VISAS AFF

note:

Some things need to be underlined/highlighted – also not all advantages are in here, just the
ones that Jack and I are running
1AC
 Inherency
The ECA currently lacks the resources, staff, and leadership to foster the foreign
exchange program.
Armstrong 17, [Matt Armstrong is an author and lecturer on public diplomacy and
international media. He is a former Member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors and a
former Executive Director of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy.] "The Past,
Present, and Future of the War for Public Opinion," War on the Rocks,
https://warontherocks.com/2017/01/the-past-present-and-future-of-the-war-for-public-
opinion/ 1.19.17 JD]

The majority of the former USIA – whether measured in terms of staff, budget, or nations
reached – exist today in the State Department. These are the public affairs sections in the U.S.
embassies and consulates abroad, the Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP), and
the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA). All of these are under-resourced, under-
staffed, poorly tasked, and usually lacking appropriate leadership. The foreign service officers
and civil servants working in these areas are poorly supported professionally, denied essential
training, and often prevented from focusing on the “last three feet”— face-to-face conversation.
They tend to be occupied with administration and management functions. The State
Department’s public affairs sections abroad are under the authority of the ambassador, in
contrast to the former USIA’s public affairs sections that were under the Director of the USIA.
The USIA equivalent of IIP, arguably the second largest group of functions of the late agency,
provided integrated media development in support of public affairs sections. It also supported
an extensive library system, now severely restricted under the State Department’s security
requirements. The products included publishing books and magazines, producing movies, and
printing maps and posters. The USIA also offered speaking tours abroad of U.S. professionals
and cultural icons to meet with locals directly. These continue today, but as the IPP’s primary
role shifted to develop social media packages for embassies, including an “all-hands” effort to
promote tourism, its legacy as the core of USIA is all but forgotten.

The ECA, which manages overseas exchanges of all kinds, seems to be on auto-pilot, seemingly
focused on exchanges for the sake of exchanges. Its decades old “Interagency Working Group,”
created to better coordinate exchanges sponsored by a myriad of government agencies, does
little but create more busy work for the already overworked public affairs sections. While many
officials realize that exchanges are essential in developing mutual understanding, its role in
developing local capacity and building networks against adversarial politics is too often
forgotten.
 STEM- Global Warming
Climate science is under assault from the administration-even as Trump and
Devos valorize other parts of STEM
Education World, 16
How Will Donald Trump Impact STEM Education? How Will Donald Trump Impact STEM
Education?, http://www.educationworld.com/a_news/how-will-donald-trump-impact-stem-
education-667807267&as_qdr=y15(accessed May 11, 2017)

Improving STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) learning in America’s K-12 schools
has been a national focus for some time now because of Barack Obama’s commitment to
supporting STEM education throughout his two terms as president. Such initiatives include
establishing the first-ever White House Science Fair, the Computer Science for All campaign, and
supporting efforts to train 100,000 STEM teachers by 2021. These initiatives tackle issues that
have been defined as barriers to effectively teaching STEM to America’s students, such as a lack
of resources for teaching computer science and a general lack of trained specialized teachers to
teach most STEM subjects including but not limited to computer science. The big question in
STEM this week is: Will Donald Trump keep the ball rolling on these STEM initiatives when he
enters the White House? It’s hard to tell, because Trump has spoken very little about education
in general during his campaigning and has on only a few occasions made mention of how
committed he is to improving STEM education. Fortunately, The Scientific American asked
Donald Trump’s campaign several questions about how he views science, and one of those
questions touched specifically on science education in schools. The question reads: American
students have fallen in many international rankings of science and math performance, and the
public in general is being faced with an expanding array of major policy challenges that are
heavily influenced by complex science. How would your administration work to ensure all
students including women and minorities are prepared to address 21st century challenges and,
further, that the public has an adequate level of STEM literacy in an age dominated by complex
science and technology? Trump’s campaign responded and gave all indication that Trump will
not be following in Obama’s footsteps and implementing federal STEM initiatives. "Our top-
down-one-size-fits-all approach to education is failing and is actually damaging educational
outcomes for our children,” Trump’s campaign said. "If we are serious about changing the
direction of our educational standing, we must change our educational models and allow the
greatest possible number of options for educating our children. The management of our public
education institutions should be done at the state and local level, not at the Department of
Education.” While federal STEM initiatives seem unlikely, one thing Trump is very likely to do
is affect how climate change science is taught in schools. Trump has made it clear that he falls
in the camp of skeptics who believe more research needs to be done before climate change
can viewed as fact. "There is still much that needs to be investigated in the field of 'climate
change,'" Trump's campaign said to the Scientific American. This has angered many educators
who cite 99 percent of the scientific community standing behind the fact that climate change is
happening and who want to make sure they have the resources and support to teach their
students the right thing. "It is more than possible that the sweeping Republican triumph at the
national level may embolden local efforts to undermine the teaching of evolution and climate
change. These are worrying signs for science education,” writes National Center for Science
Education (NCSE) Executive Director Ann Reid.

Time is now-Climate change is real and human caused and Trump’s polices do
long term damage to our understanding of science and climate change-the next
few years are critical to reverse mindsets
WPR 16
Tania Lombrozo is a psychology professor at the University of California, Berkeley, What Does A
Trump Presidency Mean For Climate-Change Education? https://www.wpr.org/what-does-
trump-presidency-mean-climate-change-education-1

On Nov. 8, the World Meteorological Organization published a press release summarizing the
findings from a report on global climate from 2011-2015. The report identified the last five years
as the hottest on record, with 2015 marking the first year with global temperatures more than 1
degree Celsius above the pre-industrial era. Arctic sea ice declined, sea levels rose and many
extreme weather events occurred — events that were "made more likely as a result of human-
induced (anthropogenic) climate change." The same day the press release was published,
Donald Trump was elected as the next president of the United States. This combination of
events is deeply troubling. Trump has called climate change a hoax and has threatened to
withdraw from the 2015 Paris agreement to limit climate change. Already, Trump has named
climate skeptic Myron Ebell to head his Environmental Protection Agency transition team. More
generally, there's speculation and concern about what a Trump presidency will mean for
scientifically informed policy, for science funding and for science education. In an evaluation by
Scientific American of four presidential candidates' responses to 20 questions about science
posed by ScienceDebate.org, Trump came in last, with 7 points out of a possible 100. (For
comparison, Clinton earned the highest score at 64). "The good thing about science," says Neil
deGrasse Tyson, "is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." But the bad thing about
science — at least when it comes to issues like climate change — is that it's true whether or not
government policies take it into account. In sum: The next four years aren't looking good for
science (or for the natural world). Concerns are especially acute when it comes to climate
change and science education, where today's policies will have effects that extend well beyond
a single presidential term. To help me think about the implications of a Trump presidency for
climate change education and for science instruction more generally, I was fortunate to reach
Ann Reid, executive director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), a non-profit
organization with the stated mission of defending "the integrity of science education against
ideological interference." Reid answered several questions about the future of science
education in a conversation by e-mail:
Two Internal Links: First Leadership

F-1 Visas are key to US global competiveness and overall growth

Wasem 16 [Ruth Ellen Wasem is the Specialist in Immigration Policy for the Congressional
research Services, January 13, 2016 " Temporary Professional, Managerial, and Skilled Foreign
Workers: Policy and Trends," Congressional Research Services,
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43735.pdf, January 13, 2016/ HD]

Although foreign students on F visas are generally barred from off-campus employment, some
F- 1 foreign students are permitted to participate in employment known as Optional Practical
Training (OPT) after completing their undergraduate or graduate studies. OPT is temporary
employment that is directly related to an F-1 student’s major area of study. Generally, an F-1
foreign student may work up to 12 months in OPT status. In 2008, the Bush Administration
added a 17-month extension to OPT for F-1 students in STEM fields, and the Obama
Administration recently proposed a 24-month extension for F-1 students in STEM fields.
Congress has an ongoing interest in regulating the immigration of professional, managerial, and
skilled foreign workers to the United States. This workforce is seen by many as a catalyst of U.S.
global economic competitiveness and is likewise considered a key element of the legislative
options aimed at stimulating economic growth. The challenge central to the policy debate is
facilitating the migration of professional, managerial, and skilled foreign workers without
putting downward pressures on U.S. workers and U.S. students entering the labor market.

US leadership in science, technology, and innovation solves a litany of

impacts—including climate change and disease
Holdren 16
John P. Holdren (Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy). “A
21st Century Science, Technology, and Innovation Strategy for America’s National Security.” Product of the Committee on Homeland
and National Security of the National Science and Technology Council. May 2016.
http://www.defenseinnovationmarketplace.mil/resources/National_Security_ST_Strategy_2016_FINAL.PDF

Challenges and Opportunities for the National Security ST&I Enterprise The structure and function of the national security ST&I
enterprise need to address not only the global landscape as it exists today, but also the drivers that are reshaping that landscape.
The enterprise is facing the following external and internal challenges and opportunities. Globalization of Science and Technology
Worldwide, investment in scientific research and development is increasing at a faster pace than it
is in the United States. Although the European Union, Japan, and North America still account for the majority of global
science and technology investment, relative shares are shifting due to substantial growth in several Asian economies.3 This global

investment is accompanied by rapid growth of ST&I talent in the rest of the world, accelerated
by the increasing internationalization of the scientific research enterprise and the global flow of
knowledge. The United States is no longer assured of leadership in all areas of science and
technology critical to national security. Dramatically increased capacity for science and technology around the world provides not only

increased challenges but also increased opportunities to collaborate with partners around the world in the development of technology for U.S. and global security. The goodwill
that the United States has generated from ST&I diplomacy and international development is a key enabler for global cooperation, and the enterprise must continue to build and
strengthen such relationships. Asymmetric and Unpredictable Threats Threats to national security are often asymmetric, with human or economic risks to the United States far
greater than the resources required to develop and deploy the threats. Threats are often difficult to predict because modern science and technology enable many opportunities
to cause harm; significant scientific knowledge is instantly available worldwide; and threats do not necessarily require an established scientific or industrial infrastructure that
the United States can monitor. The global proliferation of the cyber domain imposes risks to cyber infrastructure and creates the unwanted possibility of instant widespread
dissemination of national-security-sensitive information. While advances in many areas of technology are not being driven by weapons production or weaponsfocused R&D,
many of the capabilities being developed have significant dual-use potential. Digital connectivity, for instance, brings tremendous societal and economic benefits, enabling rapid
flow of information to all corners of the globe. The convergence of engineering design, mathematical analysis, and molecular biology presents opportunities to create entirely
novel processes and capabilities in living organisms on a much more rapid scale than traditional recombinant DNA techniques, and to share these designs digitally.
Nanotechnology promises the ability to engineer entirely new high-performance materials. Additive manufacturing (3-D printing) will dramatically shrink the barriers between
design concepts and reality. These and many other domains of science and technology promise extraordinary economic and social gains for our Nation and the world, but all can

potentially be put to use for destructive purposes. Natural Disasters and Humanitarian Crises Threats to global stability posed by
challenges such as pandemics , extreme poverty and resource scarcity , climate change , and
natural disasters require proactive and collaborative solutions that are enabled by scientific
and technological advances. The increasing mobility of people and goods across national borders increases the
importance and vulnerability of the global commons and escalates the risks posed by threats from infectious diseases. Pressures
exerted on natural resources and the climate by expanding global populations and increased demand from a growing middle class

have political and socio-economic impacts that threaten global stability and supply chains that support national security. The
United States plays a vital role in mitigating humanitarian crises and in promoting global
stability. The Administration recognizes that few global problems can be solved without U.S.
action but also that few can be solved by the United States alone. Whether by developing technologies to
deploy around the world for humanitarian purposes or participating in ST&I diplomacy to build global capacity, the national security
ST&I enterprise must learn to adopt an integrated approach that leverages strengths and capabilities wherever they exist. Inversion
of Technology Flow Advances such as radar and global positioning navigation were developed by the national security ST&I
enterprise, and these technologies found broader application later when they became available to the private sector. Today, private-
sector commercial technology advances often outpace developments within the Federal national security mission agencies. There is
an opportunity for the national security system to benefit from the investments of the private sector and leverage the best
technology advances. The national security ST&I enterprise is not currently equipped with tools and processes to identify the best
commercial technologies and apply them to national security problems in a timely way. While frameworks and mechanisms exist in
specialized cases for harnessing private-sector innovation, too often the most agile and innovative companies are unwilling to work
with government national security customers due to the time, cost, and complexity imposed by Federal acquisition processes.
Offshoring of Technological Capacity As multinational corporations take advantage of the globalization of technology development
capabilities and changing economic environments, their priorities may compete with or overshadow national security interests. This
has significant national security implications, as domestic commercial companies strive to maintain their competitive edge by
offshoring their manufacturing operations, many of which are part of the supply chains of national-security-critical technologies.
Domestic companies also have been steadily increasing investments in their offshore research facilities to leverage the economic
Critical research and development advances are taking place
and collaborative benefits of globalization.
outside the purview of the U.S. national security ST&I enterprise, and the United States could
lose leadership in entire areas of domestic technology capacity. Aging National Security ST&I Infrastructure
The remarkable achievements of the national security ST&I enterprise in the decades after the Second World War were enabled by
investments made over decades in special and unique—and now aging— facilities and infrastructure. Many of these physical plants
date to the dawn of the Cold War or even before, and reinvestment in many cases has been on hold due to other priorities. The
race to stay ahead of the increasingly sophisticated technology of potential adversaries —and
enable continuing support of partners and allies —requires continued and responsive
investment in cutting-edge scientific and engineering facilities, platform technologies,
information technology, equipment, and instrumentation. Recognizing the realities of budget constraints, the ST&I enterprise
has an opportunity to do better than simply rebuilding or expanding existing physical infrastructure. While security issues must be carefully managed, the enterprise now has the
opportunity to reconsider the concept of the walls and fences around facilities. Can the enterprise protect what needs to be protected while cooperating effectively with
universities and industry? Can the enterprise build the sorts of physical and cyber infrastructure that promote scientific and technical collaboration, promote meaningful
technology transfer for the creation of economic value, and allow entrepreneurs and industry to share facilities, equipment, and production capacity? In some cases, efforts
similar to the Army Research Laboratory’s Open Campus Initiative or the Department of Homeland Security’s National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility might serve to increase the
effectiveness of U.S. national security ST&I facilities by co-locating and integrating academia, industry, and traditional defense laboratories. Challenges for the National Security
ST&I Workforce The recruitment and development of a generation of talented scientists and engineers who dedicated their careers to national security was critical to the Cold
War technology achievements of the United States. The national security technical workforce flourished in part because the mission was important and the government
enterprise provided the best opportunity to do high-quality and cutting-edge technical work. Over time, less-positive perceptions of service in the Federal Government and
declining Federal research budgets have threatened the Federal Government’s ability to attract and retain ST&I talent in key areas of national security capability. Ensuring a
diverse and inclusive workplace environment to support a culture of innovation in the national security ST&I enterprise remains a significant challenge. Science and engineering
are based on intellectual exchange and collaboration, and groundbreaking technical work requires close-knit and nurtured teams of talented individuals with the freedom to
explore and grow. If the U.S. national security ST&I workforce is not valued or treated well, the enterprise risks jeopardizing the call to service and tradition of excellence. Rules
meant to promote the responsible use of resources have had unintended consequences. For example, restrictions on travel and conference attendance have diminished the
ability of Federal scientists and engineers to advance their technical skills and take advantage of opportunities for technical exchange with the wider professional science and
engineering community. The best and brightest scientists and engineers have many opportunities in today’s technology-rich world, and the national security ST&I enterprise
must be able to attract and access this talent and provide the tools, processes, and working environment that will sustain motivation and excellence. The Federal Government
maintains cumbersome human-resources barriers compared to the best privatesector and university practices. Unlike previous generations, the majority of workers of today and
tomorrow may embark on career journeys that are not tied to a single institution with the expectation of lifetime employment. An ability to embrace the healthy and sustainable
flow among sectors and organizations that is characteristic of modern private-sector technical careers would improve the quality, flow, and diversity of new entrants in the
workforce for national security ST&I. While the call for public service and the national security mission are important in attracting technical talent into Federal service, Federal
Government salaries generally are not competitive with other technology employers. In particular, government compensation lags significantly at senior levels, making lateral
recruitment from other sectors of qualified and experienced leadership and management talent extremely challenging. With a few exceptions, current regulations and statutory
limitations make it very A 21st Century Science, Technology, and Innovation Enterprise for America’s National Security 7 difficult to arrange for exchange or rotational
experiences with the private and academic sectors. Opportunities to Revitalize the National Security ST&I Workforce By some estimates, almost half of current national security

scientists and engineers will become eligible to retire within the coming decade.4 Ensuring a robust pipeline of qualified science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) talent remains problematic, including the ability to
recruit from a diverse pool of American citizens eligible for the clearances necessary for national security work5 . While U.S.
citizenship will continue to be required for those working in sensitive areas, the institutions that contribute to the national security
science, technology, and innovation infrastructure should be, wherever possible, able to draw on the world’s best and brightest
minds regardless of citizenship. The coming wave of retirements affords a once-in-a-generation opportunity for the Federal
Government to fundamentally rethink personnel policies to sustain, cultivate, reshape, and promote a world-class national security
Reliable support for evidence-based programs designed to maintain a diverse and
ST&I workforce.
robust STEM education pipeline, including providing robust STEM opportunities for the children
of military families at home and abroad, is critical for the U.S. national security ST&I workforce.
Opportunities in Science, Technology, and Innovation Diplomacy American values of democracy, rule of law, and freedom of
expression help to guide collaboration and norms for conduct in the international scientific community. American
scientists
and engineers promote meritocracy, transparency, open data, sharing of scientific information
and ideas, reproducibility of scientific results, critical thinking, diversity of thought, and respect
for intellectual property. International engagement and the formation of partnerships in ST&I
provide a platform to share these values, create linkages among international science
communities, promote greater participation of women and underrepresented minorities in
science and engineering , and highlight the role of civil society and nongovernmental actors.
Science and technology support governments in formulating evidence-based policies, meeting
challenges, and combating threats to international order, including climate change; natural
disasters; wildlife trafficking; water, food, and energy security; polar issues; ocean conservation;
pandemics; and space security. The United States is committed to harnessing technology and making data available to
mitigate the impact of disasters through open mapping, open data, crowdsourced solutions, and other means. Promoting access to
high-quality STEM education, training, and opportunities will be a part of U.S. ST&I outreach around the world.

Second link is STEM

Increasing allowance of F1 visas is key to carriers in STEM

Neil G. Ruiz 14, "The Geography of Foreign Students in U.S. Higher Education: Origins and
Destinations," Brookings, https://www.brookings.edu/interactives/the-geography-of-foreign-
students-in-u-s-higher-education-origins-and-destinations/

Most foreign students come from large fast-growing cities in emerging markets. Ninety-four (94)
foreign cities together accounted for more than half of all students on an F-1 visa between 2008
and 2012. Seoul, Beijing, Shanghai, Hyderabad and Riyadh are the five foreign cities that sent
the most higher education students to the United States during that time. Foreign students
disproportionately study STEM and business fields. Two-thirds of foreign students pursuing a
bachelor’s or higher degree are in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) or
business, management and marketing fields, versus 48 percent of students in the United States.
Both large (San Jose, Calif.) and small (Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas) metro areas figure among
those with the highest shares of their foreign students in STEM disciplines.

STEM education is a gateway to challenging climate change—teaches students

to develop technology
Krajcik and Delen 17(Krajcik, Joseph, & İbrahim Delen. Lappan-Phillips Professor of Science
Education and director of the CREATE for STEM Institute and Assistant Editor in International
Journal of Instruction and Usak University Journal of Social Sciences "Engaging learners in STEM
education." Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri. Estonian Journal of Education [Online], 5.1 (2017): 35-
58. Web. 14 Jul. 2017 SL)

There is no doubt that knowledge of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)
is essential for the future of a sustainable planet. STEM education needs to ensure that the
workforce is ready for the challenges and opportunities of the future and that we will live in a
sustainable and economically viable world. A STEM literate public needs to make wise choices.
Evan Heit, the U.S. National Science Foundation division director for Education and Human
Resources Division of Research on Learning, stated that “More effective STEM education
requires a deeper understanding of how people learn, from childhood to adulthood” (National
Science Foundation, 2016). Moreover, living fulfilling and meaningful lives in the 21st century
will require individuals to have a deep, useable knowledge of scientific and engineering ideas
and practices, as well as the creativity, problem solving, and communication capabilities and
judgment to apply STEM ideas. STEM permeates our lives. Mobile technology is just one
example of how STEM affects our lives, and how different our lives would be if this technology
was taken away. How does Wi-Fi work? How is it that our cell phones can transmit audio and
video information over such long distances? How do we provide the energy necessary for these
devices? Other critical STEM ideas include: How can we reduce carbon emissions in our society
and still experience the many comforts of the 21st century, such as car and air travel? New
breakthroughs in science, technology, engineering, and medicine have also improved our lives.
On April 13th 2016, the New York Times (Carey, 2016) reported that a quadriplegic young man
regained some control of movement in his right hand and fingers by using technology that can
transmit his thoughts to his hand and finger muscles. The technology, including a chip implanted
in the man’s brain connected by a computer to a sleeve on his arm, enables him to pour from a
bottle and stir using a straw. This breakthrough required the collaborative efforts of individuals
from various fields, including computer science, bio-technology, and medicine. These individuals
need a profound and practical knowledge in these fields, as well as the imagination and
creativity of putting together new ideas. Although new developments in STEM fields – genetics,
nanoscience, neurosciences technology, and engineering – offer unfathomable opportunities for
improving human conditions, these and other scientific, technology, and engineering
breakthroughs have also given rise to a myriad of global challenges, like water pollution, health
concerns related to obesity, climate change, and ethical concerns about genetically modified
foods. Moreover, the careers that will be available for most children alive today will require a
practical knowledge of STEM, the ability to collaborate with others, and the capacity for
problem-solving, decision making and innovation. Every child will need to develop a deep and
meaningful knowledge of STEM whether they plan to enter the STEM field of work or if they
plan to enter other professions. In today’s world, we can’t escape the use of STEM.

Warming causes extinction, evaluate low probability high risk outcomes

Pachauri and Meyer 15 (Rajendra K. Pachauri Chairman of the IPCC, Leo Meyer Head, Technical
Support Unit IPCC were the editors for this IPCC report, “Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report”
http://epic.awi.de/37530/1/IPCC_AR5_SYR_Final.pdf IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014:
Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A.
Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp)

SPM 2.3 Future risks and impacts caused by a changing climate

Climate change will amplify existing risks and create new risks for natural and human systems.
Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for disadvantaged people and
communities in countries at all levels of development. {2.3}

Risk of climate-related impacts results from the interaction of climate-related hazards (including
hazardous events and trends) with the vulnerability and exposure of human and natural
systems, including their ability to adapt. Rising rates and magnitudes of warming and other
changes in the climate system, accompanied by ocean acidification, increase the risk of severe,
pervasive and in some cases irreversible detrimental impacts. Some risks are particularly
relevant for individual regions (Figure SPM.8), while others are global. The overall risks of future
climate change impacts can be reduced by limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change,
including ocean acidification. The precise levels of climate change sufficient to trigger abrupt
and irreversible change remain uncertain, but the risk associated with crossing such thresholds
increases with rising temperature (medium confidence). For risk assessment, it is important to
evaluate the widest possible range of impacts, including low-probability outcomes with large
consequences. {1.5, 2.3, 2.4, 3.3, Box Introduction.1, Box 2.3, Box 2.4}

A large fraction of species faces increased extinction risk due to climate change during and
beyond the 21st century, especially as climate change interacts with other stressors (high
confidence). Most plant species cannot naturally shift their geographical ranges sufficiently fast
to keep up with current and high projected rates of climate change in most landscapes; most
small mammals and freshwater molluscs will not be able to keep up at the rates projected under
RCP4.5 and above in flat landscapes in this century (high confidence). Future risk is indicated to
be high by the observation that natural global climate change at rates lower than current
anthropogenic climate change caused significant ecosystem shifts and species extinctions during
the past millions of years. Marine organisms will face progressively lower oxygen levels and
high rates and magnitudes of ocean acidification (high confidence), with associated risks
exacerbated by rising ocean temperature extremes (medium confidence). Coral reefs and polar
ecosystems are highly vulnerable. Coastal systems and low-lying areas are at risk from sea level
rise, which will continue for centuries even if the global mean temperature is stabilized (high
confidence). {2.3, 2.4, Figure 2.5}

Climate change is projected to undermine food security (Figure SPM.9). Due to projected
climate change by the mid-21st century and beyond, global marine species redistribution and
marine biodiversity reduction in sensitive regions will challenge the sustained provision of
fisheries productivity and other ecosystem services (high confidence). For wheat, rice and maize
in tropical and temperate regions, climate change without adaptation is projected to negatively
impact production for local temperature increases of 2°C or more above late 20th century
levels, although individual locations may benefit (medium confidence). Global temperature
increases of ~4°C or more 13 above late 20th century levels, combined with increasing food
demand, would pose large risks to food security globally (high confidence). Climate change is
projected to reduce renewable surface water and groundwater resources in most dry
subtropical regions (robust evidence, high agreement), intensifying competition for water
among sectors (limited evidence, medium agreement). {2.3.1, 2.3.2}

Until mid-century, projected climate change will impact human health mainly by exacerbating
health problems that already exist (very high confidence). Throughout the 21st century, climate
change is expected to lead to increases in ill-health in many regions and especially in developing
countries with low income, as compared to a baseline without climate change (high confidence).
By 2100 for RCP8.5, the combination of high temperature and humidity in some areas for parts
of the year is expected to compromise common human activities, including growing food and
working outdoors (high confidence). {2.3.2}

In urban areas climate change is projected to increase risks for people, assets, economies and
ecosystems, including risks from heat stress, storms and extreme precipitation, inland and
coastal flooding, landslides, air pollution, drought, water scarcity, sea level rise and storm
surges (very high confidence). These risks are amplified for those lacking essential infrastructure
and services or living in exposed areas. {2.3.2}

Rural areas are expected to experience major impacts on water availability and supply, food
security, infrastructure and agricultural incomes, including shifts in the production areas of food
and non-food crops around the world (high confidence). {2.3.2}

Aggregate economic losses accelerate with increasing temperature (limited evidence, high
agreement), but global economic impacts from climate change are currently difficult to
estimate. From a poverty perspective, climate change impacts are projected to slow down
economic growth, make poverty reduction more difficult, further erode food security and
prolong existing and create new poverty traps, the latter particularly in urban areas and
emerging hotspots of hunger (medium confidence). International dimensions such as trade and
relations among states are also important for understanding the risks of climate change at
regional scales. {2.3.2}

Climate change is projected to increase displacement of people (medium evidence, high

agreement). Populations that lack the resources for planned migration experience higher
exposure to extreme weather events, particularly in developing countries with low income.
Climate change can indirectly increase risks of violent conflicts by amplifying well-documented
drivers of these conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks (medium confidence). {2.3.2}
 US China Relations
Deteriorating US-Sino relations from multiple hotspots cause a security
dilemma that could lead to nuclear war – the possibility cannot be ruled out
and would be catastrophic
Colby 16, Colby, Robert M. Gates Senior Fellow at CNAS, and Wu, Associate Professor in the
School of International Studies at Renmin University in China, ‘16

(Elbridge A. and Riqiang, “Seeking Strategic Stability for U.S.-China Relations in the Nuclear
Domain”, National Bureau of Asian Research, NBR Special Report #57, April,
http://www.nbr.org/publications/specialreport/pdf/Free/06192016/SR57_US-China_April2016.pdf, accessed 7/2/16, JCP –
ZW)

Nuclear weapons are a crucial element in Sino-U.S. relations for the simple reason that they could be
brandished in a crisis or even used in a conflict between the two most important nations in the
world. The fact is that there are significant sources of tension and disagreement between the United
States and the People’s Republic of China (PRC), and some of these disputes appear to be, if anything,
worsening. These include the status and future of Taiwan, how to handle Pyongyang and the
potential collapse of North Korea and reunification of the Korean Peninsula, and territorial disputes
between China and U.S. ally Japan in the East China Sea and between China and several Southeast
Asian states, including U.S. ally the Philippines, in the South China Sea.Beyond specific disputes and
exacerbating factors, tensions between the United States and China are likely to persist because of
the security consequences of a rising China. The study of international relations has long suggested that
such power transitions are especially fraught with the danger of conflict for reasons having to do with
concrete calculations of power and wealth, as well as more ineffable factors of honor and pride.1 A rising
nation usually expects to be granted greater influence and respect in accordance with its growing
stature, but nations that already possess that influence are generally reluctant to part with it,
especially if they do not trust the rising state. Hence, tensions can grow. The ideological
incompatibility between Beijing and Washington further intensifies the pressures generated by the
basic structural problems of how China’s rise can be squared with both the United States’
established position and the existing regional order Washington has underwritten. At the same time,
there is also a danger that the emerging structural dynamics between the United States and China
could generate elements of a classic security dilemma, in which the actions one side takes to increase
its defensive strength are interpreted as hostile or threatening by the other side, thus eliciting a defensive
response that the first side views as hostile or threatening. Some argue that this dynamic already exists to
an extent in the arena of conventional military competition—for instance, China’s conventional ballistic
and cruise missile program, undertaken at least in part in response to improved U.S. conventional
capabilities, is now leading to a countervailing U.S. response—but such a dynamic has thus far had a
limited effect on U.S.-China nuclear dynamics.2 This is fortunate, as a security dilemma in the nuclear
realm would be destabilizing, intensify suspicions, and potentially raise the danger of conflict
escalation. Some observers contend, however, that the conditions do exist for such a dynamic to
develop.3 Chinese voices already claim that the expansion of China’s nuclear missile force is designed to
compensate for advances in U.S. ballistic missile defense (BMD), conventional prompt global strike, and
strategic strike capabilities.4 point to China’s expansion of its nuclear and missile forces as proof of hostile
intent and the need for improved U.S. capabilities.5 These factors do not need to lead to conflict—
conventional or nuclear—between the United States and China. In fact, several economic and security
factors may mitigate the possibility of a general conflict. But, singly and especially together, these
exacerbating tensions might lead to such a result. Any war between the United States and China
would be incredibly dangerous and likely tremendously damaging, and nuclear war between the two
would be even more so. Even though the day-to-day likelihood of major war between the two
nations appears to be low—and the probability of nuclear war is even lower—its appallingly high
costs, dangers, and risks demand that active steps be taken to make armed conflict more unlikely
and less dangerous. For while the fact that China and the United States could come to blows does
not mean that any conflict would result in the use of nuclear weapons, neither could nuclear use be
confidently ruled out, especially given that even conflicts over apparently marginal issues can—in
ways that are not entirely predictable—escalate into conflicts over core interests. A war between the
two states would implicate broader considerations of prestige, alliance commitments, and broader
interests, and thus would be subject to strong escalatory impetuses. Moreover, military-
technological developments could further heighten the risk of escalation—for instance, due to the
increasing interconnectedness of the full range of military forces with cyber, space, and unmanned
systems.

Foreign education exchange is key to improving U.S China relations.

Peck 14[Kaitlin Peck, “The Impact of Academic Exchange between China and the U.S., 1979-
2010,” University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 2014,
http://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=psi_sigma_siren,
7.10.2017, DDI]

Another benefit of education exchange is the opportunity to increase understanding between

countries. This understanding is especially crucial for promoting peaceful diplomatic relations as
a way of avoiding conflict and violence. The need to gain knowledge of other nations is
especially important for the United States because, as social scientist Jacob Cantor wrote,
“Whatever political differences we may have, a considerable number of informed people abroad
have been helped to cut through the myths about the United States to the realities, and thus to
create a climate in which honest communication and understanding can take place.”6 In other
words, it is important for both China and the United States to be informed about other countries
and one another, in order to achieve those necessary goals of communication and
understanding. The most efficient way to achieve these goals is through education exchange,
because those students who participate have the potential of becoming the future leaders and
politicians of their home countries. This means that educational exchange should be a long-term
investment because the knowledge Chinese and American students gain about one another
today can help improve relations for future generations in both countries. Once these goals are
achieved, it will be much easier to improve the diplomatic and cultural interaction between
them, and many conflicts of mistrust and violence will be much easier to avoid.

US-China relations are key to solve economy, environment, food, energy,

proliferation, terror, climate, disease—anything other than engagement
prevents solving and risks conflict
Paulson, Former US Treasury Secretary, 2015
(Henry, Dealing with China: An Insider Unmasks the new Economic Superpower, p. 378-379, JCP—
DLingel)
One crisp day in early March 2014, I found myself sitting in a sleek conference room high above Boston Harbor taking questions from
a group of financial executives. These men and women worked for a range of institutions that managed well over $3 trillion of
financial assets, including the personal savings and pension funds of millions of Americans. They were keen to learn as much as they
could about the Chinese economy. Was it about to hit the wall? Was I worried about a real estate bubble? How fragile was the
country's financial system? Was the government serious about dealing with China's environmental problems? One fellow had a
more personal question for me. "Hank," he said. "You're a real patriot. Why are you helping China?" The question pulled me up
short. Three years before, when I first 'c began planning to write this book, I don't think I would have been asked anything like that
at a meeting of sophisticated financiers. They would J have accepted that helping China to reform its economy, open its
markets, protect its environment, and improve the quality of life of its people-all things I have been working on-
would bring economic and strategic benefits to the U.S. as well. But that viewpoint has been changing as China
has emerged as our biggest, most formidable economic competitor since the end of World War II and has started
flexing its newfound military muscle in unsettling ways. As a result, many Americans, from all walks of life, have
begun to view China with growing apprehension and resentment. Some would now prefer confrontation to
cooperation. I understand these sentiments. Partly they are a function of China's choices and actions, and partly they are born of
frustration with the recent economic troubles of the United States. I've spent a fair number of pages explaining how China must
carry out meaningful economic reforms if it expects to continue its amazing success story. These arguments make sense for China
and its people. But why should an American care? Why should we root for China to succeed? Shouldn't we instead
be hoping that this ungainly giant stumbles, if only to slow down its daunting economic and military growth? In
coming years China's weight and influence in the world, already substantial, is likely to begin to rival our own. Why take the
chance now of helping the Chinese deal with so many of their problems and challenges? Why aid a competitor?
The answer is simple: we should do so because it is more than ever in America's own self-interest that we do. To begin with, just
about every major global challenge we face-from economic and environmental issues to food and energy
security to nuclear proliferation and terrorism-will be easier to solve if the world's two most important
economic powers can act in complementary ways. But these challenges will be almost impossible to address if
the U.S. and China work at cross-purposes. If we want to benefit from an expanding global economy, we need
the most dynamic growth engines, like China's, to thrive. If we want to prevent the worst climate change
outcomes and to preserve our fragile global ecosystems, we need China to solve its massive environmental problems at
home and adopt better practices abroad. If we want to keep diseases from our shores, we need Chinaand other countries
to use the very best methods to prevent and halt epidemics. If we want to stem the spread of dangerous
weapons to those who might harm our citizens,we need nations, including China, to work together to end illicit
trafficking. If we want all these things to happen, we must be proactive, frank, and at times forceful with the
Chinese while seeking ways to cooperate, to develop complementary policies, and to work to more fully
integrate them into a rules-based global order. If we attempt to exclude, ignore, or weaken China, we limit our
ability to influence choices made by its leaders and risk turning the worst-case scenarios of China skeptics into a
self-fulfilling reality.

better U.S.-China relations solve a laundry list of impacts—war, human rights,

proliferation, terrorism and resource shortages
Gross, Senior Associate of Pacific Forum CSIS, is a former White House and State Department
official, 2013

[Donald, “Seizing the opportunity to benefit from China's political transition,” China Economic
Review, January 17, http://www.chinaeconomicreview.com//guest-blog/seizing-opportunity-
benefit-chinas-political-transition, 6.20.2016 DUDA-RGorman]

Improving relations between Washington and Beijing will not only spur American prosperity. It
would also strengthen the advocates of human rights and democracy within China while
advancing the core foreign policy objective of promoting American political values overseas.
Right now, increased American military pressure on China aids the Chinese Communist Party. All
too often, China's
leaders use the "U.S. threat" to justify draconian security measures at home that
preserve "internal stability." As Improving relations with China would support wide-reaching
political reform and liberalization. It would undercut the repressive internal forces that
legitimize one-party authoritarian rule as a means of protecting the country against foreign
military threats, particularly from the United States. In the field of national security, through improved relations
the United States can ensure that China is a future partner and not a threat to the interests of
America and its allies. The greatest benefit is that the U.S. would avoid a military conflict for the
foreseeable future with the people’s republic of China. a country it now considers a major
potential adversary. Other critical security benefits to the United States and its allies include: • Significantly
reducing China's current and potential military threat to Taiwan, thus securing Taiwan's
democracy; • Achieving a pull-back of Chinese military forces from a defined coastal security zone surrounding Japan; •
Increasing security cooperation with China on both regional and global issues, thus allowing the
United States to leverage Chinese capabilities for meeting common transnational threats such as
nuclear weapons proliferation, international terrorism, energy insecurity, and resource
shortages; • Having China submit its maritime disputes in the South and East China Seas to an independent international judicial
body to prevent festering conflicts over uninhabited islands and energy resources from escalating to armed conflict; • Substantially
increasing China's military transparency, especially in the development of new weapons systems; and • Reducing the
scope,
scale, and tempo of China's military modernization programs by discrediting the rationale for
conducting a focused anti-U.S. buildup, especially since the country has so many other pressing material needs.
 Plan Text
The United States federal government should expand the funding and
regulation of student visas for students attending elementary and secondary
schools in the United States
 Solvency
International Students will come to US schools, it serves as a way to get into
American universities
Farrugia 14 (Christine, Institute of International Education, Center for Academic Mobility
Research, Senior Research Office, “Charting New Pathways to Higher Education: International
Secondary Students in the United States”, Center for Academic Mobility Research Institute of
International Education, July 2014 RB)

Recommendations & Implications for U.S. Educational Mobility and Exchanges The increasing
interest among international students in pursuing U.S. secondary education as a pathway to
higher education has implications for several education stakeholders in the U.S.: U.S. higher
education institutions Interest in enrolling international students is growing among U.S. higher
education institutions, many of which are responding to increased interest among prospective
international students by growing their existing international student enrollment or by seeking
to enroll international students for the first time. Limits on the number of international students
admitted to U.S. institutions, sometimes driven by legislative caps placed on out of state
enrollment in public institutions, in combination with growing numbers of applicants from
abroad, can make the application process more competitive for international applicants.
Accordingly, prospective international students may perceive that they can gain an admissions
advantage in applying to U.S. higher education institutions by engaging in an international
educational experience during their secondary school years. • Prospective international
students may be increasingly located in the U.S. at the time of recruitment into higher
education, making it possible to recruit some international students locally, particularly from
private schools. Given their prior exposure to U.S. classrooms and successful adjustment to U.S.
life, these students may have academic, language, and cultural skills that can not only contribute
to their success on campus, but can also serve as a potential resource to help ease the
adjustment of their 26 Institute of International Education peer international students who
might be entering the U.S. for the first time for their postsecondary studies. • While the market
for international secondary students is growing, the pool of F-1 secondary students is still
relatively small compared to the 339,993 international undergraduates enrolled in U.S.
postsecondary education in 2012/13. For every F-1 secondary international student in the U.S.
there are about 7 international undergraduate students, indicating that colleges and universities
will continue to need a robust overseas recruitment plan in order to recruit substantial numbers
of international students. U.S. public and private high schools • For U.S. high schools, increasing
international student enrollment may serve to enhance schools’ internationalization efforts and
provide a diversity of student viewpoints and experiences to develop the global perspectives of
American students, some of whom may not have global exposure otherwise. The U.S. itself is a
diverse society and operates within a global system in which our citizens must be prepared to
address economic, social, environmental, and security concerns that cut across national
boundaries. The U.S. Department of Education (2012) has stressed the importance of building
the global competencies of U.S. students to make them internationally competitive and to
strengthen the global position of the U.S. In order to achieve the goal of educating globally
competent students, U.S. high schools can benefit from detailed information on the mobility of
secondary students to the U.S. to inform their approaches to internationalizing their curriculam
and to serve as a resource for recruitment and enrollment planning for secondary schools that
currently administer or are looking to launch international student programs.

Foreign Exchange Programs Solve Aff and promote peace, build relations, and
allow the workforce to remain competitive, harms outweigh the costs
Sowa 02 (Sowa, Patience, “How valuable are student exchange programs?,” New Directions
for Higher Education, 2002,
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/he.49/asset/49_ftp.pdfv=1&t=j4yukzb4&s=1aa0b
74fb40a7327365cfd855afccc026feec8f1, 7.10.2017, DDI HD)

The various goals and missions of students and institutions of higher edu-cation determine the
model variety and the scope of student exchange pro-grams. Goodwin and Nacht (1988) state
that the goals of student exchange programs can range from being a grand tour to exploring
one’s roots to improving international relations. Kraft, Ballantine, and Garvey (1994) note that
although programs in both the United States and Europe (France,Germany, Sweden, and the
United Kingdom) have the goals of improved language skills and communication with foreigners,
the U.S. programs also tend to focus on individual development and international
understanding. Similarly, the Council on International Educational Exchange (2001) states that
its goals are to promote peaceful cooperation between countries, to help individuals gain insight
into their societies and those of other countries, and to enable students to learn new skills. The
Fulbright/International Institute of Education (Fulbright/IIE), which offers a variety of programs
for U.S. and foreign nationals, has the goal of “creating a better world community” through
“investing in people” (p. 1).Institutions of higher education and state governments also see
student exchange programs as a vital way of competing in the global market place and
maintaining U.S. economic strength. Fugate and Jefferson (2001) state that the academic
community has fallen behind in preparing students to be “global citizens” who can compete
with other nations and work and live indifferent countries. To prepare students for the
international workforce, the Fulbright/IIE created the Work Abroad Program, which authorizes
current students and recent graduates to work in countries such as Australia, Canada, Costa
Rica, Great Britain, France, Ireland, and New Zealand(Meyers, 2001). In 1997, almost 5,700
American students participated in this program, which gives students the opportunity to
experience total immersion through living and working in another country. The concept of
student exchange goes far back in human history. Scholars, students, and institutions of higher
education then and now realize the importance of forging links for learning, developing
personally, global understanding, and peacemaking. Currently, people have also realized how
interdependent nations have become and therefore how crucial it is to encourage and foster the
internationalization of higher education through student exchange programs. As this chapter
indicates, the value of these programs far outweighs any liabilities they might have.

Foreign Exchange Programs foster engagement, promote democratic ideals,

and boost competiveness
State 15 [Department of State, “EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL EXCHANGE PROGRAMS,”
Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, 2015,
https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/123606.pdf, 7.11.2017, DDI HD]
The Educational and Cultural Exchanges (ECA) programs foster engagement and encourage
dialogue with citizens around the world, particularly with key influencers, such as educators,
clerics, journalists, women, artists, and youth. In supporting educational and professional
exchange programs that promote mutual understanding between the people of the United
States and other countries, the program advances the Department‘s mission of creating a more
secure, democratic and prosperous world. ECA programs inform, educate, influence, and
connect participants across strategic sectors of society, increasing the number of individuals
who have first-hand experience with Americans, and the values of freedom, representative
government, rule of law, economic choice, and individual dignity. ECA programs build capacity
among Americans to be more competitive and engaged global citizens. Over 300 current and
former heads of state and government are alumni of ECA programs – one reflection of the
tremendous opportunity the Department has to reach the leaders of tomorrow and expose
them to democratic values. ECA program evaluations confirm the power of exchanges to open
minds and societies to democratic ideals. In FY 2010, ECA will expand its engagement with
young people and other key influencers, using a combination of proven exchange models and
innovative new programs.
***2AC ext./blocks/add ons***
Inherency
Blocks/Extensions
CARDS
 Secondary schools focus
ECA promotes and focuses on secondary schools
State 17 [Department of State, “Youth Programs,” Department of State, Foreign Operations
and Related Programs, 2017, https://eca.state.gov/programs-initiatives/youth-programs,
7.11.2017, DDI HD]

The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs' youth programs empower the next generation
and establish long-lasting ties between the United States and other countries. Exchange
programs focus primarily on secondary schools and promote mutual understanding, leadership
development, educational transformation and democratic ideals.
 Add On: Democracy
Foreign Exchange Programs foster engagement and promote democratic ideals
State 15 [Department of State, “EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL EXCHANGE PROGRAMS,”
Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, 2015,
https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/123606.pdf, 7.11.2017, DDI HD]

The Educational and Cultural Exchanges (ECA) programs foster engagement and encourage
dialogue with citizens around the world, particularly with key influencers, such as educators,
clerics, journalists, women, artists, and youth. In supporting educational and professional
exchange programs that promote mutual understanding between the people of the United
States and other countries, the program advances the Department‘s mission of creating a more
secure, democratic and prosperous world. ECA programs inform, educate, influence, and
connect participants across strategic sectors of society, increasing the number of individuals
who have first-hand experience with Americans, and the values of freedom, representative
government, rule of law, economic choice, and individual dignity. ECA programs build capacity
among Americans to be more competitive and engaged global citizens. Over 300 current and
former heads of state and government are alumni of ECA programs – one reflection of the
tremendous opportunity the Department has to reach the leaders of tomorrow and expose
them to democratic values. ECA program evaluations confirm the power of exchanges to open
minds and societies to democratic ideals. In FY 2010, ECA will expand its engagement with
young people and other key influencers, using a combination of proven exchange models and
innovative new programs.

Democracy solves terrorism, civil war, and human rights

Holmes ‘9 (Kim. R; Distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation “Time for a New
International Game Plan”, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/01/time-for-a-new-
international-game-plan)//
The promotion of representative democracy is vital for three of the most important challenges of the
21st Century: securing human rights, preventing international and civil wars, and fighting
terrorism. Unfortunately, the United Nations has had only limited success in promoting democracy. There are two
reasons: some national governments fear that their own legitimacy could be undermined if democracy were to become a universal norm, and the United States
has politicized the promotion of democracy by linking it to controversial aspects of its foreign policy such as the intervention in Iraq. Fortunately, there
already exists an international organization that has great potential to further democracy, namely the
Community of Democracies. To realize its potential, the Community of Democracies itself needs
reform. It needs an elected Council to replace the self-appointed group of ten nations that has provided leadership so far; it needs to obtain
the institutional resources to be an active promoter of democracy; and it needs to restrict its
membership to countries that adhere to democratic practices. The Convening Group of the Community of Democracies
should help the Community to meet its full potential by supporting an elected Council of the Community, the institutionalization of the organization, and high
standards for membership. Nongovernmental organizations and individual democracies should lobby for reform of the Community of Democracies, and
should support the Community’s Democratic Caucus at the UN.
STEM
Blocks/Extensions
CARDS
 States fail
States and localities alone fail --in this anti-science environment-they follow the
lead of the federal government
Devin Powell, 12-5-2016, "Trump's First 100 Days: Science Education and Schools," Scientific
American, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trumps-first-100-days-science-
education-and-schools/

Science education advocates warn the legitimization of such nonscientific views at the highest
levels of government could trickle down to local policies. Education boards in several states,
such as Louisiana and Texas, have already been battling over how evolution and climate change
should be taught, as have state legislatures considering bills that would allow teachers to treat
these subjects as controversial. Nearly all of this legislation has emerged in states that were won
by Trump. “We see 10 to 12 of the bills every year, and their intent is clearly to give teachers
cover to teach nonscience in science classrooms,” says Ann Reid, executive director of the
National Center for Science Education (NCSE). “None have passed recently, but there’s a danger
that the people introducing these bills and school boards trying to change standards will be
emboldened.” According to Reid, NCSE surveys suggest that many teachers avoid teaching
evolution and climate change, concerned that parents will complain. She predicts community
pressure around these issues will only increase. Just as White House rhetoric could influence
what is taught in classrooms, silence on STEM or other education issues like diversity could also
have an impact, cautions Quincy Brown, program director for STEM Education Research at the
American Association for the Advancement of Science. She highlighted Obama’s 2011 State of
the Union call to train 100,000 new STEM teachers; the coalition of public, private and nonprofit
organizations that formed in response, 100Kin10, reported that 30,000 new teachers have been
trained to date. “These kinds of initiatives motivate the educational community,” Brown says. “If
messages like that are not coming from the top, I wonder whether there will be a shift in
priorities.” Even Trump’s views on seemingly unrelated issues could affect STEM education. He
has called for restrictions on H-1B visas, which allow companies in the U.S. to hire temporary
workers from abroad for specialized positions that are hard to fill. But revenue from these visas,
amounting to $1 billion, is the sole source of funding for a technical skills training program for
domestic workers run by the U.S. Department of Labor as well as a STEM scholarship program
for students that is administered by the National Science Foundation.
 Impact – XT
Lack of scientific knowledge of climate change will be devastating because
anthropogenic warming triggers tipping points and positive feedbacks which
make the planet uninhabitable
Naomi Klein 14, award-winning journalist, syndicated columnist, former Miliband Fellow at the
London School of Economics, member of the board of directors of 350.org, This Changes
Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, pp. 12-14

In a 2012 report, the World Bank laid out the gamble implied by that target. “As global warming
approaches and exceeds 2-degrees Celsius, there is a risk of triggering nonlinear tipping
elements. Examples include the disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet leading to more
rapid sea-level rise, or large-scale Amazon dieback drastically affecting ecosystems, rivers,
agriculture, energy production, and livelihoods. This would further add to 21st-century global
warming and impact entire continents.” In other words, once we allow temperatures to climb
past a certain point, where the mercury stops is not in our control.¶ But the bigger problem—
and the reason Copenhagen caused such great despair—is that because governments did not
agree to binding targets, they are free to pretty much ignore their commitments. Which is
precisely what is happening. Indeed, emissions are rising so rapidly that unless something
radical changes within our economic structure, 2 degrees now looks like a utopian dream. And
it’s not just environmentalists who are raising the alarm. The World Bank also warned when it
released its report that “we’re on track to a 4-C warmer world [by century’s end] marked by
extreme heat waves, declining global food stocks, loss of ecosystems and biodiversity, and life-
threatening sea level rise.” And the report cautioned that, “there is also no certainty that
adaptation to a 4-C world is possible.” Kevin Anderson, former director (now deputy director)
of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change, which has quickly established itself as one of the U.K’s
premier climate research institutions, is even blunter; he says 4 degrees Celsius warming—7.2
degrees Fahrenheit—is “incompatible with an organized, equitable, and civilized global
community.”¶ We don’t know exactly what a 4 degree Celsius world would look like, but even
the best-case scenario is likely to be calamitous. Four degrees of warming could raise global sea
levels by 1 or possibly even 2 meters by 2100 (and would lock in at least a few additional meters
over future centuries). This would drown some island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu,
and inundate many coastal areas from Ecuador and Brazil to the Netherlands to much of
California and the northeastern United States as well as huge swaths of South and Southeast
Asia. Major cities likely in jeopardy include Boston, New York, greater Los Angeles, Vancouver,
London, Mumbai, Hong Kong, and Shanghai.¶ Meanwhile, brutal heat waves that can kill tens of
thousands of people, even in wealthy countries, would become entirely unremarkable summer
events on every continent but Antarctica. The heat would also cause staple crops to suffer
dramatic yield losses across the globe (it is possible that Indian wheat and U.S. could plummet
by as much as 60 percent), this at a time when demand will be surging due to population growth
and a growing demand for meat. And since crops will be facing not just heat stress but also
extreme events such as wide-ranging droughts, flooding, or pest outbreaks, the losses could
easily turn out to be more severe than the models have predicted. When you add ruinous
hurricanes, raging wildfires, fisheries collapses, widespread disruptions to water supplies,
extinctions, and globe-trotting diseases to the mix, it indeed becomes difficult to imagine that a
peaceful, ordered society could be sustained (that is, where such a thing exists in the first
place).¶ And keep in mind that these are the optimistic scenarios in which warming is more or
less stabilized at 4 degrees Celsius and does not trigger tipping points beyond which runaway
warming would occur. Based on the latest modeling, it is becoming safer to assume that 4
degrees could bring about a number of extremely dangerous feedback loops—an Arctic that is
regularly ice-free in September, for instance, or, according to one recent study, global
vegetation that is too saturated to act as a reliable “sink”, leading to more carbon being emitted
rather than stored. Once this happens, any hope of predicting impacts pretty much goes out the
window. And this process may be starting sooner than anyone predicted. In May 2014, NASA
and the University of California, Irvine scientists revealed that glacier melt in a section of West
Antarctica roughly the size of France now “appears unstoppable.” This likely spells down for the
entire West Antarctic ice sheet, which according to lead study author Eric Rignot “comes with a
sea level rise between three and five metres. Such an event will displace millions of people
worldwide.” The disintegration, however, could unfold over centuries and there is still time for
emission reductions to slow down the process and prevent the worst. ¶ Much more frightening
than any of this is the fact that plenty of mainstream analysts think that on our current
emissions trajectory, we are headed for even more than 4 degrees of warming. In 2011, the
usually staid International Energy Agency (IEA) issued a report predicting that we are actually on
track for 6 degrees Celsius—10.8 degrees Fahrenheit—of warming. And as the IEA’s chief
economist put it: “Everybody, even the school children, knows that this will have catastrophic
implications for all of us.” (The evidence indicates that 6 degrees of warming is likely to set in
motion several major tipping points—not only slower ones such as the aforementioned
breakdown of the West Antarctic ice sheet, but possibly more abrupt ones, like massive releases
of methane from Arctic permafrost.) The accounting giant PricewaterhouseCoopers as also
published a report warning businesses that we are headed for “4-C , or even 6-C” of warming.¶
These various projections are the equivalent of every alarm in your house going off
simultaneously. And then every alarm on your street going off as well, one by one by one. They
mean, quite simply, that climate change has become an existential crisis for the human species.
The only historical precedent for a crisis of this depth and scale was the Cold War fear that we
were headed toward nuclear holocaust, which would have made much of the planet
uninhabitable. But that was (and remains) a threat; a slim possibility, should geopolitics spiral
out of control. The vast majority of nuclear scientists never told us that we were almost certainly
going to put our civilization in peril if we kept going about our daily lives as usual, doing exactly
what we were already going, which is what climate scientists have been telling us for years. ¶ As
the Ohio State University climatologist Lonnie G. Thompson, a world-renowned specialist on
glacier melt, explained in 2010, “Climatologists, like other scientists, tend to be a stolid group.
We are not given to theatrical rantings about falling skies. Most of us are far more comfortable
in our laboratories or gathering data in the field than we are giving interviews to journalists or
speaking before Congressional committees. When then are climatologists speaking out about
the dangers of global warming? The answer is that virtually all of us are now convinced that
global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization.”
Climate change is anthropogenic and the impacts have already started—
ecological destruction, sea level rises, water scarcity, and disease
Fonzo et al 17— (Jessica Fanzo, Rebecca McLaren, Claire Davis, Jowel Choufani,, Jessica Fanzo
is the Bloomberg Distinguished Associate Professor of Ethics and Global Food & Agriculture at
the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, the School of Advanced International Studies
(SAIS), and the Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, US.
She also serves as the Director of the Global Food Ethics and Policy Program at the Johns
Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics. Rebecca McLaren is a senior research program
coordinator in the Global Food Ethics and Policy Program, Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns
Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, US. Claire Davis is a research program coordinator in the
Global Food Ethics and Policy Program, Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University,
Baltimore, MD, US. Jowel Choufani is a Senior Research Assistant in the Environment and
Production Technology Division of the International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington,
DC., "Climate Change and Variability What are the Risks for Nutrition, Diets, and Food Systems?"
May 2017, http://www.osservatorioagr.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/studio-completo.pdf,
accessed 7-14-2017, SL)

Anthropogenic Influences on Climate Scientific evidence shows that the climate system has been
affected by human activity. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb and re-emit solar
radiation that warms the surface of the earth. Fossil fuel use and human agriculture generate
greenhouse gases, which include carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Of these, carbon
dioxide may well be the longest lasting. Although the atmospheric lifetime of carbon dioxide is
difficult to determine, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and others agree
that a significant percentage of carbon dioxide released into the air, 20 percent or more, can
remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years or longer (IPCC 2007; Archer et al. 2009).
Greenhouse gas emissions have incrementally grown since the Industrial Revolution, leading to
an all-time-high concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases of more than 400 parts per
million in 2014 (Watts et al. 2015; Whitmee et al. 2014). Humans have made other changes to
the environment that have a negative impact on natural ecosystems, though these changes do
not definitively cause climate change. Humans have converted approximately one-third of all
ice- and desert-free land into cropland or pasture and use about half of all the world’s accessible
freshwater each year. Since 2000, 2.3 million square kilometers of primary forest have been cut
down. Roughly 90 percent of monitored fisheries are harvested at or above maximum
sustainable yields. More than 60 percent of the world’s rivers have been dammed to control
water resources and produce energy. Human activity has led to species extinction at rates that
are more than 100 times those observed in the fossil record. The 2005 Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment found that 60 percent of ecosystem services are being degraded or used
unsustainably (cited in Whitmee et al. 2014). Current Impacts of Climate Change Major changes
in the planet’s climate system have been observed in the atmosphere, oceans, cryosphere, and
sea level. What we are now witnessing is a warming planet, rising seas, and melting glaciers.
Changes in the climate system have numerous effects on the planet’s natural systems (Figure
2.1). The Earth’s surface temperature has warmed more over the last three decades than during
any other time since 1850 (IPCC 2014b). Ocean warming accounts for the primary increase in
energy stored in the climate system. This type of warming represents more than 90 percent of
the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010; in contrast, approximately 1 percent of
energy is stored in the atmosphere (ASC 2016; IPCC 2014b). Globally, ocean warming is greatest
near the surface: the upper 75 meters warmed by 0.11°C per decade from 1971 to 2010. In the
cryosphere, glaciers have shrunk over the last two decades almost everywhere in the world. The
Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have lost mass over the same period. Spring snow cover in
the northern hemisphere has continued to decrease in extent (IPCC 2014b). Between 1901 and
2010, the global mean sea level rose by 0.19 meters (ASC 2016; IPCC 2014b). Since the mid-19th
century, the rate of sea level rise has been greater than the mean rate during the previous two
millennia (IPCC 2014b). The rate of sea level rise has grown to more than 3 millimeters per year
since the 1990s, though this change cannot be entirely attributed to climate change (ASC 2016).
Changes in the climate system have serious implications for human systems (Figure 2.1). Many
regions have experienced changing precipitation that alters hydrological systems and,
subsequently, impinges upon the quality and quantity of water resources (IPCC 2014b; Whitmee
et al. 2014). Crop yields have also been adversely influenced by climate change. Though the
global burden of ill health caused by climate change has not yet been extensively quantified,
there are indications that heat-related mortality has risen and the distribution of disease vectors
and waterborne illnesses has shifted due to changing temperature and rainfall (IPCC 2014b).

Climate change is irreversible at 2050—we need to start now for a head start.
Fonzo et al 17— (Jessica Fanzo, Rebecca McLaren, Claire Davis, Jowel Choufani,, Jessica Fanzo
is the Bloomberg Distinguished Associate Professor of Ethics and Global Food & Agriculture at
the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, the School of Advanced International Studies
(SAIS), and the Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, US.
She also serves as the Director of the Global Food Ethics and Policy Program at the Johns
Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics. Rebecca McLaren is a senior research program
coordinator in the Global Food Ethics and Policy Program, Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns
Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, US. Claire Davis is a research program coordinator in the
Global Food Ethics and Policy Program, Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University,
Baltimore, MD, US. Jowel Choufani is a Senior Research Assistant in the Environment and
Production Technology Division of the International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington,
DC., "Climate Change and Variability What are the Risks for Nutrition, Diets, and Food Systems?"
May 2017, http://www.osservatorioagr.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/studio-completo.pdf,
accessed 7-14-2017, SL)

The continuation of greenhouse gas emissions will further perpetuate long-lasting changes to
the climate system. In turn, these changes will intensify the possibility of severe, irreversible
effects on people and ecosystems. Emission projections vary, depending in part on
socioeconomic development and climate policy. Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs)
are the standard set of scenarios used for climate change projections: based upon climate
models, which are mathematical simulations of processes inherent in the climate system, these
scenarios are generated through a range of approaches and in consideration of key driving
factors (IPCC 2014b). RCPs project that the world’s average temperature will increase within a
range from 1.4°C to 5.8°C by 2100 (McMichael, Woodruff, and Hales 2006). Current greenhouse
gas emissions are consistent with the higher end of these RCP scenarios (WHO 2015). Risks from
climate change depend upon the intersection between climate-related hazards and the
vulnerability of human and natural systems. Continuing climate change will amplify existing risks
and create new ones for humans and ecosystems (IPCC 2014b). To limit global warming,
greenhouse gas emissions would need to decrease by 25 to 50 percent over the 2010 to 2050
period, a reduction that would facilitate achievement of a less than 2.0°C increase from
preindustrial times by a 50 percent probability or more. Instead, however, emissions grew by
nearly 2.2 percent per year from 2000 until 2010 (WHO 2009a).
 Access their Impacts
Climate change makes all their impacts inevitable-warming frames all other
harms
Herzog 16 Katie, Citing a World Economic Forum Survey "Surprise, surprise: Climate change is
risky business", Jan 14, grist.org/climate-energy/surprise-surprise-climate-change-is-risky-
business/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feedgrist

Congratulations, climate change! You’re officially the biggest threat to the most important thing
in the world — the international Jenga game that we like to call “the global economy.”
According to a recent survey of 750 risk experts conducted by the World Economic Forum, the
failure to mitigate and adapt to climate change tops the list of threats to the global economy.
The planet’s number one enemy ranks above food and water shortages, infectious disease,
cyberattacks, unemployment, terrorism, and involuntary mass migration. That’s because —
surprise! — climate change contributes to all of those things. From the WEF’s report:
Environmental risks have come to prominence in the global risks landscape in 2016, despite the
presence on the horizon of a large number of other, highly visible risks. Income disparity, which
was highlighted by the report in 2014, is this year reflected in the growing interconnections
involving profound social instability and both structural unemployment and underemployment
and adverse consequences of technological advances. […] Knowledge of such interconnections is
important in helping leaders prioritize areas for action, as well as to plan for contingencies. “We
know climate change is exacerbating other risks such as migration and security, but these are by
no means the only interconnections that are rapidly evolving to impact societies, often in
unpredictable ways. Mitigation measures against such risks are important, but adaptation is
vital,” said Margareta Drzeniek-Hanouz, Head of the Global Competitiveness and Risks, World
Economic Forum. Well, shit! Who’s going to take on that whole “mitigation and adaptation”
thing?
 Climate literacy key
Climate skepticism is a form of agnogenesis that creates dangerous resistance
to science – endorse the 1ac’s promotion of climate literacy
Cook, Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland, et al, ‘14
(John, School of Psychology at the University of Western Australia and Geography Department
at Weber State University, “Raising Climate Literacy Through Addressing Misinformation: Case
Studies in Agnotology-Based Learning,” Journal of Geoscience Education, Vol. 62, No. 3, August,
ProQuest, accessed 12/29/16,)

For educators seeking to improve climate literacy, of which climate change literacy is an important subset,
agnotology involves examining how and why ignorance or misconceptions exist about well-
established facts regarding climate change. Ignorance of and misconceptions about numerous
aspects of climate change science are especially widespread due in part to an abundance of
misinformation about climate change. The process of generating ignorance and misconceptions is known as
agnogenesis (Proctor, 2008). Weber and Stern (2011) argue that several contributing factors are responsible for
the discrepancy between scientific opinion and public opinion on the issue of human-caused
global warming. These factors are the difficulties in conceptualizing climate change, the
difference in scientific understanding between scientists and nonscientists, and competing
conceptual frames including those promoting misconceptions. There is now widespread
evidence of a persistent agnogenesis campaign intended to sow confusion and doubt about
climate science in general and anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in particular (see, for example,
Hoggan and Littlemore, 2009; Oreskes, 2010; Oreskes and Conway, 2010). A sharp increase in the number of
publications promoting misinformation about climate science in the 1990s coincided with
international efforts to reduce carbon emissions (McCright and Dunlap, 2000). This increase in
agnogenesis literature coincided with an increase in public skepticism about global warming,
suggesting that the campaign to disseminate climate misinformation has been effective (Nisbet and
Myers 2007). The agnogenesis campaign is not only problematic given the societal impacts of
climate change, but also for science literacy. Misconceptions are highly resistant to change and
interfere with the processing of new knowledge (van den Broek and Kendeou, 2008). However, the presence
of climate misinformation also presents an educational opportunity, in that formal or informal
instruction can directly refute the inaccuracies in any given piece of misinformation, and lead to a
broader perspective on how knowledge is generated.
 Alt solvency thru China
US-China relations are a conflict dampener and solve all global problems –
specifically key in the context of solving climate change because we are the top
2 emitters.
Fingar & Garrett 13 [Thomas Fingar (Distinguished Lecturer in the Freeman Spogli Institute
for International Studies at Stanford University, served as Chairman of the National Intelligence
Council in the State Department) and Banning Garrett (Director of the Asia Program at the
Atlantic Council), based on discussions of the joint China-US Working Group and draft input from
the Chinese working group, with additional input from Stephen J. Hadley (former US national
security advisor to President George W. Bush), The Atlantic Council of the United States and
China Institute of International Studies, September 2013, “China-US Cooperation: Key to Global
Future”, pg 5-6, http://cusef.org.hk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/05_eng.pdf]

The global future is likely to be increasingly volatile and uncertain. The rate of change is increasing, driven by the accelerating pace of
technological development, unprecedented urbanization and growth of the global middle class, and a wide range of challenges beyond
the control of any one country but potentially affecting the prosperity and security of all countries. Disruptive change
in one geographic or functional area will spread quickly. No country, and certainly not
those with the largest populations and largest economies, will be immune. Global
challenges like climate change, food and water shortages, and resource scarcities
will shape the strategic context for all nations and require reconsideration of
traditional national concerns such as sovereignty and maximizing the ability of national leaders to
control their country’s destiny. What China and the United States do,
individually and together, will have a major impact on the future of the
global system. As importantly, our individual fates will be inextricably linked to how that future
plays out. The three illustrative scenarios sketched out below underscore how critical the
future of the US-China relationship is to each country and to the world.
Global Drift and Erosion (the present world trajectory): In a world in which nations fail to resolve global problems
and strengthen mechanisms of global cooperation, governments gradually turn inward. Each nation
seeks to protect and advance its own narrow national interests or to preserve an unsustainable status quo that is rapidly changing in
ways that erode the international order. The
international community’s lack of ability to
cooperate to meet global challenges leads to international crises and
instability. • Zero-Sum World: Unsustainable drift leads to a world of predominantly zero-
sum competition and conflict in the face of severe resource
constraints. The result is economic crises and internal instability as well as
interstate confrontation. There is risk of military conflict between
major powers, which increases global mistrust and uncertainty and fosters an “each nation
for itself” mentality that further undermines the ability of states to cooperate in the face of
growing common challenges. • Global Revitalization and Cooperation: To escape the perils of drift or zero-
sum competition, leaders in countries with the most to lose work together to manage and take
advantage of global challenges and megatrends. Cooperation makes it possible to
achieve win-win outcomes that avoid or mitigate negative
consequences of increased demand for resources and the impact of climate
change as well as to harness new technologies to improve living conditions through sustainable
development. Cooperation creates and utilizes new transnational institutions to prevent
conflict and enhance security for all. China and the United States become more
prosperous as we work together. The possible futures sketched out above (and developed at greater
length below) are intended to stimulate thinking about how current trends and uncertainties could lead to very different global and
the United States and China will have greater
national outcomes. For many reasons,
ability and incentives than other countries to cooperate in determining and
shaping developments over the next two decades. Indeed, it is very difficult
to imagine a pathway to “global revitalization and cooperation” in
which China and the United States do not cooperate and provide critical
international leadership. Many factors will shape the future, some of which are beyond the control of any nation state, but
China and the United States—and the character of the US-China relationship—
will be critical. The mutual dependence on each other’s economic performance and the success of the global economy
as a whole was demonstrated during the 2008 financial crisis that began in the United States but quickly spread around the world.
US and Chinese leaders recognized that they were in the “same boat”
strategically and engaged in a closely coordinated response to the crisis,
which played a key—if not decisive—role in preventing the situation from becoming much worse.
The need for joint and coordinated responses to economic crises and to mounting economic
challenges and threats is certain to increase as globalization continues and interdependence
deepens.

And, US-China cooperation is crucial to solve climate change

Hart 14, (Director for China Policy at the Center for American Progress, Energy and Climate Change Exploring the Frontiers of
U.S.-China Strategic Cooperation, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/report/2014/11/10/100761/energy-and-
climate-change/)

The United States and China have a unique window of opportunity to achieve measurable
progress on energy and climate change and to upgrade the U.S.-China relationship across the
board. The two nations currently share more interests in this space than in any other. On military
issues, for example, dialogue has improved tremendously in recent years. But at a strategic level,
the United States and China are still primarily just trying to avoid destabilizing incidents in the
Asia-Pacific. On cyber security, the government-to-government working group under the
Strategic and Economic Dialogue, or S&ED, has been unable to even schedule meetings, much
less think about actual policy deliverables. On economic issues, commercial complaints are
growing on both sides of the Pacific and making it increasingly difficult to agree on anything new
and concrete that would deepen market integration in the near-to-medium term. If U.S. and
Chinese leaders want their meetings to produce something new and concrete, there is a growing
consensus in both capitols that energy and climate cooperation is the only track that can reliably
deliver. The range of energy and climate deliverables rolled out thus far is truly breathtaking.
Current bilateral projects include cooperation on advanced vehicle technology, clean coal,
building efficiency, greenhouse gas-emission monitoring, smart grid technology, shale gas
development, and many others. There is virtually no area of this domain where the two nations
are not cooperating in some way. Most importantly, this cooperation is in the form of real
projects that involve people from both sides getting together to actually do something. By any
measure, this area of the relationship has become a true action track, not an empty-talk track. At the
same time, however, it is important to make sure that this growing array of action-oriented projects eventually adds up to something more than a steady stream of deliverables for high-level meetings. On climate
change, in particular, bilateral cooperation will not be considered a true win unless those activities have an impact that goes far beyond the bilateral relationship. Most importantly, other nations around the world
are looking to the United States and China to breakdown the current impasse between developed and developing countries and serve as the poles around which the rest of the world could rally to form a new global
climate agreement in 2015. Unfortunately, it is specifically on those big-picture issues where the United States and China are still coming up short. Looking beneath the surface of this new action track, the two
nations still do not see eye to eye on issues of principle such as how to divide climate responsibility among nations or how to best structure global energy institutions. In October 2014, the Center for American
Progress convened a group of rising U.S. and Chinese scholars to discuss these and other difficult issues in the bilateral relationship. This essay collection presents the views of the energy and climate experts who led
the discussion on these issues. For more detail on critical themes that emerged from the closed-door track II discussions, see “Expanding the Frontier of U.S.-China Strategic Cooperation Will Require New Thinking on
Both Sides of the Pacific.” The scholars in this essay collection all agree that, although recent progress in the energy and climate space has been admirable, that progress has focused primarily on low-hanging fruit,
and it is now time to kick cooperation up a notch and start chipping away at the truly difficult issues that still divide us. Melanie Hart, director for China Policy at Center for American Progress, starts off this essay
collection by arguing that the reason U.S.-China energy and climate cooperation has been able to flourish at the bilateral level is because those projects primarily involve a transfer of knowledge or assistance to the
Chinese, with China playing the developing economy role it is most familiar with. When U.S. leaders try to carry that spirit of cooperation over to multilateral forums for reducing greenhouse gas emission, they run
into two problems. First, although China’s economy is still developing, in a larger group, China looks like a major power. That brings international demands for China to take on new responsibilities, which Chinese
leaders are wary of at their current development level, particularly since there are no clear models for what level of responsibility a major-power, but middle-income nation should have. Second, when the goal is
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, U.S. and Chinese leaders want to make sure any action they take at home is reciprocated abroad, and U.S. and Chinese leaders are particularly suspicious of one another in this
regard. Melanie recommends that the United States and China take near-term action to fill in these information gaps. In the multilateral arena, the United States can utilize small-group forums such as the Arctic
Council to help Chinese leaders experiment with new models of climate responsibility, thus building up their comfort level for more ambitious action in larger-group, higher-impact forums such as the U.N.
Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC. Melanie also recommends that U.S. and Chinese leaders launch a bilateral climate impact assessment program to give both sides more information about their

WANG Ke, assistant professor at the Renmin University School of

counterparts’ political interests in the climate space.

Environment and Natural Resources and Research Fellow at the Renmin University National
Academy of Development and Strategy, points out that from a Chinese perspective, the biggest
problem is not how to increase China’s climate leadership role but rather how to get the United
States and other developed nations to recognize that they also need to do more. He argues that a
significant portion of China’s carbon footprint comes from producing goods that are then
exported to consumers in the United States and other developed nations. In the globalized era,
emissions and emission-reduction responsibilities cannot be perfectly divided among nations
because the industrial processes that produce those emissions are part of a global supply chain.
He recommends more integrated emission-reduction approaches that include technology
transfers and other forms of assistance for emerging markets such as China since those nations
are working to reduce not only their own carbon footprints but those of the entire global value
chain. Joanna Lewis, associate professor of Science, Technology and International Affairs at the
Georgetown University Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, offers suggestions for how to
better leverage the bilateral relationship between the United States and China in order to
influence both the outcome of the international climate negotiations and the likelihood that any
targets pledged may actually be achieved. She argues that while the bilateral cooperation that
has occurred to date in the clean energy and climate space has facilitated constructive dialogue,
it has been modest in scope, so far lacking the types of commitments that could be truly game
changing when viewed from an international context. As a result, she thinks it is worth
considering the types of high-impact announcements that might be more politically and
economically feasible within the next year, that could get bilateral buy in from the two largest
emitters, and that could have global reverberations. Joanna recommends that U.S. and Chinese
leaders set up a joint clean energy research and development fund, expand cooperation on climate
adaptation and resilience, and look for opportunities to link domestic implementation of national
climate policies.
 K2 Leadership

STEM workforce shortages deck U.S leadership - K-12 students key

IBM 16 [“This Problem is About U.S Competitiveness Writ Large”, Duke The Fuqua School of
Business, http://www.fuqua.duke.edu/documents/stem_learning/developing-stem-pov3.pdf, 7-
16-2017]

The demand for skilled, agile science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
workers has never been greater. Technology isn’t just the backbone of today’s companies: It
drives and enables businesses. Yet the students who should fill the STEM pipeline of tomorrow’s
workers simply aren’t ready to meet industry demands. They’re either opting out of STEM
careers at an early age or graduating without the skills they need to land top-notch jobs. This
problem isn’t just an industry issue: It is a national and even global problem, says Stanley Litow,
Vice President for Corporate Citizenship and Corporate Affairs at IBM and President of the IBM
International Foundation. Industry’s solution is to cast a new vision—one in which partnership
drives reform. “We need to look at this STEM shortage as beyond just the doors of IBM: It’s so
large that no one segment of society is going to solve it operating on its own,” says Litow. The
way forward? Industry and education must opt in, working synergistically to build the STEM
pipeline. Even as industry experts forecast exponential growth in STEM-sector jobs, the U.S. is
posting sky-high youth unemployment numbers. Currently, 20 percent of 16- to 19-year-olds
and 11 percent of 20- to 24-year-olds are unemployed. American students just aren’t making
the grade when it comes to post-secondary education. “If you look at the United States, our
projections are that over the next 10 years, something like 13 million new jobs will require
middle skills—the kinds of skills that are valued by most large companies, not just IBM and other
STEM companies. But right now, only 25 percent of U.S. students with a high school diploma
who register at a community college complete that two-year program. The completion rate in
four-year colleges is around 40 percent,” notes Litow. The reason? Most students exit high
school with a serious knowledge and skills deficit. In 2013, ACT scores for high school graduates
reveal only 26 percent met all four “college-readiness” benchmarks in English, mathematics,
reading, and science.2 Such numbers not only limit college success, they shortchange
opportunities for future earnings. “A very large percentage of young people who come out of
high school are not college- or career-ready and are unable to complete post-secondary
education work. They go back into the labor force with only a high school diploma, and the
research indicates that their salary will then max out at about $12 an hour,” observes Litow. “If
we don’t do something radically different, the U.S. will not be competitive,” says Litow. “It’s at a
crisis level.” Central to IBM’s vision for change is the knowledge that companies can’t go it
alone. Systemic, multifaceted problems require integrative solutions, as Litow explains: “That’s
why we work in close partnership with K-12 systems and higher education to feed the pipeline,
so that the significant increase that’s needed in the new employee base is addressed through a
collaborative set of programs.” IBM is placing its bets in a wide range of areas, including
partnerships with higher education that help teach and train the next generation of STEM
workers. The company funds innovative research projects that align with its corporate priorities:
“We have a shared research program where we provide significant grants to higher education
institutions in the United States and around the world to work on joint projects involving the
most up-to-date technologies,” says Litow. This partnership helps keep students’ skills current
and job-ready. Adds Litow, “Our goal is to build students’ capabilities in big data and analytics,
cloud computing, and social and mobile solutions that will prepare the workforce with the
relevant skills we need as we head into the future.” IBM’s collaboration with higher education
institutions also includes a heavy focus on early intervention. Working closely with colleges and
universities, the company has pioneered a six-year (grade 9-12, plus early college) model that is
being implemented in a number of public school districts nationwide. Called P-Tech (Pathways in
Technology and Early College High School), these innovative schools offer classes in core
subjects as well as computer science. Students pursue college coursework starting in 10th grade
and graduate with both a high school diploma and an associate degree. Workforce skills are
embedded directly into the curriculum, Litow says, positioning students to take on challenging
roles in industry upon graduation. Targeting an at-risk, mostly minority student population, IBM
developed P-Tech schools in partnership with the New York City Department of Education, New
York City College of Technology, and The City University of New York. What’s the formula? Says
Litow, “We have demonstrated that by providing a different type of instruction, mentors for
every student, structured workplace visits, workplace learning curricula, and paid internships,
we could set a higher standard—and even exceed that higher standard with students taking and
passing college courses in an impressive amount of time.” In Chicago, IBM has used P-Tech’s
model to launch the Sarah E. Goode STEM Academy. The academy is also built around the
concept of public-private partnerships, joining the efforts of IBM, Chicago Public Schools,
Northwestern University, and City Colleges of Chicago-Daley. P-Tech’s template for high school
reform is scalable, sustainable, and replicable, Litow states. And it’s already quite successful: By
September 2015, more than three dozen P-Tech schools will be in operation. IBM is lobbying
hard for expansion: “Now we’re trying to get a reauthorization of the Perkins Act, so that the
$1.3 billion in federal money that’s allocated for career and technical education would create
incentives for states and school districts to create programs along this model,” he says As IBM’s
experience with P-Tech shows, industry-education collaborations benefit all key stakeholders.
At-risk students receive the targeted education and supports they need to pursue STEM careers,
as well as a vision of their possible future through mentoring relationships with STEM
professionals. Schools receive frameworks and curricula for students, as well as ongoing input
from industry experts. Higher education institutions benefit from corporate financial support for
research that transforms industry and helps train students. And companies like IBM know that
they are expanding the national STEM talent pool, educating and preparing the students who
could one day become their workers or customers. Says Litow: “Building the skills and talents of
our clients is as important as developing our own internal skills, because we are a business to
business company. We can’t find solutions purely on the basis of our own financial spending,
leadership development, and HR systems.” For today’s technology-driven companies, the STEM
workforce crisis is the new normal. But so, too, are public-private partnerships, which enable
education and industry to work together cooperatively to prepare students for high-skills
corporate jobs. Tomorrow’s workers won’t wait until graduation to learn about industry
challenges and opportunities: They’ll gain that exposure beginning in high school—or sometimes
even earlier. Now, more than ever, American students need to be trained, agile, and prepared.
Says Litow, “There was a time when people thought you did all of your learning in university and
then you came to work and did one job and worked towards promotion, but your skills were at a
constant level. That’s no longer true. Whole elements of the workforce have been transformed
and skill needs have changed. That includes both specific skills, such as software development
and services and technical leadership, but also other skills about acquiring culture adaptability,
being able to learn to work in teams across geographic barriers, and solve problems. You can’t
stay still or stagnant. And you can’t play catch-up, really. You have to be in front of these
things.” That’s why companies like IBM are working closely with institutions of higher learning to
make a mid-course correction and invest in the skills development and education of the next
generation of STEM workers. Says Litow, “If we are able to turn the STEM crisis around, the
benefits will accrue to companies like IBM and to other large companies, but also to the broader
society—ensuring that we have a workforce in the 21st century that can do the work, earn the
wages that those jobs provide, and contribute to the growth of the economy.”
 Leadership K2 solve
U.S leadership is key to combat climate change
Kleven 16 (Anthony Kleven, The Diplomat, 6-10-2016, "Why US Leadership on Climate Change
Still Matters", Diplomat, http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/why-us-leadership-on-climate-
change-still-matters/, accessed 7-16-2017) jd

With Europe preoccupied, China and India conflicted, and other developing nations lacking
influence, the United States is still the only nation positioned to lead the world in its efforts to
combat climate change. The COP21 agreement is not without problems, but it also offers much
hope. Only with faithful implementation in Washington will Beijing and New Delhi keep pace in
tightening their emissions targets. For this to happen, U.S. policymakers must resist the distrust
of the outside world seemingly embraced by a skeptical American public. If a President Donald
Trump were to follow through on his pledges to throw out American climate commitments, he
could doom the international community’s joint efforts less than a year after the agreement was
signed in New York.
 CC = structural violence
Further, global warming is an issue of justice. Climate change bears
disproportionate burdens on low-income communities and people of color, as
natural disasters impact coastal cities, proven by Hurricane Katrina. Climate
policies such as the affirmative serve as racial justice policy to prevent
marginalization such as the placement of coal plants in impoverished
neighborhoods.
Andrew Hoerner, the former director of research at the center for a
sustainable economy, writes in 2008 - (J. Andrew, Former director of Research at the
Center for a Sustainable Economy, Director of Tax Policy at the Center for Global Change at the
University of Maryland College Park, and editor of Natural Resources Tax Review. He has done
research on environmental economics and policy on behalf of the governments of Canada,
France, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United States. Andrew received his B.A.
in Economics from Cornell University and a J.D. from Case Western Reserve School of Law—
AND—Nia Robins—former inaugural Climate Justice Corps Fellow in 2003, director of
Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative “A Climate of Change African Americans,
Global Warming, and a Just Climate Policy for the U.S.” July 2008,
http://www.ejcc.org/climateofchange.pdf)

Everywhere we turn, the issues and impacts of climate change confront us. One of the most serious
environmental threats facing the world today, climate change has moved from the minds of scientists and offices of
environmentalists to the mainstream. Though the media is dominated by images of polar bears, melting glaciers, flooded lands, and
arid desserts, there
is a human face to this story as well. Climate change is not only an issue of the environment; it
is also an issue of justice and human rights, one that dangerously intersects race and class. All over
the world people of color, Indigenous Peoples and low-income communities bear disproportionate
burdens from climate change itself, from ill-designed policies to prevent it, and from side effects of the energy systems
that cause it. A Climate of Change explores the impacts of climate change on African Americans, from health to economics to
community, and considers what policies would most harm or benefit African Americans—and the nation as a whole. African
Americans are thirteen percent of the U.S. population and on average emit nearly twenty percent less greenhouse gases than non-
Hispanic whites per capita. Though far less
responsible for climate change, African Americans are
significantly more vulnerable to its effects than non- Hispanic whites. Health, housing, economic well-
being, culture, and social stability are harmed from such manifestations of climate change as storms, floods,
and climate variability. African Americans are also more vulnerable to higher energy bills,
unemployment, recessions caused by global energy price shocks, and a greater economic burden from military
operations designed to protect the flow of oil to the U.S. Climate Justice: The Time Is Now Ultimately, accomplishing climate justice
will require that new alliances are forged and traditional movements are transformed. An effective policy to address the challenges
of global warming cannot be crafted until race and equity are part of the discussion from the outset and an integral part of the
solution. This report finds that: Global warming
amplifies nearly all existing inequalities. Under global
warming, injustices that are already unsustainable become catastrophic. Thus it is essential to recognize
that all justice is climate justice and that the struggle for racial and economic justice is an unavoidable part of the fight to halt global
warming. Sound
global warming policy is also economic and racial justice policy. Successfully adopting a
sound global warming policy will do as much to strengthen the economies of low-income
communities and communities of color as any other currently plausible stride toward economic justice. Climate
policies that best serve African Americans also best serve a just and strong United States. This paper shows that policies well-
designed to benefit African Americans also provide the most benefit to all people in the U.S. Climate policies that best
serve African Americans and other disproportionately affected communities also best serve global
economic and environmental justice. Domestic reductions in global warming pollution and support for such
reductions in developing nations financed by polluter-pays principles provide the greatest benefit to African
Americans, the peoples of Africa, and people across the Global South. A distinctive African American voice
is critical for climate justice. Currently, legislation is being drafted, proposed, and considered without any significant input from the
communities most affected. Special interests are represented by powerful lobbies, while traditional
environmentalists often fail to engage people of color, Indigenous Peoples, and low-income communities until after the political
playing field has been defined and limited to conventional environmental goals. A strong focus on
equity is essential to the success of the environmental cause, but equity issues cannot be adequately addressed by isolating the
voices of communities that are disproportionately impacted. Engagement in climate change policy must be moved from the White
House and the halls of Congress to social circles, classrooms, kitchens, and congregations. The time is now for those
disproportionately affected to assume leadership in the climate change debate, to speak truth to power, and to assert rights to
social, environmental and economic justice. Taken together, these actions affirm a vital truth that will bring communities together:
Climate Justice is Common Justice. African Americans and Vulnerability In this report, it is shown that African Americans are
disproportionately affected by climate change. African Americans Are at Greater Risk from Climate Change and Global Warming Co-
Pollutants ¶ • The six states with the highest African American population are all in the Atlantic hurricane
zone, and are expected to experience more intense storms resembling Katrina and Rita in the future.
 Good For Econ
Diversity in the U.S workforce fosters innovation and economic growth
Decapua 13 (Joe Decapua, 11-5-2013, "Foreign Students Boost US Innovation ", VOA,
https://www.voanews.com/a/us-foreign-students-5nov13/1783943.html, accessed 7-22-2017)
jd

Foreign students earning their doctoral degrees in the United States can help revitalize
innovation and economic growth. A new study says the U.S. should make it easier for such
students to enter and remain in the country. Three economists gathered data on the
contributions made by foreign students. The team was led by Keith Maskus, professor of
economics at the University of Colorado in Boulder. “My interest was piqued quite a long time
ago after September 11th, 2001. One of the reactions to that was that the United States decided
for a period of about two or three years to make it much more difficult for students from
particular regions of the world to enter the United States and study graduate programs,
especially in science and engineering.” He said, at the time, many in Washington and at
universities warned that policy would hinder scientific development and innovation. “And I
thought, well, that’s very interesting, but do we really know if that’s true?” So Maskus, along
with Ahmed Mushfiq Mobarak of Yale and Eric Stuen of the University of Idaho, gathered data –
a lot of data. “So what we did is got very detailed individual-level data on quite a large number
of students – over 750,00 students, in fact – who had come to get Ph.Ds in the 100 top science
and engineering universities in the United States from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. And we
had information about where they came from, [including] what their visa status was, what area
they wrote their dissertations in and, of course, at which university,” he said. The research
indicated that diversity – a mix of American and foreign students -- can make a difference in
productivity and efficiency. “It seems to have something to do with the fact that networks and
laboratory sciences [are] really a function of how the graduate students and the post- doctoral
students and everyone else can specialize in some element of science – and also the fact that
their undergraduate training and possibly some graduate training in whatever it is –
mathematics or bench science or laboratory science – gives them different approaches to
thinking about problems. And when these people can get together and bounce ideas off each
other the sort of outcome of that is more dynamic intellectual process. And you get more ideas
with having some diversity like that,” he said. To get a U.S. visa, he said, students must
demonstrate that either they or their family has enough money to pay for a substantial portion
of their education. That’s even if the student’s education is paid for by a scholarship. He says the
current philosophy is: you’re welcome to come and study in the U.S., but when you’re done you
have to go home. “We think that particular need to demonstrate this kind of income based
ability to come to the United States is a little bit short-sighted. Our results show that you really
ought to be more open to the highest quality students, regardless of their wealth or income
back in their home countries. So that’s one thing. We would urge modification of American visa
policy because of that,” said Maskus. Another recommended change concerns permanent
residence or green cards. He said, “If you look at policy in other major importing countries, like
Western Europe, Canada, Australia – these countries have gone down the road of dramatically
increasing the access of what we call green cards -- they call permanent residence – to
international students who do get Ph.Ds in science, technology and engineering fields, whether
in their universities in those countries or maybe in the United States or in some of these other
countries. For example, if you get a Ph.D in the United States, it becomes that much easier to
become a permanent resident in Canada.”Maskus and his colleagues say it would help the U.S.
compete in the world if doctoral students had an easier time getting green cards. They say,
currently, if those students want to remain in the U.S., they must find a local employer, who’ll
work on their behalf to get a temporary visa. “That does have the effect, we’re convinced, of
pushing too many of these innovative people back outside the borders of the United States. So
we argue for increasing the number of those visas and focusing on these students -- or even
better -- just offering a very quick and straightforward process to permanent residence,” he
said. In their article in the journal Science, the authors say any innovation and economic growth
gains would far outweigh any diminished job prospects for American workers.
US China Relations
Blocks/Extensions
CARDS
 Visa Validity Solves
Increasing the validity of the visa program boosts U.S-China relations.
Shah and Song 14, [ (Mona Shah has over 17 years of legal experience, with more than 13
years concentrated in U.S. immigration and family law and litigation. Yi Song is an attorney at
Mona Shah & Associates in New York City. Yi is a dual licensed attorney in the US (New York
State) and in People’s Republic of China.) "How Will US-China Relations Affect EB-5 Investment?
– From APEC to Visa Extension,"
https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/banking/b/venture-
capital/archive/2014/11/17/how-us-china-relations-will-affect-eb-5-investment-from-apec-to-
visa-extension.aspx (JD)]

November 10, 2014, the State Department announced that effective from November 12, 2014,
the US and China will reciprocally increase the validity of short-term business and tourist visas to
10 years and student and exchange visas to 5 years. Business and tourist visas or the B1/B2 visas
will increase in validity from one (1) year to ten (10) years. F1 student visas and F2 dependent
visas, M1 vocational students and M2 dependent visas, J1 exchange visitor and J2
dependents visas will increase in validity from one (1) year to five (5) years or the length of their
educational program. US-China relations play an important role in the stability of the global
economy. The world’s two largest and most powerful economies have increasingly become
codependent of each other. US-China relations was at a low point prior to APEC. The US initiated
a 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)[1] trade agreement forum excluding China and
Russia. The TPP is widely viewed as an attempt to balance if not repress China’s rise by
establishing a larger US presence in the Pacific region. The visa extension announced at APEC
has undoubtedly elevated US-China relations and is no doubt good news for business and
investment. The White House stated in a press release[2] that “This (visa extension)
arrangement will improve trade, investment, and business ties by facilitating travel and offering
easier access to both economies. The United States hopes to welcome a growing share of
eligible Chinese travelers, inject billions into the US economy, and create enough demand to
support hundreds of thousands of additional US jobs.”
 China K2 solve
The United States can not solve Climate Change Alone-working with China is
Key
Department of State 09 (State, 1-20-2009, "Remarks on U.S.-China Relations," U.S.
Department of State, https://2009 2017.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/11/233705.htm)

Even as U.S. and Chinese businesses compete in the marketplace, we each have a huge stake in
the economic health of the other. And the fact is that the world as a whole has a huge stake in
the economic vibrancy of both China and the United States. That is why we’re focused on
enhancing trade and investment between our countries, including through the ongoing
negotiations of a high-standard bilateral investment treaty. Established rules of the road that do
more to protect businesses and investors on both sides of the Pacific will help both of our
economies to be able to continue to grow and to prosper. One recent study by the Peterson
Institute for International Economics found that if we’re able to open up trade and investment
significantly, our countries could share gains of almost half a trillion dollars a year.

So let me underscore: Our aligned interests are more than just economic and cooperation is
more than just commercial. As China pursues interests well beyond the Asia Pacific, there is
both opportunity and necessity to coordinate our efforts to address global security concerns.
Our shared efforts to respond to the global threat of climate change are a perfect example. The
UN climate report that was released over this last weekend is another wakeup call to everybody.
The science could not be clearer. Our planet is warming and it is warming due to our actions,
human input. And the damage is already visible, and it is visible at a faster and greater rate than
scientists predicted. That’s why there’s cause for alarm, because everything that they predicted
is happening, but happening faster and happening to a greater degree. The solutions are within
reach, but they will require ambitious, decisive, and immediate action.

Last year in Beijing, State Councilor Yang and I launched the U.S.-China Climate Change Working
Group, which is already engaged in pilot projects, policy exchanges, and more. We raised the
climate change issue to the ministerial level so that we would be dealing with it on an ongoing
high-level basis. And we’ve also been engaged since then in constant discussions aimed at
ensuring that the global community can do everything possible to be able to reach a successful,
ambitious climate agreement when we all meet in Paris next year. In February, we announced
plans to exchange information and to discuss policies to develop respective plans to strengthen
domestic emissions targets for the 2015 UN climate negotiations, what I just referred to. And by
the way, we’ll be meeting shortly in Lima, Peru as the lead-up to this particular meeting next
year in Paris. So there’s a lot of work going into this.

Next year, countries are supposed to come forward with their stated goals. And we hope that
the partnership between China and the United States can help set an example for global
leadership and for the seriousness of purpose on those targets and on the negotiations overall.
If the two countries that together are nearing 50 percent of all the emissions in the world, which
happen to be also the two largest economies in the world – if they can come together and show
seriousness of purpose, imagine what the impact could be on the rest of the world. The United
States and China are the two largest consumers of energy, and we are the world’s two largest
emitters of global greenhouse gases. Together, we account for that roughly – it’s about 45
percent and climbing, unfortunately.

So we need to solve this problem together. Why? Because neither one of us can possibly solve it
alone. Even if every single American biked to work or carpooled to school or used only solar
panels to power their homes – if we reduced our emissions to zero, if we planted each of us in
America a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions,
guess what? That still wouldn’t be enough to counteract the carbon pollution coming from
China and the rest of the world. And the same would be true for China if they reduced
everything and we continued. We would wipe out their gains; they would wipe out our gains.
Because today, if even one or two major economies neglects to respond to this threat, it will
erase the good work done everywhere else.
 AT Destroys Chinese Econ
Internal problems resulted in inefficiency and decline of the Chinese economy
George Friedman 3/10/17 (George Friedman, "China’s economic miracle is over",
MarketWatch, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/chinas-economic-miracle-is-over-2017-03-
10, accessed 7-22-2017) jd

The important part of Li’s announcement is that the Chinese government is signaling that it has
not halted a decline in the Chinese economy, and that more economic pain is on the way.
According to the BBC, Li said the Chinese economy’s ongoing transformation is promising, but it
is also painful. He likened the Chinese economy to a butterfly struggling to emerge from its
cocoon. Put another way, the hard times in China likely will become worse. China’s economic
miracle, like that of Japan before it, is over. Its resurrection simply isn’t working, which shouldn’t
surprise anyone. Sustained double-digit economic growth is possible when you begin with a
wrecked economy. In Japan’s case, the country was recovering from World War II. China was
recovering from Mao Zedong’s policies. Simply by getting back to work an economy will surge. If
the damage from which the economy is recovering is great enough, that surge can last a
generation. But extrapolating growth rates by a society that is merely fixing the obvious results
of national catastrophes is irrational. The more mature an economy, the more the damage has
been repaired and the harder it is to sustain extraordinary growth rates. The idea that China was
going to economically dominate the world was as dubious as the idea in the 1980s that Japan
would. Japan, however, could have dominated if its growth rate had continued. Since that was
impossible, the fantasy evaporates — and with it, the overheated expectations of the world.
China’s dilemma, like Japan’s, is that it built much of its growth on exports. Both China and
Japan were poor countries, and demand for goods was low. They jump-started their economies
by taking advantage of low wages to sell products they could produce themselves to advanced
economies. The result was that those engaged in exporting enjoyed increasing prosperity, but
those who were farther from East China ports, where export industries clustered, did not. China
and Japan had two problems. The first was that wages rose. Skilled workers needed to produce
more sophisticated products were in short supply. Government policy focusing on exports
redirected capital to businesses that were marginal at best, increasing inefficiency and costs. But
most importantly — and frequently forgotten by observers of export miracles — is that miracles
depend on customers who are willing and able to buy. In that sense, China’s export miracle
depended on the appetite of its customers, not on Chinese policy. In 2008, China was hit by a
double tsunami. First, the financial crisis plunged its customers into a recession followed by
extended stagnation, and the appetite for Chinese goods contracted. Second, China’s
competitive advantage was cost, and they now had lower-cost competitors. China’s deepest
fear was unemployment, and the country’s interior remained impoverished. If exports plunged
and unemployment rose, the Chinese would face both a social and political threat of massive
inequality. It would face an army of the unemployed on the coast. This combination is precisely
what gave rise to the Communist Party in the 1920s, which the Party today fully understands.
So, a solution was proposed that entailed massive lending to keep non-competitive businesses
operating and wages paid. That resulted in even greater inefficiency and made Chinese exports
even less competitive. The Chinese surge had another result. China’s success with boosting low-
cost goods in advanced economies resulted in an investment boom by Westerners in China.
Investors prospered during the surge, but it was at the cost of damaging the economies of
China’s customers in two ways. First, low-cost goods undermined businesses in the consuming
country. Second, investment capital flowed out of the consuming countries and into China.

Alt causes to Chinese economy

-Demographic shifts

-Low GDP per capita

-Lack of democracy

-Problems with land and property rights

-Lack of homegrown talent

Hodgson 15 (Geoffrey M. Hodgson, 10-21-2015, "Six reasons why China's economy is weaker
than you think", Conversation, http://theconversation.com/six-reasons-why-chinas-economy-is-
weaker-than-you-think-49388, accessed 7-22-2017) jd

China will experience an adverse demographic shift in the coming decades. Three decades of the
one-child policy has reduced the number of adults of working age. The recent and ongoing
relaxation of that policy, plus a big decline in infant mortality, increases the number of children.
Older people are living longer, due to improved healthcare and reduced poverty. Hence the
average number of children and old people, which needs to be supported by each person in
work, is set to increase dramatically.

GDP is way below that of the US and other developed countries. World Bank Figures for 2014
put China’s GDP per capita at about 24% of that in the US. In the 20th century, only five
countries managed to grow from 24% or less of US GDP per capita to 60% or more of US GDP
per capita. They were Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong. China still has a
long way to go.

While there is some evidence that autocratic governments can help economic development at
lower stages of development, particularly by promoting basic industry and infrastructure, there
is strong evidence that democratic institutions are much more suited to higher levels of
development. Notably, when Japan, Taiwan and South Korea reached about 45% of US GDP per
capita, they were established or emerging democracies. A transition to a more democratic
government may be necessary as China develops, but this would be very difficult to achieve –
and could be highly disruptive. A democratic government is but one part of a constellation of
vital institutions. As Nobel Laureate Douglass North and his colleagues have argued, dynamic
modern economies need checks, balances and countervailing power to minimise arbitrary
confiscation by the state. Legal systems have to develop significant autonomy from the political
elite. In my book Conceptualizing Capitalism I show that absolute GDP per capita in a sample of
97 countries is strongly correlated with absence of corruption and openness of government.
China is not an outlier in this test. China’s population is divided into two classes. Chinese citizens
are registered with either an urban or rural classification, depending on where they are born.
Urban registrants have better education and health services. Many rural registrants, meanwhile,
have rights to the use of land. But these are often annulled after local party officials are bribed
by business speculators and sell the land for profit. Frequent local protests result and the whole
system of land use is in dire need of radical reform. Currently it fosters corruption and inhibits
the skill development of half of the Chinese population.

Although there are many small firms in China, there are still few mainland-registered large firms.
Barry Naughton has noted that of the top ten firms in China exporting high-tech products, nine
were foreign. Offshore registration is understandable, because fear of state sequestration
persists in a country that did not recognize private property rights in its constitution until 2007.
China’s financial system is very heavily concentrated in state hands, with punitive penalties on
private lending.
Solvency
Blocks/Extensions
CARDS
 AT: Trump Thumps
Education structure does not change under trump- US educational system
checks
Ashwill 17 (Mark A Ashwill, Executive Manager and Director of International Affairs, 7-22-
2017, "Despite Trump, US will still welcome foreign students," University World News,
http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=201612052030349677)

Since he became president-elect, Trump has softened his rhetoric and changed his position on a
number of key issues. This transformation often occurs once a successful US presidential
candidate is catapulted into the White House and becomes the representative of all US
Americans.

Nothing will change in terms of the education structure and curriculum under President Trump.
This is because of the decentralized nature of the US educational system, in contrast to most
countries, and the academic autonomy of the nation's colleges and universities.

This is an especially good time to study in the US because educational institutions want and
need international students for a variety of compelling reasons, including demographic reasons
(decreased US enrolment in education) and the many ways in which they enrich the campus and
local communities of which they are members.
***AT OFFCASE/CASE TURNS***
AT DAs
 A2 Spending DA
STEM boosts the economy
Alexandra Mondalek 13 (Alexandra Mondalek, 7-19-2013, "America's Talent Gap Could Cost
$1.7 Trillion A Year By 2030", Business Insider, http://www.businessinsider.com/mckinsey-
report-on-american-talent-2013-7, accessed 7-16-2017) jd

By reducing attrition rates in STEM fields to levels comparable with other majors, the United
States can improve the persistence rate of STEM majors from 53 percent to 76 percent. In
combination with increasing the enrollment rate in STEM programs from 14 percent to 24
percent, the share of US four-year-college graduates with STEM degrees can grow from 15
percent today to 23 percent by 2020, bringing the United States in line with peer countries.
Increasing the number of STEM graduates can raise annual GDP by $25 billion in 2020 because
of the lower unemployment rate and higher wage premium for STEM graduates over non-STEM
graduates.
 AT: Brain Drain
No impact—Chinese economy still strong despite loss of intellectual capital—its
economy is based off of its manufacturing
Guan 15, Ryan Guan, Official Contributor at Point of View, “Educated Chinese Leaving China: China’s brain drain undermines
its efforts to compete on world stage,” Point of View, Feb 18, 2015, http://www.bbnpov.com/?p=1868

Known for its production of everything from Apple products to American flags, China has
become the second largest economy in the world due to its manufacturing prowess. However,
despite this explosive economic growth, higher education in China is still unappealing, and job
prospects for the highly educated are grim. Chinese universities do not match the academic
strength of universities in other nations, and the Chinese government actually encourages students to seek higher
education overseas. Ultimately, the majority of these workers never return to China—a problem that the
Chinese government is trying to ameliorate with monetary incentives. However, this problem is
deep, and it can’t be addressed by handing out some extra cash. In order for China to lure back
its highly educated workforce, it’s going to have to confront the problems that exist within its
work culture.

Alt Cause- Research culture

Cao 13 Cong Cao received a Ph.D. in Sociology from Columbia University and is an Associate Professor and Reader at the School
of Contemporary Chinese Studies, University of Nottingham. Educated in both China and the U.S. and in both the natural and social
sciences, he has worked at the University of Oregon, the National University of Singapore, and the State University of New York.
“Culture change needed to counter brain drain” <http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20130719150700309>

China's first-rate academics reluctant to return home to participate in the country's expected rise to
So, why are
superpower status? Chinaremains a society that revolves around personal relations, or guanxi. After
spending a long period overseas, academics are unlikely to have maintained a strong set of
personal business relationships, which in turn reduces their access to sources of research
funding. Since many Chinese scientists have no experience of carrying out research in an international setting, returnees may
experience another culture shock: they struggle to find like-minded scholars with whom they
can collaborate. The Chinese research system favors instant results and does not tolerate
failure. Vision and strategic thinking, which are held in such high regard in the West, are off the agenda. This
situation is improving. A special amendment to the law on the progress of science and technology was passed in late 2007,
there remains tremendous pressure on scientists,
acknowledging that failure is part of the innovation process. Yet
including returnees, for immediate results. There is growing evidence that plagiarism, fraud and
manipulation of data are interwoven through China's research process. With the scientific community failing to take action,
many potential returnees are reluctant to enter this environment. Political obstacles also act as
deterrents. Certain types of social science research are deemed politically unacceptable even though
there is an understanding that China cannot afford to expand its economy without the participation of social thinkers and public
intellectuals. Most of the academic returnees are natural scientists; social scientists (except economists) have not returned, and they
are cautious about working even part-time in China for fear of political reprisals. The success of government efforts to attract
China along a path of sustainable development will be judged not on numbers of returnees, but on
individuals capable of steering
whether it can create a new research culture in which every scientist, whether trained overseas or at home, has the
opportunity to demonstrate value. It's a pity, then, that the problems associated with initiatives like the Thousand Talents
programme have dented China's ability to attract the brains the country desperately needs to make its
next stride forward.
Brain drain is inevitable
Levy Laurence 3 (Levy Laurence, 7-17-2003, "The first world's role in the third world brain
drain", BMJ, http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7407/170.1, accessed 7-22-2017) jd

We in the third world are rarely willing to admit to our “third worldliness.” We aspire to first
world standards, and the things we want more than anything else are hotels of international
standard, a well reputed university, and, in particular, good medical and nursing schools. We are
greatly gratified by the recognition of our graduates as being of international standard— “Our
doctors and nurses are as good as any others”—but there are difficulties with this. As soon as a
country produces graduates of an acceptable international standard then it is “fishing in the
same pond” as first world countries for their services. It is inevitable that doctors and nurses will
be attracted to countries where salaries or working conditions are seen as better. The situation
becomes aggravated when conditions at home deteriorate. Then even the most loyal
professionals feel their attachment stretched to breaking point by the need to help their families
and the natural desire to advance themselves. So, it is that the hour of departure comes nearer
and the country loses another skilled person. This is happening all over the third world. No one
is to blame, and probably nothing can be done about it, but a variety of factors need to be
considered.

Firstly, in our anxiety to be part of and recognized as first world we in the third world have
produced professionals whose expectations we cannot meet, because outside a few centers we
do not have the financial resources to compete. Was that sensible? Secondly, the first world has
produced a compounding factor. It has allowed successive governments, in their meanness and
penny pinching, to so under-fund the health services that few of its own young people want to
go into nursing and the ancillary fields. Consequently, many of its hospitals are desperate for
staff and will recruit from anywhere they can. Salaries may seem inadequate locally, but to us in
the third world they represent a glittering fortune, and no one can blame qualified people for
going after them.

No link to brain drain

South China Morning Post 14 (South China Morning Post, 11-13-2014, "US relaxation of
visa scheme triggers fears over ‘brain drain’ from China", http://www.scmp.com/news/china-
insider/article/1642267/us-relaxation-visa-scheme-triggers-debate-fears-over-brain-drain,
accessed 7-22-2017) jd

He said although some individuals might decide to remain in US for longer periods of time after
the temporary stay, “any brain drain may be ameliorated by the countervailing trend of more
Americans getting longer-term visas under this agreement, and then deciding to work or live in
China.” Jasmine Li, a director of Beijing-based overseas study consultancy Weshareedu, is not
optimistic that the policy change will lead to a surge in the numbers of Chinese students
studying overseas. “This policy might serve as a catalyst if it was introduced a decade ago, at a
time when US visas were difficult to come by, but not now,” said Li, whose company advises
Chinese students on applications for entrance to US universities and for student visas. “As the
rejection rate has been quite low in recent years, people don’t worry too much about visa
applications these days,” she said, adding that most students return to China at least once every
year to visit families, and not just to re-apply for their overseas visas. “Those who are hesitating
are not likely to make up their minds about studying abroad as a result of the announcement,”
she added. “After all, studying abroad needs long-term planning, and is a costly matter,” Su Hao,
a director specializing in Sino-US relations at the China Foreign Affairs University in Beijing, said
he expected the policy change to encourage more people to travel to US, since it was “aimed at
attracting Chinese students in order to financially benefit US education institutions”. But he
frowned on concerns over a potential “brain drain”. “A considerable number of positions in
China are in the public sector. They will not be easily swayed to go overseas merely because of a
policy change, because there’s too much to lose,” Su said. Su conceded inevitable there will be
some loss of talent during the process, but he pointed there are also growing opportunities in
China as the economy continues to develop. “Looking on the bright side, the challenge itself
could also motivate China to improve its own academic environment, so it can attract more
talent from abroad,” he said.

Returning emigrants increase the productivity and GDP of their source

economy.
Fazal Rizvi 6 (Fazal Rizvi, 8-1-2006, "Rethinking “Brain Drain” in the Era of Globalisation", Taylor
& Francis, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02188790500337965?src=recsys,
accessed 7-22-2017) jd

In contrast, a great deal of recent research challenges this view, suggesting that brain drain may
in fact be good for the developing economies. Mountford (1997Mountford, A. 1997. Can a ‘brain
drain’ be good for the growth in the source country? Journal of Development Economics,
52(3): 287–303.[CrossRef], [Google Scholar]) has, for example, argued that when emigration is
temporary, brain drain may in fact increase average productivity and equality in the source
economy even though average productivity is a positive function of past average levels of
human capital in an economy. He has asserted furthermore that temporary emigration can be
shown to increase permanently the average level of productivity of an economy. Another
economic model of brain drain suggests that “optimal brain drain” can be shown to increase a
developing country's average productivity, especially if workers return after gaining expertise
and skills in a more advanced economy (Johnson &
Regets, 1998Johnson, J. and Regets, M.1998. International mobility of scientists and engineers
to the US: ‘Brain drain’ or brain circulation?, Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. (Issue
brief 98–316) [Google Scholar]). Research has also indicated that when skilled emigrants send
part of their earnings back to their country of origin, the remittances have “GDP multiplier
effects” that increase national income (Taylor, 1999Taylor, E. J. 1999. The new economics of
labour migration and the role of remittances in the migration process. International Migration,
37(1): 63–88.[CrossRef], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
AT CPs
 A2 H-1B CP
Obtaining H-1B visas is difficult where only about one third of petitioners
receive visas
Luis Ferre Sadurni 16 (Luis Ferre Sadurni, 3-21-2016, "How the U.S. work visa policy can kick
international students out of the country", No Publication,
http://www.thedp.com/article/2016/03/work-visa-international-students-graduate, accessed 7-
15-2017) jd

H-1B is a non-immigrant visa that allows employers to employ foreign workers in specialty
occupations for up to six years.

Obtaining an H-1B visa, which is allocated through a lottery system, has become increasingly
hard in the past few years. The Department of Homeland Security currently caps the amount of
H-1B visas granted at 65,000 per fiscal year, with an additional 20,000 reserved for applicants
with advanced degrees. Last year, DHS received an overwhelming 233,000 H-1B petitions in as
little as a week; only a little over one-third of petitioners received one of the sought-after visas.
 AT: States CP
The United States can not solve Climate Change Alone-working with China is
Key
Department of State 09 (State, 1-20-2009, "Remarks on U.S.-China Relations," U.S.
Department of State, https://2009 2017.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/11/233705.htm)

Even as U.S. and Chinese businesses compete in the marketplace, we each have a huge stake in
the economic health of the other. And the fact is that the world as a whole has a huge stake in
the economic vibrancy of both China and the United States. That is why we’re focused on
enhancing trade and investment between our countries, including through the ongoing
negotiations of a high-standard bilateral investment treaty. Established rules of the road that do
more to protect businesses and investors on both sides of the Pacific will help both of our
economies to be able to continue to grow and to prosper. One recent study by the Peterson
Institute for International Economics found that if we’re able to open up trade and investment
significantly, our countries could share gains of almost half a trillion dollars a year.

So let me underscore: Our aligned interests are more than just economic and cooperation is
more than just commercial. As China pursues interests well beyond the Asia Pacific, there is
both opportunity and necessity to coordinate our efforts to address global security concerns.
Our shared efforts to respond to the global threat of climate change are a perfect example. The
UN climate report that was released over this last weekend is another wakeup call to everybody.
The science could not be clearer. Our planet is warming and it is warming due to our actions,
human input. And the damage is already visible, and it is visible at a faster and greater rate than
scientists predicted. That’s why there’s cause for alarm, because everything that they predicted
is happening, but happening faster and happening to a greater degree. The solutions are within
reach, but they will require ambitious, decisive, and immediate action.

Last year in Beijing, State Councilor Yang and I launched the U.S.-China Climate Change Working
Group, which is already engaged in pilot projects, policy exchanges, and more. We raised the
climate change issue to the ministerial level so that we would be dealing with it on an ongoing
high-level basis. And we’ve also been engaged since then in constant discussions aimed at
ensuring that the global community can do everything possible to be able to reach a successful,
ambitious climate agreement when we all meet in Paris next year. In February, we announced
plans to exchange information and to discuss policies to develop respective plans to strengthen
domestic emissions targets for the 2015 UN climate negotiations, what I just referred to. And by
the way, we’ll be meeting shortly in Lima, Peru as the lead-up to this particular meeting next
year in Paris. So there’s a lot of work going into this.

Next year, countries are supposed to come forward with their stated goals. And we hope that
the partnership between China and the United States can help set an example for global
leadership and for the seriousness of purpose on those targets and on the negotiations overall.
If the two countries that together are nearing 50 percent of all the emissions in the world, which
happen to be also the two largest economies in the world – if they can come together and show
seriousness of purpose, imagine what the impact could be on the rest of the world. The United
States and China are the two largest consumers of energy, and we are the world’s two largest
emitters of global greenhouse gases. Together, we account for that roughly – it’s about 45
percent and climbing, unfortunately.

So we need to solve this problem together. Why? Because neither one of us can possibly solve it
alone. Even if every single American biked to work or carpooled to school or used only solar
panels to power their homes – if we reduced our emissions to zero, if we planted each of us in
America a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions,
guess what? That still wouldn’t be enough to counteract the carbon pollution coming from
China and the rest of the world. And the same would be true for China if they reduced
everything and we continued. We would wipe out their gains; they would wipe out our gains.
Because today, if even one or two major economies neglects to respond to this threat, it will
erase the good work done everywhere else.
 AT California CP
California and other states can not build international partnership-2 reasons
1. No Resources
2. Cap and Trade Programs Check
Busch 17 (Chris Busch, 6-14-2017, "China-California Climate Cooperation: A New Model For
States, Nations In The Trump Era," Forbes,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2017/06/14/china-california-climate-
cooperation-a-new-model-for-states-and-nations-in-the-trump-era/2/#6ca39ca1717f)

While it can be hard to find time for building up international partnerships amidst the day-to-
day demands of government, California must find the resources. And even as California shares
its expertise, its policy leaders must continue working to settle debates about the state’s cap-
and-trade program beyond 2020. These discussions must be resolved promptly in order to
provide the confidence businesses need to make clean energy investments, while properly
signaling to other states and countries that our world-best program offers valuable design
lessons.

California and States should not cooperate with China – 2 reasons

1. Energy Costs
2. China steals American jobs
Shaw 17’ (William Shaw, A journalist and writer in the US and in the UK, 6-10-2017, "Gov.
Brown understands climate change. Trump doesn't — and the world knows that.," latimes,
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-ol-le-brown-china-climate-change-20170610-
story.html)

Any deal with a country like China, which is greatly expanding renewable energy use
domestically but also building coal-burning plants abroad in developing countries (as reported
by The Times), should be done with caution.

California shouldn’t be in the business of unilateral increases in global warming prevention. This
would burden local industry with high energy costs that can make it uncompetitive with Chinese
manufacturers. Furthermore, manufacturing in China carries with it a higher probability of
drawing power from coal-burning sources and then shipping the products on big diesel-belching
transports half way around the world to California
AT Ks
AT Topicality
AT Case Turns
 AT: Hurts American Jobs
Turn—immigrant workers help raise the wages of American workers—empirics
prove
India Panorma 15, South–Asian English newspaper with print editions in New York City, the Tristate area and now also as the
first English Indian Newspaper from Dallas, printed weekly , “H1B Visa – The Conflicting Perceptions,” The Indian Panorma, June 28, 2015,
http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/Archive/RecentPressItems.txt

In fact, Kerr’s study suggested exactly the opposite — that the growth of immigrant workers
“helps younger American technical workers; more of them are hired and at higher-paying jobs
— but has no noticeable consequences, good or bad, on older workers”. Kerr also said that “in the
short run, we don’t find really any adverse or super-positive effect on the employment of
Americans”, adding that “people take an extremely one-sided view of this stuff and dismiss any
evidence to the contrary”. And yet another study conducted by academics at the University of
California at Berkeley found that over the span of a decade in an urban area, a 1 percentage (of
total employment) increase in foreign STEM workers during a decade actually increased the wages of
native-born American college graduates by 4 percent to 6 percent, with small effect on their
employment.

The national job market for scientists and engineers is weak, only foreign
students solve
Freeman 05, Richard B. Freeman, Economics at Harvard University., NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES, “DOES GLOBALIZATION
OF THE SCIENTIFIC/ENGINEERING WORKFORCE THREATEN U.S. ECONOMIC LEADERSHIP?,” Working Paper 11457, NATIONAL
BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH, http://www.nber.org/papers/w11457, June 2005

One reason that foreign

born students and degree recipients are attracted to science and
engineering work in the US while many US citizens or permanent residents do not find that
work attractive is that the foreign-born have lower opportunity costs from other specialties
than do Americans. The higher average incomes in the US, particularly compared to developing
countries, and the greater dispersion of earnings in the US, particularly compared to other high
income countries, means that US students, particularly the most able, have more lucrative non-
S&E 16 options than do foreign-born students. To many foreign-born students or workers,
obtaining an S&E education or job is their ticket to the US job market, a green card, and possible
citizenship. Their opportunities in their native country outside of science and engineering are far
less attractive than are the opportunities outside of science and engineering to comparable
Americans.

Foreign students don’t steal US jobs because there’s a shortage in STEM

without them—in fact, the emergence of foreign students actually raise US
citizens’ wages—stats prove
India Panorma 15, South–Asian English newspaper with print editions in New York City, the Tristate area and now also
as the first English Indian Newspaper from Dallas, printed weekly , “H1B Visa – The Conflicting Perceptions,” The Indian Panorma,
June 28, 2015, http://www.theindianpanorama.com/featured/h1b-visa-the-conflicting-perceptions-41760.html

It turns out that Ian

Hathaway, research director at Engine, an American economic research outfit,
has churned out numbers that show employers find it a whole lot more difficult to find
candidates in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, as well as computer and
math sciences (CMS), than those in other fields. Apparently, at the end of 2012, there were 2.4 CMS
job openings for each unemployed CMS worker, and 1.4 STEM openings for each unemployed
STEM worker, versus four unemployed workers per job opening in non-STEM and CMS fields.
What’s more, Hathaway showed that wage growth for STEM and CMS workers with at least a
bachelor’s degree was far more “robust” in the last 12 years, compared to other fields. “Not
only did wages grow at the median for these fields while wages in all other professions fell
substantially; that growth also reached workers with a broader set of income levels,” Hathaway
pointed out. In fact, it is “irresponsible for researchers to claim there is an oversupply of STEM
workers”, he added. If this isn’t conclusive enough, The New York Times pointed to another study
conducted by William R Kerr, a Harvard business professor, who found little empirical evidence
amongst 300 American companies that pointed to American engineers being displaced by
foreign ones. In fact, Kerr’s study suggested exactly the opposite — that the growth of
immigrant workers “helps younger American technical workers; more of them are hired and at
higher-paying jobs — but has no noticeable consequences, good or bad, on older workers”. Kerr
also said that “in the short run, we don’t find really any adverse or super-positive effect on the
employment of Americans”, adding that “people take an extremely one-sided view of this stuff
and dismiss any evidence to the contrary”. And yet another study conducted by academics at
the University of California at Berkeley found that over the span of a decade in an urban area, a
1 percentage (of total employment) increase in foreign STEM workers during a decade actually
increased the wages of native-born American college graduates by 4 percent to 6 percent, with
small effect on their employment.
 AT: Lowers American Edu. Standards
Foreign students don’t lower US education—they are just as qualified as
American students
Mamun 15, Rajib Al Mamun, writer, “Immigration reform for foreign STEM graduate students,” The Hill, feb 8, 2015,
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/education/232021-immigration-reform-for-foreign-stem-graduate-students

Foreign students reach the U.S. after satisfying the university admission and visa requirements. They
overcome all the culture shocks and become American little by little. They usually pay more than twice in
tuition than local students in public universities. Many of them work as a graduate assistant (teaching or
research). Some of their research funds directly come from federal authorities including NSF,
NASA, NOAA, USDA, USGS, EPA, and so forth. Some of them have multiple degrees from U.S.
universities. Most of them finish their masters or doctorates. They publish papers in research
journals. Some of them work as a PI (Principal Investigator) in their projects. Many of them
obtain patents for their innovation. These students pay income taxes from their first earnings.
Local grocery stores to car dealers and credit card companies depend on them to grow their
business. After 5 years of staying, their tax status changes to tax-purpose residents and they pay taxes (including social security
tax and Medicare tax) equal to U.S. citizens. In the U.S., 11.57 percent of the population above 25 years old have graduate or
professional degrees [6, 7]. Therefore, foreign STEM graduate students stay in the top 12 percent based on education. They
build
good/excellent credit history and driving history. All these criteria are good enough to become
eligible to be a permanent resident (also known as lawful immigrant or Green Card holder). However, the current U.S.
broken immigration law does not allow them to become permanent residents easily.
 AT: Terrorism
Foreign students key to build up the goodwill necessary to deter terrorism
NAFSA 03, NAFSA: Association of International Educators, “In America’s Interest: Welcoming
International Students” January 2001, <http://www.nafsa.org/uploadedFiles/NAFSA_Home/
Resource_Library_Assets/Public_Policy/in_america_s_interest.pdf>
Secretary Powell has spoken eloquently of the foreign policy benefits that accrue to the United States from being the destination of
choice for the world’s internationally mobile students and, especially, from educating successive generations of world leaders. By
hosting international students, we generate an appreciation of American political values and
institutions, and we lay the foundation for constructive relations based on mutual
understanding and goodwill. The ties formed at school between future American and future foreign leaders have
facilitated innumerable foreign policy relationships. The millions of people who have studied in
the United States over the years constitute a remarkable reservoir of goodwill for our country,
perhaps our most undervalued foreign policy asset. Is there a danger that terrorists will gain access to the
United States by posing as students? Of course there is; that danger exists with respect to all nonimmigrant visitors, of which
students constitute only a minuscule two percent. All countries must confront a central question of our age, which is how to
reconcile global mobility with global terrorism. Openness to mobility carries dangers; higher education wants to be
a part of the greater attention to these dangers that is now necessary, and of the more robust enforcement measures that are now
required. In this context, the task force fully supports appropriate screening and monitoring measures. Schools are collectively
spending millions of dollars and countless hours to implement the international student tracking system that became a federal
priority on September 11. They are working with the Department of State to protect the integrity of student visas and to prevent
their fraudulent use by those who seek access to the United States for illegitimate reasons. Research institutions are wrestling with
questions of access to sensitive scientific information and are doing their best to strike the appropriate balance. In these and other
ways, higher education is doing its part to help protect our country. But
to unduly restrict the access of future
leaders—and, indeed, the youth of the world—to this country is to court a greater danger,
which is to nurture the isolationism, fundamentalism, and bigoted caricatures that drive anti-
Western terrorism. After September 11, it seems clear that the more people who can experience this
country first-hand, breaking down the stereotypes they grow up with and opening their minds
to a world beyond their borders, the better it is for U.S. security

STEM research key to combat terrorism

Tilghman 03 Shirley M. Tilghman is the 19th President of Princeton University, “Dealing with
Foreign Students and Scholars in the Age of Terrorism: Visa Backlogs and Tracking Systems”,
3/26/03,
<http://www.princeton.edu/president/tilghman/speeches/20030326/>

As was so clearly articulated in the Hart-Rudman report, Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change, a
robust
system of research and education is our greatest defense against terrorism. The report calls the
current investment in research and development a “consumption of the capital” of the past three generations, pointing out that
“the U.S. need for the highest quality human capital in science, mathematics, and engineering is
not being met.” It goes on to explain that: “American students know that professional careers in basic science and
mathematics require considerable preparation and effort, while salaries are often more lucrative in areas requiring less demanding
training. Non-U.S.
nationals, however, do find these professions attractive and, thanks to science,
math, and technical preparation superior to that of many Americans, they increasingly fill
American university graduate studies seats and job slots in these areas.” So, while we make national and
institutional efforts to attract American students to careers in science and work to improve K-12 education to produce more
Americans who have the capabilities necessary to excel in science and mathematics, we turn to international students
and scholars to fill the widening gap between supply and demand for U.S. scientists and
engineers. These foreign scientists and scholars make many critical contributions to the American
scientific and education enterprise. They bring a wealth of knowledge and experience to our colleges and universities,
and they enrich the cultural diversity of our campuses. Given the global nature of business, the economy, education, and the
scientific enterprise, cultural diversity on our campuses pays important dividends to our entire society; it is imperative to the future
success of our graduates and the international leadership and stability of our nation. Foreign-born scientists have, for more than 50
years, helped the U.S. achieve the pre-eminence in science and technology that has led to our strong economic growth and long-
term national security. Almost
20 percent of the distinguished scientists and engineers who are
members of the National Academy of Sciences, and more than a third of U.S. Nobel Laureates,
are foreign born. I, too, am a foreign-born scientist, having been raised and educated in Canada prior to my graduate studies
at Temple University. According to the 2002 Science and Engineering Indicators, nearly a third of the doctoral degrees in science and
engineering awarded in the U.S. each year go to foreign nationals, with well over 40 percent of the doctoral degrees in engineering
and computer science earned by foreign students. Two-thirds of foreign students who receive a Ph.D. in science or engineering stay
in the U.S., taking positions in academia and industry, and nearly 40 percent of the current U.S. engineering faculty is foreign-born.
Despite the important contributions that foreign students and scholars have made and continue to make to U.S. advances in science
and technology, we are all painfully aware that at least three of the 19 September 11th hijackers were attending U.S. flight schools
on student visas when they committed their heinous acts. And we know from the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center that
others exploited weaknesses in the student non-immigrant visa program and were in this country on expired student visas when
they committed their crime. In the wake of the
September 11th attacks, there has been increased
oversight of the student and scholar visa program resulting in new legislation and regulations in
this area.

Doesn’t link to terror—most foreign students aren’t malicious and even if they
are monitoring systems don’t reveal intentions
Johnson 01 Marlene M. Johnson, Executive Director and CEO of NAFSA: Association of
International Educators, “Thinking Clearly about Foreign Students and Terrorism”, 9/20/01,
<http://lobby.la.psu.edu/_107th/119_Student_Visas_Security/Organizational_Statements/NAFS
A/NAFSA_Thinking_about_ForeignStudents_Terrorism.htm> //ak

Obviously, much changed on September 11. But not everything changed. The
United States still needs friends in the world -
now more than ever. One of the most important but least appreciated successes of American
foreign policy has been the reservoir of goodwill toward our country that we have created by
educating successive generations of world leaders. As the debate on foreign students proceeds, we must recognize that
our country gains much from being their destination of choice. It also remains true that 99.99
percent of the foreign students enrolled in our institutions wish us no ill, cause us no problems, and seek
nothing more than the best education in the world. As the administration seeks to define an effective anti-terrorism strategy, we cannot afford to
punish the many for the acts of the few. September 11 did not change the fact that U.S. pre-eminence in science is not an accident; it is due
fundamentally to our openness to scientific exchange, which has enabled us over the generations to benefit from the best scientific expertise in the
world. It is very much worth preserving the freedom of foreign scholars to participate in scientific
exchanges at U.S. universities and research institutes. America's world leadership is being tested
as rarely before. But how will we continue to renew our ability to lead? Another thing September 11 did not change is that we cannot
effectively lead a world we do not understand. Foreign scholars who help us understand the world from whence

they come do not threaten our national security; they enhance it. If cracking down on foreign students and
scholars could really protect us against terrorism, it might be necessary to forego the benefits that they bring.

But that's not the case. Foreign students and scholars constitute a tiny proportion of the 30
million foreign visitors who enter the United States annually with visas, and a minuscule
proportion of the hundreds of millions who cross our borders legally each year. Whatever degree of
monitoring of foreign visitors may be necessary, we cannot pretend that we protect ourselves by applying it only to this small group. Monitoring

systems will never reveal people's intentions. There is no substitute for the intelligence
community being able to identify dangerous people before they get here. Absent that, we will always be
blind. The threat we face is very serious. Our nation's response must be equally so. Daunting foreign policy, military, intelligence, and security
challenges confront us. The job now is to focus the nation's attention and resources on these urgent challenges. Given
that foreign
students are already among the most closely monitored of all nonimmigrant visitors, it is
difficult not to see increased monitoring as a diversion from the task at hand.