity) on the Korean peninsula and
Hispaniola suggest, it is not so much growth as poverty that
reduces biodiversity. Poverty without growth, combined with lots of people, is disastrous. Poverty combined with
growth can be equally calamitous. But once people enjoy a certain level of prosperity,
the benefits of growth to other species outweigh its disadvantages.
There appears to be an environmental version of the Kuznets curve,
which describes the relationship between prosperity and inequality
in an inverted U-shape. At the early stages of growth, inequality tends to rise; at the later stages it falls.
Similarly, in the early stages of growth, biodiversity tends to suffer; in
the later stages it benefits. The Living Planet Index (LPI), put together by the
Zoological Society of London and WWF (see chart 4), shows a 61% decline in biodiversity
between 1970 and 2008 in tropical areas, which tend to be poorer, but a
31% improvement over the same period in temperate areas, which tend
to be richer. Similarly, poor countries tend to chop down forests, and rich
countries to plant them (see interactive chart 5). Some of the improvement might be due to rich countries
Economic growth is widely believed to damage species other than man. But
exporting their growth to poorer countries, but that is clearly not the only factor at work. Nobody exported growth to North Korea
in countries that were poor until

fairly recentlysuch as South Korea and Brazilthings are looking
up for many species. The evidence suggests that, above a fairly low level of
income, economic growth benefits other species. As the previous article showed,
when people get richer, they start behaving better towards other
species. And as countries grow they become cleaner, more urban,
more peaceful, more efficient and better-informed, and their people
have fewer children. Other species benefit from all those effects, and
from the scientific and technological progress that comes with
growth. Though all species benefit from fresh water, it is principally for their peoples benefit that societies clean up their
and Haiti, and their environments still got trashed. Meanwhile
rivers. London started building its sewage system the year after the Great Stink in 1858 because many people were dying of
cholera and life in the city became unbearable. Parliament temporarily had to move out of its premises on the bank of the Thames.
In the 1960s President Johnson called the Potomac a national disgrace not so much because it killed fish but because it was filthy.
Shortly afterwards he signed the Water Quality Act. Forty years ago two-thirds of Americas rivers were unsafe for swimming or
fishing. Now only a third are. A clean-up programme designed primarily to benefit people was good for other species too. Even after
sewage treatment had become widespread, rivers were still being poisoned by industrial effluent and pesticides. Controls on those
pollutants have done their bit to help clean up rivers. Britains Environment Agency says that in 1990 the water quality in 55% of
rivers was graded good or excellent; now the share is 80%. That not only makes the rivers safe for recreation, it has also
encouraged the return of once-common creatures that became rare in the 20th century. Otters, for instance, were present in only
When
countries get richer, farming tends to become more intensive.
6% of 3,300 sites surveyed by the Environment Agency in 1977-79; in 2009-10, they had spread to 60%.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Output increases, marginal land is left fallow, the agricultural labour

force shrinks and people move to the towns. Abandoned land is used for
recreation and turned back to forest or wilderness. That is the main reason why in 2005-10,
according to figures from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, forest cover grew in America and was stable or
increasing in every country in Europe except Estonia and Albania. Sharing or sparing? Many greens argue that intensification of
agriculture harms biodiversity. It is true that pesticides and fertiliser tend to reduce the number of species where they are used, but
intensive agriculture employs less land than extensive farming to

produce the same amount of food. The question, then, is whether the
net benefits to other species of land-sharing (farming extensively
on a larger area) outweigh those of land-sparing (farming
intensively on a smaller area). A couple of recent papersa theoretical
one by David Tilman of the University of Minnesota and an empirical
study by Ben Phalan of Cambridge University, looking at data from
Ghana and Indiasuggest that land-sparing wins. Richer countries
tend to be better informed about the value of ecosystems and take
a longer view. That is why China, having destroyed so much of its forest,
is now paying its farmers to plant trees. The ecological value of some of the resulting forest is
open to doubta lot of it is monoculture of imported varieties that do not always suit the local climatebut the numbers are
Forest cover increased by a third between 1990 and 2010.

Better-off countries also have more effective governments, without
which conservation would be impossible. Elephants are doing better in southern Africa than in
impressive.
East or Central Africa. South Africa, Zimbabwe and Botswana all have well-administered parks and reasonably effective police
forces; in Congo, Chad and Tanzania, those institutions are shakier.
Richer countries are generally
more peaceful, too. That is good for their people, but not always for other species. Biodiversity sometimes benefits
from conflict: where it keeps people out, it may conserve habitats for other creatures. The 1,000-sq-km demilitarised zone between
North and South Korea, for instance, has become a de facto nature reserve of great interest to scientists. On balance, though,
conflict tends to do more harm than good to biodiversity, destroying

habitats and undermining states efforts to protect other creatures .
That is another reason why elephants are doing better in southern Africa than in Central and East Africa, where militias have plenty
of guns and a financial interest in selling ivory to fund their wars. The impact of prosperity on human demography also benefits
biodiversity, but it takes time. In its early stages economic growth often causes people to multiply faster as death rates come down
but birth rates stay high, as is happening in Africa now. That intensifies competition for resources between humans and other
species. But when countries become richer, more women get educated and take jobs, more people move away from farms and into
cities and birth rates start falling. In East Asia fertility has fallen from 5.3 children per woman in the 1960s to 1.6 now. In some
countriesJapan, Russia, much of eastern Europe and some of western Europethe population is already declining. But in Africa it is
still rising fast, which is the main reason why the UN expects the worlds population to continue expanding to the end of this century.
growth brings scientific advance, which makes it easier to

mitigate threats to biodiversity. So far conservation has been dominated by men in shorts with not
Lastly,
much more than a pair of binoculars. Now the digital revolution is transforming it. The data are building up and becoming easier to
access. Three centuries-worth of information on natural history is sitting in museums and universities around the world, and is now
being digitised. The Global Biological Information Facility, an intergovernmental effort, is working to make this information available
to everybody, everywhere. The IUCNs Red List, globally recognised as the repository of information about endangered species, was
started as a card-index system in 1954 by Colonel Leofric Boyle, a British army officer who helped to save the Arabian oryx. Now it is
online and accessible, but still not much more than a list. Microsoft Research, through a partnership with the IUCN, is building a
platform on which scientists all over the world will be able to map the threats to the species they are interested in and discover
threats posted by other scientists. The display of data is getting better, too. ESRI, a technology firm that dominates the mapping
business, enables users to build up maps with layers of information on them. It provides its software free to conservation
organisations and has moved it onto the cloud. David Yarnold, the boss of Americas Audubon Society, says his organisation had
data on land use, hydrology and 114 years of bird counts from 470 local groups, none of it shared. Now, thanks to ESRI, all of it is
Communications technology can also to help collect information

on wildlife movements. Large animalselephant, giraffe, lion, hirolaare now often
fitted with GPS collars to track them. Miniaturisation is opening up new uses for such tools.
Technology for Naturea collaboration between Microsoft Research, the Zoological Society of London and
accessible.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
is developing Mataki tags, tiny devices attached to

animals that can relay information wirelessly and communicate with
each other. The idea is that a tag on, say, an elephant will download its information to a tag on, say, an oxpeckera bird
that rides on an elephants backand all the information will be downloaded to a base station near the oxpeckers nest. The
most useful technology for conservation is remote sensing, now
widely used for monitoring deforestation and species distribution.
Peter Fretwell of the British Antarctic Survey, for instance, has been using
remote-sensing data to estimate penguin populations from guano
stains. The data can distinguish between different kinds of penguin
because the infrared signature of the guano varies between species. As a result he has doubled his
estimate of emperor-penguin numbers. The tools are improving and
getting cheaper. Serge Wich, professor of primate biology at Liverpools John Moores University, has been using
University College London
drones to calculate orang-utan densities in the Indonesian rainforest. Orang-utans make a nest every dayquite comfortable ones,
with a blanket woven from branches, explains Mr Wichso orang-utan populations can be guessed from nest numbers. We were
slogging through the rainforest thinking how nice it would be to have a camera fly over it to monitor nest frequency, he says. But
he assumed it would be too expensiveuntil he found an American website, diydrones, which enabled him to make one for $700. A
bunch of conservation organisations has set up ConservationDrones.org to share information about this handy tool; Research
Drones, a Swiss company, makes drones specifically for environmental and research purposes. Its our hope that an unmanned
Remote sensing, combined with

economic progress, has also helped sharply to reduce deforestation in
Brazilthe most important country for biodiversity.
aerial vehicle will become like a pair of binoculars, says Mr Wich.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2AC Growth Solves Biodiversity

Economic growth is good for the environmenthelps biod
The Economist 13
(The Economist, The effects of growth The long view,Sep 14th 2013,
http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21585100-contrary-popular-belief-economic-growth-may-be-goodbiodiversity-long-view //SRSL)
COMPARISONS BETWEEN ADJOINING countries separated by politics or economics can be instructive. North Koreas
forests have been shrinking by around 2% a year for 20 years; South Koreas are stable. Satellite pictures of the
island of Hispaniola in the Antilles show that the western side (Haiti, with a GDP per person of $771 a year) is
barren, whereas the eastern side (Dominican Republic, GDP per person $5,736) still has plenty of dense forest.
Economic growth is widely believed to damage species other than

man. But as the contrasting fortunes of forests (a fair proxy for
biodiversity) on the Korean peninsula and Hispaniola suggest, it is
not so much growth as poverty that reduces biodiversity. Poverty
without growth, combined with lots of people, is disastrous. Poverty
combined with growth can be equally calamitous. But once people
enjoy a certain level of prosperity, the benefits of growth to other
species outweigh its disadvantages . There appears to be an environmental version of
the Kuznets curve, which describes the relationship between prosperity and inequality in an inverted U-shape. At
the early stages of growth, inequality tends to rise; at the later
stages it falls. Similarly, in the early stages of growth, biodiversity
tends to suffer; in the later stages it benefits. The Living Planet Index (LPI), put
together by the Zoological Society of London and WWF (see chart 4), shows a 61% decline in biodiversity between
1970 and 2008 in tropical areas, which tend to be poorer, but a 31% improvement over the same period in
temperate areas, which tend to be richer. Similarly, poor countries tend to chop down forests, and rich countries to
Some of the improvement might be due to

rich countries exporting their growth to poorer countries, but that is
clearly not the only factor at work. Nobody exported growth to North Korea
plant them (see interactive chart 5).
and Haiti, and their environments still got trashed. Meanwhile in countries that were
poor until fairly recentlysuch as South Korea and Brazilthings are looking up for
many species. The evidence suggests that, above a fairly low level of
income, economic growth benefits other species. As the previous article showed,
when people get richer, they start behaving better towards other species. And as
countries grow they become cleaner, more urban, more peaceful, more efficient and
better-informed, and their people have fewer children. Other species benefit from all
those effects, and from the scientific and technological progress that comes with
growth.
Though all species benefit from fresh water, it is principally for their
peoples benefit that societies clean up their rivers. London started building its
sewage system the year after the Great Stink in 1858 because many people were dying of cholera and life in the
In
the 1960s President Johnson called the Potomac a national disgrace not so much
because it killed fish but because it was filthy. Shortly afterwards he signed the
Water Quality Act. Forty years ago two-thirds of Americas rivers were unsafe for
city became unbearable. Parliament temporarily had to move out of its premises on the bank of the Thames.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
swimming or fishing. Now only a third are . A clean-up programme designed primarily to benefit
people was good for other species too.
Even after sewage treatment had become widespread, rivers were still being poisoned by industrial effluent and
pesticides. Controls on those pollutants have done their bit to help clean up rivers. Britains Environment Agency
says that in 1990 the water quality in 55% of rivers was graded good or excellent; now the share is 80%. That not
only makes the rivers safe for recreation, it has also encouraged the return of once-common creatures that became
rare in the 20th century. Otters, for instance, were present in only 6% of 3,300 sites surveyed by the Environment
Agency in 1977-79; in 2009-10, they had spread to 60%. When countries get richer, farming tends to become
more intensive. Output increases, marginal land is left fallow, the agricultural labour force shrinks and people move
to the towns. Abandoned land is used for recreation and turned back to forest or wilderness. That is the main reason
why in 2005-10, according to figures from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, forest cover grew
in America and was stable or increasing in every country in Europe except Estonia and Albania. S
haring or sparing?
Many greens argue that intensification of agriculture harms biodiversity . It is true that
pesticides and fertiliser tend to reduce the number of species where they are used, but intensive agriculture
employs less land than extensive farming to produce the same amount of food. The
question, then, is whether the net benefits to other species of land-sharing (farming extensively on a larger area)
outweigh those of land-sparing (farming intensively on a smaller area). A couple of recent papersa theoretical
one by David Tilman of the University of Minnesota and an empirical study by Ben Phalan of Cambridge University,
looking at data from Ghana and Indiasuggest that land-sparing wins.
Richer countries tend to be better informed about the value of ecosystems and take
a longer view. That is why China, having destroyed so much of its forest, is now
paying its farmers to plant trees. The ecological value of some of the resulting forest is open to doubt
a lot of it is monoculture of imported varieties that do not always suit the local climatebut the numbers are
impressive. Forest cover increased by a third between 1990 and 2010 . Better-off
countries also have more effective governments, without which conservation would be impossible. Elephants are
doing better in southern Africa than in East or Central Africa. South Africa, Zimbabwe and Botswana all have welladministered parks and reasonably effective police forces; in Congo, Chad and Tanzania, those institutions are
shakier.
Richer countries are generally more peaceful, too. That is good for their people, but not always for
other species. Biodiversity sometimes benefits from conflict: where it keeps people out, it may conserve habitats for
other creatures. The 1,000-sq-km demilitarised zone between North and South Korea, for instance, has become a de
On balance, though, conflict tends to

do more harm than good to biodiversity, destroying habitats and
undermining states efforts to protect other creatures. That is
another reason why elephants are doing better in southern Africa
than in Central and East Africa, where militias have plenty of guns
and a financial interest in selling ivory to fund their wars. The
impact of prosperity on human demography also benefits
biodiversity, but it takes time. In its early stages economic growth
often causes people to multiply faster as death rates come down
but birth rates stay high, as is happening in Africa now. That intensifies
facto nature reserve of great interest to scientists.
competition for resources between humans and other species. But when countries become richer, more women get
educated and take jobs, more people move away from farms and into cities and birth rates start falling. In East Asia
fertility has fallen from 5.3 children per woman in the 1960s to 1.6 now. In some countriesJapan, Russia, much of
eastern Europe and some of western Europethe population is already declining. But in Africa it is still rising fast,
which is the main reason why the UN expects the worlds population to continue expanding to the end of this
century.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Dont know enough about the ocean

Ocean biodiversity is a mysteryneg scientists just make
guesses
SeaWeb NO DATE SeaWeb transforms knowledge into action by shining a spotlight on workable, sciencebased solutions to the most serious threats facing the ocean, such as climate change, pollution and depletion of
marine life. To accomplish this important goal, SeaWeb convenes forums where economic, policy, social and
environmental interests converge to improve ocean health and sustainability. SeaWeb works collaboratively with
targeted sectors to encourage market solutions, policies and behaviors that result in a healthy, thriving ocean. By
using the science of communications to inform and empower diverse ocean voices and conservation champions,
SeaWeb is creating a culture of ocean conservation. SeaWeb envisions a world where all people act on the belief
that a healthy ocean is vital to human life and essential to a sustainable future. (SeaWeb, no date,
http://www.seaweb.org/resources/briefings/marinebio.php //SRSL)
Life in the ocean

comprises more major taxonomic groups
(phyla), which represent separate evolutionary paths, than does life
on land
It is therefore certain
that in the ocean there are more species that are very different
from each other, although it is not yet known which realm has the
most species.
Because so much of the ocean is only accessible
with expensive technology and/or remote instrumentation,
uncovering the extent of marine biodiversity has been and
continues to be a slow and difficult undertaking
there
are an unknown number of species yet to be discovered
. It is
impossible -- to
determine the status of most species in the ocean little is known of
many species' distribution or range that it cannot be determined
whether they are plentiful or naturally rare or whether populations
are stable or changing, and if they are threatened or endangered.
, where evolution began,
. Of the approximately 55 phyla, approximately 80% include species that are marine while about 50% include species found on land.
The Problem
. Much of ocean life remains a mystery and
. Consequently, scientific estimates of the
number of species in the ocean vary greatly, ranging from many thousands to several tens of millions
also difficult -- and in many cases
. So
Marine
species that are relatively easily monitored are those restricted to near-shore habitats, especially if they are sedentary or attached (e.g. seagrasses and corals) and those that spend time at the sea surface or on land (e.g. marine
mammals and seabirds). Because there is little evidence to the contrary, there has been a common impression that marine species and ecosystems are generally in good shape. However, as more is learned, that impression is
We do not have a clear idea of the full extent of the loss

of marine biodiversity over the past 500 years as the level of
biodiversity at that time is unknown. When populations of a species
become depleted, the genetic variation is reduced, which
compromises the species' ability to adapt to new environmental
changes and stresses.
turning out to be wildly misconceived.
Furthermore, due to interdependencies among species, the demise of one can lead to the decrease or demise of others. Ecosystems become impoverished
when species disappear or remain only in insignificant populations. The traditional biological roles of depleted species become seriously compromised, and threaten the integrity and stability of the ecosystem as a whole.
Impoverished systems may not contain the species and genetic diversity necessary to enable them to survive major environmental changes and stresses, such as global climate change. There is increasing evidence that numerous
marine species are, in fact, restricted to relatively small areas, which makes them more vulnerable to depletion or extinction. It was once assumed that this phenomenon must be rare in the sea, since most species swim or rely upon
the dispersal of reproductive cells and larvae by moving waters and there are few barriers to their dissemination. Thus, it was reasoned that all marine species should be widespread. In fact many are, but it is now also known that
many are not. The Causes The major causes of biological impoverishment and loss of marine biodiversity are: fishing and bycatch; hunting mammals, birds, turtles; toxic chemicals and nutrient pollution; habitat destruction; the
human-assisted transport and release of species to environments where they did not previously exist; and possibly, the increased ultra-violet radiation due to ozone layer depletion. Global climate change is predicted to have a major
impact in the future. Many marine species depend upon broad dissemination during motile life stages, and short-lived species in particular must be replenished by means of this dispersal (a process called recruitment). If dispersal
routes or migration are interrupted by lethal environmental conditions, populations and ranges of affected species may be reduced as a consequence. Nutrient and toxic chemical pollution are invariably associated widh a reduction
in biodiversity. Species that can adapt to or thrive under conditions stressful to most living organisms can dominate the biological community, thus changing the entire nature and function of the ecosystem. This may lead to an even
greater loss of species from the system. The pressures of fishing have given rise to a new category of species depletion: commercial extinction. Fish and shellfish populations are depleted to the point that it is no longer
economically feasible to fish for them. While not extinct, these species are certainly no longer playing their traditional roles in their ecosystems, and some, such as white abalone off the coast of California, have been pushed to the
brink of exrinction. Fishing operations, such as trawling and dragging destroy bottom habitats and deplete species populations, and repetition of such activities delays or prevents recovery. Coastal habitats, such as estuaries and
wetlands, are subject to a number of physical alterations that deplete native species populations. Residential development, tourism, aquaculture, industrial development, and dams all have huge impacts. The rapid increase of
Protecting marine biodiversity has not been a

regulatory priority for the US. The endangered species approach to
coastal human populations exacerbates the situation. The Context
biodiversity conservation cannot be expected to effectively protect

biodiversity in the ocean, because the status of species often can't
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
be assessed
. However, marine protected areas, which protect habitat as well as species, are gaining favor. New areas and regulations are being developed. While the human benefits of proposed
activities in the marine environment are readily evaluated, the threats - and therefore costs - to the environment are generally unknown or underestimated. Furthermore, living marine resources are given significant value in the
market, but are not attributed value in the natural environment. Consequently, perceived benefits invariably outweigh perceived costs, when it comes to exploiting marine resources and environments.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
2AC Squo Solves Biodiversity

9 steps to solve biodhappening in squo
Roman et al 9
conservation biologist, author, and fellow at the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics and a
McCurdy Visiting Scholar at the Duke University Marine Lab AND Paul R. Ehrlich is the co-founder with Peter H.
Raven of the field of coevolution, and he has pursued long-term studies of the structure, dynamics, and genetics of
natural butterfly populations. AND Graduate Student in Conservation Biology, Stanford University. AND stinguished
Professor, Ecology & Evolutionary Biology at the University of California-Irvine; President, Society for the Study of
Evolution (1994); President, American Genetic Association (2000); President, Society for Molecular Biology and
Evolution (2004); Molecular Ecology Prize, Journal of Molecular Ecology (Joe Roman, Paul R. Ehrlich, Robert M.
Pringle, John C. Avise, Solutions, Facing Extinction: Nine Steps to Save Biodiversity, feb 2009,
http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/feature_article/2009-02-24-facing-extinction-nine-steps-save-biodiversity
//SRSL)
In 2008, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in the UK announced a final call to find the slender-billed curlew, a one-time
resident of Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa, last seen in 1999. Meanwhile, scientists in Australia pronounced the white
lemuroid possum extinct; a native of mountain forests in Queensland, the possum was the first mammalian extinction blamed
exclusively on global warming.. Two critically endangered frog species were declared extinct, despite their protection by a Costa
Rican national park. More than 140 species of mammals, 24 birds, 6 reptiles, and 5 amphibians deteriorated in conservation status,
moving from lower to higher risk categories of concern on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, the global authority on the
1 Only 37 mammals improved during

this period, along with two birds and one amphibian. Unfortunately,
the year 2008 was not exceptional in these respects. The
biodiversity crisis is by now as well known as it is tragic. The
species extinction rate is of great concern. At least 76 mammal
species are known to have gone extinct since 1500, with several
others on the verge.2 The baiji, a freshwater dolphin of the Yangtze,
will almost certainly join the list soon. The Scimitar-horned oryx and
Pere Davids deer now probably exist only in captivity. Marine
mammals are in severe danger, especially in northern oceans.
Things are even worse for other, less celebrated, taxa. More than
70% of North Americas freshwater mussel species are on the edge
of extinction.3 Since the Polynesians first arrived on Hawaii 1,600
years ago, more than 70% of the islands native birds have
disappeared.4 Since 1850, the extinction rate for the worlds birds
has been about 100 times higher than the background rate in the
fossil record. More than 10% of all bird species remain threatened.
Seabirds have been in special jeopardyrats took out many island
colonies, and about 130 of the 450 remaining species are
threatened with extinctionbut forest birds arent faring much
better. If deforestation continues at the present pace, so many birds
may disappear that their extinction rate will increase by more than
an order of magnitude by the end of the century.5 The problem is
much bigger than species loss. The diversity of life spans many
levels, from strands of DNA within an individual to entire
ecosystems comprising billions of organisms and thousands of
species. Extinction occurs adaptation by adaptation, population by
population, habitat by habitat. The disappearance of a population is often a prelude to species
conservation status of the worlds animals and plants.
extinction,6 but species can lose their ecological relevance long before they go extinct, as their numbers dwindle and they no longer
remain key players in the system. Many extant species are now absent from more than half of their historic ranges. As organisms
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
disappear, we lose our natural capitalthe ecological goods and services that enrich and sustain our lives. That deforestation and
overgrazing can lead to erosion and desertification is as obvious as the Sahel, but other connectionssuch as the rise of malaria
and hemorrhagic fevers in disturbed landsare becoming more apparent as our ecological footprints and understanding of diseases
expand. There is a growing recognition that our natural heritage is at risk, irreplaceable, and central to our well-being. There are
potential remedies for these problems, but they will take effort and determination. The financial crisis made front-page news every
day in early 2009. The global extinction crisis barely was mentioned. Yet economic recessions are a blip in history, whereas the
effects of runaway extinction will linger for millions of years. Paleontologists have identified long lags in the evolution of new
organisms following major extinction events, largely because diversity begets diversity. Extinction chips away at the genetic and
ecological engines of speciation. With fewer genetic lineages, there is a reduction in the raw material of evolution: variation in DNA.
A reduction in ecosystems and unique niches means fewer opportunities for new organisms to evolve. The drop in the number of
species, genera, and families on the planet is likely to be a long-lasting legacy of human activities. We will be poorer without a rich
store of biodiversityin spirit, in health, and even in our pocketbooks. Here are nine tactics that could help moderate human-caused
extinctions. Most of these suggestions have been made before, repeatedly, but they warrant our continued and ever-more-urgent
attention. Landscape 1. Biodiversity Parks Many countries have national parks that feature special landscapes and geological
formations: the volcanic caldera of Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, Mount Kilimanjaro. In addition to these traditional and essential
parks, there is a need to protect a carefully designed network of reserves on each continent and in every ocean. This global series,
or archipelago, of biological refugesbiodiversity parkswill preserve key features of the Earths biological legacy inherited from
the evolutionary past into the future. Such parks, in effect, would celebrate and honor the evolutionary heritage reflected in
biological diversity, just as traditional national parks and monuments preserve special geological features or honor important
historical events in human affairs. Rather than merely constructing museums that memorialize biocide, biodiversity parks would
offer explicit protection for endangered species and evolutionarily distinctive ecosystems. The task is not as insurmountable as it
might appear. By preserving and endowing just 25 biodiversity hotspots (less than two percent of the earths land area) we could
help protect 44% of vascular plant species and 35% of all species of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians for $500 million a
year7less than 0.1% of the funds allocated to the United States Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to bail out incompetent
financial institutions. One difficulty with many current park systems is that reserves often tend to be on residual lands that are not
very valuable for resource extraction or human subsistence. A study of new reserves in Australia showed that they were typically
gazetted on steep and infertile public lands, areas least in need of protection.8 Without proper planning, ad hoc reserves can be
ineffective, often occupying less productive land, making the goal of protecting biodiversity more expensive and less likely to
succeed. Well-placed networks of sanctuaries, designed with an awareness of ongoing climate disruption and the unique biotic
facets of the sites, can help shepherd many species through the extinction crisis. In discussing parks, we often think of landscapes,
but the biodiversity crisis affects aquatic systems as well. Protection of the oceans requires safeguards against overfishing and
networks of marine reserves that include rich nearshore habitats (such as coral reefs and upwellings) as well as deep-sea vents and
abyssal plains. As on land, these protected areas should range from strict nature reserves where fishing and extraction are forbidden
to seascapes that are managed for their cultural and ecological value. Areas that are open to exploitation should be managed
sustainably to meet the long-term resource needs of local communities, while providing natural services such as recreational
opportunities and water purification.9 2. Ecologically Reclaimed and Restored Habitats Humans need to play conservation offense
as well as defense. Beyond the immediate concern with the loss of a particular population, species, or ecosystem, a focus on longterm recovery and biological revival is also essential. Scientific research can inform the restoration of local habitats and help
renaturalize entire ecosystems by uniting scattered fragments. In Costa Rica, scientists, businesspeople, politicians, and the local
community helped regenerate 700 square kilometers of a tropical forest systeman area assaulted by ranching, hunting, logging,
and fires for almost 400 years. They purchased large tracts of land, stopped the farming and fires, and let nature take back its
original terrain.10 Restoration relying on successional recovery is not always so predictable, however. The reintroduction of fire to
sand barren prairies that had been overgrown with willow was not enough to restore the prairie. The woody vegetation was resistant
to the fire regime.11 For that reason, restoration ecologists are often needed to ensure the recovery of degraded lands.12
Thousands of species have been eradicated or imperiled by the construction of ill-conceived dams throughout the world. It is too late
for the many freshwater mussels and fish that have gone extinct, but for others the damage still can be reversed. The removal of
the Edwards Dam from the Kennebec River in Maine restored large numbers of eels, sturgeon, and striped bass to upstream
habitats, where they had been absent for more than 150 years. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service funds competitive grants for
private stewardship of lands, with an emphasis on endangered species habitat. Dozens of federal grants support restoration projects
such as prairie streams for the Topeka shiner in Iowa, aquatic systems for Arctic grayling in Montana, grasslands for a threatened
milk-vetch and other plant species in Oregon, and habitat for sage grouse in Colorado.13 The reintroduction of individual species
can play an important role in rewilding parks and their surrounding ecosystems. Large animals are especially prone to extinction, yet
they are often key to ecological dynamics. The return of a megafaunal species to its historic range can yield many benefits: undo a
population extinction, make habitats more interesting and exciting for locals and visitors, and restore ecological interactions (often
with positive system-wide consequences). There have been several successful examples of repatriation, though far from enough.
Bald eagles now nest in every state in the continental U.S., and populations have increased by more than an order of magnitude
since their lows in the 1960s. Przewalski's wild horse has been reclassified from Extinct in the Wild to Critically Endangered, with
more than 300 free-ranging individuals now roaming Mongolia. After several decades of absence from the park, gray wolves
released by the Yellowstone Wolf Recovery Team in 1995 produced some surprising changes: survivorship of pronghorn fawns
increased fourfold, as coyote densities declined where wolves were present;14 streamside vegetation returned as elk browsing
declined; and tourists flocked to the region, spawning a new type of ecotourismwolf watchingnow a $35 million a year
industry.15 Some have argued that one way to restore ecological interactions that were lost with the extinction of the Pleistocene
megafauna would be to introduce analogs, or modern counterparts, from elsewhere. For example, bringing Asian elephants to North
America might provide seed dispersers for certain plants that co-evolved with mastodons.16 There is no scientific or ethical
consensus about the wisdom of such expensive and transformative action. Yet the possibility that genetic engineers might one day
be able to bring extinct megafauna such woolly mammoths to life from frozen ancient DNA17 should prompt us to consider whether,
if such efforts are successful, mammoths are something worth restoring to landscapes that have not seen them in 11,000 years.
Community 3. The Fabric of Local Communities As scholars, biologists mostly observe. They build models, experiment, andon
good daysmake new empirical or conceptual connections: the effects of pesticides on egg development, the role of disease in
amphibian declines, or the effects of biodiversity on ecosystem function. Such studies take place on the modest spatial scale of a
Petri dish, a common garden, or perhaps a local landscape, and at the modest temporal scale of a few years. To ameliorate the
extinction crisis, though, science must move beyond such focused analysesimportant and fascinating as they areand attempt to
draw broader connections between species conservation and ecosystem roles in sustaining human communities and well-being.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
How can we promote awareness of the many values of nature? In urban areas, mounting evidence links the health of city dwellers to
biodiversity and green spaces.18,19 In rural areas, the old idea that conservation displaces people, putting fences between nature
and people, seems increasingly outmoded. Businesses have thrived in the American West, even as environmental protections have
increased. Where local populations increase around protected areas, a key challenge will be to mitigate the inevitable impacts by
weaving the protected areas into the fabric of local communities, thereby promoting traditions of stewardship. In Peru, villagers are
literally weaving palm branches from Amazonian trees into baskets for sale in overseas markets. The goal is to make conservation
productive, bettering the lives of local weavers while shifting communities away from large-scale consumption. The establishment of
biological reserves can be tied to training for local and professional park staff, taxonomists, research assistants, and tourist guides.
Computers and on the job training can help transform conserved wildlands into on-site graduate schools.20 The Guanacaste
Conservation Area in Costa Rica trains and employs local taxonomists and ecologists. Five full-time biologists are composing an online Yellow Pages for each of the 6,000 to 7,000 plant species in the park, including taxonomy, natural history, and where to find the
plant. Likewise, establishing scholarships for students from local communities to work toward college degrees would pay long-term
educational dividends. Even basic contributions such as Internet access and local-language publications of park reports and wildlife
guides can be tremendously valuable in developing countries. Ecotourism has helped promote conservation efforts in many
countries. Gorilla watching has become one of Rwandas biggest economic engines, with tourists shelling out $1,000 to spend an
hour with the rare and habituated apes. Diving and other environmentally friendly tourist activities in the Caribbean island of
Bonaire provide about 40% of the islands GDP. In recognition of the importance of clear water and coral reefs, all the nations
waters are protected to a depth of 60 meters.21 The high commercial value of wildlife is hardly confined to small and
underdeveloped countries. In the United States, federal agencies interview hunters, fishers, and wildlife enthusiasts every five years
to study the economic impact of wildlife recreation. Each year, 34 million hunters and fishers spend about $77 billion in the U.S.
There are even more dedicated wildlife watchers. In 2006, 71 million Americans spent $46 billion dollars observing and
photographing wildlife. That is more than was spent on watching professional football; indeed, it is more than was spent on all
spectator sports, amusement parks, casinos, bowling alleys, and ski slopes combined. This passion for wildlife produced more than a
million jobs and about $18 billion dollars in tax revenues. In Florida, the city of Homosassa gets almost all of its tourist revenue from
people in search of manatees. And the figures for birdwatchers alone are staggering: among the 48 million people in the U.S. who
watch backyard birds at feeders, 20 million also traveled for about two weeks a year in search of birds.22 Just as cities compete for
sports arenas, communities should and often do tout the many recreational opportunities that their nearby unspoiled natural areas
provide. That said, recent studies suggest that interest in nature tourism may be flagging in many developed countries.23 Nature
education and bioliteracy may be one cure for this decline. 4. Diversity in Human Landscapes Pick a square kilometer of land at
random and the odds are high that people live or work on it and that they have quick access to many others via road or stream.
Chances are also good that at nightfall you will see artificial light emanating from that patch of land. Less than a fifth of the worlds
land surface has escaped the direct touch of Homo sapiens.24 Humanity now utilizes almost half of everything that grows on the
planet, consuming more than 40% of the Earths net primary productivity.25 Early wilderness advocates may have bristled at the
thought of managing nature, but given our vast population, we now must accept the role of planetary steward to the wild. Human
density is a good predictor of conservation conflict: nearly 20% of all peoplemore than a billionnow live within biodiversity
hotspots, and their growth rate is faster than the human population at large.26 To complement gains from preservation and
restoration, they must focus more attention on countryside biogeography, the endeavor to make the human landscapefour-fifths
of the planetmore hospitable to biodiversity. Research indicates that some well-managed agricultural areas in the tropics can help
sustain many of the birds, mammals, and other organisms native to original forests.27,28 In many ways, agricultural and even
urban areas can be made friendlier to wildlife. Living hedges support bats, farmland birds, and other animals around agricultural
plots.29 Specimen rainforest trees left in tropical pastures can help support forest bird species. Endangered species such as
whooping cranes forage comfortably on ranches in Florida, where cattle may help keep predators such as the bobcat at bay. Even
top carnivores such as pumas, jaguars, cheetahs, and wolves can coexist on ranch and agricultural lands when owners manage their
properties in economically rational ways that allow for a coexistence of business with wildlife. Privately owned properties such as the
Mpala Ranch in Laikipia, Kenya, support lions, leopards, hyenas, and wild dogs, in addition to healthy populations of native and
domestic herbivores. The implementation of this mixed-land-use approach is likely to be specific to particular environmental and
economic settings. The recent movement toward biofuel provides an example. In theory, renewable fuels could benefit biodiversity
by helping to mitigate climate change. However, all fuels are not created equally. Monocultures of oil palm, soybeans, and sugarcane
for biodiesel and ethanol have replaced forests throughout the tropics, from the Brazilian Amazon to Indonesia. These fuel crops are
a tremendous, and widely underestimated, threat. By contrast, alternative strategies that employ native grasslands on degraded
lands have the potential to be a win-win situation, reducing carbon emissions and preserving biodiversity.30,31 Economic
incentives, such as the U.S. Department of Agricultures Conservation Reserve Program, have been used successfully to encourage
biodiversity-friendly practices on private lands. Funds for such programs are often more dependable than those for protected
species. They have the added advantage of helping populations of common species stay healthyrather than ending up in
conservations equivalent of an intensive care unit. 5. Legislation A vast and discouraging literature documents the depletion of
harvested species ranging from cod and cacti to passenger pigeons and whales. Stacks of buffalo bones once towered over the
boxcars of the Santa Fe and other rail lines in the late nineteenth century, awaiting transport to fertilize plants (for phosphorus) and
sugar refineries (carbon) in the eastern U.S. One newspaper quipped, Buffalo bones are legal tender in Dodge City.32 A species
that once spread across a continent and numbered in the millions was reduced to tens of individuals in isolated reserves.
Overharvesting continues today, of course, for many species and for many reasons. Examples are legion. After industrial overfishing
in Ghana caused a collapse of fish stocks, local demand for bushmeat protein increased, resulting in a sharp decline of 41 species of
mammals.33 And for at least two millennia, hunters, in search of economically valuable wildlife products such as rhinoceros horn,
elephant ivory, and civet glands for perfume, have devastated particular species.34 Present laws, commissions, and treaties, when
fully enforced, may be best able to handle the direct exploitation of wildlife species. Treaties such as the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species and the International Whaling Commissions moratorium on commercial whaling have helped lower
trade in rare and declining species. Domestic laws, such as the Endangered Species Act in the United States, are explicitly designed
to stop anthropogenic extinctions. The act has been successful in reducing the extinction rate and recovering several high profile
species, such as the alligator, bald eagle, and gray whale. Many other species including the Carolina elktoe mussel, the Louisiana
prairie vole, and 13 Hawaiian plants went extinct while they waited to be listed.35 Legislation and economic disincentives should be
strengthened and enforced on local, national, and international levels, with the latter designed especially to exert pressure on
noncompliant nations. Incentives, economic and otherwise, are also essential. Payments for the ecosystem services provided by
habitat protection can be used to help fund communities near conservation areas, thereby making biodiversity protection both more
appealing and profitable. Hardin36 famously identified the challenge to such regulatory approaches: Prohibition is easy to legislate
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
(though not necessarily enforce); but how do we legislate temperance? Since 1986, after a moratorium on commercial whaling
went into effect, whale numbers have increased. Elephant populations have expanded since the ivory ban was imposed in 1989. By
contrast, despite regulations and treaties, many marine fish stocks have continued to decline. The push toward moderation has
been depressingly slow and ineffective, but moderation is the only way to achieve a sustainable future for both the industry and the
fish stocks that it has overexploited. Much the same can be said for many human interactions with nature. One possible way forward
is a rights-based approach for biodiversity. Ecuador recently established constitutional rights for nature. Rather than simply
regulating environmental destruction, the new law gives Ecuadorans the right, and obligation, to protect ecosystems, even if they
. Ecological
Economics In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, economic
relationships were seen as a reflection of the natural world. The
scholar and philosopher David Hume regarded economic processes
as part of nature. His contemporary Carl Linnaeus praised the
economy of nature in a treatise on self-regulation in animals and
plants. Thomas Malthus worked within the tradition of the natural
sciences. For these and other thinkers of the Enlightenment, human reason was understood as a derivative of natural
are not directly injured themselves. This approach may offer a promising new path. Economy 6
instincts; nature was a benevolent force in creating wealth.37 This view began to lose ground in the mid-nineteenth century, most
famously with the work of John Stuart Mill. Mill supported womens rights, opposed slavery, and lamented a world that was empty of
wild animals and plants. Yet, he also saw nature as unjust and cruel, proposing that human economy was separate from the natural
order. Instead, the rational behavior of man and individual utility were paramount.37 To many Victorians, the economy became a
product of human deliberation, divorced from nature. Ecology was relegated to the sidelines of economics until recent years. The
relatively new field of ecological economics is a grand synthesis of human activity and the natural world. Within this sphere, there is
plenty of room for discourse on individual human behavior, economic activity, ecology, and global change. For those working in this
discipline, nature is seen as benevolent: the provider of goods and services, a protector against catastrophes such as hurricanes,
droughts, and floods. Great strides have been made in valuing these services. Economists can estimate an ecosystems value by
the carbon it sequesters, the waste it absorbs, the water it provides, or the air it cleans. One species might provide pollination
services and another might be valued for its appeal to tourists. These values can be calculated in various ways. One is to put a price
tag on ecosystem services through replacement value. How much would it cost to treat wastewater and agricultural runoff if you
removed the wetlands that filter them naturally? You can also use straightforward travel costs to estimate the economic value of
species and habitats. How much will people pay to see a bald eagle or a manatee? In his global survey of whale watching in 2001,
Erich Hoyt estimated that more than a billion dollars a year was spent on whale watching in 87 countries.38 Most people will never
see a humpback in the ocean, a tiger in the forest, or a blind salamander in a Texas cave, but many people are willing to pay to keep
such species alive. The price they are willing to pay is known as existence value. When addressing the value of an ecosystem, the
account should entail whole-system benefits: an intact mangrove forest versus a shrimp farm in Thailand, a virgin forest versus a
farm in Cameroon, or a wetland versus a landfill in Canada. In many cases, expensive technologies would be required to replace the
services supplied by these ecosystemscosts that will outweigh the short-term gains of habitat conversion.39 Understanding the
relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem function will be helpful in making these determinations. Perhaps the biggest crisis
facing ecological economists is resolving the disparity in income and consumption between the wealthy industrial West and the rest
of the world. The ecological footprint of our species began to exceed the Earths regenerative capacity in the 1980s. We have now
overshot the total biocapacity of Earthits ability to fully meet and absorb the results of our actionsby about 30%.40 We would
need several planets to support humanity if everyone consumed as much as Americans. So, what to do? Proceed with business as
usual, striving to elevate everyone to Western levels of consumption? This outcome is certainly unsustainable, if not unattainable; it
would likely result in more environmental catastrophes. Alternatively, nations such as China and India and the rest of the developing
world could be blocked from achieving Western living standards. This outcome is also unrealistic, not to mention unjust. A third
alternative seems to offer the only viable course: wealthy nations must learn to live sustainably, without co-opting much more than
a fair share of Earths bounty. This means reducing material consumption in rich countries, stabilizing the human population, and if
possible humanely decreasing it.41 Avoiding disaster can begin as simply as skipping a bacon cheeseburger or going an extra year
with an aging car, but ultimately it requires changing a system currently based on the presumption that endless growth is possible.
Academic institutions and businesses can take the lead on this effort by converting their facilities to zero emissions. Religious
leaders and churches can take a proactive role in getting the message out. The Bishop of London has told his vicars to preach
sermons on the moral obligation of Christians to lead ecologically friendly lives: There is now an overriding imperative to walk more
lightly upon the earth, and we need to make our lifestyle decisions in that light. The churchs environmental policy director added,
7.
Endowment: Biodiversity Trusts One innovative way to establish
and maintain protected areas is by creating conservation trust
funds. There is an urgent need for such endowments, especially in the tropics, where human numbers and consumption are
Indiscriminate use of the earths resources must be seen as profoundly wrong, just as we now see slavery as wrong.42
burgeoning and populations of many wildlife species are in decline. In these developing countries, money to maintain national parks
is often short. In many cases, expenditures are less than five percent of those deemed necessary to establish and maintain a viable
reserve network.43 Unlike taxes, user fees, and debt swaps, endowments provide sustained funding and are relatively resilient to
the fluctuations of power and tourism.44 Permanent funds, ideally administered by a board of qualified trustees, will be critical in
maintaining conservation areas in perpetuity. As of 2000, conservation trust funds had been established in 40 countries, with nine
nations boasting endowments of $10 million or more.44 This modest beginning is an important first step. Costa Rica is aiming to
create a $500 million endowment fund to consolidate 25% of the country into eleven conservation areas. One hundred million
dollars would be spent to consolidate the areas, and annual revenue from the remaining $400 million would be divided among the
conservation areas to cover operating costs. Five hundred million dollars is a large sum for a small country, but it is achievable put
in the context of other institutions such as research universities, which sometimes have endowments in the billions of dollars. Costa
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Ricas green image abroad is enhanced by these efforts, increasing its appeal as an ecotourist destination, and Costa Ricans nurture
a sense of pride in their world-leading reserve network. We should think about how tourists and benefactors might contribute to
national and global conservation trusts. Could visitors to national parks around the world become alumni to those areas, recruited to
support their favored reserves? Companies that are involved in bioprospecting in conserved areas should contribute to preserving
the habitat from which they profit. Local communities, while they may not benefit directly from these discoveries, should be taught
the value of ecosystem services coming from these protected areas. It is also possible to use trust funds for individual charismatic
species, such as tigers, pandas, or manatees, to preserve the habitat where those species live. Such megafauna could help protect
8. Bioliteracy Since
people only protect what they value, the most importantand
perhaps most difficultstep in slowing biodiversity loss will be
transforming human attitudes about nature. As a society, we need to establish an
the many species that lack the charm to inspire large contributions. Education and Science
ecological identity that helps foster a love of nature. Biologists can convey the excitement of natural history and the joy of scientific
inquiry to students and the general public. Social scientists can help make the connection between wildlife conservation and human
well-being. Great places to start are in the home and in elementary school. See spot run should be replaced by See the plant
grow in the sun. Many authors have written convincingly on the need for environmental literacy and outdoor education, to take
students directly into parks, farms, and shorelines. There is evidence that students who receive such place-based education typically
outperform their peers.45 How do we enhance the devotion to biodiversity and increase the awareness to threats we have created?
Theres great value in seeing animals in the wild: gorillas in the Virungas, humpbacks on Stellwagen Bank, regent honeyeaters in the
Australian outback, wolves in Yellowstone. Not everyone will be able to visit remote sites, but most people will be able to access
green spaces housing charismatic species nearer to home: a snowy owl on a wintry day in Jamaica Bay in New York City, a peregrine
falcon on the John Hancock building in Boston, orcas in Puget Sound, or sea otters in Monterey Bay. For many these are defining
momentsradioactive jewels, as one psychologist has put itof life experience that are visited and revisited, emitting energy
across the years of our lives.46 We need to integrate these moments into a broader societal dedication to conservation. There is
considerable hope along these lines, indications that education programs on whale-watch tours and even on nature television
influence peoples behavior and increase their environmental consciousness.47 Bioliteracy can entail far more than an appreciation
of wildlands and whatever large animals they might contain. It can help students explore the role of biodiversity in human wellbeing. Recent studies indicate that biodiversity loss, invasive species, and habitat destruction can be drivers in the ecology of
diseases, by helping pathogens and vectors spread quickly around the world. Yellow fever, dengue, malaria, and West Nile
encephalitis are a few of the diseases that have breached geographical barriers through human transport. Many emerging infectious
diseases come from wildlife, typically jumping from animals or their carcasses to humans, as habitats are opened up or otherwise
abused. We now know that chimpanzees were the source of HIV-1; the Ebola virus can jump between gorillas, chimpanzees,
humans, and even small antelopes; and severe acute respiratory virus (SARS) came from a crowded wildlife market in Guangdong
Province in China.48 One might expect that more diverse habitats support more diseases, but low diversity habitatsdisturbed
habitatsoften pose the greater risk. Biodiversity loss and habitat transformations have increased the prevalence of various vectorborne diseases, including Lyme disease from ticks, and malaria and West Nile virus from mosquitoes.49 Mice and other rodents are
important reservoirs of hanta viruses and other hemorrhagic fevers. As diversity decreases, overcrowding of one species usually
an opportunistic one such as the deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatusleads to fights, especially among males. The virus is then
transmitted quickly through the population. Greater transmission in rodents increases risk to humans.50 A better understanding of
9. Toward Zero
Extinction The goal needs to be made clear: to reverse the current
trend and add anthropogenic extinction to the injusticesslavery,
child labor, apartheid, the Iron Curtainfound abhorrent by civilized
people. Achieving such a social and ecological transformation will require ingenuity and initiatives that are global in scope,
the protective role of nature and biodiversity will ultimately benefit conservation efforts.
yet regional in implementation. The Endangered Species Act mandated the end of species extinction in the United States in 1973. Its
record has been good, but not perfect. Twenty species, including the Peregrine falcon, have recovered and been delisted. Nine
others, including the dusky seaside sparrow of Florida, have also been delisted, but only after they had gone extinct. Some
threatened species probably would not have survived without the legislation; others are likely to remain permanently reliant on
conservation efforts. Still, hundreds of species and populations have been left unprotected, and underfunding has been a chronic
problem. An intensive search of remote forest pockets in Queensland for the lemuroid white possum, thought to be one of the first
mammalian victims of climate change, turned up three individuals this year. There is still hope, however slight. It is clear that an
unprecedented international effort is needed, one that develops new attitudes and institutions. The Convention on Biological
Diversity was ratified by 188 countries in 1994 (the U.S. signed on but has still not ratified the treaty). The CBDs target for 2010,
endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly is to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss significantly by 2010. There is still a long
way to go. One of the biggest challenges for conservation biologists will be launching and sustaining this effort in a politically
sensitive and cost-effective way.6 Nonprofit groups such as the Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, and World Wildlife Fund play an
important role in species and habitat conservation. So, too, do associations gathered around a single taxon, such as Polar Bears
International or the Gopher Tortoise Council, or many taxa, such as the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation and the Center
for Plant Conservation. The Alliance for Zero Extinction states its conservation goal in its title. International organizations such as the
IUCN and Diversitas can help bridge the efforts between national governments, raising the level of urgency in the public eye.
Ideally, the yearly additions of species to lists of threatened and endangered taxa must decline and, eventually, approach zero long
before the planets biodiversity has been irreversibly gutted. Indeed, the human stewards must look forward to a time when no
species are marked with an EX for newly extinct.
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
Countries are solving biod loss nowawareness solves

Black 10
Environment correspondent, BBC News, Nagoya, Japan (Richard, BBC, 'Ten years' to solve nature
crisis, UN meeting hears, 18 October 2010, http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-11563513 //SRSL)
UN biodiversity convention meeting has opened with warnings

that the ongoing loss of nature is hurting human societies as well as
the natural world. The two-week gathering aims to set new targets for
conserving life on Earth. Japan's Environment Minister Ryo Matsumoto said biodiversity loss would become irreversible unless curbed soon.
The
Much hope is being pinned on economic analyses showing the loss of species and ecosystems is costing the global economy trillions of dollars each year. Ahmed Djoghlaf, executive
secretary of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), described the meeting in Nagoya, Japan, as a
"defining moment" in the
history of mankind. "[Buddhist scholar] Daisetsu Teitaro Suzuki said 'the problem of nature is the problem of human life'. Today, unfortunately, human
life is a problem for nature," he told delegates in his opening speech. Referring to the target set at the UN World Summit in 2002, he said: "Let's have the courage to look in the eyes
of our children and admit that we have failed, individually and collectively, to fulfil the Johannesburg promise made by 110 heads of state to substantially reduce the rate of loss of
biodiversity by 2010. "Let us look in the eyes of our children and admit that we continue to lose biodiversity at an unprecedented rate, thus mortgaging their future." Earlier this year,
the UN published a major assessment - the Global Biodiversity Outlook - indicating that virtually all trends spanning the state of the natural world were heading downwards, despite
conservation successes in some regions. Continue reading the main story Start Quote We are about to reach a threshold beyond which biodiversity loss will become irreversible
It showed that loss and degradation of forests,

coral reefs, rivers and other elements of the natural world was
having an impact on living standards in some parts of the world - an obvious example being
Ryo Matsumoto Japanese environment minister
the extent to which loss of coral affects fish stocks. In his opening speech, Mr Matsumoto suggested impacts could be much broader in future. "All life on Earth exists thanks to the
benefits from biodiversity in the forms of fertile soil, clear water and clean air," he said. "We are now close to a 'tipping point' - that is, we are about to reach a threshold beyond which
biodiversity loss will become irreversible, and may cross that threshold in the next 10 years if we do not make proactive efforts for conserving biodiversity." Climate clouds In recent
years, climate change has dominated the agenda of environmental politics. And Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, suggested there is a lack of
understanding at political levels ofwhy tackling biodiversity is just important. 2010 is the International Year of Biodiversity "This is the only planet in this Universe that is known to
have this kind of life," he said. "This fact alone should give us food for thought, But more importantly, we are destroying the very foundations that sustain life on this planet; and yet
when we meet in these intergovernmental fora, society somehow struggles to understand and appreciate what it is what we're trying to do here, and why it matters." On the table in
Nagoya is a comprehensive draft agreement that would tackle the

underlying causes of biodiversity loss, as well as setting new
targets for conservation. At the heart of the idea is the belief that if
governments understand the financial costs of losing nature, they
can adopt new economic models that reward conservation and
penalise degradation.
A UN-sponsored project called The Economics of Ecosytems and Biodiversity (TEEB) calculates the cost at $2-5 trillion per
year, predominantly in poorer parts of the world. Jane Smart, head of the species programme at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), said that although the
problem was huge and complex, there were some encouraging signs. "The good news is that when we carry out conservation, it does work; we increasingly know what to do, and when
. "So we need to do a lot more conservation

work, such as protected areas - particularly in the sea, in the marine
realm - we need to save vast areas of ocean to protect fish stocks not to stop eating fish, but to eat fish in a sustainable way." Triple win
Governments first agreed back in 1992, at the Rio Earth Summit that the ongoing loss of biodiversity needed attention. The CBD was born
there, alongside the UN climate convention. It aims to preserve the
diversity of life on Earth, facilitate the sustainable use of plants and
animals, and allow fair and equitable exploitation of natural genetic
resources. The UN hopes that a protocol on the final element - known as access and benefit sharing (ABS) - can be secured here, 18 years after it was agreed in
we do it, it works really really well," she told BBC News
principle. However, the bitter politicking that has soured the atmosphere in a number of UN environment processes - most notably at the Copenhagen climate summit - looms over the
Nagoya meeting. Some developing nations are insisting that the ABS protocol be signed off before they will agree to the establishment of an international scientific panel to assess
biodiversity issues. The Intergovernental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is due to be signed off during the current UN General Assembly session
Western governments - believe it is necessary if

scientific evidence on the importance of biodiversity loss is to be
transmitted effectively to policymakers.
in New York. Many experts - and
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]
AT: Water Wars

No water wars
Lawfield 10 (Thomas, MA candidate at the University for Peace, "Water Security:
War or Peace? Thomas Lawfield", May 03 2010,
http://www.monitor.upeace.org/innerpg.cfm?id_article=715)
water does not cause war. The arguments presented above, although correct in principle, have
little purchase in empirical evidence. Indeed, as one author notes, there is only one case of a war
where the formal declaration of war was over water.[20] This was an incident between two
Mesopotamian city states, Lagash and Umma , over 2,500 years BC, in modern day southern Iraq. Both the initial
In reality,
premises and arguments of water war theorists have been brought into question. Given this, a number of areas of contestation have
emerged: "Questioning both the supply and demand side of the water war argument [...] Questioning assumptions about the costs
Why then is water

not a cause of war? The answer lies in two factors: first, the
capacity for adaptation to water stresses and, second, the political
drawbacks to coupling water and conflict. First, there is no water crisis, or more correctly,
there are a number of adaptation strategies that reduce stress on
water resources and so make conflict less likely. Unlike the water war discourse, which
perceives water as finite in the Malthusian sense, the capacity for adaptation to water stress
has been greatly underestimated. For instance, I will discuss in particular a trading adaptation known
as virtual water, which refers to the water used to grow imported food. This water can be subtracted
from the total projected agricultural water needs of a state, and
hence allows water scarce states to operate on a lower in-country
water requirement than would otherwise be expected.[22] This means that
of water resources [...and] Demonstrating the cooperative potential of the water resource."[21]
regions of the world that are particularly rich in water produce water intense agricultural products more easily in the global trade
The scale of this water is

significant - Allan famously pointed out that more embedded water
flows into the Middle East in the form of grain than flows in the Nile.
[24] In addition, there are significant problems around the hegemonic
doctrine of the water crisis. Many authors point to relatively low water provision per capita by states, and
system, while other water scarce areas produce low intensity products.[23]
suggest that this will increase the likelihood of a state engaging in war with a neighbouring state, to obtain the water necessary for
its population. This is normally a conceptual leap that produces the incorrect corollary of conflict, but is also frequently a problem of
data weaknesses around the per capita requirements. For instance, Stucki cites the case of the Palestinians being under the worst
water stress, with a per capita provision being in the region of 165m/year.[25] Unfortunately, such an analysis is based on false
actual provision data in this region. Based on the authors work on water provision in Lebanese Palestinian refugee camps, the actual
provision is over 90m/month. Such a figure is highly likely to be representative of other camps in the region.[26] If this example is
we should be sceptical about

claims of increasing water stress. Furthermore, given that many water
systems have a pipe leakage rate of fifty per cent, combined with a
seventy per cent loss of agricultural water, significant efficiency
enhancements could be made to existing infrastructure. Combined
with desalination options in many water shortage prone states,
there is an overall capacity for technological and market driven
solutions to water scarcity.[27]
representative of trends to exaggerate water pressures in the region, then
{FILE TITLE}
GBS 2014
[AUTHOR NAME]

De-Dev - Michigan7 2014

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

De-Dev - Michigan7 2014

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

{FILE TITLE}

1NC Collapse Inevitable

According to a new peer-reviewed scientific report, industrial

in 1972, The Limits to

the model results are: "... almost exactly on course

mineral depletion, associated radioactive and heavy

warns that a continuation of 'business

resources raise the possibility of a limit to

And we need to do that before is too late, that is before the

energy return on investment of fossil fuels has declined so much

2NC Growth Unsustainable

Theres an even broader perspective.

The growth of complex organization

Economic growth is unsustainable mineral depletion and

the report finds

could peak as early as 2020. US coal

production has already peaked, and

extract and process uranium from seawater would be about the

Nickel and zinc, which are used to

While substitution could help in many

the window for meaningful

action is closing rapidly.

Economic collapse is inevitable - unsustainable consumption

when I say full, I

Even though it has delivered many benefits, it is based on a

The problem is we're

the reality is we've done pretty much nothing to

So when does this transition begin? When does this breakdown

it's the system in the painful process of breaking down -- our

Collapse is inevitable, reflexivity risk, peak oil, debt, incoming

not just an indicator, it represents and sometimes obscures a

even a potentially catastrophic financial shock will have shattered

problems with our dependence upon a debt based monetary system

greater downside risks than upside ones , which understandably makes

Decreasing global resilience and the increasing complexity,

Global economic decline is inevitable - resources are finite and

Earth is finite in size. 2. Population and economic growth must cease .

the Earth could not support a population four times as

Sustained economic growth is impossible in the future

if 9 billion people were to live as we do about 72 billion ha of

Now add the

world would be producing almost 20 times as

With the collapse of global industrial civilization, smaller, autonomous,

Third World peoples won't have the material resources, biological

Exts Transition Key

Without a radical change in our societal foundation the

Consumer-capitalist society is also grossly unjust, imposing a global

considerations of sustainability and of justice both lead to the

Marxists as much as free-marketers have been mistaken about this.

For 50 years literature has been accumulating pointing out the

implications of a steady-state economy have not been understood at

solved unless several fundamental systems and structures within

of the global resource and environmental problem is not generally

society cannot be reformed or fixed; it has to be largely scrapped

2NC Mindset Shift

Before an individual chooses to act, he or she requires a story or

Mindset shift theory is true

Cross-cutting ideas and

The route to economic demise is

The "family" depicted above has to

Government reported GDP growth rates are

So long as borrowing increases faster than GDP, the

The political class in America, either via misguided economic