Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Spending DA Neg
Spending DA Neg
Spending DA Neg.......................................................................................................................................................1
Spending DA Neg...........................................................................................................................1
1NC 1/2.......................................................................................................................................................................4
1NC 1/2............................................................................................................................................4
1NC 2/2.......................................................................................................................................................................5
1NC 2/2............................................................................................................................................5
Uniqueness – Yes Econ (General)...............................................................................................................................6
Uniqueness – Yes Econ (General).................................................................................................6
Uniqueness – Yes Econ (Prices)..................................................................................................................................7
Uniqueness – Yes Econ (Prices).....................................................................................................7
Uniqueness – Yes Econ (AT: Dollar)..........................................................................................................................8
Uniqueness – Yes Econ (AT: Dollar).............................................................................................8
Link – Policy-Decisions..............................................................................................................................................9
Link – Policy-Decisions..................................................................................................................9
Link – Clean Energy.................................................................................................................................................10
Link – Clean Energy....................................................................................................................10
Link – Regulations (Exports)....................................................................................................................................11
Link – Regulations (Exports)......................................................................................................11
Link – Oil..................................................................................................................................................................12
Link – Oil......................................................................................................................................12
Link – Energy Prices (Steel).....................................................................................................................................13
Link – Energy Prices (Steel)........................................................................................................13
Link – RPS................................................................................................................................................................14
Link – RPS....................................................................................................................................14
Link – Nuclear Power...............................................................................................................................................15
Link – Nuclear Power..................................................................................................................15
Link – Nuclear Power...............................................................................................................................................16
Link – Nuclear Power..................................................................................................................16
Link – Nuclear Power (AT: Yucca)...........................................................................................................................17
Link – Nuclear Power (AT: Yucca).............................................................................................17
Link – Renewables....................................................................................................................................................18
Link – Renewables.......................................................................................................................18
Link – Renewables....................................................................................................................................................19
Link – Renewables.......................................................................................................................19
WNDI 2008 2
Spending DA Neg
1NC 1/2
Ignore all market-based uniqueness claims – the economy is growing due to employment,
confidence, trade figures and GDP – exports are key to future growth
Anatole Kaletsky, The Times, July 14, 2008, We have financial, not economic, problems
Sometimes the markets just get things wrong. It doesn't happen very often. Usually the market's collective wisdom is
more perceptive than the individual opinions of the investors who comprise it. But every now and then - about twice every decade -
markets make spectacular blunders, completely losing touch with the real economy of consumption, investment, employment and world
trade. The markets' behaviour last week suggested that such a time has arrived. On Friday, share prices around the world
collapsed as Wall Street was gripped by rumours about the bankruptcy of the two largest financial institutions in the world: the US
Government-backed mortgage insurers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose combined debts are almost $6 trillion, equivalent to
roughly double Britain's entire GDP. Yet what has been happening in the world of real economic activity to explain such extreme
market action? While Wall Street has gone into meltdown since the beginning of June, conditions in the real
economy have been unambiguously improving. The latest employment figures, published two weeks ago,
confirmed that economic conditions had stabilised after their sharp deterioration in the winter, while purchasing
managers' surveys, the most reliable indicator of very recent economic trends, suggested a
continuation of the modest but clear improvement that began in April. Sales figures from leading retailers
were much stronger than expected, showing that tax rebates designed to provide a shot of financial adrenaline to all
but the richest US households were doing exactly what the doctor ordered - offsetting the depressing effect on
consumption of the credit crunch and the housing slump. As a result, consumer confidence, although an unreliable
and lagging indicator, showed its first improvement for six months. Even the figures on home sales have now been
near-stable for four consecutive months, after almost a year of vertiginous falls. Most important of all, the monthly
trade figures, published on Friday in the midst of the Wall Street meltdown, proved that the remarkably adaptable US
economy was responding to the credit crunch exactly as the optimists had hoped - by undertaking an
immense structural shift from consumer and housing-led growth to growth powered by exports. Related
Links The narrowing of the US trade deficit, despite the biggest monthly increase on record in the cost of oil imports, almost
guarantees that the second-quarter GDP figures, due to be published two weeks from now, will show the US
economy accelerating from the stagnant conditions of the past two quarters to a near-normal rate of 2.5 or even 3 per cent growth.
Why, then, are share prices collapsing and the dollar hitting new lows? There are three possible explanations. First, financial markets
may “know something” dreadful about America's economic prospects that is not yet apparent in any statistics. Secondly, investors may
be reacting to specifically financial problems that have relatively little impact on the non-financial economy outside Wall Street. Thirdly,
the markets may simply be wrong about the economic outlook and about the value of financial assets, as they have
been many times in the past. Hence the adage that “Wall Street is a great economic forecaster - it has predicted six of the
last three recessions”. The first explanation - the skeleton in the cupboard - is the one naturally favoured on Wall Street itself. The
financial community's self-regarding faith in the foresight of financial analysts and investors seems never to be shaken by the total lack
of foresight revealed by these same analysts and investors in the past. For example, one of the “events” that triggered last week's
collapse of confidence was a privately circulated paper from a leading hedge fund group, which estimated that total losses in the global
credit crunch might be as high as $1.6 trillion, rather than the $400 billion recently suggested by the IMF, the Bank of England and other
serious researchers. These new estimates contained no new “information”, apart from some simple extrapolations of the losses already
suffered by the hardest-hit segments of the credit markets on to other parts of the economy that so far had shown few signs of trouble.
This was, in other words, a perfect example of the self-justifying “reflexivity” identified by George Soros as the main cause of boom-
bust cycles in financial markets. But how much impact on the real economy are these self-justifying expectations
likely to have? Thus far, it seems that the answer is “mercifully little”, which raises the second possible reason for the
divergence between financial and economic realities these days. It is perfectly possible for financial conditions to keep
deteriorating and for bank shareholders to keep losing money, while real economic activity stabilises
and then improves. Even if institutions such as Fannie Mae are “technically insolvent”, as suggested last week by Bill Poole, a
famously outspoken former governor of the Federal Reserve, this does not necessarily mean that the real economy will suffer or that
these “insolvent” institutions either need to or ought to stop lending money, a point that Mr Poole himself made.
WNDI 2008 5
Spending DA Neg
1NC 2/2
Cleaner energy policies will derail the economy
The Energy Journal, 1/1/04
The possibility that R & D aimed at increasing energy efficiency diverts funds from economic growth is
consistent with the causal relations identified by the VECM. The elements of [alpha] indicate that the third cointegrating
relation loads into the [DELTA]GDP equation (Table 7). This result indicates that energy prices "Granger cause" GDP (Granger, 1969).
That is, higher energy prices slow GDP. This result is consistent with those generated by Hamilton (1983), who finds that
sharp increases in real oil prices "Granger cause" recessions in the US economy during the post war period. A causal relation that
runs from energy prices to GDP implies that carbon taxes and/or tradable permits will slow economic
activity. The negative macroeconomic effects of higher energy prices are reinforced by lower energy
use. The elements of [alpha] indicate that the second cointegrating relation loads into the [DELTA]GDP equation (Table 6). This
indicates that energy use "Granger causes" GDP. This result is consistent with analyses of the causal relation between US
economic activity and energy use that account for energy quality (Stern, 2000). A causal relation that runs from energy
use to GDP indicates that efforts to reduce carbon emissions by reducing energy use will slow economic
activity.
The dollar is irrelevant – single-policies cant cause a collapse and there is no impact
AP, July 8, 2008, Dollar woes cramp economy, US consumers, but the government’s options are limited
And some of the decline in the dollar's global role "is due to the foreign policy failures of the Bush
administration, not just to recent economic developments and policies," suggests Adam S. Posen, deputy
director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics and a former economist at the Federal Reserve
Bank of New York. In other words, some international investors unhappy with Bush's policy on Iraq or
toward other parts of the world might not wish to invest in American companies or buy U.S. bonds. Still, he
argues that the euro is unlikely to replace the dollar as the world's main reserve currency, and that the euro
may be at "a temporary peak of influence." David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's in New
York, says he envisions a day when the dollar and the euro will share billing as the world's reserve
currencies.
WNDI 2008 9
Spending DA Neg
Link – Policy-Decisions
The perception of your plan will kill consumer confidence, which is key to the economy
Daniel Gross, Moneybox columnist for Slate and the business columnist for Newsweek, July 13, 2008, Neither
Obama nor McCain can cure ailing economy
When consumers, whose collective actions constitute more than two-thirds of U.S. economic activity, are in the
dumps, they're less likely to spend, invest and take risks. But – and this is the second but – history has shown that
presidents do have the ability to affect the short-term national mood about the economy, as long as the
rhetoric is backed by action. "Whatever beneficial effects FDR or Reagan had on the economy had
more to do with their policies than with their pleasant demeanors," says Richard Scylla, a historian at New York
University. FDR's inspiring speeches and fireside chats in 1933 were accompanied by a profusion of policy experiments, many of which
worked.
WNDI 2008 10
Spending DA Neg
Energy efficiency crowds out investments and steals funds vital to economic growth.
The Energy Journal, 1/1/04
If present, demand-pull innovations that reduce energy intensity may not be free. Developing energy
efficient technologies consumes research and development funds, and using these funds to increase
energy efficiency during periods of higher prices may crowd out investments that would otherwise
speed economic growth. Goulder and Schneider (1999) evaluate these potential costs with a parameterized
model. Their results indicate that using a limited supply of R&D funds to increase energy efficiency
diverts funds from investments that spur economic growth and therefore, increases the gross costs of a
carbon tax.
WNDI 2008 11
Spending DA Neg
Link – Oil
Loss of oil power weakens US ability to force OPEC to trade in dollars.
What The Papers Say (Russia), 3/10/03
Four out of five international currency transactions and half of export transactions are carried out in
dollars; two thirds of the world's currency reserve are also in dollars. The foundations of this status is
petro-dollar transactions - if it is broken, the whole structure may fall apart like a house of cards. Since
euro and the EU zone have appeared, the situation has become even more abnormal, as it does not correspond to the real weight of the
US economy in the world system. At present, the United Europe has already overweighed the US on the world market; hence, from the
standpoint of investments, the European finance is much more attractive than the US.
Link – RPS
RPS will increase utility bills $3.1 billion
Competitive Enterprise Institute, September 23, 2002, http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,03215.cfm,
Accessed: September 1, 2004
According to a July 2000 study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, more than one-third of U.S.
consumers now have the option to purchase "green power" (electricity made wholly or partly from
renewables) if they are willing to pay premiums ranging from 0.4 cents to 20 cents per kilowatt-hour.
However, the study notes, less than one percent of utility customers choose "green power" when given
the chance. Presumably, "green power" premiums would be higher - and customer participation even more
dismal - if taxpayers and ratepayers were not already subsidizing renewable-based power. Should the U.S.
Government force companies to sell what consumers do not want to buy? Citing a recent EIA study,
proponents claim a 10-percent RPS will add "only" $3.1 billion to the nation's electricity bill in 2020.
By this pork-barrel logic, one can justify any consumer or taxpayer rip-off. That is the nature of corporate
welfare entitlements - they filch relatively small sums from millions of households to enrich a greedy few.
But EIA's estimate is really beside the point, because the Senate bill's RPS is the camel's nose under the tent -
a floor, not a ceiling. Once enacted, the RPS will strengthen the renewable lobby and grow like other
entitlements.
WNDI 2008 15
Spending DA Neg
New nuclear plants would be incredibly costly, requiring government expenditures in the
form of loans
The Record (Bergen County, NJ), August 4, 2003
However, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the prospects for a second
generation of nuclear reactors are equally abysmal. The CBO says the Department of Energy could
provide loan guarantees for up to 50 percent of the construction costs for seven new nuclear power plants, but
it also considers the risk of default on these loans to be very high - well above 50 percent. It is little
wonder that the three nuclear corporations that are attempting to site new nuclear reactors - Dominion
Resources, Entergy, and Exelon - have stated that the numbers for new nuclear construction just don't
add up.
The nuclear industry has a history of leaving economic disaster in its wake.
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, September 1, 2003
Others are less than pleased with the notion. Keith Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense points out that
nuclear power is still much more expensive than coal- or gas-fired power. The seven reactors at
Kashiwazaki cost more than $ 21 billion, according to Tepco records. Using that number, meeting the
230,000-metric-ton estimate of daily U.S. hydrogen needs would require more than 50 such plants, at a cost
of more than $ 1 trillion. Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat, believes that the loan guarantees proposed
to the nuclear industry in the new Energy bill could risk as much as $ 30 billion of public money. He
reminded his colleagues that when the Washington Public Power Supply System pulled the plug on its
ambitious, over-budget nuclear program in 1983, it mothballed several unfinished nuclear plants and
defaulted on $ 2.25 billion in bonds--at the time, the worst bond default in history, but positively Yugo-
sized compared to the potential fallout from a subsidized nuclear renaissance built around hydrogen-powered
cars.
Investment in nuclear power wastes money, taxes consumers, and prevents development of
profitable technologies.
The Sentinel (Stoke), 4/13/03
The North West MEP is a regular campaigner for environmental issues and welcomed last month's shutting
down of Calder Hall, at the plant in Cumbria. Liberal Democrat, Mr Davies, said it marked the beginning of
the end for an industry that had been "massively over-hyped and over-subsidised." He said: "When Calder
Hall opened in 1956, we were promised it would herald a new era of virtually free electricity. In practice
nuclear power has been hugely expensive, surviving because of enormous subsidies from the taxpayer
and extra charges on electricity bills." "The advocates of nuclear power have led us up a blind alley and
left us with a legacy of dangerous radioactive waste." He added: "If a fraction of the money spent on
developing nuclear power over the past fifty years had been devoted to alternative sources of energy,
Britain would now be leading the way with this technology." The MEP claimed that if 20 per cent of
Britain's arable land was devoted to energy crops the electricity produced could replace the nuclear
contribution entirely.
Japan proves that nuclear power is more expensive because of excessive maintenance and
security requirements.
The Japan Times, June 15, 2003
Nuclear advocates always say that Japan needs nuclear power so that it isn't dependent on foreign oil,
an argument that supposedly addresses both environmental and economic concerns. But last year's scandal
showed that, whatever dangers lie in foreign oil dependence, there are more immediate dangers
inherent in nuclear power. Economically, nukes are insupportable. It is extremely expensive to shut
them down and then start them up again, and if the scandal has taught us anything it's that nuclear
reactors need to be shut down someday.
WNDI 2008 17
Spending DA Neg
Link – Renewables
Renewables raise the cost of energy.
Robert Bradley, president of the Institute for Energy Research, adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute, Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not
“Green,” Cato Policy Analysis No. 280, August 27, 1997, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html
A multi-billion-dollar government crusade to promote renewable energy for electricity generation, now in its third decade, has resulted
in major economic costs and unintended environmental consequences. Even improved new generation renewable
capacity is, on average, twice as expensive as new capacity from the most economical fossil-fuel alternative
and triple the cost of surplus electricity. Solar power for bulk generation is substantially more uneconomic than the average;
biomass, hydroelectric power, and geothermal projects are less uneconomic. Wind power is the closest to the double-triple rule. The
uncompetitiveness of renewable generation explains the emphasis pro-renewable energy lobbyists on both the state and federal levels put
on quota requirements, as well as continued or expanded subsidies. Yet every major renewable energy source has drawn
criticism from leading environmental groups: hydro for river habitat destruction, wind for avian mortality, solar for desert
overdevelopment, biomass for air emissions, and geothermal for depletion and toxic discharges. Current state and federal efforts to
restructure the electricity industry are being politicized to foist a new round of involuntary commitments on ratepayers and taxpayers for
politically favored renewables, particularly wind and solar. Yet new government subsidies for favored renewable
technologies are likely to create few environmental benefits; increase electricity-generation overcapacity in most
regions of the United States; raise electricity rates; and create new "environmental pressures," given the extra
land and materials (compared with those needed for traditional technologies) it would take to significantly increase
the capacity of wind and solar generation.
Link – Renewables
A. Renewable transitions crush multiple sectors of the economy including the auto
industry.
Paul Roberts, energy expert and writer for Harpers, 2004, The End of Oil, pg. 270
To divest in any real way from fossil fuels, or at least to change how we use them, will entail enormous
changes for companies that produce hydrocarbons, those which consume large quantities of
hydrocarbons (such as utilities), and those whose products now burn hydrocarbons (such as auto-makers).
True, some players will make the transition profitably — oil companies, for example, are already investing in gas and
alternative-energy technologies — but many more will not. In some cases, the failure will stem from a simple lack of capacity to
change: the factors that gave a company an advantage in the old energy economy — its technology, its business relationships, the
expertise and experience of its work force — may simply not apply in the new energy economy. In many cases, however, companies
contemplating a move to the new economy must cope not only with their own weaknesses but with the
realization that the new energy economy may not be a very profitable place.
Link – CAFE
CAFÉ standards hurt competitiveness.
Andrew Kleit, Professor of Energy and Environmental Economics @ Penn State. CATO. “CAFÉ Changes by the
Numbers” January 10, 2003. Regulations Magazine. http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv25n3/v25n3-8.pdf
Foreign automakers view the fine as a tax. Thus, BMW and Mercedes-Benz, for example, have routinely
paid cafe fines. In contrast, American firms view the standards as binding because their lawyers have
advised them that, if they violate cafe, they would be liable for civil damages in stockholder suits. The
fear of civil suit is so strong that even Chrysler, which is owned by the German firm Daimler-Benz, will
not violate the limits. Because the “shadow tax” of the cafe constraint (the cost of complying with the
standards rather than paying the fine) can be much more than $55 per car/mpg, the effects of cafe
standards are much larger on U.S. automakers than foreign firms.
CAFÉ standards would cost the US auto industry over a billion dollars annually.
Andrew Kleit, Professor of Energy and Environmental Economics @ Penn State. CATO. “CAFÉ Changes by the
Numbers” January 10, 2003. Regulations Magazine. http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv25n3/v25n3-8.pdf
I found that increasing the cafe standards by 3 mpg would reduce annual profits at General Motors by
$433 million, at Ford by $455 million, and at Chrysler by $236 million. Total losses to U.S. automakers
would amount to $1.124 billion. In contrast, foreign manufacturers would see an increase in profits of
$260 million.
CAFÉ standards would hurt the auto industry by limiting production and eliminating jobs.
The Times (Shreveport, LA) October 5, 2003
Barthmuss said GM does not want to see federal regulations on fuel economy. GM and United Auto
Workers officials have said higher CAFE standards could eliminate jobs in the auto industry because
that would raise the cost of building vehicles and production could be cut. "We don't believe a
mandated approach to fuel consumption is the right approach," Barthmuss said. "It fails to take in factors
like safety equipment (which adds weight to the vehicle) and it takes away from consumer choice."
Link – Hybrids
Hybrids kills the auto sector and the economy
University of Michigan News Service, January 31, 2005, Increase in Hybrid Cars Possibly Threatens US
Jobs.
Vehicles with gas-electric hybrid and advanced diesel powertrains could capture nearly 11 percent the U.S. light vehicle market by 2009,
but because most of these new drive trains are being built overseas, a consumer shift to hybrids could cost Michigan,
Indiana and Ohio more auto manufacturing jobs. "Japan has a substantial lead in hybrid technology and production and Europe
leads in advanced diesels, so most of the supplier and assembly work for these new vehicles will probably take place
outside the United States, and that could cost over 200,000 U.S. jobs," said Patrick Hammett of the U-M Transportation
Research Institute's Office for the Study of Automotive Transportation (OSAT). "Fortunately, there are ways to limit these losses, if not
entirely avoid them." A new report issued by OSAT and the Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center and funded by the National
Commission on Energy Policy and the Michigan Environmental Council outlines possible scenarios for U.S. sales of vehicles with these
two alternative powertrains, models their costs of production and forecasts the likely job consequences of their increasing market share.
The study projects that hybrids and advanced diesels may account for as many as 1.8 million sales in reasonably robust market of 16.6
million light vehicles in 2009. The study, "Fuel Saving Technologies and Facility Conversion: Costs, Benefits and Incentives," also
examines the impact of a tax credit to encourage powertrain component and vehicle producers to locate some production and assembly
work in the United States. "These scenarios are just that—pictures of what might happen," says Hammett, who directed the study. "But
the farther out you go, say to 2012 or beyond, the more likely they become. So the real question is probably less whether they will
happen than it is when they will happen." The report considers three different market-growth scenarios in 2009 for vehicles with gas-
electric hybrid and advanced diesel powertrains. A normal growth scenario of about 3 percent would result in job losses of 38,000; a
growth rate of roughly 7 percent (requiring some shift in consumer preferences) would mean a loss of 131,000 jobs; and growth of
nearly 11 percent (requiring a strong shift in consumer sentiment) would result in 207,000 job losses. "These losses include current jobs
making vehicles with traditional powertrains that would be displaced by these new vehicles, as well as the failure to secure new jobs
making those new vehicles with these alternative powertrains," Hammett said. One way to limit job losses is to provide an incentive to
component and vehicle manufacturers to invest in U.S. production. A tooling and equipment investment tax credit for suppliers that
convert capacity to components for these new powertrains , and for manufacturers that convert capacity to assemble these vehicles,
could indeed yield powerful results, Hammett says. If even partially effective, a tax credit can lower job losses substantially in each
market scenario, he says. Moreover, depending on the scenario, additional government revenues associated with U.S. production over a
10-year period will reach five-to-eight times the cost of the credit. "This tax credit is not only revenue-neutral or even better, but it could
save one of every four U.S. jobs put at risk from imports of these newer powertrains and vehicles," said Daniel Luria of the MMTC.
According to Hammett, gas electric hybrid and advanced diesel powertrains present a bit of an "ecology vs. economy" dilemma. "Their
enhanced fuel economy and reduced emissions are important positives, but absent any effort, they will probably
have adverse economic consequences on the United States," he said. Luria adds there would be particularly adverse
economic consequences for Michigan, Indiana and Ohio, which together account for a substantial share of relevant automotive activity,
including 45 percent of vehicle assemblies and 88 percent of transmissions and diesel engines. SOURCE: U of M News Services
Carbon taxes send ripple effects throughout the economy by hurting labor supply.
Ian W. H. Perry, October 2003, Oxford Review of Economic Policy 19, 2003,
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:LjghhWTgEgsJ:www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-DP-03-
46.pdf+carbon+tax&hl=en
By increasing energy prices, carbon taxes drive up product prices throughout the economy, since
energy is an input in most production sectors; this leads to a slight reduction in real household wages
and labor supply. In general, the efficiency loss from this reduction in labor supply, or “tax-interaction effect,”
exceeds the benefits from the revenue-recycling effect, implying that carbon tax swaps increase rather than decrease the costs of
labor taxes. This finding is not surprising because, as explained below, it is entirely consistent with the familiar result in public finance
that the efficiency costs of narrow taxes (ignoring externalities) tend to exceed those of broad taxes on labor income.
Any Chinese rise will ensure major US-China conflict and East Asian instability.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. AND John J.
Mearsheimer is the distinguished service professor of political science at the University of Chicago. Policy
Foreign Policy, January/February 2005.
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=16538
China cannot rise peacefully, and if it continues its dramatic economic growth over the next few decades,
the United States and China are likely to engage in an intense security competition with considerable
potential for war. Most of China’s neighbors, including India, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Russia, and
Vietnam, will likely join with the United States to contain China’s power.
WNDI 2008 32
Spending DA Neg
Extinction.
John Steinbruner, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, chair of the committee on international security and
arms control of the National Academy of Sciences, Foreign Policy, December 22, 1997
That deceptively simple observation has immense implications. The use of a manufactured weapon is a singular event. Most of the damage occurs
immediately. The aftereffects, whatever they may be, decay rapidly over time and distance in a reasonably predictable manner. Even before a nuclear
warhead is detonated, for instance, it is possible to estimate the extent of the subsequent damage and the likely level of radioactive fallout. Such
predictability is an essential component for tactical military planning. The use of a pathogen, by contrast, is an extended process whose scope and timing
cannot be precisely controlled. For most potential biological agents, the predominant drawback is that they would not act swiftly or decisively enough to be
for a few pathogens - ones most likely to have a decisive effect and therefore the ones most likely to be
an effective weapon. But
contemplated for deliberately hostile use - the risk runs in the other direction. A lethal pathogen that could efficiently
spread from one victim to another would be capable of initiating an intensifying cascade of disease that
might ultimately threaten the entire world population. The 1918 influenza epidemic demonstrated the potential for a
global contagion of this sort but not necessarily its outer limit.
WNDI 2008 34
Spending DA Neg
Impact – General
Recession would cause wars worldwide
Bernardo V. Lopez, BusinessWorld, September 10, 1998
What would it be like if global recession becomes full bloom? The results will be catastrophic. Certainly,
global recession will spawn wars of all kinds. Ethnic wars can easily escalate in the grapple for dwindling
food stocks as in India-Pakistan-Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Ethiopia-Eritrea, Indonesia. Regional conflicts in
key flashpoints can easily erupt such as in the Middle East, Korea, and Taiwan. In the Philippines, as in some
Latin American countries, splintered insurgency forces may take advantage of the economic drought to
regroup and reemerge in the countryside. Unemployment worldwide will be in the billions. Famine can be
triggered in key Third World nations with India, North Korea, Ethiopia and other African countries as first
candidates. Food riots and the breakdown of law and order are possibilities.
Lopez continues
Unemployment in the US will be the hardest to cope with since it may have very little capability for
subsistence economy and its agrarian base is automated and controlled by a few. The riots and looting of
stores in New York City in the late '70s because of a state-wide brownout hint of the type of anarchy in the
cities. Such looting in this most affluent nation is not impossible. The weapons industry may also grow
rapidly because of the ensuing wars. Arms escalation will have primacy over food production if wars
escalate. The US will depend increasingly on weapons exports to nurse its economy back to health. This will
further induce wars and conflicts which will aggravate US recession rather than solve it. The US may depend
more and more on the use of force and its superiority to get its ways internationally. The public will rebel
against local monopolies. Anarchy and boycotts will be their primary weapons against cartels especially on
agricultural products such as rice and vegetables, which are presently in the hands of a few in most Third
World nations. Global recession will test the limits of human cooperation and sharing in the name of survival.
Grants and aids will decrease. Rescues and international funding for advocacy NGOs will disappear rapidly.
Coupled with disasters such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, climatic aberrations like the El Nino, global
recession will degrade a step further.
Impact – Environment
Economic collapse would cause environmental destruction.
Martin Lewis professor in the School of the Environment and the Center for International Studies at Duke
University. Green Delusions, 1992 p106
While most radical environmentalists claim that they would welcome the resulting global economic chaos,
its consequences would both impoverish the surviving communities and wreak ecological devastation.
The local autarky envisaged by the greens would force us back to something very similar to the early
medieval economy, one in which the vast majority of people lived in dire poverty. In fact, even in early
medieval times, more long-distance trade was conducted than eco-radicals would care to allow. As Fernand
Braudel (1990:121) writes in regard to Carolingian France: “It must be understood once and for all that no
economy of any size could have survived under the mortal regime of autarky.”
WNDI 2008 37
Spending DA Neg