AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
Negative Evidence Packet
Transportation Infrastructure
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its
transportation infrastructure investment in the United States.
1
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
Contents
Case Negative ........................................................................................................................................... 4
1NC Inherency ...................................................................................................................................... 5
1NC Inherency ...................................................................................................................................... 6
1NC Social Justice Answers ................................................................................................................. 7
1NC Social Justice Answers ................................................................................................................. 8
1NC No Health Harms .......................................................................................................................... 9
1NC No Health Harms ........................................................................................................................ 10
AT: Military Readiness ...................................................................................................................... 11
AT: Global Warming .......................................................................................................................... 12
AT: Global Warming .......................................................................................................................... 13
AT: Global Warming .......................................................................................................................... 14
1NC Solvency Social Justice .............................................................................................................. 15
1NC Solvency Social Justice .............................................................................................................. 16
Solvency Extensions Social Justice .................................................................................................... 17
1NC No Active Transit Solvency ....................................................................................................... 18
1NC No Active Transit Solvency ....................................................................................................... 19
1NC No Active Transit Solvency ....................................................................................................... 20
1NC No Active Transit Solvency ....................................................................................................... 21
1NC No Active Transit Solvency ....................................................................................................... 22
1NC No Active Transit Solvency ....................................................................................................... 23
1NC No Active Transit Solvency ....................................................................................................... 24
Extensions for Active Transportation Solvency ................................................................................. 25
1NC No Planning Solvency ................................................................................................................ 28
1NC No Planning Solvency ................................................................................................................ 29
Highway Trade-off Disadvantage ........................................................................................................... 30
1NC HIGHWAY TRADE-OFF DISADVANTAGE 1/3 ................................................................... 31
1NC HIGHWAY TRADE-OFF DISADVANTAGE 2/3 ................................................................... 32
1NC HIGHWAY TRADE-OFF DISADVANTAGE 3/3 ................................................................... 33
Uniqueness Extensions—Funding to Highways Now ........................................................................ 34
Uniqueness Extensions—US Infrastructure Good Now ..................................................................... 35
Link Extensions—Less Money for Highways .................................................................................... 36
Link Extensions—Highways Key to Growth ..................................................................................... 38
AT: China will decline ....................................................................................................................... 40
China Impact Extensions .................................................................................................................... 41
Impact Extension: US Economic Hegemony ..................................................................................... 42
Impact Extension: US Hegemony prevents war ................................................................................. 43
Impact Extension: US Hegemony prevents war ................................................................................. 44
Budget Disadvantage .............................................................................................................................. 45
1NC Budget Disadvantage 1/3............................................................................................................ 46
Uniqueness Fiscal Discipline Now: 2NC............................................................................................ 49
Uniqueness AT: Debt Limit after Election: 2NC................................................................................ 50
Uniqueness AT: Defense Authorization: 2NC.................................................................................... 51
A2 Business Investment Turn: 2NC ................................................................................................... 52
2NC ......................................................................................................................................................... 55
Impact Calculus – 2NC ....................................................................................................................... 56
2
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
Impact Extensions 2NC ...................................................................................................................... 57
Budget Disadvantage--Food Prices Link ............................................................................................ 58
Food Prices Impact ............................................................................................................................. 59
Food Prices Impact extensions ............................................................................................................ 60
3
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
Case Negative
There are several arguments that are included here as direct attacks on the case.
Inherency. Several existing federal statutes provide federal assistance to solve social equity, fund
bike and walking paths, solve inequity in environmental implications of highways.
Harm Answers. There are several arguments for why social justice and health care are not
substantial problems.
Solvency Answers. There are specific arguments for each solvency area. There are arguments
that there is no solvency for social equity, that a number of factors will decrease the effectiveness of the
plan on public health and generally that it is hard to develop clear and usable plans for solving social
inequities.
4
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
1NC Inherency
Federal and local programs are being adopted now
Lindholm, 2011, (Raymond Lindholm, Georgia State University College of Law, Center for Health, Law, & Society) “Combating
childhood obesity: A survey of laws affecting the built environments of low-income and minority children”, Review of Environment and Health
2011
From the federal government and major corporations down to grass-roots organizations many are working
to implement policies that will influence the communities we live in for the better. The First Lady is
drawing a lot of public attention to the issue with her “Let’s Move” campaign, and the President is
committed to funding programs, such as Complete Streets, Safe Routes to School, and Fresh Food
Financing Initiatives, which have been proven to be successful at the local and state levels. In addition,
childhood obesity is a major news issue, with new stories tracking both the epidemic and new initiatives
to fight it appearing in major news sources almost on a daily basis. Finally, as scientific studies establish
stronger links between individual built-environment factors and childhood obesity policy makers will
have better information to shape potent interventions.
Many cycling programs exist now
Krizek, et al 2009. Kevin J Krizek--College of Architecture and Planning, University of Colorado, Susan L Handy--Department of
Environmental Science and Policy, University of California at Davis, Ann Forsyth--City and Regional Planning, Cornell University. “Explaining
changes in walking and bicycling behavior: challenges for transportation research”,
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2009, volume 36, pages 725 - 740
As issues of traffic congestion, obesity, and climate change garner increased attention both globally and
in the US, focus turns to the role of walking and cycling in mitigating such concerns. One is hard pressed
to find any community not looking to spur walking and cycling activity through planning activities. This
enthusiasm has created a need for evidence on the degree to which different policies have succeeded in
increasing walking and cycling travel and producing other benefits for the community. Did the sidewalk
encourage more people to become physically active? Did showers and locker rooms at the worksite spur cycling to work? Did the improved
intersection increase rates of walking? How much fuel was saved by constructing the bicycle trail? Answers to such questions could
influence future policy decisions.
Evidence so far is sparse but may soon be growing. In the US the 2005 federal transportation
authorization bill, SAFETEA-LU (safe, accountable, flexible, efficient transportation equity act: a legacy for users), provides more
than $500 million to communities to construct nonmotorized transportation facilities and promote use of
these facilities. The Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program (NTPP) specifically included $100 million for pilot
programs in four communities to increase levels of walking and cycling. Such `interventions' provide a
living laboratory often called for but rarely exploited in the transportation planning field. Thus, the NTPP
also required an evaluation of the efficacy of these programs under the logic that documenting benefits in
one community provides a basis for judging the potential benefits of proposed policies in other
communities.
5
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
1NC Inherency
Civil Rights legislation requires social justice in transportation planning
Martens et al, 2012, [Karel Martens, Institute for Management Research, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlans; Aaron Golub,
School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning and School of Sustainability, Arizona State U; Glenn Robinson, School of Engineering and
Institute for Urban Research, Morgan State University, “A justice-theoretic approach to the distribution of transportation benefits: Implications
for transportation planning practice in the United States,” Transportation Research A 46 (2012), 684-695
Following the adoption of a series of directives relating to environmental quality and
environmental justice (EJ) based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the distribution of access has received
more explicit attention in (metropolitan) transportation planning practice. In line with the underlying
environmental justice considerations laid down in the various documents, transportation planning most
often invokes either: fostering participation of groups traditionally marginalized in the transportation
planning process, preventing undue burdens from exposure to the externalities of transportation systems,
or insuring the distribution of benefits among various communities. For a more complete discussion, see Cairns et al.
(2003), Cambridge Systematics (2002), Forkenbrock and Sheeley (2004), and American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO, 2009). Given our focus on access, we limit the discussion below to ways in which the distribution of transport benefits is
addressed in practice.
Civil rights and EJ legislation related to transportation require transport authorities to relate to
justice from the standpoint of ‘‘protected classes’’ – those populations, low-income or minority, who are
legally protected under the several overarching legislations. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act states that:
‘‘No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity
receiving Federal financial assistance.’’ The National Environmental Protection Act codified procedures
for the exploration of impacts from transportation projects and public involvement in project planning.
Executive Order 12898 (1994), entitled ‘‘Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations,’’ effectively expanded the definition of ‘‘protected classes’’ to
include low-income populations, which would be significant for transportation equity issues (42 U.S.C.
§4321). Following this order, both the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) adopted Environmental Justice directives to clarify the importance of addressing
disproportionate impacts at the federal agency level (Department of Transportation, 1997; FHWA, 1998)
and the Metropolitan Planning level (FHWA and FTA, 1999).
6
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
1NC Social Justice Answers
Social inequity studies are old and out-dated
Chi and Parisi, 2011.
(Guanqging Chi and Domenico Parisi—Department of Sociology and Social Science Research Center,
Mississippi State University). “Highway Expansion Effects on Urban Racial Redistribution in the Post-Civil Rights Period,” Public Works
Management Policy, 2011. 16:40. http://pwm.sagepub.com/content/16/1/40
Highway effects on racial redistribution in the United States have been documented in a limited number
of historical case studies. However, these studies only describe the effects qualitatively and only focus on
the early and mid-20th century, a period before the legal bases for social and environmental justice in
highway construction were established. Little is known about the effects that highways have on
population redistribution of racial and ethnic groups after these legal justice bases. This study fills the gap
in the literature by contributing to the understanding of these effects in urban areas after the establishment
of the legal bases. Specifically, this study focuses on the MWWA metropolitan area of Wisconsin to
examine the impact of highway expansions completed between 1965 and 1970 on the population
redistribution of Blacks and Hispanics from 1970 to 2000.
Highway expansion improves living conditions for black neighborhoods and provides access to
more affordable housing for Hispanics
Chi and Parisi, 2011.
(Guanqging Chi and Domenico Parisi—Department of Sociology and Social Science Research Center,
Mississippi State University). “Highway Expansion Effects on Urban Racial Redistribution in the Post-Civil Rights Period,” Public Works
Management Policy, 2011. 16:40. http://pwm.sagepub.com/content/16/1/40
The findings indicate clearly an impact of highway expansion on urban racial redistribution in census
tracts within 3 miles of expansion segments from 1970 to 2000. Highway expansion was found to
promote Black growth in neighborhoods 1 to 3 miles from the expansions, where residents can get away
from the disamenity aspects of highway expansion such as noise and lowered housing prices but can take
advantage of easy access to highways. Highway expansion was also found to promote Hispanic growth in
neighborhoods within 1 mile of the expansion segments, where housing prices were lower.
Highways do not cause social inequity. They also increase social equity.
Chi and Parisi, 2011. (Guanqging Chi and Domenico Parisi—Department of Sociology and Social Science Research Center, Mississippi
State University). “Highway Expansion Effects on Urban Racial Redistribution in the Post-Civil Rights Period,” Public Works Management
Policy, 2011. 16:40. http://pwm.sagepub.com/content/16/1/40
Clearly, the two roles that highways play in affecting urban racial redistribution seem contradictory.
Although highways are unfavorable infrastructure for some, they facilitate commuting for others. It may
be simply that highways affect urban racial redistribution both as a disamenity and an amenity. For
residents living in the immediate neighborhoods of highway construction, highways act as a disamenity
by producing environmental pollution and decreasing housing prices. For residents living in a few blocks
away from highway construction, highways act as an amenity by providing easier access to transportation.
The objective of this study, thus, is to examine the dual role that highway expansion plays in affecting
urban racial redistribution after the legal bases for social and environmental justice in highway
construction were established.
7
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
1NC Social Justice Answers
Highway expansion helped black Americans in the post-civil rights era
Chi and Parisi, 2011. (Guanqging Chi and Domenico Parisi—Department of Sociology and Social Science Research Center, Mississippi
State University). “Highway Expansion Effects on Urban Racial Redistribution in the Post-Civil Rights Period,” Public Works Management
Policy, 2011. 16:40. http://pwm.sagepub.com/content/16/1/40
To examine highway expansion effects on the redistribution of Blacks, the response variable is the
difference of percentages of non-Hispanic Blacks between 2000 and 1970 (Table 3). Highway expansion
was found to have a significant positive effect on Blacks in census tracts within 1 to 3 miles of highway
expansion segments. That is, highway expansion promoted the concentration of non-Hispanic Blacks in
census tracts at a distance of 1 to 3 miles from that expansion. Over the 30 years studied, the census tracts
at a distance of 1 to 2 miles from highway expansion gained 13.4% more Blacks than others; the tracts at
a distance of 2 to 3 miles from highway expansion gained 8.7% more Blacks than others. However,
census tracts with 1 mile of highway expansion did not affect changes in the Black population. The results
suggest that in the post–civil rights period, highway expansion affected Black redistribution as an amenity
rather than a disamenity in the MWWA metropolitan area. Blacks took advantage of easier access to
expanded highways and lived in neighborhoods 1 to 3 miles away from highways.
8
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
1NC No Health Harms
Deaths from weight are overstated. Improved health care and public health are lowering mortality
rates for those who are overweight
Flegal, 2010. (Katherine M. Flegal, PhD--National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hyattsville, Md
and Center for Weight and Health, University of California at Berkeley) “The Obesity Epidemic” The Observer January 2010
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=2599
In our work, we have also addressed issues of the number of deaths in the United States that are
associated with different BMI levels. When we look at the most recent mortality data from following the
1988-94 survey through 2000, it suggests that the association of overweight — a BMI from 25-29.9 —
and even of mild obesity — BMI 30-34.9 — with mortality is weak and not statistically significant.
Although other measurements such as waist circumference are often thought to be better than BMI as
indicators of risk, we found no significant differences between BMI and a number of other measures, with
BMI actually associated more strongly with mortality than the other measures. One of our findings was
that the association of weight and mortality seems to be much weaker in the more recent data, leading us
to the suggestion that perhaps the association is diminishing over time, perhaps because of improvements
in public health and in medical care, a suggestion that has proved to be somewhat surprisingly
controversial.
Number of premature deaths are from those with extreme measures of obesity. For marginally
obese, the figure is closer to 25,000 rather than 112,000
Flegal, et al. 2005. (Katherine M. Flegal, PhD--National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
Hyattsville, Md and Center for Weight and Health, University of California at Berkeley; Barry I. Graubard, PhD-- Division of Cancer
Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute David F. Williamson, PhD PhD--Division of Diabetes Translation, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga; Mitchell H. Gail, MD, PhD-- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute,
Bethesda, M.) “Excess Deaths Associated With Underweight, Overweight, and Obesity” Journal of the American Medical Association, April 20,
2005, Vol 293: No. 15 http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=200731
Using relative risks from the combined survey data, we estimated that 111 909 excess deaths in 2000
(95% CI, 53 754 to 170 064) were associated with obesity (BMI ≥30) (Figure 2). Of the excess deaths
associated with obesity, the majority (82 066 deaths; 95% CI, 44 843 to 119 289) occurred in individuals
with BMI 35 or greater. Overweight was associated with a slight reduction in mortality (−86 094 deaths;
95% CI, −161 223 to −10 966) relative to the normal weight category. Thus, for overweight and obesity
combined (BMI ≥25), our estimate was 25 814 excess deaths (95% CI, −86 284 to 137 913) in 2000,
arrived at by adding the estimate for obesity to the estimate for overweight. Underweight was associated
with 33 746 excess deaths (95% CI, 15 726-51 766).
Of the 111 909 estimated excess deaths associated with obesity (BMI ≥30), the majority, 84 145 excess
deaths, occurred in individuals younger than 70 years. In contrast, of the 33 746 estimated excess deaths
associated with underweight, the majority, 26 666 excess deaths, occurred in individuals aged 70 years
and older.
9
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
1NC No Health Harms
CDC overestimates obesity statistics four-fold
Associated Press, 4-20-05, “Obesity Death Rate Lower than Thought,” http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153944,00.html
Last year, a CDC study listed the leading causes of preventable death in order as tobacco; poor diet and
inactivity, leading to excess weight; alcohol; germs; toxins and pollutants; car crashes; guns; risky sexual
behavior; and illicit drugs.
Using the new estimate, excess weight would drop behind car crashes and guns to seventh place — a
ranking the CDC is unwilling to make official, underscoring the controversy inside the agency over how
to calculate the health effects of obesity.
Last year, the CDC issued a study that attributed 400,000 deaths a year to mostly weight-related causes
and said excess weight would soon overtake tobacco as the top U.S. killer. After scientists inside and
outside the agency questioned the figure, the CDC admitted making a calculation error and lowered its
estimate three months ago to 365,000.
The new study attributes 111,909 deaths to obesity, but then subtracts the benefits of being modestly
overweight, and arrives at the 25,814 figure.
CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding said because of the uncertainty in calculating the health effects of
being overweight, the CDC is not going to use the new figure of 25,814 in its public awareness
campaigns. And it is not going to scale back its fight against obesity.
Minority children are more likely to actively transit to school
Martin, et al. 2009. (Sarah Levin Martin, PhD—CDC, Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity, Refilwe Moeti, MA Nancy PullenSeufert, MPH) “Implementing Safe Routes to School: Application for the Socioecological Model and Issues to Consider”, Health Promotion
Practice October 2009 Vol. 10, No. 4, 606-614, http://hpp.sagepub.com/content/10/4/606
A recent study examining income at the neighborhood level found that schools and public physical
activity facilities (e.g., tennis courts, recreation centers) were significantly more likely to be in higherSES and low-minority neighborhoods (Gordon-Larsen, Nelson, Page, & Popkin, 2006). This has
implications for an SRTS program insofar as some students from these poor communities may not be able
to walk or bicycle directly from their home to their school because it is too far away. It is interesting to
note that, at the individual level, having a single parent (Fulton, Shisler, Yore, & Caspersen, 2005),
having indicators of lower SES (Carlin et al., 1997), and being non- White (Evenson, Huston, McMillen,
Bors, & Ward, 2003) are positively associated with active transportation to school. It is plausible that
students with these characteristics who live within a mile or two of school walk to school out of necessity
(e.g., lack of access to buses or cars) even though the environment is not conducive to physical activity.
10
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
AT: Military Readiness
Obesity one of many factors including graduation, criminal records, and other physical efforts
Mission Readiness: Military Leaders for Kids, 2010, Too Fat to Fight: Retired Military Leaders Want Junk Food
Out of America’s Schools,
As retired Generals, Admirals, and other senior leaders of the United States Armed Forces, we know
firsthand that national security must be America’s top priority.
Our organization recently released a report citing Department of Defense data indicating that an alarming
75 percent of all young Americans 17 to 24 years of age are unable to join the military because they failed
to graduate from high school, have criminal records, or are physically unfit.
Government Nutrition programs are best solution—not transportation. This is the solution
the affirmative author’s recommend. Not bike paths.
Mission Readiness: Military Leaders for Kids, 2010, Too Fat to Fight:Retired Military Leaders Want Junk Food
Out of America’s Schools, p. 4
Recent research by Rachel Tolbert Kimbro of Rice University and Elizabeth Rigby of the University of Texas at
Houston, published in Health Affairs, provided strong evidence that “Receiving [government subsidized] meals at
school or child care helps children, particularly low-income children, maintain a healthy weight. ... Expanding
access to subsidized meals may be the most effective tool to use in combating obesity in poor children.”42
The article showed that, at least for 3- to 5-year-old poor children, access to government-funded school lunches
helped those children avoid excessive weight gain over the subsequent two years. The authors suggest that
expanding access to these meals to more child care centers, to summer programs, and to all children in high-poverty
Title I schools (not just those whose parents make it through the bureaucratic hurdles to qualify) would be one of the
most promising ways to decrease childhood obesity.
11
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
AT: Global Warming
No solvency: Transportation spending will have little impact on greenhouse gases
Craig Raborn, June 2011, (Transportation Policy Analyst, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions,
Duke University), “Transportation and Climate Policy Summary Greenhouse Gas Emissions Resulting from
Different Infrastructure Spending Levels”
The debate over how much to spend on transportation infrastructure should not focus on how GHG
emissions will be affected by overall spending levels or patterns. Significantly different levels of
transportation infrastructure investment result in only small overall changes in GHG emissions and
travel behavior. Varying national transportation infrastructure spending by up to $53 billion per year
changes cumulative emissions over 10 years by less than 0.3%.
• Emissions from construction and maintenance activities can be significantly affected by spending levels,
ranging from a 10% decrease to a 73% increase. These emissions, however, make up only 0.7% of
surface transportation emissions, so despite the large range of potential construction and maintenance
emissions, there is little impact to overall transportation emissions.
• The mix of spending—how the funds are spent between roads and transit and between new capacity
construction or maintenance of existing infrastructure—also makes little difference on emissions from
transportation activity. The cumulative difference in GHG emissions from spending $15 billion for three
widely different infrastructure activities (all on new roads; focusing on maintenance; or 75% for transit
improvements) is just 0.23% of total emissions. (a 34.7-million-ton2 variation from total emissions of
15,050 million tons).
Impact is overstated. Data being used to measure climate are biased toward warming and away
from cooler sites
Jasper 11 [William F. Jasper, 1-18-11, ‘2010: "Hottest Year on Record"?’
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/5933-2010-qhottest-year-on-recordq]
In a policy paper entitled Surface Temperature Records: Policy-Driven Deception?, published in August
2010 by the Science & Public Policy Institute (SPPI), D'Aleo and Watts write: Around 1990,
NOAA/NCDC's GHCN dataset lost more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around the
world. It can be shown that country by country, they lost stations with a bias towards higher-latitude, higher-altitude and
rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler. The remaining climate monitoring stations were
increasingly near the sea, at lower elevations, and at airports near larger cities. This data were then used to determine the
global average temperature and to initialize climate models. Interestingly, the very same often colder stations that have been
deleted from the world climate network were retained for computing the average-temperature in the base
periods, further increasing the potential bias towards overstatement of the warming. To make sure the reader did
not miss this astounding point, we reiterate and emphasize: More than 75 percent of the weather stations around the globe
have been inexplicably "lost."
12
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
AT: Global Warming
Evidence is selectively used to support global warming
Jasper 11 [William F. Jasper, 1-18-11, ‘2010: "Hottest Year on Record"?’
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/5933-2010-qhottest-year-on-recordq]
This is pure politics, not science. The "hottest year" claims confirm the case for political science overtaking climate science. The
"hottest
year" claim depends on minute fractions of a degree difference between years. Even NASA's James Hansen,
the leading proponent of man-made global warming in the U.S., conceded the "hottest year" rankings are essentially
meaningless. Hansen explained that 2010 differed from 2005 by less than 2 hundredths of a degree F (that's 0.018F). "It's not particularly
important whether 2010, 2005, or 1998 was the hottest year on record," Hansen admitted on January 13. According to NASA, none of agencies
tasked with keeping the global temperature data agree with each other. "Rankings of individual years often differ in the most closely watched
temperature analyses - from GISS, NCDC, and the UK Met Office - a situation that can generate confusion." If there is confusion in the matter, it
is Hansen and his colleagues at NASA's GISS and NOAA who are greatly responsible. In a January 14 commentary at WattsUpWithThat.com,
meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue of Florida State University ridiculed the "hottest year" rankings and Hansen's admission that it "was not
particularly important" which year was declared the "hottest." Dr. Maue examines the NASA press release and then taunts Hansen: "Well, then
stop issuing press releases which tout the rankings, which are subject to change ex post facto." Indeed, the AGW alarmists are not content to pull
this PR stunt only once per year, they issue releases and hold press conferences on this manufactured "news" multiple times per year.
Meteorologist Art Horn take the NOAA "hottest year" claims to task at the climate web site ICECAP, commenting: If NOAA was truly objective
in their analysis of this 130 year period of temperature they would acknowledge that 130 years of record in the long history of
climate is insignificant to the extreme. The reason they do not give this record its true historical context is because their
statement is really political. Their true message is that global warming is causing the warm weather and that we need to abandon fossil
fuels and somehow change to "renewable" energy sources.... "If one takes a serious, adult look at the variability of weather and climate over time
you find amazing events," Horn continued. "In the winter of 1249 it was so warm in England that people did not need
winter clothes. They walked about in summer dress. It was so warm people thought the seasons had changed. There was no frost in England
the entire winter. Can you imagine what NOAA would say if that happened next year? But it did happen, 762 years ago and burning fossil
fuels had nothing to do with it. In the winter of 1717 there was so much snow in Massachusetts in late February and early March,
single story houses were buried." Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT), is another of the many eminent climate scientists that challenge the NASA/NOAA's alarmist "hottest
year" propaganda stunts, based as they are on "tenths of a degree" from questionable records. "Global warming enthusiasts
have responded to the absence of warming in recent years by arguing that the past decade has been the
warmest on record," Dr Lindzen noted, in an op-ed for The Free Lance-Star in Fredericksburg, Va. "We
are still speaking of tenths of a degree, and the records themselves have come into question. Since we are,
according to these records, in a relatively warm period, it is not surprising that the past decade was the
warmest on record. This in no way contradicts the absence of increasing temperatures for over a decade."
13
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
AT: Global Warming
Climate models are flawed – faulty data and poor assumptions
Hoffman 12 [Doug L, adjunct Professor of Computer Science at Hendrix College and the University of Central
Arkansas, author of the Resilient Earth, “Stop Them, Before They Model Again,” 4-17,
http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/stop-them-they-model-again]
In the latest generation of coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation models (AOGCMs) contributing to the
Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 3 (CMIP-3), uncertainties in key properties controlling the twenty-first
century response to sustained anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcing were not fully sampled, partially
owing to a correlation between climate sensitivity and aerosol forcing, a tendency to overestimate ocean
heat uptake and compensation between short-wave and long-wave feedbacks. This complicates the
interpretation of the ensemble spread as a direct uncertainty estimate, a point reflected in the fact that the ‘likely’ (>66%
probability) uncertainty range on the transient response was explicitly subjectively assessed as −40% to +60% of the CMIP-3 ensemble mean for
global-mean temperature in 2100, in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).
The old models do not account for “key properties” that control climate to the point that the results are so
uncertain as to be meaningless. This is unsurprising to those of us familiar with computer modeling in general and
climate modeling in particular. “From this evidence it is clear that the CMIP-3 ensemble, which represents a valuable expression of
plausible responses consistent with our limited ability to explore model structural uncertainties, fails to reflect the full range of uncertainties
indicated by expert opinion and other methods,” the authors conclude. In other words, the older model results are crap.
Yet the AR4 report's conclusions were justified using such twaddle. As the authors state: “In the absence of uncertainty guidance
or indicators at regional scales, studies have relied on the CMIP-3 ensemble spread as a proxy for
response uncertainty, or statistical post-processing to correct and inflate uncertainty estimates, at the risk of
violating the physical constraints provided by dynamical AOGCM simulations, especially when extrapolating beyond the range of behaviour in
the raw ensemble.” Violating physical constraints is modeling speak for the program acting in a way that
contradicts the laws of physical reality—an indication that the models used do not accurately represent nature.
Still, the reader is asked to accept this new analysis as proving the modeling approach's veracity. “Perturbedphysics ensembles offer a systematic approach to quantify uncertainty in models of the climate system response to external forcing, albeit within
a given model structure,” the authors write. That last qualification is key, “within a given model structure.” More plainly put, if your model
is wrong you cannot get good results. So they analyzed a multi-thousand-member ensemble of transient AOGCM simulations from
1920 to 2080 using HadCM3L, a version of the UK Met Office Unified Model, and found their results stayed within
the constraints programmed into the model (what a surprise). Other caveats include: unexpectedly
observing little relationship between climate sensitivity and aerosol forcing; difficulty in comparing the
control simulation like-for-like to any period in the past, partially blamed on the “paucity of observations”
at the start of the twentieth century; and under-sampling uncertainty in ocean heat uptake arising from
ocean physics through perturbing only a single, coarse-resolution, ocean model structure.
The bottom line on all this statistical and modeling slight of hand is this: “Assessing goodness-of-fit, which represents a
limited expression of model error, requires a measure of the expected error between model simulations
and observations due to sampling uncertainty, assuming it is primarily from internally-generated climate
variability.” There is absolutely no justification in making that last assumption. All they are measuring is how stable
their models are with respect to the output the model would generate if unperturbed. The result has no bearing on whether the model in question
accurately represents Earth's actual climate system. This is hand-waving at its most creative.
So if this new “study” is not really an improvement on previous computer driven shams why is it appearing now? Think of this report as
the first salvo in the run up to the next IPCC report, due out sometime next year. But surely the IPCC has learned
its lesson, you say, they must have figured out that making bogus claims of impending disaster, unsubstantiated by real science, has only lead to
their own marginalization? Think again. Consider the words of the IPCC's discredited but dogged leader.
“When the IPCC’s fifth assessment comes out in 2013 or 2014, there will be a major revival of interest in
action that has to be taken,” said Dr. Pachauri, speaking of the periodic assessments rendered by the group of more than 400 scientists
around the world that he leads. “People are going to say, ‘My God, we are going to have to take action much faster than we had planned.’
14
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
1NC Solvency Social Justice
Transport policy alone is not enough to solve social injustice. Need social inclusion policies in all
areas.
Karen Lucas, 2012, Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford, ‘Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now?” Transport Policy 20
(2012) 105–113
Furthermore, transport and social exclusion can never survive as a solely transport-focused agenda. The
accessibility planning (in its broadest sense) of public transport which is necessary to meet the travel
needs of socially excluded people must be highly integrated with socially responsible land use, housing,
health, education and welfare policies and programmes. Similarly, large transport infrastructure projects
need to be more transparent in their ex ante analyses to consider their long-term social equity effects on
local populations and communities.
Social exclusions cannot be solved by national policy makers in a globalized world
Karen Lucas, 2012, Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford, ‘Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now?” Transport Policy
20 (2012) 105–113
Urry (2000) builds on this theme of dynamic exclusion from the transport system within his new mobilities paradigm. His theories are concerned
with macro (global), meso (national) and micro (local) changes in the physical and virtual movement of people, goods, services, images and
information over time (Kaufmann, et al., 2004; Sheller and Urry, 2006; Urry, 2007). As Cass et al., 2005 identify, the new mobilities perspective
is particularly important because it explores how different forms of mobility help to shape wider societal values and norms and to reinforce
existing social stratification. Theorists from this perspective identify motility (the potential and ability to move) consists of three main layers: (i)
access—the range of all available mobilities according to time, place and other contextual constraints; (ii) competence—the skills and abilities
that directly or indirectly relate to the appropriation of access; (iii) appropriation—how individuals, groups, networks or institutions act upon or
interpret perceived or real access and competences (Kaufmann et al., 2004). Unequal mobilities are seen as arising from
differences in the status, wealth, prestige, power and geographical distribution of people and activities
(Urry, 2007).
Urry argues that unequal ‘network capital’ is distributed across traditional social stratifications leading to
differential opportunities to access goods, services, social networks and life chances, which results in the
social exclusion of both individuals and whole communities. One of the key issues that Urry and his
colleagues bring to light within their thesis is the extent to which transport-related social exclusion can
ever be properly addressed within a global system that prioritises hypermobility. Dennis and Urry (2009)
predict it is not until After the Car that we will be able to establish the more equitable distribution of
transport services. This implies that the problem of transport-related exclusion largely lies outside the
influence of national or local policy makers.
15
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
1NC Solvency Social Justice
Equality in transportation justice is impossible
Martens et al, 2012, [Karel Martens, Institute for Management Research, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlans; Aaron Golub,
School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning and School of Sustainability, Arizona State U; Glenn Robinson, School of Engineering and
Institute for Urban Research, Morgan State University, “A justice-theoretic approach to the distribution of transportation benefits: Implications
for transportation planning practice in the United States,” Transportation Research A 46 (2012), 684-695
Let us first consider equal distribution of access in relation to space. While philosophical
arguments may suggest that equality is called for, insights from research into the dynamics of
space suggest that equal distribution in this respect is impossible to achieve. Theoretical
modeling studies have shown that, even if starting from an even distribution of opportunities
over space, and hence equality of access, centers will rapidly develop over time as a consequence
of the advantages of spatial proximity (e.g., Puu, 2005). In other words, space by its very nature
is divided into center and periphery and not every point on a plane can be equidistant from the
important centers of opportunities. As a result, inequality in access to life opportunities is
inevitable. Transport policies cannot correct the differences between center and periphery; they
would at best redefine or reinforce the relationship between them. While this is not a normative argument
against distribution according to equality, it does underscore that the principle of equality is hardly suited to guide the
distribution of access in practice.
More precisely, this observation suggests that equality of access cannot be achieved across-theboard and that a non-equal distribution must be proposed explicitly.
16
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
Solvency Extensions Social Justice
More important social factors contribute to social exclusion. Transport policy cannot solve.
John Preston 2009 Transportation Research Group, School of Civil Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton,
“Epilogue: Transport policy and social exclusion—Some reflections” Transport Policy 16 (2009) 140–142
Alternative approaches to quantification might involve developing measures of social inclusion as part of
ongoing attempts to quantify Quality of Life such as work that has been undertaken for the World Health
Organisation (Skevington et al., 2004), for the Economic and Social Research Council (Gilhooly et al.,
2003) and for the Audit Commission (2005). In essence, this is the approach advocated by Stanley and
Vella-Brodrick in this Special Issue. It is an approach that is particularly relevant to the transport needs of
the elderly, which is pertinent given demographic ageing in many countries (Metz, 2000; Spinney et al.,
2009). However, there are others who argue that Quality of Life is an individualistic concept that fails to
capture all aspects of social exclusion. For example, the Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM)
identifies access to resources and participation as being distinct from Quality of Life measures (Levitas et
al., 2007). B-SEM identifies ten domains of potential importance in social exclusion of which transport
features explicitly in only one (access to public and private services). This is reflective of a wider issue—
that transport policy may only be a secondary tool to reducing social exclusion, with policies concerning
employment, income, housing, social care, health and education of greater primary importance, although
the intermediate goods status of transport means that it has impacts on many of these primary factors.
Social exclusion includes barriers other than poverty and transportation
Stanley et al, 2008, “Social exclusion: What can public transport offer?” Janet Stanley a, *, Karen Lucas b
a Brotherhood of St Laurence and Monash University, Victoria, Australia b University of Westminster, London, UK Research in Transportation
Economics 22 (2008) 36–40
The workshop recognised that social exclusion is a relatively new social policy concept, having arisen
from earlier work which sought to define, measure and understand poverty. Stanley and Vella-Brodrick’s
(2007) paper pointed out that, while poverty is viewed as the difference between the amount of income
needed to sustain an individual or household within their living environment, social exclusion is seen as a
more comprehensive concept. The term social exclusion, while still heavily reliant on income measures,
also acknowledges that there may be other barriers which make it difficult for people to participate fully
in society. These barriers may include lack of employment, suitable housing, education, health care and
transport.
17
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
1NC No Active Transit Solvency
No evidence supports the claim that infrastructure improvements increase physical activity
Ogilvie, et al. 2010. (David Ogilvie--Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research
(CEDAR), Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, Simon Griffin--Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet and
Activity Research (CEDAR), Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, Andy Jones--School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), Norwich, Roger Mackett--3Centre for Transport Studies, University College
London, Cornelia Guell-- Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), Institute
of Public Health, Cambridge,, Jenna Panter-- Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research
(CEDAR), Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, Natalia Jones--School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia and UKCRC
Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), Norwich, UK, Simon Cohn--General Practice and Primary Care Research Unit, Institute of
Public Health, Cambridge, Lin Yang--Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research
(CEDAR), Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, Cheryl Chapman--Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet
and Activity Research (CEDAR), Institute of Public Health, Cambridge) “Commuting and health in Cambridge: a study of a ‘natural experiment’
in the provision of new transport infrastructure” Biomed Central Public Health, 10:703, http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/10/703
Modifying transport infrastructure to support active travel (walking and cycling), for example by constructing cycle routes or redesigning roads to
discourage car use, is one way of modifying the physical environment that was identified in the recent Foresight report as one of the top five
recommendations for tackling obesity in the UK [21]. The considerable potential for people to incorporate walking or cycling into their daily
routines makes this an attractive strategy for increasing population levels of physical activity. However, several reviews have
highlighted the limited quantity and quality of existing studies of the effects of this type of intervention,
the very limited evidence that such interventions have been effective in promoting physical activity, and
the missed opportunities for rigorous health-oriented studies of the effects of recent major innovations
such as the impact of congestion charging in London on physical activity [13,22-26]. It cannot be
assumed that people who take up more active travel will become more physically active overall, because
the increase in energy expenditure while travelling may be counterbalanced - or even outweighed - by a
compensatory decrease in leisure time physical activity [14]. There is a particular lack of evidence on the
relationships between public transport and active travel and on the effects of interventions to improve
public transport infrastructure, which may be especially important in a country such as the UK where
many people live too far from their workplace to walk or cycle the entire journey. Several studies have shown that
using public transport can involve a substantial daily quantity of walking and that commuters who use public transport tend to walk more than
those who travel by car [27-30]. One study has also reported a correspondence between an increase in cycling and a positive shift in the
distribution of overall physical activity in the targeted local populations following a multifaceted intervention including some infrastructural
changes [31]. To the best of our knowledge, however, no study has yet convincingly demonstrated that
investing in new transport infrastructure has led to an increase in physical activity in the local population
directly attributable to the intervention [13,26].
Infrastructure investment alone is not sufficient to increase physical activity
Oglivie, et al., 2008. David Ogilvie--Medical Research Council Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Glasgow and Medical Research
Council Epidemiology Unit, Cambridge, Richard Mitchell--Section of Public Health and Health Policy, University of Glasgow, Nanette Mutrie-Department of Sport, Culture and the Arts, University of Strathclyde, Mark Petticrew--London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine,
London and Stephen Platt--Research Unit in Health, Behaviour and Change, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh,
“Personal and environmental correlates of active travel and physical activity in a deprived urban population”
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 2008, 5:43 doi:10.1186/1479-5868-5-43
Despite the growing volume of published studies in this field, many authors remain circumspect in their
interpretation of the available evidence. Giles-Corti and Donovan have described access to a supportive
physical environment as a necessary, but insufficient, condition for an increase in physical activity in the
population [11], while Handy found 'convincing' evidence of an association between physical activity and
the built environment in general but 'less convincing' evidence as to which specific environmental
characteristics were most strongly associated [7].
18
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
1NC No Active Transit Solvency
Studies show transportation access is not the problem
Lovas et al, 2009. (Gina S. Lovasi--Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health and Society Scholars Program, Columbia University, Malo A.
Hutson--Department of City and Regional Planning, University of California, Berkeley, Monica Guerra--Department of Urban Plan- ning,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Kathryn M. Neckerman, Center for Health and the Social Sciences, University of Chicago) “Built
Environments and Obesity in Disadvantaged Populations” Epidemiologic Review, 2009. Vol. 31
Although the built environmental characteristics discussed above may vary in their consequences and meaning depending on regional
or local context, a few patterns appear to be consistent across the United States (Table 2). When considering
the obesity-related effects of built environment characteristics, we found the strongest support for the
importance of food stores, exercise facilities, and safety as potentially influential for our target groups
(low-SES, black, and Hispanic individuals). We also found evidence that the target groups were at a
disadvantage with respect to food stores, fast food outlets, places to exercise, and problems related to
aesthetic and safety perceptions. We can reject low walkability or sprawling urban form as a candidate
explanation of obesity-related health disparities; these measures seemed relatively less correlated with
physical activity and obesity for individuals within our target groups, while at the same time the target
groups were not at a disadvantage with regard to the walkability as commonly measured. The specific
characteristics that seem most relevant to obesity-related health disparities in the United States are
supermarket access, exercise facilities, and safety; each of these has been reported to be correlated with
body mass index or related behaviors within our target groups, while at the same time being distributed to
their disadvantage.
Even if a bad environment discourages walking, that does not mean a better environment will
encourage walking.
Oglivie, et al., 2008. David Ogilvie--Medical Research Council Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Glasgow and Medical Research
Council Epidemiology Unit, Cambridge, Richard Mitchell--Section of Public Health and Health Policy, University of Glasgow, Nanette Mutrie-Department of Sport, Culture and the Arts, University of Strathclyde, Mark Petticrew--London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine,
London and Stephen Platt--Research Unit in Health, Behaviour and Change, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh,
“Personal and environmental correlates of active travel and physical activity in a deprived urban population”
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 2008, 5:43 doi:10.1186/1479-5868-5-43
A more profound limitation of the available evidence is that identifying a relationship between, for
example, urban form and walking for transport is not the same thing as showing that changing the built
environment will lead to a change in behaviour [13]. Few researchers have taken up the opportunity (or
challenge) presented by 'natural experiments' to investigate the effects of environmental interventions on
physical activity.
19
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
1NC No Active Transit Solvency
No cycling solvency: Many barriers exist to cycles
The Community Cycling Center. 2009. “Understanding Barriers to Bicycling Transportation Literature Review”
http://www.communitycyclingcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/understanding-barriers-transportation-review-101909.pdf
We contacted several professionals with experience on what barriers low-income, women and minority
communities face regarding bicycle use. They shared some of their research findings, as well as
impressions accumulated during community involvement meetings and their own work.
In conducting a literature review for the Bike Walk Ambassador Program, David Peterson with the
City of Minneapolis Department of Public Works encountered many of the same findings revealed in this
paper. He shared that neighborhood conditions, like having many unattended dogs, can contribute to
negative perceptions of safety that discourage people from biking and walking. He also said that some
neighborhoods may lack nearby destinations, which is an obstacle because biking and walking are
targeted at replacing shorter trips. Some low-income people may simply lack the funds to own a bicycle.
People who must work more than one job might be too tired to exercise or ride a bicycle, and those who
work at night may have concerns about riding in the dark or finding a secure parking location for their
bicycle.
Eric Anderson, Bicycle Coordinator for Berkeley, California with 10 years of experience in the bicycle and pedestrian
field shared some of his conclusions on minority barriers to bicycling. Mr. Anderson pointed to language as a barrier to
bicycling, as some informational resources commonly available in English often aren’t distributed in
other languages. Translating materials on basic traffic laws applying to bicycles, helmet safety, simple maintenance tasks, and bicycle maps
may help disseminate the baseline information people need before attempting to bicycle. He also mentioned financial obstacles,
such as the cost of keeping a bicycle in repair, owning a good lock and the purchase of a helmet and lights
in order to ride safely.
Specific barriers deter women from cycling and walking
The Community Cycling Center 2009, “Understanding Barriers to Bicycling Transportation Literature Review”
http://www.communitycyclingcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/understanding-barriers-transportation-review-101909.pdf
Safety and security issues may be an obstacle to helping women make more trips by bicycle.
Women may prefer to travel different routes than men when using a bicycle, so the availability of
different types of bicycle facilities in their neighborhoods may determine their comfort when bicycling. In
addition to overcoming possible concerns about the safety of bicycling in traffic, fear of crime and social
stigma may be an obstacle to bicycling for some women. Social perceptions of bicycling and walking are
generally unstudied among other groups. For all groups, concerns about bicycle theft and the lack of
secure parking facilities may create security concerns in addition to personal safety.
20
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
1NC No Active Transit Solvency
Research shows infrastructure investment has little impact on behavior
Krizek, et al 2009. Kevin J Krizek--College of Architecture and Planning, University of Colorado, Susan L Handy--Department of
Environmental Science and Policy, University of California at Davis, Ann Forsyth--City and Regional Planning, Cornell University. “Explaining
changes in walking and bicycling behavior: challenges for transportation research”, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2009,
volume 36, pages 725 - 740
However, evaluation research on programs like those funded by the NTPP is rare because it is
fraught with practical challenges as well as political ones: expectations are high, interventions are modest,
and effects may be unclear. Pedestrian and cycling advocates have struggled for decades to gain
significant attention for their proposals based on the belief that infrastructure improvements can make a
difference. But such improvements typically represent marginal changes within extensive and complex
transportation systems in which travelers have multiple options with respect to mode and route choice. In
these contexts any behavioral changes that such improvements effect are likely to be relatively small,
making them difficult to establish statistically. In addition, disentangling the effects of pedestrian and
cycling improvements from the effect of other factors is tricky. For advocates, studies that do not produce proof of the
effectiveness of such improvements can be hard to accept because they potentially jeopardize future investments.
Minor impact on health, environment and traffic
Krizek, et al 2009. Kevin J Krizek--College of Architecture and Planning, University of Colorado, Susan L Handy--Department of
Environmental Science and Policy, University of California at Davis, Ann Forsyth--City and Regional Planning, Cornell University. “Explaining
changes in walking and bicycling behavior: challenges for transportation research”,
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2009, volume 36, pages 725 - 740
These secondary effects, at both the individual and community level, each contribute to other desired policy outcomes, such as
improved air quality, reduced health-care costs, and increased livability (figure 1). The broad range of possible policy outcomes from walking
and cycling activity expands the justification for programs to promote such activity. At the same time, however, such oft-cited benefits
generate other expectations that are more challenging to support because the benefits are more tenuously
connected to levels of walking and cycling. Issues often mentioned at the forefront of walking and cycling
policy initiatives--traffic congestion, obesity, and environmental conservation--have many different
causes, and levels of walking and cycling may have a minor effect on the overall extent of the problem.
The challenge for researchers is to separate the effect of the intervention from the effects of these other forces.
21
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
1NC No Active Transit Solvency
Societal Impact of investment will be small
Krizek, et al 2009. Kevin J Krizek--College of Architecture and Planning, University of Colorado, Susan L Handy--Department of
Environmental Science and Policy, University of California at Davis, Ann Forsyth--City and Regional Planning, Cornell University. “Explaining
changes in walking and bicycling behavior: challenges for transportation research”, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2009,
volume 36, pages 725 - 740
Several leading practitioners and academics suggest that many of the benefits often touted for
walking and cycling facilities--decreased congestion, decreased consumption of natural resources, lower
production of harmful pollutants, and even overall increases in physical activity--will not ultimately come
to fruition (eg Giuliano and Hanson, 2004; Lockwood, 2006). Research shows that people do very little
walking overall (Oakes et al, 2007), meaning that secondary benefits are marginal. Rates of bicycling are
currently so low that even a quadrupling of the number of people in the United States who bike to work
would lessen environmental and other harms from motorized vehicles by a miniscule degree--prompting
some to term it a fringe mode (Gordon and Richardson, 1998). Furthermore, making small interventions
in the existing built environment (eg improving intersections, installing sidewalks) or other walking or
cycling policies or programs (eg installing showers) will likely have only a modest effect on one's
propensity to drive less [driving is relatively inelastic: even dramatic increases in gas prices have not had
a significant impact on levels of driving (Hughes et al, 2008)]. This is not to say that the individual
benefits are insignificant; rather, that their cumulative effect is limited.
Solvency Studies are biased and inconclusive
Oglilve et al, 2011, (David Ogilvie--Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and the UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research
(CEDAR); Fiona Bull--School of Sport, Exercise and Health Science, Loughborough University, UK, and the School of Population Health,
University of Western Australia. Jane Powell--University of the West of England, Bristol, UK. Ashley R. Cooper--Department of Exercise,
Nutrition and Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. Christian Brand--Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford,
Oxford, UK. Nanette Mutrie---Department of Sport, Culture and the Arts, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK. John Preston--School of Civil
Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton, UK. Harry Rutter--National Obesity Observatory, Oxford, UK. “An Applied
Ecological Framework for Evaluating Infrastructure to Promote Walking and Cycling: The iConnect Study” American Journal of Public Health
March 2011, Vol 101, No. 3
This lack of evidence reflects several unresolved challenges in this area of research, including
problems of measurement and evaluation. The difficulty of measuring changes in walking, cycling, and
physical activity in general is recognized in both the transportation and the physical activity fields16–19
and is compounded by the difficulty of applying robust study designs to the evaluation of complex
infrastructural interventions.20 Existing research in this field has an evaluative bias in favor of
interventions targeted at individuals, which may be easier to evaluate,13,14 and is often characterized by
methodological limitations such as the lack of representative population samples, prospectively collected
data, control groups or areas, or sufficient duration of follow-up.15 Meanwhile, only limited inferences
about the population effects of new infrastructure can be drawn from routinely collected user monitoring
data.21 As a result, we lack the means to assess the potential travel, physical activity, and carbon
emission effects of different approaches to promoting walking and cycling, to set appropriate targets, or to
allocate resources for new capital projects efficiently.
22
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
1NC No Active Transit Solvency
No solvency: Minority communities lack other infrastructure amenities that encourage active
transportation
Sallis, et al. 2012. (James F. Sallis, PhD-- From the Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, Myron F. Floyd, PhD-Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, North Carolina State University, Daniel A. Rodríguez, PhD-- Department of City
and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Brian E. Saelens, PhD-- Seattle Children's Research Institute, University of
Washington) “Recent Advances in Preventive Cardiology and Lifestyle Medicine Role of Built Environments in Physical Activity, Obesity, and
Cardiovascular Disease”, American Heart Association Journal, June 19, 2012, http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/125/5/729.full
It appears that disparities in access to activity-supportive community environments vary across attributes.
There is little evidence that Hispanics and blacks, or low-income populations, are disadvantaged with
respect to the density of areas in which they live.70,71 Racial and ethnic minority and low socioeconomic
status groups may be particularly sensitive to the built environment. In a review, light traffic, safety from
crime, and sidewalks were most consistently associated with physical activity among black Americans.71
However, low socioeconomic status or high-minority neighborhoods appear to have less supportive
environmental conditions for active transportation. A review concluded that disadvantaged neighborhoods
had poorer aesthetics and worse conditions related to traffic safety and crime safety.71 For example, a
study of 2 US regions found that lower- and higher-income neighborhoods did not differ substantially
with regard to commonly assessed walkability variables, but lower-income neighborhoods had less
favorable values on pedestrian/cycling facilities, aesthetics, access to recreation facilities, traffic safety,
and crime safety.72 These poor conditions could potentially overcome the beneficial effects of living in a
walkable low-income neighborhood.
Portland is unique and not representative--Cannot generalize Portland experience to rest of nation
Dill, 2009. (Jennifer Dill, Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University). “Bicycling for Transportation
and Health: The Role of Infrastructure, Journal of Public Health Policy (2009) 30, S95–S110. doi:10.1057/jphp.2008.56
As with any research conducted in one location, care must be taken when applying the results to other
locations. There is no comprehensive data set that includes the miles of bicycle infrastructure for other
cities or metropolitan areas, so it is difficult to know exactly how Portland compares. In addition, the
Portland region includes other bicycling supportive factors that were not examined as part of this study,
yet likely influence behavior. The many types of innovative infrastructure to support bicycling installed
by the City of Portland include special traffic signals, way finding signage (to help bicyclists orient
themselves and find an appropriate route), on-street bike parking areas, and traffic signal detectors. Noninfrastructure programs and policies (e.g., marketing programs) and several independent bicycle
organizations and events may also help create a ‘‘bicycle culture’’ that likely influences bicycling
behavior.
23
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
1NC No Active Transit Solvency
Physical activity and health are not constant across socioeconomic divide. The fundamental
assumption that you can generalize across race is flawed.
Sallis, 2009. (James F. Sallis--Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, Brian E. Saelens--University of Washington and
Children’s Hospital and Regional Medical Center, Seattle, Lawrence D. Frank-- School of Community and Regional Planning, University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada & Lawrence Frank & Company, Point Robert, WA c,d, Terry L. Conway--Graduate School of Public
Health, San Diego State University, Donald J. Slymen-- Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, Kelli L. Cain -Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, James E. Chapman-- Lawrence Frank & Company, Point Robert, WA, Jacqueline Kerr-San Diego State University, University of California San Diego, CA, USA) “Neighborhood built environment and income: Examining multiple
health outcomes”, Social Science & Medicine 68 (2009) 1285–1293
Because disparities in health outcomes (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2004) and physical
activity are well documented across socioeconomic groups (Crespo, Smit, Andersen, Carter-Pokras, &
Ainsworth, 2000), an important question is whether favorable built environments could reduce health
disparities. Findings that walkability was related to physical activity and obesity among whites but not
blacks (Frank, Andresen, & Schmid, 2004; Frank, Sallis, Chapman, & Saelens, 2005) raise the possibility
that not all groups benefit from walkable built environments. Because a primary health objective of the
United States is to eliminate health disparities (United States Department of Health and Human Services,
2000), it is important to determine whether walkability has similar associations with health outcomes in
lower and higher-income groups.
24
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
Extensions for Active Transportation Solvency
Women are not comfortable with active transportation for many reasons
The Community Cycling Center, 2009. “Understanding Barriers to Bicycling Transportation Literature Review”
http://www.communitycyclingcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/understanding-barriers-transportation-review-101909.pdf
This is a collection of studies from a conference held by the Transportation Research Board, many of
which may be helpful in understanding barriers to women bicycling. One paper documents the difference
between men and women in trip-chaining behavior, which may reveal how bicycling could be adapted to
better serve the needs of women who need to transport children or make multiple stops on a trip. Another
discusses the difference in preference for different types of bicycle facilities for men and women. Another
analyzes the fear of crime as an obstacle to women walking, which may also be a barrier to bicycling.
Other studies document the difference in travel needs depending on whether men or women work, and
what role they serve in their household. This represents the largest single body of information on factors
that may influence women’s ability or inclination to bicycle.
Changing transportation alone is not enough. Crime and other factors will discourage active
transportation
Sallis, 2009. (James F. Sallis--Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, Brian E. Saelens--University of Washington and
Children’s Hospital and Regional Medical Center, Seattle, Lawrence D. Frank-- School of Community and Regional Planning, University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada & Lawrence Frank & Company, Point Robert, WA c,d, Terry L. Conway--Graduate School of Public
Health, San Diego State University, Donald J. Slymen-- Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, Kelli L. Cain -Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, James E. Chapman-- Lawrence Frank & Company, Point Robert, WA, Jacqueline Kerr-San Diego State University, University of California San Diego, CA, USA) “Neighborhood built environment and income: Examining multiple
health outcomes”, Social Science & Medicine 68 (2009) 1285–1293
There were no significant income differences on walking for transport or leisure, but there was an
interaction between walkability and income on walking for transportation. The walkability– walking for
transport association was weaker for adults living in lower-income than in higher-income neighborhoods.
This is an important finding because it suggests lower-income residents may not experience all of the
benefits from living in a walkable neighborhood unless other needs are met. Perceived danger from crime,
which is higher among lower-income adults (Loukaitou-Sideris & Eckc, 2007), could reduce their
willingness to walk for transport even in high-walkability neighborhoods (Doyle, Kelly-Schwartz,
Schlossberg, & Stockard, 2006). After adjusting for self-selection, the walkability by income interaction
became non-significant. Self-selection may not apply equally to lower- and higher-income groups, since
higher-income groups may be able to satisfy more personal criteria when selecting neighborhoods
(Levine & Frank, 2007).
25
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
Extensions for Active Transportation Solvency
Judges have a responsibility to evaluate the evidence carefully and not misuse
Krizek, et al 2009. Kevin J Krizek--College of Architecture and Planning, University of Colorado, Susan L Handy--Department of
Environmental Science and Policy, University of California at Davis, Ann Forsyth--City and Regional Planning, Cornell University. “Explaining
changes in walking and bicycling behavior: challenges for transportation research”,
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2009, volume 36, pages 725 - 740
Adhering to all of these recommendations takes skill, time, resources, and patience, and
many not be possible in every study. Researchers have a responsibility to employ sound
methodologies and represent their results accurately. But consumers of research also have a
responsibility to understand the limitations of the available evidence and not misuse that
evidence in making the case for bicycle and pedestrian interventions. We hope that we have helped both
researchers and research consumers understand better the challenges inherent in efforts to document the effects of bicycle and pedestrian
interventions.
No evidence that infrastructure will lead to active transit behavior
Oglivie, et al., 2008. David Ogilvie--Medical Research Council Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Glasgow and Medical Research
Council Epidemiology Unit, Cambridge, Richard Mitchell--Section of Public Health and Health Policy, University of Glasgow, Nanette Mutrie-Department of Sport, Culture and the Arts, University of Strathclyde, Mark Petticrew--London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine,
London and Stephen Platt--Research Unit in Health, Behaviour and Change, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh,
“Personal and environmental correlates of active travel and physical activity in a deprived urban population”
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 2008, 5:43 doi:10.1186/1479-5868-5-43
On the other hand, we may have demonstrated a real absence of any major association. Although at first
sight this appears at odds with the growing body of review-level evidence for environmental correlates of
physical activity, Wendel-Vos and colleagues noted that of all the environmental factors examined in all
the studies included in their review, analysis showed a 'null association' in 76% of cases [9], and our
finding that personal factors account for a much larger proportion of the variance in active travel or
physical activity than is accounted for by environmental factors is consistent with those of some other
European studies [32,33]. In the particular context of this study, residents may simply have adapted to
adverse conditions in their local environment in the ways identified by Hedges in a qualitative study of
people living close to new roads built in the UK in the 1970s [34] – particularly by attitudinal adaptation,
which Hedges characterises as developing an attitude that it is futile to resist. One can imagine that in the
most deprived areas of Glasgow, people may have become resigned to the nature of their surroundings,
seeing them as inevitable and not amenable to change either through environmental improvement or
through their moving to another area.
26
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
Extensions for Active Transportation Solvency
No evidence that infrastructure investment will lead to active transit behavior
Oglivie, et al., 2008. David Ogilvie--Medical Research Council Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Glasgow and Medical Research
Council Epidemiology Unit, Cambridge, Richard Mitchell--Section of Public Health and Health Policy, University of Glasgow, Nanette Mutrie-Department of Sport, Culture and the Arts, University of Strathclyde, Mark Petticrew--London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine,
London and Stephen Platt--Research Unit in Health, Behaviour and Change, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh,
“Personal and environmental correlates of active travel and physical activity in a deprived urban population”
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 2008, 5:43 doi:10.1186/1479-5868-5-43
After demographic and socioeconomic characteristics were taken into account, neither perceptions of the
local environment nor objective proximity to major road infrastructure appeared to explain much of the
variance in active travel or overall physical activity in this study. Our study population may be both
objectively constrained by their socioeconomic circumstances (including comparatively limited access to
private cars) and adapted to living in conditions which others would consider to pose a barrier to active
travel. Under these circumstances, environmental characteristics which have been found to influence
discretionary active travel in studies in other, more affluent populations may simply be irrelevant in a
population which is more captive in its travel choices. Environmental correlates of active travel should
not be assumed to be generalisable between populations; researchers should continue to test hypotheses
about putative environmental correlates in different settings, and policymakers should recognise that the
effects of interventions to change the environment are likely to vary between populations and between
socioeconomic groups within populations.
Transportation alone is not sufficient--Too many other resources necessary to solve inactive
lifestyle disparities.
Garcia et al, 2009. (Robert Garcia--The City Project, Los Angeles, CA, America Bracho and Patricia Cantero-Latino Health Access, Santa Ana, CA, and Beth Glenn—School of Public Health and Johnsson Comprehensive
Cancer Center, UCLA), “’Pushing Physical Activity, and Justice’”, Preventive Medicine, 49 (2009) 330–33
Realization of the severity of the obesity and chronic disease epidemics and failure of individually
focused interventions has led to heightened interest in implementing environmental interventions to
increase physical activity. Although promising, the impact of these strategies in ultimately reducing the
obesity epidemic will be limited by the presence of continued inequities in the distribution of physical
activity-related resources in the community. Advocacy efforts are critically needed to ensure that all
communities benefit equally from infrastructure projects designed to build healthy communities, effective
public schools and safe and reliable transportation. Without continued advocacy efforts, the
environmental strategies being implemented to increase physical activity levels in the population will lead
to a widening versus narrowing of the gap between the health status of the wealthy and poor in this
country.
27
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
1NC No Planning Solvency
Models are difficult to develop
Martens, Karel, 2006. Radboud University Nijemegan, “Basing Transport Planning on Principles of Justice,”
Berkeley Planning Journal, 19 (1), 1-15, 2006 http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0tg6v7tn
The challenge will be to develop a practically feasible method to ascribe monetary values to accessibility
gains. Of all the accessibility measures developed since the early article of Hansen (1959), the measures
that are based on economic theory and apply the concept of user benefits to assess accessibility offer the
most potential (e.g., Ben-Akiva and Lerman 1985). But even these methods still fall short of translating
accessibility and accessibility gains to monetary values (Miller 1999b). The development of a practically
feasible method is further complicated by the conditions set by cost-benefit analysis. These conditions
include an often limited data set with regard to travel and accessibility, which does not incorporate
information on spatial or temporal constraints necessary for accessibility measures developed along the
lines of time-space geography. This suggests the application of a relatively simple accessibility measure,
which uses only data that are commonly generated within the framework of transport (demand) modeling
and cost-benefit analysis. At the same time, the measure will have to be sophisticated enough to assess
differences in accessibility between population groups, as defined, for example, by income or car
ownership level. Classic accessibility measures that generate aggregate accessibility indices at the level of
land uses or transport activity zones are thus not enough, as they do not provide the information necessary
from the perspective of social justice.
Need more comprehensive community planning
Garcia et al, 2009. (Robert Garcia--The City Project, Los Angeles, CA, America Bracho and Patricia Cantero-Latino Health Access, Santa Ana, CA, and Beth Glenn—School of Public Health and Johnsson Comprehensive
Cancer Center, UCLA), “’Pushing Physical Activity, and Justice’”, Preventive Medicine, 49 (2009) 330–33
These case studies illustrate how advocacy efforts have resulted in increased access to public resources
related to physical activity in several Southern California communities. Given the current inequities in
access to public resources in poor and ethnic minority commu- nities, continued advocacy efforts are
vital.
With regard to the development and use of public lands, we have proposed ten principles to guide policy
makers, which we summarize here (See full text of principles in García and White, 2006). The process of
decision-making regarding investment of public monies in the built environment need to be transparent
and fair and guided by a comprehensive vision for promoting the health of the entire community. Policymakers should prioritize projects that can meet multiple community needs as well as promote community
health such as establishing public parks within the campuses of new and remodeled schools that can
provide safe-space for physical activity and potentially remove pollutants from the water and mitigate
runoff. Resources should first be allocated to low-income and ethnic minority communities in order to
overcome the legacy of inequities in access to high quality public parks and schools. Standards for
measuring equity must be established for agencies in order to track progress in building healthy and
livable communities for all. Increased attention should be paid to ensuring that recipients of public funds
comply with federal and state laws designed to achieve equal access to all public resources including Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (i.e., prohibits discrimination on basis of race, color, or national origin
for programs and activities conducted with federal funding) and parallel state laws. Finally, the
community needs to be engaged and empowered to take part in all aspects of infrastructure decisionmaking and prepared to engage in advocacy efforts if the outcome of the decision-making process is not
satisfactory.
28
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
1NC No Planning Solvency
Need Broad coalitions to solve social inequities
Garcia et al, 2009. (Robert Garcia--The City Project, Los Angeles, CA, America Bracho and Patricia Cantero--Latino Health Access, Santa
Ana, CA, and Beth Glenn—School of Public Health and Johnsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, UCLA), “’Pushing Physical Activity, and
Justice’”, Preventive Medicine, 49 (2009) 330–33
First, there is a need to bring people together through coalition building and a shared vision based on
diverse values. Grassroots engagement is a necessity, and may require the development of coalitions with
broad agendas and working across multiple issues as has been noted by others (Tajik and Minkler, 2007).
The composition and nature of the coalition that are likely to be successful will depend on the timeline for
achieving the goal, characteristics of the affected community and the health topic of concern among other
factors.
Solvency: Environmental Justice approach overlooks important constituencies
Litman and Brenman, 2011. (Todd Litman--Victoria Policy Institute and Marc Brenman—Social Justice Constituency and Senior
Policy Advisor to the City Project) “New Social Equity Agenda for Sustainable Transportation (Draft for Discussion)”, March 3, 2011, p.3-4.
This approach is understandable. It addresses what can be considered the worst categories of social inequities (measurable discrimination against
vulnerable minorities), and it helps define a reasonable scope of issues that planning organizations can address. For example, to satisfy social
equity requirements a planning agency should identify any vulnerable minorities and any impacts that a project will impose on them, and then
work with that group to mitigate these impacts. Similarly, social equity advocacy organizations have a reasonably definable constituency with
definable concerns and intervention methods, including legal action.
However, this approach also has significant limitations:
•
It is not effective at representing the interests of less organized or geographically dispersed
groups. For example, it is more likely to represent the interests of minority or low-income people if they
live close together than if they are dispersed through a community. Transit riders and bicyclists tend to be
represented politically, but the much larger group of people who rely on walking are generally not
organized so their interests are poorly represented. Mobility for teenagers and young adults is generally
overlooked as a social equity issue.
•
It relies on often ambiguous classifications, such as race and age, as surrogates for functional status
such as poverty and physical disability. Although African Americans tend to have high poverty rates, it is
inaccurate to assume that all African Americans are poor, and unfair to overlook white population
poverty. Similarly, although seniors tend to have high disability rates, it is wrong to assume that all
seniors are disabled, and unfair to overlook the needs of younger disabled people. This can alienate
people who feel that their interests are undervalued, such as low-income people who lack minority status.
•
It tends to consider social equity issues in isolation, and so favors special mitigation actions rather
than more integrated solutions that may help achieve more total benefits. For example, it is more likely to
support special subsidies or transit services intended to help specific groups than to support broader
policy and planning reforms that create more diverse transport systems and more accessible land use,
which provide economic, environmental and social equity benefits.
•
It tends to overlook issues that are important to physically, economically and socially
disadvantaged groups but not specifically defined as discrimination, such as the impacts of planning
decisions on health, general household affordability, and community livability (Bell and Cohen 2009;
CNT 2008; Litman 2007)
Environmental justice, as it is currently applied, can therefore be considered a subset of total social equity
issues. Environmental justice might be considered to reflect the most extreme and therefore most
important issues, but this approach often excludes other impacts and groups.
29
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
Highway Trade-off Disadvantage
The Highways Disadvantage is a negative argument that says that investing in public transit leads to
fewer vehicle miles travelled. With fewer vehicle miles travelled, there will be less revenue available for
investing in highway infrastructure and repair. Infrastructure and repair of highways, it is argued, is
critical for economic growth. Good and efficient roadways are necessary for the movement of goods and
services, for the efficient movement of people to and from places of employment, and access to materials.
By hurting the US economy, the disadvantage says, it will hurt the trade competitiveness of the United
States in the global market place.
30
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
1NC HIGHWAY TRADE-OFF DISADVANTAGE 1/3
A. Uniqueness: States use federal funds for roads and highways now, not transit.
Building America’s Future Education Fund, 2011. Building America’s Future: Falling Apart and Falling Behind, Transportation
Infrastructure Report,
p. 16 Meanwhile, underinvestment in airports, in commuter and freight rail, and in ports costs us jobs,
economic growth, and access to overseas markets. Compared to the significant sums dedicated to roads,
government spending on other modes of transportation is relatively meager. The U.S. Department of
Transportation (USDOT) spends about $10.2 billion a year on public transit, or less than a quarter of what
it spends on highways. The federal government contributes even less to Amtrak’s operation costs.
In contrast to its highway funding programs, USDOT encourages greater state contributions to transit
projects. Since the majority of states are constitutionally or statutorily prohibited from using state gas
taxes for public transit projects, USDOT’s funding requirements are a tough imposition on states.
Unwilling or unable to match federal contributions with general revenue funds, states may be more
inclined to seek funding for more road projects than for new transit projects.
B. Link:
1. More public transit means less driving on roads.
Federal Transit Administration, January 2010, “Public Transportation’s Role in Responding to Climate Change”
US Department of Transportation,
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/PublicTransportationsRoleInRespondingToClimateChange2010.pdf
Multiple studies have quantified this relationship between public transportation, land use, and
reduction in travel. Studies show that for every additional passenger mile traveled on public
transportation, auto travel declines by 1.4 to 9 miles.7In other words, in areas served by public
transportation, even non-transit users drive less because destinations are closer together. One study used
modeling to isolate the effect of public transportation on driving patterns (rather than that effect combined
with denser land use creating a need for improved public transportation). That study, conducted by
consulting firm ICF and funded through the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), found that
each mile traveled on U.S. public transportation reduced driving by 1.9 miles. It concluded that public
transportation reduces U.S. travel by an estimated 102.2 billion vehicle miles traveled (VMT) each year,
or 3.4% of annual U.S. VMT.8 Moreover, the report argued, by reducing congestion, transit lowers
emissions from cars stuck in traffic. The Texas Transportation Institute’s 2007 Mobility Report estimates
that by reducing congestion, transit saved an estimated 340 million gallons of fuel in 2005.9
31
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
1NC HIGHWAY TRADE-OFF DISADVANTAGE 2/3
2. This means less money for roads from gas taxes.
Covington, January 19, 2012, “More Fuel Efficient Cars Spell Less Money For Mass Transit”(Phil Covington
holds an MBA in Sustainable Management from Presidio Graduate School. In the past, he spent 16 years in the
freight transportation and logistics industry)
http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/01/fuel-efficient-cars-spells-money-mass-transit/
At issue is the federal gasoline tax, which at 18.4 cents per gallon, is one of the world’s lowest rates. This
tax goes into the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), which was created in 1956 to finance highway construction
nationally. In 1982, Congress expanded its scope to fund mass-transit as well. In short, gas taxes help
fund mass transit, and today, the fund is being stretched beyond its limits.
According to the Economist, HTF revenues were down by one seventh between 2007 and 2010 alone; a
combination of fewer miles driven by Americans, and in more fuel efficient cars. If this trend continues,
it will have a significant adverse impact on an already shaky infrastructure, as the HTF accounts
for 22 percent of all highway funding and 17 percent of mass transit funding.
C. Impact: Highway funding is key to US Competitiveness
Bill Bradley, Tom Ridge, David Walker, Carnegie Endowment, 2011
[Road to Recovery: Transforming America’s Transportation, 2011 http://carnegieendowment.org/files/road_to_recovery.pdf]
The U.S. surface transportation infrastructure, which is intended to deliver mobility in an efficient and
safe manner, instead subjects drivers to traffic congestion that stifles commerce and impedes mobility
around cities and along freight corridors across the nation. The average rush-hour commuter spends a full
workweek stuck in traffic each year, and together commuters annually waste 3.9 billion gallons of fuel
and incur a direct cost of $115 billion (in 2009 dollars). Demand for freight transportation is expected to
double by 2035, yet there is no long-term plan to address mounting congestion. The failure to address
system inefficiencies adds to the cost of moving goods and threatens America’s economic
competitiveness.
32
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
1NC HIGHWAY TRADE-OFF DISADVANTAGE 3/3
1. Bad Highways weakens US competitiveness with China
Matt Sledge, Huffington Post, 2.2.12 [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/02/us-infrastructure- deficit_n_1250886.html
China envy has its problems. The country's growth spurt is relatively new, so it's no surprise that its
infrastructure is shinier. The innovative maglev train from the Shanghai airport to the center city isn't
necessarily representative of facilities in the country's interior. The country's centralized, dictatorial
leaders, meanwhile, often steamroll over environmental and safety concerns. But analysts from such
disparate groups as the US Chamber of Commerce and major labor unions agree that our failure to invest
is hurting the U.S. economy and U.S. businesses. Indeed, that was the thrust of a September report from
the American Society of Civil Engineers, which calculated that deficient and deteriorating roads will cost
US companies $240 billion over the next ten years in lost growth potential.
2. American Economic Decline increases risk of war with China
Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor, 2012 [Foreign Policy January/February 2012
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/03/8_geopolitically_endangered_species]
Since 1972, the United States has formally accepted the mainland's "one China" formula while
maintaining that neither side shall alter the status quo by force. Beijing, however, reserves the right to use
force, which allows Washington to justify its continued arms sales to Taiwan. In recent years, Taiwan and
China have been improving their relationship. America's decline, however, would increase Taiwan's
vulnerability, leaving decision-makers in Taipei more susceptible to direct Chinese pressure and the sheer
attraction of an economically successful China. That, at the least, could speed up the timetable for crossstrait reunification, but on unequal terms favoring the mainland. At stake: Risk of a serious collision with
China.
3. US-China War goes nuclear
The Straits Times 2000 [June 25, p. ln]
THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US
and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests,
then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and
near and -- horror of horrors -- raise the possibility of a nuclear war.
33
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
Uniqueness Extensions—Funding to Highways Now
States steer all federal funds to highways maintenance under current law
Transportation for America, 2009 Platform for the National Transportation Authorization Program
p. 10 Flexible funding provisions have not been exercised by most states, with most of the national total
in “flex funds” occurring in just five states: California, Pennsylvania, New York, Oregon and Virginia.
Efforts of MPOs to take charge of local transportation program priority setting have met with entrenched
resistance from many state DOTs, with the result that in many urban areas (especially smaller areas) the
state still controls development of the transportation improvement program. As a result, over three-fourths
of the national transportation program continues to be invested in highway system expansion nationally.
Funding is directed to roads now
Building America’s Future Education Fund, 2011. Building America’s Future: Falling Apart and Falling Behind,
Transportation Infrastructure Report,
p. 16 Government transportation spending, at all levels of government, is overwhelmingly directed toward
roads. Since 1956, the largest portion of public funding for transportation infrastructure was dedicated to
building and maintaining highways.1 Although a small portion (15%) of the federal gas tax is dedicated
to a fund for mass transit, the vast majority of federal gas tax revenue is spent on highways. The same is
true for state gas taxes: 30 states are actually constitutionally or statutorily required to spend 100% of
their gas tax revenues on roads. The disproportionate channeling of transportation dollars toward
highways has encouraged more and more construction of roads, even as the demand rises for other forms
of transportation.
34
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
Uniqueness Extensions—US Infrastructure Good Now
US Infrastructure is among the best in the world
Charles Lane, Washington Post 10.31.11 [http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-infrastructure-argument-that- crumblesupon-examination/2011/10/31/gIQAnILRaM_story.html]
For all its shortcomings, U.S. infrastructure is still among the most advanced in the world — if not the
most advanced. I base this not on selective personal experience but on the same data alarmists cite. The
contiguous United States (that is, excluding Alaska and Hawaii) cover 3.1 million square miles, including
deserts, mountain ranges, rivers and two oceanic coastlines. In a world of vast dictatorships (China), tiny
democracies (Switzerland) and everything in between, from Malta to Mexico, the challenge of building
and maintaining first-rate roads, bridges, railroads, airports and seaports in a country like the United
States is extraordinary — and so is the degree to which the United States succeeds. When you compare
America’s WEF rankings with those of the 19 other largest countries, it stands second only to Canada,
which is lightly populated — and whose infrastructure is linked with ours.
Infrastructure risks are overstated
Randal O’ Toole, CATO Institute, May 15, 2012 [Policy Analysis: Ending Congestion by Refinancing Highways, No. 695,
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA695.pdf]
In recent years Americans have been besieged by reports that the nation is in the midst of an infrastructure
crisis. Those claims are simply wrong, at least with respect to highways and bridges. Nationally, the
number of bridges considered “structurally deficient” has declined in every year since 1990 (the earliest
year for which data are available). Where nearly 138,000 bridges were so classified in 1990, by 2011 the
number had declined more than 50 percent to less than 68,000 (see Figure 3). 12 As there are more
bridges today than in 1990, the percentage of deficient bridges has declined even more. Highway
conditions have also steadily improved. One measure of highway condition is the International
Roughness Index, which ranges from 0 to 300 with lower numbers being smoother. As shown in Table 2,
this index has steadily improved for all major highway systems.
35
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
Link Extensions—Less Money for Highways
Transportation revenue comes from highway miles driven which the affirmative claims to decrease
with their plan. Thus, there will be less money for highway investment.
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, President, American Action Forum and Martin Wachs, Senior Researcher, RAND
Corporation, 2011 [Strengthening Connections Between Transportation Investments and Economic Growth, National Transportation Policy
Project, January 21, 2011]
This is the case even though transportation programs have historically been financed to a greater extent by
“user fees” than by general funds. Nevertheless, transportation spending has been deeply affected by the
same trends that have contributed to the deterioration of the overall federal budget situation. Resistance to
raising taxes has meant that federal taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel—at 18.4 and 24.4 cents per gallon,
respectively—have not been raised since 1993. Taking into account inflation, this means real tax rates
have declined: in addition the purchasing power of the dollar, as measured by the consumer price index,
has fallen by one-third over the same time period. Revenues raised through the gas tax have fallen still
further relative to the actual demands placed on the nation’s highways as cars and trucks became more
fuel efficient and thus traveled further on each gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel. This means that Federal
Highway Trust Fund revenues per mile driven have fallen dramatically since better fuel economy
translates into fewer gallons of fuel purchased for the same.
Fewer miles driven means less revenue for highways
National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, 2009, Paying Our Way: A New Framework
for Transportation Finance, Final Report of the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, February 2009
p. 101 The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) estimates that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) will
maintain an average annual growth rate of 1.5–2.0 percent over the long term as economic expansion and
population growth continue to generate demand for highway travel.5 At the same time, however, the most
recent U.S. Energy Information Agency estimates predict that the average fuel efficiency for all light-duty
vehicles on the road will grow from 20.4 MPG today to 28.9 MPG by 2030, an increase of 42 percent,
while that for freight trucks will grow from 6.0 MPG to 6.9 MPG, an increase of 15 percent.6 The
combined effect of these anticipated trends is that at current tax rates, total nominal tax revenues will
continue to grow, although at a slower rate than inflation. (Thus the purchasing power of the generated
revenues will actually decline and will decline even further as a share of VMT.) The growth that does
occur will largely be due to steady nominal growth in diesel tax proceeds. (See Exhibit 4–4.) Nominal
gasoline tax revenues will only experience moderate growth over the next 25 years and are actually
expected to dip for a period until the growth in travel (due in large part simply to population growth)
offsets the effect of fuel efficiency improvements on total gas consumption. As illustrated in Exhibit 4–5,
the growth in total federal motor fuel tax revenues will be insufficient to keep up with inflation. Thus
while annual nominal fuel tax revenues are expected to climb to $38.3 billion by 2035, the value of these
revenues in 2008 dollars will only be $22.4 billion.
36
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
Link Extensions Less Money for Highways
Decline in gasoline tax revenue will decrease money for highway investment
National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, 2009 , Paying Our Way: A New Framework
for Transportation Finance, Final Report of the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, February 2009
p. 108 Looking forward, a variety of factors are converging to challenge the preeminence of MFTs as the
primary source of surface transportation funding. Due to a combination of travel growth, system
deterioration, increasing construction costs, and lack of indexing, fuel tax revenues are becoming
increasingly inadequate to meet investment needs. This inadequacy will likely be exacerbated as
improved fuel efficiency and the development of alternative fuel vehicles reduce fuel consumption.
Moreover, the public’s willingness to pay for the required investments through an increase in motor fuel
taxes appears to be weak and may be declining. At the same time, the growing need to maintain and
adequately fund a national transportation system will heighten the importance of developing a funding
approach that will meet future system improvement and maintenance needs. In urban congested areas, it
is possible that charging users of the system more directly will not only raise revenues but also influence
driver behavior and lead to reductions in both congestion levels and the investment that is needed. The
bottom line conclusion of the Commission is that motor fuel taxes are currently the most viable federal
funding source for surface transportation investment and will likely remain so for several years. The
inability of these taxes, particularly at current rates, to meet future investment needs, however, clearly
raises questions about their long-term sustainability.
National Transportation Policy Project, June 2011 [Performance Driven: Achieving Wiser Investment in Transportation,
Bipartisan Policy Center, http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/report/performance-drivenachieving- wiser-investment-transportation]
Today’s situation is different. Leaders from both parties have made it clear that an increase in the motor
fuel tax is highly unlikely (the tax was last changed in 1993). Even after the economy revives, revenues
from federal highway user fees are expected to grow more slowly than in previous decades. Automobile
fuel economy is increasing again and current federal mandates require the new car and light truck fleet to
reach a combined fleet average of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. More efficient vehicles, a reduced rate
of growth in VMT, and a continued transition away from gasoline as our primary motor fuel, inevitably
means that the current highway funding mechanism will generate fewer new dollars than in the past.
37
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
Link Extensions—Highways Key to Growth
Highway spending increases growth for many reasons
Howard Shatz, RAND Corporation, 2011 [Highway Infrastructure and the Economy: Implications for Federal Policy, 2011
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1049.pdf]
In this study, we concentrated on this foundational issue and explored the extent to which highway
investments in fact contribute to improvement in economic outcomes. Transportation investments
generate improvements in economic well-being by increasing connectivity and reducing travel time, and,
in the best case, they increase productivity— the ability to generate more output from each unit of labor,
capital, and materials inputs. Productivity increases lead to higher employee earnings, higher profits, and
improved standards of living. These, in turn, encourage private capital investments in structures,
equipment, and technologies and thus create jobs. Aside from productivity improvements, other valuable
outcomes include increases in output, employment, and income.
Transportation infrastructure investments expands markets, increases trade advantage, and
increases economic development
T.R. Lakshmanan, 2011 (Boston University, Dept of Geography and Environment) [J of Transport Georgraphy, 19 (2011) p.1-12]
Fig. 8 offers one view of the mechanisms and processes underlying the wider economic benefits of
transport infrastructure investments. It is a contemporary version of what the Economic Historians, (e.g.
Williamson, 1974; O’Brien, 1983) call ‘‘forward linkages” of transport infrastructure. The lower costs
and increased accessibility due to transport improvements modify the marginal costs of transport
producers, the households’ mobility and demand for goods and services. Such changes ripple through the
market mechanisms endogenizing employment, output, and income in the short run. Over time dynamic
development effects derive from the mechanisms set in motion when transport service improvements
activate a variety of interconnected economy- wide processes and yield a range of sectoral, spatial, and
regional effects, that augment overall productivity. The lower costs and enhanced accessibility due to
transport infrastructure and service improvements expand markets for individual transport-using firms. As
such market expansion links the economies of different localities and regions, there is a major
consequence in terms of shifting from local and regional autarky to increasing specialization and trade
and the resultant upsurge in productivity. Thus, the US Interstate Highway System, the Trans- European
Network (TEN) Program and super-efficient ocean ports all contribute to ‘‘Smithian” growth— growth
arising from specialization and trade.
Highway investment increases trade advantages
T.R. Lakshmanan, 2011 (Boston University, Dept of Geography and Environment) [J of Transport Georgraphy, 19 (2011) p.1-12]
The lowering of travel time and costs, and the service improvements induced by transport infrastructure
expands the markets for individual transport-using firms. As such market expansion links the economies
of different localities and regions, there is a major consequence in terms of a shift from local and regional
autarky to increasing specialization and trade and the consequent upsurge in productivity. This is as true
for inter-regional trade between highly differentiated regional economies in continental regions such as
the United States or the European Union as for cross-border international trade in Free Trade Areas
(FTAs). The US Interstate Highway System, the Trans-European Network program and the emergence of
super-efficient ocean ports all contribute to ‘‘Smithian” growth—growth arising due to specialization and
trade.
38
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
Link Extensions--Highways Key to Growth
Transportation infrastructure is essential
Bill Bradley, Tom Ridge, David Walker, Carnegie Endowment, 2011 [Road to Recovery: Transforming America’s
Transportation, 2011 http://carnegieendowment.org/files/road_to_recovery.pdf]
These shortfalls in our federal transportation program do not justify abandoning federal transportation
assistance—quite the opposite, actually. A nation’s transportation system is a major actor in its economy,
deserving investment and requiring federal funding and oversight. Changes to the system will help ensure
future economic growth, recognize demographic and geographic shifts in both population and
preferences, advance environmental and energy security, and embrace and support innovation. All of
these items are necessary to maintain global competitiveness and guarantee future prosperity.
Highways are key to economic growth
Ernst Frankel, Professor Emeritus, Engineering, MIT, October 2007 [http://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/201/frankel.html]
Infrastructure is the lifeblood of an economy and continued failure to address its needs will invariably
lead to decline, particularly in an American economy increasingly based on services and not on
manufacturing and agriculture. Our competitors, such as China, India, and others, train proportionally a
much larger number of engineers committed to and capable of advancing their infrastructure. This will
give them an enormous advantage in facing increasingly complex economic challenges. Many of our
competitors build major infrastructure in less than half the time and at less than half the cost as we do.
They increasingly dominate the global infrastructure engineering and project market, a sector in which
U.S. firms led not too long ago. In many Asian countries as much as 30% of engineering research funding
is for infrastructure design, technology, materials, testing, and fabrication research – and that percentage
is growing. There are estimates that the U.S. will have to spend as much as 5% of its GNP (or over
$600b/year) for infrastructure repair, replacement, and expansion for many years to come if it wants to
remain competitive in the international economy.
Highways key to economic competitiveness
Matthew Slaughter, Professor, Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth, 2011 [Building Competitiveness, Organization of
International Investment, April 12, http://www.ofii.org/news-room/ofii-press-releases/976-ofii-kicks-off-infrastructure- campaign-to-build-.html]
Indeed, the Crisis and Recession have expanded America’s competitiveness challenge because so many
dynamic emerging economies have sustained high growth rates in recent years. While America’s GDP
fell by 2.6% in 2009, GDP in India grew by 5.7% and in China by 9.1%--rates that accelerated to about
10% in 2010. The International Monetary Fund calculates that 2010 GDP growth averaged 7.1% for all
emerging and developing economies. The challenge facing America today is not just building an
economic recovery. It is building an economic recovery that also advances America’s global
competitiveness. A globally competitive America must fundamentally mean the success of American
workers: success in creating globally competitive, high- productivity, good-paying jobs by all companies
operating in America. American workers and their families need dynamic jobs with rising earnings and
thus rising standards of living.
39
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
AT: China will decline
No China Collapse: They will continue to grow and have a chance to overtake
Alexander Vuving, Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, April 4, 2012 [ssrn-id2035188.pdf, “What is China Rising
to? Assessing China’s and America’s Primacy Potentials]
Contrary to some widespread beliefs, China’s unbalanced growth path is unlikely to lead to the collapse
of the Chinese economy in the near future. Instead, it may even shorten China’s rise to economic primacy.
If China continues its current investment- driven and export-led path, it can hardly avoid a long period of
stagnation in the future. However, none of the possible triggers of recession is likely to immensely derail
China’s growth in the near future. The immediate cause of China’s “lost decades” is likely to be a debt
crisis precipitated by the loss of the demographic dividend in a rapidly aging population, which no longer
is able to save massively to keep the banking system afloat. As this is likely to become acute in the 2030s,
China will likely enter a period of stagnation in two (but not one or a half) decades from now. In the
meantime, China will still have a great chance to overtake the United States as the world’s largest
economy.
China will continue to grow for at least another decade
Arthur Kroeber, editor China Economic Quarterly, Brookings, May 2012 [Foreign Policy May 22, 2012
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/05/22/bear_in_a_china_shop]
No question, China has many problems. Years of one-sided investment-driven growth have created
obvious excesses and overcapacity. A weaker global economy since the 2008 financial crisis and rapidly
rising labor cost at home have slowed China's vaunted export machine. Meanwhile, a massive housing
bubble is slowly deflating, and the latest economic data is discouraging. Real growth in GDP slowed to an
annualized rate of less than 7 percent in the first quarter of 2012, and April saw a sharp slowdown in
industrial output, electricity production, bank lending, and property transactions. Is China's legendary
economy in serious trouble?
Not just yet. The odds are that China will navigate these shoals and continue to grow at a fairly rapid pace
of around 7 percent a year for the remainder of the decade, overtaking the United States to become the
world's biggest economy around 2020. That's a lot slower than the historical average of 10 percent, but
still solid.
China has not overinvested in its Infrastructure
Arthur Kroeber, editor China Economic Quarterly, Brookings, May 2012 [Foreign Policy May 22, 2012
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/05/22/bear_in_a_china_shop]
And despite years of breakneck building, China's stock of fixed capital -- the total value of infrastructure,
housing, and industrial plants -- is not all that large relative to either the economy or the population. Rich
countries typically have a capital stock a bit more than three times their annual GDP. For China, the
figure is about two and a half. And on a per capita basis, China has about as much fixed capital as Japan
did in the late 1960s and less than a third of what the United States had as long ago as 1930. Further
large-scale investments are still required. So China's economy can continue to grow in part based on
capital spending, though a gradual transition to a consumer-led economy does need to begin soon.
40
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
China Impact Extensions
Miscalculation over Taiwan will lead to nuclear war
Michael Swaine, Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment, 2005
[www.carnegieendowment.org/events/index.cfm?fa=eventDetail&id=771&&prog= zch]
“It is by no means certain that a severe military-political crisis over Taiwan could be contained. In such a
crisis, the danger of rapid and uncontrollable escalation would probably exist, as each side sought to
convey its resolve, neutralize or deflect actual military strikes, and defend against potential attacks. The
dangers of this situation would be enormously aggravated by the fact that US military actions might be
read by the Chinese leadership as a threat to China’s nuclear arsenal, requiring a robust response. A
further danger is presented by the possibility that Taiwan might take actions that serve to escalate the
crisis, either inadvertently or by design.”
China is a unique and serious threat to US economic dominance
Gideon Rachman, foreign affair commentator, Financial Times 2011 [Foreign Policy, Jan/Feb 2011
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/02/think_again_american_decline?]
This time it's different. It's certainly true that America has been through cycles of declinism in the past.
Campaigning for the presidency in 1960, John F. Kennedy complained, "American strength relative to
that of the Soviet Union has been slipping, and communism has been advancing steadily in every area of
the world." Ezra Vogel's Japan as Number One was published in 1979, heralding a decade of steadily
rising paranoia about Japanese manufacturing techniques and trade policies. In the end, of course, the
Soviet and Japanese threats to American supremacy proved chimerical. So Americans can be forgiven if
they greet talk of a new challenge from China as just another case of the boy who cried wolf. But a
frequently overlooked fact about that fable is that the boy was eventually proved right. The wolf did
arrive -- and China is the wolf. The Chinese challenge to the United States is more serious for both
economic and demographic reasons. The Soviet Union collapsed because its economic system was highly
inefficient, a fatal flaw that was disguised for a long time because the USSR never attempted to compete
on world markets. China, by contrast, has proved its economic prowess on the global stage. Its economy
has been growing at 9 to 10 percent a year, on average, for roughly three decades. It is now the world's
leading exporter and its biggest manufacturer, and it is sitting on more than $2.5 trillion of foreign
reserves. Chinese goods compete all over the world. This is no Soviet-style economic basket case. Japan,
of course, also experienced many years of rapid economic growth and is still an export powerhouse. But it
was never a plausible candidate to be No. 1. The Japanese population is less than half that of the United
States, which means that the average Japanese person would have to be more than twice as rich as the
average American before Japan's economy surpassed America's. That was never going to happen. By
contrast, China's population is more than four times that of the United States. The famous projection by
Goldman Sachs that China's economy will be bigger than that of the United States by 2027 was made
before the 2008 economic crash. At the current pace, China could be No. 1 well before then.
41
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
Impact Extension: US Economic Hegemony
Global power is a zero-sum game determined by economic power
Gideon Rachman, foreign affair commentator, Financial Times 2011 [Foreign Policy, Jan/Feb 2011
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/02/think_again_american_decline?]
And when it comes to the broader geopolitical picture, the world of the future looks even more like a
zero-sum game, despite the gauzy rhetoric of globalization that comforted the last generation of American
politicians. For the United States has been acting as if the mutual interests created by globalization have
repealed one of the oldest laws of international politics: the notion that rising players eventually clash
with established powers. In fact, rivalry between a rising China and a weakened America is now apparent
across a whole range of issues, from territorial disputes in Asia to human rights.
Economic dominance is key to global power
Leslie Gelb, Council on Foreign Relations, 2010 [Fletcher Forum of World Affairsvol.34:2 summer 2010
http://fletcher.tufts.edu/forum/archives/pdfs/34-2pdfs/Gelb.pdf]
Power is what it always has been. It is the ability to get someone to do something they do not want to do
by means of your resources and your position. It was always that. There is no such thing in my mind as
“soft” power or “hard” power or “smart” power or “dumb” power. It is people who are hard or soft or
smart or dumb. Power is power. And people use it wisely or poorly. Now, what has changed is the
composition of power in international affairs. For almost all of history, international power was achieved
in the form of military power and military force. Now, particularly in the last fifty years or so, it has
become more and more economic. So power consists of economic power, military power, and diplomatic
power, but the emphasis has shifted from military power (for almost all of history) to now, more
economic power. And, as President Obama said in his West Point speech several months ago, our
economy is the basis of our international power in general and our military power in particular. That is
where it all comes from. Whether other states listen to us and act on what we say depends a good deal on
their perception of the strength of the American economy. A big problem for us in the last few years has
been the perception that our economy is in decline.
US Economic decline threatens US influence
Gideon Rachman, foreign affair commentator, Financial Times 2011 [Foreign Policy, Jan/Feb
2011http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/02/think_again_american_decline?]
China's economic prowess is already allowing Beijing to challenge American influence all over the world.
The Chinese are the preferred partners of many African governments and the biggest trading partner of
other emerging powers, such as Brazil and South Africa. China is also stepping in to buy the bonds of
financially strapped members of the eurozone, such as Greece and Portugal. And China is only the largest
part of a bigger story about the rise of new economic and political players. America's traditional allies in
Europe -- Britain, France, Italy, even Germany -- are slipping down the economic ranks. New powers are
on the rise: India, Brazil, Turkey. They each have their own foreign-policy preferences, which
collectively constrain America's ability to shape the world. Think of how India and Brazil sided with
China at the global climate- change talks. Or the votes by Turkey and Brazil against America at the
United Nations on sanctions against Iran. That is just a taste of things to come.
42
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
Impact Extension: US Hegemony prevents war
Declining US power risks many global war scenarios
Zalmay Khalilzad, former US Ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq, Feb 8, 2011
[http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-national-security- zalmaykhalilzad?pg=2]
If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but
when a new international order will emerge. The closing of the gap between the United States and its
rivals could intensify geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for local powers
to play major powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international
crises because of the higher risk of escalation. The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period
of peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems
have been unstable, with their competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among
the great powers. Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world wars. American
retrenchment could have devastating consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional
powers could rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be
a heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out conflict.
US Hegemony decreases the risk of war
Richard Maher, PhD. candidate, Brown University, ORBIS, March 2011 [ORBIS, Winter 2011 Volume 55, Issue 1 p.
59]
To say that the end of unquestioned preeminence may be good for the United States is counterintuitive.
Power matters in international politics, and preeminence has produced a number of benefits for the United
States (and its allies): security, especially from attack by other states, and the absence of power
competition more generally; relative order and stability, particularly the decreasing frequency of interstate war; prosperity and unparalleled wealth creation, and greater freedom of action and influence over
events. Preeminence, by definition, entails few constraints to the projection of power and influence
abroad. By virtue of its position, other countries naturally look to the United States for leadership, on
everything from Middle East peace to climate change. All other things being equal, preeminence clearly
is preferable to a position of subservience, lack of agency, and weakness.
American Hegemony continues to decrease threat of dangerous wars
Bradley Thayer, assoc prof, Missouri State Univ, The National Interest 2006 [In Defense of Primacy, National Interest,
Nov/Dec 2006 Issue 86]
In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, American primacy within the
international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world. The first has been a
more peaceful world. During the Cold War, U.S. leadership reduced friction among many states that were
historical antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today, American primacy helps keep a
number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea
and Japan, India and Pakistan, Indonesia and Australia. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's
vision of ending all war. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened, such
as in Darfur, but a Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood, particularly war's worst form: great
power wars.
43
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
Impact Extension: US Hegemony prevents war
American Hegemony keeps nuclear powers from catastrophic wars
Robert Kagan, senior associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2007 [Policy Review No. 144,
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy- review/article/6136]
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.
44
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
Budget Disadvantage
The budget disadvantage says that the United States does not have the resources to continue to invest in
public infrastructure. The cost of investing in public and active transit infrastructure is too expensive and
will cause a substantial drain on federal revenue. The result is a sharp decline in economic growth. There
is a second way of running this argument that says that the issue of spending is so contentious that
Congress will be so upset if the plan is passed that they will cut funding for other programs, especially
food price supports. The result of that will be a substantial increase in food prices resulting in starvation
and wars over access to food.
45
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
1NC Budget Disadvantage 1/3
A. UNIQUENESS: The US is displaying fiscal discipline – spending has grown at a snail’s
pace
Baker 12 (Peter, “Obama More Conservative Than Hoover? Someone Thinks So,” 5-23-12,
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/obama-more-conservative-than-hoover-someone-thinks-so/)
Mr. Carney volunteered an extensive and robust answer to one that was not asked, defending Mr. Obama
against Republican charges of fiscal recklessness. He read a passage from Rex Nutting of MarketWatch
stating that spending under Mr. Obama had grown even more slowly than under Mr. Hoover . “The
president has demonstrated significant fiscal restraint ” and applied a “ balanced approach” to spending,
Mr. Carney said as Mr. Obama headed here for the Air Force Academy commencement. Mr. Carney
added pointedly that any reporting to the contrary would be the result of “sloth and laziness.” He added a
familiar attack on former President George W. Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich,” which “contributed
significantly to the red ink that was gushing” when Mr. Obama took over. The commentary cited by the
White House concluded that spending is rising just 0.4 percent a year under Mr. Obama. But such
calculations depend on when you start counting. Mr. Nutting starts from the first full fiscal year under Mr.
Obama, which started Oct. 1, 2009, more than eight months after he took office, because that is the first
budget the new president could fully shape. His calculation also assumes that s pending will fall in the next
fiscal year as currently projected by the Congressional Budget Office.
LINK: Spending on public transit funding alone requires substantial spending
increase
B.
Gostin and Pomeranz, 2009. (Lawrence O. Gostin, Georgetown University Law Center and Jennifer L. Pomeranz, Yale University)
“Improving Laws and Legal Authorities for Obesity Prevention and Control” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 37:62-75 (Supp. 1 2009),
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/486 http://ssrn.com/abstract=1729227
The single most important role public health advocates can play in supporting public transportation is to
push for additional funding under the federal six-year transportation bill that will expire in November
2009. This bill, called the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (SAFETEALU) is the primary federal legislation that authorizes programming, sets priorities, and
allocates funds over a six-year period for all modes of transportation. The reauthorization of this bill is an
opportunity to provide new funding mechanisms and significant increases in federal funding for public
transportation.40
The current transportation bill for 2004-2009 included about $53 billion for public transportation.41
Advocates say that figure will need to be increased substantially to supply the country with safe and
efficient public transportation throughout the urban communities and into rural areas as well.42
46
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
Budget Disadvantage 2/3
C. IMPACT: Continued deficit spending collapses the economy
Roe 11 (Phil, member of the Education and Workforce Committee and Representative from Tennessee, “Cut, cap and balance: A fight toward
fiscal responsibility,” 5-18, http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/05/navy_plebes_scale_herndon_monu.html)
On Monday, the United States reached the legal limit of its borrowing authority – further evidence that
out-of-control spending is a matter of national security. Serious reforms and government spending cuts
need to be made to avoid severe economic disruptions – both in the short and long-term. The national debt and
deficits are rising at an unconscionable rate. The national debt now exceeds $14 trillion, and the government is still piling up debt at the rate of
$200 million an hour, $30 billion a week, $120 billion a month and $1.6 trillion a year. It’s clear we don’t have a revenue problem – we have a
spending problem. Raising the debt ceiling without these serious reforms will only burden our future generations with outrageous debt. Worse,
the president and Senate Democrats are saying they want a “clean” debt ceiling increase, which means that they want to continue spending and
borrowing more money with no strings attached. My view is we must not raise the debt ceiling by $1 without simultaneously making deep cuts in
spending and taking real steps towards a balanced budget. It is imperative to the future of the country that we fight for an
immediate shift toward fiscal responsibility . That is why I, along with my colleagues in the Republican Study Committee (RSC),
wrote a letter to House Speaker John Boehner asking him to “Cut, Cap and Balance.” Specifically, we advocated for discretionary and mandatory
spending reductions that would cut the deficit in half next year; enacting statutory, enforceable total-spending caps to reduce federal spending to
18 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP); and a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment (BBA) with strong protections against federal
tax increases and including a Spending Limitation Amendment (SLA). This proposal will put us on a path to prosperity, and I will work to see
provisions like this are included in any final agreement. I believe it is prudent to limit the extension of borrowing authority as much as possible,
in order to demand accountability from Senate Democrats and the Obama Administration. Every day, we see more and more evidence of the need
to confront the problem now. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) report released in April adds urgency to the
need for meaningful actions — both short and long-term — to confront the nation's debt head-on.
Additionally, Moody's Analytics released a report several weeks ago forecasting a downgrade in our
country’s bond rating. It’s clear that if we fail to stop the spending spree, our nation will face economic
collapse in the long-term.
47
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
Budget Disadvantage 3/3
Economic Collapse risks Global Nuclear War
Harris and Burrows 09 PhD European History @ Cambridge, counselor in the National Intelligence Council (NIC) & member of the
NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit, Mathew, and Jennifer “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial
Crisis” http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf
Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and
interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample Revisiting the Future opportunity for unintended
consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to
believe that the
Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful
effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the
sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that
this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in
which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic
environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and
nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal will decline if
economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that
remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous
capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups_inheriting
organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks_and newly
emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of
economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of
any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East.
Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the
region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and
consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between
the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low
intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation
and broader
conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals
combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in
achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short
warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on
preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. 36 Types of conflict that the world continues to
experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neomercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to
energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access
to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime.
48
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
Uniqueness Fiscal Discipline Now: 2NC
Fiscal discipline now – federal spending increases are at historic lows
Nutting 12 (Ray, Wall Street Journal contributor, “Obama spending binge never happened,” 5-22-12, http://articles.marketwatch.com/201205-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor)
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest
whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree. As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will
lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.” Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a
massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and
our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true. But it didn’t happen. Although there was a
big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower
brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s. Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase
spending more than Obama has. Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics: • In the
2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from
$2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget. • In
fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion. • In fiscal 2011,
spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion. • In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion,
according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August. •
Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58
trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook. Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on
track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%. There has been no
huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear. Why do people think Obama
has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal
budget. What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a
budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the
budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in
these days of congressional gridlock.
49
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
Uniqueness AT: Debt Limit after Election: 2NC
Plan action now causes debt ceiling freeze and cuts in defense, even if the vote isn’t until after the
election
Helderman 12 (Rosalind S., reporter for the Washington Post, “Geithner warns Boehner, GOP on end-of-year debt limit showdown,” 5-1512, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/geithner-warns-boehner-gop-on-end-of-year-debt-limitshowdown/2012/05/15/gIQAIJmORU_blog.html)
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner cautioned Republicans on Tuesday not to raise questions about
whether the United States will once again raise its legal debt limit late this year, saying the economy is
already starting to feel the effects of the potential fiscal cliff confronting Congress at the end of the year.
Geithner’s comments came as the White House and Democrats on Capitol Hill began reacting to a new
ultimatum from House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who told an annual conference hosted by the
Peter G. Peterson Foundation later Tuesday that Republicans will insist again this year that any increase in
the debt limit be matched dollar-for-dollar with equal spending cuts. Republicans made the same demand
in the negotiations that led to an economy-rattling partisan showdown over the nation’s last debt ceiling
hike last summer. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he agreed with Boehner’s
framework for requiring cuts equal to any debt ceiling increase. “A request of the president to ask us to
raise the debt ceiling ought to generate a significant response to deal with the problem of deficit and
debt,” he said. But White House spokesman Jay Carney responded that a “charade” like last summer’s
fight over the issue would hurt the economy . “It can’t possibly be the case that the right prescription for
what we need to do right now is to engage in the kind of political brinksmanship that, unfortunately,
congressional Republicans engaged in last year,” he said. Boehner told the group that the dollar-for-dollar
match is necessary to force Washington to embark on the kind of fiscal restraint and entitlement reform
that will slash deficits over time and stabilize the economy. The prepared remarks call the debt ceiling
vote an “action-forcing event” that will require Washington to tackle its tough choices. But speaking to
the same group, Geithner warned Tuesday that it is not “responsible” to call into question whether the
nation will pay back money it has already borrowed by raising the debt limit. “This commitment to meet
the obligations of the nation, this commitment to protect the creditworthiness of the country, is a
fundamental commitment that you can never call into question or violate,” he said. He said he hopes
Congress can find a way to raise the debt ceiling next time without “the drama and the pain and the
damage they caused the country last July.” Congress will face a debt ceiling decision at the same time it
faces a dramatic number of other major spending and taxing conundrums, including the expiration of the
Bush-era tax cuts, the end of a temporary decreases in the payroll tax and implementation of painful
automatic spending cuts that were included in the July deal to raise the debt ceiling. Geithner said the
county is now “close enough” to that crunch for its consequences “to matter a lot” already. On Capitol Hill,
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said it was Boehner’s insistence that the debt ceiling had to be
matched with spending cuts that led Congress to a deal that will result in $1.2 trillion in automatic
reductions to defense and domestic programs in January. Republicans are working to reconfigure those
cuts, arguing that they will hurt the Pentagon. “While it sounds good, the execution of that principle does
not seem very disciplined,” Hoyer said. Hoyer called Boehner’s approach a “simplistic characterization”
of what’s needed to fix the country’s fiscal problems that could impede a “big, bold, balanced” deal on
taxes and spending to avert the end-of-year fiscal cliff, which he characterized as steeper than any he has
seen in his more than 30 years in office. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said it was “pretty galling for
Speaker Boehner to be laying down demands for another debt ceiling agreement when he won’t even
abide by the last one.” “The last thing the country needs is a rerun of last summer’s debacle that nearly
brought down our economy ,” he said.
50
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
Uniqueness AT: Defense Authorization: 2NC
Defense Authorization Package preserves fiscal discipline
Crawford 12 (Rick Crawford, U.S. Representative, 1st Congressional District of Arkansas, “Providing for the common defense,” 5-22-12,
http://www.paragoulddailypress.com/articles/2012/05/22/opinion/doc4fbab8faad415612882786.txt)
Establishing and maintaining a national fighting force is one of the responsibilities the Framers gave to
Congress in the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution instructs the Legislative Branch to
“provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” This week the House of
Representatives upheld our Constitutional responsibility with the passage of the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA). The legislation restores fiscal sanity to the defense budget, affirms our
commitment to military families, prepares our forces for a dangerous world and rebuilds our military after
a decade at war. To reflect the concern of our nation’s mounting debt, the National Defense Authorization
Act restores fiscal discipline to the Defense Department . While ending the era of deficit spending is
paramount, Congress also must make sure that our fighting forces have the resources they need in an
increasingly dangerous world.
51
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
A2 Business Investment Turn: 2NC
Government is not financially responsible. This discourages businesses from investing
Saphir 12 (Ann, Reuters Correspondent in Chicago, “Fed is sugar-coating Congress's task,” 4-30-12,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/30/usa-fed-fisher-idUSL1E8FUI6K20120430)
(Reuters) - The U.S. Federal Reserve's super-easy monetary policy is doing little to spur job creation and
is giving Congress license to avoid tackling looming fiscal problems and the towering national debt , a top
Fed official said on Monday. "By providing monetary accommodation, we are saying, in essence,
'Congress, you better eat your vegetables, or we are going to serve you a big plate of monetary cookies,'"
Richard Fisher, president of the Dallas Fed, told the Milken Institute Global Conference. The Fed's
program of bond purchases is pushing down the price of debt, interfering with a pricing mechanism that
would otherwise force Congress to come to terms with its "fiscal misfeasance," he said. "We have
children in Congress," he said. "They need to be disciplined." Unless Congress acts to reduce uncertainties
around fiscal policy , the Fed's low-interest-rate policy will remain powerless to boost jobs, he said,
reprising a theme he revisits often in speeches around the country. The U.S. central bank last week kept
its policy on hold, reiterating its expectation that it will need to keep rates near zero through late 2014 to
support a weak recovery. Fisher, who is not a voter this year on the Fed's policy-setting panel, has been a
staunch opponent of further Fed easing and identifies as an inflation hawk. While the Fed has been
successful in keeping inflation in hand, he said, its easy money policy has not succeeded in bringing
unemployment down to acceptable levels. Unemployment registered 8.2 percent in March, well above the
5.5 percent rate that is typically seen as representing full employment in the United States. Asked to
explain why low rates have not pushed unemployment down faster, Fisher said, "My argument is because
of fiscal policy." Uncertainty over taxes and regulation are keeping businesses from hiring , Fisher added.
Excessive spending prevents compromise on debt limit extension and this kills private investment in
the plan
Welna 12 (David, NPR's congressional correspondent, 2011 Everett McKinley Dirksen Award for Distinguished Reporting of Congress, given
by the National Press Foundation, “Debt Ceiling Debate Is Revived In Washington,” 5-16-12, http://www.npr.org/2012/05/16/152809395/debtceiling-debate-is-revived-in-washington)
If you thought the two political parties had moved past their differences over the debt ceiling , think again.
INSKEEP: Let's recall - who could forget - Congress boosted the Treasury's borrowing authority by $2
trillion after a dramatic showdown last summer that also led to the first downgrade ever of the nation's
credit rating. But yesterday, the Obama administration said that borrowing authority is set to max out by
the end of the year. GREENE: And that prompted House Speaker John Boehner to insist that any increase
in the debt limit will have to be matched by even greater cuts in spending . Here's NPR's David Welna. DAVID
WELNA, BYLINE: Sometimes it takes a Washington summit to tease out what's coming down the political pike. That's just what happened
yesterday in the big auditorium a few blocks from the White House, where administration officials and lawmakers came together for the third
annual Peter G. Peterson Foundation Fiscal Summit. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner arrived with a warning: The United States, he said,
will likely hit its debt limit sometime before the end of the year. SECRETARY TIMOTHY GEITHNER: Only Congress, of course, can act to
raise the debt limit and, you know, we hope that they do it this time without the drama and the pain and the damage they caused the country last
July. WELNA: Inflicting such pain and damage, Geithner pointedly noted, would not be responsible. House Speaker John Boehner responded a
few hours later. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER: Yes, allowing America to default on its debt would be irresponsible. But it would
be more irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling without taking dramatic steps to reduce spending and
reform the budget process. WELNA: Boehner vowed he'll approach raising the debt ceiling next time the
same way he did last year. BOEHNER: When the time comes, I will again insist on my simple principle
of cuts and reforms greater than the debt limit increase.
52
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
A2 Business Investment Turn: 2NC
Infrastructure jobs are likely to be grossly under-estimated in cost
Holm 2 (Bent Flyvbjerg, professor of planning with the Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Denmark. founder and
director of the university’s research program on transportation infrastructure planning and was twice a Visiting Fulbright Scholar to the U.S.
Mette Skamris Holm, assistant professor of planning with the Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University & Soren Buhl,
associate professor with the Department of Mathematics, Aalborg University, and an associate statistician with the university’s research program
on transportation infrastructure planning, “Underestimating Costs in Public Works Projects: Error or Lie?,” Journal of the American Planning
Association, Summer 2002 u Vol. 68, No. 3)
Inaccuracy of Cost Estimates Figure 1 shows a histogram with the distribution of inaccuracies of cost estimates. If
errors in estimating
costs were small, the histogram would be narrowly concentrated around zero. If errors in overestimating
costs were of the same size and frequency as errors in underestimating costs, the histogram would be
symmetrically distributed around zero. Neither is the case. We make the following observations regarding the distribution of
inaccuracies of construction cost estimates: • Costs are underestimated in almost 9 out of 10 projects. For a randomly
selected project, the likelihood of actual costs being larger than estimated costs is 86%. The likelihood of actual costs
being lower than or equal to estimated costs is 14%. • Actual costs are on average 28% higher than estimated costs (sd=39). • We
reject with overwhelming significance the thesis that the error of overestimating costs is as common as
the error of underestimating costs (p<0.001; two-sided test, using the binomial distribution). Estimated costs are biased, and the bias
is caused by systematic underestimation. • We reject with overwhelming significance the thesis that the numerical
size of the error of underestimating costs is the same as the numerical size of the error of overestimating
costs (p<0.001; nonparametric Mann-Whitney test). Costs are not only underestimated much more often than they are overestimated or correct,
costs that have been underestimated are also wrong by a substantially larger margin than costs that have been overestimated. We conclude
that the error of underestimating costs is significantly much more common and much larger than the error
of overestimating costs. Underestimation of costs at the time of decision to build is the rule rather than the
exception for transportation infrastructure projects. Frequent and substantial cost escalation is the result.
53
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
A2 Business Investment Turn: 2NC
Structural incentives encourage cost under-estimation. Studies over 70 years prove they
underestimate the cost on purpose.
Holm 2 (Bent Flyvbjerg, professor of planning with the Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Denmark. founder and
director of the university’s research program on transportation infrastructure planning and was twice a Visiting Fulbright Scholar to the U.S.
Mette Skamris Holm, assistant professor of planning with the Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University & Soren Buhl,
associate professor with the Department of Mathematics, Aalborg University, and an associate statistician with the university’s research program
on transportation infrastructure planning, “Underestimating Costs in Public Works Projects: Error or Lie?,” Journal of the American Planning
Association, Summer 2002 u Vol. 68, No. 3)
Have Estimates Improved Over Time? In the previous two sections, we saw how cost underestimation varies with project type and
geography. In this section, we conclude the statistical analyses by studying how underestimation has varied over time. We ask and answer
the question of whether project promoters and forecasters have become more or less inclined over time to
underestimate the costs of transportation infrastructure projects. If underestimation were unintentional and related to
lack of experience or faulty methods in estimating and forecasting costs, then, a priori, we would expect underestimation
to decrease over time as better methods were developed and more experience gained through the planning and implementation of more
infrastructure projects. Figure 3 shows a plot of the differences between actual and estimated costs against year of decision to build for the 111
projects in the sample for which these data are available. The diagram does not seem to indicate an effect from time on
cost underestimation. Statistical analyses corroborate this impression. The null hypothesis that year of
decision has no effect on the difference between actual and estimated costs cannot be rejected (p=0.22, F-test).
A test using year of completion instead of year of decision (with data for 246 projects) gives a similar result (p=0.28, F-test). We therefore
conclude that cost underestimation has not decreased over time. Underestimation today is in the same
order of magnitude as it was 10, 30, and 70 years ago. If techniques and skills for estimating and forecasting costs
of transportation infrastructure projects have improved over time, this does not show in the data. No learning seems
to take place in this important and highly costly sector of public and private decision making. This seems strange and invites
speculation that the persistent existence over time, location, and project type of significant and widespread cost underestimation is
a sign that an equilibrium has been reached: Strong incentives and weak disincentives for underestimation
may have taught project promoters what there is to learn, namely, that cost underestimation pays off. If this
is the case, underestimation must be expected and it must be expected to be intentional. We examine such speculation
below. Before doing so, we compare cost underestimation in transportation projects with that in other projects.
54
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
2NC
55
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
Impact Calculus – 2NC
The risk of the disad outweighs the case
1. --Magnitude –. The plan triggers an immediate economic collapse risking immediate
nuclear wars all across the planet.
2. –Time -frame – the disad occurs immediately while you have to wait for decades for public
transit and active transit paths to be completed before the affirmative can begin to access
their advantages.
3. The disad also turns the case. Deficit spending collapses the economy creating worse
impacts for low income communities.
Bohn 10 (Henning, University of California Santa Barbara, “The Economic Consequences of Rising U.S. Government Debt: Privileges at
Risk” Departmental Working Papers, Department of Economics, UCSB, http://escholarship.org/uc/item/7kz6v3zs)
The rapidly growing federal government debt has become a concern for policy makers and the public. Yet
the U.S. government has seemingly unbounded access to credit at low interest rates. Historically,
Treasury yields have been below the growth rate of the economy. The paper examines the ramifications
of debt financing at low interest rates. Given the short maturity of U.S. public debt – over $2.5 trillion
maturing in 2010 – investor expectations are critical. Excessive debts justify reasonable doubts about
solvency and monetary stability and thus undermine a financing strategy built on the perception that U.S.
debt is safe. The rapidly growing U.S. government debt has become a concern for policy makers and the public. The ratio of U.S. public debt
to GDP has increased from 36.2% in 2007 to 53.0% in 2009. Under current policies, the debt-GDP ratio is likely to reach 70% by 2011 and 90%
by 2020.1 What are the consequences of this rising U.S. government debt? The paper will argue that a proper analysis of U.S. debt must account
for the U.S. government’s ability to issue debt at interest rates that are on average below the growth rate of the U.S. economy. Evidence suggests
that the low interest rates are largely due to perceptions of safety, with a secondary role for liquidity effects. Given the short maturity of U.S.
public debt – over $2.5 trillion maturing in 2010 – investor expectations are critical. To refinance its debt, the government must
ensure that bond buyers remain firmly convinced of the government’s solvency. Excessive debts justify
reasonable doubts about solvency and about inflation. Hence they undermine a financial strategy built on
a perception of safety.
56
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
Impact Extensions 2NC
Freeze causes a run on Treasury bonds --- collapsing the global economy
Min 10 (David, Associate Director for Financial Markets Policy – Center for American Progress, “The Big Freeze”, 10-28,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/big_freeze.html)
By law, a statutory limit restricts the total amount of debt the federal government can accumulate. Only Congress can raise this limit. On the heels
of the worst recession since the Great Depression, this “debt ceiling” is projected to be reached sometime early next
year. Increasingly, conservatives are pledging to vote against any increases to the debt ceiling—even if
this means shutting down the federal government. This reckless pledge would have disastrous
consequences for the U.S. economy and the global financial markets, and would severely worsen the long-term budget
situation to boot. This conservative pledge has historical antecedents. In the fall of 1995, congressional Republicans refused to raise the debt
ceiling for a period of about six months, until they reversed course in March 1996 in response to plummeting poll numbers. This original “debt
ceiling crisis,” as it’s become known, was extraordinarily costly, roiling the financial markets and forcing two government shutdowns. The
consequences of refusing to raise the debt ceiling would be even more costly today, given the precarious
state of the U.S. economy and global financial markets, and potentially could be disastrous. Unlike in 1995,
when our economic outlook was good, we are currently fighting our way out of the Great Recession and coming off of the worst financial crisis
since the 1930s. Nonetheless, led by the advice of Newt Gingrich, the former House Speaker who was the architect of the 1995-96 debt ceiling
crisis, many conservatives are clamoring for a repeat of this past episode in recklessness. The budgetary consequences of this
conservative pledge would be catastrophic and far-reaching, forcing the immediate cessation of more than
40 percent of all federal government activities (excluding only interest payments on the national debt),
including Social Security, military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, homeland security, Medicare, and
unemployment insurance. This would not only threaten the safety and economic security of all
Americans, but also have dire impacts for the economy and job growth. In short, the economic
consequences of such a large and precipitous drop in spending would be crushing, and almost certainly
result in a severe drop in economic growth and employment at a time when we can least afford it.
Moreover, such a move could lead to a panic in the international financial markets. Following the 2008
financial crisis, we have seen debt crises hit Ireland, Greece, and Italy, with fears that this could spread
further and cause a global economic downturn. The financial markets are on edge today, with U.S.
Treasury bonds being the safe haven for most investment capital. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling would
recklessly disrupt the sale and purchase of new Treasury bonds, and could potentially cause a run on
outstanding Treasurys as well, as investors sought other investments. This could have catastrophic
consequences for our economy as well as the economic stability of the rest of the world.
Failure to lift the debt ceiling crushes the economy
Jackson 11 (David, “Obama aide: Refusal to raise debt ceiling would be 'catastrophic'”, The Oval – USA Today, 1-2,
The
chairman of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers said today it would be "insanity" for
Congress to refuse to lift the nation's debt ceiling and that inaction would be "catastrophic" for the
nation's financial recovery. "This is not a game," CEA Chairman Austan Goolsbee told Jake Tapper on ABC's This Week. "The debt
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/01/obama-aide-refual-to-raise-debt-ceiling-would-be-catasrophic/1)
ceiling is not something to toy with." Goolsbee also discussed efforts to create jobs and generate economic growth. The debt ceiling discussion
begins shortly after the 4:35 mark of the video. The United States is about $400 billion away from hitting the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling, and a
congressional vote on whether to raise that limit should come this spring. Some Republicans have called for keeping the ceiling as a way to force
that would lead to a default on U.S. obligations, "which is totally
unprecedented in American history." That would create a string of other problems, Goolsbee said: The
impact on the economy would be catastrophic. I mean, that would be a worse financial economic crisis
than anything we saw in 2008. As I say, that's not a game. I don't see why anybody's talking about playing chicken with the debt
ceiling. If we get to the point where you've damaged the full faith and credit of the United States, that would be the
first default in history caused purely by insanity ... There would be no reason for us to default, other than that would be some kind of
game. We shouldn't even be discussing that. People will get the wrong idea. The United States is not in danger of
default ... We do not have problems such as that. This would be lumping us in with a series of countries
through history that I don't think we would want to be lumped in with.
cuts in federal spending. Goolsbee said
57
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
Budget Disadvantage--Food Prices Link
More spending for the plan will prevent a debt limit increase
Wingfield 11 (Kyle, writer – AJC, “Boehner’s smart move on debt ceiling, spending cuts,” 5-10, http://blogs.ajc.com/kylewingfield/2011/05/10/boehners-smart-move-on-debt-ceiling-spending-cuts/?cxntfid=blogs_kyle_wingfield)
The House Republicans have been setting the terms of the budget debate ever since Rep. Paul Ryan
unveiled his “Path to Prosperity,” and now they’ve upped the ante. In a speech in New York City,
Speaker John Boehner said any increase in the federal government’s debt limit must be accompanied by
even larger spending cuts: Without significant spending cuts and reforms to reduce our debt, there will be
no debt limit increase . And the cuts should be greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority the
President is given. A few thoughts on why this is good policy and good politics: First, it’s good policy
because a “clean bill” to raise the debt ceiling, as the Obama administration wants, would be disastrous
policy. Congress has proven that the mere requirement to raise the ceiling is not a sufficient restraint. And
it’s become clear that the 2012 budget is not going to produce a grand bargain. If there’s going to be a
compromise that begins to apply some semblance of fiscal discipline to Washington, the debt ceiling is the
time for it. Second, it’s good policy because a more-cuts-than-new-authority approach is perhaps the only way to put teeth into the restraint side of the
compromise. In an editorial, The Wall Street Journal reports that Boehner’s advisers say “those cuts would have to be scored as real by the Congressional Budget
Office over a five-year budget window.” This is hardly Draconian: A debt-ceiling increase of $2 trillion through the end of fiscal 2012 — which the White House says
is necessary to keep the government running until Oct. 1, 2012 — would mean spending cuts of $2 trillion over five years, or $400 billion a year. In fact, it comes
closer to being too weak a proposal given the severity of our debt problem. A $400 billion cut this year could still leave us with an annual budget deficit approaching
$1 trillion. Third, it’s good politics because it shows the House GOP learned a thing or two from its negotiations over the budget for the remainder of fiscal 2011.
Note the part of the above quote about “scored as real by the Congressional Budget Office.” Republicans got burned when the $38 billion in 2011 budget cuts turned
out to be more like $352 million this year — just 1 percent as much as advertised. The cuts can’t consist of programs that were already discontinued or mere
reductions from what President Obama has requested for 2012. They need to be taken from real spending levels this year. Fourth, it’s good politics because it’s
common sense. Opinion polls (see question 10 in this recent one, for example) show Americans strongly disagree with raising the debt ceiling in the first place. So,
raising it at all is an act of compromise with taxpayers. The price of the compromise is a pledge to spend less taxpayer money in the future. It’s kind of like the terms
of a loan: If you want to borrow $10,000 today, you have to promise to repay that $10,000 with interest in the future. (Although, as I noted above, the fact that
Finally, it’s good policy and good
politics because it sets a precedent in which cutting spending is necessary. That’s good policy because our
problem will spiral out of control otherwise. And it’s good politics because, as others have noted before,
we need a system in which politicians compete to spend less of our money, not more.
borrowing would remain high means Washington is still acting like the loan shark in this situation.)
58
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
Food Prices Impact
Unless the debt limit is increased food prices will rise quickly
Min 10 (David, Associate Director for Financial Markets Policy – Center for American Progress, “The Big Freeze”, 10-28,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/big_freeze.html)
A freeze on the debt ceiling could erode confidence in U.S. Treasury bonds in a number of ways, creating
further and wider panic in financial markets. First, by causing a disruption in the issuance of Treasury
debt, as happened in 1995-96, a freeze would cause investors to seek alternative financial investments,
even perhaps causing a run on Treasurys. Such a run would cause the cost of U.S. debt to soar, putting
even more stress on our budget, and the resulting enormous capital flows would likely be highly
destabilizing to global financial markets, potentially creating more asset bubbles and busts throughout the
world. Second, the massive withdrawal of public spending that would occur would cause significant concern among institutional investors
worldwide that the U.S. would swiftly enter a second, very deep, recession, raising concerns about the ability of the United States to repay its
debt. Finally,
the sheer recklessness of a debt freeze during these tenuous times would signal to already
nervous investors that there was a significant amount of political risk, which could cause them to shy
away from investing in the United States generally. Taken together, these factors would almost certainly
result in a significant increase in the interest rates we currently pay on our national debt, currently just above 2.5 percent for a
10-year Treasury note. If in the near term these rates moved even to 5.9 percent, the long-term rate predicted by the Congressional Budget Office,
then our interest payments would increase by more than double, to nearly $600 billion a year. These rates could climb even higher, if investors
began to price in a “default risk” into Treasurys—something that reckless actions by Congress could potentially spark—thus greatly
exacerbating our budget problems. The U.S. dollar, of course, is the world’s reserve currency in large part because of the depth and
liquidity of the U.S. Treasury bond market. If this market is severely disrupted, and investors lost confidence in U.S. Treasurys, then it is unclear
where nervous investors might go next. A sharp and swift move by investors out of U.S. Treasury bonds could be
highly destabilizing, straining the already delicate global economy. Imagine, for example, if investors
moved from sovereign debt into commodities, most of which are priced and traded in dollars. This could
have the catastrophic impact of weakening the world’s largest economies while also raising the prices of
the basic inputs (such as metals or food ) that are necessary for economic growth. In short, a freeze on the
debt ceiling would cause our interest payments to spike, making our budget situation even more
problematic, while potentially triggering greater global instability —perhaps even a global economic
depression.
Food Price spikes kill billions and cause global war
Brown 7 (Lester R., Director – Earth Policy Institute, 3-21, http://www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/2007/Update65.htm)
Urban food protests in response to rising food prices in low and middle income countries, such as
Mexico, could lead to political instability that would add to the growing list of failed and failing states. At
some point, spreading political instability could disrupt global economic progress . Against this backdrop,
Washington is consumed with “ethanol euphoria.” President Bush in his State of the Union address set a production goal for 2017 of 35 billion
gallons of alternative fuels, including grain-based and cellulosic ethanol, and liquefied coal. Given the current difficulties in producing cellulosic
ethanol at a competitive cost and given the mounting public opposition to liquefied coal, which is far more carbon-intensive than gasoline, most
of the fuel to meet this goal might well have to come from grain. This could take most of the U.S. grain harvest, leaving little grain to meet U.S.
needs, much less those of the hundred or so countries that import grain. The stage is now set for direct competition for grain
between the 800 million people who own automobiles, and the world’s 2 billion poorest people. The risk
is that millions of those on the lower rungs of the global economic ladder will start falling off as higher
food prices drop their consumption below the survival level.
59
AUDL 2012
NEGATIVE
www.atlantadebate.org
Food Prices Impact extensions
Even without war escalation, half the planet dies
Brown 5 (Lester, President of Earth Policy Institute, MPA – Harvard, Former Advisor to the Secretary of Agriculture, Outgrowing The Earth,
http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/Out/)
“Many Americans see terrorism as the principal threat to security,” said Brown, “but for much of
humanity, the effect of water shortages and rising temperatures on food security are far more important
issues. For the 3 billion people who live on 2 dollars a day or less and who spend up to 70 percent of their
income on food, even a modest rise in food prices can quickly become life-threatening. For them, it is the
next meal that is the overriding concern.”
And --- food conflicts go global --- triggers World War 3
Calvin 98 (William, Theoretical Neurophysiologist – U Washington, Atlantic Monthly, January, Vol 281, No. 1, p. 47-64)
The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting crop yields would cause some
powerful countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands -- if only because their armies,
unpaid and lacking food, would go marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized
countries would attempt to use their armies, before they fell apart entirely, to take over countries with
significant remaining resources, driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to
accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors for the remaining food. This would be a worldwide
problem -- and could lead to a Third World War -- but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to
analyze. The last abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's climate as far east as
Ukraine. Present-day Europe has more than 650 million people. It has excellent soils, and largely grows
60