1NC T

A. Interpretation transportation infrastructure is roadways, railways, harbors, airports, railroads, and highways pipeline are explicitly excluded Chamber of Commerce, 10 (Transportation Performance Index Summary Report 9/23/10
http://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/lra/files/LRA_TPI%20_Summary_Report%20Final%20092110.pdf)//dm Step 1 Definition: Transportation

Infrastructure It is important to establish a definition of transportation infrastructure in order to establish the scope of the index. General Definition: Moving people and goods by air, water, road, and rail. Technical Definition: The fixed facilitiesroadway segments, railway tracks, public transportation terminals, harbors, and airportsflow entitiespeople, vehicles, container units, railroad carsand control systems that permit people and goods to traverse geographical space in a timely, efficient manner for an intended purpose. Transportation modes include highway, public Note that pipeline infrastructure is not included in this definition. For purposes of the Infrastructure Performance Index it is considered an element of energy infrastructure. transportation, aviation, freight rail, marine, and intermodal. And, transportation infrastructure is the systems that allow people or goods to flow Chamber of Commerce 10 TRANSPORTATION PERFORMANCE INDEX: COMPLETE TECHNICAL REPORT Measuring and Benchmarking
Infrastructure Performance TRANSPORTATION INDEX LETS REBUILD AMERICA US Chamber of Commerce September 19, 2010 BK *Dr. Martin Regalia was involved in reviewing and guiding the development of the Index. Janet Kavinoky, Director of Transportation Infrastructure, and Murphie Barrett, Senior Manager of Lets Rebuild America, directed the project team. Project Team Michael Gallis, Michael Gallis & Associates Sue McNeil, University of Delaware Susanne Trimbath, STP Advisory Services Tom Skancke, Global Systems Solutions Qiang Li, University of Delaware Michelle Oswald, University of Delaware Erik Kreh, Michael Gallis & Associates T.K. Foulke, University of Delaware Jonathan Calhoun, University of Delaware Dustin Briggs, University of Delaware Zach Petersen, Michael Gallis & Associates Transportation Experts James Corbett, University of Delaware Mark Hanson, University of California, Berkeley Ashish Sen, University of Illinois at Chicago Economics Reviewers Jon Cooper, Consultant Ernie P. Goss, Creighton University Blancha SanchezRobles, GLADIUS Real Estate Mark Schill, Praxis Strategy Group Stanley O. Shell, Stanurl, LLC Infrastructure Workshop Facilitators Kate Harvey and Ona Ferguson, The Consensus Building Institute BK Definition: Transportation

Infrastructure General Definition: Moving people and goods by air, water, road, and rail Technical Definition: The fixed facilities (roadway segments, railway tracks, transit terminals, harbors, and airports), flow entities (people, vehicles, container units, railroad cars) and control systems that permit people and goods to traverse geographical space efficiently and in a timely manner and for the intended purpose. Transportation modes include highway, rail, air, and marine. B. Violation the aff builds a pipeline that doesnt transport people or goods C. Standards1. Unlimits the topic theres dozens of different pipelines the aff could build using different things like oil, natural gas, coal, and other types of gases. And, our interpretations set a predictable cap on the topic, including affs that dont permit the movement of people or goods de-limits the topic. 2. Predictability Pipelines only contrast with transportation infrastructure Peters, 07 Secretary of Transportation (Mary, Statement by her made before the committee on the budget US house of representatives 10/25/07
http://testimony.ost.dot.gov/test/pasttest/07test/peters9.htm)//dm Because transportation

system users do not pay directly for the costs of providing and managing the nations transportation infrastructure, they have relatively little input into Federal program and policy decisions. Polls confirm that users of our transportation systems are largely unaware of what it costs to provide transportation infrastructure or what they are paying to use it. This contrasts sharply with the structure the country has adopted for our other major network utilities such as telecommunications, electricity, pipelines, and railroads. And, only allowing systems that allow the movement of people or goods is predictable it is a common definition that defines the word and sets a brightline on the topic.
D. T is a jurisdictional voting issue for fairness and education

1NC K
Infrastructure investment is a tool of the capitalist statepeople, values and goods all become commodities to be transported Giddens and Held 82 (Anthony and David; M.A. and Ph.D. in economics, Prof. at Cambridge, Director of the London School of Economics, he has 15
honorary degrees; Master of University College, Durham, professor of politics and international relations at Durham University; Classes, Power and Conflict: Classical and Contemporary Debates; Pg. 253)//RSW 7. Policies

which pursue the goal of reorganizing, maintaining and generalizing exchange relationships make use of a specific sequence of instruments. These instruments can be categorized in the following way. First, we find regulations and incentives applied
which are designed to control "destructive" competition and to make competitors subject to rules which allow for the economic survival of their respective market partners. Usually these regulations consist in measures and laws which try to protect the "weaker" party in an exchange relationship, or which support this party through various incentives. Second, we

find the large category of public infrastructure investment which is designed to help broad categories of commodity owners (again: both labor and capital) to engage in exchange relationships. Typical examples are schools of all kinds, transportation facilities, energy plants, and measures for urban and regional development. Third, we find
attempts to introduce compulsory schemes of joint decision making and joint financing which are designed to force market partners to agree upon conditions of mutually acceptable exchange in an organized way, outside the exchange process itself, so that the outcome is reliable for both sides. Such compulsory schemes of mutual accommodation are to be found not only in the area of wage bargaining, but equally in areas like housing, education. and environmental protection. Such

attempts to stabilize and universalize the commodity form and exchange process by political and administrative means leads to a number of specific structural contradictions of state capitalist societies which in turn can become the focus of social conflict and political struggle. Such contradictions can be found on the economic, political and ideological levels of society. On the economic level, the very state policies which are designed to maintain and promote universal exchange relationships have the effect of threatening the continuity of those relationships. For all three of the abovementioned instruments of economic policy making (regulations, infrastructure and compulsive accommodation) deprive the owners of capital of value to varying degrees, either in the form of capital that is just "taxed away," or in the form of labor, or in form of their freedom to utilize both of these in the way they deem most profitable. To the extent such state policies of "administrative recommodification" are "effective," they are bound to put a burden upon the owners of capital which has the paradoxical effect of making them ineffective. Since, in a capitalist
society, all exchange relationships depend upon the willingness of owners of money capital to invest, i.e., to exchange money capital for constant capital and variable capital; since this willingness depends upon the expected profitability of investment; and since all observable state policies of recommodification do have the sideeffect of depriving capital of either capital or labor power or the freedom to use both in profitable ways, the cure tums out to be worse than the illness. That is to say,

reformist policies of the capitalist state by no means unequivocally "serve" the interests of the capitalist class: very often they are met by the most vigorous resistance and opposition of this class. Social conflicts and political struggles do
not, of course, emerge automatically from this contradiction. They are waged by political forces which are willing and able to defend the reformist policies of the capitalist state against the obstructive resistance of the capitalist class itself.

Capitalism results in neo-imperialist wars, the destruction of the environment and the subjugation and genocide of entire sections of the population Everest 12 (Larry; correspondent for Revolution newspaper; 5/24/12; WAR AND GLOBAL CAPITALISM: Money for Jobs Not for War: American
Chauvinism and Reformist Illusions http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31024)//RSW Money for Jobs and Education! Jobs and Education, Not War and Occupation! This slogan put forth by several US social movements is profoundly wrong and harmfulboth in terms of morality thats actually in the interests of humanity, and in terms of a scientific understanding of imperialism and war. Why should antiwar demands focus first and foremost on the wars impact on Americans and their livesand not on the victims of U.S. aggression: Pakistanis murdered in U.S. drone strikes, Iraqis rounded up and tortured by U.S. forces, Afghans seized and terrorized in night raids, and countless others? Arent their lives every bit as precious as the lives of those who happen to live in the U.S.? Money for jobs, not for war argues that American lives are more important than other peoples lives. This logic goes right along withand amplifiesthe mindset relentlessly fostered by the systems rulers and their media machine: that American lives come first. This is the very mindset the rulers count on to justify and build public support (or acquiescence) for their predatory wars of empire. The slogan also promotes the idea that the political powers-that-beif pressured by enough peoplecould scale back their military, stop attacking other countries, and instead use the money for jobs, education, and other social welfare programs at home. But thats not how the system actually operates! Wars,

invasions, and occupations are not policies of one set of politicians or another, or arbitrary choices made by this or that president. At this stage in history, capitalism is a global system, with the U.S. the worlds most dominant capitalist-imperialist power, presiding over a worldwide empire of exploitation. This empire rests on the domination of the oppressed countries where the vast majority of humanity lives, and on control of labor, markets, and resources. This entails the violent suppression of the masses of people in the dominated areasand also entails fighting off challenges from other imperialists as well as rising forces in those countries that stand in the way. This requires a monstrously huge military that is deployed worldwide, with bases in over 100 countries, and wars when necessary. The wars for domination in the Middle East, Central Asia, and elsewhere dont interfere with the functioning of U.S. capitaltheyre absolutely essential to it, and to the U.S.s overall global dominance. This is why the U.S. rulers are compelledand willing to spend trillions on the military, including during periods of severe economic and fiscal stress, no matter who happens to sit in the White House or Congress. This system of global capitalism-imperialism headed by the U.S. is the main source of the horrors that torment so

many across the globefrom the ethnic cleansing and slow genocide of the Palestinian people by the U.S. and Israel, to the mass incarceration and slow genocide of Black people in the U.S.; from the rape of the planet to the systematic degradation and violence against womenhere and around the world; from the extreme deprivation and starvation faced by billions across the planet to the growing poverty and desperation faced by millions in the U.S. The rulers in these imperial metropoles distribute some of the spoils of empire to provide a higher standard of living than in the oppressed
countries and buy social peace and loyalty at home (which Money for Jobs, Not For War encourages). People in the U.S. should reject that foul pact! The vast majority in the U.S. have a profound interest in making common cause with oppressed people worldwide, not in siding with their rulers. That means fostering a morality that declares: American lives are not more important than other peoples lives!not pandering to American chauvinism, which strengthens the system responsible for so much misery. It means people shouldnt appeal to those on the top to spend more on jobs, but to clearly and unequivocally demand a STOP to the horrors the U.S. is committing around the world. Through this process of actively opposing U.S. aggression and the America Number 1 mindset fostered to justify it, people can and must be won to increasingly see that this capitalist system and state is utterly un-reformable and that its going to take revolution to get rid of it, end its predatory wars once and for all, and bring into being a whole new system and state that is in the actual interests of the people in the U.S. and around the world.

The alternative is to reject the affirmative as a means of refusing complicity with capitalism. Rejecting capitalism is key to opening up new alternatives. Only complete refusal, not piecemeal reform, can prevent otherwise inevitable slavery and extinction. Herod, 04 (James, http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strate/GetFre/4thEd/4-index.htm, Getting Free, 4th Edition
A sketch of an association of democratic, autonomous neighborhoods and how to create it, Fourth Edition, January 2004

It is time to try to describe, at first abstractly and later concretely, a strategy for destroying capitalism. This strategy, at its most basic, calls for pulling time, energy, and resources out of capitalist civilization and putting them into building a new civilization. The image then is one of emptying out capitalist structures, hollowing them out, by draining wealth, power, and meaning out of them until there is nothing left but shells. This is definitely an aggressive strategy. It requires great militancy, and constitutes an attack on the existing order. The strategy clearly recognizes that capitalism is the enemy and must be destroyed, but it is not a frontal attack aimed at overthrowing the system, but an inside attack aimed at gutting it, while simultaneously replacing it with something better, something we want. Thus capitalist structures (corporations, governments, banks, schools, etc.) are not seized so much as simply abandoned. Capitalist relations are not fought so much as they are simply rejected. We stop participating in activities that support (finance, condone) the capitalist world and start participating in activities that build a new world while simultaneously undermining the old. We create a new pattern of social relations alongside capitalist relations and then we continually build and strengthen our new pattern while doing every thing we can to weaken capitalist relations. In this way our new democratic, non-hierarchical, noncommodified relations can eventually overwhelm the capitalist relations and force them out of existence. This is how it has to be done. This is a plausible, realistic strategy. To think that we could create a whole new world of decent social arrangements overnight,
in the midst of a crisis, during a so-called revolution, or during the collapse of capitalism, is foolhardy. Our new social world must grow within the old, and in opposition to it, until it is strong enough to dismantle and abolish capitalist relations. Such a revolution will never happen automatically, blindly, determinably, because of the inexorable, materialist laws of history. It will happen, and only happen, because we want it to, and because we know what were doing and know how we want to live, and know what obstacles have to be overcome before we can live that way, and know how to distinguish between our social patterns and theirs. But we must not think that the capitalist world can simply be ignored, in a live and let live attitude, while we try to build new lives elsewhere. (There is no elsewhere.) There is at least one thing, wage-slavery, that we cant simply stop participating in (but even here there are ways we can chip away at it). Capitalism

must be explicitly refused and replaced by something else. This constitutes War, but it is not a war in the traditional sense of armies and tanks, but a war
fought on a daily basis, on the level of everyday life, by millions of people. It is a war nevertheless because the accumulators of capital will use coercion, brutality, and murder, as they have always done in the past, to try to block any rejection of the system. They have always had to force compliance; they will not hesitate to continue doing so. Nevertheless, there are many concrete ways that individuals, groups, and neighborhoods can gut capitalism, which I will enumerate shortly. We must always keep in mind how we became slaves; then we can see more clearly how we can cease being slaves. We were forced into wage-slavery because the ruling class slowly, systematically, and brutally destroyed our ability to live autonomously. By driving us off the land, changing the property laws, destroying community rights, destroying our tools, imposing taxes, destroying our local markets, and so forth, we were forced onto the labor market in order to survive, our only remaining option being to sell, for a wage, our ability to work. Its quite clear then how we can overthrow slavery. We must reverse this process. We must begin to reacquire the ability to live without working for a wage or buying the products made by wage-slaves (that is, we must get free from the labor market and the way of living based on it), and embed ourselves instead in cooperative labor and cooperatively produced goods. Another clarification is needed. This

strategy does not call for reforming capitalism, for changing capitalism into something else. It calls for replacing capitalism, totally, with a new civilization. This is an important distinction, because capitalism has proved impervious to reforms, as a system. We can sometimes in some places win certain concessions from it (usually only temporary ones) and win some (usually short-lived) improvements in our lives as its victims, but we cannot reform it piecemeal, as a system. Thus our strategy of gutting and eventually destroying capitalism requires at a minimum a totalizing image, an awareness that we are attacking an entire way of life and replacing it with another, and not merely reforming one way of life into something else. Many people may not be accustomed to thinking about entire systems and social orders, but everyone knows what a lifestyle is, or a
way of life, and that is the way we should approach it. The thing is this: in order for capitalism to be destroyed millions and millions of people must be dissatisfied with their way of life. They must want something else and see certain existing things as obstacles to getting what they want. It is not useful to think of this as a new ideology. It is not merely a belief-system that is needed, like a religion, or like Marxism, or Anarchism. Rather it is a new prevailing vision, a dominant desire, an overriding

need. What must exist is a pressing desire to live a certain way, and not to live another way. If

this pressing desire were a desire to live free, to be autonomous, to live in democratically controlled communities, to participate in the self-regulating activities of a mature people, then capitalism could be destroyed. Otherwise we are doomed to perpetual slavery and possibly even to extinction.

1NC CP
Text: The United States federal government should - develop and deploy sunshades beyond the Earths mesosphere. - stop all its arms sales to Taiwan. Solves warming Victor et al 2009 a Professor at Stanford Law School, Director of Stanford's Program on Energy and Sustainable Development, and an Adjunct Senior
Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. M. Granger Morgan is Head of Carnegie Mellon University's Department of Engineering and Public Policy and Director of the Climate Decision Making Center. Jay Apt is Professor of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University. John Steinbruner is Professor of Public Policy and Director of the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland. Katharine Ricke is a doctoral student at Carnegie Mellon University (David G., March/April 2009 The geoengineering option http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/22456/The_Geoengineering_Option.pdf ) Each year, the effects of climate change are coming into sharper focus. Barely a month goes by without some fresh bad news: ice sheets and glaciers are melting faster than expected, sea levels are rising more rapidly than ever in recorded history, plants are blooming earlier in the spring, water supplies and habitats are in danger, birds are being forced to find new migratory patterns. The odds that the global climate will reach a dangerous tipping point are increasing. Over the course of the twenty-first century, key ocean currents, such as the Gulf Stream, could shift radically, and thawing permafrost could release huge amounts of additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Such scenarios, although still remote, would dramatically accelerate and compound the consequences of global warming. Scientists are taking these doomsday scenarios seriously because the steady accumulation of warming gases in the atmosphere is forcing change in the climate system at rates so rapid that the outcomes are extremely difficult to predict. Eliminating all the risks of climate change is impossible because carbon dioxide emissions, the chief human contribution to global warming, are unlike conventional air pollutants, which stay in the atmosphere for only hours or days. Once

carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere, much of it remains for over a hundred years. Emissions from anywhere on the planet contribute to the global problem, and once headed in the wrong direction, the climate system is slow to respond to attempts at reversal. As with a bathtub that has a large faucet and a small drain, the only practical way to lower the level is by dramatically cutting the inflow. Holding global warming steady
at its current rate would require a worldwide 60-80 percent cut in emissions, and it would still take decades for the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to stabilize. Most human emissions of carbon dioxide come from burning fossil fuels, and most governments have been reluctant to force the radical changes necessary to reduce those emissions. Economic growth tends to trump vague and elusive global aspirations. The United States has yet to impose even a cap on its emissions, let alone a reduction. The European Union has adopted an emissions-trading scheme that, although promising in theory, has not yet had much real effect because carbon prices are still too low to cause any significant change in behavior. Even Norway, which in 1991 became one of the first nations to impose a stiff tax on emissions, has seen a net increase in its carbon dioxide emissions. Japan, too, has professed its commitment to taming global warming. Nevertheless, Tokyo is struggling to square the need for economic growth with continued dependence on an energy system powered mainly by conventional fossil fuels. And China's emissions recently surpassed those of the United States, thanks to coal-fueled industrialization and a staggering pace of economic growth. The global economic crisis is stanching emissions a bit, but it will not come close to shutting off the faucet. The

world's slow progress in cutting carbon dioxide emissions and the looming danger that the climate could take a sudden turn for the worse require policymakers to take a closer look at emergency strategies for curbing the effects of global warming. These strategies, often called "geoengineering," envision deploying systems on a planetary scale, such as launching reflective particles into the atmosphere or positioning sunshades to cool the earth. These strategies could cool the planet, but they would not stop the buildup of carbon dioxide or lessen all
its harmful impacts. For this reason, geoengineering has been widely shunned by those committed to reducing emissions. Serious research on geoengineering is still in its infancy, and it has not received the attention it deserves from politicians. The time has come to take it seriously. Geoengineering

could provide a useful defense for the planet -- an emergency shield that could be deployed if surprisingly nasty climatic shifts put vital ecosystems and billions of people at risk. Actually raising the shield, however, would be a political choice. One nation's emergency
can be another's opportunity, and it is unlikely that all countries will have similar assessments of how to balance the ills of unchecked climate change with the risk that geoengineering could do more harm than good. Governments should immediately begin to undertake serious research on geoengineering and help create international norms governing its use. THE RAINMAKERS Geoengineering is not a new idea. In 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson received the first-ever U.S. presidential briefing on the dangers of climate change, the only remedy prescribed to counter the effects of global warming was geoengineering. That advice reflected the scientific culture of the time, which imagined that engineering could fix almost any problem. By the late 1940s, both the United States and the Soviet Union had begun exploring strategies for modifying the weather to gain battlefield advantage. Many schemes focused on "seeding" clouds with substances that would coax them to drop more rain. Despite offering no clear advantage to the military, "weather makers" were routinely employed (rarely with much effect) to squeeze more rain from clouds for thirsty crops. Starting in 1962, U.S. government researchers for Project Stormfury tried to make tropical hurricanes less intense through cloud seeding, but with no clear success. Military experts also dreamed of using nuclear explosions and other interventions to create a more advantageous climate. These applications were frightening enough that in 1976 the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques to bar such projects. By the 1970s, after a string of failures, the idea of weather modification for war and farming had largely faded away. Today's

proposals for geoengineering are more likely to have an impact because the interventions needed for globalscale geoengineering are much less subtle than those that sought to influence local weather patterns. The earth's climate is largely driven by the fine balance between the light energy with which the sun bathes the earth and the heat that the earth radiates back to space. On average, about 70 percent of the earth's incoming sunlight is absorbed by the atmosphere and the planet's surface; the remainder is reflected back into space. Increasing the reflectivity of the planet (known as the albedo) by about one percentage point could have an effect on the climate system large enough to offset the gross increase in warming that is likely over the next century as a result of a doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Making such tweaks is much more straightforward than
causing rain or fog at a particular location in the ways that the weather makers of the late 1940s and 1950s dreamed of doing.

Arms sales to Taiwan ruin recovering China relations -- CP boosts the overall relationship.

Reuters, 11 (Reuters News, 5/7/11, China says U.S. must stop Taiwan arms sales, JPL)
(Reuters) - The

United States will put improved relations with Beijing at risk if it does not stop selling arms to Taiwan, China's Foreign Minister said on Monday. The world's two biggest economies have sought to steady ties after a
year that exposed strains over human rights, Taiwan, Tibet and the gaping U.S. trade deficit with China. Chinese President Hu Jintao visited the White House in January. "The atmosphere at the moment in Sino-U.S. relations is good," Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi told a news conference on the sidelines of the ongoing meeting of China's parliament. Vice President Joe Biden will visit China in the middle of this year, after which Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping will go the United States at "an appropriate time", Yang said. "Of course, it is an objective reality that China and the United States have some differences or even friction over some issues," he added. "What's

important is to properly handle these differences on the basis of mutual respect." Early last year, Beijing reacted with fury to the Obama administration plans for a new round of weapons sales to Taiwan, the self-ruled island that China deems an illegitimate breakaway province, threatening to sanction the U.S. companies involved. "We urge the United States to ... stop selling arms to Taiwan and take concrete actions to support the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations. This is very important in upholding the overall interests of China-U.S. relations," Yang said.

1NC DA Obama is leading, but race is very close Reuters, 10/23/12, Obama holds narrow lead two weeks ahead of election, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/23/us-usa-campaign-pollidUSBRE89K0A920121023

President Barack Obama pulled slightly ahead of Republican Mitt Romney in a Reuters/Ipsos daily tracking poll on Tuesday, but the race remained essentially tied with two weeks to go until the November 6 election. Obama led Romney among likely voters by a statistically insignificant margin of 1 percentage point, 47 percent to 46 percent. The four-day online tracking poll includes some responses taken after the two candidates' final televised debate, but the full impact will not register for several days. Obama maintains a larger advantage in the state-by-state battle that will determine the outcome of the election. Ipsos projects that Obama holds an edge in the most hotly contested states, including Florida, Virginia and Ohio, and is likely to win by a relatively comfortable margin of 332 electoral votes to 206 electoral votes. The poll has reflected a tight race since shortly after the two candidates met for their first debate on October 3. But a substantial portion of voters remain up for grabs. Roughly 20 percent of those surveyed say they could switch their votes or have not yet made up their minds. Public opposes CCS Stephenson 8 - Director, Natural Resources and Environment

@ GAO Federal Actions Will Greatly Affect the Viability of Carbon Capture and Storage As a Key Mitigation Option, GAO, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d081080.pdf

Thus far at least, there has been little public opposition to the CO2 injections that have taken place in states such as Texas to enhance oil recovery. However, several notable studies explain that this lack of publicly-expressed concern may reflect more a lack of knowledge about CCS rather than confidence that the process is safe. 56 This is suggested in the IPCCs 2005 report on CCS
which stated, for example, that there is insufficient public knowledge of climate change issues and of the various mitigation options and their potential impact. In another 2005 study, researchers surveyed 1,200 people, representing a general population sample of the United States, and found that that less than 4 percent of the respondents were familiar with the terms carbon dioxide capture and storage or carbon storage. Some of the stakeholders we interviewed explained that public

opposition could indeed grow when CCS extends beyond the relatively small projects used to enhance oil and gas recovery, to include much larger CO2 sequestration projects located in more populated areas. One noted, in particular, that a lack of education about CCSs safety could potentially create confusion and fear when commercial-scale CCS is implemented. Independents will blame Obama Resurgent Republic 11 (according to a poll by Resurgent Republic, VOTERS BELIEVE AMERICA IS WORSE OFF THAN WHEN OBAMA TOOK
OFFICE 11/8, http://www.resurgentrepublic.com/research/voters-believe-america-is-worse-off-than-when-obama-took-office) Resurgent Republic conducted a survey of 1000 American voters October 30 through November 2, 2011, with full results available here. Following are key highlights pertaining to President Obamas perception among Independent voters: If President Obama's reelection campaign is a referendum on the

incumbent, as are almost all reelection campaigns, then he remains in deep trouble a year out from the election, because Independents believe the country is worse off than when he was inaugurated. Cont Republicans and Independents think Barack Obama and the Democrats control Washington,
while Democrats think Republicans in Congress are in control. In yet another indicator of the low esteem with which Washington is held in the country, each party views the other one as in control. Republicans view Obama and the Democrats as controlling Washington by 67 to 15 percent, while Democrats view Republicans as in control by 55 to 26 percent. Independents split more evenly, but still view Obama/Democrats in control by 39 to 34 percent

And, Swing State Independents hold the key to victory Galston 12 (Walliam A., Ezra Zilkha Chair in the Brookings Institutions Governance Studies Program, where he serves as a senior fellow. A former policy
advisor to President Clinton Six Months To Go: Where the Presidential Contest Stands as the General Election Begins 5/10/12 http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/05/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2012/5/10%20obama%20campaign%20galston/Where%20the%20Presidential %20Contest%20Stands.pdf)KY

Independent voters in the most competitive states may be the quintessential swing group, perhaps holding the key to victory for either Obama or his Republican opponent. Since last fall, their support has shifted toward Obama over his likely Republican opponent Romney, after previously favoring Romney. And it is those independent voters -- particularly women -- who are driving Obama's overall lead in swing states. So while both campaigns will make considerable efforts to make sure their core supporters vote, the other big piece of their strategy would be finding the issues or themes that help win over independents in the states where either candidate has a reasonable chance of
winning..

Obama winning the election is key to prevent Israel strikes on the Iranian nuclear program Hayden 12 (By Tom Hayden 2/19/12 The coming war with Iran Is GOP rhetoric setting the stage for an Israeli attack?
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/coming-war-with-iran/content?oid=5104826 - BRW) Standing in the way, according to the article, is President Barack Obama, whom the Israelis suspect has abandoned any aggressive strategy that would ensure the prevention of a nuclear Iran and is merely playing a game of words to appease them. The same conclusion has been suggested elsewhere. So the stage is set

for nuclear brinksmanship in an American presidential-election year. The role of Republican candidates is to ensure that the second condition is met, that of tacit support for an Israeli strike, even if forced by political pressure. The balance of forces is lopsided at present, with most Americans worried about Iran and unprepared to resist a sudden outbreak of war, Congressdominated by supporters of the American Israel Public Affairs Committeeand the media are not prepared to oppose a strike. A short successful wara highly dubious prospectwould be accepted by American public opinion until serious consequences set in afterward. Any public expression of protest against this war is far better than silence, of course. But the greatest opportunity for protest may be in the arena of the presidential-election drama now playing out. It is fair and accurate to say both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are collaborating, for political reasons, to push Obama into war during the presidential election, with Rick Santorum on the bench if needed. The New York Times has also now documented, in a front-page story, the millions spent by casino billionaire
Sheldon Adelson and his Israeli wife to save Gingrichs presidential campaign. Adelson was pleased when Gingrich, seemingly out of nowhere, recently condemned the Palestinians as an invented people. Adelson owns a newpaper chain in Israel supportive of the Netanyahu government and is a vocal opponent of a negotiated settlement. No one in the mainstream media so far has written the story of Romneys past consulting and business partnership

with Israels Prime Minister Netanyahu at Boston Consulting Group, but his campaign rhetoric echoes Netanyahus position, that Obama cant be trusted to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. The Romney and Gingrich campaigns create an unrelenting pressure on Obama to support an attack on Iran with little countervailing pressure. But neither the Republicans nor the Israeli hawks are comfortable being charged with using political pressure to start a war. Santorum, whose Republican ranking is third, is equal to Romney and Gingrich in his hawkish
position toward Iran. Santorum has deep support from right-wing Christian groups who believe that war in the Middle East will hasten the Second Coming.

Avoiding war with Iran may be Obamas best option in policy and politics, if he can navigate the campaign winds. The question is whether any organized force has his back.

Iran Israel war causes extinction Hirsch 5 - Professor @ UC San Diego (Jorge, Can a nuclear strike on Iran be averted, November 21 , EMM - BRW)
st

The Bush administration has put together all the elements it needs to justify the impending military action against Iran. Unlike in the case of Iraq, it will happen without warning, and most of the justifications will be issued after the fact. We will wake up one day to learn that facilities in Iran have

been bombed in a joint U.S.-Israeli attack. It may even take another couple of days for the revelation that some of the U.S. bombs were nuclear.
Why a Nuclear Attack on Iran Is a Bad Idea Now that we have outlined what is very close to happening, let us discuss briefly why everything possible should be done to prevent it. In a worst-case scenario, the attack will cause a violent reaction from Iran. Millions of "human wave" Iranian

militias will storm into Iraq, and just as Saddam stopped them with chemical weapons, the U.S. will stop them with nuclear weapons, resulting potentially in hundreds of thousands of casualties. The Middle East will explode, and popular uprisings in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other countries with pro-Western governments could be overtaken by radical regimes. Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, and a nuclear conflict could even lead to Russia's and Israel's involvement using nuclear weapons. In a best-case scenario, the U.S. will destroy all nuclear, chemical, and missile facilities in Iran with
conventional and low-yield nuclear weapons in a lightning surprise attack, and Iran will be paralyzed and decide not to retaliate for fear of a vastly more devastating nuclear attack. In the short term, the U.S. will succeed, leaving no Iranian nuclear program, civilian or otherwise. Iran will no longer threaten Israel, a regime change will ensue, and a pro-Western government will emerge. However, even in the best-case scenario, the long-term consequences are

dire. The nuclear threshold will have been crossed by a nuclear superpower against a non-nuclear country. Many more countries will rush to get their own nuclear weapons as a deterrent. With no taboo against the use of nuclear weapons, they will certainly be used again. Nuclear conflicts will occur within the next 10 to 20 years, and will escalate until much of the world is destroyed. Let us remember that the destructive power of existing nuclear arsenals is approximately one million times that of the Hiroshima bomb, enough to erase Earth's population many times over.

1NC Solvency
1. CCS fails4 reasons Rochon et al 08 Peer Reviewed, Greenpeace International: Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organisation that acts to change attitudes and
behaviour, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace, Authors include: Dr Erika Bjureby, Dr Paul Johnston, Robin Oakley, Dr David Santillo, Nina Schulz, Dr Gabriela von Goerne (Emily, May 2008, False Hope: Why carbon capture and storage wont save the climate, http://www.probeinternational.org/False %20Hope%20--%20Why%20carbon%20capture%20and%20storage%20won%92t%20save%20the%20climate.pdf)//DR. H

This report, based on peer-reviewed independent scientific research shows that: CCS cannot deliver in time to avoid dangerous climate change. The earliest possibility for deployment of CCS at utility scale is not expected before 2030.1 To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, global greenhouse gas emissions have to start falling after 2015, just seven years away. CCS wastes energy. The technology uses between 10 and 40% of the energy produced by a power station.2 Wide scale adoption of CCS is expected to erase the efficiency gains of the last 50 years, and increase resource consumption by one third.3 Storing carbon underground is risky. Safe and permanent storage of CO2 cannot be guaranteed. Even very low leakage rates could undermine any climate mitigation efforts. CCS is expensive. It could lead to a doubling of plant costs, and an electricity price increase of 21-91%.4 Money spent on CCS will divert investments away from sustainable solutions to climate change. CCS carries significant liability risks. It poses a threat to health, ecosystems and the climate. It is unclear how severe these risks will be. 2. No technology for carbon capture optimistic evidence points to still over 2 decades away Hamilton 10 Professor of Public Ethics @ ANU (Clive Hamilton, Professor of Public Ethics in Australia, 2010, Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the
Truth About Climate Change, pg 162)

As soon as one begins to investigate the issue, one is struck by the yawning gap between the deadlines for action provided by the climate scientists and the time lapse before the technology can deliver. While climate scientists say
we must begin to radically reduce emissions in rich countries inside a decade, the best estimates for 'clean coal' indicate it will not be ready for widespread adoption for at least two decades. Independent analysis suggests that full-scale

commercial implementation of carbon capture and storage will not occur until 2030 In Australia, economic modelling by the Treasury assumes that 'clean coal' technology will not begin reducing emissions from coal-fired power plants until 2026 at the earliest and more likely 2033.' Yet the International Energy Agency (IEA), long seen to be the captive of the traditional energy industries, estimates that by 2030 the world will need more than 200 power plants fully equipped with CCS if warming is to be limited to 3C. Three degrees! The IPCC estimates that by 2050 only 30-60 per cent of power generation will be technically suitable for carbon capture and storage, and the IEA's projections show the technology will deliver less than 20 per cent of the emission reductions needed by 2050 in order to stabilise concentrations close to 450 ppm. 3. Leaks prevent solvency Johnson et al. 10 PhD in Atmospheric Science (Andrew Simms, policy director of New Economics Foundation, UK think tank, and head of NEF's Climate
Change Programme, Dr. Victoria Johnson, researcher for the climate change and energy programme at NEF, MSc with distinction in Climate Change from the University of East Anglia and PhD in Atmospheric Physics at Imperial College, London and Peter Chowla, Policy and Advocacy Officer at the Bretton Woods Project. Growth isnt possible. New Economics Foundation, January 25, 2010. http://www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/Growth_Isnt_Possible.pdf) As journalist Jeff Goodell writes in his book Big Coal, tens of thousands of people may be destined to live above a giant bubble of CO2 and since CO2 is buoyant underground it can migrate through cracks and faults in the earth, pooling in unexpected places.300 A

sudden release of large amounts of CO2 due to, for example, an earthquake resulting in the fracturing or pipeline failure could result in the immediate death of both people and animals, since asphyxiation can result from inhalation of CO2 at just a 20 per cent concentration. Because CO2 is a colourless, odourless and tasteless gas; a large leak would be undetected. An
example of just how catastrophic a leak could be is the natural limnic eruption of CO2 in 1986 from Lake Nyos in Cameroon. The sudden release of 1.6 Mt CO2 resulted in the asphyxiation of around 1,700 people and 3,500 livestock. If this

rules out the storage of CO2 in land-based geological sites, let us consider sequestration in ocean saline aquifers, such as Sleipner in Norway. Slow, gradual leakage of CO2 could result in the dissolution of CO2 in shallow aquifers, causing the acidification of groundwater and undesirable change in geochemistry (i.e., mobilisation of toxic metals), water quality (leaching of nutrients) and ecosystem health (e.g., pH impacts on organisms).301 Transportation of captured carbon could also be problematic. CCS involves a process of converting
CO2 to something else, or moving it somewhere else. Taking the transport of natural gas as an example, we can estimate how secure CO2 transportation might be. The worlds largest gas transport system, 2,400km long running through Russia (the Russian gas transport system), is estimated to lose around 1.4 per cent (a range of 1.0 2.5 per cent).302 This is comparable to the amount of methane lost from US pipelines (1.5 0.5 per cent). Therefore, it per cent of all natural gas extracted is lost in the process of extraction, distribution and storage.

is reasonable to assume that CO2 leakage from transport through pipelines could be in the order of 1.5 per cent. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that around 9

4. CSS will fail no capacity for storage and increases reliance on fossil fuels in the long term Johnson et al. 10 PhD in Atmospheric Science
Andrew Simms, policy director of New Economics Foundation, UK think tank, and head of NEF's Climate Change Programme, Dr. Victoria Johnson, researcher for the climate change and energy programme at NEF, MSc with distinction in Climate Change from the University of East Anglia and PhD in Atmospheric Physics at Imperial College, London and Peter Chowla, Policy and Advocacy Officer at the Bretton Woods Project. Growth isnt possible. New Economics Foundation, January 25,2010. http://www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/Growth_Isnt_Possible.pdf

A detailed analysis (rather than an estimate) of known US geological sequestration sites undertaken by the US Department of Energy revealed that only 3GtC could be stored in abandoned oil and gas fields.303 This estimate, however, does exclude saline aquifers (very little is known about potential US saline aquifers). Assuming that the USA took responsibility for CO2 emissions that were directly proportional to its share of global emissions, the USAs capacity to store its own carbon in known geological sequestration sites would be exhausted in 12 years. Similarly, a recent analysis explored the potential storage capacity in Europe. The study found that based on Europes current annual emission rate of 4.1 GtCO2 per year in the EU 25, the medium-range estimate of storage capacity is only 20 times this.304 In other words, CCS is clearly not a long-term solution, as peak storage could be reached relatively quickly. Further sequestration would require expensive and potentially unsafe pipelines directing CO2 to sequestration sites further a field. This would be
an energy-intensive process which is why CCS not only poses significant future risks in terms of leakage, but also reduces the net energy gained from a particular fuel what has been called the energy penalty.305 Given these problems, to put such faith in schemes which are operationally immature, instead of decreasing our carbon emissions, seems outrageously risky. Surely it

would be better not to produce the emissions in the first place? One further limitation of CCS is that, only one-third of emissions in industrialised countries are actually produced in fossilfuelled power stations. A significant proportion comes from the transport sector (around 30 per cent), and as yet CCS has only been developed for static CO2 sources. By pursuing a CCS pathway, we are encouraging our continued reliance on fossil fuels delivering energy through a centralised system. Should CCS become economically viable, it could act to undermine initiatives to move towards a more efficient distributed energy system with diverse arrays of low carbon energy sources. 1. CCS fails4 reasons Rochon et al 08 Peer Reviewed, Greenpeace International: Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organisation that acts to change attitudes and
behaviour, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace, Authors include: Dr Erika Bjureby, Dr Paul Johnston, Robin Oakley, Dr David Santillo, Nina Schulz, Dr Gabriela von Goerne (Emily, May 2008, False Hope: Why carbon capture and storage wont save the climate, http://www.probeinternational.org/False %20Hope%20--%20Why%20carbon%20capture%20and%20storage%20won%92t%20save%20the%20climate.pdf)//DR. H

This report, based on peer-reviewed independent scientific research shows that: CCS cannot deliver in time to avoid dangerous climate change. The earliest possibility for deployment of CCS at utility scale is not expected before 2030.1 To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, global greenhouse gas emissions have to start falling after 2015, just seven years away. CCS wastes energy. The technology uses between 10 and 40% of the energy produced by a power station.2 Wide scale adoption of CCS is expected to erase the efficiency gains of the last 50 years, and increase resource consumption by one third.3 Storing carbon underground is risky. Safe and permanent storage of CO2 cannot be guaranteed. Even very low leakage rates could undermine any climate mitigation efforts. CCS is expensive. It could lead to a doubling of plant costs, and an electricity price increase of 21-91%.4 Money spent on CCS will divert investments away from sustainable solutions to climate change. CCS carries significant liability risks. It poses a threat to health, ecosystems and the climate. It is unclear how severe these risks will be. 2. No technology for carbon capture optimistic evidence points to still over 2 decades away Hamilton 10 Professor of Public Ethics @ ANU (Clive Hamilton, Professor of Public Ethics in Australia, 2010, Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the
Truth About Climate Change, pg 162)

As soon as one begins to investigate the issue, one is struck by the yawning gap between the deadlines for action provided by the climate scientists and the time lapse before the technology can deliver. While climate scientists say
we must begin to radically reduce emissions in rich countries inside a decade, the best estimates for 'clean coal' indicate it will not be ready for widespread adoption for at least two decades. Independent analysis suggests that full-scale

commercial implementation of carbon capture and storage will not occur until 2030 In Australia, economic modelling by the Treasury assumes that 'clean coal' technology will not begin reducing emissions from coal-fired power plants until 2026 at the earliest and more likely 2033.' Yet the International Energy Agency (IEA), long seen to be the captive of the traditional energy industries, estimates that by 2030 the world will need more than 200 power plants fully equipped with CCS if warming is to be limited to 3C. Three degrees! The IPCC estimates that by 2050 only 30-60 per cent of power generation will be technically suitable for carbon capture and storage, and the IEA's projections show the technology will deliver less than 20 per cent of the emission reductions needed by 2050 in order to stabilise concentrations close to 450 ppm.

3. Leaks prevent solvency Johnson et al. 10 PhD in Atmospheric Science (Andrew Simms, policy director of New Economics Foundation, UK think tank, and head of NEF's Climate
Change Programme, Dr. Victoria Johnson, researcher for the climate change and energy programme at NEF, MSc with distinction in Climate Change from the University of East Anglia and PhD in Atmospheric Physics at Imperial College, London and Peter Chowla, Policy and Advocacy Officer at the Bretton Woods Project. Growth isnt possible. New Economics Foundation, January 25, 2010. http://www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/Growth_Isnt_Possible.pdf) As journalist Jeff Goodell writes in his book Big Coal, tens of thousands of people may be destined to live above a giant bubble of CO2 and since CO2 is buoyant underground it can migrate through cracks and faults in the earth, pooling in unexpected places.300 A

sudden release of large amounts of CO2 due to, for example, an earthquake resulting in the fracturing or pipeline failure could result in the immediate death of both people and animals, since asphyxiation can result from inhalation of CO2 at just a 20 per cent concentration. Because CO2 is a colourless, odourless and tasteless gas; a large leak would be undetected. An
example of just how catastrophic a leak could be is the natural limnic eruption of CO2 in 1986 from Lake Nyos in Cameroon. The sudden release of 1.6 Mt CO2 resulted in the asphyxiation of around 1,700 people and 3,500 livestock. If this

rules out the storage of CO2 in land-based geological sites, let us consider sequestration in ocean saline aquifers, such as Sleipner in Norway. Slow, gradual leakage of CO2 could result in the dissolution of CO2 in shallow aquifers, causing the acidification of groundwater and undesirable change in geochemistry (i.e., mobilisation of toxic metals), water quality (leaching of nutrients) and ecosystem health (e.g., pH impacts on organisms).301 Transportation of captured carbon could also be problematic. CCS involves a process of converting
CO2 to something else, or moving it somewhere else. Taking the transport of natural gas as an example, we can estimate how secure CO2 transportation might be. The worlds largest gas transport system, 2,400km long running through Russia (the Russian gas transport system), is estimated to lose around 1.4 per cent (a range of 1.0 2.5 per cent).302 This is comparable to the amount of methane lost from US pipelines (1.5 0.5 per cent). Therefore, it per cent of all natural gas extracted is lost in the process of extraction, distribution and storage.

is reasonable to assume that CO2 leakage from transport through pipelines could be in the order of 1.5 per cent. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that around 9 4. CSS will fail no capacity for storage and increases reliance on fossil fuels in the long term Johnson et al. 10 PhD in Atmospheric Science
Andrew Simms, policy director of New Economics Foundation, UK think tank, and head of NEF's Climate Change Programme, Dr. Victoria Johnson, researcher for the climate change and energy programme at NEF, MSc with distinction in Climate Change from the University of East Anglia and PhD in Atmospheric Physics at Imperial College, London and Peter Chowla, Policy and Advocacy Officer at the Bretton Woods Project. Growth isnt possible. New Economics Foundation, January 25,2010. http://www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/Growth_Isnt_Possible.pdf

A detailed analysis (rather than an estimate) of known US geological sequestration sites undertaken by the US Department of Energy revealed that only 3GtC could be stored in abandoned oil and gas fields.303 This estimate, however, does exclude saline aquifers (very little is known about potential US saline aquifers). Assuming that the USA took responsibility for CO2 emissions that were directly proportional to its share of global emissions, the USAs capacity to store its own carbon in known geological sequestration sites would be exhausted in 12 years. Similarly, a recent analysis explored the potential storage capacity in Europe. The study found that based on Europes current annual emission rate of 4.1 GtCO2 per year in the EU 25, the medium-range estimate of storage capacity is only 20 times this.304 In other words, CCS is clearly not a long-term solution, as peak storage could be reached relatively quickly. Further sequestration would require expensive and potentially unsafe pipelines directing CO2 to sequestration sites further a field. This would be
an energy-intensive process which is why CCS not only poses significant future risks in terms of leakage, but also reduces the net energy gained from a particular fuel what has been called the energy penalty.305 Given these problems, to put such faith in schemes which are operationally immature, instead of decreasing our carbon emissions, seems outrageously risky. Surely it

would be better not to produce the emissions in the first place? One further limitation of CCS is that, only one-third of emissions in industrialised countries are actually produced in fossilfuelled power stations. A significant proportion comes from the transport sector (around 30 per cent), and as yet CCS has only been developed for static CO2 sources. By pursuing a CCS pathway, we are encouraging our continued reliance on fossil fuels delivering energy through a centralised system. Should CCS become economically viable, it could act to undermine initiatives to move towards a more efficient distributed energy system with diverse arrays of low carbon energy sources. 5. CCS triggers Earthquakes and those earthquakes destroy CO2 repositories means aff cant solve Zoback and Gorelick 5/4/12 [Mark D. Zoback Professor at the Department of Geophysics at Stanford University, and Steven M. Gorelick Professor of
Environmental Earth System Sciences at Stanford University, Earthquake triggering and large-scale geological storage of carbon dioxide Found on the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, May 4th, 2012 /SM] Despite its enormous cost, large-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS)

is considered a viable strategy for significantly reducing CO2 emissions associated with coal-based electrical power generation and other industrial sources of CO2 We argue here that there is a high probability that earthquakes will be triggered by injection of large volumes of CO2 into the brittle rocks commonly found in continental interiors. Because even small- to moderate-sized earthquakes threaten the seal integrity of CO2 repositories, in this context, large-scale CCS is a risky, and likely unsuccessful, strategy for significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Unchecked natural disasters cause extinction Sid-Ahmed 5 [Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, political activist, writer and journalist with Al-Ahram Weekly, January 2005 The post-earthquake world Al-Ahram
Weekly Online http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/724/op3.htm]

The contradiction between Man and Nature has reached unprecedented heights, forcing us to re-examine our understanding of the existing world system. US President George W Bush has announced the creation of an international alliance between the US, Japan, India, Australia and any other nation wishing to join that will work to help the stricken region overcome the huge problems it is facing in the wake of the tsunamis. Actually, the implications of the disaster are not only regional but global, not to say cosmic. Is it possible to mobilise all the inhabitants of our planet to the extent and at the speed necessary to avert similar disasters in future? How to engender the required state of emergency, that is, a
different type of inter-human relations which rise to the level of the challenge before contradictions between the various sections of the world community make that collective effort unrealisable? The

human species has never been exposed to a natural upheaval of this magnitude within living memory. What happened in South Asia is the ecological equivalent of 9/11. Ecological problems like global warming and climatic disturbances in general threaten to make our natural habitat unfit for human life. The extinction of the species has become a very real possibility, whether by our own hand or as a result of natural disasters of a much greater magnitude than the Indian Ocean earthquake and the killer waves it spawned.
Human civilisation has developed in the hope that Man will be able to reach welfare and prosperity on earth for everybody. But now things seem to be moving in the opposite direction, exposing planet Earth to the end of its role as a nurturing place for human life. Today,

human conflicts have become less of a threat than the confrontation between Man and Nature. At least they are less likely to bring about the end of the human species. The reactions of Nature as a result of its exposure to the onslaughts of human societies have become more important in determining the fate of the human species than any harm it can inflict on itself.

1NC Warming
1. No reason that BRIC countries would stop polluting if the US did; they would just pump up emissions more in order to get a large economic boost over the US. Their evidence says that countries pollute because they want to have a strong economy, the plan doesnt change this mindset. 2. CO2 increases are inevitable because of breathing Lovelock 09, Consultant of NASA, former president of the Marine Biological Association, and Honorary Visiting Fellow of Green Templeton College, Oxford
(James, The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning: Enjoy it While You Can, 74-75)

It is surprising that politicians could have been so unwise as to agree on policies many decades ahead.
Perhaps there were voics from scientists who warned of the absurdity of such planning, but if so they do not seem to have head. Even if we cut emissions by 60

of carbon dioxide, but did you know that the exhalations of breath and other gaseous emissions by the nearly 7 billion people on Earth, their pets, and their livestock are responsible for 23 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions? If you add on the fossil fuel burnt in total activity of growing, gathering, selling, and serving food, all of this adds up to about half of all carbon dioxide emissions. Think of farm machinery, the transport of food from the farms, and the transport of fertilizer, pesticides, and the fuel used in their manufacture; the road building and maintenance; super-market operation and the packaging industry; to say nothing of the energy used in cooking, refrigerating, and serving food. As if this were not enough, think of how farmland fails to serve Gaia as the forests it replaced did. If, just by living with our pets and livestock, we are responsible for nearly half the emissions of carbon dioxide, I do not see how the 60 percent reduction can be achieved without a great loss of life. Like it or not, we are the problem--and as a part of the Earth system, not as something separate
percent to 12 gigatons a year, it wouldn't be enough. I have mentioned several times before that breathing is a potent source from and above it. When world leaders ask us to follow them to the inviting green pastures ahead, they should first check that it really is grass on solid ground and not moss covering a quagmire. The only near certain conclusion we can draw from the changing climate and people's response to it is that there is little time left in which to act. Therefore my plea is that

adaptation is made at least equal in importance to policy-driven attempts to reduce emissions. We cannot continue to assume that because there is no way gently to reduce our numbers it is sufficient merely to improve our carbon footprints. Too many also think only of the profit to be made from
carbon trading. it is not the carbon footprint alone that harms the Earth; the people's footprint is larger and more deadly.

3. Turn - large emission reductions remove sulfate aerosols which cool the Earth Lovelock 09, Consultant of NASA, former president of the Marine Biological Association, and Honorary Visiting Fellow of Green Templeton College, Oxford
(James, The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning: Enjoy it While You Can, 55-56 In 2004, two IPCC contributors, Peter Cox and Meinrat Andreae, raised the question: What

happens to global warming if this pollution haze suddenly disappears? Their paper in Nature warned that if the haze disappeared, global heating would intensify, and dangerous change could be the consequence. In 2008, a group led by Peter Scott, from the Hadley Centre (part of the Meterological Office), examined this phenomenon in a careful and wall-drawn paper in the journal Tellus: "global dimming," they revealed, is complex, even as a purely geophysical problem. According to their calculations the sudden removal of haze could lead to either a modest or a severe increase of heating. I know begin to see why my wise friend Robert Charlson is so loath to commit himself on pollution aerosols and climate change.
Even so, there was little doubt among any of these distinguished climate scientists that the present pollution haze reduces global heating, or that its sudden removal could have serious consequences. I suspect that we worry less about global heating than about a global economic crash, and forget that we could make both events happen together if we implemented an

immediate, global 60 percent reduction of emissions. This would cause a rapid fall in fossil fuel consumption, and most of the particles that make the atmospheric aerosol would within weeks fall from the air. This would greatly simplify prediction and we could at last be fairly sure that global temperature would rise; the removal of the pollution aerosol would leave the gaseous greenhouse unobstructed and free at last to devastate what was left of the comfortable interglacial Earth. Yes, if we implemented in full the recommendations made at Bali within a year, far from stabilizing the climate, it could grow hotter not cooler. This is why I said in The Revenge of Gaia, "We live in a fool's
climate and are damned whatever we do."

4. Increased CO2s key to crop fertilization that sustains biodiversity and avert worldwide famine that kills billions Idso and Idso 7 Sherwood Idso, former Research Physicist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service and former adjunct
professor in the Departments of Geology, Geography, and Botany and Microbiology at Arizona State University, and Craig Idso, founder and former President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and former Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy, 2007 [Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Separating Scientific Fact from Personal Opinion, http://co2science.org/education/reports/hansen/HansenTestimonyCritique.pdf, p. 17-19]

How much land can ten billion people spare for nature? This provocative question was posed by Waggoner (1995) in an insightful
essay wherein he explored the dynamic tension that exists between the need for land to support the agricultural enterprises that sustain mankind, and the need for

land to support the natural ecosystems that sustain all other creatures. This challenge of meeting our future food needs and not decimating the rest of the biosphere in the process was stressed even more strongly by Huang et al. (2002), who wrote that humans have encroached on almost all of the world's frontiers, leaving little new land that is cultivatable. And in consequence of humanity's usurpation of this most basic of natural resources, Raven (2002) stated in his Presidential Address to the American Association for the Advancement of Science that species-area relationships, taken worldwide in relation to habitat destruction, lead to projections of the loss of fully two-thirds of all species on earth by the end of this century. In a more detailed analysis of the nature and implications of this impending global land-grab which moved it closer to the present by a full half-century Tilman et al. (2001) concluded that the

task of meeting the doubled world food demand, which they calculated would exist in the year 2050, would likely exact a toll that may rival climate change in environmental and societal impacts. But how could something so catastrophic manifest itself
so soon? Tilman and his nine collaborators shed some light on this question by noting that at the end of the 20th century mankind was already appropriating more than a third of the production of terrestrial ecosystems and about half of usable freshwaters. Now, think of doubling those figures, in order to meet the doubled global food demand that Tilman et al. predict for the year 2050. The results suggest that a mere 43 years from now mankind will be appropriating more than two thirds of terrestrial ecosystem production plus all of earths remaining usable freshwater, as has also been discussed by Wallace (2000). In terms of land devoted to agriculture, Tilman et al. calculate a much less ominous 18% increase by the year 2050. However, because

most developed countries are projected to withdraw large areas of land from farming over the next fifty years, the loss of natural ecosystems to crops and pastures in developing countries will amount to about half of their remaining suitable land, which would, in the words of the Tilman team, represent the worldwide loss of natural ecosystems larger than the United States. What is more, they say that these land usurpations could lead to the loss of about a third of remaining tropical and temperate forests, savannas, and grasslands. And in a worrisome reflection upon the consequences of these land-use changes, they remind us that species extinction is an irreversible impact of habitat destruction. What can be done to avoid this horrific situation? In a subsequent analysis, Tilman et al. (2002) introduced a few more facts before suggesting
some solutions. First of all, they noted that by 2050 the human population of the globe is projected to be 50% larger than it was just prior to the writing of their paper, and that global

grain demand by 2050 could well double, due to expected increases in per capita real income and dietary shifts toward a higher proportion of meat. Hence, they but stated the obvious when they concluded that
raising yields on existing farmland is essential for saving land for nature. So how can this readily-defined but Herculean task be accomplished? Tilman et al. proposed a strategy that focuses on three essential efforts: (1) increasing crop yield per unit of land area, (2) increasing crop yield per unit of nutrients applied, and (3) increasing crop yield per unit of water used. With

respect to the first of these efforts increasing crop yield per unit of land area the researchers note that in many parts of the world the historical rate-of-increase in crop yield is declining, as the genetic ceiling for maximal yield potential is being approached. This observation, in their estimation, highlights the need for efforts to steadily increase the yield potential ceiling. With respect to the second effort increasing crop yield per unit of nutrients applied they note that without the use of synthetic fertilizers, world food production could not have increased at the rate [that it did in the past] and more natural ecosystems would have been converted to agriculture. Hence, they say that the ultimate solution will require significant increases in nutrient use efficiency, that is, in cereal production per unit of added nitrogen. Finally, with respect to the third effort increasing crop yield per unit of water used Tilman et al. note that water is
regionally scarce, and that many countries in a band from China through India and Pakistan, and the Middle East to North Africa either currently or will soon fail to have adequate water to maintain per capita food production from irrigated land. Increasing

crop water use efficiency, therefore, is also

a must. Although the impending man vs. nature crisis and several important elements of its potential solution are thus well defined, Tilman and his first set of collaborators concluded that even the best available technologies, fully deployed, cannot prevent many of the forecasted problems. This was also the finding of Idso and Idso (2000), who concluded that although expected advances in agricultural technology and expertise will significantly increase the food production potential of many countries and regions, these advances will not increase production fast enough to meet the demands of the even faster-growing human population of the planet. How can we prevent this unthinkable catastrophe from occurring, especially when it has been concluded by highly-credentialed researchers that earth possesses insufficient land and freshwater resources to forestall it, while simultaneously retaining any semblance of the natural world and its myriad animate creations? Although the task may appear next to impossible to accomplish, it can be done; for we have a powerful ally in the ongoing rise in the atmospheres CO2 concentration that can provide what we can't. Since atmospheric CO2 is the basic food of nearly all plants, the more of it there is in the air, the better they function and the more productive they become. For a 300-ppm increase in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration above the planets current base level of slightly less than 400 ppm, for example, the productivity of earth's herbaceous plants rises by something on the order of 30% (Kimball, 1983; Idso and Idso, 1994), while the productivity of its woody plants rises by something on the order of 50% (Saxe et al., 1998; Idso and Kimball, 2001). Thus, as the air's CO2 content continues to rise, so too will the productive capacity or land-use efficiency of the planet continue to rise, as the aerial fertilization effect of the upward-trending atmospheric CO2 concentration boosts the growth rates and biomass production of nearly all plants in nearly all places. In addition, elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations typically increase plant nutrient-use efficiency in general and nitrogen-use efficiency in particular as well as plant water-use efficiency, as may be verified by

perusing the many reviews of scientific journal articles we have produced on these topics and archived in the Subject Index of our website (www.co2science.org). Consequently, with respect to fostering all three of the plant physiological phenomena that Tilman et al. (2002) contend are needed to prevent the catastrophic consequences they foresee for the planet just a few short decades from now, a continuation of the current upward trend in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration would appear to be essential. In the case we are considering here, for example, the

degree of crop yield enhancement likely to be provided by the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration expected to occur between 2000 and 2050 has been calculated by Idso and Idso (2000) to be sufficient but only by the slightest of margins to compensate for the huge differential that is expected to otherwise prevail between the supply and demand for food earmarked for human consumption just 43 years from now. Consequently, letting the evolution of technology take its natural course, with respect to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, would appear to be the only way we will ever be able to produce sufficient agricultural commodities to support ourselves in the year 2050 without the taking of unconscionable amounts of land and freshwater resources from nature and decimating the biosphere in the process. 5. Three periods of rapid warming show no extinctions- models are flawed guesswork NIPCC 11 (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, 2011 Interim Report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change,
http://nipccreport.org/reports/2011/2011report.html) The first period they examined was

the Eocene Climatic Optimum (5351 million years ago), when the atmospheres CO2 concentration exceeded 1,200 ppm and tropical temperatures were 510C warmer than modern values. Yet far from causing extinctions of the tropical flora (where the data are best), the four researchers report all the evidence from low-latitude records indicates that, at least in the plant fossil record, this was one of the most biodiverse intervals of time in the Neotropics. They also note ancestors of many of our modern tropical and temperate plants evolved ...when global temperatures and CO2 were much higher than present ... indicating that they have much wider ecological tolerances than are predicted based on present-day climates alone. The second period they examined included two rapid-change climatic events in the Holoceneone at 14,700 years ago and one at 11,600 years agowhen temperatures increased in the mid- to high-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere by up to 10C over periods of less than 60 years. There is evidence from many sites for rapid plant responses to rapid warming during these events. The researchers note at no site yet studied, anywhere in the world, is there evidence in the fossil record for large-scale climate-driven extinction during these intervals of rapid warming. On the other hand, they report extinctions did
occur due to the cold temperatures of the glacial epoch, when subtropical species in southern Europe were driven out of their comfort zone. The Willis et al. study also makes use of recent historical data, as in the case of the

3C rise in temperature at Yosemite Park over the past 100 years. In comparing surveys of mammal fauna conducted near the beginning and end of this period, they detected some changes but no local extinctions. Thus they determined that for all of the periods they studied, with either very warm temperatures or very rapid warming, there were no detectable species extinctions. In a study that may help explain how some researchers could have gotten things so wrong in predicting massive extinctions of both plants and animals in response to projected future warming, Nogues-Bravo (2009) explains the climate envelope models (CEMs)often employed to predict species responses to global warming (and whether or not a species will be able to survive projected temperature
increases)are sensitive to theoretical assumptions, to model classes and to projections in non-analogous climates, among other issues. To determine how appropriate these models are for determining whether a particular species will be driven to extinction by hypothesized planetary warming, Nogues-Bravo reviewed the scientific literature pertaining to the subject and found several

flaws. Nogues-Bravo writes, the studies reviewed: (1) rarely test the theoretical assumptions behind niche modeling such as the stability of species climatic niches through time and the equilibrium of species with climate; (2) they only use one model class (72% of the studies) and one palaeoclimatic reconstruction (62.5%) to calibrate their models; (3) they do not check for the occurrence of non-analogous climates (97%); and (4) they do not use independent data to validate the models (72%). Nogues-Bravo writes, ignoring the theoretical assumptions behind niche modeling and using inadequate methods for hindcasting can produce a cascade of errors and nave ecological and evolutionary inferences. Hence, he concludes, there are a wide variety of challenges that CEMs must overcome in order to improve the reliability of their predictions through time. Until these challenges are met, contentions of impending species extinctions must be considered little more than guesswork (see also Chapman, 2010).

1NC EOR
1. Chinese influence isnt zero sum with the west --- shared values negate conflict Bitzinger & Desker, 8 senior fellow and dean of S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies respectively (Richard A. Bitzinger, Barry Desker, Why
East Asian War is Unlikely, Survival, December 2008, http://pdfserve.informaworld.com-/678328_731200556_906256449.pdf)

The argument that there is an emerging Beijing Consensus is not premised on the rise of the East and decline of the West, as sometimes seemed to be the sub-text of the earlier Asian-values debate.7
However, like the earlier debate, the new one reflects alternative philosophical traditions. The issue is the appropriate balance between the rights of the individual and those of the state. This

emerging debate will highlight the shared identity and values of China and the other states in the region, even if conventional realist analysts join John Mearsheimer to suggest that it will result in intense security competition with considerable potential for war in which most of Chinas neighbours will join with the United States to contain Chinas power.8 These shared values are likely to reduce the risk of conflict and result in regional pressure for an accommodation of and engagement with an emerging China, rather than confrontation. 2. U.S.-China conflict will never occurmany factors restrain China Brzezinski, 5 (Zbigniew, Counselor at CSIS, Foreign Policy, Jan/Feb, http://www.worldthreats.com/Asia/Clash%20of%20Titans.htm) Today in East Asia, China is risingpeacefully so far. For understandable reasons, China harbors resentment and even humiliation about some chapters of its history. Nationalism is an important force, and there are serious grievances regarding external issues, notably Taiwan. But conflict is not inevitable or even likely. China's leadership is not inclined to challenge the United States militarily, and its focus remains on economic development and winning acceptance as a great power. China is preoccupied, and almost fascinated, with the trajectory of its own ascent. When I
met with the top leadership not long ago, what struck me was the frequency with which I was asked for predictions about the next 15 or 20 years. Not long ago, the Chinese Politburo invited two distinguished, Western-trained professors to a special meeting. Their task was to analyze nine major powers since the 15th century to see why they rose and fell. It's an interesting exercise for the top leadership of a massive and complex country. This focus on the experience of past great powers could lead to the conclusion that the iron laws of political theory and history point to some inevitable collision or conflict. But there are other political realities. In the next five years, China will host several events that will restrain the conduct of its foreign policy. The 2008 Olympic Games is the most important, of course. The scale of the economic and psychological investment in the Beijing games is staggering. My expectation is that they will be magnificently organized. And make no mistake, China intends to win at the Olympics. A second date is 2010, when China will hold the World Expo in Shanghai. Successfully organizing these international gatherings is important to China and suggests that a cautious foreign policy will prevail. More broadly,

China is determined to sustain its economic growth. A confrontational foreign policy could disrupt that growth, harm hundreds of millions of Chinese, and threaten the Communist Party's hold on power. China's leadership appears rational, calculating, and conscious not only of China's rise but also of its continued weakness. There will be inevitable frictions as China's regional role increases
and as a Chinese "sphere of influence" develops. U.S. power may recede gradually in the coming years, and the unavoidable decline in Japan's influence will heighten the sense of China's regional preeminence. But

to have a real collision, China needs a military that is capable of going toe-to-toe with the United States. At the strategic level, China maintains a posture of minimum deterrence. Forty years after acquiring nuclear-weapons technology, China has just 24 ballistic missiles capable of hitting the United States. Even beyond the realm of strategic warfare, a country must have the capacity to attain its political objectives before it will engage in limited war. It is hard to envisage how China could promote its objectives when it is acutely vulnerable to a blockade and isolation enforced by the United States. In a conflict, Chinese maritime trade would stop entirely. The flow of oil would cease, and the Chinese economy would be paralyzed. 3. No impact to war; U.S. will crush China DOD REPORT, 2k (Report to Congress by the Secretary of Defense, June 23, "Annual Report on the Military Power of the People's Republic of China,"
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/8/7/160447) Should China decide to attack Taiwan, Beijing's goal would be to erode Taipei's will to fight with sufficient alacrity to avoid escalation of the conflict and potential third party intervention in the hope of forcing a political resolution in Beijing's favor. Synchronized application of SRBM, LACM, air-launched ASCM, maritime, and SOF assets likely would be a necessary requirement for success. However, while Beijing understands the theoretical aspects of integrating various weapons systems and strike assets, the

PLA's principal obstacles lie in doctrinal and tactical deficiencies. China has no real-time reconnaissance and surveillance capability and its ability to effectively command and control its military forces--particularly in a joint service environment--is practically nonexistent. The PLAAF and the PLANAF rarely exercise together. While the PLA and PLAAF reportedly exercise together as do the PLAN and PLANAF, rarely do three or more services exercise jointly. The PLA apparently conducts interservice exercises at the tactical level, but the services are not integrated fully into a cohesive combat force.
So-called joint exercises appear to be highly scripted, with little or no free play. Disparate elements train simultaneously and in proximity, but are not controlled at the operational level by a joint commander and staff with interoperable C4I systems and a joint operational plan. There is a paucity of information

on how the PLA would integrate IW into a joint operational environment. Apparently only the 2nd Artillery has shown some progress in developing a training regimen which incorporates interaction with other service elements. China

is not expected to develop comprehensive joint power projection capabilities for at least the next two decades; as a result, its ability to control a multidimensional battlespace likely will remain limited. 4. No threat --- conservatives blow hypothetical conflict way out of proportion Guardiano, 10 Writer and analyst who focuses on political, military, and public-policy issues (John Guardiano, Overstating the China Threat, FrumForum,
May 13th, 2010, http://www.frumforum.com/overstating-the-china-threat) Devore, in fact, has it exactly backwards: We have to prepare for the real enemy, and its not China. The real and immediate enemy is a network of Islamic radicals determined to destabilize the world and wreck havoc and destruction on America and the West. Yet, China Weekly Standards Noonan, Goldfarb and indeed, most conservative

is what preoccupies the defense hawks. To be sure, China is a potential military threat. The United States certainly should maintain military superiority over China; and we certainly should guarantee the independence of Taiwan. But the Rights obsession with a hypothetical and distant Chinese military threat is seriously misplaced and inappropriate especially given the wartime exigencies of today. American Soldiers and Marines are being targeted and killed, after all, not by China, but by Islamic radicals in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it is this global war
against the Islamists and not a distant, hypothetical war with China that is the future of warfare. Its a future involving lots of messy asymmetric fights in which American troops are integral to stability, security, and gradual, long-term democratization. It is not, however, a future that conservatives like or wish to accept. Conservatives dont like messy asymmetric fights which involve counterinsurgency and nation building: because to many on the Right, thats not real war. Thats not the role and purpose of the U.S. military. The

Right dreams or imagines, instead, of a conventional big war with China. Dream on, because it aint gonna happen, not in our lifetime anyhow. The Chinese are interested in making money, not war. Their increasing military prowess is a natural and inevitable reflection of their growing economic strength and vitality. Indeed, as a country modernizes and develops, so, too, does its military. Again, Im not suggesting that we let our guard down with China. Im simply saying that we view the
potential Chinese military threat in context and with perspective and that we plan and budget accordingly. Unfortunately, the Rights misplaced obsession with China has deleterious real-world consequences. It causes conservatives to too often give short shrift to the existential Jihadist threat that now confronts us, and too little attention to the war we are now fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Whats more, because the Right has yet to come to terms with the nature of 21st irregular asymmetric warfare, it has been AWOL and ineffective in the defense budget battles of recent years. For example, when President Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates last year pushed dramatic defense budget cuts in the name of canceling Cold War weapon systems, most conservatives were flummoxed and stymied. They rightly sensed that eliminating some of our most advanced weapon systems was a bad idea. However, conservatives also realized that the world and warfare had changed, and that defense budget reform might well be necessary. Conventional set-piece battles, after all, are largely a thing of the past. Except that theyre not, because in

the minds of conservative hawks, the Chinese military threat is

always looming.

Thus, the Right fell back on old and dated Cold War modes of analysis, lamenting the loss of aircraft like the F-22 even though the F-22 has not been used in either Iraq or Afghanistan, and even though modern-day conflicts are inherently land-based and ground-force intensive. My point is not that we dont need any more F-22s, because we might. My point is that conservatives should focus their intellectual and rhetorical firepower on more relevant and urgent military priorities like the need for ground-force modernization, a new Army combat vehicle, and networking our Army and Marine Corps with state-of-the-art communication capabilities. But the sad reality is that most conservative defense hawks and certainly most conservative politicians and elected officials havent a clue about U.S. military requirements. And they are especially clueless about the needs of our ground-force Soldiers and Marines. Thats why conservatives last year lost the defense budget battle; and thats why theyre still losing and losing badly: because they have yet to come to terms with new geostrategic and military realities. Theyre

stuck in a Cold War time warp and are mistakenly focused on China. But the Chinese are eager to sell us commercial goods; they are not eager to destroy our cities and our people. The same cannot be said, however, of the Jihadists who plan and plot for our destruction. Youd think that nine years after
the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, and with wars still raging in Iraq and Afghanistan, conservatives would understand this. But alas, you would be wrong. The Right still doesnt get it. But they should and they must. The fate of American national security, and the survival of our Soldiers and Marines, hangs in the balance. Time to modernize our thinking. Now.