You are on page 1of 17


I Affirm. Resolved: Just governments have a moral obligation to
mitigate the effects of global climate change.

I value morality as per the evaluative term moral obligation
in the resolution.
The standard is maximizing societal welfare.
1. Experience is the source of epistemic knowledge as it is how
we empirically ground our existence. We cannot derive truth
from reason as conceptions of reason differ from person to
person and reason is socially constructed and thus dynamic.
Sentience is the only non-arbitrary source of normativity. Pain
is universally bad and pleasure is universally good.
Thomas Nagel 86 [The View From Nowhere, 1986] //AG
I shall defend the unsurprising claim that

sensory pleasure is good and pain bad, no

matter whose they are.

The point of the exercise is to see how the pressures of objectification

operate in a simple case. Physical pleasure and pain do not usually depend on activities or desires which
themselves raise questions of justification and value. They are just [is a] sensory experiences in relation to

promotion of his own pleasure

which we are fairly passive, but toward which we feel involuntary desire or aversion. Almost

takes the avoidance of his own pain and the

as subjective reasons for action in a fairly simple way; they are not back up by any further
reasons. On the other hand if someone pursues pain or avoids pleasure, either it as a means to some end or
it is backed up by dark reasons like guilt or sexual masochism. What sort of general value, if any, ought to be
assigned to pleasure and pain when we consider these facts from an objective standpoint? What kind of
judgment can we reasonably make about these things when we view them in abstraction from who we are?

there is no plausibility in the zero position, that

pleasure and pain have no value of any kind that can be objectively
recognized. That would mean that I have no reason to take aspirin for a severe headache, however I
We can begin by asking why

may in fact be motivated; and that looking at it from outside, you couldn't even say that someone had a

Without some positive

reason to think there is nothing in itself good or bad about having an
experience you intensely like or dislike, we can't seriously regard the common
impression to the contrary as a collective illusion. Such things are at least good
reason not to put his hand on a hot stove, just because of the pain

or bad for us, if anything is. What seems to be going on here is that we cannot from an objective standpoint
withhold a certain kind of endorsement of the most direct and immediate subjective value judgments we
make concerning the contents of our own consciousness. We regard ourselves as too close to those things to
be mistaken in our immediate, nonideological evaluative impressions. No objective view we can attain could
possibly overrule our subjective authority in such cases. There can be no reason to reject the appearances

2. Because there is no objective epistemic distinction between

individuals, equality must be the foundation of any system of
normativity. Utilitarianism is the only ethical framework that is
consistent with the equality of individuals by impartially
maximizing good consequences. Reject ethics that admit
arbitrariness as they are not coherent guides to action.
3. Life is a prerequisiteyou need to be alive before you can
take an action or be moral. Based upon this justification
alone, my standard precedes all others

Extinction First
Extinction comes first.
Existential risks are not trial and error process.
Nick Bostrom 02, Department of Philosophy, Yale University, 2002, Existential
Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards, // vkoneru
Our approach to existential risks cannot be one of trial-and-error. There is no
opportunity to learn from errors. The reactive approach see what happens, limit damages, and learn from
experience is unworkable. Rather, we must take a proactive approach. This requires foresight to
anticipate new types of threats and a willingness to take decisive preventive action and to bear
the costs (moral and economic) of such actions. We cannot necessarily rely on the institutions, moral norms, social attitudes or
national security policies that developed from our experience with managing other sorts of risks. Existential risks are a
different kind of beast. We might find it hard to take them as seriously as we should simply because we have
never yet witnessed such disasters.[5] Our collective fear-response is likely ill calibrated to the magnitude of
threat. Reductions in existential risks are global public goods [13] and may therefore be undersupplied by the market [14]. Existential
risks are a menace for everybody and may require acting on the international plane. Respect for national sovereignty is not a

If we take into account the

welfare of future generations, the harm done by existential risks is multiplied by another
factor, the size of which depends on whether and how much we discount future
benefits [15,16].
legitimate excuse for failing to take countermeasures against a major existential risk.

Plan text: All just governments should impose a carbon tax
on the public and private sector to mitigate global climate
The Ministry of Finance clarifies the plan
A carbon tax is usually defined as a tax based on greenhouse gas emissions (GHG)
generated from burning fuels. It puts a price on each tonne of GHG emitted , sending a
price signal that will, over time, elicit a powerful market response across the entire economy, resulting in reduced

It has the advantage of providing an incentive without favouring any one

way of reducing emissions over another. By reducing fuel consumption, increasing fuel efficiency,
using cleaner fuels and adopting new technology, businesses and individuals can reduce the amount they pay in
carbon tax, or even offset it altogether.

Part 1 is the harms

Warming causes extinction scientific data, prediction models
and historicity proves
Flournoy 12 [Citing Feng Hsu, PhdD NASA Scientist @ the Goddard Space Flight Center, Don FLournoy,
PhD and MA from UT, former Dean of the University College @ Ohio University, former Associate Dean at SUNY and
Case Institute of Technology, Former Manager for Unviersity/Industry Experiments for the NASA ACTS Satellite,
currently Professor of Telecommunications @ Scripps College of Communications, Ohio University, Solar Power
Satellites, Springer Briefs in Space Development, p. 10-11, January 2012,]

**We disagree with the authors use of gendered language**

In the Online Journal of Space Communication , Dr. Feng Hsu, a NASA scientist at Goddard Space Flight Center,
a research center in the forefront of science of space and Earth, writes, The

evidence of global
warming is alarming, noting the potential for a catastrophic planetary
climate change is real and troubling (Hsu 2010 ) . Hsu and his NASA colleagues were
engaged in monitoring and analyzing climate changes on a global scale,
through which they received first-hand scientific information and data
relating to global warming issues, including the dynamics of polar ice cap melting. After
discussing this research with colleagues who were world experts on the subject, he wrote: I now have no
doubt global temperatures are rising, and that global warming is a serious
problem confronting all of humanity. No matter whether these trends
are due to human interference or to the cosmic cycling of our solar system, there are
two basic facts that are crystal clear: (a) there is overwhelming scientific evidence
showing positive correlations between the level of CO2
concentrations in Earths atmosphere with respect to the
historical fluctuations of global temperature changes; and (b) the
overwhelming majority of the worlds scientific community is in
agreement about the risks of a potential catastrophic global climate
change. That is, if we humans continue to ignore this problem and do nothing, if we
continue dumping huge quantities of greenhouse gases into Earths biosphere, humanity will be at
dire risk (Hsu 2010 ) . As a technology risk assessment expert, Hsu says he can show with some confidence
that the planet will face more risk doing nothing to curb its fossil-based energy addictions than it will in making
a fundamental shift in its energy supply. This, he writes, is because

the risks of a catastrophic

anthropogenic climate change can be potentially the extinction of human

species , a risk that is simply too high for us to take any chances (Hsu 2010 )

And climate change causes biodiversity loss

University of East Anglia 2013. "Climate change will cause widespread global-scale loss of common
plants and animals, researchers predict." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 12 May 2013.

More than half of common plants and one third of the animals could see a dramatic
decline this century due to climate change, according to research from the University of East Anglia.
Research published today in the journal Nature Climate Change looked at 50,000 globally widespread and common

that more than one half of the plants and one third of the animals will
lose more than half of their climatic range by 2080 if nothing is done to reduce the
amount of global warming and slow it down . This means that geographic ranges of common
plants and animals will shrink globally and biodiversity will decline almost everywhere . Plants,
species and found

Sub-Saharan Africa, Central

America, Amazonia and Australia would lose the most species of plants and animals.
And a major loss of plant species is projected for North Africa, Central Asia and
South-eastern Europe. But acting quickly to mitigate climate change could reduce
losses by 60 per cent and buy an additional 40 years for species to adapt . This is
reptiles and particularly amphibians are expected to be at highest risk.

because this mitigation would slow and then stop global temperatures from rising by more than two degrees Celsius

Without this mitigation, global temperatures could rise

by 4 degrees Celsius by 2100. The study was led by Dr Rachel Warren from UEA's school of
relative to pre-industrial times (1765).

Environmental Sciences and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. Collaborators include Dr.Jeremy
VanDerWal at James Cook University in Australia and Dr Jeff Price, also at UEA's school of Environmental Sciences
and the Tyndall Centre. The research was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). Dr Warren
said: "While there has been much research on the effect of climate change on rare and endangered species, little
has been known about how an increase in global temperature will affect more common species. "This broader issue

even small declines in these

species can significantly disrupt ecosystems. "Our research predicts that climate change
will greatly reduce the diversity of even very common species found in most parts
of the world. This loss of global-scale biodiversity would significantly impoverish the
biosphere and the ecosystem services it provides . "We looked at the effect of rising global
of potential range loss in widespread species is a serious concern as

temperatures, but other symptoms of climate change such as extreme weather events, pests, and diseases mean

Animals in particular may decline more as our

predictions will be compounded by a loss of food from plants. "There will also be a knock-on
that our estimates are probably conservative.

effect for humans because these species are important for things like water and air purification, flood control,

action to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gases can prevent the biodiversity loss
by reducing the amount of global warming to 2 degrees Celsius rather than 4 degrees. This
would also buy time -- up to four decades -- for plants and animals to adapt to the
nutrient cycling, and eco-tourism. "The good news is that our research provides crucial new evidence of how

remaining 2 degrees of climate change." The research team quantified the benefits of acting now to mitigate
climate change and found that up to 60 per cent of the projected climatic range loss for biodiversity can be
avoided. Dr Warren said: "Prompt and stringent

action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

would reduce these biodiversity losses by 60 per cent if global emissions peak in 2016, or

by 40 per cent if emissions peak in 2030, showing that early action is very beneficial. This will both reduce the
amount of climate change and also slow climate change down, making it easier for species and humans to adapt."
Information on the current distributions of the species used in this research came from the datasets shared online
by hundreds of volunteers, scientists and natural history collections through the Global Biodiversity Information
Facility (GBIF). Co-author Dr Jeff Price, also from UEA's school of Environmental Studies, said: "Without free and
open access to massive amounts of data such as those made available online through GBIF, no individual
researcher is able to contact every country, every museum, every scientist holding the data and pull it all together.
So this research would not be possible without GBIF and its global community of researchers and volunteers who
make their data freely available."

Biodiversity loss causes extinction

Diner 94 (David N. J.D. Recipient. College of Law. Ohio State University. The Army and the Endangered
Species Act: Whos Endangering Whom? Military Law Review. 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161. Winter, 1994, gender edited) BL
No species has ever dominated its fellow species like man . In most cases, we have
assumed the God-like power of life and death, extinction or survival, over the plants and animals of
the world. For most of history, mankind pursued this domination with a single-minded determination to master the world, tame the wilderness, and exploit nature for the maximum
benefit of the human race.67 We know that in past mass extinction episodes, as many as ninety percent of the existing species perished, and yet the world moved forward, and new

Like all animal life, we live off other

species. At some point the number of species could decline to the point where the
ecosystem fails, and then we too would become extinct. Nobody knows how many
species are needed to support human life, and it is not sound policy to find out. In
species replaced the old. So why should we be concerned now? The prime reason is our own survival.

addition to food, species offer many direct and indirect benefits to mankind. 2. ECOLOGICAL VALUE Ecological value is defined as the value that species have in maintaining the
functioning of the environment. Pest, 69 erosion, and flood control are prime benefits certain species provide to man. Pollution control, 7 oxygen production, sewage treatment, and
biodegradation are other ecological services provided by plants and animals.7 3. SCIENTIFIC AND UTILITARIAN VALUE Scientific value is defined as the use of species for research into
understanding the natural world. 72 Without plants and animals, a large portion of basic scientific research would be impossible. Utilitarian value is the direct benefit humans derive

from exploiting plants and animals.7 Only a fraction of . the earth's species have been examined, and mankind may someday desperately-need the species that are being wiped out
today. It may be difficult to accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew, 74 could save mankind. Many, if not most, species are useless to man in
a direct utilitarian sense. Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role, because their extirpation could negatively affect a directly useful species. In a closely interconnected

the loss of each species affects other species dependent upon it. 75 Moreover, as
the number of species decline, the affect of each new extinction on the remaining
* species increases dramatically 76 4. BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY The main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than

simplicity.77 As the current mass extinction progresses, there has been a general decrease in the world's biological diversity. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the
number of species, and within species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. 78 Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a
large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems are inherently more stable than less diverse systems: "'The more complex the ecosystem, the
more successfully it can resist a stress...[l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched
circle of threads which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole.",79 By causing widespread extinctions humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity
rises, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the U.S. are relatively mild examples of what might be

each new animal or plant . extinction, with all its dimly

perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse, and
human extinction. Certainly, each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, 80
expected if this trend continues. Theoretically,

mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.

Poverty is the worst form of structural violence and creates

conditions worse than nuclear war.
Mumia Abu Jamal is a journalist and political activist, 7-15-2009 [A Quiet and Deadly Violence - 9/19/98]
Gilligan notes: [E]very fifteen years,

on the average, as many people die because of relative

poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single
year, two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were
killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an
ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide on the weak and poor every year of every

violence became [is] internalized, tut alrned back on the Self, because, in a society
based on the priority of [in] wealth, those who own nothing are taught to loathe
themselves, as if something is inherently wrong with themselves, instead of the social order that promotes
decade, throughout the world. [Gilligan, p. 196] Worse still, in a thoroughly capitalist society, much of

this self-loathing. This intense self-hatred was often manifest[s]ed in familial violence as when the husband beats
the wife, the wife smacks the son, and the kids fight each other. This vicious, circular, and invisible violence, [is]
unacknowledged by the corporate media, uncriticized in substandard educational systems, and un- understood by
the very folks who suffer in its grips, feeds on the spectacular and more common forms of violence that the system
makes damn sure -that we can recognize and must react to it. This fatal and systematic violence may be called The
War on the Poor.

Part 2 is solvency
Carbon taxes are the most effective measure to cut
greenhouse gas emissions


, September 29,
; David Shipley is the senior executive editor of Bloomberg View. He was previously
the deputy editorial page editor and op-ed page editor for the New York Times. He served in the Clinton administration as special
assistant to the president and senior presidential speechwriter. Before that, he was executive editor at the New Republic. Climate
March, Climate Summit, Climate Tax? (

Most economists agree that a carbon tax is the best way to slow climate change.
Make energy derived from fossil fuels more expensive, they say, and let the market do the rest. In principle, the

-- prices are better than quantitative mandates at

guiding efficient solutions -- but what about the practical drawbacks? It's right to wonder about the
advantages of this approach are clear

unintended consequences of introducing a carbon tax. However, it's wrong to keep this discussion theoretical.

More than a dozen countries have adopted such taxes , in some cases decades ago. Their
experience, little discussed in the U.S., can inform the debate. This is the first in a series of editorials on lessons
from countries that have introduced taxes on carbon. Where the idea has been tried, what was the effect on the
economy? When governments promised to use the revenue to reduce other taxes, did they keep those promises?
Did the burden fall unduly on more vulnerable households? And how did governments make the tax politically
feasible? If carbon taxes failed to cut emissions, one need go no further. And, in principle at least, there are reasons
to be skeptical. Perhaps it's hard to make the tax high enough or comprehensive enough to make a difference. This
turns out to be wrong -- though it's true that the design of the tax makes a big difference. Researchers at

some of the first

countries to adopt a carbon tax -- Finland (1990), Sweden (1991), Denmark (1992)
and the Netherlands (1996). They then estimated what emissions would have been without the tax, based
on trends in consumption of 11 fuels across more than 40 economic sectors. As the
chart shows, the taxes cut emissions, though by varying amounts. Other studies have also
found that carbon taxes work. One found that companies in Denmark cut their carbon
emissions per unit of output by a quarter from 1993 to 2000. Finland's carbon tax
cut emissions by 7 percent from 1990 to 1998, according to the government. In the
Netherlands, one study found that the tax cut household electricity demand by 8
percent from 1994 to 1999. Yet as the chart shows, the effectiveness of the tax varied. That's partly because its
Cambridge Econometrics, a U.K. consulting firm, looked at greenhouse-gas emissions in

coverage, and the rate applied in different sectors, has varied from country to country. In Sweden, industrial sources
of emissions paid just half the standard levy. In Finland, fuel used for agriculture was taxed at a lower rate. The
Dutch tax applied to homes and small businesses, with different rates for electricity and natural gas -- one
academic called the system "incoherent." Some countries offered further breaks to companies that entered
agreements with the government on energy efficiency. These complications and carve-outs are pernicious in two
ways. First, by limiting the reach of the tax, they make it less effective at cutting emissions, defeating the whole
point. Second, they ignore the reason for using a tax, as opposed to quantity controls, in the first place. Taxes work
better than sector-specific controls because they let markets discover the cheapest way to reduce emissions.
Complex tax schedules override those market-based judgments. A better model is the approach adopted by British
Columbia. The tax it introduced in 2008 applies to all emissions from all fossil fuels. The rate started at 10 Canadian
dollars for a ton of carbon dioxide and was increased to 30 a ton by 2012. The province's per-capita consumption of
fuels subject to the tax fell 16 percent by 2013; in the rest of Canada, it rose 3 percent over the same period. Of
course, these numbers don't tell you exactly what the U.S. could expect if it introduced a carbon tax. Patterns of
consumption and sensitivity to price changes vary from place to place. What all these cases show, however, is that

a carbon tax can succeed in cutting emissions . How well it works, how much it cuts emissions and
at what cost, depends on how it's designed.

Due to current oil consumption, passing a carbon tax NOW is

the only way to combat emissions


January 4,
; Lawrence Summers is a professor at and past president of Harvard University. He
was treasury secretary from 1999 to 2001 and economic adviser to President Obama from 2009 through 2010. Oils Swoon Creates

the Opening for a Carbon Tax (

. With the recent steep fall in oil prices and associated

declines in other energy prices, it has become overwhelming. There is room for debate about the size of
the tax and about how the proceeds should be deployed. But there should be no doubt that, given the current
zero tax rate on carbon, increased taxation would be desirable . The core of the case for taxation is the
recognition that those who use carbon-based fuels or products do not bear all the costs of
their actions. Carbon emissions exacerbate global climate change. In many cases,
they contribute to local pollution problems that harm human health. Getting fossil
fuels out of the ground involves both accident risks and environmental challenges .
The case for carbon taxes has long been compelling

And even with the substantial recent increases in U.S. oil production, we remain a net importer. Any increase in our consumption raises our dependence on
Middle East producers. All of us, when we drive our cars, heat our homes or use fossil fuels in more indirect ways, create these costs without paying for
them. It follows that we overuse these fuels. Advocating a carbon tax is not some kind of argument for government planning; it is the logic of the market:

, it could make the economy

[would] function better by levying carbon taxes and rebating the money to
taxpayers. While the recent decline in energy prices is a good thing in that it has, on
balance, raised the incomes of Americans, it has also exacerbated the problem of
energy overuse. The benefit of imposing carbon taxes is therefore enhanced . On the other
That which is not paid for is overused. Even if the government had no need or use for revenue

side of the ledger, there has always been the concern that a carbon tax would place an unfair burden on some middle- and low-income consumers. Those
who drive long distances to work, say, or who have homes that are expensive to heat would be disproportionately burdened. Now that these consumers
have received a windfall from the fall in energy prices, it would be possible to impose substantial carbon taxes without them being burdened relative to

. A $25-a-ton tax on carbon that would

raise far more than $1 trillion over the next decade would [and] lift gasoline prices by only about 25
cents. Some worry that taxing fossil fuels will hurt the competitiveness of U.S. industry and encourage offshoring. In fact, a well-designed tax would
where things stood six months ago. The price of gasoline has fallen by more than a dollar

be levied on the carbon content of all imports coming from countries that did not impose their own carbon levies. The United States can make the case

Such an approach would have the virtue of

encouraging [the tax would encourage] countries who wished to avoid the U.S. tax
to impose carbon taxes of their own, thereby further supporting efforts to reduce global
climate change. A U.S. carbon tax would contribute to efforts to combat climate change in other ways. It would be a hugely important
symbolic step ahead of the global climate summit in Paris late this year. It would shift the debate toward harmonized
measures to raise the price of carbon use and away from the complex cap-andtrade-type systems that have proved more difficult to operate than expected in the
European Union and elsewhere. What size levy is appropriate? Here there is more danger of doing too little than too much. Once the
principle of taxation is accepted, its level can be adjusted . A tax of $25 a ton would
raise more than $100 billion each year and seems a reasonable starting point. How should the proceeds be used? Here,
that such a tax is compatible with World Trade Organization rules.

too, it seems more important to reach consensus on the principle of taxation. My preference would be for the funds to be split between investments in
infrastructure and pro-work tax credits. An additional $50 billion a year in infrastructure spending would be a significant contribution to closing Americas
investment gap in that area. The same sum devoted to pro-work tax credits could finance a huge increase in the earned-income tax credit, a meaningful
reduction in the payroll tax or some combination of the two. Progressives who are most concerned about climate change should rally to a carbon tax.
Conservatives who believe in the power of markets should favor carbon taxes on market principles. And Americans who want to see their country lead on
the energy and climate issues that are crucial to the world this century should want to be in the vanguard on carbon taxes. Now is the time.

A carbon tax would encourage technology investments and

solve federal deficit problems
Rausch and Reilly 12, Sebastian Rausch and John Reilly are from the MIT Joint program on the science and policy of
global climate change. August 2012. Carbon Tax Revenue and the Budget Deficit: A Win-Win-Win Solution?

a carbon tax is potentially a win-win-win solution . First, carbon

tax revenue can allow revenue-neutral relief on personal income taxes, corporate
income tax, or payroll taxes, or could be used to avoid or limit cuts to social
programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Food Assistance) or Defense spending. Among the revenue raising
While raising taxes is never popular,

options evaluated by the CBO was a carbon tax that would start at $20 in 2012 and rise at a nominal rate of 5.8% per year,
approximately 4% in real terms given the underlying inflation rate they projected. By their estimate it

[the tax] would

raise on the order of $1.25 trillion over a 10-year period . Second, economic analysis has
demonstrated the potential for a double dividend whereby recycling of revenue from a carbon tax to
offset other taxes could reduce the cost of a carbon policy or even under some
circumstances [and] boost economic welfare (Goulder, 1995). The Bush tax cuts and other temporary tax
relief measures are due to expire at the end of 2012. A carbon tax could allow their further extension. And, third, a carbon tax
would lower fossil fuel use, reducing carbon dioxide emissions; and lowering oil
imports. The effects of this last win would spread across the energy sector . With the
new requirements for improved vehicle efficiency the higher tax-inclusive gasoline price would make
fuel efficient [options] vehicles more attractive to consumers and thus make it easier for
automobile producers to sell a fleet that meets the efficiency requirements. With a more efficient fleet, even
though gasoline prices would rise, the actual fuel cost of driving could fall. A carbon
tax would also create support for renewable fuels and electricity . Provisions to
stimulate these alternative sources have often involved tax expenditures
investment in or production of renewable energy gives companies a tax credit,
thereby reducing tax revenue and aggravating the deficit . The investment and production tax
credits for renewable electricity are due to expire, and with the looming deficit it would be more difficult to justify their continuation .
A carbon [the] tax would 3 continue to provide encouragement for these
technologies by making dirtier technologies more expensive, and raise revenue
rather than spend it. To investigate the potential tradeoffs among different strategies for reducing the deficit we use the
MIT U.S. Regional Energy Policy (USREP) model. USREP has been widely used to investigate energy and climate policy, including
interactions with tax policy, and effects on economic growth, efficiency, and distribution (Rausch et al., 2010, 2011a,b; Caron et al.,

several different options for

using the carbon tax revenue would generate a win-win-win solution . Given that all other
options for dealing with the Federal deficit require difficult tradeoffs, it would seem
hard to pass up one that offers so many advantages.
2012). The version we apply here is that in Rausch et al. (2010). We find that any of

An increase in renewables would increase employment,

decrease poverty, and decrease emissions
Barbut 09,

Monique Barbut is the CEO and Chairperson of Global Environmental Facility. Investing In Renewable Energy The
GEF Experience (

As developing countries expand their economies and reduce poverty, they face
major climate change and energy challenges. The mere facts are cause for alarm: World energy
consumption is projected to increase from 138 TWh in 2006 to 162 TWh in 2015 and 199 TWh in 2030an increase of 44 percent.
Non-OECD countries are expected to increase their consumption by 73 percent, compared with only a 15 percent increase for OECD

Developing countries today emit about half of global

CO2 emissions. Under business as usual scenarios, their future emissions increase faster than
those of industrialized countries (den Elzen, M., and Hohne, N. 2008). 1.6 billion people today, most of them
living in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, do not have access to electricity. Over two billion people remain
dependent on biomass for their basic cooking and heating energy needs . Eighty percent of
countries for the same period (EIA 2009).

Sub-Saharan Africas population relies on kerosene and batteries in their households and diesel generators for their businesses

Gross domestic product [GDP] per capita and energy per capita will
remain lower in most of the developing countries than in industrialized countries
over the next decades. Energy-related CO2 emissions per capita will also remain
signifi cantly lower in most developing countries for the decades to come (World Bank
2008). In the face of growing energy demand, conventional energy sources are
environmentally, economically, and socially unsustainable and their continued use
will contribute greatly to an increase in CO2 emissions (World Bank 2008). Energy use accounts for
(World Bank 2008).

about 65 percent of the worlds greenhouse gas emissions (OECD/IEA 2009). Renewable Energy Challenges and Opportunities for
the Developing World PV module manufacturing in China NVESTING IN RENEWABLE ENERGY: THE GEF EXPERIENCE 3

Energy is

at the heart of widespread social, economic, and climate problems. Energy must be
at the heart of the solution. Without access to clean, reliable, and effi cient energy
services, the poor are deprived of the most basic opportunities for economic
development and improved living standards. Clearly, energy demand and supply patterns both must be
altered. This is a major challenge that demands comprehensive and sustainable solutions. In this context, the importance of
renewable energy (RE) is beyond dispute.

Clean energy technologies are vital to alleviating

poverty, expanding rural development, and maintaining environmental quality . The
productive use of renewable energy in rural areas helps raise incomes and improve
health [and] power services, providing power to pump water for irrigation, to
process crops and power cottage industries, to light homes, schools, and hospitals
all services of premier importance and immeasurable impact in the remote rural
areas. Renewable energy technologies can also play crucial roles in employment
and economic growth. They are more labor-intensive than conventional technologies for the same energy output
(Pachauri, R. 2009) but at the same time renewable energy technologies (RETs) employ both local and decentralized workers. For

Wind energy generates 5.70 personyears of

employment. Solar photovoltaics generate[s] 5.65 person-years. The coal industry generates 3.96 personyears. Most renewable energy resources are virtually untapped in the developing
world. Their local and distributed nature means investments in transmission grids are largely unnecessary. This is a cost-saving
an investment in RETs of US$ 1 million over10 years:

advantage developed countries do not enjoy, as their centralized energy grids are less appropriate for distributed energy

The main barrier to the widespread use of renewable energy is the high upfront cost, particularly for installing equipment, particularly given the limited economic resources
of the people most in need of the technologymost often the rural poor. Strengthening

capacity building, promoting enabling environments, developing policy frameworks, and improving demands for RETs can help
mitigate steep transaction costs and underdeveloped markets to some degree .

However, significantly
decarbonizing power production will require considerably more investment in
renewable energy, of which at least 75 percent should be directed to non-OECD countries (IEA 2009).

Economic growth decreases poverty and increases value to life

DFID, 2007, Department for International Development Growth Building Jobs and Prosperity in Developing Countries

Economic growth is the most powerful instrument for reducing poverty and improving the quality
of life
incentives parents
to invest in their childrens education
[on] a wide range
countries f[ound]
growth [was] the single most important way to
reduce poverty.
10 per cent increase in a countrys average
income reduce[s] poverty by
20 [to] 30 per cent
study of 14 countries
found that
poverty fell in the
11 countries that experienced significant growth
in developing countries. Both cross-country research and country case studies provide overwhelming evidence that rapid and sustained growth is critical to making faster progress towards the Millennium Development Goals and not just the first

goal of halving the global proportion of people living on less than $1 a day. Growth can generate virtuous circles of prosperity and opportunity. Strong

and employment opportunities improve


by sending them to school. This may lead to the emergence of a strong and growing group of entrepreneurs, which should generate pressure for

improved governance. Strong economic growth therefore advances human development, which, in turn, promotes economic growth.

inds consistently strong evidence

rapid and sustained

that compares the experiences of


A typical estimate from these cross-country studies is that a



countries and groups of countries. For example,





.1 The central role of growth in driving the speed at which poverty declines is confirmed by research on individual

in the 1990s

over the course of the decade,

and rose in the three countries with low or stagnant growth. On average, a one per cent increase in per capita income reduced poverty

by 1.7 per cent (see Figure 1).2 Among these 14 countries, the reduction in poverty was particularly spectacular in Vietnam, where poverty fell by 7.8 per cent a year between 1993 and 2002, halving the poverty rate from 58 per cent to 29 per cent. Other countries
with impressive reductions over this period include El Salvador, Ghana, India, Tunisia and Uganda, each with declines in the poverty rate of between three and six per cent a year. Driving these overall reductions in poverty was the rebound in growth that began for
most of the countries in the mid-1990s. The median GDP growth rate for the 14 countries was 2.4 per cent a year between 1996 and 2003. Numerous other country studies show the power of growth in reducing poverty: China alone has lifted over 450 million people
out of poverty since 1979. Evidence shows that rapid economic growth between 1985 and 2001 was crucial to this enormous reduction in poverty.3 India has seen significant falls in poverty since the 1980s, rates that accelerated into the 1990s. This has been
strongly related to Indias impressive growth record over this period.4 Mozambique illustrates the rapid reduction in poverty associated with growth over a shorter period. Between 1996 and 2002, the economy grew by 62 per cent and the proportion of people living

Economic growth generates job opportunities

[which] has been crucial in delivering higher growth.

in poverty declined from 69 per cent to 54 per cent.

turn, increasing employment

and hence stronger demand for labour, the main and often the sole asset of the poor. In

Strong growth in the global economy over the past 10 years means that the

majority of the worlds working-age population is now in employment. At the same time, in every region of the world and particularly in Africa, youth unemployment is a major issue. This is reflected in higher than average unemployment
rates: young people make up 25 per cent of the working population worldwide but 47 per cent of the unemployed. Nevertheless, since the early 1990s, global employment has risen by over 400 million. While China and India account for most of this increase, almost
all of the new jobs have been created in developing countries. Real wages for low-skilled jobs have increased with GDP growth worldwide, which indicates that the poorest workers have benefited from the increase in global trade and growth.12 Fears that greater
global integration and ever more footloose international investors would push down wages have proved to be unfounded. Indeed, evidence on foreign direct investment suggests that firms are attracted to countries with higher, not lower, labour

Global warming is real and anthropogenic: scientific data
Kaku 11

Michio Kaku, co-creator of string field theory, a branch of string theory. He received a B.S. (summa cum laude) from
Harvard University in 1968 where he came first in his physics class. He went on to the Berkeley Radiation Laboratory at the
University of California, Berkeley and received a Ph.D. in 1972. In 1973, he held a lectureship at Princeton University. Michio
continues Einsteins search for a Theory of Everything, seeking to unify the four fundamental forces of the universethe strong
force, the weak force, gravity and electromagnetism. He is the author of several scholarly, Ph.D. level textbooks and has had more
than 70 articles published in physics journals, covering topics such as superstring theory, supergravity, supersymmetry, and
hadronic physics. Professor of Physics He holds the Henry Semat Chair and Professorship in theoretical physics at the City College
of New York, where he has taught for over 25 years. He has also been a visiting professor at the Institute for Advanced Study at
Princeton, as well as New York University (NYU). Physics of the Future
%20Future.pdf Accessed 6/26/12 BJM

It is now indisputable
that the earth is heating up. Within the last century, the earths temperature rose 1.3 F, and
the pace is accelerating. The signs are unmistakable everywhere we look: The thickness of Arctic ice
has decreased by an astonishing 50 percent in just the past fifty years. Much of this Arctic ice is just below the
freezing point, floating on water. Hence, it is acutely sensitive to small temperature variations of the
By midcentury, the full impact of a fossil fuel economy should be in full swing: global warming.

oceans, acting as a canary in a mineshaft, an early warning system. Today, parts of the northern polar ice caps disappear during the

The polar ice cap may vanish

permanently by the end of the century, disrupting the worlds weather by altering
the flow of ocean and air currents around the planet . Greenlands ice shelves shrank by twenty-four
summer months, and may disappear entirely during summer as early as 2015.

square miles in 2007. This figure jumped to seventy-one square miles in 2008. (If all the Greenland ice were somehow to melt, sea

Large chunks of Antarcticas ice, which have

been stable for tens of thousands of years, are gradually breaking off. In 2000, a piece the size of
levels would rise about twenty feet around the world.)

Connecticut broke off, containing 4,200 square miles of ice. In 2002, a piece of ice the size of Rhode Island broke off the Thwaites
Glacier. (If all Antarcticas ice were to melt, sea levels would rise about 180 feet around the world.) For every vertical foot that the
ocean rises, the horizontal spread of the ocean is about 100 feet. Already, sea levels have risen 8 inches in the past century, mainly
caused by the expansion of seawater as it heats up. According to the United Nations, sea levels could rise by 7 to 23 inches by 2100.
Some scientists have said that the UN report was too cautious in interpreting the data. According to scientists at the University of
Colorados Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, by 2100 sea levels could rise by 3 to 6 feet. So gradually the map of the earths
coastlines will change. Temperatures started to be reliably recorded in the late 1700s; 1995, 2005, and 2010 ranked among the

Likewise, levels of carbon dioxide are

rising dramatically. They are at the highest levels in 100,000 years . As the earth heats up,
hottest years ever recorded; 2000 to 2009 was the hottest decade.

tropical diseases are gradually migrating northward. The recent spread of the West Nile virus carried by mosquitoes may be a
harbinger of things to come. UN officials are especially concerned about the spread of malaria northward. Usually, the eggs of many
harmful insects die every winter when the soil freezes. But with the shortening of the winter season, it means the inexorable spread

scientists have
concluded with 90 percent confidence that global warming is driven by human
activity, especially the production of carbon dioxide via the burning of oil and coal.
of dangerous insects northward. According to the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

Sunlight easily passes through carbon dioxide. But as sunlight heats up the earth, it creates infrared radiation, which does not pass
back through carbon dioxide so easily. The energy from sunlight cannot escape back into space and is trapped. We also see a
somewhat similar effect in greenhouses or cars. The sunlight warms the air, which is prevented from escaping by the glass.

the amount of carbon dioxide generated has grown explosively, especially in

the last century. Before the Industrial Revolution, the carbon dioxide content of the air was 270 parts per million (ppm).

Today, it has soared to 387 ppm. (In 1900, the world consumed 150 million barrels of oil. In 2000, it jumped to 28 billion barrels, a
185-fold jump. In 2008, 9.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide were sent into the air from fossil fuel burning and also deforestation, but
only 5 billion tons were recycled into the oceans, soil, and vegetation. The remainder will stay in the air for decades to come,
heating up the earth.) VISIT TO ICELAND

The rise in temperature is not a fluke, as we can see by

analyzing ice cores. By drilling deep into the ancient ice of the Arctic, scientists have been able to extract air bubbles
that are thousands of years old. By chemically analyzing the air in these bubbles, scientists can reconstruct the
temperature and carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere going back more than
600,000 years. Soon, they will be able to determine the weather conditions going back a million years. I had a chance to
see this firsthand. I once gave a lecture in Reykjavik, the capital of Iceland, and had the privilege of visiting the University of Iceland,
where ice cores are being analyzed. When your airplane lands in Reykjavik, at first all you see is snow and jagged rock, resembling

the bleak landscape of the moon. Although barren and forbidding, the terrain makes the Arctic an ideal place to analyze the climate
of the earth hundreds of thousands of years ago. When I visited their laboratory, which is kept at freezing temperatures, I had to
pass through thick refrigerator doors. Once inside, I could see racks and racks containing long metal tubes, each about an inch and a
half in diameter and about ten feet long. Each hollow tube had been drilled deep into the ice of a glacier. As the tube penetrated the
ice, it captured samples from snows that had fallen thousands of years ago. When the tubes were removed, I could carefully
examine the icy contents of each. At first, all I could see was a long column of white ice. But upon closer examination, I could see
that the ice had stripes made of tiny bands of different colors. Scientists have to use a variety of techniques to date them. Some of
the ice layers contain markers indicating important events, such as the soot emitted from a volcanic eruption. Since the dates of
these eruptions are known to great accuracy, one can use them to determine how old that layer is. These ice cores were then cut in
various slices so they could be examined. When I peered into one slice under a microscope, I saw tiny, microscopic bubbles. I
shuddered to realize that I was seeing air bubbles that were deposited tens of thousands of years ago, even before the rise of
human civilization. The carbon dioxide content within each air bubble is easily measured. But calculating the temperature of the air
when the ice was first deposited is more difficult. (To do this, scientists analyze the water in the bubble. Water molecules can contain
different isotopes. As the temperature falls, heavier water isotopes condense faster than ordinary water molecules. Hence, by
measuring the amount of the heavier isotopes, one can calculate the temperature at which the water molecule condensed.) Finally,
after painfully analyzing the contents of thousands of ice cores, these scientists have come to some important conclusions. They

temperature and carbon dioxide levels have oscillated in parallel , like two roller
coasters moving together, in synchronization over many thousands of years . When one curve rises or falls, so does
the other. Most important, they [scientists] found a sudden spike in temperature and carbon
dioxide content happening just within the last century . This is highly unusual, since most fluctuations
occur slowly over millennia. This unusual spike is not part of this natural heating process ,
scientists claim, but is a direct indicator of human activity. There are other ways to show
that this sudden spike is caused by human activity, and not natural cycles. Computer simulations are now so
advanced that we can simulate the temperature of the earth with and without the
presence of human activity. Without civilization producing carbon dioxide, we find a relatively flat temperature curve.
But with the addition of human activity, we can show that there should be a sudden spike in both
temperature and carbon dioxide. The predicted spike fits the actual spike perfectly. Lastly, one can measure the
found that

amount of sunlight that lands on every square foot of the earths surface. Scientists can also calculate the amount of heat that is
reflected into outer space from the earth. Normally, we expect these two amounts to be equal, with input equaling output. But in
reality, we find the net amount of energy that is currently heating the earth. Then if we calculate the amount of energy being
produced by human activity, we find a perfect match. Hence, human activity is causing the current heating of the earth.
Unfortunately, even if we were to suddenly stop producing any carbon dioxide, the gas that has already been released into the
atmosphere is enough to continue global warming for decades to come. As a result, by midcentury, the situation could be dire.
Scientists have created pictures of what our coastal cities will look like at midcentury and beyond if sea levels continue to rise.
Coastal cities may disappear. Large parts of Manhattan may have to be evacuated, with Wall Street underwater. Governments will
have to decide which of their great cities and capitals are worth saving and which are beyond hope. Some cities may be saved via a
combination of sophisticated dikes and water gates. Other cities may be deemed hopeless and allowed to vanish under the ocean,
creating mass migrations of people. Since most of the commercial and population centers of the world are next to the ocean, this
could have a disastrous effect on the world economy. Even if some cities can be salvaged, there is still the danger that large storms
can send surges of water into a city, paralyzing its infrastructure. For example, in 1992 a huge storm surge flooded Manhattan,
paralyzing the subway system and trains to New Jersey. With transportation flooded, the economy grinds to a halt. FLOODING
BANGLADESH AND VIETNAM A report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change isolated three hot spots for potential
disaster: Bangladesh, the Mekong Delta of Vietnam, and the Nile Delta in Egypt. The worst situation is that of Bangladesh, a country
regularly flooded by storms even without global warming. Most of the country is flat and at sea level. Although it has made
significant gains in the last few decades, it is still one of the poorest nations on earth, with one of the highest population densities.
(It has a population of 161 million, comparable to that of Russia, but with 1/120 of the land area.) About 50 percent of the land area
will be permanently flooded if sea levels rise by three feet. Natural calamities occur there almost every year, but in September
1998, the world witnessed in horror a preview of what may become commonplace. Massive flooding submerged two-thirds of the
nation, leaving 30 million people homeless almost overnight; 1,000 were killed, and 6,000 miles of roads were destroyed. This was
one of the worst natural disasters in modern history. Another country that would be devastated by a rise in sea level is Vietnam,
where the Mekong Delta is particularly vulnerable. By midcentury, this country of 87 million people could face a collapse of its main
food-growing area. Half the rice in Vietnam is grown in the Mekong Delta, home to 17 million people, and much of it will be flooded
permanently by rising sea levels. According to the World Bank, 11 percent of the entire population would be displaced if sea levels
rise by three feet by midcentury. The Mekong Delta will also be flooded with salt water, permanently destroying the fertile soil of the
area. If millions are flooded out of their homes in Vietnam, many will flock to Ho Chi Minh City seeking refuge. But one-fourth of the
city will also be underwater. In 2003 the Pentagon commissioned a study, done by the Global Business Network, that showed that, in
a worst-case scenario, chaos could spread around the world due to global warming. As millions of refugees cross national borders,
governments could lose all authority and collapse, so countries could descend into the nightmare of looting, rioting, and chaos. In
this desperate situation, nations, when faced with the prospect of the influx of millions of desperate people, may resort to nuclear
weapons. Envision Pakistan, India, and Chinaall armed with nuclear weaponsskirmishing at their borders over refugees, access
to shared rivers, and arable land, the report said. Peter Schwartz, founder of the Global Business Network and a principal author of
the Pentagon study, confided to me the details of this scenario. He told me that the biggest hot spot would be the border between
India and Bangladesh. In a major crisis in Bangladesh, up to 160 million people could be driven out of their homes, sparking one of
the greatest migrations in human history. Tensions could rapidly rise as borders collapse, local governments are paralyzed, and mass

we could
have a greenhouse effect that feeds on itself . For example, the melting of the tundra in
rioting breaks out. Schwartz sees that nations may use nuclear weapons as a last resort. In a worst-case scenario,

the Arctic regions may release millions of tons of methane gas from rotting vegetation. Tundra
covers nearly 9 million square miles of land in the Northern Hemisphere, containing vegetation frozen since the last Ice Age tens of

This tundra contains more carbon dioxide and methane than the
atmosphere, and this poses an enormous threat to the worlds weather. Methane gas,
thousands of years ago.

moreover, is a much deadlier greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. It does not stay in the atmosphere as long, but it causes much

The release of so much methane gas from the melting tundra

could cause temperatures to rapidly rise, which will cause even more methane gas
to be released, causing a runaway cycle of global warming .
more damage than carbon dioxide.

1. Presume aff to overcome the structural time skew. I
debated better if the flow comes out even. Second, the
neg is reactive so they can choose a strategy while I have
to read in the dark so they can adapt to my decisions.
2. Prefer aff definitions because the affirmative must
establish a framework, whereas the negative can adapt to
definitions advanced by the aff; skews strat toward the
negative because they can run definitions they know will
preclude the AC.
3. Neg must defend the status quo or else they nullify 6
minutes of offensethe 1AC pertains to the status quo
defending an alt moots my constructive. This outweighs
any claim to fairnessthey have twice as much rebuttal
time as me, the 1AC is uniquely key to rectify this bias.
This also means presume AFF to overcome structural
skews I did the better debating if the flow comes out
4. Only Aff RVIs on T/Theory. A) Strat skew- NC theory is A
priority and renders the 1ac useless. They get 6 minutes
to respond to a 4 minute 1ar. The neg doesnt need an RVI
because they have twice the rebuttal time. B) Discourages
bad theory because debaters wont run it frivolously if
they know they can lose on it. C) No-risk issues hurt
education because they provide competitive incentive to
kick the shell instead of clashing.
5. Ask if I will meet your interp in cx; this avoids
unnecessary theory- we can work something out which
allows for substantive debate. Grant me an auto I meet on
theory if the interp isnt checked in cross-ex to discourage