Pro
We affirm the resolution: “Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase
its military presence in the Arctic.” To protect our national security, allies, and global stability.
First, to clarify:
Substantially increase - meaningful change that is much greater than what we have now
Military presence - support, infrastructure, bases, personnel, ice breakers
Arctic - arctic ocean and surrounding lands
The arctic is heating up in more ways than one. Garamone on April 5th finds
(Jim Garamone, 4-5-2023, "Arctic Heating Up Literally and as Scene of Strategic Competition," U.S.
Department of Defense, https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3353265/arcticheating-up-literally-and-as-scene-of-strategic-competition/)
The Arctic is heating up, both literally and figuratively, and the United States and its allies are working
together to address both aspects of this. Climate change is literally warming the Arctic; figuratively, the
region is becoming a theater of great power competition. "There's been so much change happening in the last 10 to 20
years with climate change driving increased activity, geopolitical change, also technological change [in the Arctic]," said Iris Ferguson, deputy
assistant secretary of defense for Arctic strategy and global resilience. Paratroopers drop onto a snow-covered field. Ferguson spoke of the
strategy in the Far North during a panel discussion at the Sea-Air-Space conference on Monday. Also on the panel were: Coast Guard Vice
Commandant Adm. Steven D. Poulin; Vice Adm. Angus Topshee, commander of the Royal Canadian Navy; and U.S. Navy Vice Adm. William
Houston, commander of Naval Submarine Forces.
The warming climate has opened trade passages formerly ice
choked. It opens areas to exploration, industry and, perhaps, settlement. The warming climate opens
the region to exploitation of its natural gas and oil fields and rare-earth deposits. The warming trend
also is "allowing our adversaries [to] have greater presence and access to the region," Ferguson said. "There's a
sense that we in the Pentagon also need to be thinking more proactively about what we need to operate in the theater, how we work closely
with our allies and partners." Since the beginning of the Cold War, the Arctic has been an avenue of approach to the homeland. Soviet bombers
and missiles would fly over the Arctic to strike America. The United States and Canada established the North American Aerospace Defense
Command and built radars and bases throughout the Far North to defend against such an onslaught. The Arctic remains a strategic approach to
the homeland. Even today, much of the U.S. missile defense infrastructure is there. Russia has staked out large claims in the Arctic, and even
China has declared itself to be "a near-Arctic state" in an effort to be relevant in the region. The United States and its allies must ensure they
have the right capabilities in the region to detect threats and operate. With the fall of the Soviet Union, there was the idea that the Arctic was
stable, Ferguson said. "The sense that the Arctic is stable is changing, it's becoming increasingly unstable," she
said. "So now, how [do] we collectively work together to ensure deterrence and how [do] we work together to ensure stability long term?." The
northern lights flare over tents. The U.S. military services and the combatant commands are working on Arctic strategy. Ferguson's office is
working with them and with allies and partners to craft a strategy to ensure a safe and secure region that remains peaceful. It is complicated.
Officials have to have the right domain awareness to detect threats; they have to understand the changing environment to figure out what
capabilities will be needed, she said. Troops need to exercise in the region, develop new tactics and equipment to operate there. Ferguson is
working on a new Defense Department Arctic strategy based on President Joe Biden's Arctic strategy released last year. With all the talk of
warming in the Arctic, it is still not warm. Temperatures regularly go to -40 degrees Fahrenheit, which changes the way engines operate, the
viscosity of oil, the amount of time a soldier can be exposed to the weather and much, much more. Ferguson noted that the climate is different
in different parts of the region with Finland's Arctic being cold and wet, while Alaska's is cold and dry. A little farther north, communications in
what's known as the High North are spotty, and infrastructure is sparse. Units operating in the region must bring all supplies with them. "The
strategic gets tactical really quick [in the Arctic]. It's a matter of life and death," Ferguson said. "You can't go and talk about strategies without
talking about some of the real tactical requirements of operating there. I think that's one of the most telling things I find about working this
issue."
Team Pro supports this resolution for the principle of stability, – there are 3 ways in
which we solve.
Contention 1 is Military Preparedness
Military presence requires icebreakers. Raspotnik 22 writes that,
Raspotnik, Andreas. “Without Icebreakers, Arctic Infrastructure Won’t Matter.” The Arctic Institute - Center for Circumpolar Security Studies, The Arctic Institute Center for Circumpolar Security Studies, 12 Apr. 2022, www.thearcticinstitute.org/without-icebreakers-arctic-infrastructure-wont-matter/. Accessed 14 Aug. 2023
// A&M AL
Infrastructure is a critical way for humans to engage with the natural environment in the Arctic region,
as it facilitates access, connection, inhabitation, and productivity. The Arctic Institute’s 2022 series on Infrastructure in
the Arctic investigates infrastructure as a critical point of analysis for considering human impacts and
needs in the Arctic, especially in its role as a mediator, or as an interface, between politics, government, people and the natural
environment. The planet is warming and ice is melting in the Arctic1) at an alarming rate. But contrary to what may seem like common sense, the United States’ building of new icebreakers
Regardless of humanity’s failures in the battle against climate change, there will
be a lot of ice to break in the Arctic2) for the foreseeable future and even melting ice3) poses significant danger to vessels. The United States is woefully behind
will not be waging yesterday’s war today.
its fellow Arctic States in building and maintaining a world-class fleet of icebreakers and, thanks to various issues4) and construction delays,5) it might be another five years or more until the
Coast Guard’s first new Polar Security Cutter (PSC)6) is fully operational and breaking ice in the Arctic. In the meantime, Arctic shipping will continue to increase,7) fish stocks will flow further
With all of this activity, the demand for Arctic
infrastructure will grow, especially deepwater ports capable of servicing the ships engaged in these
expanding fields. But without icebreakers, building all of this infrastructure is a bit like hosting a baseball
game without any bats. Icebreakers are key to the maritime transportation system and infrastructure of the Great
Lakes10) and New England,11) clearing the way for vital heating oil shipments and critical goods throughout both
regions. With planning and a bit of luck, Alaska will join the robust economic activity that these regions enjoy. There was a brief glimmer of
North,8) and continental shelves9) will continue to be exploited for more resources.
hope that this issue was being taken seriously in the Trump Administration when it released a seemingly potent 2020 memorandum12) on safeguarding U.S. national interests at both poles.
The memo breathed fresh life into the effort to accelerate the U.S. Coast Guard’s icebreaker acquisition program, while seeking bridging solutions to fill the gaps until that acquisition program
could be completed, including a novel effort to lease icebreakers13) from fellow Arctic State and strategic partner, Finland. Unfortunately, like many efforts, both good and bad, during that
Administration, they failed to “stick the landing”. The effort died with little result or change in trajectory. The U.S. Coast Guard’s plans to build a new fleet of heavy and medium icebreakers in
U.S. shipyards is a sound strategic decision and deserves sustained funding from Congress for the long-term. The United States must rebuild America’s heavy icebreaker shipyard capacity at all
costs. But, the lack of any sound bridging plan to begin consistent year-round icebreaker operations in the U.S. Arctic in 2022 is alarming. As an Arctic State and superpower, the United States
should not rely on one elderly heavy icebreaker,14) POLAR STAR, which is also committed to annual Antarctic operations that occupy all of its service life in a given year, and one medium aging
icebreaker,15) HEALY, which was designed primarily for scientific missions.
However, Dipane 21 concludes
James Di Pane. “U.S. Needs Icebreakers to Keep up with China and Russia in Arctic.” The Heritage Foundation, 2021, www.heritage.org/globalpolitics/commentary/us-needs-icebreakers-keep-china-and-russiaarctic#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20does%20not%20have%20any%20working%20icebreakers%20in%20U.S.,its%2030%2Dyear%20life%20expectancy. Accessed 22 Aug.
2023 // A&M AL
Icebreaker ships will help the U.S. remain competitive with Russia and China. The Coast Guard uses
them to access strategic and economic interests in the Arctic region. These ships are the most efficient and effective
tool for conducting research and maintaining access in the icy waters where these are valuable U.S. resources. But the federal
government has not invested in new icebreaker ships since the Healy was commissioned in 1999. The
U.S. does not have any working icebreakers in U.S.-claimed Arctic waters north of Alaska. The Coast
Guard’s icebreaking fleet has a total of two ships: the Polar Star and the Healy. The Polar Star,
commissioned more than four decades ago, has passed its 30-year life expectancy. It makes only one
annual trip to Antarctica to resupply the McMurdo Station. The Healy suffered an electrical fire while
on a mission in the Arctic in August 2020 and will not resume service until August 2021. In other words: One
ship has surpassed its intended lifespan, while the other has been incapacitated for one year.
Luckily, Yanchunas 09 confirms
Yanchunas, Don. “Special Report: Opening the Arctic – Professional Mariner.” Professionalmariner.com, 30 Nov. 2009,
professionalmariner.com/special-report-opening-the-arctic/. Accessed 12 Aug. 2023 // A&M AL
“We don’t have the icebreaking capacity on the Great Lakes that we have had historically,” Oberstar said. “Not only will this funding ensure that our nation’s vital
industries are supplied during the winter” construction
of this icebreaker will create jobs at U.S. shipyards and the
related supplier industries at a time when job creation is so vital. The Arctic and Great Lakes icebreaker proposals could end
up competing for funding, complicating matters for the Congressional Shipbuilding Caucus. “I think you would see those decoupled,” Harris said. “The shipyards that
would build them for the Arctic would be on the East or West Coast or the Gulf, and the ones that would build for the Great Lakes would be the yards that are on
the Great Lakes. They’re just too different. If
the U.S. builds more polar icebreakers, Alaska wouldn’t be the only state
to benefit. “It would be a great economic stimulus project for the shipyards and suppliers,” Kenny said.
Restoring investment can revive naval readiness. Navarro 20
Navarro, Peter. “American Shipbuilding: An Anchor for Economic and National Security.” Defense News, Defense News, 30 Oct. 2020,
www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/10/30/american-shipbuilding-an-anchor-for-economic-and-national-security/. Accessed 14
Aug. 2023 // A&M AL
Restoring investment in shipbuilding will leave a wake of prosperity for our economic security and
send waves of strength for our national security. Expansion in capacity and capabilities of our
shipyards will again incentivize commercial shipbuilding, increasing industry efficiency and creating
competition, eventually lowering the overall cost of production. This must be our policy goal. If we commit to a revitalization of our
shipyards, in just a few years, scores of vessels could again make maiden voyages from American
yards built at the hands of thousands of American steelworkers, pipefitters, welders and electricians — a renaissance of one of our nation’s most integral
industries. This would mean thousands of new jobs in Maine, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida and throughout the Gulf Coast. This means secure waters
around Greenland, the Bering Strait and the South China Sea as well as the straits of Bab el-Mandeb, Malacca and Hormuz.
Crucially, Trevithick 23 notes that,
Trevithick, Joseph. “Alarming Navy Intel Slide Warns of China’s 200 Times Greater Shipbuilding Capacity.” The Drive, The Drive, 11 July 2023,
www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/alarming-navy-intel-slide-warns-of-chinas-200-times-greater-shipbuilding-capacity. Accessed 15 Aug. 2023 // A&M AL
AU.S. Navy briefing slide is calling new attention to the worrisome disparity between Chinese and U.S. capacity to build new naval vessels and
total naval force sizes. The data compiled by the Office of Naval Intelligence says that a growing gap in fleet sizes is being helped by China's
shipbuilders being more than 200 times more capable of producing surface warships and submarines. This
underscores longstanding concerns about the U.S. Navy's ability to challenge Chinese fleets, as well as sustain its forces afloat, in any future
high-end conflict. In a statement to The War Zone, the U.S. Navy has confirmed the authenticity of the slide, seen in full below, which has been
circulating online.
In the Arctic and all across the world, naval readiness is crucial to preventing wars that
kills millions.
Cropsey 18 [Seth Cropsey is the Director of the Center for American Seapower at the Hudson
Institute, former assistant to the Secretary of Defense and naval officer; Bryan McGrath is the former
Deputy Director of the Center for American Seapower at the Hudson Institute and naval officer, M.A. in
Political Science from the Catholic University of America; January 2018; “Maritime Strategy in a New Era
of Great Power Competition”;
https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.hudson.org/files/publications/HudsonMaritimeStrategy.pdf; Hudson
Institute; Recut-Lowell-TT]
Introduction
As a maritime nation, naval power is the U.S.’s most useful means of responding to distant crises,
preventing them from harming our security or that of our allies and partners, and keeping geographically remote
threats from metastasizing into conflicts that could approach our borders. A maritime defense demands a maritime strategy. As
national resources are increasingly strained the need exists for a strategy that makes deliberate choices to connect ends (security) with means (money and the fleet it builds). This paper
After several decades of unchallenged world
leadership, the United States once again faces great power competition, this time featuring two other world powers.
China and Russia increasingly bristle under the constraints of the post-World War II systems of global trade,
finance, and governance largely created by the United States and its allies, systems that the United States has protected and sustained to the
examines the need for a maritime strategy, discusses options, and offers recommendations for policy makers.
Both China and Russia are demonstrably improving the quality of their
armed forces while simultaneously acting aggressively toward neighboring countries, some of which are US treaty allies.
Additionally, both nations are turning their attention to naval operations far from their own coasts, operations designed to
advance national interests that are often in tension with those of the United States.1 For the past several decades, US national security
strategy has not had to contend with great powers. Instead, it has concerned itself primarily with building alliances
designed to manage regional security more efficiently by proxy, while devoting increasingly more resources to
homeland defense and intelligence aimed at stemming acts of terror by Islamic radical organizations and their followers. To the extent that the US position of
leadership in the world was not threatened, this strategy was reasonable, if imperfectly pursued. Such a strategy will no longer suffice in a world of
great power competition, especially one in which powers of considerable—but unequal—strength are opposed. Unbalanced multi-polarity is an
especially unstable condition, and the United States is not effectively postured to manage that instability. Henry Kissinger divides the concept of world order into two
economic and security benefit of its citizens and the citizens of other nations.
parts: a normative system that defines acceptable action, and a ‘balance of power’ arrangement that punishes the breach of such conventions2. As the underlying balance of forces shifts,
states with different ideas of international order gain the power to reshape the system. Thucydides’ ancient insight holds true – the rise in power of one actor threatens all others. Where such
threat exists and if the balance of power between states or coalitions approaches equilibrium, a “Cold War” between competing ideological camps occurs. In an unbalanced system, the
stronger side is tempted to strike its weaker opponent while the balance of forces is favorable. Unbridled competition for supremacy defined Europe during its bloodiest periods. Europe’s 16th
and 17th century religious wars between Catholics and Protestants and the global 20th century struggles between totalitarian ideologies and democracy both represent the natural end-state
of unbalanced multipolar systems. Without norms to restrain states and force to uphold these norms, violence is very likely. Today’s international system is moving toward unbalanced multipolarity. Unfortunately, the United States is not currently prepared to manage such an international environment. If Americans want to preserve their nation’s secure and prosperous position
as the world’s great power, the United States must begin now to prepare strategically for what it will inevitably face. Otherwise, it will ultimately be forced into an increasingly limited number
of unattractive options to sustain its position of leadership. There is little evidence that the people of the United States wish to see our position in the world diminished. The 2016 Presidential
Election raised important questions about the degree to which globalization has served the interests of everyday Americans (and their perceptions thereof), while the two dominant US
political parties have moved toward more protectionist policies, at least as articulated by their nominees. Opinion polling indicates the divided nature of the American public on issues like free
trade and sustained foreign commitments.3 However, Americans remain cognizant of threats to the United States, and favor maintaining America’s position as a great power by sustaining a
strong military.4 Moreover, it would be difficult to identify meaningful numbers of Americans who would sacrifice national security in favor of increased social spending, despite the continuing
rise in non-discretionary spending in the federal budget. Americans understand that the US position of world leadership benefits the nation’s economy, its security, its allies, and the
international order that has been the object of US foreign and defense policy for over a century. They know that their lives would be diminished if this position of global leadership were
surrendered to an adversary or group of them. The paradox of the American experience is that the US is not simply a great power – it is an exceptional power, for which ideals count as much
as strength. The American public, despite its aversion to foreign commitments, can rise to the occasion and respond to clear threats, as it has in both World Wars, the Cold War, and after
September 11th. The job of the policymaker, therefore, is to ensure America remains a great power, so that when the occasion arises, it can act as an exceptional power. It is critical then, for
advancing America's position in the face of growing great power
competition. This monograph asserts that a strategy to support such a goal would necessarily be maritime in nature,
leveraging this nation’s great geographical advantages in the service of its national power. Sharing land borders with only
two nations—both of whom are friendly to the United States—and separated from other great powers by vast oceans,
the United States enjoys a security position quite unlike that of any other nation. For over a century, it has been the unspoken (but
doggedly pursued) national security aim of the United States to ensure that no power rise to prominence in Asia or Europe so as to
occupy a position there as dominant as the United States’ position in the Western Hemisphere. Were this to occur,
not only could that nation then lock the United States out of the resources and activity of that region, but it could
also then eventually turn its attention to challenging our position in the Western Hemisphere.5 Underlying this approach is the reality that most
the world’s activity does not occur in our own hemisphere, but in Asia and Europe. American interests in these regions— political, diplomatic, economic, and
US political leaders to begin thinking more strategically about protecting and
military—are considerable and growing. Protecting and sustaining those interests must remain a priority of American policy, and maritime strategy is an effective tool in doing so. Maritime
strategy is a subset of grand strategy, and the relationship between the two is ably defined by Professor John B. Hattendorf of the Naval War College: “In its broadest sense, grand strategy is
the comprehensive direction of power to achieve particular national goals. Within those terms, maritime strategy is the direction of all aspects of national power that relate to a nation’s
interests at sea. The navy serves this purpose, but maritime strategy is not purely a naval preserve. Maritime strategy involves the other functions of state power that include diplomacy; the
safety and defence of merchant trade at sea; fishing; the exploitation, conservation, regulation and defence of the exclusive economic zone at sea; coastal defence; security of national
borders; the protection of offshore islands; as well as participation in regional and world-wide concerns relating to the use of oceans, the skies over the oceans and the land under the seas.6 It
is wholly appropriate for the world’s dominant naval power—separated from its widely-flung interests by thousands of miles of open ocean—to develop and execute coherent maritime
strategy. In a time of re-emerging great power competition, it is essential. The nation’s current maritime strategy 7 is, unfortunately, not up to the task. It focuses insufficiently on great power
competition; it does not recognize the rise in importance of conventional forces in deterring great power war; it does not provide a theory of conventional deterrence appropriate to great
is too small and short on effective
logistic support; it does not place sufficient value on naval partnerships with geographically important
nations which may not be traditional partners; and it is silent on the need for the nation to invest in a maritime industrial base that can enable an appropriate strategy. This monograph
urges new thinking about maritime strategy, a strategy compatible with the United States’ responsibilities as the leader of the free world, as well as the world’s premier political,
military, economic, and diplomatic power. Such a strategy would seek to protect and sustain those leadership positions in the face of
renewed great power competition, competition that largely subsumes other, lesser security concerns. There will be those who view
this approach as a return to “Cold War” strategic thinking, and we do not shy from this comparison. The United States acted for decades as a coherent strategic actor when
faced with expansionist Soviet totalitarianism, and it must act with equal coherence and resolve to contest China and Russia’s
brands of aggressive mercantilism, regional expansion, and contempt for established global order. There will be
powers and their likely objectives; it does not suggest a posture for naval forces that acts as an effective deterrent; its derived force structure
those who evaluate our suggestions in this paper and conclude that the nation cannot afford it, that the expense associated with moving to a maritime grand strategy would imbalance the
traditional “ends, ways, means” approach to the making of strategy. And while the ends, ways, means approach is generally relevant to military and operational strategy, it is unsuited to the
making of grand strategy for one very important reason. Unlike subordinate levels of strategy, grand strategy re-allocates, realigns, and re-orients a nation’s “means” to serve strategic “ends”.
Military strategy starts with the proposition that there is a certain resource level available to pursue its ends. Grand strategy starts with the sum of the nation’s output capacity, and then
determines how it can most effectively be allocated to the achievement of strategic goals. Short of war itself, there is nothing in American history that causes strategic realignment more
We argue here for a new theory of deterrence, one that
revises the Cold War approach in which the Soviet Union was deterred from large-scale conventional attack
by the threat of nuclear escalation. Under that rubric, one could justifiably say that America’s conventional deterrent was dependent on its strategic deterrent.
Today, the decapitating “bolt from the blue” strike is even more remote than it was in the Cold War, and to the extent that
nuclear exchange between great powers is conceivable, it is far more likely to flow from conventional conflict that has gone awry.
Therefore, to deter nuclear war, we must deter conventional war. No aspect of American military power
will be more critical to deterring either nuclear or conventional super-power war than seapower.
reliably than a change in Administration, and we wish to be part of that dialogue.
Contention 2 is Terrorism
Contention 2 is Terrorism
Contention 3 is Infrastructure
Research
Increasing arctic military presence bolsters research projects The Wilson center 20 reports
Wilson Center, xx, xx-xx-xxxx, Arctic Research Infrastructure and Capabilities in North America,
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/arctic-research-infrastructure-and-capabilities-north-america,
accessed: 7-20-2023, //EL
Bettina Ovgaard of the Danish Joint Arctic Command said “the Arctic is getting very hot in all kinds of manners.” In addition to rising
[in] temperatures and international collaboration, military interests have increased across the region. More visits from
military vessels “basically [which] means that there will be more platforms to do research from, in a way, if you can
access them.” By sharing icebreakers, tools and technologies with other scientists and military actors alike,
researchers are able to cut costs and maintain operations despite insufficient infrastructure.
Such research is important, Doe 22 explains
Doe, 22, 4-18-2022, DOE Arctic Research Improves Understanding of Climate Change, Energy.gov,
https://www.energy.gov/arctic/articles/doe-arctic-research-improves-understanding-climate-change,
accessed: 8-23-2023, //EL
Data collected from Arctic tundra, forests and permafrost areas will improve understanding of how climate
change affects Arctic vegetation. Experiments conducted near Utqiaġvik and Nome shed light on how water, nitrogen, carbon, and
energy interact. Understanding these links between land, precipitation, and vegetation enables scientists
to better predict how plants—and the Earth’s ecosystems--will respond to future climate change. For
example, warmer summers and increased permafrost melting can lead colder water to flow into Arctic streams, affecting vegetation and the
Lab researchers hope to better understand if and where the Arctic becomes wetter
or drier, and the implications for ecosystems throughout Alaska and around the world. By gathering and
analyzing the data from these and other Arctic-related projects, scientists are working to help us answer questions that
are vital to our energy future. Making decisions about our future energy generation, transmission and
delivery begins with accurate forecasting and data.
wildlife depending on it.
That’s why the department of defense 21 writes
United States Department of State, 21, 7-30-2021, Science Speaks: Arctic Research,
https://www.state.gov/dipnote-u-s-department-of-state-official-blog/science-speaks-arctic-research/,
accessed: 7-21-2023, //EL
understanding of Arctic climate can help improve navigation, transportation,
extreme weather forecasting, and natural resource management
global communities can
develop more informed climate adaptation, mitigation, and resilience strategies.
The
importance of Arctic science, especially in the context of the climate crisis, has been reflected in U.S.
government action.
Paired with technology tools like seafloor mapping, remote sensing, and computer modeling, a comprehensive
in the short-term. In the long-term,
Because women, girls, and gender diverse persons experience the impacts of climate change
differently than men and boys, additional research opportunities exist to better understand gendered impacts specific to the Arctic. But gender equality can also be improved in the conduct of Arctic research, as efforts seek to overturn a masculine connotation that has plagued Arctic exploration since expeditions of the 18th and 19th centuries (the makeup of Sheldon’s research team is a 21st century case-in-point).
The United States is a member of the Arctic Council and a participant in its projects, including those related to gender. Arctic science cooperation is one of many topics addressed by various international agreements related to the region. Agencies support robust Arctic science programs, ranging from basic research to efforts supporting Arctic community resilience,
sustainable economies, and ocean resource management. (Sheldon’s research trip was even said to be funded by one of these programs!) And that’s just a sampling of ongoing efforts.
The impact is climate change- without proper climate adaptation strategies Taylor 19 writes
Chris Taylor-19, The Catastrophe: Climate change and the 22nd Century,
https://mashable.com/feature/climate-change-future-22nd-century, 11-13-2022 //PCDS Kaleb
climate change
will kill an estimated 150 million more people
for every single degree celsius of warming,
To take one minor aspect of The Catastrophe: air pollution, which
is already making worse(opens in a new tab),
worldwide
researchers estimate. This, the author points out, is the death toll of 25 Holocausts or two World War IIs. Human activity has already locked in one degree of
warming compared to pre-industrial levels. Two, three, or four more may come along before you do.
Spektor 19 continues
Brandon Specktor-19, 6-4-2019, 19, Human Civilization Will Crumble by 2050 If We Don't Stop Climate
Change Now, New Paper Claims, https://www.livescience.com/65633-climate-change-dooms-humans-by2050.html, 11-15-2022 //PCDS Kaleb
by 2050
ice sheets
vanish; brutal droughts kill
the planet plunges into a feedback loop of
ever-hotter, -deadlier conditions.
The authors provide one particularly grim scenario that begins with world governments "politely ignoring" the advice of scientists and the will of the public to decarbonize the economy (finding alternative energy sources), resulting in a global temperature increase 5.4 F (3 C)
the year
. At this point, the world's
many of the trees in the Amazon rainforest (removing one of the world's largest carbon offsets); and
ever
"Thirty-five percent of the global land area, and 55 percent of the global population, are subject to more than 20 days a year of lethal heat conditions, beyond the threshold of human survivability," the authors hypothesized. Meanwhile, droughts, floods
and wildfires regularly ravage the land. Nearly one-third of the world's land surface turns to desert. Entire ecosystems collapse, beginning with the planet's coral reefs, the rainforest and the Arctic ice sheets. The world's tropics are hit hardest by these new climate extremes, destroying the region's agriculture and turning more than 1 billion people into refugees. This mass movement
Armed conflicts over resources,
"the end of human civilization
of refugees — coupled with shrinking coastlines and severe drops in food and water availability — begin to stress the fabric of the world's largest nations, including the United States.
The result
, according to the new paper,
is
"outright chaos" and perhaps
global
as we know it."
perhaps culminating in nuclear war,
are likely.