NDI 4Wk Sophomores - Antarctic NEG
Copenhaver & Weber
Solvency
Environment Turn
Hurt Enviro -- Wastewater from research base pollutes
Holland 3/4/14 [Jennifer S., Degrees in English and Conservation Biology
Contributing Writer for National Geographic magazine, Antarctic Research Bases Spew Toxic
Wastes Into Environment, National Geographic Daily News,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140304-antarctica-research-toxic-adeliepenguins-mcmurdo-station-science/] Yi
Antarctica is one of the most pristine environments on Earth, but it’s wrestling with a
pollution problem. And the very people who are working hardest to protect the continent are
responsible.¶ Across Antarctica, wastewater from dozens of research bases, housing up to 5,000 people at a
time, mostly scientists, is releasing nasty chemicals into the environment—and into penguins and
other wildlife.¶ The most recent culprit: a toxic flame retardant called
Hexabromocyclododecane, or HBCD.¶ It’s commonly used in insulation, building materials, thermoplastics, and
research equipment, including computers.¶ Da Chen, an ecotoxicologist from Southern Illinois University,
and some marine science colleagues recently tested for HBCD at the U.S. research base
McMurdo Station, on the southern tip of Ross Island, and at a New Zealand base nearby, using samples from dust
and sewage sludge.¶ The scientists also tested wildlife tissue as well as sediments from the area
where wastewater from the two bases—water containing sewage, organic and inorganic material, toxins, silt, pathogens,
pharmaceuticals—spills into McMurdo Sound.¶ HBCD was present everywhere the scientists looked: in dust
from the stations, in the sediment, and in the tissue of the animals, which ranged from Adélie penguins and fish to sponges and
marine worms.¶ Not surprisingly,
the sediment nearest the wastewater source had the highest HBCD
contamination. But what was unexpected is just how high the levels were—rivaling those in
some rivers near highly urbanized areas in the U.S. and Europe.¶ The scientists reported their findings at
the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry meeting late last year, but they’ve gotten little press coverage.¶ How Big a
Threat?¶ Though no one’s yet sure how much HBCD penguins and other Antarctic animals can tolerate or what it does to them ,
in
rodents and in fish the chemical has been shown to disrupt thyroid hormones, which affect
metabolism and brain development.¶ The levels found in the animals in the recent study don’t appear to have caused
problems, but some scientists are concerned nonetheless.¶ “We suspect cold climate conditions may prevent HBCD from
degrading,” Chen says, so the chemical may linger, presenting an ongoing environmental threat.¶ Andrea Kavanagh, who leads the
Pew Charitable Trusts’ Global Penguin Conservation program, says it may be too early to judge the toll of the chemical on wildlife
because of the way it acts in the body.¶ “Flame retardants in particular are deposited in fatty tissue, and they bioaccumulate,” she
says, “meaning the chemical persists and continues to build up in the body faster than it is eliminated or broken down.”¶ Kavanagh
says previous research had found other flame retardants—now-banned brominated compounds that were used in electronics and
upholstered furniture—in wildlife near McMurdo Station's wastewater outflow.¶ “No protocol was established to prevent it from
happening again,” she says.¶ An Overlooked Problem¶ More than 30 countries maintain some 70 research bases across Antarctica,
housing anywhere from 1,000 to 5,000 residents. Tourists visit the bases too.¶ Wastewater
treatment methods vary
widely from station to station. Some don’t do any treatment at all. Many use a basic process known as
maceration, which breaks large sediment (like human waste) into small bits that can be pumped out but does nothing to remove
chemicals.¶ Some stations have implemented better systems in the past decade, though efforts
have been focused
more on killing microorganisms than on cleaning up chemicals.¶ And little is known about how long such
things as pharmaceuticals and personal care products persist or how they affect wildlife.¶ “Most people, including many scientists,
believe long-range transport of pollutants from the Southern Hemisphere is the main contamination source for Antarctica,” says
Chen. “Contamination from local sources is greatly overlooked.”
Maintenance Issue: Energy Use Costly and Enviro RIsk
Tin, et al. ‘09, [Tina, freelance environmental consultant who has been working on climate
change, renewable energy and Antarctic environmental issues; Masters in Engineering and a
Ph.D. in Geophysics, she started her career by writing scientific articles on climate change and
the impacts of human activities on the Antarctic environment, Energy efficiency and renewable
energy under extreme conditions: Case studies from Antarctica, Renewable Energy, Renewable
Energy: An International Journal, 10/14,
http://www.asoc.org/storage/documents/Meetings/ATCM/XXXIII/tin_et_al.pdf] Yi
In this article, we focus on energy use in Antarctica associated with science and its supporting logistical activities. At research
stations, electricity generators provide the energy needed
for science equipment, lighting, space heating,
water pumping and purification, and waste systems. Gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel are also used to power
aircraft, ships, boats, and land based vehicles. Many Antarctic stations are isolated and inaccessible for nine
months of the Antarctic winter due to sea-ice cover and a single ship visit each year is often
the only opportunity to resupply the stations with food, equipment and fuel. A few stations have also been
constructed inland, over 1000 km away from the coast. In some cases, the resupply of fuel, equipment and personnel is performed
by overland vehicles, which undertake roundtrip voyages of 2–3 weeks at a time. For example, US’s Amundsen-Scott South Pole
station, which is located far inland, has, until recently, been resupplied completely by aircraft from McMurdo station, which is
situated on the coast. This has resulted in the price of fuel being more than seven times higher at South Pole than at McMurdo [3].
Transporting fuel and oil to Antarctica is therefore a costly and sometimes risky exercise. Fuel
spills have occurred in the past due to the particular difficulties in pumping fuel ashore and the fragility of the
bulk fuel tanks and fittings in the frigid temperatures, although the use of double skinned fuel tanks and
improved safety procedures has greatly reduced the problem. The fuel requirements of a research station range from several
hundred thousand to several million liters per year depending on the activities, the length of the open season, staff size and the
diligence of onsite personnel. Most stations have been designed to accommodate up to approximately 50 people, while the larger
stations can accommodate 100–200 people, the largest permanent station in Antarctica, US’s McMurdo station, has power
requirements of 16,000 MWh/yr to provide for a peak population of 1000 people in the summer and a winter population of 250 (See
Fig. 3). McMurdo also serves as the primary logistics hub of the US Antarctic Program, where multiple small research camps are
originated and supplied by air or overland. At McMurdo nearly 5 million liters of fuel are used annually for electricity production and
additional fuel is needed for heating [3]. The Australian stations, Casey, Mawson and Davis are also relatively large stations, serving
as logistical hubs for field activities in the East Antarctic region. Combined, they can accommodate up to 200 people in the summer
and 62 in the winter. By the year 2000, these three stations were using 2.1 million liters of diesel fuel annually to provide power and
heating. On a smaller scale, South Africa’s SANAE IV station which was designed to accommodate up to 80 people in the summer
and 10 people in the winter has an annual diesel consumption of about 300,000l. During winter, about 72 kW of power is needed to
keep the station at a tempera- ture of 18 �C, and the power needed for heating can more than double during very cold periods [4].
The fuel for SANAE IV is transported from Cape Town and transportation and logistical costs increase the price of the fuel to
approximately three times that of the purchase price [5].
-round, and, in the future, may open its doors in the winter and accommodate up to 12 people.¶
Cyber terrorism Turn
The U.S. is very susceptible to a terrorist attack
Crabtree 12 [ Susan, White house correspondant for White house examiner, Questia
online trusted research, http://www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-18568450/cyberspacea-terrorist-frontier] Schloss
A century ago it was common knowledge that an enemy only had to locate the water hole of its adversary's horses to incapacitate
an entire army with a single vial of poison. Now, the
multidimensional infrastructure of the United
States is similarly vulnerable to attacks that can travel through wires and cables and
into the most vital U.S. computer networks. The information revolution has fathered a dangerous child.
Known as cyberterrorism or informational warfare, this new type of strategic attack might
come from any whiz kid or foreign national with access to the Internet, someone who
is knowledgeable about the operation of intricate computer systems and has a little
ingenuity "This is a cheap communications-intelligence tool that can by employed by
small groups, but that used to be in the hands only of the superpowers -- the KGB and the U.S.
intelligence operations," says Frank Cillufo, a senior analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. The
threat has been a concern since before Ronald Reagan's first term in the White House but only recently has prompted serious action.
On July 15, amid the fury over the Filegate and "Big Brother" computer scandals, President Clinton issued an executive order calling
for creation of a Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection to prepare to defeat this new type of aggression. The FBI will lead a
rapid-response task force to prevent and respond to "terrorist" attacks on US. computers and communications. Virtually
every element of the infrastructure is susceptible. Clinton identified threats to the defense
and the economic security of the United States including telecommunications,
electrical-power systems, gas and oil storage and transportation, banking and finance,
all elements of common-carrier transportation, water-supply systems and emergency
services including medical, police, fire and rescue. Cyber experts include more specific
targets such as Wall Street trading floors, air-traffic-control computers, power grids
and defense systems. The creation of the commission follows increased tensions about terrorist aggressions and the
number of hackers both foreign and domestic who are tapping into sensitive military and civil systems. A recent GAO report found
that more than 250,000 intrusions were made into the Pentagon's systems of "highly
sensitive unclassified information" via the global computer network, but only one in
150 was actually detected. Although the United States has not experienced a
coordinated assault, cyber threats have occurred in isolated cases. In January, a Russian national pleaded
guilty to his role in a scheme to penetrate computers at Citibank's London branch and divert more than $2. …
There have been cyber attacks on Antarctic research station and more are to
come
Poulsen 04 [ Kevin, Former Cyber Hacker, August 14, South Pole 'cyberterrorist' hack
wasn't the first, The register,
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/19/south_pole_hack/] Schloss
It's a tale Tom Clancy might have written. From their lair in distant Romania, shadowy
cyber extortionists
penetrate the computers controlling the life support systems at a Antarctic research
station, confronting the 58 scientists and contractors wintering over at the remote
post with the sudden prospect of an icy death. After some twists and turns, the
researchers are saved in the fourth act by an international law enforcement effort led
by FBI agents wielding a controversial, but misunderstood, federal surveillance law.
That's the story behind an intrusion into the network at the National Science
Foundation's Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station in May of last year, as it's been told by the FBI
and the US Attorney General. But did it actually happen that way? The attack itself was real enough. On May
3rd, network administrators for US Antarctic Program and the South Pole Station
received an anonymous e-mail with the subject line "South Pole Station Servers
HACKED." "This is a message from earth to earth, do you copy?," the -mail began. The message demanded money, and
threatened to sell information stolen from the network "to another country," according to the FBI. To establish their bona fides, the
intruders attached a sample of data lifted from the South Pole network. Network administrators quickly took the compromised
system offline and began forensics, while FBI computer crime experts traced the demand letter to a cyber café in Romania - a
country that exports hacker extortion schemes the way Nigeria produces Internet advance fee scams. Agents zeroed in on two
suspects who were already targets of FBI investigations in Mobile, Alabama and Los Angeles, California for similar protection rackets,
and the pair were quickly rolled up by Romanian law enforcement. The matter "is now pending prosecution in Romania," says FBI
spokesman Joe Parris. But did the intruders really endanger the lives of the 58 scientists and contractors? Could they have shut off
the heat at a time of year when aircraft don't dare to land for anything short of a medical emergency? The most dramatic element of
the South Pole story was absent from the FBI's first public release on the attack in July of last year. That account - which has since
been scrubbed from the FBI's website - underscored the
importance of the Internet to scientists living at
the South Pole station, describing connectivity as "a lifeline" to the outside world. But
that's as far as it went. The hacked life support system first crept into the tale last February, in testimony by FBI cyber chief Keith
Lourdeau to a Senate subcommittee conducting hearings on "cyber terrorism." "During May, the temperature at the South Pole can
get down to 70 degrees below zero Fahrenheit; aircraft cannot land there until November due to the harsh weather conditions,"
says Lourdeau. "The
compromised computer systems controlled the life support systems for
the 50 scientists." (The FBI's Parris said he hadn't seen Lourdeau's Senate testimony, and was therefore not able to comment on it.)
Lourdeau took pains in his testimony to point out that the FBI still has not seen anything that qualifies as cyber terrorism under the
bureau's definition of the term. But last month Attorney
General John Ashcroft showed less reticence
in describing the South Pole hacks as "a cyber-terrorist threat" in a 29-page Justice Department
report meant to highlight, through dozens of examples, the importance of the controversial USA Patriot Act, which he claimed had
aided agents tracking the alleged cyber terrorists' email. "The hacked computer ... controlled the life support systems for the South
Pole Station that housed 50 scientists 'wintering over' during the South Pole's most dangerous season," reads the Justice
Department report. "Due in part to the quick response allowed by [the USA Patriot Act], FBI agents were able to close the case
quickly with the suspects' arrest before any harm was done to the South Pole Research Station." Memo: 'No Critical System
Corrupted' When Newsweek examined the Justice report last month, the NSF disputed the role the USA Patriot Act played in the
Romanian investigation. But spokesman Peter West says the Foundation will not otherwise not comment on the South Pole
intrusion. Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo didn't return a phone call inquiring about the description of events in the
Justice report. But an internal assessment of the attack by NSF senior staff, intended to explain the intrusion to the NSF's inspector
general and obtained by SecurityFocus under the Freedom of Information Act, appears at odds with the Justice Department's
version. For starters, by the time the suspects were arrested, the compromised system had already been secured -- the arrests were
apparently not responsible for preventing harm to the station. And as described in the memo, released as a partially-redacted draft,
the incident was something less than a cyber terror attack to begin with, and prompted a measured response from network
administrators. "Given the fact that no financial records or systems were compromised, no safety or loss of life was threatened, and
no critical system corrupted" by the Romanian hackers, "we need to balance legitimate security needs with the legitimate needs of
our scientists at the Pole," the memo reads. The assessment noted that, at the time of the Romanian intrusion, the South
Pole's network was less secure than other NSF sites "purposely to allow for our scientists at this remotest
of locations to exchange data under difficult circumstances." Indeed, the station was no stranger to hack
attacks when the would-be extortionists struck. Other documents show that less than two
months earlier the NSF's security team was plunged into a similar fire drill when a
computer intruder named "PoizonB0x" penetrated the primary and backup data
acquisition servers for a radio telescope at the station called the Degree Angular Scale Interferometer
(DASI), which measures properties of the cosmic microwave background radiation -- the afterglow of the Big Bang. The intruder,
rated a prolific website defacer by tracking site Zone-H, used his moment of cosmic access to erect a webpage on the servers
proclaiming, "I love my angel Laura."
Many of these systems are connected to the internet and run on commonly
understood operating systems using well-known, standard communications protocols.
In many cases, access to these systems is not controlled as tightly as expected given
their potential impact on life and safety.
A cyber terrorist attack could have devastating impacts--- national panic
US Government Advisory Board Executive Writers Bureau 09 [ Info Security,
http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/view/5217/cyberterrorism-a-look-into-thefuture/] Schloss
A concerted, focussed
cyberterrorism attack on these systems could have a devastating
effect on public safety and confidence. If terrorists were to attack a SCADA system simultaneously with physical
bombings, public panic could quickly spin out of control. If terrorists were to bomb a busy city intersection while
simultaneously shutting down the electrical systems in a nearby hospital – a combined attack known as a ‘force
multiplier’ in military terms – this would result in national panic. The impact would be
devastating to the surrounding population. Some recent occurrences of cyberterrorism
attacks on these systems include an incident in Romania where a cyberterrorist
illegally gained access to the computers controlling the life support systems at an
Antarctic research station, endangering the 58 scientists involved. Fortunately, the culprits were stopped before
damage occurred. Most acts of sabotage, while not politically motivated, have caused financial and
other damage, as was the case where a disgruntled employee in Maroochy Shire, Australia, caused the release of untreated
sewage into water.
The grid is a lifeline to everyone in the U.S. --- without it we risk extinction
Peak Energy and Resources 14 [ April 23, Electric grid overview,
http://energyskeptic.com/2014/electric-grid-overview/] Schloss
In a blackout all of these essential services fail: Pumping of potable water, sewage,
and irrigation water; sewage treatment; food and fuel supply and storage;
refrigeration; medical facilities, prisons, banking, communications, refineries,
shipping, transportation, commerce, and home/commercial life-support systems (heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning), etc. Modern life is impossible without it. Electric power transmission and
distribution (T&D) in the United States is in urgent need of expansion and upgrading. It’s
been called the world’s largest machine run by over 3,100 utility companies, with
nearly 3,000 power plants that generate 4.16 million GWh. Fossil fuels generated 70% of the electricity — 49% coal and 21% natural
gas. Renewable energy only contributed 8.4%, with 6% of that from hydropower. The American Society of Civil Engineers has warned that without an
investment of $100 billion,
the US power generation system will collapse by 2020. Growing loads, aging
equipment, and wind and solar power are destabilizing and stressing the system, which increases the risk of widespread blackouts. Modern
society depends on reliable and economic delivery of electricity. Recent concerns have stemmed from
inadequate investment to meet growing demand, the limited ability of those systems to accommodate renewable-energy sources that generate
electricity intermittently, and vulnerability to major blackouts involving cascading failures. And also, distant sources of renewable generation can’t be
used without expanding the grid. The high-voltage transmission system (or grid) transmits electric power from generation plants through 163,000 miles
of high-voltage (230 kilovolts [kV] up to 765 kV) electrical conductors and more than 15,000 transmission substations. The transmission system is
configured as a network, meaning that power has multiple paths to follow from the generator to the distribution substation. The distribution system
contains millions of miles of lower-voltage electrical conductors that receive power from the grid at distribution substations. The power is then
delivered to 131 million customers via the distribution system. In contrast to the transmission system, the distribution system usually is radial, meaning
that there is only one path from the distribution substation to a given consumer. Problems with the Current System Most U.S. transmission lines and
substations were constructed more than 40 years ago and are based on 1950s’ technology, but demands on the electric power system have increased
significantly over the years. Since 1990, electricity generation has risen from about 3 trillion kilowatt-hours (kWh) to about 4 trillion in 2007. Longdistance transmission has grown even faster for reliability and economic reasons, including new competitive wholesale markets for electricity, but few
new transmission lines have been built to handle this growth. From 1985 through 1995, transmission investment was fairly stable at the level of about
$4.5 billion per year. In the late 1990s, the restructuring and re-regulation of the U.S. transmission system led to a decrease in investment down to
Inadequate system maintenance and repair
also have contributed to an increase in the likelihood of major transmission system
failures. Of greatest concern is the risk of these disturbances cascading over large
portions of the T&D systems. The 2003 blackouts in the world’s two largest grids—the
North American Eastern Interconnection and the West European Interconnection—
resulted from such cascading failures. Each event affected 50 million people. If the
electric grid comes down from cyber or nuclear war, an Electromagnetic pulse, natural
gas shortages (natural gas peaker plants are essential to balancing “renewable”
energy), coal shortages, terrorist attacks, natural disasters, oil shocks, and so on, the
electric grid could be down for a year or more in one or all of the regional networks.
Anyone who hopes that renewable energy could compensate even slightly for oil in
the future needs to understand that above all, there has to be a 100% reliable and
vastly expanded electric grid. Yet The Grid is rusting and falling apart right now for
many reasons. One of them is deregulation, which has made it unprofitable to
maintain The Grid because it harms the profits of the shareholders. There’s no point in building wind, solar,
hydro, and nuclear power plants without a robust and expanded electric power grid.
And without the electric grid, it will be hard to make microchips and other gadgets
essential to civilization, there will be no refrigeration, lights, electrified transportation,
hospital services, internet, computers running — we are as dependent on the electric
grid as we are on oil. A decentralized system is not capable of making steel, aluminum,
make cement, and all the other heavy duty chores needed to maintain civilization as
we know it.
about $3 billion a year and is operating at or near its physical limits often.
No Solvency – Costs
Antarctic infrastructure expensive – ships, aircraft, bases.
Oriti 14 (Thomas, He worked as an intern with Lateline and the acclaimed documentary series
The Howard Years, before joining the ABC full-time as a cadet in the Sydney newsroom. Thomas
became part of the ABC South East NSW team in 2010 as a journalist and newsreader,
“Australian scientists warn of declining Antarctic research,” ABC News, 04/14/14,
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2014/s3976175.htm) Chen
WILL HOWARD: There is a decline in our output of support for projects and output of scientific productivity.¶ THOMAS ORITI: The
Academy says the
number of science projects supported by the Federal Government's Antarctic
program has dropped from a peak of 142 in 1997, to 62 now. The number of annual peer-reviewed research publications
has also halved in the past eight years.¶ But Doctor Howard acknowledges there are key challenges.¶ WILL HOWARD:
Antarctic science is expensive. It requires a lot of expensive infrastructure: ships and aircraft.
It requires us to maintain bases, which is also challenging in a hostile environment.
Antarctica development expensive and unsustainable – British efforts prove.
Cressey 12 (Daniel, Reporter for chemistry, nanoscience, materials, business, and more with
degrees in chemistry, history of science and journalism, “British Antarctic Survey keeps its
independence,” Nature, 11/02/14, http://www.nature.com/news/british-antarctic-surveykeeps-its-independence-1.11728) Chen
But operating
in the Antarctic is expensive. Willetts stated at this week’s select-committee hearing that in his view,
some British facilities are desperately in need of upgrades. In addition, costs such as marine fuel
are subject to nearly constant inflation. And NERC is already facing a real-terms cut in its
budget, which has led to a series of job cuts. Southampton’s oceanography researchers have already gone through
their own round of job losses, and BAS is set to lose around 20 staff members.¶ If the infrastructure and logistics budget for Antarctic
work is protected, NERC may have to find money from other areas to fill the gap. “The only place that can come from is the science
budget,” says Snaith. “There
is a real concern going forward about how NERC will keep these
infrastructure costs under control.”
No official budget for research in Antarctica
Ogburn & Marshall 13 [Stephanie and Christa, E&E reporters, “Government shutdown bars
researchers from Antarctica and freezes climate science”, 10/11,
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059988704] Jia
Last Friday, Sebastian Vivancos embarked on the journey of a lifetime: He was headed to
Antarctica. In Punta Arenas, Chile, Vivancos, a recent graduate of Columbia University, boarded
the Laurence M. Gould, an icebreaker that would take him and others across the Drake Passage
and to the National Science Foundation's Palmer Station. "The trip across was incredible,"
Vivancos wrote in an email. "The wind howls incessantly, the huge waves crash against the side
of the ship rocking it back and forth." Vivancos, who plans to start a doctoral program in the
geosciences next year, was going to stay in Antarctica six months, while he and other scientists,
part of the Palmer Station Long Term Ecological Research program, collected data on ocean
chemistry and biology. But on the day they arrived, he and other researchers were told they
would have to turn around and go home. "The station manager officially notified us that Palmer
Station had been put on caretaker status since there was no official budget, which meant no
money had been appropriated to conduct our research. Hence, there was no science to be
done," Vivancos said. The National Science Foundation announced Tuesday that it was putting
its three Antarctic research bases in caretaker mode, with only skeleton crews remaining to
maintain the stations. Researchers at the station could hardly believe what they were hearing,
Vivancos said. "This had never happened before -- it not only affects our livelihood in economic
terms but the driving purpose of these scientists' lives." Now, he continued, "everyone is
preparing to leave, packing so that everything is ready to be shipped back. The word to best
describe the mood is 'uncertain,' kind of like being held hostage." Antarctic researchers in the
United States who had been readying for their field season are now scrambling, trying to make
alternate plans for what research they might be able to accomplish once the shutdown ends.
"We are just trying to come up with all sorts of plans, a Plan A, Plan B, Plan C," said Diana Wall, a
soil scientist at Colorado State University who is part of a team that conducts long-term
ecological research in Antarctica's dry valleys. The group of researchers Wall works with were
planning to meet yesterday and today in Boulder, Colo., to come up with several contingency
plans for the research season. As Wall and others described it, scientists whose field seasons are
affected by the shutdown are only in sporadic communication with the few employees of the
National Science Foundation who are not furloughed, like Scott Borg, who heads the Antarctic
science portion of the NSF's polar program. Many affected researchers are gleaning much of
their news from contractors and from other media reports. Right now, the only thing they can
do is make backup plan after backup plan. "If there is a chance, say next week, they say, 'All of
you can't go, but you can go and do XYZ.' We need to come back with, 'This is our first priority,
this is our second priority, this is the data that can't be missed,'" Wall said. The impacts to
climate research, which relies on continuous series of data, could be significant. Hugh Ducklow,
a professor and biological oceanographer at Columbia University's Lamont Doherty Earth
Observatory, heads up the long-term research program at Palmer Station. Researchers have 22
years of continuous observations from that site, which include measurements of ocean
chemistry and biology. An unbroken series of observations on Adélie penguins, which in that
region have experienced population crashes as sea ice disappears, goes back to the mid-1970s,
Ducklow said. Vivancos, who will soon be heading home instead of conducting research, was
part of the Ducklow team that just arrived at Palmer. They were scheduled to go out in Zodiac
boats and start taking ocean measurements for the year. "If we don't get these observations, it's
not like you can just go back and get them a year later, because every year is unique. Those
observations and those data are gone forever," Ducklow said. "If you have gaps in the record, it
invalidates a lot of the kinds of statistical analyses you can do. ... The records just lose a lot of
their scientific value." Diane McKnight, a University of Colorado, Boulder, researcher who leads
a long-term research project called McMurdo Dry Valleys, takes stream flow measurements and
lake profiles, which are samples at a series of depths in the lakes, in the dry valleys every year.
"We are interested in how ecosystems respond to changing climate," McKnight said. "In the dry
valleys, water is critical for living systems to function, so the streams are ecosystems that really
turn on biologically when the water first comes down, when the glacier first starts to melt."
Typically, streams start flowing between November and early December, she said. "If this is a
summer where stream flow actually starts in early November, then we miss records," she
added. The team also takes its lake profiles in mid-November. This helps it document the
changes in the lakes that occurred over the winter. If the streams start flowing into the lakes
before team members get down there, they will miss that data for the year. "We're most
concerned right now about getting down to study the lakes," McKnight said. The shutdown is
having less of an impact with the Arctic, because the research season is winding down there,
said Ian Joughin, a glaciologist at the University of Washington. Arctic sea ice hit its annual low
last month, and the region is entering its frigid fall and winter, when field research is not
optimal. Additionally, operations in Antarctica are far more centralized, relying on a few big
bases staffed by government contractors, Joughin said. "In contrast, people manage their own
logistics for the Arctic," he said. In Greenland, researchers typically use a local airport, not a
National Science Foundation landing strip like the one serving McMurdo Station in Antarctica,
he said. "In addition, the Arctic research program is generally less expensive, because it's closer
to home, and we also don't maintain a series of bases the way we do in the Antarctic," said
Zachary Brown, a Ph.D. candidate at Stanford University. However, there are concerns about
layoffs of employees and the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars in grant money related to
a few still-pending Arctic missions. Because of the shutdown, a scheduled three-week
experiment on a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-owned P-3 plane to survey
the re-formation of Arctic ice near Alaska did not begin operations last weekend as planned, said
Thomas Ackerman, director of the Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean at
the University of Washington. The institute receives funding from NOAA. If the P-3 flight is
canceled, about $800,000 in promised grant money to the institute from the Office of Naval
Research will be lost, Ackerman said. "If the research grants fail, it's not just like, 'Oh, shucks.'
Instead, it's 'I don't have a salary,'" he said. Ice formation in the studied region occurs in
October, so there is a small window of opportunity for a flight, he said. Then there are meetings.
If the standoff doesn't end soon, State Department senior Arctic official Julie Gourley may not
be able to attend a key meeting of the Arctic Council in Canada in two weeks. "It would mean
there would be no U.S. representation at the meeting, which would be a loss for the U.S. to
advance issues of interest and concern," said Heather Conley, director of the European program
at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The council is grappling with everything
from black carbon emission to shipping lanes, and there are only a few pivotal meetings a year,
she added. Similarly, Jacqueline Grebmeier, a research professor at the University of Maryland,
said cancellation of planned events like October's meeting of the Polar Research Board in
Washington, D.C., will prevent a lot of scientists from around the world from doing important
legwork with other scientists and government officials for next year's research season.
Established Antarctic research projects are not the only ones hard hit by the shutdown.
Hundreds of Kansas high school students scheduled to participate in an educational project on
Antarctica may also lose out. The program is part of a National Science Foundation grant
awarded to Rutgers University researcher Grace Saba, who studies plankton in Antarctica. Saba,
who is from Kansas, had paired her Antarctic field work, which was scheduled to start this year,
with a yearlong Antarctic science educational project involving several Kansas high schools and
hundreds of students. The effort, called Project PARKA, aims to connect landlocked Kansas
students with ocean science, Saba explained. She and Kristin Hunter-Thompson, who works in
the 4-H Youth Development Department at Rutgers, had trained several science teachers in
Antarctic science over the summer. This fall, the students were to conduct a series of lessons
and experiments that taught them about Antarctica. Then, when Saba was in Antarctica, she
was going to make live calls to the students, and they would discuss her research. At the end of
the year, the students and Saba would have a science symposium, where they would present
data and results. "I had materials to ship to the teachers. They are sitting in my office. They can't
get shipped out," Hunter-Thompson said. The teachers involved in the project said they were
still moving forward with lessons about Antarctica but were disappointed that the shutdown
might curtail the most engaging part of the curriculum. "We have spent much time in
preparation for the events in Antarctica this winter. Unfortunately, I will have to explain how a
government shutdown has now affected their education," said Frances Wecker, who teaches
science at Emporia High School in Emporia, Kan. Stacie Borjon, a biology teacher at Shawnee
Heights High School in Tecumseh, Kan., was excited to offer her students an opportunity to
interact with a scientist in the field. "Students often have a perception of a scientist as a man
working by himself in a lab. With Project PARKA, students get to see not only collaboration
between scientists, but Grace Saba is a role model for young women as well," Borjon said. As of
Tuesday, Saba had already shipped her lab equipment south, for what she thought would be the
first of two seasons studying the impacts of ocean acidification on krill, an important food
source for penguins and marine mammals in Antarctica. Now, in addition to her concerns about
Project PARKA, Saba doesn't know whether she'll be able to conduct her research or if her field
seasons will simply get pushed back a year. "This is my first funded research grant, and I'm super
bummed," she said. Judith Gan, who directs the NSF's legislative and external affairs, said that
she did not have access to data on how many research projects are being affected but that the
NSF hopes to allow research in Antarctica to continue once Congress passes a budget. "As we
move to caretaker status, we are also developing plans to recover as much of the austral
research season as possible, and this is highly dependent on the timing of an appropriation," she
said. Antarctic researchers who work outside the U.S. system will be able to go ahead with their
season and climate research. Dale Andersen, who is with the privately funded SETI Institute in
California, said he plans to arrive in Antarctica on Nov. 4 and hopes to set up another station to
begin long-term climate monitoring in part of Queen Maud Land, part of East Antarctica claimed
by Norway. Andersen called the U.S. Antarctic program "a true scientific research gem" and
expressed his disappointment that important research is being scuttled. "Many of my friends
and colleagues that are funded or working for the U.S. Antarctic program are in dire straits right
now ... just because of self-inflicted stupidity via Congress as far as I can tell," he said.
U.S. economy contracting now
House 14 [Jonathan, “U.S. economy shrinks by most in five years”, 6/25,
http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-gdp-contracted-at-2-9-pace-in-first-quarter-1403699600] Jia
Weather disruptions at home and weak demand abroad caused a contraction of rare severity
in the U.S. economy in the first quarter, renewing doubts about the strength of the nation's
five-year-old recovery. The U.S. economy in the first quarter saw its sharpest pullback since
the recession ended nearly five years ago. Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of
goods and services produced across the economy, fell at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of
2.9% in the first quarter, the Commerce Department said in its third reading of the data
Wednesday. That was a sharp downward revision from the previous estimate that output fell at
an annual rate of 1%. It also represented the fastest rate of decline since the recession, and
was the largest drop recorded since the end of World War II that wasn't part of a recession. To
be sure, many signs since March, including reports of growth in consumer spending, business
investment and hiring, indicate the first quarter doesn't mark the start of a new recession. And
revisions in future years could alter the first-quarter figure. J.P. Morgan Chase economist
Michael Feroli described the decline as "mostly a confluence of several negative, but mostly
one-off, factors." But the severity of the drop, he said, "calls into question how much vigor
there is in the pace of activity" going forward. One factor in the government's revision of firstquarter output was difficulty in estimating the impact of the Affordable Care Act on healthcare expenditures. Actual health spending came in substantially lower than expected based on
ACA enrollments and Medicaid data, declining at a 1.4% annualized pace in the period
compared with an earlier estimate of a 9.1% increase. Beyond that, consumer spending on
goods, business outlays on equipment and housing investment were all soft, a weakness that
economists have attributed, at least in part, to unusually harsh winter weather. Overall
consumer spending on goods and services, which accounts for more than two thirds of
economic output, increased at an annual rate of 1%, off from the earlier estimate of 3.1%
growth. The Commerce report showed businesses sharply drawing down inventories in the first
quarter after building them up to levels deemed unsustainable by economists late last year. The
move subtracted 1.7 percentage points from growth. Exports in the period fell by nearly 10%, a
new sign of a challenging global economic environment. The European recovery remains
anemic, while growth in fast-expanding emerging markets such as China and Brazil has
downshifted. The severity of the first-quarter downturn is at odds with other data showing
greater strength in the economy, especially a recent pickup in job creation. Since World War II,
there have been 15 other quarters during which GDP contracted by this amount or more. In 14
of those 15 quarters, hiring contracted along with output. Meanwhile, early data from the
second quarter indicate the economy has improved this spring, as warmer weather has helped
release pent-up demand. Sales of new homes surged to a six-year high last month, while
existing-home sales rose to their highest level since October, data released earlier this week
showed. "Things are looking very strong here in Naples," said Anthony Solomon, owner of The
Ronto Group, a land developer in Naples, Fla. "In all our communities, we're seeing great
appetite from home builders and from end buyers." Still, the depth of the first-quarter decline in
output means growth during the first half of the year likely will fall below the economy's
average rate of just over 2% since it emerged from recession in June 2009. That is below the
longer-term growth rate, during recent decades, of slightly more than 3%. "It does not sound
like the economy has reached escape velocity no matter how you try to spin it," said Chris
Rupkey, an economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi. For economic output to ratchet up to a
healthier long-term trend, economists say consumer spending must rise to its prerecession pace
of about 3% growth. But five years into the recovery, high unemployment and stagnant
incomes continue to restrain the American consumer. "We just don't see consumer spending
coming back to the levels that they were before," Virginia McDowell, chief executive of Isle of
Capri Casinos, Inc., recently told investors at a presentation of the company's fourth-quarter
earnings. "We continue to get pressured on the top line because our consumer spending habits
have changed," Ms. McDowell said.
Water infrastructure becoming increasingly expensive in Antarctica
Reuters 13 [Reuters, “U.S. Water Infrastructure Repairs Threatened, National League Of Cities
Says”, 2/15, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/16/us-water-infrastructure-repairscities_n_2697003.html] Jia
WASHINGTON, Feb 15 (Reuters) - Repairing U.S. water infrastructure is becoming increasingly
expensive and options for funding upgrades to sewers, storm drains and drinking water
systems are under threat, the National League of Cities told a congressional hearing on Friday.
Costs for the repairs run into the hundreds of billions of dollars, with federal estimates of
needed drinking water system upgrades at $334.8 billion and updating wastewater and
stormwater management infrastructure at $298.1 billion over 20 years, said Michael Sesma, a
city council member of Gaithersburg, Maryland, speaking on behalf of the cities' group. "In our
estimation, these investment levels are actually an underestimate given the advancing age of
our infrastructure, the burden of unfunded federal regulatory mandates, and factors not yet
known as a result of our changing climate," he said. Cities and counties operate and finance
almost all of the country's water infrastructure, with help from the federal and state
governments. But the federal government sets most of the environmental standards these
systems must meet. That can leave some places scrambling to find funds to bring their systems
up to code. Alabama's Jefferson County borrowed heavily when it was told its sewers were in
breach of environmental regulations. The debt load, along with interest rate swaps and other
risky measures, led the county to file for municipal bankruptcy in 2011. As its budget fight
intensifies, the U.S. Congress is considering limiting financing mechanisms that many places
use to cover infrastructure costs, including capping the tax exemption for interest paid by
municipal bonds. Issuers say this will drive up their financing costs, as they will have to offer the
higher interest rates comparable to taxable bonds. Tax-exempt bonds financed more than $23
billion worth of water and wastewater infrastructure projects in the first half of 2012, and
three-quarters of capital works in the United States were built by state and local governments
using the debt, Sesma said. They save "an average of 25 to 30 percent on interest costs with taxexempt municipal bonds as compared to taxable bonds." "If the federal income tax exemption
is eliminated or limited, states and local governments will pay more to finance projects,
leading to less infrastructure investment, fewer jobs, and greater burdens on citizens who will
have to pay higher taxes and fees," he added. Sesma also said Congress should not cut water
revolving loan funds as it seeks to reduce its spending, and should consider "mechanisms that
lower the cost of borrowing. He also suggested the federal government "offer direct loans and
loan guarantees ... or remove the federal volume cap on tax-exempt bonds for water and
wastewater infrastructure projects."
No Solvency – Tech
Tech barriers to Antarctic development – international examples prove.
Gramling 12 (Carolyn, staff writer for Science and editor of the In Brief section; has a doctoral
degree in marine geochemistry from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution/MIT Joint
Program for Oceanography, and bachelor’s degrees in geology and history, “British Antarctic
Survey Fails to Penetrate Antarctica's Lake Ellsworth,” Science, 12/27/12,
http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/12/british-antarctic-survey-fails-penetrate-antarcticas-lakeellsworth) Chen
The team was one of three groups in Antarctica using cutting-edge technology to attempt to
penetrate one of the continent's more than 360 subglacial lakes this austral summer. All hoped to
find evidence of living organisms in the subglacial environment. Siegert's team planned to use hot-water drilling through 3
kilometers of ice to minimize potential contamination of the lake -- a technique that has been used before by Antarctic scientists,
but never to drill so deeply. Even if everything went according to plan, the team would have had just 60 hours to collect water and
sediment samples from the lake before the borehole would refreeze.¶ The project started out well. The
technology
requires vast amounts of water, and for 10 hours, the team used hot water to melt a borehole
from the surface of the ice down to about 300 meters. At that depth (where the ice is hard and packed, and no longer porous), they
created a reservoir of water. About 2 meters away from the original borehole, the team drilled a second borehole, hoping to
connect it to the reservoir, too. The next step would have been to complete the drilling of the original borehole down to 3
kilometers, completing a looped system. The reservoir at 300 meters depth would replenish water at the surface that's used for the
drilling, and would also help the team equilibrate the pressure between the lake and the borehole.¶ The
trouble came
when the team tried to connect the second borehole to the reservoir. For 40 hours, without
rest, they drilled and kept the reservoir liquid, hoping to make the connection—and
consuming much of the fuel they had brought with them. But they never located it. "We got to a
situation where we did a calculation of how much fuel we needed to get down to the lake," Siegert says. "And we realized we didn't
have enough anymore."¶ Facing that grim reality, the team called it quits—and although the initial mood was
dark, Siegert says, "we've been warmed by the levels of public interest in the program, and the amount of support." Now, the team
is regrouping, trying to learn lessons from this season. Realistically, he says, they aren't likely to get back to Lake Ellsworth in less
than 4 years, and more likely 5. Given the small windows to do work in Antarctica, it may take a couple of years just to retrieve all
the equipment and return it to the United Kingdom for modifications. And they will need to solve the mystery of what went wrong—
why they couldn't find that reservoir -- and engineering a solution before the team is ready to try again.
Antarctica impossible to explore and develop – inhospitable environment.
British Antarctic Survey 99 (One of the world's leading environmental research centers and is
responsible for the UK's national scientific activities in Antarctica, “The Antarctic Treaty
Explained,” British Antarctic Survey, 05/99,
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_antarctica/geopolitical/treaty/explained.php) Chen
The Antarctic continent is vast. It embraces the South Pole with permanent ice and snow. It is encircled by
floating barriers of ice, stormy seas and appalling weather. Its great altitude chills the air to
extremes, and its descent to sea level across a moving ice sheet generates the world's
strongest winds. The cycling seasons reveal the spectacular natural forces of our planet. The surrounding seas teem with
wildlife. And just 2% of this continent is free of ice, allowing a small toe-hold for hardy animals
and plants.¶ The weather and isolation dominate all who visit. The discovery and exploration
of Antarctica was shaped by the continent's remoteness and its extraordinarily inhospitable
environment. These factors combined for centuries to keep humans away from all but the
subantarctic islands and parts of the Southern Ocean where whaling and sealing took place. In
human historic terms, the land exploration of Antarctica is recent, most of it being accomplished during the twentieth century.
Tech fails in Antarctica – harsh operating conditions make it impossible to
provide power to instruments.
AIP 04/22/14 (One of the world’s largest publishers of scientific information in physics and
the related sciences. Publications include 17 journals, three of which are published in
partnership with other organizations; magazines, including AIP’s flagship publication Physics
Today; and the AIP Conference Proceedings series, “Sustainable energy at the 100 W level for
scientific sites on the Antarctic Plateau: Lessons learned from the Polar Experiment Network for
Geospace Upper atmosphere Investigations-Automatic Geophysical Observatory project,” AIP,
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/rsi/85/4/10.1063/1.4871555) Chen
The need to provide power to unmanned instrumentation over the course of an entire year on
the Antarctic plateau presents a large number of engineering and logistical challenges. Designs
formulated in ideal laboratory environments often fail in the Antarctic due to the harsh
operating conditions, and field experience is necessary to achieve year-round operation in the
100 W power range. In this paper we present our current power design for the Automatic Geophysical Observatories; a design based
on over two decades of experience on the ice and allows for relatively continuous operation at the aforementioned power level. We
also discuss our various implementation methods, both failures and successes, in an effort assist other unmanned deployments on
the ice.
No Solvency – Infrastructure Unsustainable
Antarctic infrastructure unsustainable – low temperatures destroy materials.
Manwell 00 (James, Director of the Wind Energy Center at the University of Massachusetts
Amherst, Ph.D from the University of Massachusetts, B.A. in Biophysics from Amherst College,
“Wind Energy: Cold Weather Issues,” University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 06/00,
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/mie/labs/rerl/research/Cold_Weather_White_Paper.pdf) Chen
Low temperatures affect the different materials used in the fabrication of wind turbines,
usually adversely. Structural elements such as steel and composite material all see their
mechanical properties changed by low temperatures. Steel becomes more brittle; its energy
absorbing capacity and deformation prior to failure are both reduced. Composite materials,
due to unequal shrinkage of their fiber/matrix components, will be subjected to a residual
stress. If this stress is sufficient, it can result in microcracking in the material. These
microcracks reduce both the stiffness and the impermeability of the material, which can
contribute to the deterioration process (Dutta and Hui, 1997). Low temperatures can also
damage the electrical equipment such as generators, yaw drive motors and transformers.
When power is applied to these machines after they have been standing in the cold for a long
period, the windings can suffer from a thermal shock and become damaged. Gearboxes,
hydraulic couplers and dampers suffer from long exposure to cold weather. As the temperature
goes down, the viscosity of the lubricants and hydraulic fluids increases up to a point where at
–40oF, a chunk of heavy gear oil could be used to pound nails (Diemand, 1990). Damage to
gears will occur in the very first seconds of operation where oil is very thick and cannot freely
circulate. In addition, due to an increase in internal friction, the power transmission capacity
of the gearbox is reduced when the oil viscosity has not reached an acceptable level. Seals,
cushions and other rubber parts loose flexibility at low temperatures. This may not necessarily
result in part failure but can cause a general decline in performance. A typical rubber part can
see its stiffness augmented by a factor of 8 at a temperature of -40oF (Brugada, 1989).
Brittleness also increases which changes impact resistance and makes the part prone to
cracking (Brugada, 1989).
Antarctic wind turbines unsustainable – icing destroys tech.
Manwell 00 (James, Director of the Wind Energy Center at the University of Massachusetts
Amherst, Ph.D from the University of Massachusetts, B.A. in Biophysics from Amherst College,
“Wind Energy: Cold Weather Issues,” University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 06/00,
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/mie/labs/rerl/research/Cold_Weather_White_Paper.pdf) Chen
Icing represents the most important threat to the integrity of wind turbines in cold weather.
Based on the duration of inoperative wind measuring equipment at one surveyed mountain in western Massachusetts, it was
determined that icing
weather can occur as much as 15% of the time between the months of
December and March (Kirchhoff, 1999). Wind turbines must therefore be able to sustain at least
limited icing without incurring damage preventing normal operation. Furthermore, it is advisable that
power production be maintained in moderate icing for the following reasons: · To minimize downtime period and benefit from the
more favorable winter winds · To keep the rotor turning and therefore limit the ice growth to leading edge part of the blade that is
likely fitted with some ice protection equipment. The icing
likely to form on wind turbine blades is of two
kinds: glaze and rime. Glaze ice is the result of liquid precipitation striking surfaces at temperatures below the freezing
point. Glaze
is rather transparent, hard and attaches well to surfaces. It is the type of icing encountered
during ice storms. New England and especially Massachusetts is an area of high occurrence for glaze storms as confirmed in
Figure 3. A study covering a period of fifty years of glaze precipitation in the United States conducted by Tattelman and Gringorten
supports this claim. They have established the probability of an ice storm of thickness greater or equal than 0.63 cm for the
Pennsylvania, New York and New England regions during one year to be 0.88, i.e. almost once per year. Rime ice occurs when
surfaces below the freezing point are exposed to clouds or fog composed of supercooled water droplets. Its white and opaque
appearance is caused by the presence of air bubbles trapped inside. Rime ice is of primary importance in high elevation locations
such as hills or mountaintops. Figure 1 and 2 show how severely can a wind turbine be affected by rime ice. ¶ Ice
collects on
both the rotating and non-rotating surfaces. The most adverse effect of icing occurs on the
rotor itself. Its consequences on the rotor are the following: · Interfere with the deployment of speed
limiting devices such as tip flaps or movable blade tip · Increase the static load on the rotor ·
Change the dynamic balance of the rotor, thereby accelerating fatigue · Reduce the energy
capture by altering the aerodynamic profile of the rotor · Ice fragments can be propelled and
represent a safety hazard for population and property in the vicinity of wind turbines. Larger
chunk can also strike the rotor and damage it. Ice also accumulates on fixed structures such as
nacelles, towers and ladder, making periodic maintenance more difficult by preventing easy
access to turbine components. It can interfere with the normal functioning of pitch control
and orientation mechanisms. Finally, the presence of ice on structural elements increases
both the static loading and the wind loading due to an augmentation in surface area.
Antarctic wind turbines unsustainable – snow obstructs openings.
Manwell 00 (James, Director of the Wind Energy Center at the University of Massachusetts
Amherst, Ph.D from the University of Massachusetts, B.A. in Biophysics from Amherst College,
“Wind Energy: Cold Weather Issues,” University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 06/00,
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/mie/labs/rerl/research/Cold_Weather_White_Paper.pdf) Chen
Due to its very low specific gravity, snow is easily carried by wind. It can infiltrate almost any
unprotected openings where an airflow can find its way. Wind turbine nacelles, i.e. the
housings that contain the gearbox and the generator, are not necessarily airtight compartments.
In fact, they incorporate many openings in order to provide a supply of fresh air for cooling
purposes. Hence, snow can accumulate inside the nacelle and damage the equipment. This
could prove very detrimental for the electrical machinery. On the other hand, snow could also
obstruct these openings and prevent normal circulation of air. It is suggested to use deflectors
or baffles in order to keep these openings free of obstruction.
Antarctic wind turbines unsustainable – natural disasters.
McKenzie et al 10 (Chris, Post Graduate Certificate in Antarctic Studies from the University of
Canterbury, “Windmills in Antarctica,” University of Canterbury, 01/22/10,
http://www.anta.canterbury.ac.nz/documents/PCAS%2012%20Reports/Windmills%20.pdf)
Chen
Although the wind turbines on Creator Hill are designed for the harsh environment, the possibility of accidents cannot be avoided. In
an unlikely event wind
turbines do malfunction or get destroyed by natural disasters. For example,
wind turbines malfunctioning and catching on fire or getting knocked over in strong winds. If a
turbine explodes in Antarctica, it will directly result in air pollution and ground disturbance.
Casualties may also occur if humans are present. Clean up operations after turbine malfunction are relatively
easy, as debris tends not to penetrate deep into the soil. Debris can easily be collected, and the turbine structure easily removed.
The only issue is removing the foundation of the wind turbine. Removal of the base will create a
lot of ground disturbance which not be created if the base stay in the ground. Therefore, if the
wind turbines on creator hill are removed, the concrete bases will be left in the ground.
Infrastructure in Antarctica impossible- ice sheet melt is unstoppable
Publius 14[ Gaius, professional writer, Western Antarctica ice sheet collapse now unstoppable,
will cause up to 4m sea-level rise, America Blog, http://americablog.com/2014/05/westernantarctica-ice-sheet-collapse-now-unstoppable-will-cause-4m-sea-level-rise.html] JB
The collapse of the Western Antarctica ice sheet is already under way and is unstoppable, two
separate teams of scientists said on Monday. The glaciers’ retreat is being driven by climate change and is already causing sea-level
rise at a much faster rate than scientists had anticipated. The loss of the entire western Antarctica ice sheet
could eventually cause up to 4 metres (13ft) of sea-level rise, devastating low-lying and coastal areas around the world. … The two
studies, by Nasa
and the University of Washington, looked at the ice sheets of western Antarctica
over different periods of time. The Nasa researchers focused on melting over the last 20 years,
while the scientists at the University of Washington used computer modelling to look into the
future of the western Antarctic ice sheet. But both studies came to broadly similar conclusions –
that the thinning and melting of the Antarctic ice sheet has begun and cannot be halted, even
with drastic action to cut the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change.
Antarctic infrastructure fails
Marlow 13 [Jeffrey, “Why Shutting Down U.S. Antarctic Research Will Have Global
Repercussions”, 10/13, http://www.wired.com/2013/10/why-shutting-down-u-s-antarcticresearch-will-have-global-repercussions/] Jia
The continued paralysis of the U.S. government is being felt around the world, even at some
of the most remote scientific outposts on the planet. As the partial shutdown extends into its
second week, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has directed its scientists and its primary
logistical contractor – Lockheed Martin – to wind down operations and initiate “caretaker”
status. The abrupt change of course comes at an inopportune time, as the most active portion of
the field season – October through February – was just getting underway. The logistical ordeal
of transporting people and supplies to Antarctica is an intricately choreographed process, and
the departure from the tightly constrained plan will affect an entire season of scientific
operations no matter how long the holding pattern lasts. Simply put, there will be long-term
repercussions, even if the political deadlock is solved in the coming days. Multi-year projects will
likely miss a year’s worth of data; for research initiatives like the McMurdo Dry Valley Long Term
Ecological Research Network, the increasingly noticeable impacts of climate change make losing
the 2013-2014 season particularly upsetting. The NSF also funds dozens of three-year grant
projects, many of which depend on annual maintenance or monitoring. By the time scientists
return to Antarctica, these experiments could be ruined, and their biological, meteorological, or
chemical data lost forever. It’s easy to forget just how inhospitable Antarctica is, and how much
work and expertise goes in to maintaining a permanent presence on the ice. In a place where
seemingly simple tasks require several levels of sophisticated planning and specialized
equipment, putting the bases on stand-by mode isn’t as simple as turning the thermostat down
as you lock the door. Andrew Thurber is a Postdoctoral Fellow at Oregon State University who
has spent much of the last few years studying shallow marine ecosystems around Antarctica.
“Much of the equipment is delicately put to bed each winter and slowly woken up for the field
season,” he notes. Other infrastructure requires even more attention. “One of the biggest
undertakings every year is the ice runway, where a section of the ocean is manicured to be
able to handle the landing of planes of supplies. This takes constant upkeep and a dedicated
staff, and when operational, it saves an astronomical amount of fuel and resources compared to
the alternative.” The Ice Pier, where resupply and fuel ships dock, requires similar care; without
these critical pieces of infrastructure, Thurber says, “the total cost of research skyrockets, and if
the station fails to get fueled, the next year’s science season is also in jeopardy.” Despite the
crippling uncertainty and the likely loss of data, the scientists may actually get off relatively
easily. The hundreds of people who support operations at the three American bases – people
who, as Thurber puts it, “essentially arranged their entire lives around being gone from normal
civilization for as much as 13 months” – are being sent home with uncertain prospects of future
employment. “They are the real heroes of Antarctic research: they make large sacrifices and are
absolute experts in what they do.” Even as American bases begin to close, 29 other countries
are proceeding with their regularly scheduled scientific programs. Antarctica is in many ways a
type case of international cooperation, a continent set aside for science, protected from
economic exploitation by the landmark Antarctic Treaty. This spirit of internationalism is
manifest in the tightly intertwined scientific collaborations that have developed over the
decades. Joe Kirschvink, a Professor of Geobiology at the California Institute of Technology, is
engaged in a collaborative geological investigation of the James Ross Basin with Argentinean
colleagues. And even though he has sufficient non-governmental funding to wade through the
NSF shutdown, any scientific involvement in Antarctica requires a medical check-up from the
host country, which is typically provided for American scientists by Lockheed Martin. Kirschvink
is currently racing against time to secure official approval for a scientist from his research group
to join the expedition. Most international collaborations won’t be so lucky, and without
American participants, the viability of other programs is uncertain. “[The United States’]
participation is like a one-ton gorilla,” says Kirschvink. “If we leave the scene, who knows what
the other countries will do.” Antarctic scientists and support staff are masters of uncertainty
given the harsh conditions inherent in their posting. But in a place where natural conditions are
challenging enough, it’s disheartening that the greatest threat of all is coming from the very
system meant to support the Antarctic science in the first place.
No Solvency – Weather
Impossible weather in South Pole would make infrastructure impossible
Antarctic connection 14 [Antarctic connection, “Antarctic Weather”, 2014,
http://www.antarcticconnection.com/shopcontent.asp?type=weather-index] Jia
Why is Antarctica so Cold? Several factors combine to making Antarctica one of the coldest
and least hospitable places on the Earth: Unlike the Arctic region, Antarctica is a continent
surrounded by an ocean which means that interior areas do not benefit from the moderating
influence of water. With 98% of its area covered with snow and ice, the Antarctic continent
reflects most of the sun's light rather than absorbing it. The extreme dryness of the air causes
any heat that is radiated back into the atmosphere to be lost instead of being absorbed by the
water vapor in the atmosphere. During the winter, the size of Antarctica doubles as the
surrounding sea water freezes, effectively blocking heat transfer from the warmer surrounding
ocean. Antarctica has a higher average elevation than any other continent on Earth which
results in even colder temperatures. Weather observations in Antarctica have been recorded
only for the last 150 years. Detailed climatic monitoring began in the late 1950's. Most Antarctic
stations today are equipped with sophisticated weather monitoring technology and are manned
by professional meteorologists who perform observations around the clock. Automated stations
and remote sensing equipment provide a wealth of previously unattainable data and help to
paint a more accurate picture of Antarctic weather continent-wide. Satellite measurements and
photographs of the continent continue to reveal valuable information concerning cloud cover,
storm movement, ice formation and distribution patterns, and a variety of other environmental
characteristics.
Conditions of Antarctica almost uninhabitable
Red apple education 14 [red apple education, “weather, environmental conditions”, 2014,
http://www.skwirk.com/p-c_s-1_u-21_t-190_c-609/weather/nsw/hsie/current-issuesantarctica/environmental-conditions] Jia
Antarctica is one of the coldest and most uninhabitable places on Earth. It is almost
impossible for plants and animals to survive there. The cold ocean that surrounds Antarctica
provides some warmth to the edges of the continent, but the centre of Antarctica remains an
extremely cold place. The air around Antarctica is extremely dry. Almost all warmth from the
sun reflects off the snow and ice into the atmosphere. Any moisture quickly evaporates. The
continent of Antarctica grows bigger in winter, as the surrounding ocean freezes into solid ice.
This makes the land part of Antarctica almost double the size that it is in summer (see image 1).
The continent is even colder in winter because the water from the ocean is less able to
transfer heat to the land. Antarctica and the Southern Ocean play an important role in the
Earth's weather system. What happens in Antarctica can influence winds, clouds, rain and other
weather conditions in the rest of the world. The air around the Earth is continually moving. The
air currents that circulate around the Arctic and the Antarctic are called regions of low pressure.
The air around the equator, which is the imaginary line around the centre of the world, is a
region of high pressure. Hot, moist air from the equator rises and travels toward the north and
south poles, where it cools and then sinks. The weather in Antarctica has only been monitored
for around 150 years. While modern Antarctic stations provide useful information about the
weather today, there are no reliable records of Antarctic weather before the 1950s. Specialist
weather scientists (meteorologists) work in Antarctica, recording weather patterns and
providing predictions about future climate changes. Many weather stations record weather
information automatically. Satellites are also useful for taking pictures of the weather patterns
and keeping track of environmental changes in Antarctica. The temperatures in Antarctica are
some of the coldest on Earth. Along the coast, the temperatures range from - 30 o to
10 o Celsius. Further inland, temperatures are even colder and range from - 70 o to 30 o Celsius. See image 3 the coldest temperature ever recorded, - 89.2 o Celsius, was taken at
the Soviet Vostock base in Antarctica, in 1983. You might think that Antarctica has lots of rain
and snow, but it is really more like a desert. This is because hardly any precipitation, such as
rain or snow, falls there. The annual rainfall is between 30 and 70 mm, which is less than in the
Sahara Desert. It is simply too cold in Antarctica for much snow or rain to fall. Strong winds
also make it difficult for anything to survive in Antarctica. Winds of 316.8 km per hour were
recorded at the French Dumont d'Urville base in 1972. Blizzards are wild storms that take place
in cold climates. Fierce winds pick up snow from the ground and blow it around, making it
extremely difficult to see. A whiteout describes a situation where there are no shadows or
colour differences between objects. A grey or white sky joins the snow-covered ground to
produce whiteouts, making visibility poor or nearly impossible.
Antarctic temperatures reaching up to 138.5 degrees below zero
Rice 13 [Doyle, A reading of 135.8 degrees below zero was measured in Antarctica, using
remote sensing from satellites, 12/10,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/12/10/antarctica-cold-record/3950019/] Jia
There's cold, and then there's Antarctica cold. ... How does a frosty reading of 135.8 degrees
below zero sound? Based on remote satellite measurements, scientists recently recorded that
temperature at a desolate ice plateau in East Antarctica. It was the lowest temperature ever
recorded on Earth, though it may not get that recognition in the official record book. A NASA
satellite measured that temperature in August 2010; on July 31 of this year, another bonechilling temperature of -135.3 degrees was recorded. "I've never been in conditions that cold,
and I hope I never am," said ice scientist Ted Scambos of the National Snow and Ice Data Center
in Boulder, Colo. "I am told that every breath is painful, and you have to be extremely careful
not to freeze part of your throat or lungs when inhaling." The -135.8-degree reading is "50
degrees colder than anything that has ever been seen in Alaska or Siberia or certainly North
Dakota," he said. "It's more like you'd see on Mars on a nice summer day in the poles,"
Scambos said from the American Geophysical Union scientific meeting in San Francisco on
Monday, where he announced the data. Winter in Antarctica occurs, as it does throughout the
Southern Hemisphere, in the months of June, July and August, when the continent is in total
darkness. The official record, as measured by a thermometer, remains -128.6 degrees, set in
Vostok, Antarctica, on July 21, 1983. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the official
keepers of world weather records, recognizes only readings measured by thermometers on
location, not remotely by satellite. "Vostok is still the world's coldest recorded location," said
Randy Cerveny, an Arizona State University professor of geography and the "rapporteur for
climate extremes" at the WMO, via e-mail. "They are using remote sensing, not standard
weather stations, so we at the World Meteorological Organization will not recognize that."
Cerveny noted that there is no way to determine the elevation of the remote-sensed value.
Official temperature measurements must be made of the air about 7 feet above the ground, to
prevent the ground temperature from impacting the air temperature. Vostok is a Russian
research station about 600 miles from the South Pole, where the highest temperature ever
recorded was 4 degrees on a summer afternoon. As for the USA's coldest mark on record, it's 80 degrees, set in Prospect Creek, Alaska, on Jan. 23, 1971, according to Christopher Burt,
weather historian for the Weather Underground. Excluding Alaska, the lowest temperature was
the -70-degree temperature recorded in Rogers Pass, Mont., in January 1954. Regardless of
whether or not the Antarctica mark is an "official" record, it's still unimaginably cold: "Thank
God, I don't know how exactly it feels," Scambos said. He said scientists do routinely make
naked 100-degree-below-zero dashes outside at the South Pole, so people can survive that
temperature for about three minutes. Scambos said that in East Antarctica, the air is dry, the
ground chilly and the skies cloudless. Cold air swoops down off a dome and gets trapped in a
chilly lower spot, "hugging the surface and sliding around." The Antarctica measurements were
made by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) sensor on board NASA's
Aqua satellite and by Landsat 8, a satellite launched early this year by NASA and the U.S.
Geological Survey. The record for cold has little to do with global warming, because it is one spot
in one place, said Waleed Abdalati, an ice scientist at the University of Colorado and NASA's
former chief scientist. Both Abdalati, who wasn't part of the measurement team, and Scambos
said this is probably an unusual random reading in a place that hasn't been measured much and
could have been colder or hotter in the past. "It does speak to the range of conditions on this
Earth, some of which we haven't been able to observe," Abdalati said.
The U.S. aims to continue logistical program in Antarctica fail
Committee on science, space and technology 12 [committee on science, space and
technology, “committee reviews logistics of U.S. Antarctic program”, 11/15,
http://science.house.gov/press-release/committee-reviews-logistics-us-antarctic-program] Jia
The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology today held a hearing to review the future
options and logistical recommendations of the U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) Blue Ribbon
Panel Report, More and Better Science in Antarctica through Increased Logistical Effectiveness,
and to examine the work and goals of the U.S. Antarctic Program. “Our support of explorers and
scientists on Antarctica has yielded and continues to yield valuable research that not only affects
our daily lives, but cannot be done in any other place on earth” said Committee Chairman Ralph
Hall (R-TX). Noting that much remains to be learned about the continent, Hall continued,
“Unfortunately, the magnitude of the logistics to support these activities is enormous and
overwhelmingly dominates the budget for Antarctic activities. Therefore, the Blue Ribbon
Panel’s report recommendations are welcome.” Hall continued, “I also recognize the important
geopolitical reasons to maintain a U.S. presence there and appreciate the cooperation that must
take place not only between relevant U.S. agencies, but also between our international friends
and partners.” The National Science Foundation (NSF), through the Office of Polar Programs,
manages the USAP and supports scientific research by overseeing a massive cooperative effort
among researchers, the military, and civilian agencies. Antarctic research has three goals: to
understand the region and its ecosystems; to understand its effects on (and responses to)
global processes such as climate; and to use the region as a platform to study the upper
atmosphere and space. In July, the U.S. Antarctic Program Blue Ribbon Panel released
its report finding that U.S. Antarctic Program activities are well managed but suffer from an
aging infrastructure, lack of capital budget, and the effects of operating in an unforgiving
environment. Witnesses today discussed the feasibility of implementing the Blue Ribbon Panel’s
recommendations during a time of budgetary constraint, focusing on why research through the
USAP should be prioritized. The Panel’s Chair, Mr. Norman Augustine, emphasized the
importance of maintaining U.S. leadership in Antarctica. “Today we can’t reach our space
station… without flying on Russian launch vehicles. Similarly, we can’t get to Antarctica today
without using Russian ice breakers; and that is a trend that is probably something a great nation
would not want to have.” The Director of NSF, Dr. Subra Suresh, noted the importance of
responding to the logistical requirements associated with the U.S. presence in Antarctica, “We
must continuously address and anticipate the logistics—often extremely complex and always in
a remote and harsh environment—that are needed to implement frontier science and
engineering research.” Another member of the Blue Ribbon Panel, General Duncan McNabb,
strongly advocated modernizing infrastructure in Antarctica and particularly transportation
technologies. “Given the challenges of providing logistics support to this austere area,
optimizing transportation assets is essential,” General McNabb said. “With new technology,
capabilities, and concepts of operations there are excellent opportunities to significantly
improve air, land, and sea transportation options.” Dr. Warren Zapol, Chair of the National
Research Council’s Committee on Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern
Ocean, testified on the importance of leveraging opportunities to enhance America’s Antarctic
program. “Making use of international and multidisciplinary collaboration, emerging
technologies and developing robust sensors, and educational opportunities, the next 20 years of
Antarctic and Southern Ocean research have the potential to advance our understanding of this
planet, and beyond. A robust and efficient U.S. Antarctic Program is needed to realize this
potential.”
Rising temperatures pose threats to Antarctic infrastructure built on melting
permafrost
Green facts 14 [green facts, arctic climate change, 3/7, http://www.greenfacts.org/en/arcticclimate-change/l-2/6-melting-permafrost.htm#1] Jia
Thawing ground will disrupt transportation, buildings and other infrastructure
Arctic land is generally more accessible in winter, when the tundra is frozen and ice roads and
bridges are available. In summer, when the top layer of permafrost thaws and the terrain is
boggy, the transport of food and other raw materials over land can be difficult. Land
transportation routes are thus likely to be affected by changing climate. Increased precipitation
can cause landslides and rising temperatures can shorten the season during which ice roads can
be used. Travel on the Alaskan tundra is now only possible during 100 days per year compared
to over 200 days thirty years ago. This results in a 50% reduction in the time period where oil
and gas exploration and extraction equipment can be used. The timber industry also depends on
frozen ground and rivers and transporting wood is increasingly difficult. Increasing
temperatures pose significant engineering challenges to infrastructure built on permafrost,
such as buildings and industrial facilities. As a result of changing soil temperatures and more
extensive melting and refreezing, new construction will require deeper foundations and thicker
insulation, which entail greater costs. In northern Russia, damage to railway lines, airport
runways, and oil and gas pipelines due to thawing permafrost is now more frequent. Future
thawing might weaken open pit mine walls, and lead to the release of contaminants from mine
tailing disposal facilities into the groundwater. Complete thawing of permafrost, which would
eventually make the construction environment more predictable, is expected to take centuries.
Important and complex interactions exist between climate induced changes in permafrost and
in ecosystems. Vegetation contributes to insulating and maintaining permafrost. Forest
disturbances such as fires and insect outbreaks due to warming could thus lead to further
degradation of the underlying permafrost. Certain tree species (notably black spruce) need icerich permafrost to be stably rooted. Thawing of the ground can lead to severe leaning or
toppling of trees and undermine their growth. Many shallow streams, ponds, lakes and wetlands
in the Arctic hold water because of surrounding permafrost. Loss of permafrost may result in
these waters bodies disappearing as water drains into the ground. Elsewhere, collapse of ground
surfaces due to thawing permafrost could increase the formation of wetlands, ponds, and
drainage networks while increasing sediment transport and deposition, with significant impacts
on aquatic life. Northern peatlands are especially important since these can either absorb or
emit carbon, depending on specific temperature and water level conditions. In western Canada,
a northward shift of the southern boundary of peatlands (by 200 to 300 km) is expected as well
as a significant change in their structure and vegetation. However, the net impact onclimate
change is difficult to predict.
Strange daylight and darkness hours
Carla 08 [Carla, “Antarctic days and nights”, 3/17, http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureonline/earth/antarctica/antarctic-conservation/blog-archive/?p=174] Jia
On first arriving in Antarctica it was a bit strange to wrap our minds around the 24 hours of
sunlight being experienced here. After three months of 24-hour sun, some of the summer staff
were dreading to go back to the real world of the dark nights. Others were seriously itching for a
starry night! We sat in the bar getting to know these new people, sipping our drinks while gazing
out at the ice and mountains. The hours ticked by but the sun remained. It was just so bizarre
to go to bed at midnight with the sun still blazing through the windows. Well, the light is fading
just as we’ve become accustomed to it, and we’ve begun to see some pretty amazing skies
during the evening. We are now headed towards Vernal or Spring Equinox, which occurs on
March 21 at noon, when the sun is directly overhead at the equator. At this time the sun sheds
an equal amount of light and darkness over the entire globe, giving everybody from Antarctica
to the Arctic 12 hours each of sunlight and darkness. From this time onwards night-time in
Antarctica will increase by 20 minutes each day, as the sun rises ten minutes later and sets ten
minutes earlier. Nearing the end of June we enter the time known as “polar nights” or, 24
hours of darkness, while simultaneously the Arctic experiences “polar days”, or 24 hours of
sunlight. So just how does this happen? Well, we all know that the Earth is tilted on its axis,
23.5° to be exact. It’s this tilt, along with the Earth’s rotation around the sun that gives us our
seasons, and the length of our days. The figure below shows how Antarctica enters darkness as
the Arctic tips towards the sun. If the Earth were straight up and down, we would have no
seasons, get no summer holidays, and wouldn’t enjoy things like spring blossoms, colourful
autumn leaves and snow shovelling! This tilt and rotation send Antarctica into complete 24
hour darkness for three months on June 21. This is called Summer Solstice, the first day of
summer in the Northern Hemisphere, the longest day of the year and my sister’s birthday – Erin,
I hope you think of me and eat something DARK and chocolatey!
Antarctic weather reach extremes- during winter months, travel is impossible
Weather online 14 [weather online, “Antarctica”, 2014,
http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/reports/climate/Antarctica.htm] Jia
Antarctica is the coldest continent on earth, and has a climate of extremes. The continent is
snow- and ice-covered, with freezing temperatures all year round. So-called "Catabian
winds" can cause violent snowstorms that can last for days, and sometimes even weeks,
making it very dangerous to stay outside. Antarctica knows periods of continual daylight an
darkness, called "polar summer" (end May - Sept) and "polar winter" (end Nov - March). The
polar summer with daytime temperatures between -20°C and -5°C is the only time to travel to
Antarctica, because the conditions are too bad during the winter months, with extreme cold
temperatures, violent storms, continous darkness and ice-bound seas. Note: Be prepared to
extreme weather conditions at any time. The Weather can change very quickly in Antarctica,
sunshine can change to a serious snowstorm from one moment to another. Special (Expedition)
clothing for Extreme low Temperatures is needed to visit Antarctica. These clothes are only
available in Special Stores, please contact your Travel organisation for more information when
you're planning to visit Antarctica. Antarcticas Climate can be classified as E climate, an extreme
cold climate with the warmest month under 10°C.
Antarctica- a polar desert with unpredictable weather
Discovering Antarctica [discovering Antarctica, “atmosphere, weather and climate”,
http://www.discoveringantarctica.org.uk/alevel_2_0.html] Jia
It is well known that Antarctica is the coldest continent on Earth: the lowest surface air
temperature ever recorded (-89.2°C) was taken at Vostok Station, East Antarctica. However,
there is much more to Antarctica's climate than it simply being cold. It is less widely known that
Antarctica is also a polar desert with very low levels of precipitation. The continent's
geographical position, size, shape, and relief combine to produce a range of unique weather
phenomena; and there are also important regional differences in climate and weather across
the continent. Antarctica also holds one of the keys to unravelling the climatic history of the
world. Cores of ice obtained by drilling deep into glaciers and ice sheets contain evidence of
what the atmosphere was like at different times in the past; and therefore studies of ice cores
(especially cores from Antarctica and Greenland) have contributed greatly to our understanding
of how the Earth's climate has changed over long periods of time, and how it may change in the
future. The ozone hole over the South Polar Region represents one of the most serious effects
that pollution has had on the atmosphere. Fortunately the problem was identified in time for
countries to co-ordinate action to phase out production of the chemicals that caused the
damage, and the ozone hole will gradually disappear. This section describes and explains
Antarctica's present weather and climate, discusses the nature of ice core evidence, and looks at
recent climate changes. The ozone hole is also examined, mainly from the standpoint of the
physical causes of the problem, its effects, and the reasons why the problem is more severe in
the high latitude Southern Hemisphere rather than in the north. The resources contained here
support A-level studies of weather and climate, climate change, long-term environmental
change, and atmospheric pollution.
South pole humidity level 0.03% with dry winds
Discovering Antarctica [discovering Antarctica, “key factors behind Antarctica’s climate”,
http://www.discoveringantarctica.org.uk/alevel_2_0.html] Jia
Antarctica holds the record for the coldest surface air temperature ever recorded on the
planet, a frigid -89.2°C measured at the Russian Vostok Station, on the East Antarctic Ice Sheet,
on the 21st of July, 1983. To be classed as official surface air temperature statistics, consistent
methods must be adhered to: the measurements are made at 2 metres above the actual surface
with readings being taken from a thermometer housed inside a white louvered box (sometimes
called a Stevenson screen). This allows the air to move freely through the box while protecting
the thermometer (and other meteorological instruments) from wind, direct sunlight, and
precipitation. Surface air temperature data collected from different locations in Antarctica show
considerable variation across the continent, particularly between coastal and inland locations;
but even so, the average temperature for Antarctica is far colder than any of the other
continents, and colder than the Arctic. The mean annual temperature at the South Pole is 48°C and in the interior of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet at Vostok it is about -55°C. For
comparison Northern Hemisphere winter temperatures are rarely much below -30°C at the
North Pole, and inside your freezer at home it is only about -18°C! In addition to being cold, the
climate of Antarctica is also very windy and dry. Wind speeds vary across the continent and
are discussed in Section 2.2; but the idea that Antarctica is a kind of desert requires some
explanation here. The relative humidity of air at the South Pole is often as low as 0.03%, and
the continent is a polar desert. This may at first seem surprising with 99% of its area being
covered by ice; and Antarctica certainly doesn't conform to the image that most people have of
a desert. Yet, most of Antarctica is classed as a desert on the basis of its mean annual
precipitation. What little precipitation there is mostly falls as snow, averaging less than 50mm
a year (water equivalent) across much of the interior. This is in the 'hyper arid' category,
shared with the Sahara, Namib, Atacama, and other great deserts of the world. The presence of
so much ice despite such low precipitation is simply due to the fact that low temperatures cause
even less ablation than accumulation. Although related, the terms climate and weather do have
distinct meanings. This section focuses on the general climate characteristics of Antarctica as a
whole, while the next section looks more specifically at regional differences in climate and
weather across the continent.
Antarctica- the coldest place on earth
NASA 08 [NASA, “what is Antarctica”, 2/27, http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/58/features/what-is-antarctica-58.html#.U8k6N4BdXDM] Jia
Antarctica is a continent. It is Earth's fifth-largest continent and is covered almost completely in
ice. Antarctica covers Earth's South Pole. Antarctica is the coldest place on Earth. The average
temperature in Antarctica in the winter is minus 34.4 Celcius (minus 30 degrees Fahrenheit).
The temperature in the center of Antarctica is much lower than the temperature on the coasts.
The lowest temperature ever recorded in Antarctica was minus 89.4 C (minus 129 F). The
highest temperature ever recorded in Antarctica was 15 C (59 F). Antarctica has just two
seasons: summer and winter. Antarctica has six months of daylight in its summer and six
months of darkness in its winter. The seasons are caused by the tilt of Earth's axis in relation to
the sun. The direction of the tilt never changes. But as the Earth orbits the sun, different parts of
the planet are exposed to direct sunlight. During summer, Antarctica is on the side of Earth
tilted toward the sun and is in constant sunlight. In the winter, Antarctica is on the side of Earth
tilted away from the sun, causing the continent to be dark. Antarctica is considered a desert
because it receives very little rain or snowfall. The small amount of snow that does fall does
not melt but builds up over hundreds and thousands of years to form large, thick ice sheets.
Antarctica's terrain is made up of glaciers, ice shelves and icebergs. Antarctica has no trees or
bushes. The only plants that can survive the extreme cold are lichens, mosses and algae.
Antarctica is too cold for people to live there for a long time. Scientists take turns going there
to study the ice. Tourists visit Antarctica in the summers. The oceans surrounding Antarctica are
home to many types of whales. Antarctica is also home to seals and penguins. NASA uses
satellites to study the ice on Antarctica and how the continent is changing. Scientists want to
know how changes in Earth's climate are affecting Antarctica's ice sheets. They also want to
know how changes in Antarctic ice might affect Earth's climate. One tool that NASA uses is the
Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite, or ICESat. Using ICESat, NASA can measure changes in
size of Antarctica's ice sheets. ICESat also helps NASA understand how changes in Earth's
atmosphere and climate affect polar ice and global sea levels. Melting ice sheets may impact sea
levels all over the world. NASA instruments have also helped scientists create detailed maps of
the surface of Antarctica. The maps help researchers when planning trips to Antarctica. They
also give the public a clearer view of the continent. Antarctica is also a good place to find
meteorites, or rocks that fall from space to Earth. The number of meteorites found in Antarctica
is equal to the number of meteorites found in the rest of the world combined. Meteorites are
easier to see on the white ice. Also, meteorites that fall to Antarctica are preserved in ice for a
long time. NASA scientists have used the Antarctic environment to study Mars. The desert
conditions in Antarctica are like the conditions on Mars. NASA tested robots in Antarctica that
later landed on Mars. NASA scientists also went to Antarctica to study astronaut nutrition. Like
people in Antarctica in the winter, astronauts in space are not in the sunlight. The sun helps the
human body make vitamins. Scientists study people that visit Antarctica to learn how to help
astronauts in space get enough vitamins.
Antarctic weather so bad, rescue missions impossible
Connor and Fieldstadt 13 [Tracy, Elisha, “bad weather thwarts weather of stranded
Antarctica ship”, 12/29, http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/30/22096342-badweather-thwarts-rescue-of-stranded-antarctica-ship] Jia
Weather conditions thwarted efforts of a third rescue vessel attempting to approach a
trapped research ship in Antarctica on Monday, officials reported. Snow showers and high
winds made it impossible for the Aurora Australis to approach the MV Akademic Shokalskiy,
which has been stuck in multi-layered slabs of ice more than 10-feet deep since Christmas Eve,
according to the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA). The Aurora made it within 10
nautical miles of the stranded ship before having to retreat, AMSA said. The Aurora reached the
general vicinity of the Akademic Shokalskiy early Monday (Sunday afternoon, Eastern Time) as
the crew was encouraged by cracking ice surrounding the ship, leading crew members to make a
light-hearted video they posted on Twitter: "Cracks are developing around the bow," expedition
leader and University of New South Wales Professor Christopher Turney tweeted as the 74
scientists, tourists and crew members on board waited for the ice-breaker Aurora Australis to
arrive. At about 5 p.m. ET Sunday, Turney told NBC News that he expected the Aurora to reach
them in "maybe a few hours." But snow flurries hampered the visibility of the crew, forcing the
ship to slow down, AMSA reported at 7 p.m. ET. One of three rescue vessels involved in the
mission, China's Snow Dragon, sent a helicopter Sunday over the Shokalskiy, a Russian-flagged
ship, to assess the ice condition. "From the air, only a very tiny glint of the deep blue sea water
is visible," Xinhua News Agency journalist Zhang Jiangzhong reported. "The whole area around
was covered with ice.” "The Russian ship is somewhat tilting on one side. Many people were
standing on the area on the right of the ship, waving," the report continued. "After checking all
sides of the ship, the helicopter returned. The captain considered that the ship and passengers
are safe but the ice situation still extremely serious and still beyond the Snow Dragon's icebreaking ability." The Snow Dragon remained near the Shokalskiy on Monday, AMSA intended
for the helicopter aboard the Snow Dragon to rescue the trapped passengers in the event that
the Aurora Australis had to turn around. But AMSA said Monday “it is also unsafe to attempt to
launch the helicopter from the Chinese vessel,” due to the wind and snow. The Aurora may
make a second attempt to reach the Shokalskiy if weather conditions improve, AMSA said. The
Shokalskiy was trapped during the Australian Antarctic Expedition, a mission led by Turney to
retrace the footsteps of Australian geologist Douglas Mawson, who explored the Antarctic 100
years ago. It left the port of Bluff, New Zealand on Dec. 8 and was stopped 100 nautical miles
east of the French Antarctic base Dumont D’Urville. Spirits on the ship appeared high, with
several members of the team posting video diaries on YouTube. "We're all having a good time
here. The morale on the boat's excellent," Nicole de Losa said in one, adding that there would
be dancing and singing on the ice later.
Transportation infrastructure damaged by Antarctic weather
EPA 13 [EPA, “climate impacts in Alaska”, 9/9, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impactsadaptation/alaska.html] Jia
Alaska is a huge state with a wide range of climatic and ecological conditions. It is known for its
rainforests, glaciers, boreal forest, tundra, peatlands, and meadows. Alaska contains 75% of U.S.
national parks and 90% of U.S. wildlife refuges, by area.[1] Over the past 50 years, temperatures
across Alaska increased by an average of 3.4°F. Winter warming was even greater, rising by an
average of 6.3°F.[2]The rate of warming in Alaska was twice the national average over that same
period of time. Average annual temperatures in Alaska are projected to increase an additional
3.5 to 7°F by the middle of this century.[2] Precipitation in Alaska has also increased slightly,
but the trend is not significant. Climate projections indicate that Alaskan winters are likely to
be wetter, and that summers could become drier, as rising air temperatures accelerate the
rate of evaporation.[2][3] Permafrost is the frozen ground located one to two feet below the
surface in cold regions. As permafrost thaws and the soil sinks, structures built on or within the
soil are damaged. Although most Alaskans live in permafrost-free areas, an estimated 100,000
Alaskans (about 14% of the population) live in areas sensitive to permafrost degradation.[4]As
explained below, the impacts of melting permafrost on transportation, forests, ecosystems, and
the economy could have widespread implications for Alaskans. Many of Alaska's highways are
built on permafrost. When permafrost thaws, roads buckle. Vehicles are only allowed to drive
across certain roads in the tundra when the ground is frozen solid. In the past 30 years, the
number of days when travel is allowed on the tundra has decreased from 200 days to 100 days
per year.[2]Projected increases in temperatures and permafrost thawing would continue this
trend and could further limit access to the tundra. Building infrastructure on thawing
permafrost requires additional engineering, and can increase the cost of construction by 10%
or more.[2] As temperatures rise and permafrost thaws, the softening soil interferes with tree
root systems. The altered soil conditions cause trees to sink into the ground. As a result, the
trees in many of Alaska's forests lean, creating so-called "drunken forests."[2][3] Over the past 50
years, thawing permafrost and increased evaporation have caused a substantial decline in the
area of Alaska's closed-basin lakes (lakes without stream inputs and outputs). These surface
waters and wetlands provide breeding habitat for millions of waterfowl and shorebirds that
winter in the lower 48 states.[2]These wetland ecosystems and the wildlife resources are
important to Alaska Natives who hunt and fish for food. As the climate warms, shrubs are
invading the tundra. In some areas, the shrubs are replacing lichens and other tundra
vegetation. Lichens are an important winter food source for caribou, and the loss of lichens can
lead to declines in the growth and abundance of these animals. Caribou in turn are a critical
food source for predators such as bears and wolves, as well as for Alaska Natives.[3] Higher
temperatures and less summer moisture increase the risks of drought, wildfire, and insect
infestation. Alaska's boreal spruce forest declined substantially in recent decades from both fire
and insect damage. By mid-century, the average area burned by wildfire each year is likely to
double.[2] The extent of sea ice is declining throughout the Arctic. Sea ice is frozen seawater
floating on the surface of the ocean. Some sea ice persists from year to year (known as
perennial sea ice), often getting thicker as it piles up against Arctic shorelines. Other sea ice
melts during the warm season and refreezes in the cold season. Over the past several decades,
the perennial sea ice has declined dramatically. This decline is, in part, a result of extended
periods of above-freezing air or water temperatures. Ocean currents and winds have also played
an important role, pushing perennial sea ice out of the Arctic basin. The average sea ice extent
in September has decreased by 11.5% per decade over the past 30 years. Climate models
project that sea ice will continue to retreat during the 21st century. Late summers could be
nearly ice-free as early as about the 2040s.[5] Diminishing sea ice has opened new opportunities
for shipping, oil and gas exploration, and other economic activities. However, it has also created
a pathway for invasive species and caused the loss of critical habitat for a variety of icedependent species, including walruses and polar bears. Changes in sea ice can also affect the
timing and location of plankton blooms, which can in turn affect the areas where commercial
fisheries can thrive. Landfast ice (sea ice that has frozen along the shore) is important because it
protects coastal shorelines and human settlements from flooding and erosion caused by storms,
wind, and wave damage.[2][3][5][6] People in Alaska are already feeling the impact of climate
change. In many parts of the state, the changing climate has negatively affected the livelihood,
settlements, and well-being of residents. Alaska Natives fish in ocean and inland waters. They
also hunt animals such as polar bears, walruses, seals, and caribou for food. As climate change
reduces these species' critical habitats, declines in their population threaten not only the
livelihood of Alaska Natives, but also their cultural and social identity. As the supply of fish and
game declines, hunters and fishers are forced to seek alternative sources of food.[2][3] Along
Alaska's northwestern coast, increased coastal erosion is causing some shorelines to retreat at
rates averaging tens of feet per year.[2]Here, melting sea ice has reduced natural coastal
protection. In Shishmaref, Kivalina, and other Alaska Native Villages, erosion has caused homes
to collapse into the sea. Severe erosion has forced some Alaska Native Villages' populations to
relocate in order to protect lives and property.
Impact Defense – Warming Inevitable
Warming isn’t real, studies prove
Scott-11 – [John, 8/23/11, “A Really Inconvenient Truth: Global Warming is Not Real”,
http://www.policymic.com/articles/3824/a-really-inconvenient-truth-global-warming-is-notreal)//ab] Thomas
Sixteen prominent scientists recently signed an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal expressing
their belief that the theory of global warming is not supported by science. This has not been
getting the attention it deserves because politicians (looking at you Al Gore) are frankly
embarrassed to admit that they are wrong about the phenomenon known as global warming.
Not only has our planet stopped warming, but we may be headed toward a vast cooling
period. New data shows that in fact the Earth has not warmed at all over the last 15 years. In
fact, the Daily Mail reports that the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic
Research Unit, after taking data from nearly 30,000 stations around the world, have found that
the earth stopped warming in 1997. The report suggests we are headed toward a new solar
cycle, Cycle 25, which NASA scientists have predicted will be significantly cooler than Cycle 24
which we are in now. This data largely contradicts the accepted theory among the public that
carbon dioxide pollution is causing global warming and even proposes that we are actually
heading toward global cooling. I share the same frustration in the political and scientific
community that the sixteen scientists express. Why did we all hop on board the global warming
bandwagon started by politicians when the scientific community didn’t back it? Since 1998,
31,000 scientists have signed a petitionagreeing with the fact that there is no scientific
evidence or consensus that man-made global warming exists while the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has the support of only 2,500 scientists. Yet, for some reason it
is accepted that global warming is scientifically undeniable. Part of this is due to Al Gore’s 2006
documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, which has championed the cause to stop global warming
and was shown throughout America including in classrooms. Gore dramatized the effects of
carbon dioxide on climate change and some say he even fabricated the evidence shown in the
film.
Warming inevitable, turning around now won’t make a difference
Biello- 10 – [David, 9/9/10, “How Much Global Warming Is Guaranteed Even If We Stopped
Building Coal-Fired Power Plants Today?”,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=guaranteed-global-warming-with-existingfossil-fuel-infrastructure)//ab] Thomas
Humanity has yet to reach the point of no return when it comes to catastrophic climate
change, according to new calculations. If we content ourselves with the existing fossil-fuel
infrastructure we can hold greenhouse gas concentrations below 450 parts per million in the
atmosphere and limit warming to below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels—both
common benchmarks for international efforts to avoid the worst impacts of ongoing climate
change—according to a new analysis in the September 10 issue of Science. The bad news is we
are adding more fossil-fuel infrastructure—oil-burning cars, coal-fired power plants, industrial
factories consuming natural gas—every day. A team of scientists analyzed the existing fossilfuel infrastructure to determine how much greenhouse gas emissions we have committed to if
all of that kit is utilized for its entire expected lifetime. The answer: an average of 496 billion
metric tons more of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere between now and 2060 in
"committed emissions". That assumes life spans of roughly 40 years for a coal-fired power
plant and 17 years for a typical car—potentially major under- and overestimates, respectively,
given that some coal-fired power plants still in use in the U.S. first fired up in the 1950s.
Plugging that roughly 500 gigatonne number into a computer-generated climate model
predicted CO2 levels would then peak at less than 430 ppm with an attendant warming of 1.3
degrees C above preindustrial average temperature. That's just 50 ppm higher than present
levels and 150 ppm higher than preindustrial atmospheric concentrations. Still, we are rapidly
approaching a point of no return, cautions climate modeler Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie
Institution for Science's Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University, who participated
in the study. "There is little doubt that more CO2-emitting devices will be built," the researchers
wrote. After all, the study does not take into account all the enabling infrastructure—such as
highways, gas stations and refineries—that contribute inertia that holds back significant
changes to lower-emitting alternatives, such as electric cars.
Warming highly exaggerated satellites' prove
Mosher-11 [ Steven W. Mosher, M.S. Oceanography, M.A. East Asian Studies, M.A.
Anthropology, is the President of the Population Research Institute and has a research interest
in historical climate change, U.N. Climate Models Flawed - Grossly Exaggerate Warming Effect,
Population Research Institute, 2011,http://www.pop.org/content/un-climate-models-flawedgrossly-exaggerate-warming-effect] Thomas.
We have all heard, ad nauseum, about the so-called “greenhouse effect.” Even little children can tell you how the build up of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat by increasing humidity and thickening the cloud layer.¶ Except that it doesn’t — at least to the
degree that the U.N climate models have been programmed to “believe.”¶ Instead, as soon as the climate
begins to warm, the Earth’s atmosphere begins releasing much of this energy into space.¶ How do we know this?¶ Two University of
Alabama scientists, Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. Danny Braswell, compared eleven years of data from the real world with U.N.
climate model predictions — and found the models grossly flawed. The study, rather pointedly called On the
Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth's Radiant Energy Balance, appeared in a peer-reviewed
journal, Remote Sensing, in late July. (Remote Sensing. 2011, 3, 1603-1613.)¶ As Dr. Spencer stated in a press release, “The [NASA
Terra] satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models
show. There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.Ӧ This new study
supports earlier National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA data showing that humidity and cloud cover
did not increase the way that the flawed U.N. computer models predicted.¶ James M. Taylor, managing editor of the Environment &
Climate News, also notes that “The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more
longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted.
Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data
show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide
emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models
have predicted.Ӧ This may sound to some like an abstract question of scientific research. It is not. There are many, including
the President’s science czar, who would like to make fundamental changes in our way of life — even dictating how many children we
can have — in order to combat the threat of “man-made global warming.”¶ To such anti-people ideologues we may add the
profiteers. The
United Nations, joined by dozens of nonprofits, has literally raised billions of dollars by
frightening both politicians and ordinary people with the specter of the planet overheating. It is
safe to say that there are thousands of people who, one way or another, profit from climate alarmism.¶ In a sane world, the
Spencer-Braswell study should sound the death knell for the theory that, by releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, we are
making the planet unlivable.¶ Unfortunately, radical environmentalist and population control groups are largely immune to facts. For
example, they continue to propagate the myth of overpopulation even as the populations of country after country age and die. Why
should the myth of man-made global warming be any different?¶ Then, too, the Global Warming establishment has built up
considerable forward momentum by this point. Movements with millions of adherents and billions of dollars in resources simply do
not go quietly into their graves.¶ Still, while Global Warming alarmists like Al Gore continue to hyperventilate over the supposed
danger of increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — and call for increased funding for abortion and fertility reduction
programs — the rest of us can
breathe easier.¶ It’s becoming abundantly clear that the only thing
“man-made” about Global Warming is the hoax itself.
Global Warming Advantage
Impact turn – Food Shortages
Food shortages real, Millions suffering from no food
Freedom from Hunger.org -14 [Freedom from Hunger brings innovative and sustainable selfhelp solutions to the fight against chronic hunger and poverty. Together with local partners, we
equip families with resources they need to build futures of health, hope and dignity, World
Hunger Facts: Causes, Effects and Solutions, freedom from hunger, 2014,
https://www.freedomfromhunger.org / world-hunger-facts]Thomas
This year, nearly 9 million children younger than five years old will die needlessly, more than half
from hunger-related causes.1¶ Few of these deaths are related to outright starvation, but rather to common illnesses
(such as diarrhea, malaria and measles) that move in on vulnerable children whose bodies have been weakened by hunger.2¶
Freedom from Hunger concentrates its services in the world's poorest nations, where an overwhelming 32% are moderately to
severely stunted—seriously below normal height for one's age.2¶ In the developing world, more than 1.4 billion people currently live
below the international poverty line, earning less than $1.25 per day.3¶ Among this group of poor people, many have
problems obtaining adequate, nutritious food for themselves and their families. As a result,
1.02 billion people in the developing world are undernourished. They consume less than the minimum
amount of calories essential for sound health and growth.4¶ Undernourishment negatively affects people’s
health, productivity, sense of hope and overall well-being. A lack of food can stunt growth, slow thinking, sap
energy, hinder fetal development and contribute to mental retardation.5¶ Economically, the effort of constantly securing food
consumes valuable time and energy, allowing poor people less time for work and earning income.4¶ Pregnant women and new
mothers who breastfeed infants and children are among the most at risk of undernourishment.4
Global food shortage real, one in eight people suffer from undernourishment
Texas A&M AgriLife Communications. "Food shortages could be most critical world issue by midcentury." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 17 April 2014. www. sciencedaily.com /releases /2014 /04/
140417124704.htm] Thomas
The world is less than 40 years away from a food shortage that will have serious implications
for people and governments, according to a top scientist at the U.S. Agency for International Development.¶ "For the first time
in human history, food production will be limited on a global scale by the availability of land, water and
energy," said Dr. Fred Davies, senior science advisor for the agency's bureau of food security. "Food issues could become as politically destabilizing by
2050 as energy issues are today."¶ Davies, who also is a Texas A&M AgriLife Regents Professor of Horticultural Sciences, addressed the North American
Agricultural Journalists meeting in Washington, D.C. on the "monumental challenge of feeding the world."¶ He said the
world population
will increase 30 percent to 9 billion people by mid-century. That would call for a 70 percent
increase in food to meet demand.¶ "But resource limitations will constrain global food systems,"
Davies added. "The increases currently projected for crop production from biotechnology, genetics, agronomics and horticulture will not be sufficient
to meet food demand." Davies said the ability to discover ways to keep pace with food demand have been curtailed by cutbacks in spending on
research.¶ "The U.S. agricultural productivity has averaged less than 1.2 percent per year between 1990 and 2007," he said. "More efficient
technologies and crops will need to be developed -- and equally important, better ways for applying these technologies locally for farmers -- to address
this challenge." Davies said when new technologies are developed, they often do not reach the small-scale farmer worldwide.¶ "A greater emphasis is
needed in high-value horticultural crops," he said. "Those create jobs and economic opportunities for rural communities and enable more profitable,
intense farming." Horticultural crops, Davies noted, are 50 percent of the farm-gate value of all crops produced in the U.S.¶ He also made the
connection between the consumption of fruits and vegetables and chronic disease prevention and pointed to research centers in the U.S. that are
making links between farmers, biologists and chemists, grocers, health care practitioners and consumers. That connection, he suggested, also will be
vital in the push to grow enough food to feed people in coming years. ¶ "Agricultural productivity, food security, food safety, the environment, health,
nutrition and obesity -- they are all interconnected," Davies said. One
in eight people worldwide, he added, already suffers
from chronic undernourishment, and 75 percent of the world's chronically poor are in the mid-income nations such as China, India,
Brazil and the Philippines.¶ "The perfect storm for horticulture and agriculture is also an opportunity," Davies said. "Consumer trends such as views on
quality, nutrition, production origin and safety impact what foods we consume. Also, urban agriculture favors horticulture." For example, he said, the
fastest growing segment of new farmers in California, are female, non-Anglos who are "intensively growing horticultural crops on small acreages," he
said.
Carbon Dioxide good, will increase vegetation,solve food shortages
Radford-13 [ Tim Radford, Tim Radford is a freelance journalist. He worked for The Guardian for
32 years, becoming - among other things - letters editor, arts editor, literary editor and science
editor. He won the Association of British Science Writers award for science writer of the year
four times, Study Finds Plant Growth Surges as CO2 Levels Rise, Climate Central,
LONDON – Australian scientists have solved one piece of the climate puzzle. They have confirmed the long-debated fertilization
effect.¶ Plants build
their tissues by using photosynthesis to take carbon from the air around
them. So more carbon dioxide should mean more vigorous plant growth – though until now this has
been very difficult to prove.¶ Arid areas could be transformed by green plants as carbon dioxide levels rise.¶ ¶ Randall Donohue of
the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organization in Canberra, Australia, and his colleagues developed a mathematical model
to predict the extent of this carbon dioxide fertilization effect.¶ Between 1982 and 2010, carbon
dioxide levels in the
atmosphere increased by 14 percent. So, their model suggested, foliage worldwide should have
increased by between 5 and 10 percent.¶ Measuring uncertainties¶ It is one thing to predict an effect, quite another
to prove it. Satellite observations can and successfully do measure seasonal changes in vegetation, the growth of deserts, the change
from open prairie to savannah, the growth of new trees in the tundra and so on, but it’s very difficult to be sure that these changes
have anything to do with carbon dioxide fertilization: changes in temperature and rainfall patterns would also have an impact.¶ Also,
some regions – tropical rainforests, for example – are already completely covered by forest canopy: orbiting satellites are unlikely to
measure much change there.¶ Donohue and his team, in a study appearing in Geophysical Research Letters, the journal of the
American Geophysical Union, looked at those regions where leaf cover really would stand out, and where carbon dioxide fertilization
would be the best explanation for new growth.¶ These were the warm, dry places: while the researchers focused on changes in arid
regions in North America’s south-west, Australia’s Outback, the Middle East and parts of Africa, they also had to find a technique
that allowed for natural seasonal and cyclic changes, alterations in land use and so on.¶ They calculated that in these conditions,
plants would make more leaves if they had the water to do so. “A
leaf can extract more carbon from the air
during photosynthesis, or lose less water to the air during photosynthesis, or both, due to
elevated CO2,” says Donohue. That is the CO2 fertilization effect.
Solves warming, Plants uses Co2 for photosynthesis and growth
Adams-13 [ Mike Adams, Mike Adams, the "Health Ranger," is an outspoken consumer health
advocate, award-winning investigative journalist, internet activist and science lab director,Mike
Adams has a four-year bachelor of science degree from a prominent university in the Midwest.
He has minors in mathematics and economics, CO2 myth busted: Why we need more carbon
dioxide to grow food and forests, natural news, http://www. naturalnews.com
/039720_carbon_dioxide _myths_ plant_ nutrition .html#]Thomas
As it turns out, CO2 is desperately needed by food crops, and right now there is a severe
shortage of CO2 on the planet compared to what would be optimum for plants. Greenhouse
operators are actually buying carbon dioxide and injecting it into their greenhouses in order to
maximize plant growth.¶ The science on this is irrefutable. As just one example, the Ontario
Ministry of Agriculture and Food says:¶ CO2 increases productivity through improved plant
growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier
flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower
size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient.¶ If you want to understand why CO2 is an
essential nutrient for food crop growth, check out this informative slide show. It explains that
"CO2 may be repidly depleted during crop production" daylight hours, because the plants pull
all the CO2 out of the air and use it in photosynthesis.¶ The CO2 found in modern-day
atmosphere is 340ppm. But food crops would grow far faster if the concentration of CO2 were
closer to 1000ppm, or roughly 300% higher than current levels. In fact, most greenhouse plant
production causes a "CO2 depletion" to happen, shutting down photosynthesis and limiting food
production. As the "Carbon Dioxide in Greenhouses" fact sheet explains:¶ Ambient CO2 level in
outside air is about 340 ppm by volume. All plants grow well at this level but as CO2 levels are
raised by 1,000 ppm photosynthesis increases proportionately resulting in more sugars and
carbohydrates available for plant growth. Any actively growing crop in a tightly clad
greenhouse with little or no ventilation can readily reduce the CO2 level during the day to as low
as 200 ppm.¶ Thus, greenhouse plants are "running out" of CO2. They are starving for it. And
when you add it to food crops, you get higher yields, improved taste, shorter flowering times,
enhanced pest resistance and other benefits.¶ Why we should pump carbon dioxide into
greenhouses¶ This brings up an obvious answer for what to do with all the CO2 produced by
power plants, office buildings and even fitness centers where people exhale vast quantities of
CO2. The answer is to build adjacent greenhouses and pump the CO2 into the greenhouses.¶
Every coal-fired power plant, in other words, should have a vast array of greenhouses
surrounding it. Most of what you see emitted from power plant smokestacks is water vapor and
CO2, both essential nutrients for rapid growth of food crops. By diverting carbon dioxide and
water into greenhouses, the problem of emissions is instantly solved because the plants
update the CO2 and use it for photosynthesis, thus "sequestering" the CO2 while rapidly
growing food crops. It also happens to produce oxygen as a "waste product" which can be
released into the atmosphere, (slightly) upping the oxygen level of the air we breathe.¶ This is a
brilliant solution because humans want to live on a world with low CO2 that supports frozen ice
caps in order to keep ocean water levels low, but they want to eat a volume of food that
requires high CO2 for production. The answer is to concentrate CO2 into greenhouses where
food production is multiplied by CO2 nutrition.¶ I'll bet you've never heard Al Gore talk about
CO2 as "nutrition." He declares it a pollutant and wants to tax you for producing it. But CO2 is
actually a key nutritive gas for food crops. Without carbon dioxide, we would all have starved
to death by now.
Science Diplomacy Advantage
Leadership High
U.S is the number 1 hegemony, studies show
Boot-7/14 [Max Boot is a leading military historian and foreign-policy analyst. holds a
bachelor's degree in history, with high honors, from the University of California, Berkeley (1991),
and a master's degree in history from Yale University (1992),America,: the Popular Hegemon,
Commentary, 7/15/14, http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/07/15/america-thepopular-hegemon/]Thomas
There’s a lot to chew over in the new international survey from the Pew Global Attitudes Project. The headline on Pew’s own website leads with
international opposition to U.S. surveillance and the use of drones but, despite this, the
U.S. remains pretty popular–viewed
favorably by 65 percent of the world and unfavorably by just 25 percent.¶ Those numbers are all the more impressive when you
compare the standing of America’s rivals. Russia’s negative ratings have spiked–now 43 percent of those surveyed view Putinland unfavorably while 34
percent have a positive view. As for China–whose diplomatic offensive at American expense has often been noted–it outscores the U.S. in popularity in
only one region: the Middle East. Everywhere else–Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America–the U.S. is more popular.¶ When asked which country is
their top ally, respondents in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, Thailand, and Vietnam all answered the “U.S.” Only
respondents in Malaysia and Pakistan described China as their top ally and the U.S. as their top threat. In Japan, the Philippines, and Vietnam, China
was described as the top threat. (Indonesians seem confused–they named the U.S. as both the top ally and the top threat.) ¶ Even more interesting is
the fact that large majorities in all of China’s neighbors–and even in China itself–are worried that “territorial disputes between China and neighboring
states could lead to a military conflict.” The survey indicates that more than 90 percent of those surveyed in the Philippines are worried as are more
than 80 percent of those surveyed in South Korea, Japan, and Vietnam. Even in China itself more than 60 percent of those surveyed are worried about
war.¶ The implication is clear: the U.S. still has a lot of capital in the world while China is rapidly dissipating
whatever goodwill it might once have enjoyed with its aggressive and bombastic behavior. Obviously there is a lot more to foreign policy than
popularity–it would be nice to be respected, not just liked–but nevertheless the survey does show an important and often under-appreciated source of
American strength: namely the fact that most people around the world do not view us as a threat, no matter how powerful we may be, even when
American behavior (e.g., on surveillance and drones) comes in for so much criticism. We
are the benevolent superpower, the
popular hegemon–not just in our own minds but in the minds of most other people around
the world.
U.S is Science Leader, Country with most noble prices
Bruner-11 [ Jon Bruner, data editor at Forbes graduated from the University of Chicago in
2006 with degrees in mathematics and economics, 10/5/2011, http://www.forbes. com/sites/
jonbruner/2011 /10/05/nobel-prizes-and-american-leadership-in-science-infographic/] Thomas
The graphic below demonstrates one of America’s most
important strengths: its complete dominance of basic
scientific research. Each day this week, phone calls will go out from Stockholm or Oslo to tell distinguished academics, writers and
peacemakers that they’ve won a Nobel Prize. And, as they have for several decades, a majority of those calls will most likely go to American
academics.¶ That says a great deal about America’s place in the academy. The
United States has won more Nobel prizes
for physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, and economics since World War II than any other
country, by a wide margin (it has been less dominant in literature and peace, two awards that are much more broadly distributed among nations).
At least one American has won a prize each year since 1935 (excluding the years 1940 through 1942, when no prizes were given out). And the United
States became dominant after a very slow start: no American won a science prize in the first six years of the prize’s existence.The United States is also
unique in the scale on which it attracts human capital: of the 314 laureates who won their Nobel prize while working in the U.S., 102 (or 32%) were
foreign born, including 15 Germans, 12 Canadians, 10 British, six Russians and six Chinese (twice as many as have received the award while working in
China). Compare that to Germany, where just 11 out of 65 Nobel laureates (or 17%) were born outside of Germany (or, while it still existed, Prussia). Or
to Japan, which counts no foreigners at all among its nine Nobel laureates. ¶ Note how abruptly scientific leaders can become followers: in the first
decades of the 20th century, when Heidelberg and Freiburg were at the center of the academic universe, Germany won more Nobel prizes than any
other country: 38 between 1901 and 1931, outpacing the U.S. by a factor of two and a half. But Nazism and the Second World War decimated
Germany’s academic apparatus, and the U.S. recruited many of its best scientists. Between 1950 and 1980, Germany won just 16 Nobel prizes. The
United States took 117.¶ The United States owes much to its commanding lead in scientific research, including technological advancement, prosperity
and security. Whether it will be able to retain that lead is an important question whose answer depends on whether the country is willing to maintain
its warm embrace of science: generous government support in the form of research grants and measures to make higher education accessible;
reasonably open borders that make it possible to bring in the world’s best minds; and rich universities and foundations that support long-term
theoretical research.¶ My graphic is in a way a lagging indicator of scientific leadership, since Nobel Prizes typically recognize discoveries published
between ten and thirty years earlier. Two important fields of research have moved toward other parts of the world since the late 1990s: stem cell
investigation, which relies largely on private support in the U.S. because of Bush-era research restrictions; and experimental high-energy physics, which
has a promising new tool at CERN in Switzerland and France. The U.S. still vastly outspends every other country on basic research, as it should, and is
home to the world’s best research institutions. But our leaders must remember how easy it is to fall behind–particularly when emergent powers decide
to make science a priority.
Us strong in science now
Bruner 11 (john, data editor at Forbes, graduated from the University of Chicago in 2006 with
degrees in mathematics and economics, American Leadership in Science, Measured in Nobel
Prizes [Infographic] http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbruner/2011/10/05/nobel-prizes-andamerican-leadership-in-science-infographic/)Yousuf
The graphic below demonstrates one of America’s most important strengths: its complete
dominance of basic scientific research. Each day this week, phone calls will go out from
Stockholm or Oslo to tell distinguished academics, writers and peacemakers that they’ve won a
Nobel Prize. And, as they have for several decades, a majority of those calls will most likely go to
American academics. That says a great deal about America’s place in the academy. The United
States has won more Nobel prizes for physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, and
economics since World War II than any other country, by a wide margin (it has been less
dominant in literature and peace, two awards that are much more broadly distributed among
nations). At least one American has won a prize each year since 1935 (excluding the years 1940
through 1942, when no prizes were given out). And the United States became dominant after a
very slow start: no American won a science prize in the first six years of the prize’s existence.
The United States is also unique in the scale on which it attracts human capital: of the 314
laureates who won their Nobel prize while working in the U.S., 102 (or 32%) were foreign born,
including 15 Germans, 12 Canadians, 10 British, six Russians and six Chinese (twice as many as
have received the award while working in China). Compare that to Germany, where just 11 out
of 65 Nobel laureates (or 17%) were born outside of Germany (or, while it still existed, Prussia).
Or to Japan, which counts no foreigners at all among its nine Nobel laureates. Note how
abruptly scientific leaders can become followers: in the first decades of the 20th century, when
Heidelberg and Freiburg were at the center of the academic universe, Germany won more Nobel
prizes than any other country: 38 between 1901 and 1931, outpacing the U.S. by a factor of two
and a half. But Nazism and the Second World War decimated Germany’s academic apparatus,
and the U.S. recruited many of its best scientists. Between 1950 and 1980, Germany won just 16
Nobel prizes. The United States took 117. The United States owes much to its commanding lead
in scientific research, including technological advancement, prosperity and security. Whether it
will be able to retain that lead is an important question whose answer depends on whether the
country is willing to maintain its warm embrace of science: generous government support in the
form of research grants and measures to make higher education accessible; reasonably open
borders that make it possible to bring in the world’s best minds; and rich universities and
foundations that support long-term theoretical research. My graphic is in a way a lagging
indicator of scientific leadership, since Nobel Prizes typically recognize discoveries published
between ten and thirty years earlier. Two important fields of research have moved toward other
parts of the world since the late 1990s: stem cell investigation, which relies largely on private
support in the U.S. because of Bush-era research restrictions; and experimental high-energy
physics, which has a promising new tool at CERN in Switzerland and France. The U.S. still vastly
outspends every other country on basic research, as it should, and is home to the world’s best
research institutions. But our leaders must remember how easy it is to fall behind–particularly
when emergent powers decide to make science a priority.
Us strong in science now
Hummel NO DATE(Robert, Chief Scientist and VP of Research at Potomac Institute for Policy
Studies, US Science and Technology Leadership, and Technology Grand Challenges
http://www.synesisjournal.com/vol3_g/Hummel_2012_G14-39.pdf)Yousuf
The US enjoys a science and technology (S&T) enterprise that is the envy of the world. Our
uni-versities, industries, laboratories, and government institutions have developed and used
technol-ogy that has driven economic benefits and secured superpower defense status. The
US remains the leader in S&T innovation, a position enjoyed since World War II. While the
health of the US S&T enterprise remains strong, there are considerable stresses within each
major component. Some believe that the US position as leader in S&T could falter, at least in
some fields. We review the stresses in various components of the S&T enterprise and the
evidence of trends in S&T quality. We conclude that the enterprise maintains a leadership
position for now.
US science high now – funding increase
Mervis 1/14 – (Jeffrey Mervis, Staff Writer for Science, reports on science policy in the US,
more than 30 years experience in the field, “US Science Agencies Get Some Relief in 2014
Budget”, Science, January 1, 2014, http://news.sciencemag.org/funding/2014/01/u.s.-scienceagencies-get-some-relief-2014-budget) Wang
The ghost of former President George W. Bush permeates the 2014 budget that Congress released last night. His presence is good
news for physical scientists, but less cheery for biomedical researchers, as Congress
reserved some of the biggest
spending increases for NASA and the Department of Energy (DOE). The National Institutes of Health
(NIH), meanwhile, got a $1 billion increase that is drawing mixed reviews from research advocates.¶ The deal released
late on 13 January has its origins in a spending deal that Congress struck on 10 December. It eased the pain of the across-the-board
cuts known as sequestration, calling for $1.012 trillion in 2014 discretionary spending. That is some $44 billion more than would
have been available under a 2011 agreement that called for reducing the federal deficit by a trillion dollars over the next decade. But
it took about a month for lawmakers to decide how to divvy up the money.¶ For agencies that provide major support for the physical
sciences, the
new budget represents a healthy boost over 2013 spending levels, which were depressed
by the sequester’s 5% bite. The National Science Foundation ( NSF) will receive $7.17 billion, an increase of
4.2%,
for example, and NASA’s
science programs will get $5.15 billion, a 7.7% jump. DOE’s Office of
Science enjoys a 9.7% increase, to $5.07 billion, and DOE’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy gets an 11.2% boost to $280
million. The National
Institutes of Standards and Technology will see its budget grow 10.4%, to
$850 million.¶ Except for NASA, those agencies were all part of a 2006 initiative launched by the Bush administration to
increase funding for the physical sciences. Congress formalized the idea in a 2007 law, the America COMPETES Act. Although
agencies never received the generous funding called for by COMPETES, which has recently expired after being reauthorized in 2010,
its message appears to have survived: The physical sciences need to be strengthened to help the U.S. economy remain strong.
President Barack Obama has continued that theme in his budget requests, including a bid last spring for large increases at several
agencies (see table).¶
Science diplomacy high now – nongovernmental institutions, private
foundations, universities, and corporations fill the gap
Colglazier 13 – (E. William Colglazier, science and technology advisor to the secretary of state,
former executive officer of the National Academy of Sciences, former professor of physics and
director of the energy, environment, and resources center at the University of Tennessee,
worked at the Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard’s Kennedy School of
Government, full bio can be reached at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/169019.htm,
“Remarks on Science and Diplomacy in the 21st Century”, US Department of State, August 20,
2013, http://www.state.gov/e/stas/2013/213741.htm) Wang
Nongovernmental institutions are also critically important to science diplomacy. The U.S. National
Academies – which includes the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering,
Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council – collaborate bilaterally and multilaterally
with scientific academies and scientific organizations around the world to provide independent,
expert advice to governments and international organizations on important global issues. The goal is not only to make progress
on solving problems that countries face, but also to help scientific organizations around the world become more important advisers
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has created a Center for
Science Diplomacy that has focused on scientific communication with countries where the U.S.
Government does not have diplomatic relations.(5) The AAAS has engaged with North Korea and Cuba, and
was among the first to engage with Burma. Both the AAAS and the NAS have engaged with
Iran; in fact, the NAS has been conducting workshops and exchanges with the Iranian scientific community for over a decade.
to their governments.¶
Science cannot break down all the barriers, but when a window of opportunity emerges in governmental relations, the existing
scientific contacts can be a great asset, as was the case for U.S. relations with both China and Russia. The U.S. State Department has
always encouraged our nongovernmental scientific organizations to maintain contact and communications with scientists in
countries where diplomatic relations do not exist.¶ Private
foundations have also played a significant role. As
South Africa to create
an important recent example, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) has partnered with
a fundamental science research center called KwaZulu-Natal Research Institute for Tuberculosis and HIV (KRITH) in
Durban to focus on solving the critical health problem of joint HIV and TB infections.(6) Durban is the epicenter of this pandemic,
and HHMI has committed over U.S.$70 million for KRITH. The research center works with the local university and hospitals in Durban
and has attracted researchers from around the world. It has built considerable good will between the U.S. and South Africa. The
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is another example of utilizing science to solve health
problems facing developing countries, and has directed enormous resources and expertise at
these issues. The foundation has provided support for a decade to the NAS and Institute of Medicine to help science academies
in Africa to become more important advisers to their governments on health issues. Foundations in other countries
have also served this role well. The Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, which was established by the
German federal government, is an excellent example of an organization pursuing science diplomacy through
collaborations in fundamental science and engineering. The many Humboldtians around the world are an
important scientific network as well as a bridge between Germany and other countries.¶ Research universities are very
international and build linkages between countries. The international collaborations are not only those initiated
by individual faculty, but also strategic engagements made by university leaders and partly financed via university funds. It is hard to
keep track of all the international engagements that our major research universities are undertaking. American
multinational corporations also contribute to science diplomacy. An interesting example is the program
that Intel created to help reform engineering education in Vietnam. Intel built its largest chip assembly and test facility in the world
outside of Ho Chi Minh City, and subsequently found that Vietnamese engineers and technicians that it hired needed additional
skills. Intel partnered with Arizona State University -- with support from USAID, Vietnamese ministries, and other companies -- to
create the multiyear and multimillion dollar Higher Engineering Education Alliance Program to strengthen engineering education in
Vietnam. These international
engagements by our universities and companies have been a great
asset for the U.S. in building positive relationships with countries around the world. And it is important
to remember that one of the greatest benefits for the U.S. innovation ecosystem from international engagement of our universities
and companies has been attracting many of the best and brightest from around the world for graduate education and research and
for creating and working in innovative American technology companies.¶
I/L Turn – Unilateralism Bad
Unilateral action kills diplomacy – increases tensions and instability
UNESCO 13 – (United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, specialized
agency of the UN to contribute peace and security by promoting international collaboration
through science, education, and culture, has 195 member states and nine associate members,
“A World of Science”, January to March 2013,
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002191/219156e.pdf) Wang
Without relations or institutions conducive to conflict ¶ resolution, unilateral action can heighten tensions and
regional instability , requiring years or decades to resolve: ¶ the Indus Waters Treaty took 10 years of ¶
negotiations, the Indo-Bangladesh Ganges Water ¶ Treaty (1996) 30 years and the Israel-Jordan ¶ Treaty of Peace (1994) 40 years.
Water was the last and most contentious issue negotiated in ¶ the 1994 peace treaty between Israel and Jordan ¶ and was relegated
to ‘final status’ negotiations ¶ between Israel and the Palestinians, along with ¶ difficult issues like refugees and the status of ¶
Jerusalem. During this long process, water quality ¶ and quantity can degrade until the health of ¶ dependent populations and
ecosystems is damaged or destroyed. ¶ The problem worsens as the dispute intensifies; the ecosystems ¶ of the lower Nile, the
lower Jordan and the tributaries of the Aral ¶ Sea have effectively been written off as unfortunate products of ¶ human
intractability.¶ When
unilateral development initiatives produce international ¶ tensions, it
becomes more difficult to support cooperative ¶ behaviour. As mistrust between riparians grows, threats
and disputes rage across boundaries, as seen in India and Pakistan or ¶ Canada and the USA.
Even if they do not degenerate into open ¶ conflict, mistrust and tensions can hamper regional
development ¶ by impeding joint projects and mutually beneficial infrastructure. ¶ One of the most
important sources of water for both Israelis and ¶ Palestinians, the Mountain Aquifer, is threatened by pollution ¶ from untreated
sewage. The existing conflict has impeded donor ¶ initiatives to build wastewater treatment plants in Palestine, ¶ setting the stage
for a vicious circle as groundwater pollution ¶ increases regional water scarcity and, in turn, exacerbates the Israeli−Palestinian
conflict.
I/L Defense – Science Diplomacy Fails
Science diplomacy fails—cannot provide solutions to problems
Dickson 10 (David, the founder of SciDev.Net and champion of science journalism across the
developing world, Science in diplomacy: “On tap but not on top”,
https://scidevnet.wordpress.com/category/science-diplomacy-conference-2010/) Yousuf
There’s a general consensus in both the scientific and political worlds that the principle of
science diplomacy, at least in the somewhat restricted sense of the need to get more and
better science into international negotiations, is a desirable objective.¶ There is less
agreement, however, on how far the concept can – or indeed should – be extended to
embrace broader goals and objectives, in particular attempts to use science to achieve
political or diplomatic goals at the international level.¶ Science, despite its international
characteristics, is no substitute for effective diplomacy. Any more than diplomatic initiatives necessarily lead
to good science.¶ These seem to have been the broad conclusions to emerge from a three-day meeting at Wilton Park in Sussex, UK,
organised by the British Foreign Office and the Royal Society, and attended by scientists, government officials and politicians from 17
countries around the world.¶ The definition of science diplomacy varied widely among participants. Some saw it as a subcategory of
“public diplomacy”, or what US diplomats have recently been promoting as “soft power” (“the carrot rather than the stick
approach”, as a participant described it).¶ Others preferred to see it as a core element of the broader concept of “innovation
diplomacy”, covering the politics of engagement in the familiar fields of international scientific exchange and technology transfer,
but raising these to a higher level as a diplomatic objective.¶ Whatever definition is used, three particular aspects of the debate
became the focus of attention during the Wilton Park meeting: how science can inform the diplomatic process; how diplomacy can
assist science in achieving its objectives; and, finally, how science can provide a channel for quasi-diplomatic exchanges by forming
an apparently neutral bridge between countries.¶ There was little disagreement on the first of these. Indeed for many, given the
increasing number of international issues with a scientific dimension that politicians have to deal with, this is essentially what the
core of science diplomacy should be about.¶ Chris Whitty, for example, chief scientist at the UK’s Department for International
Development, described how knowledge about the threat raised by the spread of the highly damaging plant disease stem rust had
been an important input by researchers into discussions by politicians and diplomats over strategies for persuading Afghan farmers
to shift from the production of opium to wheat.¶ Others pointed out that the scientific community had played a major role in
drawing attention to issues such as the links between chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere and the growth of the ozone hole, or
between carbon dioxide emissions and climate change. Each has made essential contributions to policy decisions.¶ Acknowledging
this role for science has some important implications. No-one dissented when Rohinton Medhora, from Canada’s International
Development Research Centre, complained of the lack of adequate scientific expertise in the embassies of many countries of the
developed and developing world alike.¶ Nor – perhaps predictably – was there any major disagreement that diplomatic initiatives
can both help and occasionally hinder the process of science. On the positive side, such diplomacy can play a significant role in
facilitating science exchange and the launch of international science projects, both essential for the development of modern
science.¶ Europe’s framework programme of research programmes was quoted as a successful advantage of the first of these.
Examples of the second range from the establishment of the European Organisation of Nuclear Research (usually known as CERN) in
Switzerland after the Second World War, to current efforts to build a large new nuclear fusion facility (ITER).¶ Less positively,
increasing restrictions on entry to certain countries, and in particular the United States after the 9/11 attacks in New York and
elsewhere, have significantly impeded scientific exchange programmes. Here the challenge for diplomats was seen as helping to find
ways to ease the burdens of such restrictions.¶ The broadest gaps in understanding the potential of scientific diplomacy lay in the
third category, namely the use of science as a channel of international diplomacy, either as a way of helping to forge consensus on
contentious issues, or as a catalyst for peace in situations of conflict. ¶ On the first of these, some pointed to recent climate change
negotiations, and in particular the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a good example, of the way that the
scientific community can provide a strong rationale for joint international action.¶ But others referred to the failure of the
Copenhagen climate summit last December to come up with a meaningful agreement on action as a demonstration of the
limitations of this way of thinking.¶ It was argued that this failure had been partly due to a misplaced belief that scientific consensus
would be sufficient to generate a commitment to collective action, without taking into account the political impact that scientific
ideas would have.¶ Another example that received considerable attention was the current construction of a synchrotron facility
SESAME in Jordan, a project that is already is bringing together researchers in a range of scientific disciplines from various countries
in the Middle East (including Israel, Egypt and Palestine, as well as both Greece and Turkey). ¶ The promoters of SESAME hope that –
as with the building of CERN 60 years ago, and its operation as a research centre involving, for example, physicists from both Russia
and the United States – SESAME will become a symbol of what regional collaboration can achieve. In that sense, it would become
what one participant described as a “beacon of hope” for the region.¶ But others cautioned that, however successful SESAME may
turn out to be in purely scientific terms, its potential impact on the Middle East peace process should not be exaggerated. Political
conflicts have deep roots that cannot easily be papered over, however open-minded scientists may be to professional colleagues
coming from other political contexts.¶ Indeed, there was even a warning that in the developing world, high profile scientific projects,
particular those with explicit political backing, could end up doing damage by inadvertently favouring one social group over another.
Scientists should be wary of having their prestige used in this way; those who did so could come over as patronising, appearing
unaware of political realities.¶ Similarly, those who hold science in esteem as a practice committed to promoting the causes of peace
and development were reminded of the need to take into account how advances in science – whether nuclear physics or genetic
technology – have also led to new types of weaponry. Nor did science automatically lead to the reduction of global inequalities.¶
“Science for diplomacy” therefore ended up with a highly mixed review.
science diplomacy fails- easier said than done
(David, the founder of SciDev.Net and champion of science journalism across the developing
world, Science in diplomacy: “easier said then done”,
https://scidevnet.wordpress.com/category/science-diplomacy-conference-2010/) Yousuf
Using science as a vehicle for international diplomacy has many clear attractions. Such is the
case, for example, when it can be used to forge common approaches to international problems
(such as climate change), or appears to offer a way around divisive political disagreements.¶ But,
as rapidly become clear in the opening session of the three-day meeting on science diplomacy
being held at Wilton Park in Sussex, UK, putting the principle of such diplomacy into action
presents many practical problems, some of which SciDev.Net aired last week (see Science
diplomacy must be more ambitious).¶ As several participants pointed out, this is particularly the
case at a time when science budgets are under pressure, and scientists are being asked to
justify their support from the public purse in terms of the practical contributions they make to
national – rather than international – well-being.¶ The dilemma was highlighted by the very
first speaker at the meeting, Peter Fletcher, chair of panel that seeks to co-ordinate the
international activities of Britain’s research councils.¶ Fletcher outlined the many ways in which
science can be effectively used as a diplomatic tool. He pointed out, for example, that scientific
cooperation offered countries such as Britain an opportunity to establish good relations with the
Muslim world in just the same way that it had helped them build bridges with China in the
1990s.¶ “Science is a way of building relationships, sometimes even before politicians have
agreed to talk.” Fletcher said. “Researchers are used to working across national boundaries.
They understand people who are thinking about the same things as they are, and are used to
working together in ways in which other people are not.Ӧ But he also pointed out that, with the
UK having just announced a 25% reduction in its science budget, governments were increasingly
requiring scientists to demonstrate the value of their work for those who paid for it. “How much
are we prepared to commit to solving global challenges for mutual benefit [in this context]?” he
asked.¶ Other challenges were highlighted by Vaughan Turekian, director of the Center for
Science Diplomacy, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Washington
DC¶ Turekian pointed out that part of the attraction of using science for diplomatic purposes was
its apolitical nature. In addition, the United States, for example, was well placed to exploit the
fact that its science was held in much higher regard around the world that many of its other
activities.¶ He quoted a recent visit to Syria by a US scientific delegation that had met with
President Assad – an ophthalmologist – as an example of how science diplomacy could help
promote political engagement in situations where official relations were limited.¶ “Science
cooperation has provided a wonderful way to have a dialogue on issues of mutual interest,”
Turekian said.¶ But he also pointed to some of the barriers that prevent science diplomacy from
operating effectively, such as asymmetries in scientific capabilities, economic or security
concerns over providing access to certain types of key technologies, and a general lack of
funding.¶ In the discussion that followed, it became clear that these barriers are likely to become
an important focus of attention over the next two days.¶ Several participants, for example,
pointed to the obstacles to international scientific exchange presented by the increasing
restrictions on entrance visas being placed by countries such as the United States.¶ “It becomes
so difficult for someone to get into the US that once they are there, they cannot afford to go
home, even for a short visit, because they have no idea whether they will be able to get back
in,” was one typical comment.¶ Others pointed to the broader issue of an apparent conflict
between the supposed goal of science to promote international interests, and the goal of
diplomacy, namely to advance the national interests of the country that the diplomat is
serving.¶ There has been much talk of the need to find a way of achieving a balance between
these two tendencies. Reaching agreement on where that balance should lie is a major
challenge. Achieving that balance will be even harder. Already it is clear from this meeting
that science diplomacy is easier said than done.
Barriers to scientific diplomacy – travel restrictions and security controls
The Royal Society 10 – (Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge, a learned
society for science, acts as the UK’s Academy of Sciences and funds research fellowships and
scientific start up companies, “New frontiers in science diplomacy”, January 2010,
http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/New_Frontiers.pdf) Wang
5.6 Practical barriers to scientific exchange¶ The constraints to science diplomacy include regulatory
barriers, such as visa restrictions and security controls. Immediately after September 11 2001, more
stringent travel and visa regimes in countries like the US and the UK severely limited the
opportunities for visiting scientists and scholars, particularly from Islamic countries. Although efforts have been
made to unpick some of these strict controls, there are still significant problems with the free mobility of
scientists from certain countries. Such policies shut out talented scientists and hinder
opportunities to build scientific relations between countries. Security controls can also prevent
collaboration on certain scientific subjects, such as nuclear physics and microbiology. Although these policies are
based on legitimate concerns over the dual use potential of some scientific knowledge, they should also take into consideration the
diplomatic value of scientific partnerships in sensitive areas to help rebuild trust between nations.
Science diplomacy fails – projects uncertain
Marlow 12 – (Jeffrey Marlow, contributer for NY times, graduate student at Caltech, “The
Promise and Pitfalls of Science Diplomacy”, Wired, December 11, 2012,
http://www.wired.com/2012/12/the-promise-and-pitfalls-of-science-diplomacy/) Wang
This notion of science as a diplomatic tool – its use as an entry point to a recalcitrant society that simultaneously breaks down
politically steeped preconceptions and offers tangible benefits – is a promising mode of development and a constructive brand of
international relations.¶ The Obama Administration understands the value of science diplomacy; last month, Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton announced the expansion of the Science Envoy program, appointing Barbara Schaal of Washington University in
St. Louis, Bernard Amadei of the University of Colorado, and Susan Hockfield of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to the
position. These prominent scientists represent the third class of envoys – the program began in 2009 and has sponsored visits to
nearly 20 countries.¶ The philosophy behind the envoy program is noble, but its current directive is a bit vague. As noted in the State
Department’s official release, “the
science envoys travel in their capacity as private citizens and advise
the White House, the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. scientific community about the
insights they gain from their travels and interactions.Ӧ A recent assessment of the program by envoy Elias
Zerhouni noted the challenge of following through on initiatives predicated on the personal credibility and
contacts of the individual envoys. Leveraging the networks of world-renowned scientists within the
framework of a coherent policy of international relations is difficult, particularly when funding
for longer-term projects is uncertain. The trust of international partners requires a predictable
political and financial environment.¶ When President Obama launched the program during a speech in Cairo, he said
that the envoys would “collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean
water, and grow new crops.” Whether these programs are mandated by the executive branch or are the responsibility
of the
envoys is unclear. A more explicit structure could allow science diplomats to be more effective, building on the strong record
of science as an invaluable tool in the soft power arsenal.
No solvency – science and politics are incompatible
Dickson 9 – (David Dickson, founding director of SciDev.Net, journalist, News editor at Nature
publishing group, “The limits of science diplomacy”, SciDev, April 6, 2009,
http://www.scidev.net/global/capacity-building/editorials/the-limits-of-science-diplomacy.html)
Wang
But — as emerged from a meeting entitled New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy, held in London this week (1–2 June) — using
science for diplomatic purposes is not as straightforward as it seems.¶ Some scientific collaboration
clearly demonstrates what countries can achieve by working together. For example, a new synchrotron under construction in Jordan
is rapidly becoming a symbol of the potential for teamwork in the Middle East.¶ But whether
scientific cooperation can
become a precursor for political collaboration is less evident. For example, despite hopes that the
Middle East synchrotron would help bring peace to the region, several countries have been
reluctant to support it until the Palestine problem is resolved.¶ Indeed, one speaker at the London meeting (organised by
the UK's Royal Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science) even suggested that the changes scientific
innovations bring inevitably lead to turbulence and upheaval. In such a context, viewing science as
a driver for peace may be wishful thinking.¶ Conflicting ethos¶ Perhaps the most contentious area discussed at the
meeting was how science diplomacy can frame developed countries' efforts to help build scientific capacity in the developing
world.¶ There is little to quarrel with in collaborative efforts that are put forward with a genuine desire for partnership. Indeed,
partnership — whether between individuals, institutions or countries — is the new buzzword in the "science for development"
community.¶ But true
partnership requires transparent relations between partners who are
prepared to meet as equals. And that goes against diplomats' implicit role: to promote and defend their own countries'
interests.¶ John Beddington, the British government's chief scientific adviser, may have been a bit harsh when he told the meeting
that a diplomat is someone who is "sent abroad to lie for his country". But he touched a raw nerve.¶ Worlds apart yet codependent¶ The truth is that science
and politics make an uneasy alliance. Both need the other. Politicians need
need political support
to fund their research.¶ But they also occupy different universes. Politics is, at root, about
exercising power by one means or another. Science is — or should be — about pursuing robust
knowledge that can be put to useful purposes.¶ A strategy for promoting science diplomacy that respects these
science to achieve their goals, whether social, economic or — unfortunately — military; scientists
differences deserves support. Particularly so if it focuses on ways to leverage political and financial backing for science's more
humanitarian goals, such as tackling climate change or reducing world poverty.¶ But a commitment to science diplomacy that
ignores the differences — acting for example as
if science can substitute politics (or perhaps more worryingly, vice
versa), is dangerous. ¶ The Obama administration's commitment to "soft power" is already
faltering. It faces challenges ranging from North Korea's nuclear weapons test to domestic opposition to limits on oil
consumption. A taste of reality may be no bad thing.
International policy and science are incompatible – policy makers are confused
Copeland 11 – (Daryl Copeland, Canadian analyst, author, speaker and educator specializing
in diplomacy, international policy, public management, and global issues, Senior Fellow at
University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies, Research Fellow at the USC
Center on Public Diplomacy, “Science Diplomacy: What’s It All About?”, November 2011,
http://cips.uottawa.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Copeland-Policy-Brief-Nov-11-5.pdf)
Wang
However, there exists an even more fundamental difficulty: S&T issues are largely alien to, and almost invisible
within, most international policy (IP) institutions. S&T and IP are effectively two solitudes, existing in
separate floating worlds that rarely intersect. When diplomats or politicians talk about IP, you
rarely hear anything about S&T. Similarly, when scientists get together to discuss their work, it is rarely
in the context of diplomacy or international policy. Indeed, scientists, besides being notoriously poor
communicators, tend to cherish their independence from politics and government. The skill sets, activity
time frames and orientations of the two groups differ markedly. It must be asked: How many diplomats are scientists? How many
scientists are diplomats? How often do scientists and diplomats mix? Foreign
ministries, development agencies,
and indeed most multilateral organizations are without the scientific expertise, technological savvy,
cultural pre-disposition or R&D network access and cross- cutting linkages required to understand and manage S&T issues
effectively.¶ Add up all of this, and a rather disturbing picture emerges. It is something akin to a “triple whammy”. In mainstream
popular culture, (a)
diplomacy is seen as irrelevant and ineffective; (b) international policy is
viewed as esoteric and exotic; and (c) science is perceived as complex and impenetrable. Raise
any one of these subjects on its own and most people’s eyes glaze over. Put all three together, and you have a combination capable
of stopping just about any dinner party conversation in its tracks.¶
Limited science diplomacy implementation – private sector controls intellectual
property
Copeland 11 – (Daryl Copeland, Canadian analyst, author, speaker and educator specializing
in diplomacy, international policy, public management, and global issues, Senior Fellow at
University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies, Research Fellow at the USC
Center on Public Diplomacy, “Science Diplomacy: What’s It All About?”, November 2011,
http://cips.uottawa.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Copeland-Policy-Brief-Nov-11-5.pdf)
Wang
Even if the public environment were more solicitous, and scientists, diplomats and foreign ministries more
favorably disposed and better equipped, major hurdles would remain. Public and private sector, NGO, and
university perspectives and interests are not always complimentary with respect to S&T, R&D
and innovation. Often they are contradictory or competitive. Consider, for instance:¶ • the
preponderance of private sector control over essential S&T intellectual property (i.e. patents and
copyrights limit the spread of innovation and transfer of technology)¶ • the influence of what President
Eisenhower described as the Military Industrial Complex over funding priorities and research agendas (i.e. most
governments are still spending more on defence research than on health research); and¶ • the militarization of international policy
more generally (i.e. defence
departments have been accorded the lion’s share of IP resources while
diplomacy and development assistance have been sidelined and marginalized, resulting in serious misallocations
and distortions, especially at a time of scarcity).¶ These observations provide some idea of the scope and dimensions of the
challenge. If matters are to change (and in order even to conceive of remedial possibilities), political leaders and senior officials must
be critically aware of the dynamic inter-relationships among principal actors, and the key questions and issues at play.
Science ineffective – flawed research
The Economist 13 –(weekly newspaper, worldwide circulation, editorial stance of classic
liberalism and economic liberalism, “How science goes wrong”, October 19, 2013,
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-worldnow-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong) Wang
A SIMPLE idea underpins science: “trust, but verify”. Results should always be subject to challenge from experiment. That
simple but powerful idea has generated a vast body of knowledge. Since its birth in the 17th century, modern
science has changed the world beyond recognition, and overwhelmingly for the better.¶ But success can breed
complacency . Modern scientists are doing too much trusting and not enough verifying —to
the detriment of the whole of science, and of humanity.¶ Too many of the findings that fill the academic
ether are the result of shoddy experiments or poor analysis (see article). A rule of thumb among
biotechnology venture-capitalists is that half of published research cannot be replicated. Even that may be optimistic. Last year
researchers at one biotech firm, Amgen, found they could reproduce just six of 53 “landmark” studies in cancer research. Earlier, a
group at Bayer, a drug company, managed to repeat just a quarter of 67 similarly important papers. A leading computer scientist
frets that three-quarters of papers in his subfield are bunk. In 2000-10 roughly 80,000 patients took part in clinical trials based on
research that was later retracted because of mistakes or improprieties.¶ What a load of rubbish¶ Even when flawed
research
does not put people’s lives at risk—and much of it is too far from the market to do so—it squanders money
and the efforts of some of the world’s best minds. The opportunity costs of stymied progress are
hard to quantify, but they are likely to be vast. And they could be rising.¶ One reason is the competitiveness of science. In the
1950s, when modern academic research took shape after its successes in the second world war, it was still a rarefied pastime. The
entire club of scientists numbered a few hundred thousand. As their ranks have swelled, to 6m-7m active researchers on the latest
reckoning, scientists have lost their taste for self-policing and quality control. The obligation to “publish or perish” has come to rule
over academic life. Competition for jobs is cut-throat. Full professors in America earned on average $135,000 in
2012—more than judges did. Every year six freshly minted PhDs vie for every academic post. Nowadays verification (the replication
of other people’s results) does little to advance a researcher’s career. And without verification,
dubious findings live
on to mislead.¶ Careerism also encourages exaggeration and the cherry-picking of results. In
order to safeguard their exclusivity, the leading journals impose high rejection rates: in excess of 90% of submitted manuscripts. The
most striking findings have the greatest chance of making it onto the page. Little wonder that one in three researchers knows of a
colleague who has pepped up a paper by, say, excluding
inconvenient data from results “based on a gut
feeling”. And as more research teams around the world work on a problem, the odds shorten that at least one will fall prey to an
honest confusion between the sweet signal of a genuine discovery and a freak of the statistical noise. Such spurious correlations are
often recorded in journals eager for startling papers. If they touch on drinking wine, going senile or letting children play video games,
they may well command the front pages of newspapers, too.¶ Conversely, failures to prove a hypothesis are rarely even offered for
publication, let alone accepted. “Negative results” now account for only 14% of published papers, down from 30% in 1990. Yet
knowing what is false is as important to science as knowing what is true. The failure to report failures means that researchers waste
money and effort exploring blind alleys already investigated by other scientists.¶ The hallowed process of
peer review is not
all it is cracked up to be, either. When a prominent medical journal ran research past other experts in the field, it found
that most of the reviewers failed to spot mistakes it had deliberately inserted into papers, even after being told they were being
tested.¶
US not capable of science diplomacy – lack of structures
Turekian and Lord 9 – (Vaughan Turekian, chief international and director of the center for
science diplomacy at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Kristin M Lord,
VP at the center for a new American security, fellow of the Brookings Institute, “The Science of
Diplomacy”, May 5, 2009,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/05/04/the_science_of_diplomacy) Wang
Facing a complex set of foreign-policy challenges, the United States can no longer afford to
overlook such a useful instrument of statecraft. Regrettably, the U.S. government is not well
organized to take advantage of science diplomacy. The National Science Foundation and
technical departments (Energy, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Defense) apply
their resources to science -- but not to its diplomatic use. Thus, the Obama administration
should appoint a senior-level ambassador for science and technology cooperation in the State
Department. He or she could convene an interagency group coordinating the strategic use of
science diplomacy.
I/L Defense No Modeling
No country will model the us—lack of communication and countries will model
china instead
Penn State 11 (US will no longer dominate science and research, expert predicts,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110218132310.htm)yousuf
A shift in the global research landscape will reposition the United States as a major partner,
but not the dominant leader, in science and technology research in the coming decade,
according to a Penn State researcher. However, the U.S. could benefit from this research shift if
it adopts a policy of knowledge sharing with the growing global community of researchers.
"What is emerging is a global science system in which the U.S. will be one player among many,"
said Caroline Wagner, associate professor of international affairs, who presented her findings
Feb. 18 at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in
Washington, D.C. The entrance of more nations into global science has changed the research
landscape. From 1996 to 2008, the share of papers published by U.S. researchers dropped 20
percent. Wagner attributes much of this output shift not to a drop in U.S. research efforts, but
to the exponentially increasing research conducted in developing countries, such as China and
India. China has already surpassed the U.S. in the output of research papers in the fields of
natural science and engineering. Based on current trends, China will publish more papers in all
fields by 2015. Although China still lags in quality, according to Wagner, that gap is closing, too.
As enrollments in Chinese universities swell, there will also be more researchers in China than
there are in the U.S., she noted. Typical recommendations to spur U.S. research, such as
spending more money on research, may not restore American preeminence in science and
technology. "Some consider America's loss in the 'numbers game' in research to be a scary
scenario, but the answer may not be in spending more money," said Wagner. "The system may
be operating at full capacity -- and the law of diminishing returns exists in science, just as it does
in other sectors." Instead of this low return-on-investment strategy, Wagner recommended that
the U.S. rely on a more efficient knowledge-sharing strategy by tapping experts from other
countries who have developed more knowledge and better skills than U.S. researchers in certain
fields. Other nations would, in turn, have access to U.S. scientists to conduct research in fields
where they are most proficient. Wagner refers to the possibility of a global research community
as the new "invisible college," a term coined in the 17th century to describe the connections
among researchers from diverse disciplines and places who created the world's first scientific
society. One fallacy is that the Internet will naturally create this global research community, said
Wagner. Despite the presence of global communication systems, such as the Internet and
mobile phone technology, research remains a difficult network to navigate, especially for
scientists in developing countries. "The Internet helps speed up the rate of communication,
but doesn't necessarily improve access for developing countries," Wagner said. "Since face-toface contact is still the preferred way to connect with fellow researchers, participants can still
be blocked by the cost of travel and access to research papers, for example."
Science diplomacy not modeled – asymmetries in countries’ scientific abilities
Morabito 5/8 – (Kaitlyn Morabito, predoctoral fellow at National Institutes of Health at
Georgetown, former research assistant at Henry M Jackson Foundation, MS in Advanced
biotechnology, biodefense from John Hopkins University, and BS in Biology/Chemistry from
Loyola “Science Policy Around the Web”, Science Policy For All, May 8, 2014,
https://sciencepolicyforall.wordpress.com/tag/science-diplomacy/) Wang
When does science diplomacy fail? Technology and knowledge transfer can be difficult
between competitors, particularly where there are security concerns or with dual-use technologies. Asymmetries in
scientific capabilities (e.g., between the USA and African nations) and lack of funding for
international collaborative activities can also hinder diplomatically productive scientific partnerships.¶
For science diplomacy to work, scientific goals must be at the forefront and diplomatic goals should be clearly defined to avoid
science being used for purely political ends. Some argue that, ironically, science
diplomacy works best on an
individual level when scientists focus on doing good science without an overt science diplomacy agenda.
Other countries don’t model US policies – policymakers wary
Blanchard, Ostry, and Ghosh 14 – (Olivier Blanchard, Blanchard is the Chief Economist at
the IMF, a Roberts M Solow Professor of Economics at MIT, PHD in Economics from MIT, former
Harvard Professor, fellow and past council member of the Econometric Society, past VP of the
American Economic Associations, Jonathan D Ostry, Ostry is the Deputy Director of the
Research Department at the IMF, PhD in Economics from University of Chicago, Atish R Ghosh,
Ghosh is Assistant Director in the Research Department of the IMF, “Overcoming the Obstacles
to International Macro Policy Coordination Is Hard”, Global Economic Intersection, January 28,
2014, http://econintersect.com/wordpress/?p=45384) Wang
International policy coordination is like the Loch Ness monster – much discussed but rarely seen. Going
back over the decades, and even further in history to the period between the two world wars, coordination efforts have been
episodic.¶ Coordination seems to occur spontaneously in turbulent periods, when the world faces the prospect of some calamitous
outcome and the key players are seeking to avoid cascading negative spillovers. In
quieter times coordination is rarer,
though not unheard of – the Louvre and Plaza accords are examples.¶ Today, policy coordination has resurfaced as
a hot topic. While the worst of the global financial crisis is behind us, no one would claim that a
return to the Great Moderation is on the cards, and policymakers around the globe appear worried
about policy transmissions across many dimensions.¶
Policy coordination over time and the legacy of the
crisis¶ Views on the size of cross-border policy spillovers have evolved over time, but today no one doubts that we live in an
interconnected world. In the 1980s, the literature often concluded that these cross-border effects were small (Oudiz and Sachs
1984), but more recent evidence suggests that spillovers are sizeable, reflecting the increase in trade and financial integration (IMF
2013a). Moreover, spillovers are generally larger in turbulent times.¶ The externalities associated with cross-border spillovers also
reflect a paucity of policy instruments relative to targets – which means that it
is difficult, not to say impossible, for a country
to inoculate itself against cross-border policy transmission. If the number of instruments equals the number
of targets, cooperative and non-cooperative outcomes will be the same, and there will be no gains from
international coordination. The legacy of the global financial crisis – high public debt, near zero interest
rates, and at times what looks like domestic political dysfunction – suggests that nowadays policymakers have fewer
policy tools to achieve their manifold objectives. In such circumstances, gains from policy coordination across
countries are likely to be larger than during the Great Moderation.¶
Impact Turn – Science Diplomacy Bad
US science diplomacy bad - other countries perceive it as a covert intelligence
front
Wolfe 13 – (Audra J Wolfe, writer, editor and historian for The Guardian, BS in chemistry from
Purdue University, PhD in science from University of Pennsylvania, editor for the sciences at
Rutgers University Press, editor-in-chief at the Chemical Heritage Foundation, professor at the
Department of the jhistory and Sociology of Science at the University of Pennsylvania, “Science
diplomacy works, but only when it’s genuine”, The Guardian, August 23, 2013,
http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/aug/23/obama-science-foreignpolicy) Wang
But science diplomacy programmes also draw on a long tradition that holds science and scientists as uniquely qualified to spread
American ideals. In the 1960s (the
last time that the United States made a sustained effort to use
science diplomacy to build international partnerships), the concept was marred by ties to propaganda
campaigns and intelligence operations . The idea was that foreign elites who adopted the values of science –
objectivity, internationalism, the free exchange of information – would be more receptive to American overtures more generally.
This assumption drove most US science diplomacy throughout the Cold War.¶ When government sponsorship was explicit ("overt"),
neither intelligence gathering nor pro-American reporting would have come as a surprise:
anyone agreeing to participate in a US government-sponsored scientific meeting, circa 1962, probably knew what they were getting
into.¶ Things
got much murkier when the foreign policy establishment turned to groups of
private citizens as ambassadors for science. An oddity of the history of American diplomacy is that the United
States routinely conducted its Cold War cultural campaigns through arms-length
arrangements. In a few cases, the groups engaged in so-called "private diplomacy" really were unaffiliated,
but – more often than not – organisations touting their "independent" work on behalf of the US government received help,
usually with financial support channeled through fake philanthropic foundations. The pass-through strategy was
common in US international activities from approximately 1948 until 1967, when an article in Ramparts magazine uncovered the
CIA's covert funding of the National Student Association (a youth organisation), and caused a major foreign policy scandal.¶ Science
turned out to be a particularly good fit for this sort of arm's-length operation. All attempts at private diplomacy offered benefits of
economy and plausible deniability, but private
science diplomacy carried the additional weight of
reinforcing American ideals. The American version of "science" that these scientists and their patrons at the
CIA had in mind stressed disinterestedness, objectivity and scientist-driven research
organisations. They portrayed Soviet science, in contrast, as enslaved to the state, overly focused on
technology and driven by ideology. Who better to spread this message than private scientists, working as individuals? By
definition, this worldview undermined the ability of overtly sponsored US government science
diplomacy
to promote the American message.¶ Consider a specific example. In the early 1960s, the Boulder, Colorado-based
Biological Sciences Curriculum Study produced a series of innovative biology textbooks; it's still around today. In 1961, the BSCS
started accepting funds from the Asia Foundation (now known to be a CIA pass-through) for its international programmes. Like
many of the private organisations that received at least part of their funding through the CIA,
the BSCS also received support from legitimate philanthropic organisations, including the Rockefeller Foundation and US
government agencies, including the National Science Foundation. Nor is it entirely clear whether the BSCS's leaders were aware of
the true source of Asia Foundation funds: Arnold Grobman, the BSCS's long-time executive director, denied any knowledge of such
links in an interview with me a few months before his death, in the fall of 2011.¶ In any case, between 1961 and 1967, the BSCS and
its overseas affiliates received 10s of thousands of dollars from the Asia Foundation to underwrite the adaptation and translation of
biology textbooks in Taiwan, Thailand, Japan, Korea, Hong Kong and other nations on the Chinese perimeter. From the historical
evidence, the BSCS's overseas adaptation offices don't appear to be cover for something nefarious: they really did focus on biology
curriculum reform, especially textbook translation. The only thing sketchy about these offices was that their support came from a
different source than their local participants (and possibly even their American partners) believed.¶ And that's the problem. Covers
can be blown. When the Asia Foundation's board of trustees acknowledged their ties to the CIA in 1967 (in an attempt to pre-empt
yet another damaging story in Ramparts), the BSCS's entire overseas operation came under suspicion. Indian authorities, for
instance, briefly threatened to kick out any group that received funding from the Asia Foundation; it took the BSCS years to reestablish trust with the foreign ministers of education who had previously embraced their work. A
similar fate befell
almost all projects that involved Americans abroad, as all "private support" became
synonymous with "CIA front". Covert operations discredited the concept of cultural diplomacy for a generation.¶ The
Obama administration's resurrection of the concept of science diplomacy offers enormous potential. But, once again, the
intelligence establishment has found in science diplomacy a convenient cover for its own
needs. The CIA's use of a fake vaccination campaign in the hunt for Osama bin Laden and the subsequent withdrawal of aid
workers from Pakistan over fears for their safety, are all too familiar. Once again, covert operations are threatening to
derail genuinely helpful, hopeful activities that might otherwise go a long way toward building international
goodwill. The state department's insistence on calling its science envoys "private citizens", too, is
cause for concern. Since the science envoys are obviously doing the state department's work,
why not call them "officials" and avoid the potential for confusion? The US has been there before. This time, science diplomacy is
worth doing right.
US diplomacy bad – no patience, violent methods, and political polarization
Cohen 13 – (Roger Cohen, journalist, author, and columnist for the New York Times and
International Tribune, “Diplomacy Is Dead”, New York Times, January 21, 2013,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/opinion/global/roger-cohen-diplomacy-isdead.html?_r=0) Wang
DIPLOMACY is dead.¶ Effective diplomacy — the kind that produced Nixon’s breakthrough with China, an end to the
Cold War on American terms, or the Dayton peace accord in Bosnia — requires patience, persistence, empathy,
discretion, boldness and a willingness to talk to the enemy.¶ This is an age of impatience,
changeableness, palaver, small-mindedness and an unwillingness to talk to bad guys. Human rights are
in fashion, a good thing of course, but the space for realist statesmanship of the kind that produced the Bosnian peace in 1995 has
diminished. The late Richard Holbrooke’s realpolitik was not for the squeamish.¶ There
are other reasons for
diplomacy’s demise. The United States has lost its dominant position without any other nation
rising to take its place. The result is nobody’s world. It is a place where America acts as a cautious
boss, alternately encouraging others to take the lead and worrying about loss of authority.
Syria has been an unedifying lesson in the course of crisis when diplomacy is dead. Algeria shows how the dead
pile up when talking is dismissed as a waste of time.¶ Violence, of the kind diplomacy once resolved, has shifted.
As William Luers, a former ambassador to Venezuela and the director of The Iran Project, said in an e-mail, it occurs “less
between states and more dealing with terrorists.” One result is that “the military and the C.I.A. have
been in the driver’s seat in dealing with governments throughout the Middle East and in state to state
(Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq) relations.” The role of professional diplomats is squeezed.¶ Indeed the very word “diplomacy”
has become unfashionable on Capitol Hill, where its wimpy associations — trade-offs,
compromise, pliancy, concessions and the like — are shunned by representatives who these days prefer
beating the post-9/11 drums of confrontation, toughness and inflexibility: All of which may sound good but often get you nowhere
(or into long, intractable wars) at great cost.¶ Stephen Heintz, president of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, wrote in an e-mail that,
“When
domestic politics devolve into polarization and paralysis the impact on diplomatic
possibility becomes inordinately constraining.” He cited Cuba and Iran as examples of this; I would add IsraelPalestine. These critical foreign policy issues are viewed less as diplomatic challenges than potential sources of domestic political
capital.¶ So when I asked myself what I hoped Barack Obama’s second term would inaugurate, my answer was a new era of
diplomacy. It is not too late for the president to earn that Nobel Peace Prize.¶ Of course diplomats do many worthy things around
the world, and even in the first term there were a couple of significant shifts — in Burma where patient U.S. diplomacy has produced
an opening, and in the yo-yoing new Egypt where U.S. engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood was important and long overdue
(and raised the question of when America would do the same with the Brotherhood’s offshoot, Hamas.)¶ But Obama has not had a
big breakthrough. America’s
diplomatic doldrums are approaching their 20th year.
Impact Turn – Science Bad
Science is immoral--- weapons of mass destruction
Hakea 04 (ayman, Engineer and regular follower of regional and international politics, and ArabIslamic art and literature, When Science Becomes Immoral: “Weapons of Mass Murder”,
http://www.tigweb.org/youth-media/panorama/article.html?ContentID=4165&start=)Yousuf
The disastrous dropping of the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima in June 1945 by the U.S. air
fighter Enola-gay, brought, generated and amplified endless crucial interrogations on the
future of the relation between scientists and policy-makers. Does the responsibility of the
atomic catastrophe belong to Jess Oppenheimer, the American nuclear scientist who was in
charge of the Manhattan Project, or does it belong to Szilard, the Hungarian scientist who
knew exactly the over-destructive effect of the bomb, or does it belong to the U.S. president
Harry Truman? None of these questions could be answered if the circumstances surrounding
the relation between the Manhattan Project Team, and the U.S. government weren't properly
analyzed and understood. In the years of 1944-1945, U.S. troops were fighting on two fronts in
the Second World War; American troops were fighting with the allies against Germany and Italy
in Europe, and American troops again, were fighting alone in the Pacific Islands against Japan.
The allied invasion of Europe in 1944, which begun by the invasion of Sicily, then the invasion of
the Siegfried Defensive Line in Normandy, in June 6, 1944 (known as D-day), was very successful,
but with extremely heavy prices in men and equipment. The war in the pacific was different; the
Americans were controlling more and more strategic Islands and waterways that used to be
under Japanese rule, but the advance was slower, and more painful than in Europe. Japanese
Kamikaze air fighters were periodically hitting and sinking supply ships and U.S. naval targets.
The scenario of the battles in Europe was extremely fast, and it didn't take more than 3 months
for the German capital Berlin to fall in the hands of the Soviet Red Army by October 1944.
Moreover, the allies met the soviets on the shore of the Elbe River in Germany. The Nazis
declared their defeat in November 1944, and by this time, the tragedy of the war in Europe had
ended. The war in the Pacific was proceeding very slowly, and with unexpected casualties, but
the American forces were able to control some islands such as Guam and Okinawa, from which
air raids on Japan's mainland could be launched. The air raids on Tokyo alone in the late 1944
killed more than 200,000 people, and destroyed nearly two thirds of the city in only one month.
Despite of the massive number of Japanese casualties, Japan didn't surrender, and this situation
made the American government anxious. They knew that Japan won't be defeated with air raids
alone, and that any possible full-scale military operation to invade Japan would put their troops
face-to-face with a highly trained army, and a massive Japanese population, in a land that wasn't
invaded by any foreign power since the beginning of known history. The U.S. officers estimated
the casualties on the first two days of the full-scale assault on Japan to be 200,000 American
troops, as a least estimation. The Manhattan Project's Team informed President Harry Truman
about the new device they had produced; Oppenheimer told him that a Uranium Bomb could
destroy a whole city within few minutes; however, Szilard's calculations predicted a more
destructive potential of the bomb. Szilard told Truman that a weapon with such ability to derail
people and buildings represents a future threat to the whole human existence, and that using
the bomb against Japan, would be equivalent to letting all the enemies of the U.S. know the
secret of the bomb, which would put the future Americans under atomic and nuclear threats.
Despite of Szilard's long-term speculations, Truman was put under the pressure of increasing
war casualties in the Pacific Ocean, as well as the public anxiety about the Billions of dollars that
are spent on the Manhattan Project, and without a clear outcome. The fault of Truman, who
later had took the decision of throwing the Uranium bomb on Hiroshima, is that he didn't look
ahead; although the bomb had done its role in ending the war, and with the least amount of
casualties with respect to the U.S. side, the bomb's technique became since then, available to
any searching team all over the world, which makes the possibility that such a bomb can hit a
big American city in the near, or even in the far future. Yes, Truman saved the lives of thousands
of American soldiers, but he didn't realize that he is the responsible for any nuclear crisis that
will happen in the future. In fact, Truman started a new era of black science. The fact that
emotions played the greatest role in taking that hard decision is not negotiable. Truman knew
that Japan at that time was extremely away from making an atom bomb. He knew also that the
new weapon had to be tested practically, on a real target. When the first Uranium bomb was
tested in the Desert of New Mexico, Truman was impressed by the results. An internal feeling in
him was pushing him towards showing America's power to the whole world. After long thinking,
Truman decided to drop the atomic bomb on Japan. He refused the option of bombing the city
of Kyoto because of its religious monuments whose bombing could raise the anger of the
Japanese till the top, and can make them refuse to surrender, so that they would fight till death.
Truman sent the Japanese a message asking them to surrender unconditionally, after disarming
the Japanese army. He printed this message on papers and threw them on civilians in large
amounts. The Japanese replied that they refuse to negotiate and they sunk an American
battleship and 883 men were killed. Truman gave the order to bomb Hiroshima with the
Uranium bomb. He didn’t listen to the advice of Szilard and accepted the other destructive
option that the people around him advised him with it. The atomic bomb was dropped on
Hiroshima and caused total destruction of the city, moreover, 130 thousand people were killed;
most of them were civilians. Truman described the effect of the bombing when he new the
results for the first time as “an overwhelming success”. It is believed that the honesty of the
scientist Szilard was useless and gone with the wind in front of the decision of bombing. Stalin
invaded Manchuria in those difficult moments for Japan. He was aiming to divide Japan as he
did in Germany. Truman used the bomb to end the war before the Soviets could attain a
remarkable progress on the Japanese front, so that Japan would be his country's dependency,
without any Soviet interference. He aimed also to show the deterrent threat of his nuclear
arsenal to the Russians. When Truman saw the pictures of Hiroshima after bombing, he knew
the value of the disaster there. He thought not to make the American people see it, but people
around him told him that the American people paid 2 billion dollars as taxes in order to build the
bomb, and that it’s their right to see the result of the money they had paid. Therefore, Truman
gave unavailable reasons and said through media that America bombed Japan because it
refused to surrender, and that there was a race between the nations to build the atomic bomb.
He added that Germans were just about to produce it but the Americans were faster, and when
the opportunity came, the bomb was used against the Japanese. He said that America would not
hesitate to use atom bombs against the Japanese again, if they refuse to surrender
unconditionally. The Japanese thought that America does not afford having many atomic bombs
for threatening them with random bombing, so they refused to surrender. America then
bombed Nagasaki with the last bomb it has. This second Plutonium bomb gave the exact
impression America wished to deliver to the Japanese, which believes what America had said
about bombing at any time. Although General Anami, the commander of the Japanese armed
forced assured that America does not have any other bombs, yet, the emperor refused to
continue the war saying that continuing in this war means the elimination of his nation
completely and total destruction to the Japanese people. There was an attempt to make a
revolution by some of the army officers who wanted to convince the emperor not to surrender,
and to get rid of the people around him. The coup-d'état failed by the suicide of Anami, who
signed the paper of the surrender decision by his blood when he put the paper with a sword
together in his abdomen, and killed himself. Finally, the Japanese emperor decided to accept the
unconditional surrender. It all began with the ambition of a scientist to do the best to serve his
case, but it turned to this monster called the atomic bomb by the rules of the authority,
neglecting the right of innocent civilians to live safely even if they belong to an enemy nation
so that to free the American war prisoners and to protect the other from being killed just by
killing the others which is totally unethical, immoral and a selfish decision. I believe that this is
the best example of a case when the morality of science is mixed with the immorality of
politics.
Impact Turn – Unilateralism Bad
There’s no hope for unilateralism
Schwartz 04 (Forrest, US Policy Failure: Unilateralism in a Global Environment,
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=
http%3A%2F%2Fweb.stanford.edu%2Fclass%2Fe297a%2FUS%2520Policy%2520Failure%2520%2520Unilateralism%2520in%2520a%2520Global%2520Environment.doc&ei=vkPJU5eKoqYyASS0ICYDA&usg=AFQjCNEHWvE5Y8Fn6mBw9O-yRUY8QUKdfw&sig2=mLF5NnPs458JZVxacxtWA&bvm=bv.71198958,d.aWw)yousuf
Isolationism is not a viable choice in today’s globally organized world, making unilateralism a
dangerous policy. A world in which every country relies on unilateralism is not a better
guarantee for the national security of the United States, and certainly establishes dim prospects
for the future of the world (Levy). Following the disastrous fall of Iraq into unmanageable postwar chaos, the United States government has begun to reconsider the policy of unilateralism,
because the diplomatic and domestic political price of acting alone has proven to be too great.
The first nation of the axis of evil proved a tougher proposition than expected, and the other
countries posed even greater challenges (Watanabe). Countries like North Korea and Iran have
not expressed interest in bilateral talks, and thus there is no hope for a unilateral solution in
these cases (KNCA). The task of dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions has been assigned to
officials of Britain, France and Germany. Last year, in an important demonstration of the power
of multilateralism, this group convinced Iran to bring its nuclear program back within the control
of the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Authority, and have continued to make
progress toward a peaceful solution. An even more multilateral group that includes Japan,
China, Russia, and South Korea is handling the issue of North Korea's nuclear potential (Walker).
The Bush Administration has demonstrated another significant step toward multilateral
policy, in the form of the Proliferation Security Initiative, and despite its brief existence, it has
experienced much success controlling weapons of mass destruction, particularly with regard
to Moammar Gadhafi (The New Multilateralism). These recent events suggest that the United
States government may have turned over a new leaf, expanding the possibility of future
multilateral agreements. Many of the friendly countries that the United States arrogantly
criticized and shunned have shown a willingness to welcome the United States back with open
arms. As many European leaders have made clear, they recognize the importance of
multilateralism, and are willing to welcome the United States back with open arms. Other
nations’ awareness of the potential power of the United States to affect the world with its policy
is an important lesson for the current administration to learn. The United States has the
capability to shape the course of world events however it sees fit; one can only hope that the
Bush Administrations recognizes that the interests of the United States—which one could argue
are not necessarily identical to the interests of President Bush—will be better served through
worldwide involvement and cooperation.
Unilateralism is bad---- security terrorism disease
Schwartz 04 (Forrest, US Policy Failure: Unilateralism in a Global Environment,
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=
http%3A%2F%2Fweb.stanford.edu%2Fclass%2Fe297a%2FUS%2520Policy%2520Failure%2520%2520Unilateralism%2520in%2520a%2520Global%2520Environment.doc&ei=vkPJU5eKoqYyASS0ICYDA&usg=AFQjCNEHWvE5Y8Fn6mBw9O-yRUY8QUKdfw&sig2=mLF5NnPs458JZVxacxtWA&bvm=bv.71198958,d.aWw)Yousuf
In the global age that we live in, it is unreasonable to think that a nation can independently
face the complex diplomatic challenges that exist, yet the Bush administration has clearly
demonstrated its intention to act unilaterally on a number of important issues, from worldwide
security and terrorism to infectious disease and other environmental and humanitarian issues.
Throughout the 1990’s, the United States relied primarily on a foreign policy based on
multilateral efforts; however, signs of unilateralism began to emerge in 2002 with the planning
of the Iraq War. (Levy) In an outline of the United States national security strategy, the current
administration made it clear that it no longer felt bound by preexisting global agreements, and
that it maintained the prerogative to defend itself from perceived threats even if the
international community did not believe such threats were legitimate enough to necessitate
action.
Unilateralism huts diplomacy
Schwartz 04 (Forrest, US Policy Failure: Unilateralism in a Global Environment,
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=
http%3A%2F%2Fweb.stanford.edu%2Fclass%2Fe297a%2FUS%2520Policy%2520Failure%2520%2520Unilateralism%2520in%2520a%2520Global%2520Environment.doc&ei=vkPJU5eKoqYyASS0ICYDA&usg=AFQjCNEHWvE5Y8Fn6mBw9O-yRUY8QUKdfw&sig2=mLF5NnPs458JZVxacxtWA&bvm=bv.71198958,d.aWw)Yousuf
The United States’ decision to engage in an essentially unilateral war against Iraq violated the
United Nations Charter, and set a dangerous precedent for other states to take military action
in response to threats, whether they are credible or contrived. President Bush and his
administration have consistently attacked the legitimacy and credibility of the UN, reducing the
institution's ability to exist in the future as the preeminent organization for worldwide conflict
resolution. The attempt of the Bush administration to gain UN approval of an Iraqi government
that was not popularly elected weakened the idea of national sovereignty as the foundation of
the UN Charter. When it faced opposition in the UN Security Council, the United States
government tried to create a veil of multilateral support for the war by exerting its influence
over weaker governments to join a so-called "Coalition of the Willing," which undermined
democracy in a number of these countries, where as much as 90 percent of the populations
were against the war (A Failed Transition). In its past military actions, from Gulf War I to the
invasion of Afghanistan, the United States followed the recommendations of the United Nations
and championed the UN’s role as an important international body because the UN was serving
the interests of the United States. However, the United States no longer views the UN as an
effective tool for resolving global conflict because the UN no longer supports the direction of the
United States. The United States has proven its willingness to cripple the United Nations, despite
its past support in the War on Terror in Afghanistan, because it no longer agrees with the
administration’s current plans to invade Iraq (Unilateralism or Multilateralism). Although Anon
does not specifically mention the United States in his speech, it is clear who his remarks are
directed to. If the United States continues on its path of unilateralist foreign policy, the UN
may be irreparably damaged, an event that would significantly reduce the stability of
international relations.¶ In addition to the negative effects it has had on international
organizations like the United Nations, the United States’ policy of unilateralism has hurt its
relationships with various countries. Rep. Joseph Hoeffel pointed to President Bush's "cowboy
diplomacy" as the source of feelings of disaffection in key allies like France, Germany and Russia
(Jordan). He accused the president of breaking his promise to gain United Nations support
before engaging in military action against Saddam Hussein (Jordan). Arrogance among U.S.
diplomats, and the White House’s uncompromising position on many important issues has led
to a loss of US credibility around the world. The Bush Administration's approach to
international diplomacy has created feelings of alienation within the governments and
populations of friendly countries, and has inspired many nations to engage in defiant rhetoric
and establish policies to counteract those of the United States. Failures of important
international conferences such as the World Trade Organization talks in Cancun and the Special
Summit of the Americas in Monterrey indicate the increasing resistance to US policy. On
numerous occasions, the Bush Administration has shown that rather than work toward a
common solution, it will end negotiations unless its desires are completely met, and as time
goes on, more and more countries are beginning to grow wary of the stubbornness of the
current administration. President Bush’s Neoconservative advisors do not seem concerned by
this turn of events, though. Like any White House policy, the decision to act unilaterally was
obviously given much thought, and ultimately the leaders of the United States felt that the
benefits outweighed the consequences. As one reporter described it, “Animosity abroad can be
seen as a small price to pay for global hegemony” (Carlsen). The United States estranged
important allies based on their shared belief that the war in Iraq is not justified and will lead to
instability, and increased terrorism throughout the world.¶
Energy Grids Advantage
I/L Defense – Can’t Prepare
Can’t stop the impact of space storms- only have 15 minutes to prepare
Maloof 13 [Michael, former senior security policy analyst in the office of the secretary of defense, EARTH WILL HAVE
15 MINUTES TO PROTECT ELECTRONICS, WND, http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/earth-will-have15-minutes-to-protect-electronics/
WASHINGTON – Scientists around the globe are joining those in the United States in becoming
alarmed at the possibility of a plasma cloud from a solar superstorm that could wipe out vast
electronics networks, because they say Earth would have only a notice of about 15 minutes.
U.S. space scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrator and the National Aeronautic Space Administration’s
Goddard Space Flight Center have been expressing concern over what is fast becoming a “solar storm maximum.” And the alarms
now are going off globally, with expressions of concern from European Union interests, the European Space Agency and Great
Britain’s Royal Academy of Engineering, which is urging the British Space Weather Board to help that nation prepare for a massive
solar flare. “Our message is, don’t panic, but do prepare – a solar superstorm will happen one day and we need to be ready for it,”
said Professor Paul Cannon who chaired the Academy’s working group.
Given the intensity of the increasing flare
spewing from the sun’s surface, experts agree that scientists would have only 15 minutes of
warning of an intense solar flare – a huge plasma cloud of charged particles that can become a nightmare to unguarded
electronics on earth. Read the documentation that’s sparking the worry about the EMP threat, in “A Nation Forsaken”. Right now,
scientists are relying on an ageing satellite called ACE – Advanced Composition Explorer which
provides the 15 minutes heads-up. The concern has been rising as the sun continues spewing out new, massive flares
even as Earth moves closer into alignment with the gigantic sun spots producing those flares. This increased solar activity is
occurring as sun spots multiply on the sun’s surface during what is expected to be its most active period, 2012-2013, in its 11-year
cycle. But scientists
are worried the ACE satellite could fail, and replacement, called Discover, isn’t expected to
be launched by NASA until 2014. Europe’s ability to monitor space weather is not comprehensive, so radiation
monitors and other devices are being added to as many satellites as possible as scientists seek ways to monitor such threats as
closely as possible. Europe has a number of ground-based measurement systems, including magnetometers, neutron monitors, GPS
receivers and ionosondes. Some 20 European countries provide ground-based space weather measurements, with France, Germany,
Italy and the United Kingdom contributing to reports at the European Space Weather Portal website. According to Michael Hapgood,
who heads the Space Environment at STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in the United Kingdom, the infrastructure for the
European space weather community provides valuable information to the space science and engineering community.
Impossible to prepare for space storms- experts agree
Cacas 12 [Max, veteran award-winning journalist, Solar Storms Test Earthbound Preparedness,
Signal Online, http://www.afcea.org/content/?q=node/3033] JB
A predicted increase in the number and intensity of solar storms is forecast for 2013, and solar weather experts
are advising both the public and private sector to make preparations. At the same time, however, even the most knowledgeable
experts in the field of space weather say that because they still have so much to learn about the science behind solar storms,
it is difficult to forecast them accurately. Compounding the situation is the fact that currently it is impossible to
provide advice on how to prepare for the arrival of a so-called solar max year. Solar storms have been occurring at roughly
11-year intervals for most of the history of the solar system. But it has been only within the last century that extreme instances of electromagnetic
energy from solar events have adversely affected a planet on which humans are more dependent on electronic technology than in the past.
Impossible to predict extreme space weather- best warning system only gives
up to 30 minutes of notice
Phillips 10 [Dr. Tony, production editor of Science at NASA, As the Sun Awakens, NASA Keeps a
Wary Eye on Space Weather, NASA, http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-atnasa/2010/04jun_swef/] JB
STEREO (Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory) is a pair of spacecraft stationed on opposite sides of the sun with a combined view
of 90% of the stellar surface. In the past, active sunspots could hide out on the sun's farside, invisible from Earth, and then suddenly
emerge over the limb spitting flares and CMEs. STEREO makes such surprise attacks impossible. SDO (the Solar Dynamics
Observatory) is the newest addition to NASA's fleet. Just launched in February, it is able to photograph solar active regions with
unprecedented spectral, temporal and spatial resolution. Researchers can now study eruptions in exquisite detail, raising hopes that
they will learn how flares work and how to predict them. SDO also monitors the sun's extreme UV output, which controls the
favorite NASA
satellite, however, is an old one: the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) launched in 1997. "Where
would we be without it?" he wonders. ACE is a solar wind monitor. It sits upstream between the sun and
Earth, detecting solar wind gusts, billion-ton CMEs, and radiation storms as much as 30
minutes before they hit our planet. "ACE is our best early warning system," says Bogdan. "It allows us
response of Earth's atmosphere to solar variability. As the Sun Awakens... (solar prominence, 200px) Bogdan's
to notify utility and satellite operators when a storm is about to hit.” NASA spacecraft were not originally intended for operational
forecasting—"but it turns out that our data have practical economic and civil uses," notes Fisher. "This is a good example of space
science supporting modern society." 2010 marks the 4th year in a row that policymakers, researchers, legislators and reporters have
gathered in Washington DC to share ideas about space weather. This year, forum organizers plan to sharpen the focus on critical
infrastructure protection. The ultimate goal is to improve the nation’s ability to prepare, mitigate, and respond to potentially
devastating space weather events. "I believe we're on the threshold of a new era in which space weather can be as influential in our
daily lives as ordinary terrestrial weather." Fisher concludes. "We take this very seriously indeed."
Space weather is unpredictable
MAARBLE 12 [MAARBLE, Space Radiation and Astronauts Exposure,
http://www.maarble.eu/outreach/index.php/basic-information] JB
Should astronomers and astronauts be concerned about radiation belts? Can the very energetic particles penetrate the shielding of a
spacecraft or the spacesuit of an astronaut? Much like extreme weather phenomena in Earth's atmosphere can seriously affect
humans and human structures on the ground, space weather
is extremely unpredictable and can affect or even be
storms and accompanying geomagnetic storms involve fast moving particles
and high energy radiation that affect and can significantly alter the flow of energy and matter
through interplanetary space. Protons and electrons speed up almost to the speed of light and these together with the
fatal in space. Solar
produced X-ray radiation can disrupt short-wave communication on Earth. A scientific satellite contains very sensitive circuits that
control its movement or the pointing of various science instruments, for instance. Should these be affected
by severe
space weather conditions, the satellite will become uncontrollable and most probably
unusable, resulting to a serious loss of investment (in terms of money and scientific effort). Obviously
science operators controlling the satellite on Earth can try to recover the damage but this is
not always possible. Unfortunately this is a rather common situation resulting to a loss of
billions of dollars/euros in recent years.
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the
article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f30d9e54-7067-11e2-ab31-00144feab49a.html#ixzz37siMJlop
Impact Defense – Space Storms
Space weather has no impact- impact of an m-class solar flare was one radio
down
Metclafe 11 [John, staff writer, Why is predicting space weather so hard?, ABC news,
http://www.wjla.com/blogs/weather/2011/02/solar-flare-2011-why-is-predicting-spaceweather-so-hard--8719.html] JB
The sun has just burped out a medium-sized M-class solar flare, not quite as huge as the Jupiter-sized X-class eruption earlier this week but
still a clear sign that the star is ramping up its explosive 11-year cycle. All these tears in the sun’s atmospheric fabric are showering earth with billions of
tons of charged particles. What have been the
consequences? Millions without power? Computer crashes
causing stock market panic? Not quite. The National Weather Service in Sterling, Va., reports
one radio down. But it appears to be a land issue, not a space one, and Verizon is on the way. Over in Boulder, Colo., NOAA’s Space Weather
Prediction Center is carefully monitoring the solar storm, and so far the impact looks minimal. While NOAA initially predicted G2 to G3 magnetic storm
activity, which can cause widespread radio blackouts and fry power-company equipment, sensors have only picked up G1-level disturbances. But it
could have been a lot worse; skip below for the reason. The biggest problem the X-class solar flare caused was when it beaned the earth with radiation
on Monday a few minutes after the flare erupted, which resulted in the strongest radio blackout in four years. The sunlit areas of the earth experienced
high-frequency radio disruptions; China reported dead radios and some airplanes over the Pacific also had silent radios for about 20 minutes. But
airlines have protocols that go into place during solar outbursts. Planes continued on course and no
major trouble was reported.
The bulk of the flare’s output – clouds of charged plasma known as coronal mass ejections –
are washing ashore on our planet today. The resulting geomagnetic storm has the weather
equivalent of an Alberta Clipper, that is to say, not much power. “The effects been pretty
minor, to be blunt,” says Joe Kunches of the SWPC. But they could have been big. That’s because CMEs have an unpredictable quirk in their
magnetic fields that can dramatically alter the force of their impact.
Solar storms have no impact- NASA can predict and save the grid against storms
Dillow 10 [Clay, Contributing Writer at Popular Science and Researcher at Popular Science
Magazine, NASA is Building a 'Solar Shield' to Protect Power Grids from Space Weather, Popular
Science, http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-10/nasa-building-solar-shieldprotect-power-grids-space-weather]
The threat to power grids during bad solar weather is known as GIC, or geomagnetically induced current. When the sun ejects a
huge coronal mass in our direction, the impact with our atmosphere shakes up Earth's magnetic field. That generates electric
currents from the upper atmosphere all the way down to the ground. These can cripple power grids, overloading circuits and in
some cases melting heavy-duty transformers. Those transformers are very necessary to keep the power flowing. They're also
expensive, irreparable in the field, and can take a year to replace. Meaning that a massive coronal ejection could knock down entire
power grids for long stretches of time, grinding economies to a halt and making life more than a little inconvenient. But NASA
has a plan to battle these blackouts with blackouts. If transformers are offline at the time the
storm hits they will not be affected, so the trick is to figure out where and when a storm is
going to hit before it reaches the atmosphere. To do that, NASA's SOHO and two STEREO
spacecraft identify a coronal mass ejection (CME) heading toward earth and create a 3-D image
of it, allowing researchers to characterize its strength and determine when it will hit . Depending
on the intensity of the CME, the trip from sun to Earth can take 24-48 hours. NASA would track the CME across the
sky, with the pivotal moment coming about 30 minutes prior to impact when the storm comes
screaming past the ACE spacecraft, something like 930,000 miles from Earth. Sensors aboard
ACE gather more data on the storm's speed, magnetic field, and density that is fed into
computer models at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. With less than 30 minutes until
impact, NASA's models calculate the places most likely to be impacted with dangerous GIC
and utilities are notified so they can pull their grids offline. This will cause a blackout in the
region, but only a temporary one. When the storm ends, the grids come back online and life
goes on.
Energy grid is backed up, military is creating a smart grid
Thompson 12 [Edric- Writer for the United States army. “Army successfully demonstrates tactical operations smart grid.”
US Army. 10/3/12. http://www.army.mil/article/88440/Army_successfully_demonstrates_tactical_operations_smart_grid/ ]
Dressler
The U.S. Army demonstrated a proof of concept for a smart grid that could support tactical operations, this
summer at its integrated capabilities testbed at Fort Dix, N.J. The U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command's
communications-electronics RD& E Center, or CERDEC, powered portions of a Tactical Operations Center and used the event to
gather data and lessons learned that would help inform/support Department of Defense efforts to develop
a
solution that will reduce the number of generators needed, prevent overloads and grid collapse
while reducing the number of generators needed, manpower requirements for grid operation and fuel
consumption by 25 percent. Microgrid systems are currently the only solution that allows the incorporation of
multiple technologies, such as renewables and energy storage systems, to supplement traditional power generation techniques,
DeJong explained. "This
allows us to create platforms that manage and distribute power efficiently
while using smaller generators. It's a sustainable practice that has applicability across all
echelons, from the Forward Operating Base down to the Soldier. Furthermore, this is all transparent to the Soldier; the plug-andplay system has an open, user-friendly architecture that allows for greater operational flexibility," DeJong said. "The ever
increasing use of electronics for communication, surveillance, sensing and targeting devices at
the Soldier level dictates an intelligent micro-grid, so it makes scientific and economic sense to collaborate, share
information and resources where permissible," said Product Director Lt. Col. Quentin L. Smith, PD C4ISR & Network Modernization.
Grid collapse is backed up, generators
Dankowski 14 [Jim- Government Segment Manager of Eaton’s Electrical Services & Systems. “Microgrid power
management solution generates significant fuel savings for operating bases.” Eaton’s Electrical Services and Systems. May 2014.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eaton.com%
2Fecm%2Fidcplg%3FIdcService%3DGET_FILE%26allowInterrupt%3D1%26RevisionSelectionMethod%3DLatestReleased%26noSaveAs
%3D0%26Rendition%3DPrimary%26dDocName%3DPA027215EN&ei=qlzJU7OwB5WgyATEjIGoBQ&usg=AFQjCNEQtJD5_WxssTvx8Q7
WeaxbW2DPBA ] Dressler
Reducing demand for energy on the battlefield is a key military challenge. By increasing the energy efficiency of
operations, the military is able to limit the risks that troops face as they use, transport and store energy, and minimize the amount of
defense dollars spent consuming energy. By
transforming an independently operating system of generators
into a demand-managed microgrid, Eaton’s solution can manage the output of generators as an
intelligent system, providing power when and where it is needed, instead of employing all
generators at all times. As a result, the system has been tested to reduce fuel consumption bymore than 30%. Eaton’s
Intelligent Mobile Power Distribution system also provides bases with the power surety needed in critical battlefield environments
by using the same intelligent load management technology that enables dramatic fuel savings.
This technology prevents
grid collapse caused by generator fault by shifting demand onto supporting generators to
provide a constant, safe supply of power. To further increase the effectiveness and efficiency of
FOB generation systems, our solution can be enhanced with optional solar and energy storage
connectivity, allowing seamless integration into renewable energy microgrid installations. Power
efficiency, reliability and safety are your imperatives—and our mission
Solar storms inevitable
Milllman 14 [Gregory-Gregory J. Millman is a senior columnist for Risk & Compliance Journal. “Catastrophic Solar Storm
Inevitable, Insurers Warn.” Wall Street Journal. 2/26/14. http://blogs.wsj.com/riskandcompliance/2014/02/26/catastrophic-solarstorm-inevitable-insurers-warn/ ] Dressler
Analysts say that another solar storm as severe as that 1859 event is inevitable, will be much
more costly–and they note ominously that the sun is now near the peak of its activity cycle. The
consequences are likely to be more severe than in the horse-and-buggy 19th century. According to a new report
from SCOR they could include long power blackouts affecting millions of people, and causing trillions of dollars in damage. “The
more we rely on the Internet, the availability of all sorts of communication channels, GPS, etc., the more we are dependent on
power. That’s the major exposure driver,” said Reto Schneider, head of emerging risk management at Swiss Re SREN.VX +0.06%,
which has also raised concerns about the risk.
Lloyd’s last year reported that a major solar storm is “almost
inevitable”, estimating the frequency at one every 150 years, and said that 20 million-40 million people in the
U.S. are at risk of power outages lasting from two weeks to two years. Of course, it has been 155 years since that last really big one
in 1859.Insurance may not be much help, while paradoxically the insurance industry could be hurt.
Few insurance policies
even mention solar risk. Actual physical damage is often required to activate business interruption policies, and a company
may be without power yet without physical damage in a solar storm that knocks out the electricity grid. Sublimits on other insurance
policies could limit what a company might expect to recover after a shutdown.
No impact to space storms, aren’t as strong as expected
Borenstein 12 [Seth- Writer for NBC News. “Earth easily weathers solar storm that turned out to be so-so.” NBC News.
3/8/12. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46668792/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/earth-weathers-solar-storm-turned-out-be-soso/#.U8lthPldWSo ] Dressler
Our high-tech world seems to have easily weathered a solar storm that didn't quite live up to its
advance billing. "It looks to me like it's over," NASA solar physicist David Hathaway said late
Thursday afternoon, after noticing a drop in a key magnetic reading. But when the storm finally arrived
around 6 a.m. ET Thursday, after traveling at 2.7 million mph, it was more a magnetic breeze than a
gale. The power stayed on. So did GPS and satellites. Astronomers say the sun has been
relatively quiet for some time. And this storm, forecast to be strong and ending up minor, still may
seem fiercer because Earth has been lulled by several years of weak solar activity.
Solar storms are inevitable and the infrastructure will only give a 30 minute
warning
Gore 13 [Alex- Journalist for the Daily Mail. "Solar 'superstorm' set to strike Earth - and we'll only have a 30 MINUTE warning.”
Daily Mail. 2/6/13. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2274605/Solar-superstorm-set-strike-Earth--30-MINUTEwarning.html ] Dressler
The world will have a 30 minute warning when a once-in-a-century solar 'superstorm' strikes the
Earth knocking out major communications, scientists revealed. The news comes as it is revealed a new body of space experts is
needed to help protect Britain from the storm. The Royal Academy of Engineering has said that the massive
radiation blast is inevitable and that the Government should set up a UK Space Weather Board. Experts now warn that
another solar superstorm on the scale of the Carrington event is 'inevitable' and Britain should be prepared.
We are unable to predict solar storms, we aren’t able to get enough warning
time
Connor 13 [Steve- Steve Connor is the Science Editor of The Independent. He has won many awards for his journalism,
including five-times winner of the prestigious British science writers’ award. “A solar 'superstorm' is coming and we'll only get 30minute warning.” The Independent. 2/7/13. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/a-solar-superstorm-is-coming-and-wellonly-get-30minute-warning-8484058.html ] Dressler
It is inevitable that an extreme solar storm – caused by the Sun ejecting billions of tonnes of highly-energetic matter travelling at a
million miles an hour – will hit the Earth at some time in the near future, but it
is impossible to predict more than about 30
team of engineers has warned. Solar superstorms are estimated to
occur once every 100 or 200 years, with the last one hitting the Earth in 1859. "The general consensus is that
a solar superstorm is inevitable, a matter not of 'if' but 'when?'," says a report into extreme space weather
by a group of experts at the Royal Academy of Engineering in London.
minutes before it actually happens, a
Solar storms are inevitable, they are naturally occurring
Connor 13 [Steve- Steve Connor is the Science Editor of The Independent. He has won many awards for his journalism,
including five-times winner of the prestigious British science writers’ award. “A solar 'superstorm' is coming and we'll only get 30minute warning.” The Independent. 2/7/13. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/a-solar-superstorm-is-coming-and-wellonly-get-30minute-warning-8484058.html ] Dressler
It is inevitable that an extreme solar storm – caused by the Sun ejecting billions of tonnes of highly-energetic matter
travelling at a million miles an hour – will hit the Earth at some time in the near future, but it is impossible to
predict more than about 30 minutes before it actually happens, a team of engineers has warned. "The general consensus is
that a solar superstorm is inevitable, a matter not of 'if' but 'when?'," says a report into extreme space
weather by a group of experts at the Royal Academy of Engineering in London.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/06/solar-storms/ferris-text - Other cards to cut (Unpredictable)
More cards by searching “Solar storms unpredictable”
Impossible to prepare for space storms- experts agree
Cacas 12 [Max, veteran award-winning journalist, Solar Storms Test Earthbound Preparedness,
Signal Online, http://www.afcea.org/content/?q=node/3033] JB
A predicted increase in the number and intensity of solar storms is forecast for 2013, and solar weather experts
are advising both the public and private sector to make preparations. At the same time, however, even the most knowledgeable
experts in the field of space weather say that because they still have so much to learn about the science behind solar storms ,
it is difficult to forecast them accurately. Compounding the situation is the fact that currently it is impossible to
provide advice on how to prepare for the arrival of a so-called solar max year. Solar storms have been occurring at roughly
11-year intervals for most of the history of the solar system. But it has been only within the last century that extreme instances of electromagnetic
energy from solar events have adversely affected a planet on which humans are more dependent on electronic technology than in the past.
Impossible to predict extreme space weather- best warning system only gives
up to 30 minutes of notice
Phillips 10 [Dr. Tony, production editor of Science at NASA, As the Sun Awakens, NASA Keeps a
Wary Eye on Space Weather, NASA, http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-atnasa/2010/04jun_swef/] JB
STEREO (Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory) is a pair of spacecraft stationed on opposite sides of the sun with a combined view
of 90% of the stellar surface. In the past, active sunspots could hide out on the sun's farside, invisible from Earth, and then suddenly
emerge over the limb spitting flares and CMEs. STEREO makes such surprise attacks impossible. SDO (the Solar Dynamics
Observatory) is the newest addition to NASA's fleet. Just launched in February, it is able to photograph solar active regions with
unprecedented spectral, temporal and spatial resolution. Researchers can now study eruptions in exquisite detail, raising hopes that
they will learn how flares work and how to predict them. SDO also monitors the sun's extreme UV output, which controls the
response of Earth's atmosphere to solar variability. As the Sun Awakens... (solar prominence, 200px) Bogdan's
favorite NASA
satellite, however, is an old one: the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) launched in 1997. "Where
would we be without it?" he wonders. ACE is a solar wind monitor. It sits upstream between the sun and
Earth, detecting solar wind gusts, billion-ton CMEs, and radiation storms as much as 30
minutes before they hit our planet. "ACE is our best early warning system," says Bogdan. "It allows us
to notify utility and satellite operators when a storm is about to hit.” NASA spacecraft were not originally intended for operational
forecasting—"but it turns out that our data have practical economic and civil uses," notes Fisher. "This is a good example of space
science supporting modern society." 2010 marks the 4th year in a row that policymakers, researchers, legislators and reporters have
gathered in Washington DC to share ideas about space weather. This year, forum organizers plan to sharpen the focus on critical
infrastructure protection. The ultimate goal is to improve the nation’s ability to prepare, mitigate, and respond to potentially
devastating space weather events. "I believe we're on the threshold of a new era in which space weather can be as influential in our
daily lives as ordinary terrestrial weather." Fisher concludes. "We take this very seriously indeed."
Space weather has no impact- impact of an m-class solar flare was one radio
down
Metclafe 11 [John, staff writer, Why is predicting space weather so hard?, ABC news,
http://www.wjla.com/blogs/weather/2011/02/solar-flare-2011-why-is-predicting-spaceweather-so-hard--8719.html] JB
The sun has just burped out a medium-sized M-class solar flare, not quite as huge as the Jupiter-sized X-class eruption earlier this week but
still a clear sign that the star is ramping up its explosive 11-year cycle. All these tears in the sun’s atmospheric fabric are showering earth with billions of
tons of charged particles. What have been the
consequences? Millions without power? Computer crashes
causing stock market panic? Not quite. The National Weather Service in Sterling, Va., reports
one radio down. But it appears to be a land issue, not a space one, and Verizon is on the way. Over in Boulder, Colo., NOAA’s Space Weather
Prediction Center is carefully monitoring the solar storm, and so far the impact looks minimal. While NOAA initially predicted G2 to G3 magnetic storm
activity, which can cause widespread radio blackouts and fry power-company equipment, sensors have only picked up G1-level disturbances. But it
could have been a lot worse; skip below for the reason. The biggest problem the X-class solar flare caused was when it beaned the earth with radiation
on Monday a few minutes after the flare erupted, which resulted in the strongest radio blackout in four years. The sunlit areas of the earth experienced
high-frequency radio disruptions; China reported dead radios and some airplanes over the Pacific also had silent radios for about 20 minutes. But
airlines have protocols that go into place during solar outbursts. Planes continued on course and no
major trouble was reported.
The bulk of the flare’s output – clouds of charged plasma known as coronal mass ejections –
are washing ashore on our planet today. The resulting geomagnetic storm has the weather
equivalent of an Alberta Clipper, that is to say, not much power. “The effects been pretty
minor, to be blunt,” says Joe Kunches of the SWPC. But they could have been big. That’s because CMEs have an unpredictable quirk in their
magnetic fields that can dramatically alter the force of their impact.
Space weather is unpredictable
MAARBLE 12 [MAARBLE, Space Radiation and Astronauts Exposure,
http://www.maarble.eu/outreach/index.php/basic-information] JB
Should astronomers and astronauts be concerned about radiation belts? Can the very energetic particles penetrate the shielding of a
spacecraft or the spacesuit of an astronaut? Much like extreme weather phenomena in Earth's atmosphere can seriously affect
humans and human structures on the ground, space weather
is extremely unpredictable and can affect or even be
storms and accompanying geomagnetic storms involve fast moving particles
and high energy radiation that affect and can significantly alter the flow of energy and matter
through interplanetary space. Protons and electrons speed up almost to the speed of light and these together with the
fatal in space. Solar
produced X-ray radiation can disrupt short-wave communication on Earth. A scientific satellite contains very sensitive circuits that
control its movement or the pointing of various science instruments, for instance. Should these be affected
by severe
space weather conditions, the satellite will become uncontrollable and most probably
unusable, resulting to a serious loss of investment (in terms of money and scientific effort). Obviously
science operators controlling the satellite on Earth can try to recover the damage but this is
not always possible. Unfortunately this is a rather common situation resulting to a loss of
billions of dollars/euros in recent years.
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the
article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f30d9e54-7067-11e2-ab31-00144feab49a.html#ixzz37siMJlop
Solar storms rarely happen and when they do happen will have a little impact
Cookson 13 [Clive, science editor, Academy warns on solar superstorm, FT,
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f30d9e54-7067-11e2-ab31-00144feab49a.html#axzz37si9pbUl] JB
Britain must continue to harden its infrastructure in preparation for a once-in-a-century “solar superstorm” that could
wreck the electricity grid and put communications and navigation satellites out of action, the Royal Academy of Engineering has
warned. The academy’s report, released on Thursday, is the first to assess in detail the UK’s vulnerability to an explosive outpouring
of energy from the sun aimed directly at Earth. “The last true solar superstorm, known as the Carrington event, was in 1859,” said
Paul Cannon, chairman of the academy’s study group. “We believe that such superstorms
occur every 100 to 200
years.” The 1859 event destroyed much of the world’s newly installed telegraph network, as its equipment succumbed to an
electromagnetic surge – as well as treating people living in the tropics to a spectacular display of auroral lights normally seen only in
polar regions. “Our message is: Don’t panic but do prepare,” added Professor Cannon. “Another
superstorm will
happen one day and we need to be ready for it.” The academy’s experts regard the most cataclysmic scare stories
about the likely impact of a superstorm as exaggerated, because some action has already
been taken to harden infrastructure in the UK and worldwide. For example, National Grid has
protected its transformers against power surges and voltage fluctuations since 1989, when the worst
solar storm of the 20th century knocked out two transformers. Chris Train, the grid’s operations director, said a Carrington-type
superstorm might cause local blackouts for a few hours, with a dozen transformers taken out
of service, but there would not be a sustained nationwide blackout. Satellites are particularly vulnerable
to electrically charged particles and radiation from the sun. “Our best engineering judgment . . . is that up to 10 per cent of satellites
could experience temporary outages lasting hours to days as a result of the extreme event,” the report said. But many satellites
would be weakened by the experience and would therefore have to be replaced sooner than their designers had expected. A
particularly serious impact of a solar superstorm would be the likely loss of all global satellite navigation signals, from the US GPS
system and Europe’s new Galileo system, for one to three days. These provide not only navigation but also timing for many
communications systems. The current UK mobile communications network is much less vulnerable than those in many other
countries including the US, the study found, because it does not depend on satellite time signals. However the new 4G mobile
system may be vulnerable because it does require synchronisation through satellite signals, Prof Cannon said.
The sun is
approaching the maximum of its 11-year activity cycle this year. But, perhaps surprisingly, that
does not increase the risk of a superstorm. “A superstorm is essentially a random event ,” said
Prof Cannon. “If anything, the most intense solar storms like Carrington tend to occur when the sun’s activity is falling away again
toward a minimum.”
US is already preparing grid for a solar storm- made it so a solar storm will have
a minimal impact
Kemp 2/18 [John, market analyst, COLUMN-U.S. orders power grid to prepare for solar storms:
Kemp, Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/18/electricity-solar-stormsidUSL6N0LN3HU20140218] JB
U.S. electricity regulators have begun drafting new reliability standards to protect the power
grid from a repeat of severe geomagnetic storms like those that crippled the U.S. telegraph
service in 1859 and blacked out Quebec in 1989. Experts remain divided about just how much damage
the grid would sustain in the event of another big solar storm, but regulators are taking a
safety-first approach, ordering reliability coordinators and transmission operators to start
preparing. According to the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the organisation which is responsible for grid
reliability in the United States and Canada, the most likely consequence would be "voltage instability and subsequent voltage
collapse." Power could be restored to customers in a matter of hours ("Special Reliability Assessment Interim
Report: Effects of Geomagnetic Disturbances on the Bulk Power System" 2012). But modelling by the U.S. Department of Energy's
Oak Ridge National Laboratory indicates a 1-in-100 year solar storm, such as those that struck the United States in 1859 and again in
1921, would cause as many as 300 high-voltage transformers to fail and suffer permanent damage. With only very limited stocks of
spare high-voltage transformers, and a lengthy lead time for ordering and manufacturing new ones, customers could be left without
power for weeks or even months. Ironically, the sun is unusually quiet at present. But the consequences of a big solar storm, if and
when it arrives, would probably be much worse than a physical attack on the power network by criminals, terrorists or foreign
agents . "Should a storm of similar magnitude (to 1859 or 1921) strike today, it could interrupt power to as many as 130 million
people in the United States alone, requiring several years to recover," Oak Ridge warned ("Electromagnetic Pulse: Effects on the U.S.
Power Grid" 20
Solar storms rarely happen and when they do happen will have a little impact
Cookson 13 [Clive, science editor, Academy warns on solar superstorm, FT,
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f30d9e54-7067-11e2-ab31-00144feab49a.html#axzz37si9pbUl] JB
Britain must continue to harden its infrastructure in preparation for a once-in-a-century “solar superstorm” that could
wreck the electricity grid and put communications and navigation satellites out of action, the Royal Academy of Engineering has
warned. The academy’s report, released on Thursday, is the first to assess in detail the UK’s vulnerability to an explosive outpouring
of energy from the sun aimed directly at Earth. “The last true solar superstorm, known as the Carrington event, was in 1859,” said
Paul Cannon, chairman of the academy’s study group. “We believe that such superstorms
occur every 100 to 200
years.” The 1859 event destroyed much of the world’s newly installed telegraph network, as its equipment succumbed to an
electromagnetic surge – as well as treating people living in the tropics to a spectacular display of auroral lights normally seen only in
polar regions. “Our message is: Don’t panic but do prepare,” added Professor Cannon. “Another
superstorm will
happen one day and we need to be ready for it.” The academy’s experts regard the most cataclysmic scare stories
about the likely impact of a superstorm as exaggerated, because some action has already
been taken to harden infrastructure in the UK and worldwide. For example, National Grid has
protected its transformers against power surges and voltage fluctuations since 1989, when the worst
solar storm of the 20th century knocked out two transformers. Chris Train, the grid’s operations director, said a Carrington-type
superstorm might cause local blackouts for a few hours, with a dozen transformers taken out
of service, but there would not be a sustained nationwide blackout. Satellites are particularly vulnerable
to electrically charged particles and radiation from the sun. “Our best engineering judgment . . . is that up to 10 per cent of satellites
could experience temporary outages lasting hours to days as a result of the extreme event,” the report said. But many satellites
would be weakened by the experience and would therefore have to be replaced sooner than their designers had expected. A
particularly serious impact of a solar superstorm would be the likely loss of all global satellite navigation signals, from the US GPS
system and Europe’s new Galileo system, for one to three days. These provide not only navigation but also timing for many
communications systems. The current UK mobile communications network is much less vulnerable than those in many other
countries including the US, the study found, because it does not depend on satellite time signals. However the new 4G mobile
system may be vulnerable because it does require synchronisation through satellite signals, Prof Cannon said.
The sun is
approaching the maximum of its 11-year activity cycle this year. But, perhaps surprisingly, that
does not increase the risk of a superstorm. “A superstorm is essentially a random event ,” said
Prof Cannon. “If anything, the most intense solar storms like Carrington tend to occur when the sun’s activity is falling away again
toward a minimum.”
US is already preparing grid for a solar storm- made it so a solar storm will have
a minimal impact
Kemp 2/18 [John, market analyst, COLUMN-U.S. orders power grid to prepare for solar storms:
Kemp, Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/18/electricity-solar-stormsidUSL6N0LN3HU20140218] JB
U.S. electricity regulators have begun drafting new reliability standards to protect the power
grid from a repeat of severe geomagnetic storms like those that crippled the U.S. telegraph
service in 1859 and blacked out Quebec in 1989. Experts remain divided about just how much damage
the grid would sustain in the event of another big solar storm, but regulators are taking a
safety-first approach, ordering reliability coordinators and transmission operators to start
preparing. According to the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the organisation which is responsible for grid
reliability in the United States and Canada, the most likely consequence would be "voltage instability and subsequent voltage
collapse." Power could be restored to customers in a matter of hours ("Special Reliability Assessment Interim
Report: Effects of Geomagnetic Disturbances on the Bulk Power System" 2012). But modelling by the U.S. Department of Energy's
Oak Ridge National Laboratory indicates a 1-in-100 year solar storm, such as those that struck the United States in 1859 and again in
1921, would cause as many as 300 high-voltage transformers to fail and suffer permanent damage. With only very limited stocks of
spare high-voltage transformers, and a lengthy lead time for ordering and manufacturing new ones, customers could be left without
power for weeks or even months. Ironically, the sun is unusually quiet at present. But the consequences of a big solar storm, if and
when it arrives, would probably be much worse than a physical attack on the power network by criminals, terrorists or foreign
agents . "Should a storm of similar magnitude (to 1859 or 1921) strike today, it could interrupt power to as many as 130 million
people in the United States alone, requiring several years to recover," Oak Ridge warned ("Electromagnetic Pulse: Effects on the U.S.
Power Grid" 2010).
No impact to solar storms- grid is already protected
Innovation 7/1/14 [How do we protect against a trillion-pound solar superstorm?, Innovation,
http://innovation.uk.msn.com/planet/how-do-we-protect-against-a-trillion-pound-solarsuperstorm] JB
Earth's atmosphere does provide some protection against solar activity, essentially funnelling highly
charged solar wind towards the polar regions, areas that frequently suffer interruptions to radio. One visible consequence of space
weather are the spectacular aurora borealis and aurora australis, the Northern and Southern Lights, which display in an oval shape
around the planet's poles. The very same CMEs on the Sun's surface can interrupt infrastructure is what causes the green, blue and
occasionally red lights as super-charged electrons hits the Earth's upper atmosphere about 60 miles up and collide with other
molecules, emitting light. In fact, upon hearing the phrase Coronal Mass Ejection, some astronomers immediately leave for the
Arctic Circle to view the resulting aurora. That's the good news; if a Solar Super-storm kicks-off and the billions of tonnes of solar
particles it spews is headed our way, we do get between one to three days' warning of its arrival. That's where the Met Office comes
in. “Space
weather is a relatively immature science but understanding is growing rapidly, ” said
investment will enable the Met Office to
complete the space weather forecasting capability that it has been developing over the past
two years and begin delivering forecasts, warnings and alerts to key sectors to minimise the
impact to the technology based services we all rely on.” It's especially relevant at the moment; the Sun is
Mark Gibbs, Head of Space Weather at the Met Office. “The
currently at the end of its 11-year cycle and in Solar Maxmium, when it's at its most unpredictable and most likely to produce a Solar
Super-storm. National
Grid has already made mitigation plans for a Solar Superstorm (© National Grid)
Met Office
won't be working alone, but instead collaborating with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's (NOAA) Space Weather Prediction Centre in the USA to gain a better
understanding of space weather data, models and prediction systems. “Accurately predicting
and preparing for the impacts from space weather requires a commitment similar to
terrestrial weather forecasting and preparedness,” said Louis Uccellini, director at NOAA's National Weather
Service. “Our countries' collaborative efforts will help to promote preparedness and resilience to
protect critical infrastructure against the growing and evolving global impacts from space
weather.” Bath University, the British Geological Survey and RAL Space are also involved in the project that's focused on helping
National Grid National Grid has already made mitigation plans for a Solar Superstorm Collaborative effort The
specific industries prepare for 'the big one'. One of those key sectors is electricity distribution. A severe solar storm could cause a
sudden massive surge of current that brings down power grids. The worst case scenario would see geomagnetic forces knock-out six
super grid transformers in England and Wales and seven grid transformers in Scotland for between a few weeks and months.
However, such an event would only interrupt local electricity for few hours because National Grid has already made sure that most
nodes have more than one transformer available. National Grid thinks only
two transformer substations in the UK could
experience disconnection through transformer damage, most likely affecting those in remote regions where
there is less transformer redundancy. Aurora Australis as seen from the International Space Station (© NASA) NASA Aurora Australis
as seen from the International Space Station “A round the clock UK forecasting service for space weather is essential as part of
National Grid's procedures for running the electricity transmission network securely and safely,” said Andrew Richards, a Risk and
Resilience Analyst for National Grid. “It's great news for National Grid that the Met Office has secured funding for its space weather
forecasting operations.” A major Solar Super-storm may be a once-in-100 years
reminder that even at 150 million kilometers distant, the Earth lies within the Sun's atmosphere.
event, but it's a chilling
Warming Inevitable Advantage
Uniqueness – Warming Not Inevitable
Global Warming is not inev
Natural Resource Defense Council 6 (Natural Resource Defense Council “REPORT SAYS GLOBAL WARMING'S
IMPACTS ARE NOT INEVITABLE” 10/30/06, http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/061030.asp) KIng
warns that global warming could inflict
worldwide disruption as large as that caused by the two world wars and the Great Depression.
The report calls for action now to cut global warming pollution, noting: "the benefits of strong,
early action considerably outweigh the costs."¶ Following is a statement by David Hawkins, director of the Climate Center at the Natural
WASHINGTON (Oct. 30, 2006) --- The long-awaited Stern Report, released today in London,
Resources Defense Council (NRDC).¶ "The report should shatter once and for all our state of denial on the impacts of global warming. The good news is that solutions are
already at hand to avoid a dangerous climate disruption - if only our elected leaders decide now to get on with the job.¶ "If we act swiftly
, the devastating
effects of global warming are not inevitable . By enacting a mandatory cap to slow, stop and reverse global warming pollution; by making
our vehicles, our homes and our buildings more efficient; and by speeding to the market the array of cleaner and cheaper renewable sources of energy, we can bequeath to
future generations a clean and prosperous world."
Humans cant adapt to Global Warming
Reilly 14 (John Reilly “Why We Can’t Just Adapt to Climate Change” 4/3/14
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/526116/why-we-cant-just-adapt-to-climate-change/)
King
This week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a major report focused on what actions might or could be
taken to adapt to climate change. It attempts to describe who and what is especially vulnerable to climate change, and gives an
overview of ways some are adapting.¶ The report makes clear that specific estimates of how climate
change will affect
places, people, and things are very uncertain. Brought down to a local level, climate change
could go in either direction—there are risks that a given area could get drier or wetter, or
suffer floods or droughts, or both. This uncertainty makes efforts to prevent climate change
even more important.¶ Specific risks to natural systems are well documented by the report. It finds, for example, the
greatest risks are to those ecosystems, people, and things in low-lying coastal areas, because
expected sea-level changes are in only one direction, up. This is also the case in the Arctic,
where the temperature rise is expected to be much greater than the global average. There is
good science and unanimous agreement among climate models behind these assertions.¶ But a
frustrating aspect of the report—and a reflection of the difficulty of working in this line of research—is that very few specific risks to
humans are quantified in a meaningful way. For example, one might ask: has my risk of death increased because of more hot days?
The report says, “Local changes in temperature and rainfall have altered the distribution of some water-borne illnesses and disease
vectors (medium confidence).” This seems to state the obvious, while giving no indication of whether the alterations may have
increased or decreased risk or what the magnitude of the alteration might be. Given that the statement seems to say little, it is hard
to imagine there is not high confidence.¶ The report does conclude with
high confidence risks to low-lying coastal
areas: emergencies during extreme weather, mortality from heat, food insecurity, loss of
livelihood in rural areas due to water shortage and temperature increases, loss of coastal
ecosystems and livelihoods that depend on them, and loss of freshwater ecosystems. But again,
this high confidence comes with an absence of quantification of how many/much and the degree of risk. Will extreme
weather double, triple, or quadruple the number of extreme emergency weather-related
events of a given magnitude (dollars or lives lost)? Will it increase these incidences by 10 percent, or will some
areas face increased risk while other areas face reduced risk?¶ In the end, the report is a compendium of things that might happen
or are likely to happen to someone or something, somewhere. But what does this actually mean for me, or anyone who might read
the report? I would avoid beachfront property. If my livelihood depended on a coastal resource, I would try to find a different job, or
at least urge my children to pursue another line of work.¶ That is where a measure of wealth brings some resilience—I have those
options, others do not. The report “quantifies” in some sense by establishing an element of “relative risk,” concluding that the poor
and marginalized in society are more vulnerable because they do not have the means to adapt. Beyond this, it is not clear that
climate prediction is at a high enough level to offer information that I can use to take concrete actions for most day-to-day decisions
and investments.¶ What the report does provide is some documentation of adaptation in action—what different regions, cities,
sectors, and groups are doing to adapt—concluding that there is a growing body of experience from which to learn. ¶ However,
perhaps the greatest truth in the report is in the following statement:¶ “Adaptation
is place and context specific,
with no single approach for reducing risks appropriate across all settings (high confidence).
Effective risk reduction and adaptation strategies consider the dynamics of vulnerability and
exposure and their linkages with socioeconomic processes, sustainable development, and
climate change.”¶ Hence, while it’s possible to learn from others’ adaptation experiences, in the end, the specifics of climate
change in my place, given my circumstances, and the socio-economic environment in which I live will present me with very different
climate outcomes and opportunities to adapt than you will have where you live. ¶ This fact alone raises the cost of adaptation,
because to some degree each recipe needs to be invented anew. What worked in the past likely won’t work in the future—or at
least, not as well. And we need to process a lot of highly uncertain climate projections in developing the new recipe.¶ The report also
concludes, not surprisingly, that risks increase and extend to more people, places, and things if the global temperature rise is three
degrees Celsius or greater than if there is only a one-degree rise. Overall, the report provides, in my judgment, a compelling case for
more serious mitigation efforts—the topic of the next IPCC report, to come out later this month.
Climate change reversible – increase in efficiency will reduce carbon footprint.
E & E No Date (E & E is a recognized global leader in environmental management. Employing
nearly 1,000 respected experts in 85 engineering and scientific disciplines, E & E has offices in 43
cities across the United States and in 12 locations around the globe. Since 1970, we have
completed over 50,000 projects in 122 different countries, in nearly every ecosystem on the
planet, “We Can Solve Climate Change,” E & E, http://www.ene.com/ceo-blog/we-can-solveclimate-change) Chen
We Can Solve Climate Change¶ After about 25 years of discussing climate change, the global stage is finally set to
seriously address what we have to do to reduce our footprint. This is hugely important. Taking action is required if we
want to leave the planet in good shape for our children and grandchildren. Most of the people on Earth think that
this is important. Almost all of the countries that represent these people are in the process of saying that they agree that something
must be done.¶ There have been lots of meetings and discussions up to this point. Copenhagen this December will be another one
these important meetings, and many discussions, and actions will need to follow. Our global climate is extremely important to every
one of us. There is agreement that we all need to act, but questions surround what it will cost.¶ Reducing Emissions... and Costs¶
There are several ways that we can reduce our carbon footprint. They are typically referred to
in categories like efficiency and changes in generation. Efficiency is a way to reduce the use of
energy to do the same thing. There are lots of ways to improve efficiencies. Changing a light
bulb to a more efficient one is a good example of this, but don't think only technology can make us more efficient.
There are very simple things like turning out that light when it is not used that have no capital cost and great return on investment.
There are also non-carbon sources of energy generation that can be used to power a new
green economy.¶ Proof it Can Be Done... and with Great ROI!¶ In the release of our 2008 Sustainability
Report we document achieving an 80% reduction in carbon emissions from our global
headquarters at a net cost savings! We did this in just nine years.¶ E & E's headquarters is the oldest
existing LEED® Platinum building in the world. This means two things. One, at 22 years old, we are among the longest-running green
office buildings in the world. Two, we built one of the better buildings environmentally and were still able to reduce our footprint by
80%...(and save a couple hundred thousand dollars in the process). Since we started with a good building, our reduction was
arguably more difficult than most buildings.¶ This is huge. The discussion of the economics of reducing our global carbon footprint
has been largely theoretical. Real data has been lacking, and there
is fear by some that large carbon reductions
can't be made without destroying our economy. We are proof that large reductions in carbon
emissions not only won't bankrupt our world, but that they can be economically beneficial.¶
The trick is all in how you do it. In our 2008 Sustainability Report, we detail how we approached the issue. We got a lot out
of behavior changes. We mixed in the right amounts of technology and renewable energy. We
got world leading performance and great return on investment. This is how to solve climate
change.
Climate change reversible – new way of solving: online crowdsourcing.
Malone et al 14 (Thomas, Professor of Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management,
director of the MIT Center for Collective Intelligence, and the principal investigator for the
Climate CoLab project, “How Millions of People Can Help Solve Climate Change,” 01/15/14, PBS,
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/earth/crowdsourcing-climate-change-solutions/) Chen
If there ever was a problem that’s hard to solve, it’s climate change. It’s a complex challenge requiring
more expertise than any one person can possess—in-depth knowledge of the physics of the upper atmosphere, a firm grasp on the
economics of technological innovation, and a thorough understanding of the psychology of human behavior change. What’s more,
top-down approaches that have been tried for decades—like efforts to pass national legislation and to negotiate international
agreements—while important, haven’t yet produced the kind of change scientists say is needed to avert climate change’s potential
consequences.¶ But there’s at least one reason for optimism. We
now have a new—and potentially more
effective—way of solving complex global challenges: online crowdsourcing.¶ Millions of people
around the world can now work together online to achieve a common goal at a scale and with a degree of collaboration that was
never before possible. From Wikipedia to open source software to online citizen science projects, crowdsourcing has produced
remarkable results in the worlds of education, technology, and science. Take the online game FoldIt, for example. In just ten days,
players from around the world helped produce an accurate model of a key protein found in an HIV-like virus, solving a problem that
at the
MIT Center for Collective Intelligence, we’re exploring the potential of crowdsourcing to help
solve the world’s most difficult societal problems—starting with climate change. To do that,
we’ve created the Climate CoLab, an on-line platform where people from around the world
collaborate on developing and evaluating proposals for what to do about global climate
change. (All three of us are actively involved in the Climate CoLab.)¶ Anyone is allowed to contribute.¶ In the same way that
FoldIt opened up the chemist’s laboratory, the Climate CoLab opens up the elite conference rooms and
meeting halls where climate strategies are developed today. To move beyond relying solely on
experts, scientists, and politicians to develop solutions, we’ve broken down the complex issue
of climate change into focused sub-problems and invited a global community to tackle each of
the sub-problems and then put the puzzle back together again into a global strategy.¶ Anyone
is allowed to contribute. No matter who a person is or where they come from, they can contribute ideas and have
them reviewed by an international community of thousands of people—including worldrenowned experts from organizations like NASA, the World Bank, and the Union of Concerned
Scientists, and leading universities like MIT, Stanford, and Columbia.¶ Over the past three
years, the Climate CoLab community has grown dramatically, and it now has over 10,000
members from more than 100 countries. Members include business people, researchers,
scientists, officials at non-governmental organizations (NGOs), policymakers, students and
concerned citizens, as well as dozens of the world’s leading experts on climate science, policy,
clean tech, investing, and more. Together, the community has submitted and evaluated over
400 proposals on a wide variety of topics ranging from eating vegetarian diets to adapting to sea level rise to
had stumped scientists for 15 years.¶ We believe these examples are just the beginning of what’s possible.¶ In our work
shifting public attitudes about climate change.
Climate change reversible in squo – current tech and knowledge allow for
greater energy efficiency.
Sanders 7 (Bernie, An American politician and the junior United States Senator from Vermont.
Before serving in the Senate, he represented Vermont's at-large district in the United States
House of Representatives and served as mayor of Burlington. He does not belong to a political
party. He graduated from the University of Chicago in 1964 with a Bachelor of Arts in political
science, “Global Warming Is Reversible,” The Nation, 11/27/07,
http://www.thenation.com/article/global-warming-reversible#) Chen
Scientists now tell us that the crisis of global warming is even worse than their earlier
projections. Daily front-page headlines of environmental disasters give an inkling of what we can expect in the future,
multiplied many times over: droughts, floods, severe weather disturbances, loss of drinking water and farmland and conflicts over
declining natural resources. Yet
the situation is by no means hopeless. Major advances and
technological breakthroughs are being made in the United States and throughout the world
that are giving us the tools to cut carbon emissions dramatically, break our dependency on
fossil fuels and move to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. In fact, the truth rarely uttered in
Washington is that with strong governmental leadership the crisis of global warming is not only
solvable; it can be done while improving the standard of living of the people of this country
and others around the world. And it can be done with the knowledge and technology that we
have today ; future advances will only make the task easier. What should we be doing now?¶ First, we need strong
legislation that dramatically cuts back on carbon emissions. The Global Warming Pollution
Reduction Act (S. 309), a bill that I introduced with Senator Barbara Boxer and that now has eighteen co-sponsors, would
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050.¶ Second, if the federal
government begins the process of transforming our energy system by investing heavily in
energy efficiency and sustainable energy, we can accomplish the 80 percent carbon reduction
level and, at the same time, create millions of high-paying jobs.¶ Energy efficiency is the
easiest, quickest and least expensive path toward the lowering of carbon emissions. My
hometown of Burlington, Vermont, despite strong economic growth, consumes no more electricity today than it did sixteen years
ago because of a successful effort to make our homes, offices, schools and other buildings more energy-efficient. In
California,
which has a growing economy, electric consumption per person has remained steady over the
past twenty years because of that state's commitment to energy efficiency.¶ Numerous studies
tell us that retrofitting older buildings and establishing strong efficiency standards for new
construction can cut fuel and energy consumption by at least 40 percent. Those savings would increase
with the adoption of new technologies such as LED light bulbs, which consume as little as 10 percent of the electricity that
incandescent bulbs do and last twenty years.¶ Transportation must also be addressed in a serious manner. It
is insane that we are driving cars today that get the same twenty-five miles per gallon that US cars did twenty years ago. If Europe
and Japan can engineer their vehicles to average more than forty-four miles per gallon, we can do at least as well. Simply raising
fuel-efficiency standards to forty miles per gallon would save roughly the same amount of oil
as we import from Saudi Arabia and would dramatically lower carbon emissions. We should
also rebuild and expand our decaying rail and subway systems and provide energy-efficient
buses in rural America so that travelers have an alternative to the automobile.
Climate change reversible – renewable energy.
Sanders 7 (Bernie, An American politician and the junior United States Senator from Vermont.
Before serving in the Senate, he represented Vermont's at-large district in the United States
House of Representatives and served as mayor of Burlington. He does not belong to a political
party. He graduated from the University of Chicago in 1964 with a Bachelor of Arts in political
science, “Global Warming Is Reversible,” The Nation, 11/27/07,
http://www.thenation.com/article/global-warming-reversible#) Chen
Sustainable energies such as wind, solar and geothermal have tremendous potential and often
cost no more than fossil fuels (and, in some cases, even less). Increased production and
research should cause sustainable energy prices to decline steeply in the future. Wind power
is the fastest growing source of new energy in the world and in the United States, but we have
barely begun to tap its potential. Denmark, for example, generates 20 percent of its electricity from wind. We should be supporting
wind energy not only through the creation of large wind farms in the appropriate areas but through the use of small, inexpensive
wind turbines available today that can be used in homes and farms throughout rural America. These
small turbines can
produce, depending on location, more than half the electricity that an average home
consumes while saving consumers money on their electric bills.¶ Solar energy is another
rapidly expanding technology. In Germany, a quarter of a million homes are now producing
electricity through rooftop photovoltaic units, and the cost of that technology is expected to
decline steeply. California is providing strong incentives so that 1 million homes will have solar
units in the next ten years. The potential of solar energy, however, goes far beyond rooftop
photovoltaic units. Right now, in Nevada, a solar plant is generating fifty-six megawatts of
electricity. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the US Energy Department, "Solar energy
represents a huge domestic energy resource for the United States, particularly in the
Southwest where the deserts have some of the best solar resource levels in the world. For example, an area
approximately 12 percent the size of Nevada has the potential to supply all of the electric
needs of the United States."¶ As a strong indication of what the future holds, Pacific Gas and Electric, the
largest electric utility in the country, has recently signed a contract to build a 535-megawatt
solar thermal plant in the Mojave Desert. This plant, which should be operating in about four years, will have an
output equivalent to a small nuclear power plant and will produce electricity for about 400,000 homes. Most important, the
price of the electricity generated by this plant, about 10 cents per kilowatt hour, is
competitive with other fuels today and will be much cheaper than other fuels by the end of
the twenty-five-year contract. Experts in the industry say that dozens of these plants can be built within
the next twenty years.¶ Geothermal energy, the heat from deep inside the earth, is another
overlooked resource with real potential. It is free, renewable and can be used for electricity
generation and direct heating. A recent report for the US Energy Department by the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology suggests that geothermal could supply 100,000 megawatts of new carbon-free electricity at less than 10 cents per
kilowatt hour, the going rate today. It is estimated that electricity from geothermal sources could provide 10 percent of the US
baseload energy needs in 2050.¶ As
the nation at last confronts global warming, it is no time for denial,
greed, cynicism or pessimism. It is a time for vision and international leadership. It is a time
for transforming our energy system from the polluting and carbon-emitting technologies of
the nineteenth century into the unlimited and extraordinary energy possibilities of the
twenty-first. When we do that we will not only solve the global warming crisis; we will open up
unimaginable opportunities for improving life all over the planet.
I/L Defense – Can’t Adapt
People wont know how to adapt
Hill 3/31 (Adriene Hill, reporter for learning curve “Why adapting to climate change is so difficult”, 3/31/14,
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/sustainability/why-adapting-climate-change-so-difficult) King
from the U.N. Researchers say climate change is already affecting
many parts of the world—rising sea levels, heat waves. Now is the time to adapt. But figuring
out how to adapt, even if you put politics aside, can be incredibly tricky for a few reasons.¶ ¶
People do OK handling risks we’ve experienced. “We do a pretty good job of preparing for
some infectious diseases, with getting children vaccinated,” said Ben Orlove, a co-director of
the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions at Columbia University. “We put we put
strong housing codes into effect in earthquake prone areas.”¶ ¶ But, people are less good at
¶ The newest report on climate change is out
preparing for threats that aren’t familiar -- threats like climate change. “It’s hard for us to
accept risks that are uncertain, and that are far in the future,” said Orlove.¶ ¶ The uncertainty
and the future nature of many climate change impacts, makes difficult decisions about
adaptation even more difficult. ¶ ¶ Who should adapt? Who should pay to adapt?¶ ¶ How
should communities use land?¶ ¶ “How are you going to make all these decisions when you
can’t tell them exactly at what level the sea rise is going to affect them in 2030, 2040, 2050?”
said Dan Mazmanian, a professor at USC’s Sol Price School of Public Policy.¶ ¶ He calls the best strategy
for moving ahead “adaptive management for adaptation.” Communities adapt, and then stay flexible to adapt the way they adapt.¶
¶ Many climate models look out to a future that’s too far away for us to imagine, said Mazmanian. Instead, we ought to be thinking a
few decades out. And then rethinking the rules again, and again, as the science and future gets clearer.
Turn: adaptation worsens climate change – fails and decreases spending and
attention on mitigation.
Sterman 13 (John, Director of the MIT System Dynamics Group at the MIT Sloan School of
Management with an AB in engineering and environmental systems from Dartmouth and a PhD
in system dynamics from MIT, “Adaptation or Mitigation? Lessons from abolition in the Battle
Over Climate Policy,” Climate Progress, 07/05/13,
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/05/2258731/adaptation-or-mitigation-lessons-fromabolition-in-the-battle-over-climate-policy/) Chen
However, adaptation
without mitigation is futile. Since Sandy the focus has been on updating flood
maps and building sea walls. But sea walls are the Maginot line of climate change. Sea walls won’t help with
ocean acidification, water shortage, drought, more and more dangerous wildfires, declines in
agricultural output, and the many other impacts of climate change, not to mention the climate
refugees and risks of war in regions those impacts create. However, when we point out that there’s no
adapting to the changes in the climate we are facing if we don’t cut emissions dramatically, some adaptation advocates say, “yes,
but if we can convene people around adaptation, they’ll soon see its limitations and will end up strongly advocating mitigation as
part of their local adaptation plan.”¶ I’m deeply skeptical. It is more likely that
the current push for adaptation will
consume all the resources, energy and attention around climate change, so mitigation won’t
be considered, or become an afterthought. New York City just released its $20 billion climate
resilience plan. The plan focuses on adaptation, and pays no attention to reducing the
greenhouse gas emissions that create the need for adaptation in the first place. Nearly 50 mayors
and other local leaders just signed on to the new Resilient Communities for America Agreement (RC4A), pledging to invest in
adaptation and urging “state and federal leaders to support our local resilience initiatives and to take meaningful steps to build
resilience and security throughout the nation.” There are potential synergies between adaptation and mitigation, and these should
be exploited. For example, the RC4A recognizes that
investments in emissions reductions can “avoid the
costs of adapting to more severe climate impacts.” But the focus is on hardening local
infrastructure and preparing for more extreme events, not mitigation, especially not at the
level of national policy or international agreements.¶ Unfortunately, spending on sea walls, beach
nourishment, hardening infrastructure, and other adaptation measures consumes resources
that could be spent on mitigation. And adaptation doesn’t do anything to capture the
harmful externalities of greenhouse gas emissions by, for example, pricing carbon at its true cost, thus
weakening incentives to invest in efficiency and renewable, low-carbon energy. Worse, adaptation measures are
likely to ease the pressure people feel to price greenhouse gas emissions or cut emissions
through moral hazard and moral licensing effects . When people have subsidized flood insurance or believe the
government will bail them out after a disaster, they are more likely to build in the danger zone and less willing to reduce their risk.
Similarly, if
people believe adaptation protects them from the risks of rising seas or more severe
storms they may be less willing to cut their personal carbon footprint or work for policies that
would reduce emissions.¶ But can we do it? Can we cut emissions? Can we create an energy system
and economy that works, sustainably, for everyone? Technologically, the answer is yes. Those
who say we don’t have the technology, that clean, renewable energy is too expensive, that building a sustainable economy have a
profoundly pessimistic view of human ingenuity. Efficiency, wind, solar and other renewable, low carbon technologies are getting
cheaper every day. Many
actions to reduce emissions are profitable today, with ready to go, off the
shelf technologies. If fossil fuel prices reflected the true costs of the emissions they create then even more technologies for
mitigation would be cost effective today.
Adaptation fails – socioeconomic and location-based limitations.
Reilly 14 (John, the co-director of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global
Change, “Why We Can’t Just Adapt to Climate Change,” MIT Technology Review, 04/03/14,
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/526116/why-we-cant-just-adapt-to-climate-change/)
Chen
The report makes clear that specific
estimates of how climate change will affect places, people, and
things are very uncertain. Brought down to a local level, climate change could go in either direction—there are risks that a
given area could get drier or wetter, or suffer floods or droughts, or both. This uncertainty makes efforts to prevent climate change
even more important.¶ Specific risks to natural systems are well documented by the report. It finds, for example,
the greatest
risks are to those ecosystems, people, and things in low-lying coastal areas, because expected
sea-level changes are in only one direction, up. This is also the case in the Arctic, where the
temperature rise is expected to be much greater than the global average. There is good science and
unanimous agreement among climate models behind these assertions.¶ But a frustrating aspect of the report—and a reflection of
the difficulty of working in this line of research—is that very few specific risks to humans are quantified in a meaningful way. For
example, one might ask: has my risk of death increased because of more hot days? The report says, “Local changes in temperature
and rainfall have altered the distribution of some water-borne illnesses and disease vectors (medium confidence).” This seems to
state the obvious, while giving no indication of whether the alterations may have increased or decreased risk or what the magnitude
of the alteration might be. Given that the statement seems to say little, it is hard to imagine there is not high confidence.¶ The
report does conclude with high confidence risks to low-lying coastal areas: emergencies during
extreme weather, mortality from heat, food insecurity, loss of livelihood in rural areas due to
water shortage and temperature increases, loss of coastal ecosystems and livelihoods that
depend on them, and loss of freshwater ecosystems. But again, this high confidence comes with an absence of
quantification of how many/much and the degree of risk. Will extreme weather double, triple, or quadruple the number of extreme
emergency weather-related events of a given magnitude (dollars or lives lost)? Will it increase these incidences by 10 percent, or will
some areas face increased risk while other areas face reduced risk?¶ In the end, the report is a compendium of things that might
happen or are likely to happen to someone or something, somewhere. But what does this actually mean for me, or anyone who
might read the report? I would avoid beachfront property. If my livelihood depended on a coastal resource, I would try to find a
different job, or at least urge my children to pursue another line of work.¶ That
is where a measure of wealth brings
some resilience—I have those options, others do not. The report “quantifies” in some sense by establishing an
element of “relative risk,” concluding that the poor and marginalized in society are more vulnerable
because they do not have the means to adapt. Beyond this, it is not clear that climate prediction is at a high
enough level to offer information that I can use to take concrete actions for most day-to-day decisions and investments.¶ What the
report does provide is some documentation of adaptation in action—what different regions, cities, sectors, and groups are doing to
adapt—concluding that there is a growing body of experience from which to learn. ¶ However, perhaps the greatest truth in the
report is in the following statement:¶ “Adaptation
is place and context specific, with no single approach
for reducing risks appropriate across all settings (high confidence). Effective risk reduction and adaptation
strategies consider the dynamics of vulnerability and exposure and their linkages with socioeconomic processes, sustainable
development, and climate change.”¶ Hence, while it’s possible to learn from others’ adaptation experiences, in the end, the
specifics of climate change in my place, given my circumstances, and the socio-economic
environment in which I live will present me with very different climate outcomes and
opportunities to adapt than you will have where you live. ¶ This fact alone raises the cost of adaptation,
because to some degree each recipe needs to be invented anew. What worked in the past likely won’t work in
the future—or at least, not as well. And we need to process a lot of highly uncertain climate
projections in developing the new recipe.
Adaptation fails – bias against poor and certain ecosystems.
IPCC 14 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, A scientific intergovernmental body
under control of the UN with the aims of assessing human-induced climate change and
reviewing options for adaptation and mitigation, “Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability,” IPCC, http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/) Chen
In the presence of limited resources and a range of objectives, adaptation strategy choices
involve trade-offs ¶ among multiple policy goals (high confidence). The alternative policy goals
include development and climate ¶ change mitigation. Economics offers valuable insights into these trade-offs
and into the wider consequences of ¶ adaptation. It also helps to explain the differences between the potential of adaptation and its
achievement as a ¶ function of costs, barriers, behavioral biases, and resources available. [17.2.7.1, 17.2.7.2, 17.3.1] ¶ ¶ Economic
thinking on adaptation has evolved from a focus on cost benefit analysis and identification of “best ¶ economic” adaptations to the
development of multi-metric evaluations including the risk and uncertainty ¶ dimensions in order to provide support to decision
makers (high confidence). Economic
analysis is moving away from a unique emphasis on efficiency,
market solutions, and benefit/cost analysis of adaptation to include consideration of nonmonetary and non-market measures; risks; inequities; behavioral biases; barriers and limits
and consideration of ancillary benefits and costs. One role of economics is to contribute information to decision
makers ¶ on the benefits and costs, including a number of non-monetary items, and on the equity impacts of alternative ¶ actions. It
does not provide a final ranking for policy makers.
A narrow focus on quantifiable costs and benefits can
bias decisions against the poor and against ecosystems and those in the future whose values
can be excluded or are understated.
Sufficiently-broad-based approaches, however, can help avoid such
maladaptation is a possibility if the evaluation
approaches taken are not comprehensive enough in this sense. [17.2.3, 17.3.2] ¶ ¶ The theoretical basis for
maladaptation. Indeed the evidence ¶ shows that
economic evaluation of adaptation options is clear, and can be and has been applied ¶ to support decisions in practical contexts
(medium confidence). There is extensive experience of applying the ¶ concepts and methods underlying the economic framework in
non-adaptation contexts, which is useful for designing ¶ climate adaptation policies. The limited empirical evidence available shows
a number of cases where desirable ¶ adaptation strategies have been identified based on these economic tools. The findings show
that adaptation is highly ¶ regional and context specific. Thus the results do not readily permit widespread generalizations about the
nature of ¶ attractive adaptation actions. [17.2, 17.4.1, 17.4.2, 17.4.4]. ¶ Both private and public sectors have a role to play in the
development and implementation of adaptation ¶ measures (high confidence). Economic theory and empirical results show that a
degree of adaptation will be ¶ autonomously carried out by private parties in response to climate change. However the private
sector alone will ¶ often not provide the desirable level of adaptation with some types of actions not undertaken due to costs, ¶
incentives, nature of beneficiaries and resource requirements. This implies the public sector will need to play a ¶ strong role. There
are also other reasons for public action such as overcoming barriers, developing technologies, ¶ representing current and future
equity concerns and other items. [17.2.1, 17.3.1] ¶
Adaptation fails – biophysical and economic limitations prevent overcoming
climate change.
IPCC 14 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, A scientific intergovernmental body
under control of the UN with the aims of assessing human-induced climate change and
reviewing options for adaptation and mitigation, “Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability,” IPCC, http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/) Chen
The theory and the evidence indicate that
adaptation cannot generally overcome all climate change
effects ¶ (high confidence). In addition to there being biophysical limits to adaptation, such as the
inability to restore outdoor ¶ comfort under high temperatures, some adaptation options will
simply be too costly or resource intensive or will be ¶ cost ineffective until climate change
effects grow to merit investment costs. Thus the desirability of adaptation ¶ options will vary
with time and climate change realization. [17.2.2, 17.2.5]
Adaptation fails – knowledge and technology constraints.
IPCC 14 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, A scientific intergovernmental body
under control of the UN with the aims of assessing human-induced climate change and
reviewing options for adaptation and mitigation, “Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability,” IPCC, http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/) Chen
The AR4 concluded that there are significant knowledge gaps and impediments to flows of
information that can constrain adaptation, but knowledge in itself is not sufficient to drive
adaptive responses (Adger et al., 2007). These conclusions are echoed by more recent literature. Adaptation practitioners
and stakeholders in both developed (Tribbia and Moser, 2008; Jantarasami et al., 2010; Gardner et al., 2010; Ford et al., 2011;
Milfont, 2012) and developing nations (Bryan et al., 2009; Deressa et al., 2009; Begum and Pereira, 2013; Pasquini et al., 2013)
continue to identify knowledge deficits as an adaptation constraint (very high confidence). Often this
demand for more information is linked to concerns regarding decision-making under
uncertainty about the future (Tribbia and Moser, 2008; Moser, 2010a; Whitmarsh, 2011; Stoutenborough and Vedlitz, 2013) (medium
agreement, medium evidence). A broad range of guidance on adaptation planning and implementation continues to emerge as a means of empowering
actors to pursue adaptation efforts (Clar et al., 2013; EU, 2013; FAO, 2013; USCTI, 2013; Webb and Beh, 2013), and the World Meteorological
Organization have emphasized the importance of climate services for vulnerability and disaster risk reduction (WMO, 2011). ¶ A
number of
recent studies have investigated the extent to which education and knowledge about climate
change influences perceptions of risk (Hamilton, 2011; McCright and Dunlap, 2011; Milfont, 2012). For example, studies
suggest over-confidence in the ability of actors to manage risk (Wolf et al., 2010; Kuruppu and Liverman, 2011)
or differences in the perception of climate risk between actors and governing institutions (Patt
and Schröter, 2008a) can constrain adaptation (medium agreement, medium evidence). Therefore, capacity building through education,
training, and information access represents a valuable opportunity for adaptation (16.3.1.1). ¶ Nevertheless, numerous recent studies caution that
addressing knowledge deficits may not necessarily lead to adaptive responses (Tribbia and Moser, 2008; Kellstedt et al., 2008; Adger et al., 2009; Malka
and Krosnick, 2009; Moser, 2010b; Preston et al., 2011b; Kahan et al., 2012; Lemos et al., 2012) (very high confidence). Research from the United States
indicates that those most informed about science and climate change are not necessarily the most concerned about its potential consequences
(Kellstedt et al., 2008; Kahan et al., 2012), although these findings run counter to research from New Zealand where increased knowledge translated
into increased public concern and efficacy (Milfont, 2012). Recent research also indicates that multiple factors influence ho w knowledge is perceived
including political affiliation (Hamilton, 2011; McCright and Dunlap, 2011), educational attainment (McCright and Dunlap, 2011), and the confidence
placed on different information sources (Sundblad et al., 2009). Various studies have questioned a common assumption in the climate change literature
that improvements in climate information are needed to facilitate adaptation (Dessai et al., 2009; Hulme et al., 2009; Wilby and Dessai, 2010; VerdonKidd et al., 2012; 2.3). Similarly, multiple authors have questioned the utility and robustness of vulnerability metrics and indices for informing
adaptation decision-making (Barnett et al., 2009; Klein, 2009; Hinkel, 2011; Preston et al., 2011b). ¶ Similar
tensions arise with
respect to the role of traditional knowledge in adaptation. For example, cultural preferences
regarding the value of traditional versus more formal scientific forms of knowledge influence
what types of knowledge, and therefore adaptation options, are considered legitimate (Jones and
Boyd, 2011). In the Arctic, Inuit traditional knowledge (Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, IQ) encompasses all aspects of traditional Inuit culture including values,
world-view, language, life skills, perceptions and expectations (Nunavut Social Development Council, 1999; Wenzel, 2004). Inuit
IQ includes,
for example, weather forecasting, sea ice safety, navigation, hunting and animal preparation
skills that are may have value for managing climate risk. Yet, as noted in the AR4 and more
recent studies, these skills are declining among youth (Adger et al., 2007; Pearce et al., 2011) (medium agreement,
medium evidence). Increasing reliance on non-traditional forecasting (national weather office
forecasts) and other technologies (GPS) in Arctic communities is in part responsible for
increased risk taking when travelling on the land and sea ice (Aporta and Higgs, 2005; Ford et al., 2006; Pearce et
al., 2011) (medium agreement, medium evidence). Collectively, the recent literature suggests the extent to which knowledge acts to constrain or
enable adaptation is dependent upon how that knowledge is generated, shared, and used to achieve desired adaptation objectives (Patt et al., 2007;
Nelson et al., 2008; Tribbia and Moser, 2008; Moser, 2010a, b) (very high confidence). ¶ Individual,
institutional, and societal
knowledge influences the capacity to develop and use technologies to achieve adaptation
objectives (very high confidence) (UNFCCC, 2006; Adger et al., 2007). The AR4 noted the role of technology in contributing to spatial and
temporal heterogeneity in adaptive capacity and the potential for technology to constrain adaptation or create opportunities (Adger et al., 2007). Key
considerations with respect to technology as an adaptation constraint include a) availability; b) access (including the capacity to finance, operate and
maintain); c) acceptability to users and affected stakeholders; and d) effectiveness in managing climate risk (Adger et al., 2007; Dryden-Cripton et al.,
2007; van Aalst et al. 2008; 9.4.4; 11.7; 14.2.4; 15.3.2). Although technology has implications for regional adaptive capacity (e.g., 22.4.5.7; 27.3.6.2;
29.6.2), in-depth exploration of technology in the adaptation literature is often associated with specific sectors (Howden et al., 2007; Bates et al., 2008;
van Koningsveld et al., 2008; Parry et al., 2009; US EPA, 2009; Zhu et al., 2010). For example, Howden et al. (2007) note the importance of technology
options for facilitating adaptation including applications of existing management strategies as well as introduction of innovative solutions such as bioand nanotechnology (see also Hillie and Hlophe, 2007; Bates et al., 2008; Fleischer et al., 2011). Several studies from Africa have explored how different
factors drive awareness, uptake and use of adaptation technologies for agriculture (Nhemachena and Hassan, 2007; Hassan and Nhemachena, 2008;
Deressa et al., 2009, 2011). While
such literature identifies specific adaptation technology options, and
in some cases the costs associated with their implementation, quantitative understanding of
the extent to which improving technology will enhance adaptive capacity or reduce climate
change impacts remains limited (Piao et al., 2010).
Adaptation fails – physical environmental constraints limit flexibility.
IPCC 14 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, A scientific intergovernmental body
under control of the UN with the aims of assessing human-induced climate change and
reviewing options for adaptation and mitigation, “Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability,” IPCC, http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/) Chen
The capacity of human and natural systems to adapt to a changing climate is linked to
characteristics of the physical environment including the climate itself. Recent studies have suggested
that the effort required to adapt to an increase in global mean temperature of 4°C by 2100 may be significantly greater than
adapting to lower magnitudes of change (Fung et al., 2011; Gemenne, 2011; New et al., 2011; Nicholls et al., 2011; Stafford Smith et
al., 2011; Thornton et al., 2011; Zelazowski et al., 2011; 19.5.1) (very high confidence). This challenge arises from the magnitude of
climate change, as well as the rate (Box 16-3).¶ A
variety of non-climatic physical factors also can constrain
adaptation efforts of natural systems (very high confidence). For example, migration can be
constrained by geographical features such as lack of sufficient altitude to migrate vertically or barriers posed by
coastlines or rivers (Clark et al., 2011). Alternatively, Lafleur et al. (2010) identify soil conditions as a factor that may
influence the migration of North American forests in response to climate change. Such physical
barriers to migration can also arise from human activities. Feeley and Silman (2010) note that anthropogenic land use
change can constrain the migration of Andean plant species to higher altitudes. Meanwhile, Titus et
al. (2009) analyze state and local land use plans along the U.S. Atlantic coast and conclude that approximately60% of coastal land
below 1 meter in elevation is anticipated to be developed in the future, posing a physical barrier to inland migration of wetlands (see
also Bulleri and Chapman, 2010; Jackson and McIlvenny, 2011). Collectively, such physical constraints can reduce available migration
corridors and the distances over which migration is a feasible adaptive response.¶ Physical
constraints have important
implications for human adaptation as well (high agreement, medium evidence). For example, the distribution and
abundance of water is a feature of the physical environment that is influenced by climate. Human consumption of
freshwater increasingly is approaching the sustainable yield of surface and groundwater
systems in a number of global regions (Shah, 2009; Pfister et al., 2009, 2011a, b; 3.3.2; 3.5). Waterdependent enterprises in such regions may therefore have reduced flexibility to cope with
transient or long-term reductions in water supply. This in turn influences the portfolio of
adaptation actions that can be implemented effectively to manage risk to water security and,
subsequently, agriculture and food security (Hanjra and Qureshi, 2010) as well as energy security (Voinov and
Cardwell, 2009; Dale et al., 2011). Similarly, water quality and soil quality can constrain agricultural activities and therefore the
capacity of agricultural systems to adapt to a changing climate (Delgado et al., 2011; Kato et al., 2011; Lobell et al., 2011; Olesen et
al., 2011).
Adaptation fails – biological factors
-ability to cope with climate stress
-ecosystem goods and survives
-soil degradation  lower agriculture
-pests & disease
IPCC 14 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, A scientific intergovernmental body
under control of the UN with the aims of assessing human-induced climate change and
reviewing options for adaptation and mitigation, “Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability,” IPCC, http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/) Chen
Since the AR4, the literature on biological (including behavioural, physiological, and genetic) tolerances of individuals, populations,
and communities to climate change and extremes has continued to expand (4.4; 5.5.5; 6.2). This has resulted in a significant increase
in the number of studies describing mechanisms by which biological
factors can constrain the adaptation
options for humans, non-human species, and ecological systems more broadly. In particular, biological
characteristics influence the capacity of organisms to cope with increasing climate stress in
situ through acclimation, adaptation, or behavior (Jensen et al., 2008; Somero, 2010; Tomanek, 2010; Aitken et
al., 2011; Gale et al., 2011; Sorte et al., 2011; Donelson et al., 2011) as well as the rate at which organisms can
migrate to occupy suitable bioclimatic regions (Hill et al., 2011; Morin and Thuiller, 2009; Feeley et al., 2012) (very
high confidence). Studies of humans also find age and geographic variation among populations with respect to perceptions of
thermal comfort in indoor and outdoor space, which in turn influences the use of technologies (e.g., air conditioning, vegetation)
and behaviour to adjust to the thermal environment (Indraganti, 2010; Chen and Chang, 2012;Yang et al., 2012; Fuller and Bulkeley,
2013; Müller et al., 2013).¶ The biological capacity for migration among non-human species is linked to characteristics such as
fecundity, phenotypic and genotypic variation, dispersal rates, and interspecific interactions (Aitken et al., 2008; Engler et al., 2009;
Hellmann et al., 2012). For example, Aitken et al. (2008) argue that migration rates of tree species necessary to track a changing
climate are higher than what has been observed since the last glaciation. However, Kremer et al. (2012) note that long-distance gene
flow of tree species can span distances in one generation that are greater than habitat shifts predicted under climate change.
Additional research is needed to clarify the capacity of species and communities to migrate in response to a changing climate.¶ The
degradation of environmental quality is another source of constraints (Côté and Darling, 2010) (very high confidence), with multiple
studies including natural capital as a foundation for sustainable livelihoods (Paavola, 2008; Thornton et al., 2008; Iwasaki et al., 2009;
Badjeck et al., 2010; Nelson et al., 2010a, b). Non-climatic stresses to ecological systems can reduce their resilience to climate
change as evidenced by studies on coral reefs and marine ecosystems, tropical forests, and coastal wetlands (Malhi et al., 2009a, b;
Diaz and Rosenberg, 2008; Kapos and Miles, 2008; Afreen et al., 2011) (very high confidence; 4.2.4; CC-CR). For example, several
studies have noted interactions between anthropogenic land use change and species migration rates on the risk of extirpation
(Feeley et al., 2010; Yates et al., 2010; Cabral et al., 2013; Svenning and Sandel, 2013).¶ Ecological
degradation also
reduces the availability of ecosystem goods and services for human populations (Nkem et al, 2010;
Tobey et al., 2010; 4.4.3; 6.4.1; (very high confidence). For example, degradation of coastal wetlands and coral reef systems may
reduce their capacity to buffer coastal systems from the effects of tropical cyclones (Das and Vincent, 2009; Tobey et al., 2010;
Gedan et al., 2011; Keryn et al., 2011; Box CC-EA). Similarly,
soil degradation and desertification can reduce
crop yields and the resilience of agricultural and pastoral livelihoods to climate stress (Iglesias et
al., 2011; Lal, 2011).¶ Ecosystem constraints can also arise from non-native species, including pests
and disease, that compete with endemic species (Hellman et al., 2008; Dukes, et al., 2009; Moser et al., 2011;
Ziska et al., 2011; Pautasso et al., 2012; Svobodová et al., 2013) (4.2.4.6). Climate change could reduce the
effectiveness of current control mechanisms for invasive species (Hellmann et al., 2008) (very low
confidence). However, studies also indicate that uncertainty associated with predictions of future pests, disease, and invasive
species remains high (Dukes et al., 2009)
Adaptation fails – economic constraints
IPCC 14 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, A scientific intergovernmental body
under control of the UN with the aims of assessing human-induced climate change and
reviewing options for adaptation and mitigation, “Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability,” IPCC, http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/) Chen
The AR4 concluded that adaptive capacity is influenced by the entitlements of actors to
economic resources and by larger macro-level driving forces such as economic development
and trends in globalization (Adger et al., 2007). More recent literature continues to identify
economic constraints associated with adaptation. However, such constraints are often
associated with the financing of discrete adaptation options (e.g., Matasci et al., 2013; Islam et
al., 2014). This chapter draws a distinction between such financial constraints (16.3.2.5) and
economic constraints, which are associated with broader macroeconomic considerations.
Long-term trends in economic development as well as short-term dynamics in economic
systems can have a significant influence on the capacity of actors to adapt to climate change
(very high confidence) (16.3.1.1). Multiple authors, for example, discuss the concept of ‘double
exposure’ where actors are subjected to stresses associated with climate change as well as
those associated with economic disruptions such as the recent global financial crisis or other
stresses (Leichenko et al., 2010; Silva et al., 2010; Leichenko, 2012; Jeffers, 2013; McKune and
Silva, 2013). Similarly, Kiem and Austin (2013) argue that prevailing economic conditions have
an important influence on the capacity of Australian farmers to cope with drought.
The implications of economic constraints vary among different sectors that have differential
vulnerability to climate change. Economies that are disproportionately comprised of climatesensitive sectors such as agriculture, forestry and fisheries, may be particularly vulnerable to
the effects of climate change and may encounter greater constraints on their capacity to
adapt (very high confidence). Such economies occur disproportionately in the developing
world (Thornton et al., 2008; Allison et al., 2009; Feng et al., 2010; Füssel, 2010), although
multiple studies have explored climate-sensitive regional economies in developed nations as
well (Edwards et al., 2009; Aaheim et al., 2012; Leichenko et al., 2010; Kiem and Austin, 2013).
Poverty and development deficits that are linked to economic conditions also exist in urban
areas (8.1.3; 8.3.2.1).
While economic development and diversification are generally seen as factors that can
ameliorate resource deficits (20.2.1.2; 20.3.2), certain economic enterprises can constrain
adaptation. For example, the AR4 noted that activities such as shrimp farming and conversion
of coastal mangroves, while profitable in an economic sense, can exacerbate vulnerability to
sea-level rise (Agrawala et al., 2005 in Adger et al., 2007). More recent studies have
demonstrated that economic development and urbanization of hazardous landscapes may
increase human exposure to extreme weather events and climate change resulting in greater
economic losses and risks to public health and safety (Baldassare et al., 2010; IPCC, 2012;
Preston, 2013). Economic development also can put pressure on natural resources and
ecosystems that can constrain their capacity to adapt (Titus et al., 2009; Sydneysmith et al.,
2010; 16.3.2.3; 20.3.2). The extent to which economic development creates opportunities or
constrains adaptation is dependent on the development pathway (17.4.3; 20.6). Low resourceintensive economic growth can enhance adaptive capacity while minimizing externalities of
development that can increase vulnerability of human and natural systems (20.6).
I/l – Turn Warming
Need to adapt with “resilience” and “new” technology
Lawson, 5/27 [Nigel, educated at Westminster School and Christ Church, Oxford, where he
gained a first-class honours degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics, a British Conservative
politician, journalist, Member of Parliament, The Trouble With Climate Change, GWPF,
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/05/Lawson-Trouble-with-climate-change.pdf]
Yi
What it conspicuously fails to do, however, is to make any assessment of the un- equivocally adverse economic impact of the
decarbonisation policy it continues to advocate, which (if implemented) would be far worse than any adverse impact from global
warming.
Even here, however, the new report concedes for the first time that the most impor- tant response to the threat of climate change
must be how mankind has responded throughout the ages, namely intelligent adaptation. Indeed, the ‘impacts’ section of the latest
report is explicitly entitled ‘Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’. In previ- ous IPCC reports adaptation was scarcely referred to at
all, and then only dismissively.The importance of adaptation¶ This leads directly to the last of my four questions.
To the extent
that there is a problem, what should we, calmly and rationally, do about it?¶ The answer is – or
should be – a no-brainer: adapt. I mentioned earlier that a re- sumption of global warming, should it occur (and of course it might)
would bring both benefits and costs. The
sensible course is clearly to pocket the benefits while seeking to
minimise the costs. And that is all the more so since the costs, should they arise, will not be anything new: they will merely
be the slight exacerbation of problems that have always afflicted mankind.¶ Like the weather, for example –
whether we are talking about rainfall and flooding (or droughts for that matter) in the UK, or
hurricanes and typhoons in the tropics. The weather has always varied, and it always will.
There have always been extremes, and there always will be. That being so, it clearly makes
sense to make ourselves more re- silient and robust in the face of extreme weather events,
whether or not there is a slight increase in the frequency or severity of such events. ¶ This means,
in the UK, measures such as flood defences and sea defences, together with water storage to minimise the adverse effects of
drought; and in the tropics better storm warnings, the building of levees, and more robust construction.¶ The same is equally true in
the field of health. Tropical
diseases – and malaria is frequently (if inaccurately) mentioned in this
context – are a mortal menace in much of the developing world. It clearly makes sense to seek
to eradicate these diseases – and in the case of malaria (which used to be endemic in Europe)
we know perfectly well how to do it – whether or not warming might lead to an increase in
the incidence of such diseases.¶ And the same applies to all the other possible adverse consequences of global warming.
Moreover, this makes sense whatever the cause of any future warming – whether it is man-made or natural. Happily too, as
economies grow and technology develops, our ability to adapt successfully to any problems
which warming may bring steadily increases.¶ Yet, astonishingly, this is not the course on which our
leaders in the Western world generally, and the UK in particular, have embarked. They have decided that
what we must do, at inordinate cost, is prevent the possibility (as they see it) of any further
warm- ing by abandoning the use of fossil fuels.¶ Even if this were attainable – a big ‘if’, which I will discuss later –
there is no way in which this could be remotely cost-effective. The cost to the world economy of moving
from relatively cheap and reliable energy to much more expensive and much less reli- able forms of energy – so-called renewables,
on which we had to rely before we were liberated by the fossil-fuel-driven Industrial Revolution – far exceeds any conceivable
benefit.¶ It is true that the notorious Stern Review,6 widely promoted by a British prime min- ister with something of a messiah
complex and an undoubted talent for PR, sought to demonstrate the reverse, and has become a bible for the economically illiterate.
But Stern’s dodgy economics have been comprehensively demolished by the most distin- guished economists on both sides of the
Atlantic.7 So much so, in fact, that Lord Stern himself has been driven to complain that it is all the fault of the computer models
used,¶ 10¶ which – and I quote him – ‘come close to assuming directly that the impacts and costs will be modest, and close to
excluding the possibility of catastrophic outcomes’.8¶ It may well be the case that these elaborate models are scarcely worth the
computer code they are written in, and certainly the divergence between model predictions and empirical observations has become
ever wider. Nevertheless, it is a bit rich for Stern now to complain about them, when they remain the gospel of the climate science
es- tablishment in general and of the IPCC in particular.¶ But Stern is right in this sense: unless
you assume that we may
be heading for a CO 2 - induced planetary catastrophe, a view for which there is no scientific
basis, a policy of decarbonisation cannot possibly make sense.¶ A similar, if slightly more sophisticated,
case for current policies has been put for- ward by a distinctly better economist than Stern, Harvard’s Professor Martin Weitzman, in
what he likes to call his ‘dismal theorem’.9 After demolishing Stern’s cost–benefit analysis, he concludes that Stern is in fact right but
for the wrong reasons. According to Weitzman, this is an area where cost–benefit analysis does not apply.
Climate sci- ence
is highly uncertain, and a catastrophic outcome which might even threaten the continuation
of human life on this planet cannot be entirely ruled out, however un- likely it may be. It is
therefore incumbent on us to do whatever we can, regardless of cost, to prevent this. ¶ This is an
extreme case of what is usually termed ‘the precautionary principle’. I have often thought that the most important use of the
precautionary principle is against the precautionary principle itself, since it can all too readily lead to absurd policy prescrip- tions. In
this case, a moment’s reflection would remind us that there are a number of possible catastrophes, many of them less unlikely than
that caused by runaway warm- ing, and all of them capable of occurring considerably sooner than the catastrophe feared by
Weitzman; and there is no way we can afford the cost of unlimited spending to reduce the likelihood of all of them.¶ In particular,
there is the risk that the earth may enter a new ice age. This was the fear expressed by the well-known astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle in
his book Ice: The Ulti- mate Human Catastrophe,10 and there are several climate scientists today, particularly in Russia, concerned
about this. It would be difficult, to say the least, to devote unlim- ited sums to both cooling and warming the planet at the same
time.¶ At the end of the day, this comes down to judgment. Weitzman is clearly entitled to his, but I doubt if it is widely shared; and
if the public were aware that it was on this slender basis that the entire case for current policies rested I would be surprised if they
would have much support. Rightly so.
Bad to give up cheap energy for uncertain cause – economic collapse
Lawson, 5/27 [Nigel, educated at Westminster School and Christ Church, Oxford, where he
gained a first-class honours degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics, a British Conservative
politician, journalist, Member of Parliament, The Trouble With Climate Change, GWPF,
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/05/Lawson-Trouble-with-climate-change.pdf]
Yi
Unreason and morality¶ So how is it that much of the Western world, and this country in particular, has suc- cumbed to the
self-harming collective madness that is climate change orthodoxy? It is difficult to escape the conclusion that climate change
orthodoxy has in effect become a substitute religion, attended by all the intolerant zealotry that has so often marred religion in the
past, and in some places still does so today.¶ Throughout the Western world, the two creeds that used to vie for popular sup- port –
Christianity and the atheistic belief system of Communism – are each clearly in decline. Yet people still feel the need both for the
comfort and for the transcendent values that religion can provide. It is the quasi-religion of green alarmism and global salvationism,
of which the climate change dogma is the prime example, that has filled¶ 12¶ the vacuum, with reasoned questioning of its mantras
regarded as little short of sacri- lege.¶ The parallel goes deeper. As I mentioned earlier, throughout the ages the weather has been
an important part of the religious narrative. In primitive societies it was cus- tomary for extreme weather events to be explained as
punishment from the gods for the sins of the people; and there is no shortage of this theme in the Bible, either – par- ticularly, but
not exclusively, in the Old Testament. The contemporary version is that, as a result of heedless industrialisation within a framework
of materialistic capitalism, we have directly (albeit not deliberately) perverted the weather, and will duly receive our comeuppance.¶
There is another aspect, too, which may account for the appeal of this so-called explanation. Throughout the ages, something
deep in man’s psyche has made him receptive to apocalyptic warnings that the end of the
world is nigh. And almost all of us, whether we like it or not, are imbued with feelings of guilt
and a sense of sin. How much less uncomfortable it is, how much more convenient, to divert attention away from our
individual sins and reasons to feel guilty, and to sublimate them in collective guilt and collective sin. ¶ Why does this matter? It
matters, and matters a great deal, on two quite separate grounds. The first is that it has gone a long way towards ushering in a new
age of unreason. It is a cruel irony that, while it was science which, more than anything else, was able by its great achievements to
establish the age of reason, it is all too many climate scientists and their hangers-on who have become the high priests of a new age
of unreason.¶ But what moves me most is that the policies invoked in its name are grossly im- moral. We have, in the UK, devised
the most blatant transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich – and I am slightly surprised that it is so strongly supported by those
who con- siderthemselvestobethetribunesofthepeopleandpoliticallyontheLeft.11 Ireferto our system of heavily subsidising wealthy
landlords to have wind farms on their land, so that the poor can be supplied with one of the most expensive forms of electricity
known to man.¶ This is also, of course, inflicting increasing damage on the British economy, to no useful purpose whatever. More
serious morally, because it is on a much larger scale, is the perverse intergenerational transfer
of wealth implied by orthodox climate change policies. It is not much in dispute that future generations –
those yet unborn – will be far wealthier than those – ourselves, our children, and for many of us our grandchildren – alive today. This
is the inevitable consequence of the projected economic growth which, on a ‘business as usual’ basis, drives the increased carbon
emissions that in turn determine the projected future warming.
It is surely perverse to abandon what is far and
away the cheapest source of energy in order that future generations avoid any dis-
advantages that any warming might bring: this simply impoverishes those alive today in order
to ensure that future generations, who will be signally better off regardless of what happens
today, are better off still.¶ However, the greatest immorality of all concerns those in the
developing world. It is excellent that, in so many parts of the developing world – the so-called
emerging economies – economic growth is now firmly on the march, as they belatedly put in place
the sort of economic policy framework that brought prosperity to the Western¶ The Trouble with
Climate Change¶ 13¶ world. Inevitably, they already account for, and will increasingly account for, the lion’s share of global carbon
emissions.¶ But, despite their success, there are still hundreds of millions of people in these
countries in dire poverty, suffering all the ills that this brings, in terms of malnutri- tion,
preventable disease, and premature death. Asking these countries to abandon the cheapest
available sources of energy is, at the very least, asking them to delay the conquest of
malnutrition, to perpetuate the incidence of preventable disease, and to increase the
numbers of premature deaths.¶ Global warming orthodoxy is not merely irrational. It is wicked.
GW Policies lead to smuggling and expensive energy
Loris ’10 [Nicolas, an economist, focuses on energy, environmental and regulatory issues as
the Herbert and Joyce Morgan fellow at The Heritage Foundation, Global Warming Policies and
the Perverse Incentives They Create, The Heritage Foundation, 12/21,
http://dailysignal.com/2010/12/21/global-warming-policies-and-the-perverse-incentives-theycreate/?ac=1] Yi
Money is a powerful incentive. When it comes to global warming, governments all over the
world have created policies that intend to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but have led to
fraud, scams, black markets, and increased emissions. Mark Schapiro of Reuters reports on the unintended
consequences of European companies offsetting their carbon dioxide emissions by paying the Chinese to destroy a much more
potent contributor to warming:¶ In order to offset their own greenhouse gases, companies and utilities in Europe that are subject to
the emission limits of the Kyoto Protocol have been paying vastly inflated prices to Chinese companies to destroy hfc 23, and in the
process have been providing the Chinese government with hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue to compete against
Europe’s own “green” industries. European concern about this practice was a major source of contention during last week’s climate
negotiations in Cancun, as the U.N. attempted to defend the integrity of the multi-billion-dollar global carbon offset market.¶ And
in an odd twist, the incentives offered through the U.N.’s Clean Development¶ Mechanism
(CDM) also appear to be stimulating production of an ozone-depleting refrigerant gas that has
been landing in the U.S. black market. Investigations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S.
Customs and Border Protection have led to the conviction of several smugglers who have illegally imported the ozone-depleting
refrigerant, hcfc 22, into the U.S. for sale to trucking companies, supermarkets, automotive supply shops, and other large-scale users
of refrigerant gases. The illegal refrigerant is significantly cheaper than non-ozone-depleting refrigerants permitted in the U.S., a
price discrepancy triggered partially by the large overpayments to Chinese firms that have led to an ample supply of hcfc 22 on the
international black market.¶ That black market completes a global circuit unique to the era of climate change: From China’s
industrial zones, the credits for the greenhouse gases—bought and sold as commodities on the global carbon markets—flow to
European companies that need them to continue polluting at home, while the underlying ozone-depleting gas responsible for
creating those credits flows to American companies seeking discounted refrigerants.¶ If
you need any more indication
that these policies are more about seeking profit than protecting the environment, China’s
Deputy Director of its Clean Development Mechanism fund threatened to release the hfc
gases into the atmosphere if United Nations removed the gas as an acceptable credit. Shapiro also
details how the credit program is increasing the production of other potent greenhouse gas emissions:¶ The offset credits paid to
Chinese and Indian companies to eliminate the former, according to CDM Watch, have actually stimulated increased production of
the latter—the ozone-depleting refrigerant hcfc 22, which is itself a potent greenhouse gas. CDM Watch has compiled records
showing that companies in China and India have significantly increased production of hcfc 22 in order to receive funds to incinerate
the byproduct gas, hfc 23.¶ This
becomes an even bigger deal when governments implement policies
that promote carbon-free, uncompetitive sources of energy. In the United Kingdom, for instance, David
Cameron is reversing Margaret Thatcher’s privatized energy market in favor of a more state-controlled system with the possibility of
a price floor on carbon dioxide. The
plan would prematurely shut down older power plants in favor of a
massive government spending project to increase the use of nuclear, wind, solar, and biofuels
to meet carbon reduction targets. It’s an undertaking that cannot be done without government guarantees, says the
regulator Ofgem. Ernst and Young projects the transition will cost $316 billion—a cost that will show up in
consumers’ energy bills and later through higher taxes to cover the government’s investment.¶ And all this cost is for what? There
won’t be any noticeable difference in emissions, and companies can pretend to go green and
pretend to adhere to rules while others collect serious cash. Yet politicians in the U.S. are
pulling wool over their own eyes when it comes to the facts, fraud, and inefficiencies of green
policies in other parts of the world.
Mindset that climate change isn’t reversible is bad – prevents planning for real
solutions.
Skuce 13 (Andy, A geophysical consultant living in British Columbia. He has a BSc in geology
from Sheffield University and an MSc in geophysics from the University of Leeds. His work
experience includes a period at the British Geological Survey in Edinburgh and work for a variety
of oil companies based in Calgary, Vienna and Quito, “Global Warming: Not Reversible, but
Stoppable,” Skeptical Science, 04/19/13, http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-notreversible-but-stoppable.html) Chen
The second question reveals a different kind of misunderstanding: many
mistakenly believe that the climate
system is going to send more warming our way no matter what we choose to do. Taken to an
extreme, that viewpoint can lead to a fatalistic approach, in which efforts to mitigate climate
change by cutting emissions are seen as futile: we should instead begin planning for
adaptation or, worse, start deliberately intervening through geoengineering. But this is wrong. The
inertia is not in the physics of the climate system, but rather in the human economy. ¶ This is
explained in a recent paper in Science Magazine (2013, paywalled but freely accessible here, scroll down to "Publications, 2013") by
Damon Matthews and Susan Solomon: Irreversible Does Not Mean Unavoidable. ¶ Since the Industrial Revolution, CO2 from our
burning of fossil fuels has been building up in the atmosphere. The concentration of CO2 is now approaching 400 parts per million
(ppm), up from 280 ppm prior to 1800. If we were
to stop all emissions immediately, the CO2
concentration would also start to decline immediately, with some of the gas continuing to be
absorbed into the oceans and smaller amounts being taken up by carbon sinks on land.
According to the models of the carbon cycle, the level of CO2 (the red line in Figure 1A) would
have dropped to about 340 ppm by 2300, approximately the same level as it was in 1980. In the
next 300 years, therefore, nature will have recouped the last 30 years of our emissions.
I/l Turn – Renewables T/O
Need more research on nuclear exposure effects on health before
Rettner, ’11 [Rachael, MyHealthNewsDaily Staff Writer, B.S. in molecular biology and an M.S.
in biology from the University of California at San Diego, How Does Nuclear Radiation Harm the
Body?, MyHealthNewsDaily, 2/15, ] Yi
The amount of radioactive material being released from the damaged nuclear reactors in
Japan, and the eventual impact it will have on human health, are still being determined. ¶ How
does nuclear radiation harm the body, and what are the risks from long-term exposure to low levels after an accident?
MyHealthNewsDaily spoke with experts about these questions.¶ How does radiation harm the body?¶ There's been some reported
evidence that radioactive iodine
and cesium are being released into the environment from the
malfunctioning nuclear reactors in Japan, said Kathryn Higley, director of the Oregon State University department of
nuclear engineering and radiation health physics.¶ As radioactive material decays, or breaks down, the
energy released into the environment has two ways of harming a body that is exposed to it,
Higley said. It can directly kill cells, or it can cause mutations to DNA. If those mutations are
not repaired, the cell may turn cancerous.¶ Radioactive iodine tends to be absorbed by the
thyroid gland and can cause thyroid cancer, said Dr. Lydia Zablotska, an assistant professor in the
department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco.¶ But radioactive iodine is short-lived and
will be around for only about two months after an accident, said Andre Bouville of the National Cancer Institute, who has studied
radiation doses from the fallout of the 1986 Chernobyl explosion in Ukraine. So, if the exposure to the air comes after that time,
radioactive iodine does not pose a health risk, Bouville said.¶ Children are
most at risk for thyroid cancer, since
their thyroid glands are 10 times smaller than those of adults, he said. The radioactive iodine
would be more concentrated in them.¶ Radioactive cesium, on the other hand, can stay in the environment for more
than a century. But it does not concentrate in one part of the body the way radioactive iodine does.¶ The Chernobyl accident
released a plume of radioactive materials into the atmosphere in a fraction of a second. In the following years, the incidence of
thyroid cancer among those exposed as children increased in Ukraine and nearby countries, Zablotska said. The cancer showed up
between four and 10 years after the accident, Bouville said.¶ Children
were exposed to radioactive material
mainly from eating contaminated leafy vegetables and dairy. There have been no detectable health effects
from exposure to radioactive cesium after the accident.¶ In general, it takes a pretty high dose of radiation to increase cancer risk,
Higley said. For instance, there were reports that one Japanese worker was exposed to 10 rem (100 millisievert, mSV), a
measurement of radiation dose. From that exposure, his lifetime cancer risk would go up about half a percent, Higley said. According
to Higley, the dose is the equivalent of about five CT scans. Americans are exposed to about 0.3 rem (3 mSv) each year from natural
sources, such as the sun.¶ Potentially,
exposure to any type of radiation can increase cancer risk, with
higher exposure increasing the risk, Bouville said.¶ No increases in cancer rates were observed after the release
of radioactive from a power plant on Three Mile Island, Pa., in 1979, Zablotska said.¶ Radiation sickness¶ A person's risk of getting
sick depends on how much radiation the body absorbs. Those exposed to high levels of radiation, about 200 rem, (2000 millisievert )
could develop radiation sickness, Bouville said. A chest X-ray is about 0.02 rem, (0.2 millisieverts mSv), according to the Interational
Atomic Energy Agency.¶ People are exposed to about 0.24 rem (2.4 mSv) per year from natural background radiation in the
environment, the IAEA says.¶ Radiation
sickness is often fatal and can produce such symptoms as
bleeding and shedding of the lining on the gastrointestinal tract, Zablotska said. About 140
people suffered from it as a result of the Chernobyl accident, Zablotska said.¶ A radiation dose of 40
rem, (400 mSv) per hour was reported at one of the Japanese power plants at one point following the March 11 earthquakes and
tsunami that damaged their cooling systems, according to the IAEA. This is a high dose but was isolated to a single location, the IAEA
says.¶ "That is definitely an area where you do not want to stay for prolonged period," Higley said. She notes that a total dose of 400
to 600 rem can be lethal. But the radiation levels have been decreasing after the observed spike, she said. She speculates the spike
may have been due to the release of a puff of radioactive material when pressure dropped at the facility.
Need development of Thrombocytopenia treatment -- Response to radiation
Beckhusen, ’13 [Robert, Written for: Wired, World Politics Review, The Daily Beast, Top Docs’
(Partial) Cure for Nuclear Radiation: Bone-Marrow Drugs, Wired, 4/4,
http://www.wired.com/2013/04/health-department-nuclear/] Yi
Even if a nuclear bomb exploded far enough away for you to survive the blast, the radiation
could still kill you. Now the U.S. government wants to find a cure for one the most vexing causes
of radioactive death — starting with your bones.¶ According to a research solicitation released
this week by the Department of Health and Human Services, the department is preparing to
spend up to $8 million beginning in 2014 to research ways to treat severe thrombocytopenia
— or the loss of cell platelets — caused by excessive radiation poisoning of vital blood-producing
organs and tissues like bone marrow and the spleen. Once your organs get blasted with radiation from a catastrophic nuclear
detonation, you will likely begin to suffer from internal bleeding and get really sick. Then you’ll die.¶ There’s
little anyone
can do about it in a timely way. “Currently, there is no approved therapeutic drug in the Strategic National Stockpile for
this radiation-induced complication,” the solicitation notes. The only therapies available are injections of more
platelets; or a blood transfusion. But the logistics of providing these therapies to thousands of
potential nuclear radiation victims — in a mass-casualty attack or accident — is timeconsuming and impractical.¶ The solution, the health department believes, are in “modified first
generation thrombopoietin receptor agents,” or proteins that regulate and stimulate platelet growth in
bone marrow. Find a way to administer these proteins, and they could lead to “accelerated
platelet regeneration and increased survival.” To buy time, the department wants to include “novel cell therapy
approaches that mitigate the depth or duration of thrombocytopenia and that would be amenable to the operational and logistical
constraints of a mass casualty situation.”¶ In this case, the department defines “mass casualty situation” to be either a terrorist
“incident” or nuclear power plant accident — like the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi meltdowns. That means the
plateletproducing proteins have to be administered quickly.¶ Of particular interest are thrombopoietin drugs that
could be injected, swallowed, inhaled or absorbed by the skin. Obviously, the drugs will also have to work safely
with groups who face the greatest risks from radiation poisoning: children, pregnant women,
the elderly and people with chronic illnesses.¶ There’s been been a flurry of activity around nuclear disaster
research in recent months. In February, the Pentagon’s mad scientists at Darpa published a request for information regarding
therapies that could mitigate long-term radiation exposure risks like cancer — and how radiation effects human DNA. The Defense
Threat Reduction agency is meanwhile spending up to $6 million in 2013 researching new ways to detect nuclear weapons.¶ The
Health and Human Services solicitation isn’t as far-reaching, not even close, but that’s not surprising. But if the research bears fruit,
it could keep your bones strong. Oh, and save you from a very unpleasant death.
Impact Turn – Environment
Ignoring Climate change and saying its inevitable is even worse for the environment
Robinson 1/23/14
(Mary Robinson, president of Ireland and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights,”
Ignore Climate Change at Your Peril” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-robinson/ignore-climate-change-at-_b_4561649.html
)King
¶ Extremely dangerous," "Do not travel" -- these are the phrases that have welcomed in the new year along the East Coast of the United States. Extreme weather caused
thousands of flights to be delayed, placed the elderly and other vulnerable people at risk due to the extreme cold and impacted negatively on supply chains.¶ ¶ The increasing
risk of extreme weather events due to climate change has been acknowledged by President Obama. In June 2013 at the launch of the Climate Action Plan he said: "We're going
to need to get prepared. And that's why this plan will also protect critical sectors of our economy and prepare the United States for the impacts of climate change that we
cannot avoid." As part of the plan the president created a bi-partisan Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience last November to advise the administration on how the
federal government can respond to the needs of communities nationwide that are dealing with the impacts of climate change.¶ ¶ Recognizing the threat that climate change
poses to lives, to business and to the economy and talking action to prepare for and reduce this threat makes sense. The United States alone has experienced 25 extreme
weather events since 2011 that each caused more than $1 billion dollars in damages, contributing to the loss of more than 1,000 lives and costing each American family roughly
$400 each year. To avoid these losses and prepare for life in a climate affected world -- decision makers in municipalities and states have to factor climate change into their plans
for growth, job creation and sustainable development.¶ ¶ This week (January 9 and 10), representatives from government, business, academia and civil society are meeting in
New York to discuss how climate change should be included in plans being developed at the international level to achieve sustainable development. Work is underway on a set
of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that will set an international policy framework applicable to all countries. International policy frameworks such as these are agreed
internationally and implemented at the national level, thereby informing how planning decisions are made, finance is invested, and how businesses, energy, health and
education systems develop.¶ ¶ The new Sustainable Development Goals build on and supersede the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which focused on development
assistance and the relationship between donor and developing countries. The SDGs have a broader scope than the MDGs in several ways. Firstly, they are goals for all countries
and not just developing countries as no country has yet achieved sustainable development. Secondly, they are about the environmental, social and economic aspects of
development, whereas the MDGs focused predominantly on social development. And thirdly, they are being developed through a more inclusive process than the MDGs,
Curiously, and worryingly, there are those who say
that climate change does not belong in discussions on a new agenda for sustainable
development post 2015. They fear that the negative and divisive politics associated with the
climate negotiations will infect the discussions on the new development agenda. These politics
involving not just all countries, but also a wide range of stakeholders.¶ ¶
divide the world along the lines of developed and developing countries, while the SDGs are based on the understanding that no
country has achieved sustainable development so that this is a challenge we share universally. ¶ ¶ Well
founded though
this fear might be, it is not reason enough to leave climate change out. Climate change is, after
all, a development issue. Unchecked, climate change will undermine development gains and
increase poverty and vulnerability. A development model based on continued levels of fossil
fuel consumption will lead to dangerous levels of global warming. The World Bank's "Turn
Down the Heat" report released last year -- the world we are heading for, in which warming
reaches 4°C above pre-industrial levels -- would be one of unprecedented heat waves, severe
drought, and major floods in many regions, with serious impacts on human systems and the
ecosystems on which we rely.¶ ¶ Ignoring climate change and letting this happen is not
consistent with the vision many people share of a world with greater equality, less poverty,
the protection of human rights, more prosperity, jobs and opportunity. Conversely,
acknowledging climate change and setting in place policies to address it can make a positive
contribution to long term, sustainable growth, job creation and prosperity. The Bureau of Labor
Statistics found in 2011 that there were approximately 3.4 million green jobs in the U.S., an increase of 4.9 percent from the
previous year (compared to an increase of 1.2 percent for all other sectors).¶ ¶ Given these realities it is incomprehensible that any
plan to achieve sustainable development wouldn't include climate change. Clearly, adapting to the impacts already being
experienced, as well as minimizing future risks and reducing reliance on fossil fuels for transport and energy has to be part of a
development strategy, for the U.S. as well as every other country on the planet.¶ ¶ Tackling climate change is a fundamental
component of sustainable development, so SDGs without climate change would have no credibility.
Climate change must
be included in the goals and targets of the SDGs, if the new framework is to be effective. The
SDGs should include a climate change goal in addition to the integration of climate change
into goals on related issues such as energy, food security, health and water. To ensure that this
integration results in action and impact on the ground, measurable targets and indicators specific to climate change must be
included under the relevant goals. This may seem ambitious -- but it is also logical, doable and critical if the new goals are to be
effective in positively improving people's lives right around the world.¶ ¶ Climate change is
a threat, but responding
to it opens up a world of opportunity. The transition we need to make towards a carbon
neutral world will provide jobs, a healthier planet, greater well-being and if we do it properly,
greater equality. We need to change the conversation on climate change and sustainable development to become about how
we make this transformation to the way we live life and do business. Communities and individuals are already taking action, forward
looking businesses around the world stand ready to make the change. Now we need leadership at the political level to put in place
an international framework that enables us to make the transition rapidly, effectively and for the benefit of all. The objective of
sustainable development, after all, is "to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their needs."
Climate Change is human induced and catastrophic
Visser 13(Nick Visser, writer for The Huffington Post, “Climate Change Worse Than We Thought, Likely To Be 'Catastrophic
Rather Than Simply Dangerous'” 12/31/13, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/31/climate-change-worse_n_4523828.html)
King
Climate change may be far worse than scientists thought, causing global temperatures to rise by at least 4
degrees Celsius by 2100, or about 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit, according to a new study.¶ The study, published in the journal Nature,
takes a fresh look at clouds' effect on the planet, according to a report by The Guardian. The research
found that as the
planet heats, fewer sunlight-reflecting clouds form, causing temperatures to rise further in an
upward spiral.¶ That number is double what many governments agree is the threshold for
dangerous warming. Aside from dramatic environmental shifts like melting sea ice, many of
the ills of the modern world -- starvation, poverty, war and disease -- are likely to get worse as
the planet warms.¶ "4C would likely be catastrophic rather than simply dangerous," lead
researcher Steven Sherwood told the Guardian. "For example, it would make life difficult, if
not impossible, in much of the tropics, and would guarantee the eventual melting of the
Greenland ice sheet and some of the Antarctic ice sheet."¶ Another report released earlier this month said
the abrupt changes caused by rapid warming should be cause for concern, as many of climate
change's biggest threats are those we aren't ready for.¶ In September, the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change said it was "extremely likely" that human activity was the dominant
cause of global warming, or about 95 percent certain -- often the gold standard in scientific
accuracy.¶ "If this isn't an alarm bell, then I don't know what one is. If ever there were an
issue that demanded greater cooperation, partnership, and committed diplomacy, this is it,"
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said after the IPCC report was released.
Impact Defense - Warming Exaggerated
Global Warming predictions have been exaggerated
McGrath 13 (Matt McGrath, graduated from MIT majored in environment “Climate slowdown means extreme rates of
warming ‘not as likely’” 5/19/13, http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22567023)King
Since 1998, there has been an
unexplained "standstill" in the heating of the Earth's atmosphere.¶ Writing in Nature
Geoscience, the researchers say this will reduce predicted warming in the coming decades .¶ But
Scientists say the recent downturn in the rate of global warming will lead to lower temperature rises in the short-term.¶
long-term, the expected temperature rises will not alter significantly.¶ Continue reading the main story¶ “¶ Start Quote¶ The most extreme projections are looking less likely
than before”¶ Dr Alexander Otto¶ University of Oxford¶ The slowdown in the expected rate of global warming has been studied for several years now. Earlier this year, the UK
Met Office lowered their five-year temperature forecast.¶ But this new paper gives the clearest picture yet of how any slowdown is likely to affect temperatures in both the
short-term and long-term.¶ An international team of researchers looked at how the last decade would impact long-term, equilibrium climate sensitivity and the shorter term
climate response.¶ Transient nature¶ Climate sensitivity looks to see what would happen if we doubled concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and let the Earth's oceans and
ice sheets respond to it over several thousand years.¶ Transient climate response is much shorter term calculation again based on a doubling of CO2.¶ The Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change reported in 2007 that the short-term temperature rise would most likely be 1-3C (1.8-5.4F).¶ But in this new analysis, by only including the
The report suggests that warming in the near term
will be less than forecast¶ "The hottest of the models in the medium-term, they are actually
looking less likely or inconsistent with the data from the last decade alone," said Dr Alexander
Otto from the University of Oxford.¶ "The most extreme projections are looking less likely
than before."¶ The authors calculate that over the coming decades global average
temperatures will warm about 20% more slowly than expected.¶ But when it comes to the longer term picture, the
temperatures from the last decade, the projected range would be 0.9-2.0C.¶ Ice¶
authors say their work is consistent with previous estimates. The IPCC said that climate sensitivity was in the range of 2.0-4.5C.¶ Ocean storage¶ This latest research, including
the decade of stalled temperature rises, produces a range of 0.9-5.0C.¶ "It is a bigger range of uncertainty," said Dr Otto.¶ "But it still includes the old range. We would all like
climate sensitivity to be lower but it isn't."¶ The researchers say the difference between the lower short-term estimate and the more consistent long-term picture can be
explained by the fact that the heat from the last decade has been absorbed into and is being stored by the world's oceans.¶ Not everyone agrees with this perspective.¶ Prof
Steven Sherwood, from the University of New South Wales, says the conclusion about the oceans needs to be taken with a grain of salt for now.¶ "There is other research out
there pointing out that this storage may be part of a natural cycle that will eventually reverse, either due to El Nino or the so-called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and
therefore may not imply what the authors are suggesting," he said.¶ The authors say there are ongoing uncertainties surrounding the role of aerosols in the atmosphere and
around the issue of clouds.¶ "We would expect a single decade to jump around a bit but the overall trend is independent of it, and people should be exactly as concerned as
before about what climate change is doing," said Dr Otto.¶ Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the slowdown over the past 14 years means the
global warming is not real?¶ "None. No comfort whatsoever," he said
NOAA temp data – US getting cooler
Kenny, 7/8 [Jack, The New American, Record Shows Decade of Cooling in U.S., Despite
Warming Predictions, The John Birch Society, 7/8, http://www.jbs.org/home/record-showsdecade-of-cooling-in-u-s-despite-warming-predictions] Yi
Climate change or not, the United States is still a pretty cool country — and getting cooler,
according to temperature data of the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). The readings show temperatures dropping throughout the United States over the
past decade.¶ Nearly 10 years ago, the agency, in response to criticism that its temperature station readings had been skewed higher by poor sitings and
questionable adjustments, set up temperature stations in pristine locations throughout the United States.
Those stations, known collectively as the U.S. Climate Reference Network, have, a decade
later, made the temperature readings available. The records show the United States has
cooled by 0.4 degrees Celsius since the networks began operating in January 2005. ¶ The news is not likely to
spark a bull market in fur coats or igloos. A decline of 0.4 degrees is not a precipitous drop. And, as noted at Forbes.com by James Taylor, a frequent contributor on issues of energy and the environment, the
data of 10 years does not necessarily indicate a long-term trend. But it does show a disconnect
between predictions made by climate change theoreticians and what is actually happening
here on Earth. Taylor notes, for example, the prophecy of "prominent alarmist" James Hansen, who as recently as 2010 declared, "Global warming on decadal time scales is continuing without
letup ... effectively illustrat[ing] the monotonic and substantial warming that is occurring on decadal time scales." ¶ ¶ The United States is, of course, a small part of the entire planet, but the findings
of the U.S. Climate Reference Network add credence to the Remote Satellite Systems data
showing no increase in temperatures worldwide since September 1996. According to the Climate Depot website, "The 213
months without global warming represent more than half the 425-month satellite data record since January 1979." The record also refutes the claims of those who insist the planet is warming at a rate that poses
an imminent and unceasing threat — a "monotonic" threat in Hansen's word — to man and beast alike. "No one now in high school has lived through global warming," Climate Depot noted. ¶
Other
data keep cropping up in contradiction to the warnings about our allegedly overheating
planet, including the increase of sea ice in Antarctica. Yet President Obama continues to indulge in the fashionable ridicule of those who question
or challenge the climate change dogma, referring in his June 14 commencement address at the University of California-Irvine to "climate change deniers," who would have, in the early days of American space
exploration, argued "that the moon wasn't there or that it was made of cheese." Such people, he claimed, pose "a fairly serious threat to everyone's future." ¶ And the "constitutional lawyer who sits in the Oval
Office" continues to push for curbs on carbon emissions from U.S. power plants, despite the refusal of the Constitution's designated legislative branch — the Congress of the United States — to write those curbs
into law.¶ Across the ocean, the British Broadcasting Corporation has instructed its staff to stop airing the views of climate change deniers. No doubt a monopoly of viewpoint well suits the management of a
corporation that enjoys a monopoly in broadcasting.
NCA tool by Obama admin to exaggerate impact
Newman, 5/22 [Alex, an international journalist, educator and consultant who is currently
based in Europe but has lived on four continents. He has a degree in journalism from the
University of Florida and has worked for numerous publications in the U.S. and abroad, Obama’s
Alarmist “Climate” Report Debunked by Scientists, The New American,
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18319-obama-s-alarmist-climatereport-debunked-by-scientists] Yi
Obama’s Alarmist “Climate” Report Debunked by Scientists¶ Like virtually every alarmist global-warming
warning produced by government or the United Nations in recent decades, it did not take long
for the Obama administration’s latest doom-and-gloom-packed “climate change” report to be
debunked by independent scientists. Indeed, it took less than two weeks for experts to go
through the 840-page White House document and tear its outlandish claims to shreds — often
using United Nations reports and the federal government’s own data to do so, issuing a
blistering critique of the “nonsense” and “deception” put forward by the administration.¶ Now,
with the predicted surge in Earth's temperatures still on “pause” after almost 18 years, the Obama administration and
its coterie of global-warming theorists are being blasted and ridiculed for fear-mongering,
deception, and more. In a powerful rebuttal to the White House “National Climate Assessment,” a coalition of 15 respected
scientists, climatologists, and other experts seized upon many of the more absurd claims to debunk the Obama report on May 15.
The administration, they said, has built a “House of Cards” predicated on bogus evidence that
“collapses” upon examination.¶ “We are asked to believe that humans are drastically changing the earth’s climate by
burning fossil fuels,” explained the coalition of scientists, which includes multiple experts who have
worked for organizations such as the EPA, Environment Canada, and the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC). “The problem with their theory is very
simple: It is NOT true.... Our climate is constantly changing for perfectly natural reasons that
have nothing to do with carbon dioxide.” (Emphasis in original.)¶ ¶ In fact, the experts continued, the White House
climate report is “so grossly flawed” that it should play “no role” in analyses of U.S. energy policy and CO2 regulatory schemes. “As
this rebuttal makes clear, the
[National Climate Assessment] provides no scientific basis whatsoever
for regulating CO2 emissions,” they added. That statement, of course, cuts to the heart of the issue: Globalwarming theorists claim carbon dioxide, exhaled by humans, is “pollution” that must be
taxed, regulated, and used as the basis for a draconian global climate regime led by the UN to
ration energy.¶ Despite the fact that human emissions of the essential-to-life gas make up a fraction of one percent of all the
“greenhouse gases” naturally in the atmosphere, climate alarmists insist it is causing “global warming.” The fact that there has been
no warming for almost 18 years and counting — debunking 73 out of 73 UN climate models — also does not seem to have chilled
the alarmists’ zeal for controlling all human activity either. ¶ For independent scientists, though, the truth is becoming clear. “The
National Climate Assessment — 2014 (NCA) is a masterpiece of marketing that shows for the first time the full capabilities of the
Obama Administration to spin a scientific topic as they see fit, without regard to the underlying facts,” the 15 scientists and experts
explained in their letter. “With
hundreds of pages written by hundreds of captive scientists and
marketing specialists, the administration presents their case for extreme climate alarm.”¶ “As
independent scientists, we know that apparent evidence of ‘Climate Change,’ however scary, is not proof of anything,” they
continued. “Science
derives its objectivity from robust logic and honest evidence repeatedly
tested by all knowledgeable scientists, not just those paid to support the administration’s
version of ‘Global Warming,’ ‘Climate Change,’ ‘Climate Disruption,’ or whatever their
marketing specialists call it today.Ӧ The coalition of experts who produced perhaps the most thorough rebuttal of the
administration’s “Chicken Little” hysteria report thus far includes multiple heavy hitters in the field. Many of the scientists have
worked for Western environmental agencies, others have also served as professors at prestigious universities, and there are even
some experts on the list who served on the UN’s IPCC, considered by alarmists to be the holy climate priesthood despite its long
track record of major, embarrassing mistakes and discredited predictions. ¶ Among the experts who debunked the latest White
House report: former chair of the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Dr. George Wolff, former director of the National
Hurricane Center Dr. Neil Frank, Colorado State University Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science Dr. William M. Gray, IPCC
expert reviewer and University of Missouri professor of Atmospheric Science Dr. Anthony R. Lupo, retired Environment Canada
scientist and IPCC expert reviewer Dr. Madhav Khandekar, and more.¶ In their report trashing the latest federal alarmism, the
experts noted that over the last 130 years, the 1930s still had the most high-temperature records — with a stunning 70 percent of
current state record highs set prior to 1940. Meanwhile, the last 50 years have seen more record lows than record highs, they noted.
The latest White House alarmism, the coalition added, even stands in contrast to Obama’s “usual allies” in promoting extreme
climate hysteria, with the UN and the National Academy of Sciences both “dialing back apocalyptic claims.”¶ “They
promote
their 'Climate Models' as a reliable way to predict the future climate,” the scientists said in their letter,
referring to the federal officials who produced the latest report. “But these models dramatically fail basic
verification tests. Nowhere do they admit to these well-known failures. Instead, we are led to
believe that their climate models are close to perfection.Ӧ The blistering critique goes on to knock down the
report’s “three crucial scientific arguments,” saying “each is easily shown to be false; and because each is crucial, their entire theory
collapses.” That means that “all
of the overblown ‘Climate Disruption’ evidence that they mention, whether true
be tied back to man's burning of fossil fuels. Hence, efforts to reduce or eliminate
Extreme Weather by reducing the burning of fossil fuels are completely nonsensical.Ӧ Of course,
or not, cannot
those experts were hardly alone in making a mockery of the political establishment’s latest “climate” hysteria, which countless
analysts said was really a transparent bid by Obama to seize more power and justify unconstitutional executive decrees. “Let’s get
one thing clear: The National Climate Assessment is a political call to action document meant for the president’s left-leaning
constituency,” explained climatologist Paul Knappenberger, assistant director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato
Institute. “What pretense of scientific support that decorates it quickly falls away under a close and critical inspection.”¶ Asked
about top administration officials’ recent “strong statements against CO2 emissions,” Georgia Institute of Technology Professor
Judith Curry, who chairs the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, also expressed bewilderment. “I am mystified as to why
President Obama and John Kerry are making such strong (and indefensible) statements about climate change,” she said. “Particularly
with regards to extreme weather events, their case is very weak. Especially at this time, given that much of the rest of the world is
pulling back against commitments to reduce emissions and combat climate change.Ӧ Other environmental analysts pointed out that
the report “fails basic science.” Investor’s Business Daily even suggested referring to Obama as the “Fearmonger in Chief,” saying he
was using the tactic of tyrants and that his “doomsday claims served mostly to undermine the alarmists' case for radical action on
climate change.” Multiple members
of Congress, meanwhile, lambasted the administration for
hyping discredited climate hysteria and seeking to usurp more power based on fraudulent
global warming theories.¶ Of course, the public was largely unmoved too, with polls still
consistently showing that despite Obama’s fear-mongering and climate deception, most
Americans do not believe humans are responsible for “global warming.” Supposed “climate
change” also continues to rank dead last on the list of public priorities no matter how much
the establishment media flogs the increasingly discredited near-religious cause.¶ The Obama
administration has already openly said that Congress would not be able to stop it from imposing its lawless economy-crushing
“climate” decrees on America. Some lawmakers, though, are working to do precisely that, threatening to defund the global-warming
schemes entirely. For the sake of the Constitution, truth, science, the economy, liberty, prosperity, jobs, and sanity, Americans
should work to ensure that Congress immediately stops funding the tyranny and hysteria underpinned by debunked pseudo-science.
A matter of how much and how fast climate change occurs, still need better
tech
Bengtsson, 5/1 [Lennart, has a long and distinguished international career in meteorology
and climate research. He participated actively in the development of ECMWF (European Centre
for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting) where he was Head of Research 1975-1981 and
Director 1982-1990. In 1991-2000 he was Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology
in Hamburg. Since 2000 he has been professor at the University of Reading and from 2008 the
Director of the International Space Science Institute in Bern, Switzerland, Lennart Bengtsson:
“The whole concept behind IPCC is basically wrong”, Blog: De staat van het klimaat,
http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2014/05/01/lennart-bengtsson-the-whole-concept-behindipcc-is-basically-wrong/] Yi
Why did you join the GWPF Academic Council?¶ I know some of the scientists in GWPF and they have made fine contributions to
science. I also respect individuals that speak their mind as they consider scientific truth (to that extent we can determine it) more
important than to be politically correct. I believe it
is important to express different views in an area that is
potentially so important and complex and still insufficiently known as climate change. ¶ My
interest in climate science is strictly scientific and I very much regret the politicisation that has taken place in climate research. I
believe most serious scientists are sceptics and are frustrated that we are not able to properly validate climate change simulations. I
have always tried to follow the philosophy of Karl Popper. I also believe that most
scientists are potentially worried
because of the long residence time of many greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However,
our worries must be put into a context as there are endless matters to worry about, practically
all of them impossible to predict. Just move yourself backward in time exactly 100 years and try to foresee the
evolution in the world for the following 100 years.¶ Is this your way of telling the world that you have become a “climate sceptic”?
(many people might interpret it that way) If not, how would you position yourself in the global warming debate?¶ I
have always
been sort of a climate sceptic. I do not consider this in any way as negative but in fact as a
natural attitude for a scientist. I have never been overly worried to express my opinion and have not really changed my
opinion or attitude to science. I have always been driven by curiosity but will of course always try to see that science is useful for
society. This is the reason that I have devoted so much of my carrier to improve weather prediction.¶ Is there according to you a
“climate consensus” in the community of climate scientists and if so what is it?¶ I believe the whole climate consensus debate is silly.
There is not a single well educated scientist that question that greenhouse gases do affect
climate. However, this is not the issue but rather how much and how fast. Here there is no consensus
as you can see from the IPCC report where climate sensitivity varies with a factor of three! Based on observational data climate
sensitivity is clearly rather small and much smaller that the majority of models. Here I intend to stick to Karl Popper in highlighting
the need for proper validation.¶ Mojib Latif once said at a conference of the WMO (in 2009) “we have to ask the nasty questions
ourselves”. Do you think the climate community is doing that (enough)? or are others like the GWPF needed to ask these “nasty”
questions? If so, what does this say about the state of Academia?¶ I think the climate
community shall be more
critical and spend more time to understand what they are doing instead of presenting endless
and often superficial results and to do this with a critical mind. I do not believe that the IPCC
machinery is what is best for science in the long term. We are still in a situation where our
knowledge is insufficient and climate models are not good enough. What we need is more
basic research freely organized and driven by leading scientists without time pressure to deliver and only
deliver when they believe the result is good and solid enough. It is not for scientists to determine what society should do. In order
for society to make sensible decisions in complex issues it is essential to have input from different areas and from different
individuals. The whole concept behind IPCC is basically wrong.¶ I noticed that some climate
scientists grow more
sceptical about global warming after their retirement. Can you confirm this? Does it apply to yourself? Is there
a lot of social pressure to follow the climate consensus among working climate scientists which can explain this?¶ Wisdom perhaps
comes with age. I also believe you are becoming
more independent and less sensitive to political or group
pressure. Such pressure is too high today and many good scientists I believe are suffering . I am
presently a lot on my own. As I have replied to such questions before, if I cannot stand my own opinions, life will become completely
unbearable.¶ Are you satisfied with the role that the GWPF has played so far? What could or should they do differently in order to
play a more successful and/or constructive role in the discussions about climate and energy?¶ My impression is that this is a very
respectable and honest organisation but I will be happy to reply to your question more in depth when I have got experience of it.
Need evidence other than computer models for climate change severity to be
valid
Bengtsson 4/15 [Lennart, has a long and distinguished international career in meteorology
and climate research. He participated actively in the development of ECMWF (European Centre
for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting) where he was Head of Research 1975-1981 and
Director 1982-1990. In 1991-2000 he was Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology
in Hamburg. Since 2000 he has been professor at the University of Reading and from 2008 the
Director of the International Space Science Institute in Bern, Switzerland, LENNART BENGTSSON:
THE SCIENCE AND POLITICS OF CLIMATE CHANGE, Neue Zürcher Zeitung,
http://www.thegwpf.org/lennart-bengtsson-the-science-and-politics-of-climate-change/] Yi
The science isn’t settled and we still don’t know how best to solve the energy problems of our
planet.¶ Since the end of the 19th century, we have known that the Earth’s climate is sensitive to greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere. At that time, the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius showed that an increase in CO2 concentrations would lead to a
warmer climate. However, Arrhenius harbored little hope that this would happen. Consequently, the Swedes would have to
continue to suffer in a cold and miserable climate. Since then, much has changed. Annual CO2 emissions have now reached a level
that is about 20 times higher than that of 1896. This has caused concern worldwide.¶ More CO2 in the atmosphere leads
undoubtedly to a warming of the earth surface. However, the extent and speed of this warming are still uncertain, because we
cannot yet separate well enough the greenhouse effect from other climate influences. Although the radiative forcing by greenhouse
gases (including methane, nitrogen oxides and fluorocarbons) has increased by 2.5 watts per square meter since the mid-19th
century, observations show only a moderate warming of 0.8 degrees Celsius. Thus, the warming is significantly smaller than
predicted by most climate models. In addition, the warming in the last century was not uniform. Phases of manifest warming were
followed by periods with no warming at all or even cooling.¶ The complex and only partially understood relationship between
greenhouse gases and global warming leads to a political dilemma. We do not know when to expect a warming of 2 degrees Celsius.
The IPCC assumes that the earth will warm up by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celcius in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration. These
high values of climate sensitivity, however, are not supported by observations. In other
words: global warming has not been a serious problem so far if we rely on observations. It is
only a problem when we refer to climate simulations by computer models.¶ There is no
alternative to such computer simulations if one wants to predict future developments.
However, since there is no way to validate them, the forecasts are more a matter of faith than
a fact. The IPCC has published its expert opinion a few months ago and presented it in the
form of probabilities. As long as the results cannot be supported by validated models they
produce a false impression of reliability.¶ EU member states pursue a strategy of reducing the climate risk by
reducing the use of fossil fuels in the shortest time to a minimum. Many citizens are risk averse and therefore support this policy. In
addition, many citizens want to phase-out nuclear power, because it is also seen as too risky. To eliminate both nuclear energy as
well as fossil fuels is an enormous challenge. Nevertheless, Germany and Switzerland have opted for such an energy transition. To
pursue such a radical and perhaps risky energy policy, despite the limited economic, scientific and technical capabilities of the two
countries is an enormous undertaking.¶ There are two things that need to be addressed in this context. Firstly,
such energy
transitions will, unfortunately, do little to reduce global CO2 emissions, since 90 percent of
these emissions come from countries outside Europe. Many of these countries are likely to
increase their CO2 emissions in the future, as their population increases and their top priority
is to improve the living standards of their citizens. China is a special case. Its CO2 emissions have more
than doubled in the last decade and are now about 50 percent higher than those of the United States. For various reasons, there are
no alternatives to fossil fuels in the developing countries for the time being. Energy demand there is great. Currently, 1.3 billion
people have no access to electricity. To reduce their own emissions easily and quickly, the OECD countries have outsourced some of
their energy-intensive production to developing countries. In the national statistics, this looks good. Globally, however, not much
changes, since the emissions occur simply somewhere else.¶ Secondly, the rapid transition to renewable energy has led to a
considerable increase in energy prices in many countries, especially in Europe. This weakens the competitiveness and leads to a
relocation of energy-intensive industries to countries such as the USA, where the energy price has dropped significantly by the use of
shale gas.¶ It is no surprise that there are other forces that are driving rapid change. Because once government subsidies are
involved, huge profits are available. However,
before radical and hasty changes to the current energy
system are implemented, there must be robust evidence that climate change is significantly
detrimental. We are still far away from such evidence. It would be wrong to conclude from the
report of the IPCC and similar reports that the science is settled.¶ We do not yet know how best to solve
the energy problems of our planet. But many things can happen in the next 100 years. A moderate climate sensitivity, as
suggested by recent observations, could provide the world a breathing space of about half a century (but not much longer) if at the
same a switch from coal to natural gas occurs. This gives
us the opportunity to avoid unnecessary and
panicked investment, and to invest the available resources in well thought-out and long-term
oriented research programs instead. These include new types of nuclear energy as well as the
use of nuclear waste to generate energy.
Intolerance within Climate Science Community
Global Warming Policy Foundation 5/14 [an all-party and non-party think tank and a
registered educational charity which, while open-minded on the contested science of global
warming, is deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies
currently being advocated. in no sense ‘anti-environmental,’ LENNART BENGTSSON RESIGNS:
GWPF VOICES SHOCK AND CONCERN AT THE EXTENT OF INTOLERANCE WITHIN THE CLIMATE
SCIENCE COMMUNITY, http://www.thegwpf.org/lennart-bengtsson-resigns-gwpf-voices-shockand-concern-at-the-extent-of-intolerance-within-the-climate-science-community/] Yi
It is with great regret, and profound shock, that we have received Professor Lennart Bengtsson’s letter of resignation from his
membership of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council.¶ The Foundation, while of course respecting Professor Bengtsson’s decision,
notes with deep concern the
disgraceful intolerance within the climate science community which has
prompted his resignation.¶ Professor Bengtsson’s letter of resignation from our Academic Advisory Council was sent to its
chairman, Professor David Henderson. His letter and Professor Henderson’s response are attached below.¶ Dr Benny Peiser,
Director, The Global Warming Policy Foundation¶ Resigning from the GWPF¶ Dear Professor Henderson,¶ I have been put
under
such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually
unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my
health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous
world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues
are withdrawing
their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.¶ I see no limit and end to
what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in
such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.¶ Under these situation I
will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my
decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.¶ With my best regards¶ Lennart Bengtsson¶ Your letter of resignation¶ Dear
Professor Bengtsson,¶ I have just seen your letter to me, resigning
from the position which you had accepted
just three weeks ago, as a member of the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s Academic
Advisory Council.¶ Your letter came as a surprise and a shock. I greatly regret your decision, and I know that my regret will be
shared by all my colleagues on the Council.¶ Your resignation is not only a sad event for us in the
Foundation: it is also a matter of profound and much wider concern. The reactions that you
speak of, and which have forced you to reconsider the decision to join us, reveal a degree of
intolerance, and a rejection of the principle of open scientific inquiry, which are truly shocking.
They are evidence of a situation which the Global Warming Policy Foundation was created to remedy.¶ In your recent published
interview with Marcel Crok, you said that ‘if I cannot stand my own opinions, life will become completely unbearable’. All of us on
the Council will feel deep sympathy with you in an ordeal which you should never have had to endure.¶ With great regret, and all
good wishes for the future.¶ David Henderson, Chairman, GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council¶ ¶ Letter by Nigel Lawson to Professor
Bengtsson¶ Dear Professor Bengtsson¶ It is with great regret that I read your email to David Henderson informing him of your
decision to resign from the Academic Advisory Council of the GWPF.¶ I fully understand your reason; but it is an appalling state of
affairs, and your reference to McCarthyism is fully warranted.¶ I am very sorry that your brief association with the GWPF has, as a
result of the disgraceful behaviour of others, caused you such distress.¶ Yours sincerely,¶ Nigel Lawson, Chairman, The Global
Warming Policy Foundation
Problem with Alarmism
Lawson, 5/27 [Nigel, educated at Westminster School and Christ Church, Oxford, where he
gained a first-class honours degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics, a British Conservative
politician, journalist, Member of Parliament, The Trouble With Climate Change, GWPF,
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/05/Lawson-Trouble-with-climate-change.pdf]
Yi
Alarmism and its basis¶ But of course this is not going to happen. Nor should it; for at bottom
this is not a scien- tific issue. That is to say, the issue is not climate change but climate change
alarmism, and the hugely damaging policies that are advocated, and in some cases put in
place, in its name. And alarmism is a feature not of the physical world, which is what climate
scientists study, but of human behaviour; the province, in other words, of economists,
historians, sociologists, psychologists and – dare I say it – politicians.¶ And en passant, the
problem for dissenting politicians, and indeed for dissenting climate scientists, who certainly
exist, is that dissent can be career-threatening. The advantage of being geriatric is that my
career is behind me: there is nothing left to threaten.¶ But to return: the climate changes all the
time, in different and unpredictable (cer- tainly unpredicted) ways, and indeed often in
different ways in different parts of the world. It always has done and no doubt it always will.
The issue is whether that is a cause for alarm – and not just moderate alarm. According to the
alarmists it is the greatest threat facing humankind today: far worse than any of the manifold
evils we see around the globe which stem from what Burns called ‘man’s inhumanity to man’. ¶
Climate change alarmism is a belief system, and needs to be evaluated as such. There is, indeed,
an accepted scientific theory, which I do not dispute and which, the alarmists claim, justifies
their belief and their alarm. This is the so-called greenhouse effect: the fact that the earth’s
atmosphere contains so-called greenhouse gases (of which water vapour is overwhelmingly the
most important, but carbon dioxide is an- other) which, in effect, trap some of the heat we
receive from the sun and prevent it from bouncing back into space.¶ Without the greenhouse
effect, the planet would be so cold as to be uninhabitable. But, by burning fossil fuels – coal, oil
and gas – we are increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and thus, other
things being equal, increasing the earth’s temperature.¶ But four questions immediately arise,
all of which need to be addressed, coolly and rationally.¶ First, other things being equal, how
much can increased atmospheric carbon diox- ide be expected to warm the earth? (This is
known to scientists as climate sensitivity, or¶ 4¶ sometimes the climate sensitivity of carbon.)
This is highly uncertain, not least because clouds have an important role to play, and the
science of clouds is little understood. Un- til recently, the majority opinion among climate
scientists had been that clouds greatly amplify the basic greenhouse effect. But there is a
significant minority, including some of the most eminent climate scientists, who strongly dispute
this.¶ Second, are other things equal, anyway? We know that, over millennia, the temper- ature
of the earth has varied a great deal, long before the arrival of fossil fuels. To take only the past
thousand years, a thousand years ago we were benefiting from the so- called Medieval Warm
Period, when temperatures are thought to have been at least as warm, if not warmer, than they
are today. And during the Baroque era we were grimly suffering the cold of the so-called Little
Ice Age, when the Thames frequently froze in winter and substantial ice fairs were held on it,
now immortalised in contemporary prints.¶ Third, even if the earth were to warm, so far from
this necessarily being a cause for alarm, does it matter? It would, after all, be surprising if the
planet were on a happy but precarious temperature knife-edge, from which any change in either
direction would be a major disaster. In fact, we know that, if there were to be any future
warming (and, for the reasons already given, ‘if’ is correct) there would be both benefits and
what the economists call disbenefits. I shall discuss later where the balance might lie.¶ And
fourth, to the extent that there is a problem, what should we, calmly and ratio- nally, do
about it?
Response To: Cook et al. inaccurately skewed author’s purpose for “consensus”
Taylor, ’13 [James, studied atmospheric science and majored in government at Dartmouth
College. I obtained his Juris Doctorate from Syracuse University, Global Warming Alarmists
Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims, Forbes, 5/30,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caughtdoctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/] Yi
Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the
results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding
human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’
claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the
world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a
meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism. ¶ Global
warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper
with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of
studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his
colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused
global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”¶
As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had
absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The
question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused
some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate
because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global
warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative
severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.¶ Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists
and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global
warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.¶ Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into
precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues
strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel
Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.¶ Cook
and his colleagues, for example, classified
a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position
on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When
Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper,
Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined
how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of
the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising
temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the
change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.Ӧ When Popular
Technology asked physicist Nicola Scafetta whether Cook and his colleagues accurately classified one of his peer-reviewed papers as
supporting the ‘consensus’ position, Scafetta similarly criticized the Skeptical Science classification.¶ “Cook
et al. (2013) is
based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory,
which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900
but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,”
Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from
1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”¶ “What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. …
They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not
merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,” Scafetta added.¶
Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about
human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope… it is not
an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds
that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and
that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity
and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”¶ “I couldn’t write these things more
explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper,”
Shaviv added.¶ To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as
taking “no position” on human-caused global warming. When Cook and his colleagues determined a paper took no position on the
issue, they simply pretended, for the purpose of their 97-percent claim, that the paper did not exist.¶ Morner, a sea level scientist,
told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was “Certainly not correct and certainly misleading.
The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts.
Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.Ӧ Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his
paper as “no position.”¶ “I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon.¶ “I
hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the
study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works,” Soon emphasized.¶ Viewing the
Cook paper in the best possible light, Cook and colleagues can perhaps claim a small amount of wiggle room in their classifications
because the explicit wording of the question they analyzed is simply whether
humans have caused some global
warming. By restricting the question to such a minimalist, largely irrelevant question in the
global warming debate and then demanding an explicit, unsolicited refutation of the assertion in order to classify a paper
as a ‘consensus’ contrarian, Cook and colleagues misleadingly induce people to believe 97 percent of
publishing scientists believe in a global warming crisis when that is simply not the case. ¶
Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to
accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global
warming alarmists use their
own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is
largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the
language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming
alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe
humans are creating a global warming crisis.¶ These
biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant “surveys”
form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate.
And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is
South Korea Counterplan
1NC Shell
Text: The Republic of Korea should <insert plan>
Solvency:
South Korea Solves the aff best--- already expanding research in Antarctica,
millions spent on Antarctic research
Morrah 13 [ Michael, Reporter, Journalist, Producer, South Korea to set up research base in
Antarctica, Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/South-Korea-to-set-up-research-base-inAntarctica/tabid/1160/articleID/304023/Default.aspx#ixzz37mEo2FIK,
http://www.3news.co.nz/South-Korea-to-set-up-research-base-inAntarctica/tabid/1160/articleID/304023/Default.aspx] Schloss
South Korea is expanding its presence in Antarctica and Kiwi science stands to benefit.
The country is halfway through building what will be its second polar research station
in Antarctica. It's at Terra Nova Bay, 300 kilometres away from New Zealand researchers at Scott Base. South Korea is
now a major player in Antarctic research. It's billion-dollar ice breaker will soon be taking scientists to Jang
Bogo, the country's newest polar base at Terra Nova Bay. It's still being built, but when it's finished in March next year, it will
accommodate up to 60 staff. "At least the last six to seven years,
the Korean Government has spent around
US$300 million for Antarctic research," says Dr Yeadong Kim, director of the new Antarctic station. That's
not including the development of research centres in South Korea itself. One building that
opened just over one month ago is indicative of how serious Korea's government is about investing in polar science. There are six
floors of labs in the building alone. Scientists are examining tiny antarctic plants and animals. With the completion of the new
station,
Korea hopes to drill into the ice core to learn more about climate change , and they'll
be working alongside New Zealand. "The ice preserves an amazing record of how climate has changed," says Professor Bryan Storey,
University of Canterbury's Gateway Antarctica director. "The record at present takes us back about 700,000 years. "The New Zealand
government has signed an agreement with Korea to work collaboratively, to share resources and to develop some joint research
programmes, so it's a high-level initiative." Korea's
who have permanent bases
new station will add to a growing number of nations
in Antarctica. There are 34 in total. The continent is believed to have huge oil and gas
reserves. Exploiting resources is banned until at least 2048, and Korea and New Zealand say it should stay that way. Korea lacks
natural resources and is highly dependent on imported energy, but the director of the new station says Korea's interest in Antarctica
is purely scientific. "My personal view is that we are better to keep it as it is now," says Dr Kim. "There's only one place in the world
that remains so natural." The natural wonders of the continent, and joint climate and biology projects, will be discussed further
when 11 Kiwi scientists head to South Korea next month. 3 News
Net Benefit
South Korea Relations are high now --- trade, anti proliferation, Past relations,
Free trade agreement
CRS 14 [ Congressional Research Service, February 14, U.S. South Korea Relations,
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41481.pdf] Schloss
South Korea is one of the United States’ most important strategic and economic
partners in Asia, and for the past five years relations between the two countries (known
officially as the Republic of Korea, or ROK) have been arguably at their best state in decades.
Members of Congress tend to be interested South Korea-related issues for a number
of reasons. First, the United States and South Korea have been allies since the early
1950s. The United States is committed to helping South Korea defend itself,
particularly against any aggression from North Korea. The United States maintains
about 28,500 troops in the ROK and South Korea is included under the U.S. “nuclear
umbrella.” Second, Washington and Seoul cooperate over how to deal with the challenges
posed by North Korea. Third, South Korea’s emergence as a global player on a number
of issues has provided greater opportunities for the two countries’ governments,
businesses, and private organizations to interact and cooperate with one another.
Fourth, the two countries’ economies are closely entwined and are joined by the
Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA). South Korea is the United States’ sixthlargest trading partner. The United States is South Korea’s second-largest trading
partner. In late 2013 and early 2014, South Korea took the first steps toward possible entry into the U.S.-led Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement negotiations.
U.S. unilateral action tanks U.S. South Korean Relations
Mitchell 2004 (Derek J. senior fellow for Asia projects in the CSIS International Security
Program “STRATEGY AND SENTIMENT: ¶ SOUTH KOREAN VIEWS OF THE UNITED STATES ¶ AND
THE U.S.-ROK ALLIANCE” June 2004 http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/0406mitchell.pdf//RC)
Indeed, emotionalism may have special resonance and effect if connected to deep veins of ¶
national pride or historical memory, to which South Korea is also hardly immune. The Korean ¶
people are proudly nationalistic and have a keen sense of grievance over a history of
perceived ¶ victimization as a pawn in the strategic machinations of great powersΫalternately
China, Japan, ¶ Russia (Soviet Union), and the United States. As South Koreans have become
more confident in the ¶ success of their political, economic, and social development, they
have remained mindful of this ¶ history and have demanded to be accorded respect
consistent with their achievements (see Bak ¶ Sang-mee, chapter IV). They also have become
increasingly sensitive over the effect of and ¶ jurisdiction over foreign troops on their sovereign
territory, even if such forces are present to ¶ safeguard their security. Events or actions that tap
into this national well of resentment and ¶ insecurity thus may prove to have a profound effect
on relations with today’s South Korea. ¶ Triggering events could include anything from the
disqualification of a beloved Olympic speed ¶ skater to the acquittal of U.S. servicemen in the
traffic deaths of two Korean schoolgirls (see Kim ¶ Seung-hwan, chapter III). However, the U.S.–
ROK relationship is centered on North Korea, and ¶ thus it is in this context that the greatest
sensitivities in and damage to the bilateral relationship may ¶ result.¶ In fact, growing
differences in perspective and policy toward North Korea not only strike at the ¶ heart of the
alliance but also feed and reinforce mutual resentments. Many South Koreans ¶ particularly
take issue with the manner in which the United States has approached peninsular affairs ¶ in
recent years. As tensions on the peninsula mount, South Koreans have openly bristled at ¶
perceived U.S. “arrogance,” “unilateralism,” heavy-handedness, and lack of concern for the
national ¶ interests and sensitivities of South Korea, Ϋfrom terming the Democratic People’s
Republic of ¶ Korea (DPRK) a member of an “axis of evil,” to embarrassing President Kim Daejung with a ¶ frosty reception in Washington in early 2001, to apparently failing to engage
seriously with the ¶ North to solve the nuclear crisis,
Lack of U.S. South Korea relations results in terrorism, global instability, and
warming
Campbell et al 2009 (Kurt (Victor D. Cha, Lindsey Ford, Kazuyo Kato, Nirav Patel, Randy
Schriver, and Vikram J. Singh), co-founder and Chief Executive Officer of the Center for a New
American Security, February 2009 “Going Global: The Future of the U.S.- South Korea Alliance”
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CampbellPatel_Going%20Global_February0
9_0.pdf//RC)
Second, as the alliance expands in scope, its crafters must strive to make the alliance an
insti-tution of intrinsic rather than just strategic value. Throughout its history, the U.S.South Korean alliance has been of strategic value for the United States as a bulwark
against communism and as a front line of defense for Japan. In short, it has been
important to keep the ROK out of the adversary’s hands, but beyond this utilitarian
purpose, the alliance has not had value in and of itself. As a democratic ROK plays a more
significant role in the world, one befitting a global citizen dealing with 21st-century
problems, the alliance becomes intrinsically valuable. Korea becomes a key partner not
only in traditional security terms, but also in addressing broader transnational challenges.
The U.S.-ROK alliance therefore becomes sustainable long after the North Korean threat
dissipates. The third principle is to run hard — do not coast. The crafters of the alliance
must constantly push themselves to forge areas of common cooperation that increasingly
define the alliance outside of a peninsular context. One area in which the ROK has
already demonstrated the alliance’s extra peninsular context has been in the global war
on terror. South Korea played a significant role in Iraq, providing the third-largest ground
contingent, and in Afghanistan, where it provided logistics and medical support. Yet,
there are many other areas of potential growth; Korea’s proven record of peace-keeping
operations in places such as East Timor and Lebanon show that Seoul can play an increasingly prominent leadership role in other areas of domestic instability including Africa, the
Middle East, and the Pacific island nations. The ROK Navy can perform important regional
tasks to maintain freedom of navigation in Asian waters. Korea’s emphasis on nuclear
power makes it a major player in efforts to move countries such as China away from
carbon-based strategies to cleaner and more carbon-neutral energy development.
Additionally, Korea’s record as a responsible Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) member
could become even stronger in the future through the potential leadership role that
Seoul could play in dismantling a nuclear program inherited from a collapsed Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). Seoul is also seeking to enhance its global profile as a
provider of development assistance, in particular by help-ing countries make the
transition into modernity through assistance in information technology. 1 Because it has
similar views on entrepreneurial development assistance to those of the United States and
Japan (versus those of Europeans), there are opportunities for growth in everything from
improving the business climate in Indonesia to state building in Palestine.
Counterplan Extension
Solvency – General
CP solves the Aff best--- South Korea is more technologically and has the best
tech and cyber infrastructure to do the plan
Edutech Associates 12 [ What can we learn from South Korea?, May 14,
http://edutechassociates.net/2012/05/14/what-can-we-learn-from-south-korea/] Schloss
Of all the places I’ve visited,
I’ve not seen technology so deeply embedded into daily life anywhere as
much as in South Korea. Boasting technology giants such as Samsung and LG, South Korea
places a conspicuous high value on technology in practically all aspects of life. Korea’s
remarkable technology driven growth has also been accompanied by improvements in social
equity. How? Investment in human capital – as evidenced by their PISA results in recent years. South Korea is well
known for their results in the OECD PISA survey Unlike Finland, whose high ranking in PISA can be attributed to excellent public
schooling, Korea’s investment in human capital is significantly influenced by private investment.
Parents with school-age children spend close to 25 percent of their income on education and all parents spend a large portion of
their income on supplementary educational materials. Private education cost 3.95% of GDP in 2006. According to colleagues in
South Korea, students acquire about 30 percent of their formal learning through their schooling, and the rest through
supplementary measures. So what motivates parents to spend such large amounts of money on private tutoring outside the state
schooling system? The main driver is that education is viewed as being crucial for success. At three or four years old, Korean children
begin the long and strenuous race to higher education where Science and Engineering dominate. Examination time is a very serious
times of the year and the whole pattern of society changes. Businesses often start at 10AM to accommodate parents who have
helped their children study late into the night and on the evenings before exams. The entire schooling system is geared to college
entrance, so the curriculum of most schools is structured around the content of the entrance examination. The Korean government
spends generously on education (4.5% GDP in 1986); children spend a lot of days in school (220 days in Korea vs 180 days in the US);
and school children work very long hours too. While these factors help with test scores, Korea is remarkably inefficient at a PISA
criterion known as “study effectiveness”. South Korea ranks only 24th out of 30 developed nations in this measure. Top in study
effectiveness is Finland, where time in school and hours spent studying is significantly less than Korea. While
many if not
most other countries look on Korean performance on international tests like PISA with envy,
in Korea itself there appears to be an intense pressure to do better, and in this highly
technocratic country, its little surprise that technology is seen to be an important component.
Technology Developments Korea has been ‘computerizing’ schools for the last 15 years or so, and was
the first country in the world to provide high-speed internet access to every primary, junior,
and high school. ICT is also an increasing focus in the Korean Government’s education
strategy, and in recognition of their progress, Korea won 1st prize from UNESCO for ICT in
Education in 2007. So you’d be forgiven for thinking that this lead to Korea coming top in PISA Digital Literacy tests in June
2011 – however computer use is often restricted to teachers presenting information to students. The real reason Korean
students do so well in Digital Literacy is the intense use of technology after school – in
Internet cafes, “cram schools” and the home where children can use the world’s fastest home
Internet connections – on average 100 Mbps now, and with plans to increase this to 1 Gbps. Several government
initiatives have been set up to bridge the gap between the different levels of effectiveness of learning at home and at school. The
overall goal of Government ICT initiatives is to ensure that by 2014 Korean school children will be competent with 21st century skills
and are talented at innovating with future digital technology. Much of the government’s initiative in ICT is channelled through KERIS
– a Government Research Institute that acts as the country’s national ICT/education agency. KERIS’ Future Schools programme has
conducted 39 research projects and 14 development projects focussed on new learning methods based on new technology.
Infrastructure Development The
current priority from a budget standpoint is the acquisition of
hardware and modernising class facilities. By 2010 there was a ratio of 5 students per PC – the intent of this investment
was to support the development of creativity and problem-solving. IT Expenditure Priorities A second budget priority is to increase
the number of classrooms that have been transformed to achieve “ubiquitous-learning” (u-learning). Digital Textbook Project KERIS
has been piloting ‘digital textbooks’ in various forms in preparation for the move by 2015 to using digital textbooks in all schools in
all subjects at all levels. The idea is that digital textbooks will be accessed/viewed on many different types of devices, from tablets to
desktops to laptops to phones. Cyber Home Learning System In an attempt to reduce the cost of private education KERIS also
developed content for the Cyber Home Learning System. Launched in 2004, CHLS is an online learning service supporting student’s
self-directed learning. Click here to find out more – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF8XdvA4ajk Cyber Home Learning System
The next generation of the CHLS will include community, e-portfolio and analytical functions. Next Generation of CHLS EDUNET
KERIS set up and operates EDUNET, an educational information service which distributes a diverse range of high quality educational
content. Content ranges from sound, photo, image, animation, module and video and is all specified by curriculum. As of October,
2010, the number of EDUNET users reached 6.17 million out of a school student population of 7.7m. To see a sample of the content,
view a short video here. Education Broadcasting Services on the Internet (EBSi) A service that has seen a sharp rise in growth
recently is EBSi. This is where key education broadcasting service assets are made available for download. In 2010, daily usage of
video-clips of lectures was 574,461, a 78% increase from the same period of the previous year. Teacher Training Advances have been
made too in teacher training. Not only are increasing numbers of teachers licenced to teach ICT, distance education training based
on e-Learning has become the core method of teachers training. Distance learning is available to students too via “Air and
Correspondence High School”. NEIS (National Education Information Service) The Korean Government is keen to develop the use of
data systems in education. In a drive to reduce teacher workload, an administration system called NEIS (National Education
Information Service) was developed. By streamlining procedures, many administrative processes can now be done in one-step. The
system connects all stakeholders of the student, to allow them to get “to Know Our Children Better”. NEIS integrates student
records across a range of fields including assessments, examination and health data. The first task in creating NEIS was to develop
the physical infrastructure. The aging facilities of the overall education management centre and 16 Metropolitan and municipal
education offices were replaced. 3,800 servers with databases were installed in schools and integrated into a datacentre comprising
100 servers in upstream education offices. To help teachers adapt, training is provided, and structured guides are available on the
teacher area of Edunet. (MPOE – Metropolitan and Provincial Offices of Education) (MEST – Ministry of Education, Science and
Technology) After infrastructure, the next key ingredient was Business Process Reengineering and Information Strategy Planning
(BPR/ISP) for constructing the business management system for the MPOEs. A transmission system for electronic funds transfer
(EFT) system was created at the Korea Financial Telecommunications and Clearings Institute. The School Information Disclosure
System allows anyone including students and parents to easily receive information about schools. The system is designed to
increases parents and the local community’s interest and participation in the schooling system. In addition, the government and the
Offices of Education are expected to boost policy achievements by establishing even more efficient policies through situational
reality analysis of school units using the School Information Disclosure System. Where next? Whilst Korea
is developing
one of the best IT infrastructures in the world, there are three key areas that need focus
South Korea solves best---- trustPolitik approach improves diplomacy
Teo 14 [ Sarah, is an Associate Research Fellow with the Multilateralism and Regionalism
Programme, South Korea’s Foreign Policy in 2013: Building Trust in East Asia, http://www.eir.info/2014/02/06/south-koreas-foreign-policy-in-2013-building-trust-in-east-asia/] Schloss
“Trust” has been the buzzword for South Korean President Park Geun-hye and her
administration. Even before taking office in February 2013, President Park had outlined the
key tenets of her proposed trust-building strategies for improving and stabilising relations
with North Korea, China and Japan. Essentially, the trustpolitik strategy comprises three layers. First, Seoul’s trustbuilding with Pyongyang is aimed at dissuading the latter from the pursuit of nuclear capability, and ultimately to promote
peace and stability on the Korean peninsula. Second, President Park has also proposed a
Northeast Asia Peace and Cooperation Initiative (NEAPCI), to forge mutual trust and boost
cooperation among China, Japan and South Korea. Finally, South Korea is also enhancing its
relations with countries beyond its immediate backyard, including the member states of
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), India and Europe. A year since President Park and her
administration have actualised trustpolitik, South Korea has strengthened its alliance with the United
States, improved relations with China, as well as reinforced ties with ASEAN and its member
countries. Trust-building initiatives with North Korea, however, have not seemed to visibly
change the situation on the Korean peninsula so far. Relations with Japan also remain frosty. These differing
trajectories indicate that the success of trustpolitik is very much dependent on the interests that are perceived to be at stake in both
South Korea and its neighbouring countries. No Change in Inter-Korean Relations The Park administration took office amid escalating
tensions on the Korean peninsula. North Korea conducted its third nuclear test in February, U.S. B-2 stealth bombers were deployed
for the first time in a joint military drill with South Korea in March, inter-Korean hotlines were suspended and operations at the
Kaesong Industrial Complex (KIC) came to a temporary halt in April. Despite the instability arising from these developments, the
Seoul government never wavered from its “alignment policy,” which calls for both strengthening deterrence against Pyongyang as
well as remaining open to engagement. Indeed, even as South Korea responded forcefully to North Korea’s provocations, it
continued providing humanitarian assistance to North Korea and reiterating its openness to dialogue. Some
analysts have
attributed the reopening of the KIC to President Park’s trustpolitik strategy. Furthermore, despite the
intensifying rhetoric, the absence of provocations over the past year on the scale of the sinking of the Cheonan or shelling of
Yeonpyeongdo suggests that the dual-track approach of trustpolitik may have worked. While this is a reasonable
assessment, it should also be noted that overall, nothing has really changed. North Korea remains adamant in its pursuit of nuclear
capability. The threat level on the Korean peninsula also continues to depend on the decisions (perhaps more often than not aimed
at addressing domestic issues) of the unpredictable Pyongyang leadership, making the success of trustpolitik difficult to measure.
Nevertheless, the carrot-and-stick approach
seems more likely to help than hurt inter-Korean relations,
and a consistent application of the strategy may in the longer term help to stabilise bilateral
ties even if North Korea does not give up its pursuit of nuclear capability. Improving Relations
with China (but Ties with Japan Remain Frosty) President Park has also adopted a trust-based approach to relations with China
and Japan. The NEAPCI aims to address “Asia’s paradox,” referring to the growing economic interdependence among China, Japan
and South Korea on the one hand and languishing political-security cooperation on the other. President
Park proposes
cooperation on “softer issues” first, such as environmental issues, nuclear safety and disaster relief. Once trust has
been established through these issues, cooperation could then expand to address the tougher
issues. At the trilateral level, dialogue and cooperation on issues such as the environment,
culture, nuclear safety and cyber security have occurred over the past year, even as political
relations deteriorated. Talks on the China-ROK-Japan Free Trade Agreement were also kickstarted. These herald positive developments for close regional cooperation and thus the
NEAPCI. At the bilateral level, however, the state of South Korea’s relations with China and Japan could not be more different.
Ties with China have improved markedly from the strains under the previous Lee Myung-bak
administration. In June, President Park visited Beijing, her second overseas trip after visiting the United States earlier in May.
The decision to travel to China before going to Japan broke with precedence, reflecting not only China’s economic
importance to South Korea but also the diverging trends in Seoul’s respective bilateral ties
with Beijing and Tokyo. The ROK-China Summit was a high point in bilateral relations, as both
leaders displayed their strong personal rapport and pledged to expand cooperation in all
sectors. China expressed support for Seoul’s trust-building approach to North Korea and
Northeast Asia, and both sides agreed on the goal of a denuclearised Korean peninsula. The
progressing ties were marred, only slightly, by China and subsequently South Korea announcing the expansion of their respective air
defence identification zones at the end of the year. Even then, the responses from each side were relatively restrained, and the
inaugural bilateral Foreign Policy and Security Dialogue was held at the end of December to reaffirm common interests and
cooperation. These developments suggest that Seoul and Beijing are committed to moving forward on bilateral ties, indicating a
positive outlook for ROK-China relations in the coming year. Unlike South Korea-China ties, South Korea’s relations with Japan
remained frosty in 2013 due to historical and maritime territorial disputes. Tokyo’s unilateral decision to send an envoy to
Pyongyang in May, without prior notice to Seoul, further soured relations as the latter had been trying to coordinate the responses
of the international community to the North Korean issue. These incidents account for the lack of an official ROK-Japan Summit since
the leadership transition in both countries, and have also resulted in the suspension of several senior-level and working-level
exchanges. With South Korea-Japan relations at an all-time low, President Park’s NEAPCI appears to have hit a snag. There are two
possible reasons why trustpolitik has not improved South Korea’s relations with Japan thus far. First, the unhappiness caused by
historical issues and maritime territorial disputes (which also stem from history) are deep-seated and have deepened each time a
perceived “provocative” act occurs. Without resolving, or at least addressing the root of these problems, there is no stable
foundation upon which trust can be built. Second, domestic sentiment could have driven the leaders of both countries to adopt
foreign policy decisions that have resulted in the current stalemate in bilateral relations. For example, a poll by the Asan Institute
last year found that 85 percent of South Koreans did not trust Japan and 76.5 percent were unfavourable towards Prime Minister
Shinzo Abe. Such public opinion could have led South Korean officials to adopt a firm stance against Prime Minister Abe’s recent
actions and comments. Strengthening Ties with ASEAN Beyond
Northeast Asia, President Park has also
displayed her commitment to enhancing relations and cooperation with Southeast Asia and
ASEAN, adopting a strategy similar to her predecessor Lee Myung-bak’s New Asia Initiative. Apart from the
regular ASEAN meetings, bilateral summits were held with Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Brunei and Singapore, in which the
leaders pledged to enhance relations in all aspects.
Notably, President Park managed to secure support, at
least rhetorically, for her trustpolitik approach to North Korea from the Southeast Asian
countries. At the ASEAN Summit in Brunei last October, South Korea and ASEAN also agreed to launch a security dialogue, with
the inaugural meeting to be held this year involving the vice-foreign ministers. The agenda for the dialogue would include North
Korea and other regional security issues, indicating that Seoul is hoping to garner stronger support for its North Korean policy.
Multilateralism is an essential diplomatic tool for middle powers such as South Korea, as they
are better able to influence regional and global developments as a group. In this regard, South
Korea is likely to view ASEAN as a fellow East Asian middle power that can help to stabilise the
region amid the changing power dynamics.
Solvency – Warming
South Korea solves aff best- they have the best technological equipment and
the most experience
Seungryeol 11 [Kim, Political Science Programme, School of Social and Political Sciences
University of Canterbury, South Korea’s Strategic Interests in Antarctica, 2011,
http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10092/5474/1/finalthesismodified1.pdf] Mittal
In 1990, the Republic of Korea (ROK) became the 22nd regular member at the 21st Scientific
Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR)14 and held the Second International Antarctic
Science Symposium.15 In the same year a professional academic journal on Antarctica, called
„Hankukkugjiyungu (Korea Polar Research)‟, was first published with the objective of providing Antarctic
research dissertations and Antarctica-related news.16 In 1991, the earth station of the Korea‟s
first satellite, called “KIT-SAT”, was installed at King Sejong Base, which has contributed to Korea‟s
communication research.17 Year 1991 was the year of Korea‟s preparation for the take off of
its Antarctic research. Korea‟s first research ship,¶ called „Onnuri‟, was launched and started
to carry out life science and geology research. Unlike many other foreign ships South Korea
had rented, Onnuri had an amount of high-tech oceanography and geophysics research
equipment in order to collect high quality data.18¶ Since 1999, the ROK has expanded its polar research to the
Arctic region. South Korea began its Arctic research jointly with China by dispatching researchers to Chinese bathyscaphes.19 After
that, ROK conducted joint ocean research with Russia.20 In 2002 Dasan Station was established at Ny-Alesund, on the high Arctic
island of Spitsbergen, part of the Svalbard Archipelago.21 Dasan Base is named after Dasan (pen name) Jeong Yag-Yong (1762-1836),
best known for his practical science. The main research fields of the base are the upper atmosphere, space research, glacier research
and resources development.22¶ In 2003, Seoul announced a plan to build a new 10,000 ton ice breaker, Araon, which would be used
as a multi-purpose vessel for transportation, research and housing.23 The name of Araon literally means “sail all over the world”. In
2005, the basic design was made by Samsung Heavy Industries and the execution design by STX Offshore & Shipbuilding.24 The
construction of Araon, which cost a billion US dollars, was completed in 2009 and Araon started sea trials soon after. On 12 January
2010 Araon first sailed to Antarctica via Lyttelton Harbour in New Zealand to test its ice-breaking ability and explore the candidates
for the second permanent base on the continent.25 The
setting-up of the second Antarctic base was decided
in 2006 with the objective of establishing an Antarctic infrastructure for researching global
climate change and finding solutions to global warming. The construction of the new permanent base is
expected to be completed in 2011.26
South Korea is already showing its capability to explore Antarctica
Seungryeol 11 [Kim, Political Science Programme, School of Social and Political Sciences
University of Canterbury, South Korea’s Strategic Interests in Antarctica, 2011,
http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10092/5474/1/finalthesismodified1.pdf] Mittal
In the mid 1980s considering Antarctica as „a common heritage of mankind‟, the
Malaysian government was going
to submit to the UN General Assembly a bill to have Antarctica managed by the United
Nations. The bill of the Malaysian government, however, was¶ blocked by the union of those nations who
had long claimed their sovereignty over Antarctica. In addition, they allowed India, China and Brazil who were
leading the Third World to join the Antarctic Treaty and obtain the status of consultant party so that they could prevent the
Malaysian government‟s claim or other similar opinions from being heard in the international community.68 It has
become a
norm that only those nations who are conducting scientific research in Antarctica are entitled
to manage the region.¶ However, the Antarctic continent is equally important from a purely
scientific perspective for several reasons. First, the Polar Regions are the most appropriate
places to predict global environmental and climate change by observing the glaciers and
changes of the deep sea water cycle.69 Second, various forms of energy flowing from the universe to Earth‟s
atmosphere can be observed from the polar atmospheres due to their geographical position, and the Polar Regions are optimum
places where the research on the reduction of ozone and increase of ultraviolet rays is conducted.70 Third, the
sediment in
the Antarctic Ocean keeps the record of past global environmental changes intact: global
warming, reduction of sea ice, and changes of the ocean eco-system.71 Therefore, the increase of
sea level and future global warming can be predicted by examining the record kept in the
sediment. Similarly, the past¶ climate changes and the origin of the universe can be revealed by studying the Antarctic glaciers
and meteors. Fourth, the unique biological evolution process can be investigated in the structure and function of the polar ecosystems.72 Fifth, Polar Regions are repositories of future resources.73 Therefore, research and development on new energy and
food resources can be carried out in these regions.
South Korea already studying warming in Antarctica through sediment
Seungryeol 11 [Kim, Political Science Programme, School of Social and Political Sciences
University of Canterbury, South Korea’s Strategic Interests in Antarctica, 2011,
http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10092/5474/1/finalthesismodified1.pdf] Mittal
South Korea has been developing the restoration technology of the polar paleoclimate and paleoocean,
feeling it necessary to examine the record of the past climate changes in order to forecast the
trend of climate change.74 The first objective of the research is to restore the paleoclimate
and paleoocean record of the Polar Regions by using the sediment of polar ocean and land,
and explain the major factors that caused paleoclimate changes. The second objective is to
understand the correlations between global climate change and regional climate change by
comparing the paleoclimate change of the mid-latitudes, including the Korean peninsula, with
that of the Polar Regions.75 From this research, Seoul expects to be able to find out the causes of the recent climate
change by understanding the trend and cause of natural climate change. It also hopes to be able to predict the natural environment
change caused by regional warming and its impact by restoring the past warming environments of the Polar Regions.76
This
research is expected to boost the development of climate proxies.77
South Korea is already the leader in warming research
Seungryeol 11 [Kim, Political Science Programme, School of Social and Political Sciences
University of Canterbury, South Korea’s Strategic Interests in Antarctica, 2011,
http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10092/5474/1/finalthesismodified1.pdf] Mittal
South Korea has succeeded in graphically restoring the climate changes of the continental
shelf of the South Orkney Islands for the past 8,800 years through sedimentological,
mineralogical and paleontological analysis.128 Despite its important location where the Scotia Sea and the Weddell
Sea meet, there have been very little research on the Paleoclimate change of the South Orkney Islands. The ROK has found that
unlike other regions of the Antarctic Peninsula which show dramatic local climate changes, there had not been any significant
differences between the regional climate changes of the South Orkney Islands and global climate changes during the Holocene.129
South Korea has been able to restore the past changes of coastal sea areas by discovering the
proxies that can recognise the influences of the seawater of the Scotia and the Weddell
seas.130¶ The ROK has investigated the retreat time of the land glaciers in the Antarctic
Peninsula by introducing new proxies.131 South Korea was the first to apply the age
determination by Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) to measure polar patterned ground.132 It also
investigated the retreat time of the land glacier on King George Island by using radioactive decay of cosmogonic 36Cl.133 South
Korea has taken the initiative in age determination by introducing new proxies to investigate
the retreat time of the land glacier in the regions of the Antarctic Peninsula which shows the
most sensitive reaction to global warming.134
South Korea is already obtaining key research data in Antarctica about warming
Seungryeol 11 [Kim, Political Science Programme, School of Social and Political Sciences
University of Canterbury, South Korea’s Strategic Interests in Antarctica, 2011,
http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10092/5474/1/finalthesismodified1.pdf] Mittal
In addition, The
ROK has been doing research on chemical relations between the atmospheric
substances of the Polar Regions and climate. It has been analysing the greenhouse gasses (CO2,
CH4, N2O, SF6) in the regions of the Antarctic Peninsula and found out that the fundamental
cause of the on-going climate changes is the increasing greenhouse gasses.140 In addition to the
atmospheric research, South Korea has been trying to understand the interactions between the
atmosphere and other climate systems. By quantifying the role of carbon dioxide emitted from
the land in exchange between the Arctic atmospheric carbon dioxide and the arctic land carbon dioxide, it has assessed the
contribution of the land in the exchange of carbon dioxide between the atmosphere of the Arctic
and the tundra eco-system, and investigated the scale of the global warming phenomenon and its quantitative
changes.141 By analysing the warm current of the Antarctic coast, it has been able to assess the exchange of energy between the
Antarctic Ocean and the atmosphere.142 South
Korea, therefore, has obtained data on the roles of the
Antarctic Ocean and the Arctic tundra eco-system crucial in global exchange of carbon dioxide.
South Korea planning new continental stations to help human responses to
global warming
Seungryeol 11 [Kim, Political Science Programme, School of Social and Political Sciences
University of Canterbury, South Korea’s Strategic Interests in Antarctica, 2011,
http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10092/5474/1/finalthesismodified1.pdf] Mittal
The ROK has been pushing ahead with its plan to construct a continental station in Antarctica
since 2006, investing US$ 70 million.194 It has decided to build its continental station on the Far Southeast of
Antarctica at Terra Nova Bay by 2014.195 The new station is expected to be used as a base, together with
the current King Sejong Station, for scientific research to respond to global warming.196 South
Korea is now planning to design the station concept and construction, submit a comprehensive
environmental evaluation (CEE) appraisal on the candidate construction site to the international community
(ATCM) and obtain approval for the second station.197
South Korea raising global warming awareness with studies in Antarctica-helps
global relations
Seungryeol 11 [Kim, Political Science Programme, School of Social and Political Sciences
University of Canterbury, South Korea’s Strategic Interests in Antarctica, 2011,
http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10092/5474/1/finalthesismodified1.pdf] Mittal
What ROK seeks to gain from its Antarctic activities is to raise awareness of global
environmental issues and the necessity of promoting environment-friendly policies both inside and
outside Korea, to contribute to the prosperity of the world community by conducting scientific
research on global climate change, and to inspire the Koreans with not only the spirit of patriotism but global citizen
consciousness as well.293 Therefore, those concrete goals of Seoul‟s Antarctic research correspond to its
efforts to gain a halo effect from enhancing its national brand image. The PCNB is recognising a close link
between Seoul‟s Antarctic research and Seoul‟s brand value. The PCNB expects Seoul‟s Antarctic¶ 
¶ science
and technology to provide solutions to global issues such as global warming and contribute to
the world community, which will ultimately improve South Korea‟s national brand value.294
Solvency – No Link to Cyber Security Case Turn
South Korea has one of the best cyber security systems--- War with North Korea
improves the South’s defenses
Russell 13[ John, Asia editor of the Next Web, South Korean government beefs up
online security with dedicated cyber policy department,
http://thenextweb.com/asia/2013/04/02/south-korean-government-beefs-up-onlinesecurity-with-dedicated-cyber-policy-department/] Schloss
Cheon Joon-Sahng may not look like an elite warrior, but the shy,
South Korean high school student has been fully
trained for a frontline role in any future cyber battle with North Korea. Cheon, 18, was one of 60 young
computer experts chosen in July from many applicants for a government program providing specialist training in vulnerability
analysis, digital forensics and cloud-computing security. At the end of December their number was narrowed to 20 who completed a
further two months survival-of-the-fittest training in cyber warfare. A young computer expert studying at the Korea Information
Technology Research Institute in Seoul. A young computer expert studying at the Korea Information Technology Research Institute in
Seoul. Earlier this month Cheon was among six who received "Best of the Best" certificates and 20 million won ($17,000) at a
ceremony in the state-run Korea Information Technology Research Institute (KITRI) in southern Seoul. The training program was
launched to reflect growing official concern about South Korea's vulnerability to cyber attack in the wake of two major intrusions in
2009 and 2011 blamed on North Korea. Government agencies and financial institutions were targeted both times, causing networks
to crash and, in the case of one bank, affecting millions of customers who were unable to use credit cards and ATMs for more than a
week. The tables were turned last Friday when North Korea accused the US and South Korea of carrying out a "persistent and
intensive" cyber attack that took a number of its official websites offline. "An
inter-Korean cyber war is already
in full swing," said Lee Seung-Jin, a computer research consultant and a trainer for the government program. Cheon and his
fellow graduates are under no obligation to enter the South Korean military's cyber command. His immediate goal is to secure a
college place and, after graduation, he says he would consider going into the private sector as an internet security consultant. "But
this program played a crucial role in building my career, so I wouldn't mind working as an officer in the military cyber command," he
said. "Ironically,
it's the North Korean cyber attacks that have led to all the increased
interest and investment in internet security in our country," he added. The South Korean military set
up the special cyber command in early 2010 and, in partnership with Korea University, established a cyber warfare school in 2012
that admits 30 students every year. On the surface at least, South and North Korea – which remain technically at war – occupy
different ends of the IT spectrum. Broadband
speeds and penetration levels in South Korea are
among the highest anywhere, and Seoul prides itself on being one of the world's most
wired cities. North Korea, by contrast, has a domestic intranet that allows a very
limited number of users to exchange state-approved information and little more.
Access to the full internet is for the super-elite only. As a result, the focus of the
South's cyber command is on defensive measures to prevent sensitive, secure
networks being compromised. "It's really like fighting an asymmetric war," said KITRI training centre chief Choi YunSeong. The Korea Internet Security Agency, a state watchdog, said it had recorded 40,000 cases of cyber attacks from foreign and
domestic sources in 2012, up sharply from 24,000 in 2008. "South
Korea is an IT superpower with good
infrastructure but remains relatively vulnerable to hacking," said Park Soon-Tai, manager of the agency's hacking response
team. According to intelligence officials cited by South Korean media, North Korea is believed to have a cyber warfare unit staffed by
around 3000 people hand-picked for their computer literacy. The
South's military has a special alert level
system called Infocon that reflects the current likelihood of an imminent cyber attack.
With military tensions on the Korean peninsula at their highest level for years
following the North's nuclear test last month, the Infocon level was recently raised
from five to four
A2 – U.S. Key
U.S. can’t solve--- R and D money is decreasing exponentially
Science And technology 13 [ The economist, Bad medicine Cutting American health
research will harm the world, http://www.economist.com/news/science-andtechnology/21572735-cutting-american-health-research-will-harm-world-bad-medicine]
Schloss
BARACK OBAMA, in his state-of-the-union speech on February 12th, called for a new
era of scientific discovery. “Now is the time to reach a level of research and development not seen since the height of
the space race,” he declared. He praised projects to map the human brain and accelerate regenerative medicine. This would mean
spending more on research. As The Economist went to press, America’s government was about to do the opposite. Federal
spending is due to be cut on March 1st, the result of a long brawl over the deficit.
Complex politics triggered this “sequester” (Congress excels at nothing if not elaborate dysfunction) but the
sequester itself is brutally simple. America will cut $85 billion from this year’s budget (about 2.5% of
spending), split between military and non-military programmes. Among the areas to be
squeezed is R&D, and medical research in particular. For years America has enjoyed preeminence in research, but this is fading. Chinese investment (including both public and private money) more
than quintupled from 2000 to 2010, to $160 billion, in 2005 prices. America’s R&D spending rose by just 22% over that period,
according to the OECD. Research also makes up a smaller portion of America’s economy than some other countries’. In a ranking of
R&D spending as a share of GDP, America came tenth in 2011. A decade earlier it was sixth. Nevertheless, America remains the
world’s biggest engine for innovation. It spent $366 billion on research in 2011, compared with $275 billion by all 27 countries of the
European Union. Despite China’s rapid ascent, America still spends more than twice as much on R&D. Subsidies help. America’s
government pays for about one-third of all domestic research and for most basic science. Medicine is one of the main beneficiaries.
America’s National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the world’s biggest funder of biomedical research. It pays for risky basic science;
companies pay for later stages of development. For example, the NIH supported early research into monoclonal antibodies. By 2010
such research underpinned five of America’s 20 bestselling drugs. As drug firms trim their budgets, the NIH’s work is becoming even
more vital. But since 2003, inflation-adjusted spending on medical research has declined. With
the sequester public
investment will shrink further. America’s total outlay on R&D will drop by $8.7 billion
this year, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Francis Collins, the NIH’s director, says that his organisation will spend $1.6 billion less
in 2013—a cut of 5.1%—and $16 billion less over the next decade. Hundreds of grants will
not be awarded. Existing grantees will receive only 90% of the cash promised to them.
These cuts will speed the erosion of American supremacy in research . In December Battelle, a
research group, predicted that China would surpass America’s spending by 2023. Thanks to the
sequester, that date may come earlier
Spending Cuts kill U.S. Science research--- no way they can solve
Alvisatos, Isaacs, and Mason 13 [ Paul, Eric, Thom, Paul Alivisatos is director of
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Eric D. Isaacs is director of Argonne National
Laboratory. Thom Mason is director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, The Sequester Is
Going to Devastate U.S. Science Research for Decades, March 12,
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/the-sequester-is-going-todevastate-us-science-research-for-decades/273925/] Schloss
Most of the talk about sequestration has focused on its immediate impacts -- layoffs, furloughs, and cancelled White House tours in
the days and weeks ahead. But one
severe impact of the automatic spending cuts will only be felt
years -- or even decades -- in the future, when the nation begins to feel the loss of
important new scientific ideas that now will not be explored, and of brilliant young
scientists who now will take their talents overseas or perhaps even abandon research
entirely. Less than one percent of the federal budget goes to fund basic science
research -- $30.2 billion out of the total of $3.8 trillion President Obama requested in fiscal year 2012. By slashing that
fraction even further, the government will achieve short-term savings in millions this
year, but the resulting gaps in the innovation pipeline could cost billions of dollars and
hurt the national economy for decades to come. As directors of the Department of Energy's National
Laboratories, we have a responsibility both to taxpayers and to the thousands of talented and committed men and women who
work in our labs. We are doing everything we can to make sure our scientists and engineers can keep working on our nation's most
pressing scientific problems despite the cuts. It's not yet clear how much funding
total tens
the National Labs will lose, but it will
of millions of dollars. Interrupting -- or worse, halting -- basic research in the physical, biological, and
computational sciences would be devastating, both for science and for the many U.S. industries that rely on our national laboratory
system to power their research and development efforts. Instead,
this drop in funding will force us to cancel
all new programs and research initiatives, probably for at least two years. This sudden
halt on new starts will freeze American science in place while the rest of the world
races forward, and it will knock a generation of young scientists off their stride,
ultimately costing billions in missed future opportunities. New ideas, new insights, new discoveries -these are the lifeblood of science and the foundation of America's historic culture of innovation and ingenuity. The science
community recognizes the importance of those new ideas, so we have systems in place to make sure great new ideas get a chance
to thrive. Every ongoing federally funded science program is reviewed regularly to make sure it's on track and likely to yield results.
Each year, stalled programs are terminated to make room for more promising lines of research. Under sequestration, we will
continue to review and cull unsuccessful research efforts, but we won't be able to bring in new ideas to take their place. Every
federal agency that supports basic scientific research is facing this impossible dilemma. The National Science Foundation -- which
funds 20 percent of all federally supported basic research at American colleges and universities -- just announced it is cutting back
on 1,000 new research grants it had planned to award this year. The Department of Energy's Office of Science, the nation's largest
supporter of basic research in the physical sciences, will have to shut the door on hundreds of new proposals as well. The impact will
multiply as long-planned and overdue supercomputer upgrades and other necessary investments in our scientific infrastructure are
stretched out, delayed, or put on hold indefinitely. The
National Laboratories aren't just crucial to
America's scientific infrastructure. They are also powerful engines of economic
development. Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Solow has calculated that over the past half century, more than half of
the growth in our nation's GDP has been rooted in scientific discoveries -- the kinds of fundamental, mission-driven research that we
do at the labs. This early-stage research has led to extraordinary real-world benefits, from nuclear power plants to compact
fluorescent bulbs to blood cholesterol tests. Because the United States has historically valued scientific inspiration, our government
has provided creative scientists and engineers with the support, facilities, and time they need to turn brilliant ideas into real-world
solutions. Basing
funding decisions solely on short-term fiscal goals risks the heart of
America's scientific enterprise and long-term economic growth -- diminishing our
world leadership in science, technology and in the creation of cutting-edge jobs.
Sequestration won't have an immediate, visible impact on American research.
Laboratories will continue to open their doors, and scientists and engineers will go to
work. But as we choke off our ability to pursue promising new ideas, we begin a slow
but inexorable slide to stagnation. We can't afford to lose a generation of new ideas
and forfeit our national future.
A2 – Permutation
Perm Fails
Diplomacy is dead in the U.S. --- harder for the U.S. to negotiate and work with
South Korea on Arctic research
Cohen 13 [ Roger, New York Times foreign editor, The New York Times, January 21,
Diplomacy is Dead, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/opinion/global/roger-cohendiplomacy-is-dead.html] Schloss
Effective diplomacy — the kind that produced Nixon’s breakthrough with China, an
end to the Cold War on American terms, or the Dayton peace accord in Bosnia —
requires patience, persistence, empathy, discretion, boldness and a willingness to talk
to the enemy. This is an age of impatience, changeableness, palaver, small-mindedness
and an unwillingness to talk to bad guys. Human rights are in fashion, a good thing of
course, but the space for realist statesmanship of the kind that produced the Bosnian
peace in 1995 has diminished. The late Richard Holbrooke’s realpolitik was not for the squeamish. There are other
reasons for diplomacy’s demise. The United States has lost its dominant position without any
other nation rising to take its place. The result is nobody’s world. It is a place where
America acts as a cautious boss, alternately encouraging others to take the lead and
worrying about loss of authority. Syria has been an unedifying lesson in the course of
crisis when diplomacy is dead. Algeria shows how the dead pile up when talking is
dismissed as a waste of time. Violence, of the kind diplomacy once resolved, has shifted. As William Luers, a former
ambassador to Venezuela and the director of The Iran Project, said in an e-mail, it occurs “less between states and more dealing with
terrorists.” One
result is that “the military and the C.I.A. have been in the driver’s seat in
dealing with governments throughout the Middle East and in state to state (Pakistan,
Afghanistan, Iraq) relations.” The role of professional diplomats is squeezed. Indeed
the very word “diplomacy” has become unfashionable on Capitol Hill, where its wimpy
associations — trade-offs, compromise, pliancy, concessions and the like — are
shunned by representatives who these days prefer beating the post-9/11 drums of
confrontation, toughness and inflexibility: All of which may sound good but often get
you nowhere (or into long, intractable wars) at great cost. Stephen Heintz, president of the
Rockefeller Brothers Fund, wrote in an e-mail that, “When domestic politics devolve into polarization and paralysis the impact on
diplomatic possibility becomes inordinately constraining.” He cited Cuba and Iran as examples of this; I would add Israel-Palestine.
These critical foreign policy issues are viewed less as diplomatic challenges than potential sources of domestic political capital. So
when I asked myself what I hoped Barack Obama’s second term would inaugurate, my
answer was a new era of diplomacy. It is not too late for the president to earn that Nobel Peace Prize. Of course
diplomats do many worthy things around the world, and even in the first term there were a couple of significant shifts — in Burma
where patient U.S. diplomacy has produced an opening, and in the yo-yoing new Egypt where U.S. engagement with the Muslim
Brotherhood was important and long overdue (and raised the question of when America would do the same with the Brotherhood’s
offshoot, Hamas.) But Obama
has not had a big breakthrough. America’s diplomatic doldrums
are approaching their 20th year. There are some modest reasons to think the lid on diplomacy’s coffin may open a
crack. This is a second term; Obama is less beholden to the strident whims of Congress. The Republican never-give-an-inch right is
weaker. In John Kerry and Chuck Hagel, his nominees for secretary of state and secretary of defense, Obama has chosen two
knowledgeable professionals who have seen enough war to loathe it and have deep experience of the world. They know peace
involves risk. They know it may not be pretty. The big wars are winding down. Military commanders may cede some space to
diplomats. Breakthrough diplomacy is not conducted with friends. It is conducted with the likes of the Taliban, the ayatollahs and
Hamas. It involves accepting that in order to get what you want you have to give something. The central question is: What do I want
to get out of my rival and what do I have to give to get it? Or, put the way Nixon put it in seeking common ground with Communist
China: What do we want, what do they want, and what do we both want? Obama
tried a bunch of special
envoys in the first term. It did not work. He needs to empower his secretary of state to
do the necessary heavy lifting on Iran and Israel-Palestine. Luers suggested that one “idea for a New
Diplomacy would be for Hagel and Kerry to take along senators from both parties on trips abroad and to trouble spots. This used to
be standard practice. Be bold with the Senate and try to bring them along.” For
diplomacy to succeed noise has
to be shut out. There are a lot of pie-in-the-sky citizen-diplomats out there these days
blathering on about dreamy one-state solutions for Israel-Palestine and the like. Social
media and hyper-connectivity bring huge benefits. They helped ignite the wave of liberation known as the Arab Spring. They are
force-multipliers for openness and citizenship. But they may distract from the focused, realpolitik diplomacy that brought the major
breakthroughs of 1972, 1989 and 1995. It’s time for another.
Net Benefit Extensions
Uniqueness
U.S. South Korea relations high now--- Common goals, trade, interdependence
U.S. Department of State 14 [ January 2014, BUREAU OF EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC
AFFAIRS, U.S. Relations With South Korea, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2800.htm] Schloss
The United States and Korea’s Joseon Dynasty established diplomatic relations under the 1882 Treaty of Peace, Amity, Commerce,
and Navigation, and the first U.S. diplomatic envoy arrived in Korea in 1883. U.S.-Korea relations continued until 1905, when Japan
assumed direction over Korean foreign affairs. In 1910, Japan began a 35-year period of colonial rule over Korea. Following Japan's
surrender in 1945, at the end of World War II, the Korean Peninsula was divided at the 38th parallel into two occupation zones, with
the United States in the South and the Soviet Union in the North. Initial hopes for a unified, independent Korea were not realized,
and in 1948 two separate nations were established -- the Republic of Korea (ROK) in the South, and the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea (DPRK) in the North. In 1949, the
United States established diplomatic relations with
South Korea. On June 25, 1950, North Korean forces invaded South Korea. Led by the United
States, a United Nations coalition of 16 countries undertook the defense of South Korea. Following China's entry into the war on
behalf of North Korea later that year, a stalemate ensued for the final two years of the conflict until an armistice was concluded on
July 27, 1953. A peace treaty has never been signed. In 1953, at the conclusion of the Korean War, the United States and the
Republic of Korea signed a Mutual Defense Treaty, the foundation of a comprehensive alliance that endures today. In the decades
after the war, South Korea experienced political turmoil under autocratic leadership, but developed a vocal civil society that led to
strong protests against authoritarian rule. Pro-democracy activities intensified in the 1980s and South Korea began the transition to
what is now a vibrant, democratic system. U.S.-South
Korea ties are based on common values of
democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. The United States and South Korea share a long
history of friendship and cooperation based on common values and interests. The two
countries work together to combat regional and global threats and to strengthen their
economies. The United States has maintained Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine personnel in
South Korea in support of its commitment under the U.S.-R.O.K. Mutual Defense Treaty to help
South Korea defend itself against external aggression. In 2013, the two countries celebrated the 60th
anniversary of the U.S.-South Korea alliance. A Combined Forces Command coordinates operations between U.S. units and South
Korean armed forces. The
United States and South Korea coordinate closely on the North Korean
nuclear issue and the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. As South Korea's economy has
developed (Korea joined the OECD in 1996), trade and investment ties have become an increasingly
important aspect of the U.S.-South Korea relationship. In recent years, the U.S.-South Korea
alliance has expanded into a deep, comprehensive global partnership, and South Korea’s role
as a regional and global leader continues to grow. South Korea hosted the 2010 G-20 Summit, the 2011 Fourth
High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit, and the 2013 Seoul Conference on Cyberspace. South
Korea is a committed member of various international nonproliferation regimes, including the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI)
and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism (GICNT). The
United States and South Korea are also
expanding cooperation on development assistance and aid. People-to-people ties between the
United States and South Korea have never been stronger. South Korea, on a per capita basis,
sends the highest number of students to the United States to study of any industrialized
country. Educational exchanges include a vibrant Fulbright exchange program as well as the Work, English Study, and Travel
(WEST) program that gives a diverse group of South Korean students the opportunity to learn more about the United States. U.S.
Assistance to South Korea The United States provides no development assistance to South Korea. South Korea, a recipient of U.S.
assistance in the years after the Korean War, is a development aid donor today. Bilateral Economic Relations Over the past several
decades, South Korea has achieved a remarkably high level of economic growth and is now the United States' sixth-largest goods
trading partner with a trillion-dollar economy. Major U.S. firms have long been leading investors in South Korea, while South Korea's
top firms have made significant investments in the United States. There are large-scale flows of manufactured goods, agricultural
products, services, and technology between the two countries. The landmark Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA)
entered into force on March 15, 2012, underscoring the depth of bilateral trade ties. The agreement is expected to boost exports by
billions of dollars annually for both sides and create new export-related jobs in both South Korea and the United States. South
Korea's Membership in International Organizations
U.S. south Korea relations are high now--- ROK and U.S. army
Bandow 13 [David, Formal Special assistant to Ronald Reagan, 5-6-13, South Korea:
Close Friend Of The U.S., And A Defense Welfare Queen,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2013/05/06/south-korea-close-friend-ofthe-u-s-and-a-defense-welfare-queen/] Schloss
the ROK must rely upon America for its defense. The
assumption dominates Washington, D.C. as well as Seoul, and will be on display
during President Park Geun-hye’s visit to the White House tomorrow and address to
Congress on Wednesday. The bilateral relationship is close. Too close, in fact. Both America and South Korea pay a
high price for the South’s unnecessary defense dependence. For 60 years the U.S. has defended the ROK . The “mutual” defense
treaty is mutual in name only. Washington defends the South. Seoul does not defend America. On his recent visit to the South, Secretary of State John Kerry
proclaimed: “The United States will, if needed, defend our allies and defend
ourselves.” When the alliance was created those two objectives were considered to be
one: Washington forged alliances to protect itself. Alliances were a means to an end.
Also unchanged is the conventional wisdom that
Today alliances have become an end. Allies are defended even when doing so does not advance American security. Six decades after the end of the Korean War, the U.S.
maintains 28,500 troops on the peninsula. American personnel act as a tripwire to ensure Washington’s involvement if the so-called Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
invaded the South. But the war would involve the entire American military, as evidenced by the recent flyover by B-2 bombers and F-22 stealth fighters, intended to intimidate
The cost of the commitment is high. Every promise to go to war forces
Washington to create corresponding military assets. The Obama administration is
further reinforcing America’s East Asian security guarantees with the so-called “pivot”
or “rebalancing.” Worse is the risk of war. Korea mattered to the U.S. in 1950 because it occurred early in the Cold War. Washington authorities perceived the
the DPRK.
DPRK invasion as the first round of Soviet-inspired aggression. In fact, the conflict mattered more for its impact elsewhere than on the peninsula. Today the situation is
. The White House recently called the alliance “a linchpin of peace and security on
the Korean Peninsula and in the Asia-Pacific.” That may be the case for the ROK, but not for America. A new Korean war would
reversed
have awful economic and humanitarian impacts, but there would be minimal effect on America’s security. A North Korean attack on the ROK would be a North Korean attack on
the ROK, not the prelude to global war.
South Korea is launching an attack on U.S. jobs --- could worsen with relations
worsening
The Vindicator 14 [ Youngstown online news and news paper, The Valley takes a direct hit in
South Korea’s war on US jobs - See more at: http://www.vindy.com/news/2014/jun/20/thevalley-takes-a-direct-hit-in-south-k/#comments,http://www.vindy.com/news/2014/jun/20/thevalley-takes-a-direct-hit-in-south-k/#comments] Schloss
Six decades ago, the United States valiantly came to the defense of South Korea in a war
against Communist expansionism, costing this country more than 33,000 lives. Sixty-one years
after the end of that conflict, South Korea is waging war against America, costing the U.S.
thousands of jobs. Its brutal economic attack has hit the Mahoning Valley particularly hard.
Today’s conflict stems from South Korea’s production of oil country tubular goods (OCTGs),
mostly steel pipes for the burgeoning U.S. oil and gas drilling industry. It is selling these
products far below production costs and dumping 98 percent of them in the United States.
The casualty toll of such grossly unfair trade practices continues to soar: The U.S. has reached
a record trade deficit of $2.3 billion with South Korea. That’s a far cry from the “jump-start” to the U.S. economy
promised in a so-called fair-trade agreement with the East Asian nation in 2012. As
of March 2014, the trade deal had cost
60,000 American jobs, mostly in OCTGs, with the potential to steal an additional 500,000 jobs, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
Just this month, U.S. Steel announced it will indefinitely shut down two plants, including one in McKeesport, Pa., that manufacture steel tubular
products. In the Valley, 40 steelworkers have been laid off at Warren’s Wheatland Steel plant, and the dumping threatens jobs and growth at
Youngstown’s mammoth Vallourec complex and Brookfield’s expanding TMK-IPSCO plant. All manufacture products for the oil and gas industry. In the
face of such attacks, the Mahoning Valley is indeed fortunate to have amassed an impressive and aggressive army. Our congressional delegation and
the three major Valley OCTG producers are on the front lines to repel the harmful trade attack. Specifically, Vallourec, Wheatland Tube and TMK-IPSCO
are among several American companies that have petitioned the Commerce Department to act to repel the attack. Their initial pleas, however, fell on
deaf ears as Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker cleared South Korean pipe producers of selling at artificially low prices to undercut U.S. producers in a
preliminary ruling earlier this year. Commerce ruling In that Feb. 19 ruling, Commerce found that imports of eight countries were dumped in American
markets, resulting in levying tariffs from 3 to 118 percent on their OCTG imports. Commerce, however, excluded South Korea despite strong and welldocumented evidence of that nation’s violation of fair-trade policies. Enter U.S. Sens. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, and Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio. The two wrote
a letter of protest to Commerce, supported by 57 other senators, appealing the preliminary decision and recommending its reversal when the final
ruling is issued July 10. “South Korea has no domestic [pipe] market, and the steel they’re producing does not have the quality,” Brown said. “The facts
are on our side.” U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan of Howland, D-13th, has led the charge in the House, where a similar letter has been drafted and sent to
Commerce. On a nationally televised cable news show this spring, Ryan called exclusion of South Korea from the list of dumpers “a hurtful omission.”
The OCTG producers and the congressmen deserve all the reinforcements they can muster as the D-Day for the future of American OCTG producers
looms next month. America’s
hoped-for economic boom in drilling-support industries is at serious
risk. As Robert Powelson, chairman of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, put it, “This is a battle that our state and
nation cannot afford to lose.”
Link Uniqueness
Many countries are already researching in Antarctica and tensions are high--The U.S. could be the tipping point
Teller 14 [ Staff Writer for BBC, Why do so many nations want a piece of Antarctica?, BBC News
Magazine, http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27910375] Schloss
Seven countries have laid claim to parts of Antarctica and many more have a presence
there - why do they all want a piece of this frozen wasteland? I pick a path between rock pools and
settle my bottom on a boulder. A spectacular, silent view unfolds across a mountain-fringed bay. Then there is a flash in the shallows
by my feet - an arrow of white and black. What on earth fish is that? My slow brain ponders, as before my eyes a gentoo penguin
slips out of the water, steadies itself on a rock, eyes me cheekily, squawks and patters off into the snow. Antarctica is the hardest
place I know to write about. Whenever you try to pin down the experience of being there, words dissolve under your fingers. There
are no points of reference. In the most literal sense, Antarctica is inhuman. Continue reading the main story Find out more Antarctic
stamp from Ukrainian government Listen to From Our Own Correspondent for insight and analysis from BBC journalists,
correspondents and writers from around the world Other deserts, from Arabia to Arizona, are peopled: humans live in or around
them, find sustenance in them, shape them with their imagination and their ingenuity. No people shape Antarctica. It is the driest,
coldest, windiest place in the world. So why, then, have Britain, France, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, Chile and Argentina drawn
lines on Antarctica's map, carving up the empty ice with territorial claims? Antarctica is not a country: it has no government and no
indigenous population. Instead, the
entire continent is set aside as a scientific preserve. The Antarctic
Treaty, which came into force in 1961, enshrines an ideal of intellectual exchange. Military activity is banned, as is prospecting for
minerals. Fifty states - including Russia, China and the US - have now ratified the treaty and its associated agreements. Yet one
legacy of earlier imperial expeditions, when Shackleton and the rest battled blizzards to plant their flags, is national covetousness.
An icebreaker nudges its way towards Antarctica Science
drives human investigation in Antarctica
today, yet there's a reason why geologists often take centre-stage. Governments
really want to know what's under the ice. Whisper the word: oil. Some predictions suggest the amount of oil in Antarctica
could be 200 billion barrels, far more than Kuwait or Abu Dhabi. Antarctic oil is extremely difficult and, at the moment, prohibitively
expensive to extract - but it's impossible to predict what the global economy will look like in 2048, when the protocol banning
Antarctic prospecting comes up for renewal. By that stage, an energy-hungry world could be desperate. The Antarctic Treaty has put
all territorial claims into abeyance, but that hasn't stopped rule-bending. The best way to get a toehold on what may lie beneath is
to act as if you own the place. Map showing claims to Antarctic land and research bases One of the things nation-states do is stamp
passports - so when Antarctic tourists visit the British station at Port Lockroy, they can have their passport stamped. This
is
despite the fact that international law doesn't recognise the existence of the British
Antarctic Territory - indeed, both Chile and Argentina claim the same piece of land,
and have their own passport stamps at the ready. Another thing states do - or used to
- is operate postal services. At Ukraine's Vernadsky base, I wrote myself a postcard, bought a decorative Ukrainian
stamp with a cow on it, and dropped it into their post box. It took two months to arrive - not bad, from the ends of the earth. But
tourist fun connives at all the flag-waving.
Russia has made a point of building bases all round the
Antarctic continent. The US operates a base at the South Pole, which conveniently straddles every territorial claim. This
year China built its fourth base. Next year it will build a fifth. All Antarctica's 68 bases are
professedly peaceful research stations, established for scientific purposes - but the
ban on militarisation is widely flouted. Chile and Argentina, for instance, both
maintain a permanent army presence on the Antarctic mainland, and the worry is that
some countries are either not reporting military deployment, or may instead be
recruiting civilian security contractors for essentially military missions. Antarctic skies
are unusually clear and also unusually free from radio interference - they are ideal for
deep-space research and satellite tracking. But they are also ideal for establishing
covert surveillance networks and remote control of offensive weapons systems. The
Australian government recently identified China's newest base as a threat, specifically
because of the surveillance potential. It said: "Antarctic bases are increasingly used for 'dual-use'
scientific research that's useful for military purposes." Many governments reject Antarctica's status quo,
built on European endeavour and entrenched by Cold War geopolitics that, some say, give undue influence to the superpowers of
the past. Iran
has said it intends to build in Antarctica, Turkey too. India has a long history
of Antarctic involvement and Pakistan has approved Antarctic expansion - all in the
name of scientific cooperation. But the status quo depends on self-regulation. The
Antarctic Treaty has no teeth. Faced with intensifying competition over abundant
natural resources and unforeseen intelligence-gathering opportunities, all it can do - like my
penguin - is squawk, and patter off into the snow.
While relations are good anti U.S. sentiment is growing – makes relations
sensitive
Mitchell 2004 (Derek J. senior fellow for Asia projects in the CSIS International Security
Program “STRATEGY AND SENTIMENT: ¶ SOUTH KOREAN VIEWS OF THE UNITED STATES ¶ AND
THE U.S.-ROK ALLIANCE” June 2004 http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/0406mitchell.pdf//RC)
At the same time, polls in South Korea have revealed a broader distaste for U.S. strategic ¶
engagement worldwide. A majority of South Koreans opposed the second Iraq war, and
according ¶ to one high-profile 2002 survey, the South Koreans were one of only two nonIslamic peoples of ¶ which a majority opposed the U.S.-led war on terrorism.2¶ In 2004, a poll
showed that more South ¶ Koreans feared the United States than feared the possibility that
North Korea might start a war on ¶ the peninsula. ¶ Such divergences are not ignored in
Washington and, in turn, have created a backlash in official ¶ U.S. sentiments concerning the
credibility, usefulness, and future viability of the alliance. In this way, ¶ the expression of
Korean popular sentiment toward the United States may help escalate frustration ¶ and
resentment between the two countries in a steadily tightening spiral. It takes little imagination
to ¶ recognize that any continuation of this trend threatens to undermine the critical sense of
trust and ¶ partnership that the alliance must maintain to remain viable in the long term. ¶
Meanwhile, even as traditional pillars of the alliance are becoming weaker, other strategic
trends ¶ may also magnify the effect of popular opinion on the alliance over time. As succeeding
generations ¶ of South Koreans become less concerned about North Korea as a security
threatΫexcept insofar as ¶ reunification might create economic and social burdens on the
SouthΫthe United States may, at ¶ best, come to be viewed as irrelevant and, at worst, as an
obstacle to reconciliation or reduction of ¶ tensions on the peninsula. (Some in South Korea may
already argue the latter viewpoint.) Under ¶ such conditions, negative views of the United
States may affect South Korean commitment to the ¶ strategic relationship. ¶ In addition, the
value of South Korea’s economic relations with East Asia, particularly China, is ¶ beginning to
exceed the value of its relations with the United States, offering an important ¶ alternative
center of interest that may reduce U.S. leverage and importance in South Korean strategic ¶
calculations. President Roh Moo-hyun’s call for a more independent military posture from the ¶
United States, while potentially helpful to the alliance because it allows the United States to
focus its highly stretched forces elsewhere, might also make south Korea sufficiently confident
in its self defense capability to weaken the traditionally compelling need for U.S. Partnership.
Negative popular sentiment toward the United States could induce less-desirable outcome in
both cases
Impact – Northeast Asia Instability
U.S.-South Korean Relations are key to deterring conflict in the Northeast Asia
Choi 2008 (Young Jong Professor of International Relations – Catholic University “South
Korea’s Middle Power Diplomacy¶ and Regional Security Cooperation”
http://spfusa.org/pdfs/2008/oct2choi.pdf//RC)
Institutionalized security cooperation in Northeast Asia can be South Korea’s diplomatic niche.
This area is relatively disregarded by major regional powers like the United States, China, and
Japan, who have been more concerned about global affairs and ad hoc handling of regional
issues. As a result, East Asian economic cooperation has been led by ASEAN and South Korea,
instead of regional powers like China or Japan. Similarly, Northeast Asia security cooperation
may be led by secondary states, and South Korea is more than willing to lead an active
diplomacy in Northeast Asia. On the part of the US government, its lack of interest in regional
initiatives led to the decline of its influence in East Asia. The US was not only disinterested in
regional institutions but also tried on several occasions to discourage regional initiatives that
excluded it. The US government thought bilateral security alliances would do for regional
security. However, bilateral alliances are under strain for various reasons. In particular, China
sees the US-ROK and US-Japan alliances increasingly with suspicion, as a scheme to contain its
rise. There is a strong voice against US unilateralism in the region, too. The US needs to find a
regional institutional structure to complement its bilateral alliance system. A rising China
requires sustained and constructive engagement by the United States, and China feels more
comfortable in a regional than a bilateral setting with the United States. A regional security
structure will also be useful to decelerate China-Japan rivalry being intensely waged on a
regional scale. Washington does not have to assume all the responsibilities for maintaining
regional stability or building a regional security structure. Cooperation with regional countries
is essential, and Washington needs to understand the beauty of leadership from below. In this
regard, the South Korea card deserves more attention. As mentioned above, South Korea has a
long history of active regional policy. Despite its recent aberration, it has largely been a
faithful alliance partner. Fortunately, a pro-US government is in power in South Korea, and
Washington has to take advantage of this opportunity, thereby expanding the scope of bilateral
cooperation and laying the foundation for a multilateral security structure for the region. South
Korea’s activism will not draw as much opposition as China’s or Japan’s may from neighbors.¶
Tasks Ahead in US-ROK Cooperation Washington and Seoul should and can work together to
bring institutionalized security to the region. For this joint mission, both sides need to rebuild
or restore mutual trust and share a common vision for the future of the region as well as for the
bilateral alliance. Recently, both countries agreed to strengthen the bilateral security alliance to
meet the challenges of 21st century, specifically, to transform it into a “more nimble and agile
alliance” that can deal with various problems arising from a fluid and complex security
environment in the region. The task ahead is to share a common vision for the region.
Turns Case – Warming
U.S. South Korean relations are key to combatting warming
Snyder 2009 (Scott Snyder, director of the Center for U.S.-Korea Policy and senior associate of
Washington programs in the International Relations program of The Asia Foundation, 04/09,
Center for Strategic and International Studies, “Pursuing A Comprehensive Vision for the U.S.
South Korean
Alliance”http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/090409_snyder_pursuingcompvision_web.pdf)
An emerging area of cooperation in the US.-ROK relationship is climate change. South
Korea imports 97 percent of its energy needs42 and is one of the globes top ten emitters of
carbon dioxide, and therefore shares similar interests with the United States on clean
development. South Korea is a member of the Bush administration initiative on climate
change, the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP), co-founded
by Australia and the United States in January of 2006, and including China, India, Japan,
and the Republic of Korea, to promote technology cooperation on climate and
environment-related issues, including in the areas of clean fossil energy, aluminum, coal
mining, renewable energy, power generation, cement, buildings and appliances, and
steel.4* The APP has dozens of projects located across the region, including several in Korea
devoted to such research areas as the expansion of biodiesel use, cleaner fossil energies,
development of indices for renewable energies and distribution, and solar technologies.44
There is potential for this initiative to gain in profile under the Obama administration.
The initiatives nonbinding framework for cooperation, however, is seen in some quarters as
a weak alternative to global legal agreements to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Under the
Obama administration, it is likely that the United States will once again seek to play an
active role in promoting a global understanding of how to respond to the global
challenges posed by climate change issues. At the G-8 Summit in Hokkaido in July 2008,
Lee Myung Bak pledged to serve as a bridge between the United States and developing
countries on future climate change discussions. To the extent that South Korea can define
a bridging role and take concrete actions to promote cooperation on climate change
issues, such an initiative would likely be appreciated by the new administration. Seoul has
recently taken promising steps domestically toward putting the country on a path toward
cleaner development: In August 2008, Lee Myung Bak put the issue high on the agenda by
declaring a national vision of "low carbon, green growth," and in early 2009, he sought to
include a substantial "green" component in the country's economic stimulus efforts, which
if implemented would likely fund renewable energy research and subsidize eco-friendly
businesses. Further, the current popularity of the concept of green growth in Korea,
combined with Koreas appeal as a developmental model for several countries in greater
Asia, make Korea an attractive partner for the United States in seeking to promote
bilateral or multilateral efforts to combat global warming. To build the foundation for
such cooperation, the two governments should use the APP framework to provide strong
support to existing and nascent initiatives at the local level, such as the cross-border
consortium of eco-cities envisioned by Daejeon Green Growth Forum chairman Yang Ji-won
and his collaborators in Palo Alto, California, and elsewhere.4' Such efforts should
complement the leadership-level pursuit of a global climate treaty in the lead-up to the UN
Climate Summit in Copenhagen in December 2009.
***AFF Anaswers***
Answers to South Korea Relations DA
Non Unique
Non Unique – Other countries exploring Antarctica – US, Russia, Japan, and
Australia
NewsAsia 14 – (Channel NewsAsia, reports internationally on global developments with Asian
perspectives, “Japan considering new base on Antarctica”, June 23, 2014,
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/japan-considering-new/1194530.html#)
Wang
TOKYO: Japan is looking at building a new base on Antarctica so scientists can study air trapped in ice a million
years ago, in a bid to better understand climate change, an official said Monday.¶ Tokyo already has four stations on
the frozen continent, two of which are currently in use -- the Syowa Station on the coast and the Dome Fuji Station inland.¶
Japanese research teams at Dome Fuji Station have sampled air captured in ice as long ago as 720,000 years, after drilling down
3,000 metres (1.86 miles).¶ At the proposed new base, scientists would be able to drill down to reach ice that formed 1 million years
ago, beating the current sampling record held by a European team, which has looked at 800,000-year-old ice.¶ "The idea came up in
a government panel discussion last week as an important possibility for the next six-year Antarctic project starting in 2016," the
official at the science and technology ministry said.¶ "But it is still far from being determined, as it would have to be approved under
the Antarctic Treaty," he said, adding the
government also needs to study how feasible it would be to
build a new base.¶ Under the international treaty, Antarctica does not belong to any single
country, but dozens of member states -- including the US, Russia, Japan, Australia and some
European countries -- agree to use it for scientific research.¶ They also agree to share scientific
data and not to build military installations on the continent.¶ Scientists have studied air bubbles captured in the ice sheet in
ancient periods as a way to learn about the elementary structure of the atmosphere.¶ By analysing the history of temperature and
CO2 transitions, they can better understand future climate change.
Link Turn – Science Diplomacy
Science diplomacy solves North Korea war – increase cooperation and
transparency
Kang 13 – (Stephanie Nayoung Kang, Kelly Fellow at Pacific Forum CSIS, Degree from Seoul
National University, “Science Diplomacy with North Korea”, ISN, November 14, 2013,
http://isnblog.ethz.ch/security/science-diplomacy-with-north-korea) Wang
Just when nobody thought it could get worse, it did. Diplomatic relations with North Korea reached a proverbial low point early this
year when Pyongyang followed a long-range rocket test with an underground nuclear explosion. Despite a perceived decline since
then in North Korea’s belligerent rhetoric, and despite the reopening of the Kaesong Industrial Complex, political tensions
between the two Koreas, and between North Korea and the United States, still remain high.
Pyongyang, for example, has recently cancelled scheduled North-South family reunions and there are troubling signs that it may be
resuming its plutonium program.¶ While the prospects for political engagement with the Kim Jong-un regime may indeed remain
bleak, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t other opportunities for increased dialogue. One of these is science diplomacy,
which enables
states to use academic collaborations and scholarly exchanges in politically
helpful ways. The virtue of this type of diplomacy, which can focus on solving common environmental, health, energy, and
security problems, is the ‘neutral’ political space it provides friends and foes alike. Instead of continuing to
trap themselves in mutual competition, they can indeed use science to create shared interests and a
common destiny.¶ Another virtue of science diplomacy is that it has a proven track record. During the
Cold War, for example, cooperation between American and Soviet scientists provided a ‘safe
haven’ for dialogue within a wider context of mutual mistrust, particularly when it came to nuclear security issues and space
technology. We also have the example of the US and China. After the resumption of diplomatic ties between the two states in 1973,
the US was able to exploit the ‘soft power’ appeal of its science and technology base in order to
engage with an otherwise wary adversary.¶ These historical examples are interesting enough, but what about
today? Can we collectively use science diplomacy to bring North Korea back into the
international fold? Yes , the possibilities are there. While North Korea has a powerful interest in cooperating with the US
on science-related issues, the US also has strong incentives to engage with North Korea in realms
other than politics.¶ For North Korea, scientifically engaging with more advanced nations will
promote its own development at minimal political and economic cost.¶ For the US, cooperating with
Pyongyang on ‘hard science’ issues – such as biodiversity, climate change, and public health – will encourage
more generalized transparency and the adoption of scientifically neutral international standards by North Korea.¶ For
both countries, science diplomacy can help build key relationships and networks of trust. This is
especially relevant in the case of North Korea , where trust is built on the personal level rather than through
official negotiations, and where maintaining private relationships is paramount.¶ For both countries, science diplomacy can
finally lead to desired spillover effects. Because scholarly exchanges do create zones of openness, mutual
understanding and trust, they can also open up channels of communication that lead – in time – to real progress in other areas,
including politics.
Non Unique – Relations High
Mutual Defense Treaty upholds relations between the U.S and South Korea
Manyin et al. 2-12 [Mark, Specialist in Asian Affairs, U.S.-South Korea Relations, 2-12-14,
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41481.pdf] Mittal
The United States and South Korea are allies under the 1953 Mutual Defense Treaty. Under
the agreement, U.S. military personnel have maintained a continuous presence on the Korean
Peninsula and are committed to help South Korea defend itself, particularly against any
aggression from the North. The United States maintains about 28,500 troops in the ROK. South Korea is included under
the U.S. “nuclear umbrella,” also known as “extended deterrence,” which applies to other non-nuclear U.S. allies as well. A
bilateral understanding between Washington and Seoul gives U.S. forces the “strategic
flexibility” to respond to contingencies outside the peninsula, but under the condition that
South Korea would have to consent to their deployment in an East Asian conflict. In the past, issues
surrounding U.S. troop deployments have been a flashpoint for public disapproval of the military alliance, led by progressive political
groups, but in
recent years public support for the alliance has become broader and more resilient
to incidents involving U.S. bases and soldiers in South Korea.
Current improvements are being made between U.S and South Korea relations
Manyin et al. 2-12 [Mark, Specialist in Asian Affairs, U.S.-South Korea Relations, 2-12-14,
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41481.pdf] Mittal
Since 2009, the two sides have accelerated steps to transform the U.S.-ROK alliance,
broadening it from its primary purpose of defending against a North Korean attack to a
regional and even global partnership. At the same time, deadly provocations from North
Korea have propelled more integrated bilateral planning for responding to possible
contingencies. In 2011, the allies adopted a “proactive deterrence” policy to respond swiftly and forcefully to further
provocations. Increasingly advanced joint military exercises have reinforced the enhanced defense
partnership. In March 2013, U.S. officials disclosed that B-52 and B-2 bombers participated in exercises held in South Korea,
apparently making this announcement as a demonstration of the U.S. commitment to extended deterrence, following a period of
unusually hostile rhetoric from Pyongyang.23 In 2012, the two sides held their second so-called “2+2” meeting between the U.S.
Secretaries of State and Defense and their South Korean counterparts. Among other policy areas, the
joint statement
emphasized new initiatives on cybersecurity and missile defense, and the United States
committed to maintaining current troop levels in Korea. In 2013, in addition to developing new counterprovocation and tailored deterrence strategies, the two sides issued a high-level joint statement in October 2013 committing to
improving their respective anti-missile defense systems. However, despite these changes, the conservative Lee and Park
Administrations have slowed significantly the defense budget increases planned under the earlier, progressive Roh Moo-hyun
Administration (2003-2008).
U.S-South Korea Relations high now-cooperation on many issues
Porter 14 [Keith, has been involved in international affairs journalism for almost 25 years. Has
reported from over 20 different countries and interviewed hundreds of world leaders and
foreign policy experts, The US-South Korean Relationship, 2014,
http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/od/countryprofile1/p/usskoreaprofile.htm] Mittal
Division:¶ As quickly as the second world war ended the Cold War began trapping Korea in its midst with both the Soviet Union and
the United States supporting ideologically friendly governments around the world. This situation led to the eventual split into the
pro-communist North Korea and the America-leaning South Korea. Hence, from its inception South
Korea and the United
States have enjoyed a close relationship.¶ Korean War:¶ The situation escalated when North Korea invaded South
Korea in June 1950 to unify the island starting the Korean War which lasted until 1953. The North initially overwhelmed the U.S.
funded and trained South, which had no tanks, offensive airpower or anti-tank weaponry. The North also quickly occupied various
key southern cities and looked like it would have little resistance in capturing the entire peninsula. The United Nations then
intervened.¶ Foreign Intervention:¶ United Nations Security Council Resolution 82 authorized the intervention of U.N. forces which
were mainly composed of American troops alongside 15 other countries. With this help the South managed to recover all of its
occupied territories. Encouraged by this success, U.N. forces continued into the North to try and unify the peninsula under the
Southern command, which led to Chinese intervention in the war. Fighting lasted until the stalemate and ceasefire of July 1953 and
the establishment of the demilitarized zone.¶ Military Cooperation:¶ In
order to guarantee the South's security
from future North Korean aggression, the United States and South Korea signed the Mutual
Defense Treaty in 1953. The treaty stipulated that either country would come to the defense
of the other if attacked by a third party. Additionally the American and South Korean military
to this day enjoy a high level of cooperation with the United States stationing approximately
37,000 troops in South Korea.¶ Other Avenues of Cooperation:¶ Coupled with the military cooperation the United
States helped South Korea transform its economy into one of the most vibrant in Asia. Both
countries remain close trading partners symbolized by official figures which rank Korea among
the top 10 U.S. trading partners. Both countries have also cooperated in the six-party talks, a
series of negotiations with North Korea in hopes of resolving the North Korean nuclear issue.
Impact Defense – Troop Withdrawl
No impact to US withdraw from the DMZ – US already planning to turn over
bases
Rabiroff and Chang 13 – (Jon Rabiroff, Copy Editor for the Korea times, Reporter and
Photographer for Stars and Stripes, City Editor and Assistant Managing Editor for the Gainesville
Sun, Yoo Kyong Chang, BA in English Literature and Language from Yonsei University, MPS in
Interactive Telecommunications Program, PhD in Educational Communication and Technology,
“Once a DMZ base buzzing with troops, now a place to pretend to be one”, Stars and Stripes,
October 8, 2013, http://www.stripes.com/news/once-a-dmz-base-buzzing-with-troops-now-aplace-to-pretend-to-be-one-1.244668) Wang
CAMP GREAVES, South Korea — If you look out from the overgrown north bank of the Imjin River, it’s easy to understand why U.S.
Marines established a camp here during the Korean War, given its proximity to North Korea.¶ If you look past the paint chipping off
the walls of the dilapidated Quonset huts, it is not hard to imagine how for
50 years that this base buzzed with
activity with servicemen whose job it was to patrol the nearby Demilitarized Zone.¶ But, if you survey the
renovation work now under way at this forgotten base, it may not be easy to envision how South Korean government officials plan,
as early as this month, to turn part of Camp Greaves into a fantasy camp of sorts for Koreans who want to get a taste of military life.
Another area eventually into a center for artists to create and display their work.¶ While this
isn’t the first time a former
U.S. military base in Korea has been converted for modern-day use, it may be one of the most creative
repurposing plans.¶ And, with the U.S. planning to turn over dozens more of its bases to South Korea
in the years ahead — as the number of its installations is reduced from more than 100 to fewer than
50 in connection with the 2016 consolidation of virtually all American service members on the peninsula to
clusters of facilities south of Seoul — base conversions may eventually become a cottage industry of
sorts on the peninsula.¶ Records show the area around Camp Greaves was occupied by the 1st Marine Division during the
Korean War in 1953. After hostilities ceased, Marines used the camp as a base from which to patrol the DMZ, placing the division’s
Reconnaissance Battalion there in 1954. Over the years, a number of units have spent time at the border-area base including: the 1st
Amphibious Tractor Battalion; the 3rd Battalion, 19th Infantry Regiment, 24th Infantry Division; the 1st Squadron, 9th Cavalry, 1st
Cavalry Division; and various 2nd Infantry Division battalions including the 1st Battalion, 506th Infantry Regiment. The Army closed
up shop at the facility in 2004.¶ Today, the buildings of Camp Greaves — including a movie theater, gymnasium, dining facility and
barracks — sit decaying and dormant, except for the work under way to renovate two buildings into lodging and office facilities.¶ In
the years ahead, half
the base property and buildings will be renovated and eventually occupied by
elements of the South Korea Army’s 1st Infantry Division.¶ Gyeonggi Province plans to spend more than $40
million to turn the other half of Camp Greaves into a multi-faceted tourist attraction. Based on the number of people who already
visit DMZ-area tourist attractions in the area, planners hope the renovated Camp Greaves will draw as many of 3 million visitors a
year when the project is completed in 2018.¶ They hope Koreans and tourists from other countries stop by the base on their way to
or from the nearby attraction-rich area in and around the DMZ.¶