2NC Impact Calc
It also solves the case – trade makes war unthinkable.
Jason Brooks, Department of Journalism at Carleton University, May 1, 2000, Garvey Contest Essay, “Make Trade, Not War,”
http://www.independent.org/students/garvey/essay.asp?id=1456
Free trade is, in one sense, like a nuclear weapon. Which seems strange to say because trade is associated with peace and prosperity, while nuclear weapons are
synonymous with apocalypse and terror. But here is how they are alike: they both prevent war by making it more costly. A strong argument exists that the only reason
the Cold War never got “hot” between the United States and the Soviet Union was that nuclear weapons made outright conflict unthinkable. Trade, in a similar way,
binds the fortunes of people in the world together. It is the best assurance of peace. By forging bonds between
customers and suppliers around the world, trade gives citizens a vested interest in the wellbeing of people in
other countries—war becomes a matter of mutual assured destruction, if you will. With trade, a war abroad will
have fallout at home. But while trade has the deterrent effects of powerful weapons, is far preferable because of its other advantages. Where weapons are
expensive, free trade brings prosperity and freedom. Where weapons bring terror, free trade fosters harmony and encourages people to
resolve disputes without violence. Richard Cobden, a nineteenth century British industrialist and politician, often argued in favor of trade over
armaments to discourage war. His recipe for peace remains as true today as it was more than 150 years ago: “The more any nation traffics abroad upon free and honest
principles, the less it will be in danger of wars.” Free trade is indeed the wellspring of peace.
Free Trade Good – China
Free trade prevents Chinese aggression in Taiwan
AScribe Newswire, ‘1 [December 7, Countries that share capital market and monetary policy linkages are less
likely to go to war,” Lexis]
The increasing economic openness of China might have just helped in preventing a military contest between
China, Taiwan and the United States during the wake of Taiwan's 2000 presidential election. The admission of China to the World
Trade Organization will foreseeably generate the positive political externality of promoting peace, the
researchers say. In contrast, the economically isolated Afghanistan appears to serve as an example of the effect of economic autarky.
"Our findings provide new evidence supporting a new theory why liberal economics may be at least as vital to
peace as liberal politics," Li adds.
War in Taiwan draws in the U.S. and goes nuclear
Johnson, ‘1 [Chalmers, Author of Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, The Nation,
5/14]
China is another matter. No sane figure in the Pentagon wants a war with china, and all serious US militarists
know that China’s minuscule nuclear capacity is not offensive but a deterrent against the overwhelming US
power arrayed against it (twenty archaic Chinese warheads versus more than 7000 US warheads). Taiwan,
whose status constitutes the still incomplete last act of the Chinese civil war, remains the most dangerous place
on earth. Much as the 1914 assassination of the Austrian crown prince in Sarajevo led to a war that no wanted, a
misstep in Taiwan by any side could bring the United States and China into a conflict that neither wants. Such a
war would bankrupt the United States, deeply divide Japan and probablv end in a Chinese victory, given that
China is the world’s most populous country and would be defending itself against a foreign aggressor. More
seriouslv. it could easily escalate into a nuclear holocaust. However, given the nationalistic challenge to China’s
sovereignty of any Taiwanese attempt to declare its independence formally, forward-deployed US forces on
China’s borders have virtually no deterrent effect.
Free Trade Good – Disease
Trade is key to economic growth and living standards
Indur M. Goklany, an independent scholar and the author of The Precautionary Principle: A Critical Appraisal
of Environmental Risk Assessment August 22, 2002, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa447.pdf
Trade is an integral part of the cycle of progress. Freer trade directly stimulates economic growth,36 helps
disseminate new technologies, and creates pressures to invent and innovate.37 For instance, competition from
foreign car makers accelerated the introduction of several automobile safety and emission control systems to the
United States, improving both environmental and human well-being.38 Trade also helps contain the costs of
basic infrastructure, including water supply, sanitation, and power generation (although the full benefits are
often squandered because of corrupt, inefficient, and opaque bureaucracies and governments).39 Finally, as will
be discussed below, trade has globalized food security.
That’s key to solve disease
Indur M. Goklany, an independent scholar and the author of The Precautionary Principle: A Critical Appraisal
of Environmental Risk Assessment August 22, 2002, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa447.pdf
Are the trends in the various measures of human well-being improving as globalization marches on? Have gaps
in these measures between the rich and the poor countries widened and, if they have, is globalization
responsible? Figure 1, based on cross-country data, shows that various indicators of human wellbeing improve
as countries become wealthier, with improvements coming most rapidly at the lowest levels of wealth. There
are several possible explanations for this association. First, economic development indeed improves these
indicators. Greater wealth translates into greater resources for researching and developing new technologies that
directly or indirectly advance human well-being.19 It also means increased resources for advancing literacy and
education, which, too, are generally conducive to greater technological innovation and diffusion. 20 Equally
important, wealthier societies are better able to afford new as well as existing, but underused, technologies.21
For instance, with respect to health—captured in Figure 1 by both infant mortality and life expectancy— these
include “old” technologies such as water treatment to produce safe water, sanitation, basic hygiene,
vaccinations, antibiotics, insect and vector control, and pasteurization,22 as well as newer science-based
technologies such as AIDS and oral rehydration therapies, organ transplants, mammograms, and other
diagnostic tests. They also include agricultural technologies that increase crop yields, thereby increasing
available food supplies and reducing hunger and malnourishment, which then reduces the toll of infectious and
parasitic diseases. 23 4 Historically, reducing hunger and undernourishment has been among the first practical
steps nations have taken to improve public health. That step has reduced infant mortality and increased life
expectancy.24 And if despite increased food production a country is still short of food, greater wealth makes it
possible, through trade, to purchase food security.25 Greater wealth also makes it more likely that a society will
establish and sustain food programs for those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder.26 Therefore, while
“you can’t eat GDP,”27 the larger GDP is, the less likely you are to go hungry or be undernourished. As Figure
1 illustrates, greater wealth, through a multiplicity of mechanisms—higher literacy, greater food supplies, and
greater access to safe water— leads to better health.28 effect, devoting what once was literally a lifetime to
learning their trade. And having acquired expertise, those doctors and researchers are poised to contribute to
technological innovation and diffusion in their chosen fields and to guide others along the same path. Thus
better health helps raise human capital, which aids the creation and diffusion of technology and thereby further
advances health and accelerates economic growth. Both wealth’s and health’s causes and effects probably
reinforce each other in a set of interlinked cycles. One such cycle is the health-wealth cycle in which—as we
have seen—wealth begets health and health, wealth. Another cycle consists of food production, food access,
education, and human capital, which also helps turn the health wealth.
That solves extinction.
Col. William Fox, M.D., Commander of Bayne-Jones Army Hospital, Command Surgeon of the Joint
Readiness Training Center, medical degree from the Uniformed Services University of the Health Services,
Winter 1997-98, Parameters, Vol. XXVII, No. 4, “Phantom Warriors: Disease as a Threat to US National
Security,” http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/97winter/fox.htm
HIV is a pandemic killer without a cure, and viruses such as Ebola-Zaire are merely a plane ride away from the
population centers of the developed world. Viruses like Ebola, which are endemic to Africa, have the potential to inflict
morbidity and mortality on a scale not seen in the world since the Black Plague epidemics of medieval Europe, which killed a
quarter of Europe's population in the 13th and 14th centuries. These diseases are not merely African problems; they present real threats to
[humankind] mankind. They should be taken every bit as seriously as the concern for deliberate use of weapons of mass
destruction.
Free Trade Good – Environment
Free trade solves environmental collapse – three reasons
Schoenbaum, ’92 [Thomas J., Professor and Executive Director of the Center for International and
Comparative Law and the University of Georgia, “Trade and Environment: Free International Trade and
Protection of the Environment: Irreconcilable Conflict?” The American Society of International Law Newsletter,
October, Lexis]
The environmentalists who argue that free trade will destroy the environment are shortsighted and wrong. As a
recent GATT informational report n8 has pointed out, there is no fundamental conflict between GATT rules and the need to protect environmental quality. Analysis shows that existing
GATT regulations place virtually no constraints on the ability of a nation to protect its own environment and
resources against damage caused by either domestic production or domestically produced or imported products. n9 GATT rules can also be made consistent with efforts to
preserve regional and global environmental quality. Furthermore, trade liberalization, whether on a global or regional basis, will actually help the
environmentalists' cause by (1) fostering common standards for environmental protection that must be observed
even by certain developing countries that currently ignore environmental concerns; n10 (2) terminating subsidies,
particularly in agriculture, that are environmentally destructive, as well as inefficient; n11 and (3) ensuring
economic growth, which will create the financial means, particularly for developing countries, to control
pollution and protect the environment. n12
Environmental collapse causes global wars
Homer-Dixon, ’98 [Thomas, Assistant Professor of Political Science and Director of the Peace and Conflict
Studies Programme at the University of Toronto, World Security Challenges for a New Century, p. 342-343]
Experts have proposed numerous possible links between environmental change and conflict. Some have
suggested that environmental change may shift the balance of power between states either regionally or
globally, causing instabilities that could lead to war. Another possibility is that global environmental damage
might increase the gap between rich and poor societies, with the poor then violently confronting the rich for a
fairer share of the world’s wealth. Severe conflict may also arise from frustration with countries that do not go
along with agreements to protect the global environment, or that “free-ride” by letting other countries absorb the
costs of environmental protection. Warmer temperatures could lead to contention over more easily harvested
resources in the Antarctic. Bulging populations and land stress may produce waves of environmental refugees,
spilling across borders and disrupting relations among ethnic groups. Countries might fight among themselves
because of dwindling supplies of water and the effects of upstream pollution.6 A sharp decline in food crop
production and grazing land could lead to conflict between nomadic tribes and sedentary farmers.
Environmental change could in time cause a slow deepening of poverty in poor countries, which might open
bitter divisions between classes and ethnic groups, corrode democratic institutions, and spawn revolutions and
insurgencies. In general, many experts have the sense that environmental problems will “ratchet up” the level of
stress within states and the international community, increasing the likelihood of many different kinds of
conflict—from war and rebellion to trade disputes—and undermining possibilities for cooperation.
Environmental collapse causes extinction
Diner 94 ["The Army and the Endangered Species Act: Who's Endangering Whom" l/n]
By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic
simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the
dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if
this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and
intertwined effects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases
the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, [hu]mankind
may be edging closer to the abyss. ([ ] = correction)
Free Trade Good – Hege
Free trade is key to U.S. hegemony
O’Driscoll and Fitzgerald, ‘2 [Dr. Gerald P. and Sara J., Former Director of the Center for International Trade
and Economics at the Heritage Foundation and Policy Analyst at the Center for International Trade and
Economics at the Heritage Foundation, “Trade Promotes Prosperity and Security,” December 18,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/BG1617.cfm]
. A strong economy undergirds a strong national defense, and
the strong U.S. economy is one source of the military strength of the United States. The national security
strategy also argues, however, that the economic strength of other friendly countries will enhance U.S. security.
Economic freedom sustains economic growth and wealth creation. Free markets foster the spirit of
entrepreneurship and innovation that creates new products and jobs. This creative economic process in turn
generates higher incomes, savings and wealth creation, and economic development in nations.
It is fitting that economic freedom be included as part of the national security strategy
Nuclear war
Kagan – 7 [Robert, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “End of Dreams,
Return of History” Policy Review http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/8552512.html#n10]
Finally, there is the United States itself. As a matter of national policy stretching back across numerous
administrations, Democratic and Republican, liberal and conservative, Americans have insisted on preserving
regional predominance in East Asia; the Middle East; the Western Hemisphere; until recently, Europe; and now,
increasingly, Central Asia. This was its goal after the Second World War, and since the end of the Cold War,
beginning with the first Bush administration and continuing through the Clinton years, the United States did not
retract but expanded its influence eastward across Europe and into the Middle East, Central Asia, and the
Caucasus. Even as it maintains its position as the predominant global power, it is also engaged in hegemonic
competitions in these regions with China in East and Central Asia, with Iran in the Middle East and Central
Asia, and with Russia in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. The United States, too, is more of a
traditional than a postmodern power, and though Americans are loath to acknowledge it, they generally prefer
their global place as “No. 1” and are equally loath to relinquish it. Once having entered a region, whether for
practical or idealistic reasons, they are remarkably slow to withdraw from it until they believe they have
substantially transformed it in their own image. They profess indifference to the world and claim they just want
to be left alone even as they seek daily to shape the behavior of billions of people around the globe. The jostling
for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining feature of the
new post-Cold War international system. Nationalism in all its forms is back, if it ever went away, and so is
international competition for power, influence, honor, and status. American predominance prevents these
rivalries from intensifying — its regional as well as its global predominance. Were the United States to diminish
its influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest power, the other nations would settle disputes as
great and lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation but often
through confrontation and wars of varying scope, intensity, and destructiveness. One novel aspect of such a
multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons. That could make wars between
them less likely, or it could simply make them more catastrophic. It is easy but also dangerous to underestimate
the role the United States plays in providing a measure of stability in the world even as it also disrupts stability.
For instance, the United States is the dominant naval power everywhere, such that other nations cannot compete
with it even in their home waters. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United States Navy to be the
guarantor of international waterways and trade routes, of international access to markets and raw materials such
as oil. Even when the United States engages in a war, it is able to play its role as guardian of the waterways. In a
more genuinely multipolar world, however, it would not. Nations would compete for naval dominance at least
in their own regions and possibly beyond. Conflict between nations would involve struggles on the oceans as
well as on land.
Free Trade Good – Terrorism
Free trade increases third world prosperity, disabling terrorist recruitment
Hassanien, ‘8 [Mohamed, Assistant Professor of Law at Cairo University, “International Law Fights Terrorism
in the Muslim World: A Middle Eastern Perspective,” Spring, Denver Journal of International Law and Policy]
the primary danger at
present emanates from the economic and political failures of the Muslim world... Those failures breed the
despair on which violent Islamic extremism feeds; no comprehensive campaign against terrorism can leave
them unaddressed... The national security dimension of trade policy is once again plainly visible... It's true that scrapping
protectionist policies, by itself, will not guarantee economic revitalization. But the fact is that integration into the larger world economy has been
central to every developing country success story of recent times. Exposing the economy to foreign competition
and capital acts as a catalyst for more systemic reforms. And over the longer term, such far-flung examples as Chile, Mexico, Taiwan, and South Korea
demonstrate the interconnectedness of globalization, economic dynamism, and eventual democratization. Meanwhile,... the West can do more to facilitate
Muslim countries' participation in global commerce... President Bush has made it amply clear that fighting terrorism is the overriding priority of his
Trade and investment barriers are pervasive, and exports other than oil remain puny....It is now clear that Americans live in a dangerous world - and that
administration. To wage that fight with maximum effectiveness, he will need to convince Congress and the nation that promoting world trade will help to defeat the destroyers of the World
Establishing free trade in this area would increase job opportunities, economic growth, cut poverty
and enhance the rule of law in the Middle East; development in the Middle East should be a major component
of U.S. foreign policy. Economic development in the Middle East is the most effective means of maintaining
peace and increasing normalization, thereby breaking the cycle of mistrust, violence, and instability that plagues
the Middle East. A positive cycle of economic expansion would enhance the region's political stability, which would
Trade Center. 150
151
[*242] then foster economic growth by bolstering investor confidence. Economic opportunities are enormous in the Middle East. 152 Furthermore, "the Middle East is situated in a strategic
global position featuring many dynamic trade and investment opportunities." 153 It has been argued that political and economic stability can be created if the U.S. and Middle Eastern countries
make certain conditions conducive to the following economic measures: 154 (1) Increased foreign private investment (2) Increased free trade agreements between the U.S. and Middle Eastern
countries.
Conclusive studies prove that, absent intervention, a nuclear terrorist attack likely by 2013
Smith citing Congressional Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation
and Terrorism 8 [Diane, “Nuclear or Biological Attack Likely by 2013, Report Says”, December 2, 2008,
eFluxMedia]
The study carried out by the Congress-backed Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Proliferation and Terrorism said that the threat from rogue states and nuclear smuggling rings is now higher than
ever and it’s still increasing. The main hot spot according to the panel is now Pakistan. This state became a very big
concern because of its network of terror groups, its instability and its nuclear capabilities. Iran and North Korea are also on
the black list of the panel. “Were one to map terrorism and weapons of mass destruction today, all roads would intersect in Pakistan,” the
report, which was ordered by Congress last year, underlines. The panel said that terrorists will most likely carry out an attack using
biological or nuclear weapons somewhere in the world in the next five years, of course, if the United States and its allies won’t
do something about it. “America’s margin of safety is shrinking, not growing,” the panel concluded. The members of the commission, which included former Sen. Bob
Graham (Fla. D) and former Rep. James Talent, a Missouri Republican, urged United States’ President Elect barrack Obama to take decisive action” to reduce the risk
of a devastating attack. “Without
greater urgency and decisive action by the world community, it is more likely than not
that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013,”
the commission’s report said. The staff of the panel conducted more than 260 interviews with government officials and
experts around the world to establish the current state of the problem of weapons of mass destruction.
Nuclear terrorism causes extinction
Beres, Professor of Political Science, 87 [Louis Rene Professor of Political Science at Purdue University,
“Terrorism and Global Security”, 1987, p. 42-43.]
Nuclear terrorism could even spark a full scale war between states. Such a war could involve the entire
spectrum of nuclear conflict possibilities, ranging from a nuclear attack upon a non-nuclear state to systemwide
nuclear war. How might such far reaching consequences of nuclear terrorism come about? Perhaps the most likely way would involve a
terrorist nuclear assault against a state by terrorists hosted in another state. For example, consider the following scenario: Early in
the 1990s, Israel and its Arab state neighbors finally stand ready to conclude a comprehensive, multilateral peace settlement. With a bilateral treaty between Israel and
Egypt already many years old, only the interests of the Palestinians, as defined by the PLO, seem to have been left out. On the eve of the proposed signing of the peace
agreement, half a dozen crude nuclear explosives in the one kiloton range detonate in as many Israeli cities. Public grief in Israel over the many thousand dead and
maimed is matched only by the outcry for revenge. In response to the public mood, the government of Israel initiates selected strikes against terrorist strongholds in
Lebanon, whereupon Lebanese Shiite forces and Syria retaliate against Israel. Before long, the entire region is ablaze, conflict has escalated to nuclear forms, and all
countries of the area have suffered unprecedented destruction. Of course, such a scenario is fraught with the makings of even wider destruction. How would the United
It is certainly conceivable that a chain reaction of
interstate nuclear conflict could ensue, one that would ultimately involve the superpowers or even every nuclear
weapon state on the planet.
States react to the situation in the Middle East? What would be the soviet response?
Cap and Trade Bad – Competitiveness
A. Cap and trade would collapse US competitiveness.
Holecek – 11/7/08 (Andrea, The Times, “New environmental policy could hurt steelmakers, manufacturing,”
http://nwi.com/articles/2008/11/07/business/business/docd02314e7dc222413862574f900781cbf.txt)
President-Elect Barack Obama's
reported plan to implement a cap-and-trade policy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions
could make the integrated steel industry noncompetitive, according to a noted steel analyst. Charles Bradford, president of New York-based
Bradford Research Inc./Soleil Securities, said a cap-and-trade policy could put Northwest Indiana's large steelmakers out of
business because of its high cost. The Alliance to Save Energy and other environmental organization are urging the president-elect to make good on his
campaign promises to focus on energy efficiency, including a economy-wide cap-and-trade program, as a key solution to the nation’s energy, economic, and
environmental challenges. "He (Obama) wants cap and trade where people have to pay for their carbon emissions," Bradford said. "Integrated
steelmakers
put out three times more carbon emissions than the minimills."
Integrated steelmakers, such as U.S. Steel Corp. and ArcelorMittal,
produce steel using a two-step process, first by heating a combination of iron ore, coke and limestone in blast furnaces to produce pig iron, which is then made into steel
in basic oxygen furnaces. Minimills melt steel scrap metal in electric furnaces to produce steel. Bradford said the integrated companies currently are losing their
competitiveness. "In the summer they (integrateds) were the low cost producers because the price of prime scrap was $878 a ton, now its $133 a ton," he said. "At the
same time (the integrateds) steelmaking costs are $600 or closer to $700 a ton. The minimills are under $300 (per ton) when you add conversion costs." However,
because minimills use considerably more electricity than integrated steelmakers, their costs could rise if energy
production would become more expensive under a cap and trade policy. U.S. Steel Corp. spokesman John Armstrong, wouldn't
comment on competitiveness issues between U.S. steelmakers. U.S. Steel's concern is that any U.S. carbon reduction program could
put U.S. manufacturing as a whole at a disadvantage in the global marketplace and force manufacturing
offshore, he said. "Our biggest concern about (carbon dioxide) reduction schemes is that unless developing countries are
held to the same standards, industry will go offshore," Armstrong said. "One of the ultimate paradoxes is that it would increase
rather than decrease (carbon dioxide) emissions because developing countries don't have the same efficiencies in
production of electricity, and don't would have stringent emission requirements and could generate more
(carbon dioxide)." Nancy Gravatt, spokeswoman for the American Iron and Steel Institute, said the steel industry is "very energy intense
and its processes involve carbon. "It's part of the process so its obviously a major concern as to what type of
legislative approach will be taken for carbon reduction," she said Global manufacturing competitiveness is a big
concern, Gravatt said. "Coming into office in an economy in financial crisis, President-elect Obama would have to take U.S. manufacturing competitiveness into
consideration as he evaluates climate policy," she said. The steel industry has advanced a global steel sectorial approach to a policy on climate change, Gravatt said. "It
would be approach that holds foreign manufacturers to comparable standards so U.S. jobs stay in America," she said. " It
would be more be more
harmful to the environment if U.S. manufacturers migrate to foreign lands where they won't have to deal with
U.S. emissions standards."
B. Global nuclear war
Khalilzad 1995
Under the third option, the
United S tates would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to
multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an
end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open
and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such
a world would have a better chance of
dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by
renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile
global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global
nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. [He
continues...] The U nited S tates is unlikely to preserve its military and technological dominance if the U.S.
economy declines seriously. In such an environment, the domestic economic and political base for global leadership would
diminish and the U nited S tates would probably incrementally withdraw from the world, become inward-looking, and abandon more and
more of its external interests. As the United States weakened, others would try to fill the Vacuum. To sustain and improve its economic strength,
the U nited S tates must maintain its technological lead in the economic realm. Its success will depend on the choices it makes. In the
past, developments such as the agricultural and industrial revolutions produced fundamental changes positively affecting the
relative position of those who were able to take advantage of them and negatively affecting those who did not. Some argue that the world may be at the
beginning of another such transformation, which will shift the sources of wealth and the relative position of classes and nations. If the U nited S tates fails to
recognize the change and adapt its institutions, its relative position will necessarily worsen.
Cap and Trade Bad – Econ
A. Cap and trade would collapse the economy – nonpartisan analysis proves.
Brian Sussman, American Thinker, “Nonpartisan Proof: Cap-and-Trade Is an Economy-Killer,” 5/25/2010,
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/nonpartisan_proof_capandtrade.html
However, a
just-released report assembled by the nonpartisan Peterson Institute for International Economics
confirms my long-held contention: The pending climate change bill will be an economic bust for America by
killing jobs and raising prices for virtually everything.
The Peterson Institute's report focuses on Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman's (I-CT) bill, The American Power Act. Overall, Peterson's eighteen-page
synopsis of the bill definitely leans green. For example, the reports states, "Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant
risks for -- and in many cases is already affecting -- a broad range of human and natural systems."
Those of you who have read my book Climategate, as well as my multiple missives on American Thinker, know I wholeheartedly disagree with the anthropogenic
global warming hypothesis.
Besides believing that humans are altering the climate, the Peterson report recommends that a single federal entity or program be given the authority and resources to
coordinate a national, multidisciplinary research effort aimed at improving both understanding and responding to climate change.
In other words, the nonpartisan report contends that government is the solution to the problem.
Nonetheless -- and surprisingly -- the report states that if the Kerry-Lieberman bill should become law, there will be net job losses and higher energy and product prices.
The Peterson analysis neatly buries those findings after stating that 203,000 new green jobs will be created each
year for a decade. Specifically, the report states the net employment losses will be due to "the jobs lost in fossil
fuel production and as a result of higher energy prices between 2011 and 2020. In the second decade of the
program [2020-2030], higher energy and product prices offset the employment gains from new investment."
Translation: Yes, there will be new so-called "green" jobs that will include government bureaucrats hired to
shuffle papers and enforce new green building codes, construction jobs to retrofit buildings, installers for solar
panels, etc. However, there will be more jobs lost than gained should the bill become law.
To review: Both the House and Senate climate change bills plan on scaling back CO2 emissions 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. According to United States
Census figures, the
population of the U.S. will increase by thirty million by 2020 and by 100 million by 2050. So where
will the cuts come from? From America's coal industry, which will be shuttered; from our manufacturing sector, which
will be moved offshore; and from our livestock industry, which will also be sent abroad.
Do you see what's about to occur? Good jobs will be lost. That's why in the House version of the bill, a provision ensures that if your job is shipped
overseas, you are eligible for three years of unemployment compensation at 70% of your pay, plus retraining and relocation expenses. The intent is to pacify your anger
with a three-year paid vacation. In the Senate version of the bill, the unemployment benefits are cleverly tied into an Internal Revenue Code entitled the "empowerment
zone employment credit."
B. Global nuclear war
Liutenant Colonel Bearden, 2000 (Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army, 2000, The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How We Can Solve It, 2000,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Big-Medicine/message/642)
History bears out that desperate
nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations
will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea
launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a
desperate China - whose long range nuclear missiles can reach the United States - attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual
treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic
nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are
then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is his side of the
MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all, is to launch
immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid
escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed . The resulting great Armageddon will
destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.
2NC AT: Cap and Trade Solves Warming/Oil
1. No solvency – free riders.
Lee Lane, resident fellow and codirector of the AEI Geoengineering Project, American Enterprise Institute, “ACESA 2009 and the U.S. National Strategy for
Dealing with Climate Change,” 4/24/2009, http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.29760/pub_detail.asp
First, the
U.S. could enact go-it-alone GHG controls and trust the moral appeal of its example to sway other
nations.[8] While it is clearly true that the U.S. could not expect China and India to bear the costs of curtailing
their GHG discharges unless it were willing to do the same, it is quite another thing to leap from that
statement to the assertion that the U.S. should act without firm pledges that other states will respond in
kind. The audacity of this leap has often been missed, but it merits real scrutiny. Does the United States conduct any other negotiation in this way? Did Congress,
for example, as a prelude to the Uruguay or Doha Rounds, drop all U.S. tariffs and farm subsidies to zero? Did the U.S. win the withdrawal of Soviet conventional
forces from Europe by first pulling its own troops out of Germany? Why, then, would we consider taking the functional equivalent of these steps in the area of GHG
control? Or, to pose the same question in another way, how would ACESA's GHG reductions differ from the just-mentioned bargaining moves in trade or arms control?
No one can claim that the answer is that the Chinese and Indian governments have signaled their readiness to
respond in kind to U.S. GHG curbs. To the contrary, they continue to insist that the developed countries must commit
to pay them for any control costs that they incur.[9] The Chinese and Indian governments' statements are
consistent with their behavior. These countries are clearly more interested in dodging the costs of GHG curbs
than in capturing the gains from a global control regime. ACESA could only harden their resolve. As other countries adopt GHG limits,
China and India will make competitive gains by simply standing pat against controls. Over time, energy-intensive industries will migrate to the nations that reject
controls. The growth in these states of energy-intensive capital and jobs will add to the political costs of any future move toward controls.[10] This
outcome is
the very opposite of the one that the U.S. should be seeking.
2. It makes Middle East oil more competitive.
Laumer – 8 (John, independent environmental consultant, “Carbon Cap & Trade To Give Middle Eastern, State-Controlled Oil Companies Market Advantage,”
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/shell_whining_o.php)
Nigerian oil, per the graphic, is a substantial input to the US driving machine and will remain so unless cap and trade
makes it less competitive. Nigerian oil and Alberta Tar Sands derived oil have strong similarities in one regard:
relatively high carbon footprints, respectively, in comparison to other nationalized fields, especially those
controlled by Middle Eastern states. Hence, among the greatest beneficiaries of a global cap & trade regulatory
scheme will be the State-owned oil companies of the Middle East. Their relatively clean and green product
will have the edge in a global trading environment affected uniformly by a globally based carbon cap and trade
system. What about the State controlled fields outside of the Middle East? Russian oil suppliers are notoriously spill prone, and (seemingly) environmentally
unaccountable, reminiscent of the early Texas wildcatters. Venezuelan crude is sulfur laden and expensive (energy intensive) to refine. The intensity of
flaring practices in both Russia and Venezuela, presumably, would come under scrutiny in a global cap and
trade regime. Beyond that it's hard to say how they would be affected by a global cap and trade regime without more information and insight into political
outcomes. Will the "oil majors" and Russia prospectively have to pay carbon penalties to Middle Eastern nations?
This is where the real lobbying action of the future lies. This is where the UN will play a key role. Could oil rich Middle
Eastern nations see their prospective market advantage in tackling climate change, and begin to lobby for a
global cap and trade system with teeth? You bet. Say you saw it first here Mr Friedman.
3. GOP win results in compromise on RPS.
Timothy Gardner, Reuters, “Reid hopeful for GOP energy votes after elections,” 8/31/2010, http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USTRE67U52F20100831
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
said he hoped to pick up Republican votes for a pared-down energy bill after the
midterm congressional elections.
"Maybe after the elections we can get some more Republicans to help us on these issues ," Reid, a Democrat, told reporters
in a teleconference on Tuesday.
But passing any major legislation this year will be an uphill struggle. With
Republicans eyeing gains in November 2 elections,
Democrats may face fierce campaign opposition on all major initiatives.
The modest energy bill that Reid introduced in late July sought to reform oil drilling after the massive BP Plc crude oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. It also included
incentives for energy efficiency in homes and alternative vehicles fueled by natural gas and electricity.
Reid said at the time that there
were no Republican votes for climate measures such as a cap-and-trade market on
greenhouse gases or a renewable electricity standard, which would require utilities to generate minimum levels
of power from sources such as wind turbines and solar cells. The bill would require 60 votes to pass.
Still, Reid
was hopeful some Republican senators may have more freedom to vote for the bill after the
elections in which they may regain control.
"We are bound to come back on a lame duck and we are going to continue working on it ," he said about the bill. "We
will see if we can come up with something before the end of the year."
4. It has bipartisan support.
Ben Geman, The Hill, “Reid puts renewables mandate in play, eyes lame-duck energy bill,” 8/31/2010, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/116633reid-put-renewables-mandate-back-in-play-eyes-lame-duck-energy-bill
Before the August recess, Reid said he doubted an RES — which would require utilities to provide escalating amounts of power from
sources like wind and solar energy — could win 60 votes. It was left on the cutting-room floor when Reid unveiled a modest energy bill in late July.
But Reid told reporters on a conference call Tuesday the energy bill is still a work in progress and cited two
Republicans who have expressed interest in an RES. He did not name them.
One could be Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), who has called for including an RES in energy legislation. Reid said he planned to speak with the two Republicans soon.
“I am going to tie them down a little more closely,” Reid said. He spoke on a conference call to promote a Sept. 7 energy conference that he is co-hosting at the
University of Nevada-Las Vegas.
Reid also suggested passing energy legislation could be more likely during a lame-duck session. He noted the
Senate would resume work after the recess but added, “Maybe, after the elections, we can get some more
Republicans to work with us.
5. RPS solves comparatively better than cap and trade.
Pierobon, 8 – communications consultant based in the Washington, DC area focusing on energy and climate issues
(Jim, “U.S. Renewable Energy Leaders: Don't Count on Carbon Price Alone,” 5-8-2008, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=52417)
Proclaiming "give us a chance, we'll deliver" and "2009 will be a new beginning," leaders of several renewable
energy groups this week asserted electricity
help the U.S. make substantial progress toward mitigating the buildup of
carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere.
But some, such as Karl Gawell, Executive Director of the Geothermal Energy Association, acknowledged that, "raising the cost of carbon won't do
the job alone...we're going to need to be using everything we can."
from wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and hydro can
The briefing, hosted on Capitol Hill by the non-profit Energy and Environmental Institute, was the most recent political rally of sorts by renewable energy interests in
the face of tidal waves of advertising from fossil-fuel-fired trade groups and coalitions defending their industries' tax incentives in the name of low-cost electricity and
oil and gas company stock ownership.
The impact that this latest effort will have on the bid to extend the investment and production tax credits remains to be seen. If there was a reason to be more hopeful, it
was not evident throughout the 100-plus attendees packing the briefing room in the Russell Senate Office Building. If anything, some industry backers seem to be
resigning themselves to a one-year extension of the tax credits, leaving the chance to rebuild them with the next President and the 111th Congress.
Randy Swisher, Executive Director of the American Wind Energy Association, who opened the briefing with the "give-us-a-chance" mantra asserted that one-fifth of
America's electricity can come from wind by 2030, "if we execute a savvy strategy." He said achieving 20% would essentially end the ever-increasing CO2 emissions
from electric generation in the U.S. (See accompanying chart.)
Swisher said wind will continue to shoulder the largest role in mitigating CO2 emissions after a 45% increase in new generating capacity added throughout the U.S. last
year compared to 2006. (Updated data is due out later this month on wind's 2007 growth in the U.S.). It was the third year in a row that wind energy ranked second only
to natural gas in new capacity additions among all sources.
Each of the leaders called for "set-asides," tax-credit equity," "offsets," and/or proceeds from any auctions of carbon emission credits as integral, if not critical, to make
renewables a major part of any climate change strategy. Feed-in tariffs entered the discussion briefly as efforts by U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee, D-WA, appear to be gaining
traction as a vehicle for enabling a cleaner energy future with his proposal for "performance-based incentives" draft legislation.
Ana Cohen, Deputy Staff Director of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global Warming, on which Inslee serves, credited feed-in tariffs in
Germany and other countries for positioning companies throughout the European Union to amass significant competitive advantages in U.S. market over the American
companies.
"If we don't take real strong action, projects will be managed by European companies," Cohen said. She asserted that few policies will work as well as putting a price on
a ton of carbon emitted by electric generators and other industrial sources. But she echoed Karl Gawell in asserting a
carbon cap or tax won't be
enough. To overcome various market barriers, other measures are needed, including mandates to connect
renewables to the grid and stronger state and local building codes.
Chris Miller, Senior Energy Advisory to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, said the roughly $300 billion in estimated revenue from auctioning carbon
emission credits under a "cap and trade" regime would go a long way if much of that money can be funneled to renewables. Once a cap is in place, "we may not need
government mandates," he said.
John Coequyt, Senior Washington Representative in the Global Warming and Energy Program at the Sierra Club, said, "We
have to set national goals
for these technologies. I don't want you to think that this is going to be easy. But no one should think that renewables are going to be only a small percentage
of the future if we decide that is the future we want."
One renewable energy advocate who aired his skepticism of the current approach challenged them to "think better." Andrew Paterson, Director of North American
Economics & Finance at Econergy International Corp., said this approach by the renewable industry leaders is "the same thing year after year. We're tired of the
treadmill."
To which AWEA's Swisher responded, perhaps with a classic Rolling Stones hit in mind, "You can't always get what you want...We're doing what we can in the current
political environment."
6. RPS is the most economically efficient method for reducing emissions.
Darren Goode
and Ben Geman, The Hill, “Renewable power advocates press lawmakers for mandate, EPA probes hydraulic fracturing and much more,”
9/13/2010, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/118273-e2-morning-roundup-renewable-power-advocates-press-lawmakers-for-mandate-epa-probeshydraulic-fracturing“A
strong RES is the most economically-efficient way to advance clean domestic energy and immediately create
jobs in renewable energy manufacturing, construction of new projects and associated transmission, and ongoing
operation and maintenance of these facilities,” states the letter that will circulate on Capitol Hill from Iowa Gov. Chet Culver (D) and Rhode
Island Gov. Don Carcieri (R), who lead the governors' wind coalition.
It’s addressed to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Lisa
Murkowsi (R-Alaska), the chairman and ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
“We wish to work with you and with the Administration to help shape federal energy legislation this year. The economic stakes are high for our states, and we see a
narrow window of opportunity for Congress to enact a long overdue reworking of federal laws governing renewable energy,” the letter states.
The letter is part of a broader campaign by renewable energy advocates to win traction for an RES. The House passed an RES as part of a sweeping – and now
politically dead – energy and climate bill last year, and the Senate energy panel also included one in broader energy legislation it cleared in 2009.
The bill that Bingaman’s committee approved with a handful of GOP votes would require utilities to provide 15
percent of their power from renewables by 2021, although about a fourth of the requirement could be met with
energy efficiency programs. An RES has long been a pillar of Democratic and green group energy plans, but has consistently fallen short amid resistance
from many Republicans and some southeastern Democrats, who fear their states would struggle to meet the standard and face extra costs.
7. Nonpartisan analysis proves.
Nicole Allan, The Atlantic, “Illuminating the Renewable Electricity Standard,” 7/15/ 2010, http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/illuminating-therenewable-electricity-standard/59813/
The conservative line is that a RES would sacrifice a reliable grid, kill jobs, and raise energy bills. The right-wing
Heritage Foundation argues that renewable energy technologies are underdeveloped and unreliable and cites its own study that found that a national RES would raise
the average household's electricity bill by 36 percent and eliminate one million jobs.
The liberal Center for American Progress counters that the
Heritage Foundation does not account for the innovation and improved
efficiency that a national RES would spark within the energy industry. CAP cites an analysis from the nonpartisan
Energy Information Administration, a branch of the Department of Energy, that estimates a 25 percent renewable electricity
standard would raise electricity prices by up to 3 percent in the next decade, but have a negligible impact by
2030. The analysis also found that such an RES would cut electricity sector carbon dioxide emissions by 7 to 12
percent by 2030.
If Congress does not pass cap-and-trade, a renewable electricity standard is the best option for cutting
carbon emissions. By switching to a "clean" rather than "renewable" electricity standard and opening the door
to nuclear energy, carbon capture-equipped coal plants, and natural gas, Democrats could achieve a 25 percent
standard by 2025. That would shift the economy toward more sustainable power sources without causing
undue disruption. Electricity prices might rise a bit, but it is unreasonable to expect a transition away from dirty energy sources to completely bypass
consumers.
AT: DREAM ACT
Won’t pass.
Miami Herald, 9/17/2010.
(September 17, www.miamiherald.com)
Still, despite the high-profile support, the bill confronts tough terrain on Capitol Hill. Motives, prospects and
consequences are equally complicated. All 39 of the DREAM Act's current co-sponsors are Democrats, giving
the debate a strictly partisan hue. Some Republicans who have backed the legislation in the past, including Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah and John McCain
of Arizona, oppose it now. Supporters will need at least 60 votes to proceed. It seems a very high hurdle, in part because
some think that unrelated provisions have no business in the $726 billion defense bill. In 2007, DREAM Act author Sen.
Richard Durbin, D-Ill., likewise tried to slipstream behind a defense authorization bill. He failed. In April 2005,
Feinstein had argued against using a defense spending bill to secure the passage of an agricultural guest-worker
and legalization provision about which she was skeptical. "This is not the place for this bill," Feinstein said at the time. "I believe it is a
mistake to pass this bill on an emergency (defense spending bill) that is designed to provide help for our military, fighting in extraordinary circumstances."
AT: Tea Party Kills the GOP
Tea party candidates will win.
Huffington Post, “Jim DeMint: Tea Party Candidates Can Win Midterm Election Races,” 9/16/2010, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/jimdemint-tea-party-cand_n_719148.html
Sen. Jim DeMint on Thursday dismissed
worries by some of his fellow Republicans that tea party-backed politicians like Delaware Senate
too conservative to win in November.
"The tea party represents a broad cross-section of the American people," DeMint, R-S.C., told NBC's "Today." He said
candidate Christine O'Donnell are
Republicans need to embrace tea party goals like limited government and balanced federal budgets.
DeMint, whose endorsement boosted O'Donnell late in her primary race, cited other tea party favorites who are doing well in polls,
including Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio and Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul. Both defeated
better-established Republicans in primaries.
"You can't change Washington unless you change people who are here," he said. "People are ready to throw out
the bums."
Even if it costs the GOP a couple seats tops, voter turnout and GOP enthusiasm outweighs.
Wall Street Journal, “Tea Party Claims Big Win,” 9/15/2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703376504575491290566809902.html
"The
tea-party movement has been a tremendously positive force, but it doesn't mean that in every state the
candidate who is either furthest to the right or the most out of the mainstream is necessarily the best candidate,"
Mr. Coleman said. He said the O'Donnell win meant the GOP "lost the prospect of a seat. You end up getting 100% of nothing. It only increases the prospects that
Harry Reid continues as majority leader."
Democrats were jubilant about Ms. O'Donnell's win. Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, chairman of the Democrats' Senate campaign committee, declared her an
"ultra-right wing extremist who is out of step with Delaware values."
The Democratic nominee in Delaware, New Castle County Executive Chris Coons, issued a statement asking Mr. Castle's supporters to come his way, saying that the
state GOP "is purging itself of moderate voices and embracing the radical."
Strategists in both parties believe the number of competitive Senate races has now dropped to 10 from 11,
which means winning the chamber would require Republicans to take every one of those races. Democrats and
independents who caucus with them currently hold 59 seats in the 100-member Senate.
Still, the nearly completed primary season suggests Republicans stand to benefit from a large gap in
enthusiasm—voters who favor the GOP are far more interested in voting this November than are core
Democratic voters, multiple opinion polls show.
Complaints about federal overreach in the Democratic health-care overhaul, as well as government spending
and large budget deficits, have energized conservative voters.
Of the 30 million ballots cast in 2010 for statewide offices before Sept. 1, more than 17 million were in Republican races,
while fewer than 13 million were for Democrats—the first time since 1930 that GOP voters outnumbered
Democrats in midterm, statewide primaries, according to an analysis from American University's Center for the Study of the American Electorate.
GOP strategists note that the party has expanded the field of contested races into a number of Democraticleaning states such as California, Washington and Wisconsin.
Even if the Dems maintain majorities now, they won’t be big enough to get stuff done.
Jim McTague, Barron’s Observer, “Standoff on the Hill,” 7/5/2010,
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424052970203296004575339363082472400.html#articleTabs_panel_article%3D1
Though the Democrats are likely to retain control of Congress in this fall's elections, they will lose enough seats
to make it virtually impossible for the Obama administration to keep pushing through its aggressive social
agenda. Everything from energy policies to taxes and financial markets will be affected.
2NC Uniqueness Wall
Republicans have the momentum.
CNN, “CNN Poll: GOP's midterm advantage is growing,” 9/6/2010, http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/06/midterm.poll/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn
With November's midterm elections less than two months away, a new national poll indicates that the
Republicans' advantage over the Democrats in the battle for Congress is on the rise.
According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday, the GOP leads the Democrats by
7 points on the "generic ballot" question, 52 percent to 45 percent. That 7-point advantage is up from a 3-point
margin last month.
The generic ballot question asks respondents if they would vote for a Democrat or Republican in their
congressional district, without naming any specific candidates.
"The survey indicates that independents and voters who dislike both parties are starting to break toward the
GOP," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "In a year when anger at incumbents is a dominant political
force, the key to the election lies among those who aren't rooting for either side."
And, Crystal Ball predicts GOP takeover.
Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, “At the Moment, Crystal Ball Sees a GOP House,” 9/12/2010,
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2010/sep/12/ed-saba12-ar-499738/
Given what we can see at this moment, Republicans
have a good chance to win the House by picking up at least 47 seats.
This is a "net" number since the GOP will probably lose several of its own congressional districts in Delaware, Hawaii,
Illinois, and Louisiana.
This estimate, which may be raised or lowered by Election Day, is based on a careful district-by-district analysis, plus electoral
modeling based on trends in President Obama's Gallup job approval rating and the Democratic-versusRepublican congressional generic ballot (discussed later in this column).
If anything, we have been conservative in estimating the probable GOP House gains, if the election were being held today. If
the current Republican wave continues building, don't be surprised if the total moves into the 50s.
In the Senate, we now believe the GOP will do better than our long-time prediction of plus-7 seats. Republicans
have a real shot at winning full control (plus-10), but at the present time they look more likely to end up with plus-8
(or maybe plus-9, at which point it will be interesting to see how senators such as Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and others react).
Crystal ball is more accurate than their sources.
Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, “At the Moment, Crystal Ball Sees a GOP House,” 9/12/2010,
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2010/sep/12/ed-saba12-ar-499738/
As always, the Crystal Ball will make a guess in every contest before Election Day. Some will be moved
sooner, and a few head-scratchers will only be categorized at the very last minute.
We're proud of our record, with more than 98 percent of the contests called correctly over the decadelong life of the Crystal Ball. In some years, our overall seat changes in each category have been on the button.
But we fully admit here and now that, as always, we'll get some of them wrong.
*Crystal Ball is the political prediction organization managed by Mr. Sabato.
And, predictions markets show GOP takeover.
Roberto Pedone, Stockpickr, “Midterm-Election Stocks to Elect to Your Portfolio,” 9/10/2010, http://stockpickr.com/midterm-election-stocks-elect-yourportfolio.html
I think the market will drop sharply into November, and then we'll set up for a monster rally once the uncertainty of the elections is behind us. However, that big rally
won’t happen unless the Republicans take over enough power in the House and Senate to cause some gridlock in Washington. Judging
by the bets being
made on Intrade, a Dublin-based prediction market, the odds that the Republicans take the House of Representatives is 71%.
The current odds for the Republicans to hold 48 or more seats in the Senate are 70%. This bodes well for a
Republican victory and greatly increases the probability of a big year-end rally in stocks.
Prediction markets are the most accurate assessor.
Joyce E. Berg, Associate Professor of Accounting and Pioneer Hibred Research Fellow at the Tippie College of Business, director of the Iowa Electronic Markets,
Forrest D. Nelson, Professor of Economics and Tippie Research Fellow at the Tippie College of Business, and Thomas A. Rietz, Associate Professor of
Finance and Hershberger Faculty Research Fellow at the Tippie College of Business, April-June, 2008, Prediction Market Accuracy in the Long Run, International
Journal of Forecasting, Volume 24, Issue 2, p. 298
The results above suggest that predictions
from markets dominate those from polls about 75% of the time, whether the
prediction is made on election eve or several months in advance of the election. To assess the size of the advantage, in addition to its
frequency, we computed the average absolute error for both polls and markets on each day a poll was released. The mean error for polls across all
964 polls in the sample was 3.37 percentage points, while the corresponding mean error for market predictions
was 1.82 percentage points.19 This advantage persisted for both long term and short term forecasts. Using only those dates
more than 100 days prior to the election, the poll error averaged 4.49 percentage points and the market error averaged 2.65 percentage points. Polls conducted within 5
days of the election had an average error of 1.62 percentage points, while the corresponding market prediction error average was 1.11 percentage points.20 5.
Concluding remarks Previous
research has shown the absolute and relative accuracy of prediction markets at very
short horizons (1 day to 1 week). The evidence we present in this paper shows that the markets are also accurate months in advance, and
do a markedly better job than polls at these longer horizons. In making our comparisons, we compare unadjusted market prices to
unadjusted polls, demonstrating that market prices aggregate data better than simple surveys where the results are interpreted using sampling theory. Thus, our
evidence not only speaks in predicting U.S. Presidential election outcomes, but also offers insight into the likely
predictive accuracy of markets in settings where there is not a long history of similar events or a clear model for adjusting
survey results.
And, Gallup poll shows GOP takeover.
Nile Gardiner, Telegraph, “Latest Gallup poll: Barack Obama will need a miracle to avoid Jimmy Carter's fate,” 9/4/2010,
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100052325/barack-obama-will-need-a-miracle-to-avoid-becoming-a-lame-duck-president/
This week’s historic Gallup poll will have sent a shiver through the White House at the end of a summer of discontent, and is yet another key indicator that President
Obama is likely to end up a lame duck president following the mid-term elections in November. The
latest Gallup poll shows the Republicans in
pole position to retake the House of Representatives, with other surveys suggesting the GOP will make big
gains in the Senate as well, a scenario which would have been unthinkable at the start of the year.
The USA Today/Gallup survey shows Republicans leading the Democrats among registered voters by 51
percent to 41 percent, the largest lead for the GOP “in Gallup’s history of tracking the midterm generic ballot in
Congress”, which dates back all the way to 1942, when FDR was president. According to Gallup, Republicans are now twice as likely as
Democrats to be “very” enthusiastic about voting. While cautioning that “change is possible between now and election day”, Gallup sees strong
potential for sweeping Republican gains and the retaking of the House:
The last Gallup weekly generic ballot average before Labor Day underscores the fast-evolving conventional wisdom that the GOP is poised to make significant gains in
this fall’s midterm congressional elections. Gallup’s generic ballot has historically proven an excellent predictor of the national vote for Congress, and the national vote
in turn is an excellent predictor of House seats won and lost. Republicans’ presumed turnout advantage, combined with their current 10-point registered-voter lead,
suggests the potential for a major “wave” election in which the Republicans gain a large number of seats from the Democrats and in the process take back control of the
House.
Gallup is the most reliable poll.
Wharton, 11/14/2007, Polling the Polling Experts, Knowledge at Wharton (University of Pennsylvania), p.
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1843
When it comes to polls, not all are created equal. The most reliable? "Surveys conducted by professional polling
organizations on a periodic basis which repeatedly ask the same question -- such as, 'Do you intend to buy a car in the next three months?' -- are fully
scientific and useful," says J. Michael Steele, Wharton professor of statistics. "Even though we really don't know what a person means
when he says 'yes,' we can make hay out of the fact that last year, 15% said 'yes' and this year only 5% said 'yes.'" An example of a polling company
that fits this profile is the Gallup organization and the Gallup Poll, considered a leading barometer of public
opinion.
2NC Link Wall
Plan results in Dems winning the midterms – action on immigration is key to motivate Latino citizens to
get out and vote, which can swing the election – 1NC Lawrence ev.
Action on immigration is the only way the Dems can keep control of Congress.
Stewart Lawrence, Guardian, “Immigration: the midterm battleground,” 8/20/2010,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/aug/19/immigration-latino-midterm-elections
With GOP voters already highly energised, the big question is whether the Democratic base – especially
Latinos – can be mobilised to show up at the polls.
In 2008, Latinos went two-to-one for Barack Obama over John McCain – a margin not seen since the Clinton years. The margin was even larger in Nevada and Illinois
– two other toss-up states. And in Florida, a majority (56%) of the state's Hispanics backed the Democratic presidential candidate after years of supporting the GOP.
Many Democrats were hoping to consolidate these gains in this year's mid-terms. Instead, polls
suggest that Latinos may revert to their 2006
turnout – or worse – when the Democrats captured just 55% of the Latino vote. That could spell diaster for the
party – and not just in the Senate, but also in the House, where three dozen congressional races hang in the balance.
The reasons for Latino disenchantment aren't hard to find. Latinos are suffering record levels of joblessness (15%) and polls suggest that conservative and moderate
Latino voters are just as disappointed with the Obama administration's handling of key issues (the economy, Afghanistan) as the "average" American voter.
But nothing has disappointed Latinos more than the Obama administration's handling of immigration . Obama's
popularity ratings have fallen dramatically since January, when Obama make scant reference to immigration reform in his State of the Union speech. And the Spanishlanguage media, and key Latino political figures have sharply criticised the president, with some even urging Latino voters to stay home in November.
The White House had hoped that its high-profile lawsuit against Arizona and its attempts to paint Republicans
as bigots would rally Latinos. But there's little evidence of this so far. A CNN poll conducted in mid-July, well after the
administration filed suit, found only 50% of Latinos leaning toward Democratic candidates – and a whopping 42% leaning toward Republicans.
Boxer's attempt to straddle competing constituencies – whites who support a harsh crackdown on illegal immigration, and Latinos who don't – is a good example of the
challenges now facing Democrats seeking re-election. While officially on record supporting comprehensive immigration reform, she's been at pains to show that she can
be as tough on enforcement as Fiorina and the GOP.
In June, she and fellow California Democrat Diane Feinstein decided to support a GOP bill that would have vastly escalated the US troop presence along the USMexico border, and would have allowed illegal aliens to be jailed for repeat border crossings. The bill, sponsored by Arizona immigration hawks, Senators John
McCain and Jon Kyl, gained just 54 votes, six shy of passage. Many California Democrats, including Latinos, were appalled that Boxer – otherwise a strong liberal –
agreed to join the GOP's "seal the border" crusade.
In Nevada, where support for immigration reform has traditionally been stronger than elsewhere, Reid has tried desperately to woo the state's Latinos by promising to
push for a legalisation programme before the mid-terms. But everytime he moves in that direction – most recently, by promising to force a Senate floor vote on the
Dream Act – his nervous Senate colleagues have rebuffed him.
Reid's growing desperation was apparent two weeks ago when he said at a campaign stop that he "couldn't understand why any Latino would support a Republican".
The remark was widely criticised in Nevada and nationally. In fact, before the remark, Reid was still leading Angle by two points in the polls. After the remark, he soon
fell behind.
Angle, unlike Reid, has refused to give interviews to the Hispanic media, and has made no secret of her support for Arizona's tough new enforcement law. She'd like to
see Nevada pass its own version of the law. And polls show that a strong majority of Nevadans would support just such a measure.
Ironically, for
all their opposition to illegal immigration, most Americans say they would support a sweeping
legalisation programme if aliens were required to have a clean criminal record, pay back taxes, learn English,
and stand in line behind legal immigrants who already applied for their visas – a wait of eight years or more.
And the percentage of Latinos who say they would turn out to vote in November nearly doubles, if the Democrats
introduce a legalisation bill along these same lines.
But with Obama and the Democrats increasingly on the defensive politically – on immigration and just about
everything else – no one expects them to take such a calculated risk. Even if it's the only thing left that might
keep the Congress from slipping from their grasp.
Even a small step like the plan would garner massive Latino support.
CQ Politics, “Hope Exists for Immigration 'Down Payment',” 7/29/2010, http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20100730/pl_cq_politics/politics3714092
Still, it's worth the effort. "A small, good deal is better than no deal at all," says Antonio Gonzalez, president of the Southwest Voter
Registration Education Project and a convenor of the National Latino Congreso, a coalition of major Hispanic groups.
"We
want comprehensive reform, but right now we need a lifeboat," he told me. "We need to take care of the people
we can."
The National Latino Congreso includes the League of United Latin American Citizens and the Mexican
American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
The "down payment" strategy also has been endorsed by a huge coalition of groups organized as Reform
Immigration for America, which includes the National Council of La Raza and the National Immigration Forum.
Turnout is key.
Robert Creamer, Huffington Post, “Ten Rules for Democratic Success in Midterm Elections,” 4/1/ 2010, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/tenrules-for-democratic_b_521574.html
Rule #2: Midterm
elections are all about turnout. In 1994 Democrats did not lose control of Congress because of a
huge swing among persuadable voters. We lost because Republican voters turned out, and ours stayed at home.
That means two things.
* First, for the next six months we have to be all about inspiring the Democratic base. Of course victory in
legislative battles is itself enormously inspiring. The polling shows that the health care reform victory caused the level of "intensity" among
Democratic voters to pull even with Republicans. We have to continue winning. And we have to continue to draw clear distinctions between our
positions and those of the Republicans - particularly on issues where we have the high political ground, such as holding the big Wall Street Banks accountable. For
immigrant voters - and especially Latinos - we have to deliver on fixing the broken immigration system.
* Second, we have to remember that turnout is about execution. Studies show that one knock on the door within 72 hours of the election increases the propensity to
turn out by 12.5% -- a second knock, almost as much. One of the most powerful messages in the upcoming election is: "I won't get off your porch until you vote." Field
operations must have a bigger priority this cycle than ever before.
Link goes one way – Dems will control spin.
Washington Examiner, 2010. (July 27, www.washingtonexaminer.com)
The Senate will vote this afternoon on the DISCLOSE Act, a campaign finance bill responding to the Supreme Court’s January decision in Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission.
President Obama, who blasted the Court for its ruling lifting curbs on corporate and union political speech at his State of the Union address, urged
Senators to support the DISCLOSE Act in a Rose Garden speech Monday.
Obama’s speech was full of what CBS called “campaign trail-type rhetoric” and mischaracterizations of the
legislation, designed to bolster the wavering fortunes of Democrats as midterm elections approach.
In a P.R. campaign designed to pressure wavering Republicans, Obama and congressional Democrats are obfuscating the worst parts
of the bill and engaging in outright misinformation.
Skilled Workers Link – GOP Split
Action on skilled immigration splits the GOP.
Dallas Morning News, “Skilled immigrants push for visa reform,” 1/11/2008, http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DNimmigration_11bus.ART0.State.Edition2.37b4ce6.html
Raising the number of high-skilled worker permits, known as H1B visas, has bipartisan support in Washington.
But many members of Congress, alternately skittish and brash about the hot-potato subject of immigration,
disavow any bill that doesn't tackle illegal immigration and border security.
"H1B is only for people with specialized knowledge, who bring intellectual knowledge to the country," said Ms. Aragolam, 26. "Putting them in the same frame as
illegal immigrants is totally wrong."
A growing chorus of immigration advocates and businesses agrees with her. Yet their voice has been drowned out as presidential candidates, particularly Republicans,
hustle for votes with proclamations to expel illegal immigrants and seal porous borders.
"The more candidates inflame their anxieties, the harder it's going to be to eventually get back to a conversation about solutions," said Tamar Jacoby, a senior fellow at
the Manhattan Institute who has studied public attitudes toward immigration.
Within just a few years, immigration seems to have replaced Social Security as the third rail of American politics. The subject ranks among the top several concerns of
GOP voters in presidential primaries – even in states with overwhelmingly white populations, such as New Hampshire.
Some lawmakers, such as Texas Sen. John Cornyn, have argued against passing employer-specific immigration bills, saying those popular measures are needed to
leverage support for a comprehensive immigration bill.
Stalemate in Congress The
past year's failed legislation included an attempt to raise the number of seasonal-worker
visas and to provide legal status to children of illegal immigrants who attended college or entered the military. Since then, Republican candidates
have rarely missed an opportunity to attack each other for past positions that look like amnesty for illegal
immigrants.
"The anti-immigrant fervor that is spawned by some in the political arena is spilling over to everything ,"
said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., chairwoman of a House subcommittee on immigration and border security. "Americans think the immigration system or lack thereof is
a problem. But they didn't ask the Congress to do nothing."
Split GOP Internal
GOP unity is key to their midterm victory.
CBS News, “GOP Strategist: Election to Be Won in the Middle,” 8/9/2010,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/09/earlyshow/main6756273.shtml?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
It would seem to be the Republicans' race to lose. But they can't win it alone.
On "Face the Nation yesterday, Washington Post columnist Dan Balz said the Republican base is highly motivated, and that the party is
focusing on issues - the economy, the size and scope of government, and the deficit - that can unify their coalition and also reach out
to independent voters.
Winners Win Link
Major congressional victories, especially on immigration, are key to Dem voter turnout which is key to
the election.
Robert Creamer, Huffington Post, “Ten Rules for Democratic Success in Midterm Elections,” 4/1/ 2010, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/tenrules-for-democratic_b_521574.html
Rule #9: Keep winning. People
vote for - and turn out for - winners not losers. The bandwagon is also a critical
independent variable. Winning, by itself, increases candidate favorability. The progressive bandwagon is now
out of the mud and rolling again. We can't let up. We have to press our advantage to win on financial reform,
fixing the broken immigration system, clean energy and jobs - as well as appointments and remaking education reform. Process won't
matter at all to voters. Even the "process" debates of the last few weeks have already begun to fade. No one cares about how something is
done... only that it is done and how it affects them.
AT: Economy > Immigration
1. Immigration is obviously an economic issue.
2. Immigration is the key issue for Hispanic voters – outweighs economy.
Paul Conner, The Daily Caller, “Poll: Immigration tops jobs as number one issue for Latino voters,” 7/22/ 2010, http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/21/pollimmigration-tops-economy-as-top-issue-for-latino-voters/
Immigration has surpassed jobs to become the number one issue concerning Latino voters, according to a poll
by leading non-profit Latino organization.
Surprisingly, immigration was not the top issue for Hispanic voters at the outset of the Obama administration,
according to a similar poll by the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center released in January 2009. In that poll, the economy was far and away the leading issue concerning
Hispanics, with twice as many responding that it was “extremely important” as responded that way to immigration.
But the mood among Latino voters has shifted markedly since then, largely due to the Arizona immigration law,
which goes into effect next week.
EXT – Dems = Cap and Trade
Dem victory results in cap and trade.
Politico, “Henry Waxman: Democrats would push climate legislation in 2011,” 9/14/2010,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42142.html#ixzz0ztRQGvvQ
The campaign to pass climate legislation will continue on Capitol Hill in 2011 – if Democrats are still in charge, that
is.
That’s the word Tuesday from a top House Democrat who led the charge over the last two years to pass a major cap-and-trade bill.
Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman
won narrow passage of his global warming bill through committee
and on the floor during the first six months of the Obama administration in 2009. But the legislation has
withered in the Senate ever since, with Republicans and many moderate Democrats balking at a floor vote during an election year.
Republican congressional candidates have pledged to block cap-and-trade legislation next year if they are in the
majority. Democrats have been a bit more circumspect about their agenda plans if they can hold on to the
House, Senate, or both.
Asked if he’d push climate legislation next year if he’s still in a majority leadership position, Waxman told POLITICO, “If we haven’t done the job
completely this year, we’ll continue to fight it next year through the House and the Senate.”
Dem victory is key to passing climate legislation.
Darren Samuelsohn, Politico, “Climate bill on the ropes,” 7/21/2010, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39969_Page3.html
A former Senate Democratic aide said climate
advocates need to start gearing up for 2011, which will require a big push
from Obama, Democratic control of the House and support from Senate Republicans to have any chance of
success. “The window is definitely almost shut, and if it closes without action in the next few weeks, a lot of
advocates will need to take stock about when this could be realistically attempted again,” the former staffer said.
dem majority will pass c&t
Dem majority means cap and trade
HotAir, 9/14 (“Waxman: You’re darned right we Democrats will pursue cap-and-trade next
year.” http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/14/waxman-youre-darned-right-wedemocrats-will-pursue-cap-and-trade-next-year/)
Democrats across the country are running against their own party, when they bother to mention their party affiliation
at all. To hear their ads and speeches, they are all fiscal conservatives angry at the arrogance of power in Washington … even when they’ve been a part of it. Don’t fall for it,
says Henry Waxman. If we leave Democrats in charge of Congress, they will pursue capand-trade and the rest of the current agenda: The campaign to pass climate legislation will continue on Capitol Hill in 2011 – if Democrats are still in charge, that is. That’s the word
Tuesday from a top House Democrat who led the charge over the last two years to pass a major cap-and-trade bill. Asked if he’d push climate legislation next year if he’s still in a majority leadership
position, Waxman told POLITICO, “If we haven’t done the job completely this year, we’ll continue to fight it next year through the House and the Senate.” Some of the House Democrats from heavy
industrial districts who voted for the Waxman-led climate bill are now under fire on the campaign trail, a point that the congressman from Beverly Hills also bemoaned. “I think we’ve got to get
away form looking at this issue as a partisan issue,” Waxman said. “Unfortunately it has become partisan, as has everything become partisan. Even the Republican voters seem in their minds to
the issue is becoming more and more serious and people are
realizing it, which I hope will increase the pressure on the Congress to take the actions we
need to.”
identify the [climate] science as somewhat partisan. But I think
Domestic innovation and competitiveness aren’t key to heg and competitors’ growth is unsustainable.
Reihan Salam, Schwartz Fellow at the New American Foundation, “ROBERT PAPE IS OVERHEATED,” 1/21/2009,
http://www.theamericanscene.com/2009/01/21/robert-pape-is-overheated
Pape spends a lot of time demonstrating that U.S. economic output represents a declining share of global output,
which is hardly a surprise. Yet as Pape surely understands, the more relevant question is how much and how readily can economic
output be translated into military power? The European Union, for example, has many state-like features, yet it
doesn’t have the advantages of a traditional state when it comes to raising an army. The Indian economy is taxed in a highly
uneven manner, and much of the economy is black — the same is true across the developing world. As for China,
both the shape of the economy, as Yasheng Huang suggests, and its long frontiers, as Andrew Nathan has long argued, pose serious
barriers to translating potential power into effective power. (Wohlforth and Brooks give Stephen Walt’s balance-of-threat its due.) So
while this hardly obviates the broader point that relative American economic power is eroding — that was the whole idea of America’s postwar grand strategy — it is
worth keeping in mind. This
is part of the reason why sclerotic, statist economies can punch above their weight
militarily, at least for a time — they are “better” at marshaling resources. Over the long run, the Singapores will beat the Soviets.
But in the long run, we’re all dead. And given that this literature is rooted in the bogey of long-term coalition warfare, you can see why the unipolarity argument holds
water.
At the risk of sounding overly harsh, Pape’s understanding of “innovativeness” — based on the number of patents filed, it seems — is
crude to say the
least. I recommend Amar Bhidé‘s brilliant critique of Richard Freeman, which I’ll be talking about a lot. Pape cites Zakaria, who was relying on slightly shopworn
ideas that Bhidé demolishes in The Venturesome Economy.
The “global diffusion of technology” is real, and if anything it magnifies U.S. economic power. “Ah, but we’re talking about the
prospect of coalition warfare!” The global diffusion of technology is indeed sharply raising the costs of military conquest ,
as the United States discovered in Iraq. The declining utility of military power means that a unipolar distribution of military
power is more likely to persist. And yes, it also means that unipolar military power is less valuable than it was in 1945.
10. And the economy is resilient.
Avery – 5 (Susan, Purchasing, “U.S. economy: 'amazingly resilient': report from ISM: forecast is optimistic.(Institute of Supply Management)”,
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-133570318.html)
The U.S. economy is amazingly resilient and purchasing and supply chain executives can take credit. Those are the
thoughts of two economists who spoke before purchasing professionals attending this year's Institute of Supply Management (ISM) conference in San Antonio.
Both highlighted the resiliency of the U.S. economy to withstand such shocks as rising oil prices, the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan and the tragic events of 9/11. Thomas Siems, senior economist and policy adviser at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, credits
the ability of purchasing professionals to manage the supply chains for the economy's recent performance. "I am very optimistic about the
economy," Siems told the audience, highlighting a chart that shows U.S. business-cycle expansion and contraction going back to 1948 as an illustration of the
resilience of the economy. He also says that economists look to three areas to define the resilience of the economy: good
policies (fiscal and/or monetary), good luck (with the threat of terrorism, the wars and energy prices, the economy hasn't had much lately), and good
practices. Siems sees good practices, particularly those performed by purchasing professionals, as key to
economic performance. He also used a comparison of sales-growth volatility to production-growth volatility to
back up his statement. Production-growth volatility measures activity at the beginning of the supply chain while sales-growth volatility tracks activity at the
end. Looking at the indicator over 10 years, he finds that currently the two are virtually the same, attributing the convergence to better management practices,
specifically recent improvements in inventory-management techniques. Looking ahead, Siems
has some concerns surrounding "knowledge,
skills, education and our ability to compete globally. I have problems with protectionist ideas, policies and agendas where we are not thinking
systemically and looking at the big picture." He closed by urging the audience "to think globally and act globally." Robert Fry, senior associate economist at DuPont,
picked up on Siems' theme of the economy's resiliency in the face of a series of events that could be considered bad luck. (Fry calls them headwinds.) At DuPont, he
assists the company's businesses with interpreting economic data and using it to forecast their performance. He presented DuPont's outlook for the global economy to
the ISM members in attendance. "As Tom points out, the
U.S. economy has been amazingly resilient," said Fry. "We've been hit by
these headwinds one after another. We suffered a mild recession. People are bemoaning the weakness of the
recovery, but when you have a mild recession, you can't have a strong recovery."
11. No nuclear terrorism.
Steven Chapman, columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune, 2/8/2008, Who’s Still Afraid of Osama?, p.
http://reason.com/news/show/124874.html
Ever since Sept. 11, 2001, Americans have had to live with the knowledge that the next time the terrorists strike, it could be not with airplanes capable of killing
thousands but atomic bombs capable of killing hundreds of thousands. The prospect has created a sense of profound vulnerability. It has shaped our view of government
policies aimed at combating terrorism (filtered through Jack Bauer). It helped mobilize support for the Iraq war. Why are we worried? Bomb designs can be found on
the Internet. Fissile material may be smuggled out of Russia. Iran, a longtime sponsor of terrorist groups, is trying to acquire nuclear weapons. A layperson may figure
it's only a matter of time before the unimaginable comes to pass. Harvard's Graham Allison, in his book Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe,
concludes, "On the current course, nuclear terrorism is inevitable." But remember: After Sept. 11, 2001, we all thought more attacks were a certainty. Yet Al Qaeda and
its ideological kin have proved unable to mount a second strike. Given their inability to do something simple—say, shoot up a shopping mall or set off a truck bomb—
it's reasonable to ask if they have a chance at something much more ambitious. Far from being plausible, argued Ohio State University professor John Mueller in a
recent presentation at the University of Chicago, "the
likelihood that a terrorist group will come up with an atomic bomb seems to be
vanishingly small." (http://polisci.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/ APSACHGO.PDF) The events required to make that happen include a multitude of
herculean tasks. First, a terrorist group has to get a bomb or fissile material, perhaps from Russia's inventory of decommissioned
warheads. If that were easy, one would have already gone missing . Besides, those devices are probably no longer a danger,
since weapons that are not scrupulously maintained (as those have not been) quickly become what one expert calls "radioactive scrap
metal." If terrorists were able to steal a Pakistani bomb, they would still have to defeat the arming codes and other safeguards
designed to prevent unauthorized use. As for Iran, no nuclear state has ever given a bomb to an ally —for reasons even the Iranians can grasp .
Stealing some 100 pounds of bomb fuel would require help from rogue individuals inside some government who are prepared to
jeopardize their own lives. The terrorists, notes Mueller, would then have to spirit it "hundreds of miles out of the country over
unfamiliar terrain, and probably while being pursued by security forces." Then comes the task of building a bomb . It's not
something you can gin up with spare parts and power tools in your garage. It requires millions of dollars, a safe haven and advanced
equipment—plus people with specialized skills, lots of time and a willingness to die for the cause. And if Al Qaeda could
make a prototype, another obstacle would emerge: There is no guarantee it would work, and there is no way to test it.
Assuming the jihadists vault over those Himalayas, they would have to deliver the weapon onto American soil. Sure , drug smugglers bring
in contraband all the time—but seeking their help would confront the plotters with possible exposure or extortion. This, like every
other step in the entire process, means expanding the circle of people who know what's going on, multiplying the chance someone
will blab, back out or screw up. Mueller recalls that after the Irish Republican Army failed in an attempt to blow up British Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher, it said, "We only have to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always." Al Qaeda, he says, faces a very different challenge: For it to carry
out a nuclear attack, everything has to go right. For us to escape, only one thing has to go wrong. That has heartening implications. If
Osama bin Laden embarks on the project, he has only a minuscule chance of seeing it bear fruit. Given the formidable odds, he probably won't bother. None of this
means we should stop trying to minimize the risk by securing nuclear stockpiles, monitoring terrorist communications and improving port screening. But it offers good
reason to think that in this war, it appears, the worst eventuality is one that will never happen.
12. Collapse of biodiversity won’t collapse the entire ecosystem and many species are redundant.
Carlos Davidson, conservation biologist, 5-1-2k [Bioscience, Vol. 50, No. 5, lexis]
Biodiversity limits. The original rivet metaphor (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1981) referred to species extinction and biodiversity loss as a limit to human population and the
economy. A wave of species extinctions is occurring that is unprecedented in human history (Wilson 1988, 1992, Reid and
Miller 1989). The decline of biodiversity represents irreplaceable and incalculable losses to future generations of humans. Is biodiversity loss a case of limits, as
suggested by the rivet metaphor, or is it a continuum of degradation with local tears, as suggested by the tapestry metaphor? In the rivet metaphor, it is not the loss of
it is unclear that
biodiversity loss will lead to ecosystem collapse. Research in this area is still in its infancy, and results from the
limited experimental studies are mixed. Some studies show a positive relationship between diversity and some aspect of ecosy stem function, such
as the rate of nitrogen cycling (Kareiva 1996, Tilman et al. 1996). Others support the redundant species concept (Lawton and Brown
1993, Andren et al. 1995), which holds that above some low number, additional species are redundant in terms
of ecosystem function. Still other studies support the idiosyncratic species model (Lawton 1994), in which loss of some species reduces some aspect of
species by itself that is the proposed limit but rather some sort of ecosystem collapse that would be triggered by the species loss. But
ecosystem function, whereas loss of others may increase that aspect of ecosystem function. The relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem function is
undoubtedly more complex than any simple metaphor. Nonetheless, I believe that the tapestry metaphor provides a more useful view of biodiversity loss than the rivet
metaphor. A species extinction is like a thread pulled from the tapestry. With each thread lost, the tapestry gradually becomes threadbare. The loss of some species may
lead to local tears. Although everything is linked to everything else, ecosystems
are not delicately balanced, clocklike mechanisms in
which the loss of a part leads to collapse. For example, I study California frogs, some of which are
disappearing. Although it is possible that the disappearances signal some as yet unknown threat to humans (the
miner's canary argument), the loss of the frogs themselves is unlikely to have major ecosystem effects. The
situation is the same for most rare organisms, which make up the bulk of threatened and endangered species.
For example, if the black toad (Bufo exsul) were to disappear from the few desert springs in which it lives, even
careful study would be unlikely to reveal ecosystem changes. To argue that there are not limits is not to claim that biodiversity losses do
not matter. Rather, in calling for a stop to the destruction, it is the losses themselves that count, not a putative cliff that humans will fall off of somewhere down the
road.
15. Science diplomacy fails – political motivates corrupt its effectiveness.
David Dickson, SciDev, “The limits of science diplomacy,” 6/4/2009, http://www.scidev.net/en/editorials/the-limits-of-science-diplomacy.html
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 co-dependent
The truth is that science and politics make an uneasy alliance. Both need the other. Politicians need science to achieve their goals, whether social, economic or —
unfortunately — military; scientists 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 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.
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.
But a
16. Humanity does not face extinction from disease
Malcolm
Gladwell, The New Republic, July 17 and 24, 1995, excerpted in Epidemics: Opposing Viewpoints, 1999, p. 31-
32
Every infectious agent that has ever plagued humanity has had to adapt a specific strategy but
every strategy carries a corresponding cost and
this makes human counterattack possible. Malaria is vicious and deadly but it relies on mosquitoes to spread from one human to the next, which
means that draining swamps and putting up mosquito netting can all hut halt endemic malaria. Smallpox is extraordinarily durable remaining infectious in the
environment for years, but its very durability its essential rigidity is what makes it one of the easiest microbes to create a vaccine against. AIDS is almost invariably
lethal because it attacks the body at its point of great vulnerability, that is, the immune system, but the fact that it targets blood cells is what makes it so relatively
uninfectious. Viruses are not superhuman. I could go on, but the point is obvious .
Any microbe capable of wiping us all out would have to
be everything at once: as contagious as flue, as durable as the cold, as lethal as Ebola, as stealthy as HIV and so
doggedly resistant to mutation that it would stay deadly over the course of a long epidemic. But viruses are not,
well, superhuman. They cannot do everything at once. It is one of the ironies of the analysis of alarmists such as Preston that they are all
too willing to point out the limitations of human beings, but they neglect to point out the limitations of microscopic life forms.
17. No impact – anything virulent enough to be a threat would destroy its host too quickly
Joshua Lederberg, professor of genetics at Stanford University School of Medicine, 1999, Epidemic: The
World of Infectious Disease, p. 13
The toll of the fourteenth-century plague, the "Black Death," was closer to one third. If the bugs' potential to develop adaptations that could kill us off were the whole
story, we would not be here. However, with very rare exceptions, our microbial
adversaries have a shared interest in our survival.
Almost any pathogen comes to a dead end when we die; it first has to communicate itself to another host in
order to survive. So historically, the really severe host- pathogen interactions have resulted in a wipeout of both
host and pathogen. We humans are still here because, so far, the pathogens that have attacked us have willy-nilly had an interest in our
survival. This is a very delicate balance, and it is easily disturbed, often in the wake of large-scale ecological upsets.